Loading...
City Council Packet - 01/25/2005 CITY OF TIGARD OREGON TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING January 25, 2005 COUNCIL MEETING WILL BE TELEVISED 1:\Ofs\Don na's\Ccpkt3 13125 SW Hall Blvd„ Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772 Agenda Item No. 3_1 For Agenda of March 8, 2005 COUNCIL MINUTES TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING January 25, 2005 • EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council went into Executive Session at 6:35 p.m. to discuss pending litigation, and to review & evaluate the employment-related performance of the chief executive officer under ORS 192.660(2)(h)(i). Executive Session concluded at 6:45 p.m. • STUDY SESSION (6:55 p.m.) > JOINT MEETING WITH THE BUDGET COMMITTEE Citizen Budget Committee members present: Mark Haldeman and Irene Moszer. Finance Director Prosser presented a report on the actual and planned Budget Amendments in FY 2004-05, including the following: o Adjustments to be made once the City's has received the outcome of the arbitrator's decision on a Tigard Police Officers Association matter. o SEIU and Management COLAs o Police DARE Grant o Police Grant & Mobile Data Computers o Network Firewall o Residential Services Emergency Fund (social service grants; one grant issued to St Vincent dePaul) o Two adjustments - remodel of Permit Center and City Hall (electrical update for voice and data transmission) Finance Director Prosser shared with the Budget Committee the preliminary financial forecast information. Copies of the graphs distributed to the Council/Budget Committee are on file with the City Recorder. Mr. Prosser noted that this is an iterative process and in a continual update mode. At the first Budget Committee meeting, the updated information will be reviewed in more detail. The General Fund projection information showed that a projected deficit has been pushed out further. This was accomplished because transfers had been eliminated for data systems and there was a larger a beginning fund balance for this year than had been anticipated. There are a number of new positions that have been projected out over this five-year period. Of the 27 new positions in the General Fund, 18 are in the Police Department. Tigard City Council Minutes Page I January 25, 2005 New positions will be a policy decision to be made by the Budget Committee and City Council. Mr. Prosser noted that on the information presented to Council regarding the road funds, the staff is in the process of putting together the Capital Improvement Program, which will impact this fund (not reflected in the information distributed). Mr. Prosser distributed the Budget Meeting Calendar. A copy of the calendar is on file in the City Recorder's office. He reviewed the status of the budget preparation process to date. The first Budget Committee meeting will be April 25, 2005. At that meeting a more complete version of the Financial Forecast will be ready and the issues papers will be reviewed in depth. Mr. Prosser noted the Executive Staff met and came up with some basic principles for use by departments when developing budget requests. A list of the basic principles was distributed to the Council/Budget Committee; this list is on file in the City Recorder's office. Mr. Prosser said the Council recently met in a goal-setting session and identified three goals for 2005. Council goals are: 1. Revitalize Downtown 2. Improve 99W 3. Address Growth Information about the Council goals is now being disseminated to departments so these priorities are reflected in the proposed budget. Mr. Prosser distributed the Draft Strategic Finance Plan. The Executive Staff brainstormed foreseeable issues for the next four- to five-year period. Staff assigned recommended priorities, which will ultimately be the decision of the Council. Issue summaries were prepared. Council is scheduled to review the Strategic Finance Plan to determine if there are additional issues that need to be added or if there are some of the issues identified by staff that need to be deleted from the list. Staff will request Council go through a priority-setting exercise to identify high-priority items. Social service grant applications are now being accepted. After brief discussion, Councilor Harding and Citizen Budget Committee member Haldeman agreed to serve on the Social Services Budget Subcommittee. Mr. Prosser said he would seek another member for this subcommittee from the citizen members of the Budget Committee. Tigard City Council Minutes Page 2 January 25, 2005 Mr. Prosser distributed a January 25, 2005 memorandum regarding property tax revenues from the Washington Square Expansion. It is estimated that the City will start receiving an additional $22,470 in November 2006. A copy of the memorandum is on file in the City Recorder's office. > LOCAL CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD UPDATE AND FEEDBACK ON REVISED PURCHASING AND CONTRACTING ADMINISTRATIVE RULES Finance Director Prosser introduced this agenda item. Staff members also present were Tom Imdieke, Financial Operations Manager, and Joe Barrett, Buyer. The staff discussed with Council the changes needed to the purchasing and contracting rules so the City complies with State law. Mr. Imdieke noted on March 1, the changes to the State law go into effect, which means that Oregon local jurisdictions will need to make amendments to their municipal codes and purchasing rules. Staff plans to present the code amendments and purchasing rule changes to the Council at its February 22 meeting. Mr. Barrett reviewed the new rules. A copy of Mr. Barrett's January 11, 2005, memorandum to the Tigard Local Contract Review Board Members and a copy of an outline (LCRB Update & Feedback on Revised Purchasing & Contracting Administrative Rules - January 25, 2005, LCRB Study Session) are on file in the City Recorder's office. These documents highlight the information Mr. Barrett shared with the Council (LCRB). Finance Director Prosser clarified for Councilor Harding the Insurance Agent of Record proposed change, which is to increase the contract terms from three years to five years. The named Insurance Agent of Record may serve for a longer period if renewed. Finance Director noted that if Council agreed with the directions outlined in the staff presentation, formal approval of the City's revised Public Contracting Rules will be brought before the Local Contract Review Board at its February 22, 2005, meeting as a public hearing item. If the new rules are not adopted on March 1, then the next time for Council review would be on March 8, which would mean the City would operate under the Attorney General's rules. Consensus of Council was for staff to proceed with the hearing scheduled for February 22, 2005. Tigard City Council Minutes Page 3 January 25, 2005 > CITY ATTORNEY TRAINING ON LAND USE PROCESS This agenda item was set over to the February 8, 2005, Council meeting. City Attorney Ramis gave Council members an outline of "Land Use Basics." > ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS The following items were reviewed: a. Distributed Mayor's Agenda b. City Council President election is scheduled for the business meeting. C. February 7 meeting held by Washington County regarding Bull Mountain between 4-9 p.m.; location to be announced. Mayor Dirksen said he would prefer the meeting start at 5 p.m. or later. d. League of Oregon Cities training for newly elected officials scheduled for Portland on March 3, 9 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. (Information distributed in the 2/4/05 Council Newsletter). If interested in attending, contact Joanne Bengtson. e. Dan Murphy, Tigard Chamber of Commerce President, is unable to attend this evening. He hopes a Chamber member will come in his place to update the Council on upcoming Chamber events. f. Need to discuss when to schedule meetings with Representative Galizio and Senator Burdick. One suggestion was for May; another was to schedule time on the March 29 5th Tuesday Council Meeting. g. JPACT Nomination - Beaverton Mayor Drake's letter was sent to Council on February 4; nominations are due by 2/18. Does the Council have a nomination for a designated member and alternate? Mayor Drake would like to continue to serve as the designated representative for Washington County cities. h. Tualatin Resolution No 4301-04 regarding proposed changes to the urban growth boundary expansion process was distributed to the Mayor and Council. Council members will review the resolution and schedule time on a future Council agenda to discuss whether the Council would like to endorse the Tualatin resolution. i. CIP Tour was scheduled for February 21; it will be rescheduled. j. Calendar Review • February 15: Council Workshop Meeting - 6:30 p.m. - Town Hall • February 21: President's Day Holiday - City Hall Closed, Library Open Tigard City Council Minutes Page 4 January 25, 2005 • February 22: Council Business Meeting - 6:30 p.m. - Town Hall • March 8: Council Business Meeting - 6:30 p.m. - Town Hall • March 15: Council Workshop Meeting - 6:30 p.m. - Town Hall • March 22: Council Business Meeting - 6:30 p.m. - Town Hall • March 29: 5th Tuesday Council Meeting - 7 p.m. - Water Auditorium 1. BUSINESS MEETING 1.1 Mayor Dirksen called the City Council & Local Contract Review Board to order at 7:38 p.m. 1.2 Roll Call: Mayor Dirksen; Councilors Harding, Sherwood, Wilson, and Woodruff 1.3 Pledge of Allegiance 1.4 Council Communications & Liaison Reports: None 1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items - Mayor noted the Council would be holding an Executive Session after the business meeting as noted in Agenda Item No. 13. 2. CITIZEN COMMUNICATION • Brian Wegener, 16507 SW Roy Rogers Road, Sherwood, OR 97140, testified as a representative of the Tualatin Riverkeepers. Mr. Wegener distributed to Council a copy of a newspaper article, "We can't stop trying to eliminate stormwater runoff problems." He also distributed a report from the Audubon Society of Portland, Summer 2004 - Stormwater/Pavement Impacts Reduction Project Report. Copies of the above two items are on file in the City Recorder's office. He noted the newspaper article raises issues about retrofitting and redevelopment and that stormwater codes for new development do not always apply. Opportunities to better treat stormwater are being lost. Mr. Wegener briefly reviewed the Audubon Society report, which takes a look at city codes throughout various Washington County jurisdictions and makes recommendations on improvements to better treat stormwater. Specific recommendations are made for the City of Tigard in the report (pp 42-46). He referred to the potential of new technology to be used on site to more effectively treat stormwater. Tigard City Council Minutes Page 5 January 25, 2005 He noted there is an annual Tualatin Riverkeepers meeting, which will be held on Sunday, January 30, 2005, in the Tigard Library. Mayor Dirksen thanked Mr. Wegener for the information and noted the City would be reviewing its Comprehensive Plan and the suggested Code changes could be considered. > Announcement - Bill Monahan stepping down from City Manager position Mayor Dirksen said that it was with regret he announces that, effective immediately, Bill Monahan will be stepping down as the City Manager of the City of Tigard after more than 10 years of service with the City. The Mayor said that this is an amicable separation, but Council and Bill have agreed that as the City moves in a new direction, different options need to be explored. The Mayor said, "We wish Bill well. I can personally say that I've always been very happy with Bill's service to the City and will miss him, but recognize that 10 years is a long time in this business..." Councilor Sherwood said she also felt that this is a good time to move in some new directions. She noted, "We will miss Bill. I've known Bill personally for a number of years and also participated with him on a number of committees within the City. He is also a personal friend and I wish him well." Councilor Woodruff said that he thought it was rare these days for someone to work in the same organization for 10 years, let alone work in the same job in that organization for 10 years. Bill has been here longer than that in other capacities. He said that Bill has "...made lots and lots of contributions over those years with a whole variety of different elected people during that time. I certainly wish him well, too. I think the public needs to know that the Council is in sync with this; we are ready to move ahead. We will need everybody working together as we make decisions in the coming weeks and months." Councilor Wilson said that Bill has definitely made his mark on Tigard and he wished him well. He said, "It will be a difficult process for us to find someone to fill his shoes... it's a tough job. We are all very supportive of Bill. The Mayor advised that Craig Prosser, the Finance Director for the City of Tigard, has agreed to step in as the Interim Manager until a permanent replacement could be found. The Mayor advised the City would be issuing a press release in the next couple of days. Tigard City Council Minutes Page 6 January 25, 2005 3. CONSENT AGENDA: Motion by Councilor Sherwood, seconded by Councilor Woodruff, to adopt the Consent Agenda as follows: 3.1 Approve Council Minutes for December 14, 20 and 28, 2004 3.2 Receive and File: • Fourth Quarter 2004 Council Goal Update 3.3 Approve Intergovernmental Agreement Between City of Tigard and Clean Water Services 3.4 Local Contract Review Board: No. 2 Items 3.4 a. and b. were removed from the Agenda. c. Receive and File: Agent of Record Contract - Service Fee Reduction The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present: Mayor Dirksen: Yes Councilor Harding: Yes Councilor Sherwood: Yes Council Wilson: Yes Councilor Woodruff Yes 4. ELECT COUNCIL PRESIDENT TO SERVE UNTIL DECEMBER 31, 2006 Councilor Woodruff nominated Nick Wilson to serve as Council President. Councilor Sherwood seconded the nomination. Council members filled out ballots to cast individual votes for the Council President as provided by City Code. Copies of the ballots cast are on file in the City Recorders office. Councilor Wilson was elected Council President to serve until December 31, 2006. Tigard City Council Minutes Page 7 January 25, 2005 5. TIGARD VISION UPDATE REPORT Risk Manager Loreen Mills presented the staff report on this agenda item. A copy of Ms. Mills' presentation outlining the highlights of her remarks is on file in the City Recorder's office. Council members commented as follows: • Councilor Woodruff thanked the citizens and staff who participated in the visioning project. • Councilor Wilson noted he appreciated the responses to the vision survey and said it was interesting to see the full range of comments submitted. • Councilor Sherwood advised that the Council has heard "loud and clear" from citizens regarding the priorities they would like to see addressed. • Mayor Dirksen said the Council and staff rely on the visioning document to set goals. • Councilor Harding urged citizens to continue to send in comments at any time, noting that you did not have to serve on a task force or committee to make suggestions. 6. UPDATE ON THE LIBRARY STRATEGIC PLAN AND OPERATIONAL HOURS Library Director Barnes introduced this agenda item and Library Board members Jan Thenelle and Brian Kelly. Council heard a presentation on the Library Citizen's Strategic Planning Committee, which is developing a recommendation for focused service responses for the library for the next five years. A copy of an outline of the presentation to Council is on file in the City Recorder's office. The plan will be completed in the spring and presented to the Council. . Board members Thenell and Kelly noted the dramatic increase in use of the new library, even with a reduction of hours. During the past six months, the closure of the library on Sundays has been a primary topic of public comment/dissatisfaction. Based on the public feedback, the Library's current priority is to restore a minimum of four hours per week to allow the library to reopen on Sundays. The additional revenue needed to reopen four hours for the remainder of the fiscal year would be approximately $1,300 per week. The Board members support the use of funds from the Grace Tigard Houghton bequest to open the Library for four hours on Sunday. The Library Director has spoken with Mr. Curtis Tigard about using the funds in this manner. He believes that transferring those funds would be in keeping with the wishes of his sister, Mrs. Houghton, and in the spirit of the bequest. Tigard City Council Minutes Page 8 January 25, 2005 Library Director Barnes recommended the Council authorize additional funding to allow the library to reopen on Sundays for the remainder of the fiscal year with a $26,000 allocation from the Grace Tigard Houghton bequest. The Library staff would track the success and patron satisfaction of Sunday hours prior to the spring 2005 City Budget Committee meetings and report the findings to Council. Discussion followed. Interim City Manager Prosser advised that if Council directs staff to go forward as recommended by the Library Director, the requisite budget adjustment would be submitted to the Council for its approval. Mr. Prosser, in response to a question from Councilor Harding, reviewed some financial information with regard to the library construction (use of bond money, bequest funds, and City funds). The library construction project's estimated budget was $14.3 million; actual construction cost was about $13.2 -13.5 million. Dollars from the bond were spent first before expenditure of bequest funds. There was discussion between Councilor Harding and Library Director Barnes about figures and comparisons of new library users and the use of the library. It will take three years to establish a new patron base. The Library's service population of about 62,000 people includes the City of Tigard and adjacent unincorporated areas. Council discussed the proposal to use bequest funds for operations: • Councilor Woodruff noted it would be unusual to use bequest dollars for operations, but he said he could support. • Councilor Wilson asked about plans for another operation levy ballot measure by Washington County. Library Director Barnes said it appears the next realistic opportunity would be in 2006 or even in 2008. Councilor Wilson said he would support the proposal for using bequest funds for Sunday library hours; however, he was concerned about what might happen after the end of the fiscal year and lack of consistency. Mr. Prosser noted this would be reviewed by the Budget Committee. • Mayor Dirksen advised he, too, had mixed feeling with using bequest dollars for operations. He said he appreciated the Tigard family's support to allow the bequest dollars to be used for opening the Library on Sundays. • Councilor Sherwood suggested that volunteers be utilized as much as possible. Library Director Barnes said staff would look for opportunities to use volunteer assistance. A budget amendment for the additional Sunday hours through the end of the fiscal year will be presented to the Council in February. Tigard City Council Minutes Page 9 January 25, 2005 7. CONSIDER AFFORDABLE HOUSING FEE ASSISTANCE REQUEST Community Development Director Hendryx presented the staff report for this agenda item. Community Partners for Affordable Housing is requesting $9,915 to offset building permit fees anticipated on major repairs to the Greenburg Oaks Apartments. The project meets City guidelines with respect to eligible activities, zoning, tenant income, time limits, Enhanced Safety Program participation, and other guidelines. Mr. Martin Soloway of Community Partners for Affordable housing talked about the Greenburg Oaks Apartments project to: 1. Recapitalize the project. 2. Stabilize the infrastructure 3. Improve marketability. Mr. Soloway distributed information to Council on other sources awarded for this project; this information is on file in the City Recorder's office. The Tigard fee assistance is the last source needed. Council discussion followed: • Councilor Sherwood noted her support of the request and said it was critical that the service provided by the apartment complex stay in the area and stay healthy. • Councilor Harding said she was impressed with projects completed by CPAH. She noted she was disappointed that funds allocated for affordable housing fee requests have just gone to two sources. She noted concerns about whether adequate notice of availability of these funds had been made. Councilor Sherwood explained that only a few organizations offer affordable housing services that qualify for this assistance from the City. Funds are allocated each year and unused funds do not carry forward to the next fiscal year. Councilor Harding suggested the criteria for receiving affordable housing funds might be expanded and less narrowly defined so other people might qualify. • Councilor Wilson noted the Affordable Housing Fee Assistance was written to help make housing more affordable by offsetting building permit fees. • Mayor Dirksen noted there are only a few groups offering affordable housing assistance. • Councilor Sherwood noted the City of Tigard was the only City in Washington County offering this type of assistance. Motion by Councilor Woodruff, seconded by Councilor Sherwood, to approve the Community Partners for Affordable Housing's request for $9,915 in fee assistance. Tigard City Council Minutes Page 10 January 25, 2005 The motion was approved by a unanimous vote: Mayor Dirksen: Yes Councilor Harding: Yes Councilor Sherwood: Yes Council Wilson: Yes Councilor Woodruff Yes Council meeting recessed at 8:45 p.m. Council meeting reconvened at 8:59 p.m. 8. PUBLIC HEARING (LEGISLATIVE) - ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT INCORPORATING FEMA REQUIREMENTS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA) 2004-00003/ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT (ZOA) 2004-00002 REQUEST: The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has required the City, as a condition of continued eligibility in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), to adopt floodplain management regulations that meet NFIP standards. Therefore, to meet these standards, the City proposes to amend Chapter 3, Natural Features and Open Space, Volume II of the Comprehensive Plan and the Sensitive Lands chapter 18.775 of the Tigard Development Code by revising references to the updated FEMA Flood Impact Study (FIS) and Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), effective February 18, 2005, and regulating recreational vehicles located in the 100-year floodplain. LOCATION: The 100-year floodplain within the City of Tigard's incorporated boundary. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: All designations within the floodplain. ZONE: All zones within the floodplain. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.380, 18.390 and 18.775; Comprehensive Plan Policies 1.1.1, 2.1.1, 2.1.2 and 3.2; the Metro 2040 Plan; and Statewide Planning Goals 1, 5 and 7. Mayor Dirksen opened the public hearing. Community Development Director introduced this agenda item and Associate Planner Gary Pagenstecher who presented the staff report. A copy of the outline presented to Council is on file in the City Recorder's office. Recommendations were to: • Revise references to the updated FEMA Flood Impact Study (FIS) and Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), effective February 18, 2005; and • Add regulations for recreation vehicles located in the 100-year floodplain. Tigard City Council Minutes Page I 1 January 25, 2005 In response to a question from Councilor Harding, Mr. Pagenstecher advised there is a slight increase in the flood base because of development that has occurred over the last 25 years. New developments, with regard to flood impact, are reviewed on a case-by-case basis. Engineering data must be submitted for new developments, which demonstrates how no impact will be made to base flood levels. Public testimony: Mr. Robert Began signed the testimony sign-up sheet for this item; however, he declined to testify. Mayor Dirksen closed the public hearing. Staff recommendation: Mr. Pagenstecher advised that staff recommends approving the requested Comprehensive Plan And Zone Ordinance Amendments by adopting the proposed ordinance and text amendments as recommended by the City of Tigard Planning Commission. The proposed ordinance contains an emergency clause and would go into effect immediately. Councilor Woodruff commented he could see no reason why the City should not do this. In response to a question from Councilor Wilson, Mr. Pagenstecher confirmed there would be no Measure 37 implications if Council approved the proposed ordinance. Motion by Councilor Sherwood, seconded by Councilor Woodruff, to adopt Ordinance No. 05-01. ORDINANCE NO. 05-01 -AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE LANGUAGE OF THE TIGARD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, CHAPTER 3, NATURAL FEATURES AND OPEN SPACE, VOLUME II AND THE TIGARD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE CHAPTER 18.775 BY REVISING REFERENCES TO THE UPDATED FEMA FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY (FIS) AND FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP (FIRM), EFFECTIVE FEBRUARY 18, 2005, AND REGULATING RECREATIONAL VEHICLES IN THE FLOODPLAIN (CPA2004-00003/ZOA2004-00002), AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY The motion was approved by a unanimous vote: Mayor Dirksen: Yes Councilor Harding: Yes Councilor Sherwood: Yes Council Wilson: Yes Councilor Woodruff Yes Tigard City Council Minutes Page 12 January 25, 2005 9. PUBLIC HEARING (INFORMATIONAL) - CONSIDER RESOLUTION FORMING SANITARY SEWER REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT NO. 32 (Fern Street) Mayor Dirksen opened the public hearing. City Engineer Gus Duenas presented the staff report. The proposed project would provide sewer service to five lots along SW Fern Street between SW 135th and 138th Avenues. The project is incorporated in the MSTIP project to improve Walnut Street between 121s' and 135th Avenues. The design is being done by David Evans and Associates. A copy of the presentation outline given to Council is on file in the City Recorder's office. Mayor Dirksen asked if there were any unknowns or extreme conditions that might cause the cost to go up significantly. Mr. Duenas said he did not believe so; David Evans is the reputable consultant firm on this project so the estimates should be close to the actual construction costs. This is part of a much larger project and Mr. Duenas said this should be of benefit due to "economies of scale." Mayor Dirksen said he noticed that most of the lots are large and asked if there were single family homes on each lot. Mr. Duenas confirmed that each lot has a single family home. With regard to costs to each homeowner, Mr. Duenas said only a few would pay more than $15,000; the City is paying about half of the total cost of this project. Public Testimony: • Mr. Marco Benetti, 13650 SW Fern Street, Tigard, Oregon, asked about the engineering and administration costs. Mr. Duenas confirmed that these costs are included in the total cost of the project. Mr. Benetti asked if there would be an opportunity to have an additional lateral installed in the street for future development. Mr. Duenas said that would be possible and the additional costs could be negotiated at the time of the construction. If added, this lateral for future development would not be part of the reimbursement district costs. If a property owner wants more than one lateral, the cost for additional laterals would need to be negotiated. Mr. Benetti said that when this project was initially presented, there were several properties involved that have now dropped out and now there is increased costs to the homeowners. He said the incentive program is a wonderful thing but said he was curious if there might be any other surprise increase in costs? Mr. Duenas said, if there are significant differences from estimated costs, then the City might rethink the project. Tigard City Council Minutes Page 13 January 25, 2005 Mr. Benetti said the City has agreed to put in speed bumps with the widening of Fern Street and he wanted to make sure this was noted for the record. In response to a question from Mayor Dirksen, Mr. Duenas explained that when this reimbursement district was first brought to the Council a large lot was included that was already served by sewer at the rear of the property, so this property dropped was removed from the district. Mayor Dirksen closed the public hearing. Staff recommended that the Council approve the proposed resolution forming the reimbursement district. Council Consideration: Motion by Councilor Wilson, seconded by Councilor Harding, to adopt Resolution No. 05-05. RESOLUTION NO. 05-05 - A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING SANITARY SEWER REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT NO. 32 (SW FERN STREET) The motion was approved by a unanimous vote: Mayor Dirksen: Yes Councilor Harding: Yes Councilor Sherwood: Yes Council Wilson: Yes Councilor Woodruff Yes 10. CONSIDER ORDINANCE TO ADOPT TUALATIN VALLEY FIRE & RESCUE'S ORDINANCE 04-01 AMENDING THE 2004 FIRE CODE AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY Community Development Director Hendryx introduced this agenda item and Tigard Building Official Gary Lampella and Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue (TVF&R) Deputy Fire Marshal John Baldwin. The major points of the TVF&R ordinance are: • Reference to Oregon Revised Statutes 478.910 granting authority to adopt a Fire Code • Limit fire flows for buildings to 3,000 gallons per minute and sets a minimum of 1,000 gallons per minutes for one- and two-family dwellings • Creates hazard multiplication factors for determining fire flows. Tigard City Council Minutes Page 14 January 25, 2005 After brief Council discussion, motion by Councilor Harding, seconded by Councilor Sherwood, to adopt Ordinance No. 05-02: ORDINANCE NO. 05-02 -AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING TUALATIN VALLEY FIRE & RESCUE ORDINANCE 04-02 AMENDING THE 2004 OREGON FIRE CODE AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote: Mayor Dirksen: Yes Councilor Harding: Yes Councilor Sherwood: Yes Council Wilson: Yes Councilor Woodruff Yes 11. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS: None 12. NON AGENDA ITEMS: None 13. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council went into Executive Session at 9:31 p.m. to discuss pending litigation as provided by ORS 192-660(2)(h). 14. ADJOURNMENT: 9:52 p.m. Catherine Wheatley, City Recor r Attest: Mayor City of Tigard Date: - ty(a2Gfi aJD_S Oadm V-athy\ccm12005\0507 25.doc Tigard City Council Minutes Page 15 January 25, 2005 Mayor's Agenda Greeter: Margaret Barnes Revised 1/20/05 (Revision was to remove Item 3.4 b.) Revised 1/24/05 (Revision was to remove Item 3.4 a.) Revised 1/25/05 (Revisions were to add 192.660 (2) (i) to Executive Session and remove the Study Session Review of the City Manager's 360 Review Process) TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 25, 2005 6:30 p.m. CITY OF TIGARD OREGON. TIGARD CITY HALL 13125 SW HALL BLVD TIGARD, OR 97223 PUBLIC NOTICE: Anyone wishing to speak on an agenda item should sign on the appropriate sign-up sheet(s). If no sheet is available, ask to be recognized by the Mayor at the beginning of that agenda item. Citizen Communication items are asked to be two minutes or less. Longer matters can be set for a future Agenda by contacting either the Mayor or the City Manager. Times noted are estimated; it is recommended that persons interested in testifying be present by 7:15 p.m. to sign in on the testimony sign-in sheet. Business agenda items can be heard in any order after 7:30 p.m. Assistive Listening Devices are available for persons with impaired hearing and should be scheduled for Council meetings by noon on the Monday prior to the Council meeting. Please call 503-639-4171, ext. 2410 (voice) or 503-684-2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf). Upon request, the City will also endeavor to arrange for the following services: • Qualified sign language interpreters for persons with speech or hearing impairments; and • Qualified bilingual interpreters. Since these services must be scheduled with outside service providers, it is important to allow as much lead time as possible. Please notify the City of your need by 5:00 p.m. on the Thursday preceding the meeting by calling: 503-639-4171, ext. 2410 (voice) or 503- 684-2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf). SEE ATTACHED AGENDA COUNCIL AGENDA - JANUARY 25, 2005 page 1 AGENDA TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 25, 2005 6:30 PM • STUDY SESSION > JOINT MEETING WITH THE BUDGET COMMITTEE o Craig Prosser, Finance Director > LOCAL CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD UPDATE AND FEEDBACK ON REVISED PURCHASING AND CONTRACTING ADMINISTRATIVE RULES o Finance Director, Craig Prosser > CITY ATTORNEY TRAINING ON LAND USE PROCESS • EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session to discuss pending litigation, and to review & evaluate the employment-related performance of the chief executive officer under ORS 192.660(2)(h)(1). All discussions are confidential and those present may disclose nothing from the Session. Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend Executive Sessions, as provided by ORS 192.660(4), but must not disclose any information discussed. No Executive Session may be held for the purpose of taking any final action or making any final decision. Executive Sessions are closed to the public. 7:30 PM 1. BUSINESS MEETING 1.1 Call to Order - City Council & Local Contract Review Board 1.2 Roll Call 1.3 Pledge of Allegiance 1.4 Council Communications & Liaison Reports 1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items COUNCIL AGENDA - JANUARY 25, 2005 page 2 7:35 PM 2. CITIZEN COMMUNICATION (Two Minutes or Less, Please) • Follow-up to Previous Citizen Communication Consent Agenda to be reviewed by Youth Advisory Council President Rob Williams: 7:40 PM 3. CONSENT AGENDA: These items are considered to be routine and may be enacted in one motion without separate discussion. Anyone may request that an item be removed by motion for discussion and separate action. Motion to: 3.1 Approve Council Minutes for December 14, 20 and 28, 2004 3.2 Receive and File: • Fourth Quarter 2004 Council Goal Update 3.3 Approve Intergovernmental Agreement Between City of Tigard and Clean Water Services 3.4 Local Contract Review Board: e\AYr -m9Fd CityWo ~}eorirdt Scr er.v-ri~ Contract to o Wellcnri eFyic~j ~ ~ --c~rr tcv r-rSr- Ccvncrvcs ~~crr~prrp~--S crcrai Midcion of r'1ef ;Aa Behavioral Healthcare b. App • e Amendment to lingineeFing Services (-ntrar~•t ferM,uFr-ay Smith a Associatces, Inc., fovr r Design of a 550-Feet Zone Kes rca~pNeir No. 7 -r- c~r-crr-50-~rc- Staff requests Items 3.4 a. and b. be removed from the Agenda. c. Receive and File: Agent of Record Contract - Service Fee Reduction • Consent Agenda - Items Removed for Separate Discussion: Any items requested to be removed from the Consent Agenda for separate discussion will be considered immediately after the Council has voted on those items which do not need discussion. 7:45 PM 4. ELECT COUNCIL PRESIDENT TO SERVE UNTIL DECEMBER 31, 2006 a. Nominations b. Council Action: Cast Ballots 7:50 PM 5. TIGARD VISION UPDATE REPORT a. Staff Report: Liz Newton, Assistant to the City Manager and Loreen Mills, Risk Manager b. Council Discussion COUNCIL AGENDA - JANUARY 25, 2005 page 3 8:10 PM 6. UPDATE ON THE LIBRARY STRATEGIC PLAN AND OPERATIONAL HOURS a. Staff Report: Margaret Barnes, Library Director b. Council Discussion 8:25 PM 7. CONSIDER AFFORDABLE HOUSING FEE ASSISTANCE REQUEST a. Staff Report: Jim Hendryx, Community Development Director b. Council Discussion C. Council Consideration: Motion to approve the housing fee assistance request(s). 8:45 PM 8. PUBLIC HEARING (LEGISLATIVE) - ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT INCORPORATING FEMA REQUIREMENTS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA) 2004-00003/ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT (ZOA) 2004-00002 REQUEST: The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has required the City, as a condition of continued eligibility in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), to adopt floodplain management regulations that meet NFIP standards. Therefore, to meet these standards, the City proposes to amend Chapter 3, Natural Features and Open Space, Volume II of the Comprehensive Plan and the Sensitive Lands chapter 18.775 of the Tigard Development Code by revising references to the updated FEMA Flood Impact Study (FIS) and Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), effective February 18, 2005, and regulating recreational vehicles located in the 100-year floodplain. LOCATION: The 100- year floodplain within the City of Tigard's incorporated boundary. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: All designations within the floodplain. ZONE: All zones within the floodplain. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.380, 18.390 and 18.775; Comprehensive Plan Policies 1.1.1, 2.1.1, 2.1.2 and 3.2; the Metro 2040 Plan; and Statewide Planning Goals 1, 5 and 7. a. Open Public Hearing b. Staff Report: Jim Hendryx, Community Development Director C. Public Testimony d. Staff Recommendation e. Council Discussion f. Close Public Hearing g. Council Consideration: Ordinance No. 05-01 COUNCIL AGENDA - JANUARY 25, 2005 page 4 Councilor: I move for adoption of the proposed Ordinance. Councilor: I second the motion. ' Mayor: Will the City Recorder please read the number and title of the Ordinance. City Recorder: (Reads as requested.) Mayor: Is there any discussion? Mayor (after discussion): Will the City Recorder please conduct a roll-call vote of Council. City Recorder: Conducts roll call vote. Mayor: Ordinance No. 05- (is approved or fails) by a (unanimous or however votes were split) vote. Tie votes = failure to pass 9:00 PM 9. PUBLIC HEARING (INFORMATIONAL) - CONSIDER RESOLUTION FORMING SANITARY SEWER REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT NO. 32 (Fern Street) a. Open Public Hearing b. Summation by Gus Duenas, City Engineer C. Public Testimony d. Staff Recommendation e. Council Discussion f. Close Public Hearing g. Council Consideration: Resolution No. 05-05 Councilor: I move for adoption of the proposed Resolution 05- Councilor: I second the motion. Mayor: Will the City Recorder please read the number and title of the Resolution. City Recorder: (Reads as requested.) Mayor: Is there any discussion? COUNCIL AGENDA - JANUARY 25, 2005 page 5 Mayor (after discussion): All of those in favor of adopting Resolution No. 05- please say "aye " Mayor/Councilors: Mayor: All of those opposed to adopting Resolution No. 05- please say "nay. " Mayor/Councilors: Mayor: Resolution No. 05- (is adopted or fails) by a (unanimous, or however votes were split) vote. Tie votes = failure to pass. 9:10 PM 10. CONSIDER ORDINANCE TO ADOPT TUALATIN VALLEY FIRE & RESCUE'S ORDINANCE 04-01 AMENDING THE 2004 FIRE CODE AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY a. Staff Report: Jim Hendryx, Community Development Director b. Council Discussion C. Council Consideration: Ordinance NO. 05- 02 Councilor: I move for adoption of the proposed Ordinance. Councilor: 1 second the motion. Mayor: Will the City Recorder please read the number and title of the Ordinance. City Recorder: (Reads as requested.) Mayor: Is there any discussion? Mayor (after discussion): Will the City Recorder please conduct a roll-call vote of Council. City Recorder: Conducts roll call vote. Mayor: Ordinance No. 05-_ (is approved or fails) by a (unanimous or however votes were split) vote. Tie votes = failure to pass 1 I.' COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS 12. NON AGENDA ITEMS COUNCIL AGENDA - JANUARY 25, 2005 page 6 13. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council may go into Executive Session. If an Executive Session is called to order, the appropriate ORS citation will be announced identifying the applicable statute. All discussions are confidential and those present may disclose nothing from the Session. Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend Executive Sessions, as provided by ORS 192.660(4), but must not disclose any information discussed. No Executive Session may be held for the purpose of taking any final action or making any final decision. Executive Sessions are closed to the public. 10:00 PM 14. ADJOURNMENT had mlcathy\ccat20051050125).doc COUNCIL AGENDA - JANUARY 25, 2005 page 7 COMMUNITY The following will be considered by the Tigard City Council on NEWSPAPERS Tuesday January 25, 2005 at 7:30 PM at the Tigard Civic Center - Town Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon. 1325 SW Cuslor Orlue, Pulled, OR 81219 • PO Box 310 • Beaverton, OR 91015 Public oral or written testimony is invited. The public hearing on this Phone: 503-084-0380 Fix: 503-020-3433 matter will be held under Title 18 and rules of procedure adopted by Email: legaladvePgsiag@commaewspopePs.com the Council and available at City Hall or the rules of procedure set forth in Section 18.390.060.E. The Council will hold a public hearing on the request prior to making a decision. AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION Further information may be obtained from the City of Tigard State of Oregon, County of Washington, SS Planning Division (Staff contact: Gary Pagenstecher) at 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon 97223 or by calling 503-639-4171. I, Charlotte Allsop, being the first duly sworn, PUBLIC HEARING ITEM: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA) 2004-0003 depose and say that I am the Accounting ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT (ZOA) 2004-00002 Manager of the Tigard/Tualatin Times, a > PLAN & CODE AMENDMENT INCORPORATING REVISED newspaper of general circulation, published FEMA RE UIREMENTS < at Beaverton, in the aforesaid county and REQUEST: T e Federal Emergency Management Agency state, as defined by ORS 193.010 and (FEMA) has required the City, as a condition of continued eligibility 193.020, that to the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), to adopt floodplain management regulations that meet NFIP standards. Therefore, to meet these standards, the City proposes to amend Chapter 3, Natural City of Tigard - Public Hearing Features and Open Space, Volume II of the Comprehensive Plan and CPA2004-00004/ ZOA2004-00002 the Sensitive Flood Impact Study (FIS) and Flood Insurance Rate Revised Fema Requirements Map (FIRM), effective February 18, 2005, and regulating CNI TT10515 recreational vehicles located in the 100-year floodplain. LOCATION: The 100-year floodplain within the City of Tigard's a copy of which is hereto annexed, was incorporated boundary. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: All designations within the floodplain. published in the entire issue of said ZONE: All zones within the floodplain. APPLICABLE REVIEW newspaper for CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.380, 18.390 and 18.775; Comprehensive Plan Policies 1.1.1, 2.1.1, 2.2.2 1 and 3.2; the Metro 2040 Plan; and Statewide Planning Goals I, 5 and 7. successive and consecutive weeks in the TT 10515 Publish January 6, 2005 following issues January 6, 2005 MOX low aju~-p Charlotte Allsop (Accounting Manager) Subscribed and sworn to before me this OFFICIAL SEAL ROBIN A BURGESS December 0, 2004 NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON COMMISSION NO. 344589 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES MAY 15.2005 w NOTARY PUBLIC FOR OR N My commission expires Acct # 10093001 City of Tigard Attn: Accounts Payable 13125 SW Hall Blvd Tigard, OR 97223 Size Y , Amount Due $ remit to address above City of Tigard, Oregon Affidavit of Posting CITY OF TIGARD In the Matter of the Proposed Ordinance(s) OREGON Ord. Ws 05-01 4 05-02. ~dvp p as"•~~" STATE OF OREGON ) County of Washington ) ss. City of Tigard ) I, f II` PJ5 IIA1 , being first duly sworn (or affirmed), by oath (or affirmation), depose and say: That I posted in the following public and conspicuous places, a copy of Ordinance Number(s) ^ •-~0 1 4 OS •0 P- , which were adopted at the City Council meeting of l • oL 5 • Q 5- , with a copy(s) of said Ordinance(s) being hereto attache an by r ference made a part hereof, on the da of _x. a(A y , 20 1. Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon 2. Tigard Public Library, 13500 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon [.J &V-~ Signature of Person who Perfo d Posting Subscribed and sworn (or affirmed) before me this 13t - day of ®GfP~~~ , 20 D OFFICIAL SEAL Signature of Notary Public for Oregon GREER A GASTON NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON COMMISSION NO. 373020 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES OCT. 10, 2007 \\TIG333\USR\DEPTSV\DM\GREER\FORMSV\FFIDAVITSWFFIDAVIT OF POSTING - ORDINANCE.DOC CP L-)oS- City of Tigard, Oregon Affidavit of Posting CITY OF TIGARD OREGON In the Matter of the Proposed Ordinances 05-01 through 05-16 STATE OF OREGON ) LX/D_~ OS - 0' 2 County of Washington ) ss. r °~J City of Tigard ) eciihe,,,Li I, n.Q ~,-f le , being first duly sworn (or affirmed), by oath (or affirmation), depose an say: That I on December 15, 2005, I posted in the following public place, a copy of Ordinance Numbers Q5_O Lthr-ough 0-L6_, which were adopted by the City Council. Tigard Permit Center, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon a;- n~ r\-k Signature of Person who Perfo d Posting f'h Subscribed and sworn (or affirmed) before me this day of CC I'1&, 2005. OFFICIAL SEAL 42/ JILL M BYARS NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON Signature of Notary Public for Oregon COMMISSION NO. 381793 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES JUNE 14, 2008 i:tadmtgreer\fo"slaffidevitstaffidavit of posting - 05 ordinances 05-01 to 05-10 - permit center.doc • CITY OF TIGARD, OREGOP ORDINANCE NO.05--0) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE LANGUAGE OF THE TIGARD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, CHAPTER 3, NATURAL FEATURES AND OPEN SPACE, VOLUME II AND THE TIGARD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE CHAPTER 18.775 BY REVISING REFERENCES TO THE UPDATED FEMA FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY (FIS) AND FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP (FIRM), EFFECTIVE FEBRUARY 18, 2005, AND REGULATING RECREATIONAL VEHICLES IN THE FLOODPLAIN (CPA2004-00003/ZOA2004-00002), AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. WHEREAS, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) requires the Tigard City Council, as a condition of continued eligibility in the National Flood Insurace Program (NFIP), to adopt floodplain management regulations that meet NFIP standards; and WHEREAS, notice, was provided to the Department of Land Conservation and Development 45 days prior to the first scheduled public hearing; and WHEREAS, the Tigard Planning Commissior. held a public hearing on December 20, 2004 and recommended approval of the proposed amendments by motion with a majaority vote in favor and one abstension; and WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council determined that the proposed language adequately addressed concerns regarding the FEMA request; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the applicable Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines adopted under Oregon Revised Statutes Chapter 197; any federal or state statutes or regulations found applicable; any applicable Metro regulations; any applicable Comprehensive Plan Policies; and any applicable provisions of the City's implementing ordinances; and WHEREAS, the City Council has found the following to be the only applicable review criteria: Community Development Code Chapters 18.380, 18.390 and 18.775; Comprehensive Plan Policies 1.1.1, 2.1.1, 2.1.2, and 3.2; The Metro 2040 Plan; and Statewide Planning Goals 1, 2, and 7; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the proposed plan and zone ordinance amendments are consistent with the applicable review criteria and that approving the request would be in the best interest of the City of Tigard. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: The specific text amendments attached as "EXMIT A" to this Ordinance are hereby adopted and approved by the City Council. ORDINANCE No. 05- 01 Page 1 I I It SECTION 2: Countfinds adoption of this ordinance is neces for the peace health and safety of the City; therefore, this ordinance shall take effect immediately upon passage. PASSED: By (JAMM9011S vote of all Coun it members present after being read by number and title only, this sQ56-11 day of 2005. pLe.. Catherine Wheatley, City ecorder APPROVED: By Tigard City Council this - 5 /I day of ~ '2005. c Craig Dir csen, Mayor Approved as to form: V , .4, ~L Attorney o s Date ORDINANCE No. 05- 0/ Page 2 1 . ' EXHIBIT A CPA2004-000031ZOA2004-00002 PROPOSED -AMENDMENTS TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THE TIGARD DEVELOPMENT CODE, INCORPORATING REVISED FEMA REQUIREMENTS. DELETIONS indicated by 5T-R1KF=QU-T- ADDITIONS indicated by BOLD and UNDERLINE PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TEXT CHANGES: Chapter 3, NATURAL FEATURES AND OPEN SPACE Section 3.2, FLOODPLAINS (as referenced in the text by asterisks) *The Floodplain and Floodway, as defined by the Flood Insurance Study for the City of Tigard dated 9epte e* 1, effective ebtuary 18, 2005. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT CODE TEXT CHANGES: Chapter 18.775 SENSITIVE LANDS Section 18.775.010 Purpose B. Implement comprehensive plan and floodplairi management program. The regulations -of this chapter are intended to implement the comprehensive plan and the city's flood plain management program as required by the National Flood Insurance Program, and help to preserve natural sensitive land areas from encroaching' use and -to maintain the Tev s Gh 29, 2nnn February 18, 2005 zero-foot rise Foodway elevation. ' 18.775.040 General Provisions for Floodplain Areas B. Special flood hazard. The areas of special flood hazard identified. byy the Federal Insurance Administration in a scientific and engineering report entitled The Flood [nsurance Study 4 -4 no-4 Of the City of Tigard,. dated effective Februa 18, 2005, with accompanying 00 ;4_d Flood Insurance Rate Maps effective Februa is hereby adopted by reference and dec are to be a pa o this c, apter. This Flowhir. We- i- ..-Feb od Insurance Study is on flea the Tigard Civic Center. 0. Recreational Vehicles. Recreational Vehicles laced on sites within Zones Al-A30 AH and AE-on the community's FIRM ej er: i) Be on `the site for fewer than 180 consecutive days, ~ii) e fuliv licensed an ready or highway use ' on its wheels or lacking s stem is atta_ e to the site only b[qu[c disconnect type utilities an security evices, and has no ermanen a tacked aadditions• or (iii) Me-et the recluiremenTsOT M. F, I an above and the elevation and anchoring requirements or manufactured homes. CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ORDINANCE NO. 05- Da AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING TUALATIN VALLEY FIRE & RESCUE ORDINANCE 0401, AMENDING THE 2004 OREGON FIRE CODE AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY WHEREAS, Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue (TVF&R) provides fire prevention and firefighting sei vices to the City of Tigard; and WHEREAS, TVF&R is granted authority by the Office of the State Fire Marshal to amend the State adopted Fire Code; and WHEREAS, the State Fire Marshal adopted the 2003 edition of the International Fire Code on October 1, 2004; and WHEREAS, when the State adopted the 2003 edition of the International Fire Code, it became the 2004 Oregon. Fire Code; and WHEREAS, TVF&R further amended the 2004 Oregon Fire Code with Ordinance 04-01, as shown in Exhibit "A"; and WHEREAS, this ordinance will adopt those amendments made to the 2004 Oregon Fire Code; and WHEREAS, the City Council has historically adopted previous Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue ordinances whenever there was a new edition of the fire code; and WHEREAS, it is necessary to adopt these amendments in order for Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue to apply the Fire Code within the City of Tigard, NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: The City of Tigard adopts amendments to the 2004 edition of the Oregon Fire Code as amended by Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue and shown in Exhibit A, Ordinance 04-01. SECTION 2: Because this ordinance is necessary for the preservation of the health, safety and welfare of the City, an emergency is declared to exist and this ordinance shall be in fun force and effect immediately on passage. PASSED: By CI/voln? uS vote of all Council members present after being read by number f-day of 2005. and title only, this c25 Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder ORDINANCE No. 05- Oa Page 1 APPROVED: By Tigard City Council this -day of 05. 4,U t4,, c Craig D' sen, Mayor Approved as to form: City ttorney r Date ORDINANCE No. 05- Page 2 • • i EXHIBIT "A" ORDINANCE 04-01 AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING FIRE CODES AND STANDARDS FOR TUALATIN VALLEY FIRE AND RESCUE A RURAL FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT, PRESCRIBING REGULATIONS GOVERNING CONDITIONS HAZARDOUS TO LIFE AND PROPERTY FROM FIRE OR EXPLOSION, PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE OF PERMITS FOR HAZARDOUS USES OR OPERATIONS, AND REPEALING ORDINANCE 99-01. WHEREAS, Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue A Rural Fire Protection District, has developed uniform fire regulations for the jurisdictions served; and, WHEREAS, Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue A Rural Fire Protection District, hereinafter referred to as the District; desires to and finds it necessary to adopt the following regulations to provide minimum fire safety and that a plan for inspections and maintenance will upgrade existing structures, thereby reducing hazards of fire, thus does hereby adopt the following regulations; and now, therefore, IT IS ORDAINED AS FOLLOWS: TITLE AND FILING: This ordinance, including the codes hereby adopted, shall be filed in the record of the District and in the office of Washington, Multnomah, and Clackamas County Clerks and State Fire Marshal's office as prescribed by ORS 478.940. A copy shall be posted at each fire station within the District. From the date on which this ordinance shall take effect, provisions thereof shall be controlling.within the territorial limits of the District and within each city or county within the District approving pursuant to ORS 478.924. The whole of this ordinance shall be known as the Fire Prevention Code and maybe referred to as the Fire Code and shall be enforced by the Fire Marshal's Office created by Ordinance 91-02. SCOPE: The purpose of this code is to establish the minimum requirements consistent with nationally recognized good practice for providing a reasonable level of life safety and property protection form the hazards of fire, explosion or dangerous conditions in new and existing buildings, structures and premises and to provide safety to fire fighters and emergency responders during emergency operations as authorized by ORS 478.910 SECTION I - ADOPTION OF THE OREGON FIRE CODE: The following code is hereby adopted by the District for the purpose of prescribing regulations governing conditions hazardous to life and property from fire or explosion. Those certain codes and standards known as the: A. The International Fire Code, 2003 Edition, as published and copyrighted by International Fire Code Council as amended and adopted by the Oregon State Fire Marshal's Office and known as The Oregon Fire Code, except as hereinafter amended by this ordinance. Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue I Ordinance 04-01 SECTION II - ENFORCEMENT OF CODE Notwithstanding provisions in the Oregon Fire Code authorizing or requiring inspections of buildings and premises or testing of fire protection systems and equipment, e.g. Sections 106.2, 901.6 and 907.20.2 or provisions providing for enforcement of the Code, such inspections, testing and enforcement of the Code shall be discretionary by the Chief and other individuals charged by the Chief with such activities. The District recognizes that it has limited financial resources with which to provide fire, rescue and other services and functions and is forced to make public policy decisions as to allocation of District resources. Although the District places a high priority on prevention, inspection and maintenance of fire systems, due to financial limitations, it is the Board's policy to require inspections only so often as necessary to provide a reasonable level of fire and life safety. Accordingly, although the Fire Chief and other individuals charged by the Chief with these activities are encouraged to pursue them, performing such activities, as well as the scope and frequency of such activities, shall be within the discretion of the Fire Chief. It is the intention of the District to make clear that the District's duty to perform the inspections and testing, or to take enforcement actions, as set forth in the Code is limited to providing a reasonable level of fire and life safety. Such actions are discretionary. SECTION III - AMENDMENTS MADE IN THE OREGON FIRE CODE: The Oregon Fire Code, based on the 2003 Edition of the International Fire Code, is amended and changed in the following respects: 1. Section 101.3 is amended as follows: 101.3 Intent. The purpose of this code is to establish the minimum requirements consistent with nationally recognized good practice for providing a reasonable level of life safety and property protection form the hazards of fire, explosion or dangerous conditions in new and existing-buildings, structures and premises and to provide safety to fire fighters and emergency responders during emergency operations as authorized by ORS 476.030 and 478.910. 2. Section 104.1 is amended as follows: 104.1 General. The fire code official is hereby authorized to enforce the provisions of this code as directed in ORS 476.060, 478.910 and OAR Chapter 837, Division 39 and shall-have the authority to adopt policies, procedures, rules and regulations in order to clarify the application of its provisions. Modifications to this code shall not be less stringenf than the minimum fire code adopted by the State Fire Marshal. Such policies, procedures, rules and regulations shall be in compliance with the intent and purpose of this code and shall not have the effect of waiving requirements specifically provided for in this code. ORS 476.060, 478.910 and OAR Chapter 837, Division 39 are not a part of this code but are reproduced or paraphrased here for the reader's convenience. ORS 476.060 designates local fire marshals. Local fire chiefs and chief of police as assistants to the State Fire Marshal by virtue of office held. ORS 478.910 grants the authority to a district board to adopt a fire prevention code. OAR Chapter 837, Division 39 regulates the administration of fire prevention programs. Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue 2 Ordinance 04-01 3. Appendix B, Section B105 is amended as follows: B105.1 Required Fire Flow: No building shall be constructed, altered, enlarged, moved. or repaired in a manner that by reason of size, type of construction, number of stories, occupancy or any combination thereof creates a need for a fire flow in excess of 3,000 allons per minute at 20 pounds per square inch residual pressure, or exceeds the available fire flow at the site of the structure. The requirements for determining fire flow for all buildings are as set forth in Oregon Fire Code, Appendix B. EXCEPTION: Fire flow requirements in excess of 3,000 gallons per minute may be allowed if, in the opinion of the chief, all reasonable methods of reducing the fire flow have been included within the development and no unusual hazard to life and Property exists. Existing buildings that require a fire flow in excess of 3,000 gallons per minute are not required to comply with the fire flow requirements of this section. However, changes or the character of occupancies, alterations, additions or repairs shall not further increase the required fire flow for buildings. B105.1.1 One- and Two-Family Dwellings. The minimum fire flow requirements for one- and two-family dwellings having a fire flow calculation area which does not exceed 3,600 square feet (344.5 m2) shall be 1,000 gallons per minute (3785.4 Llmin.). Fire flow and flow duration for dwellings having a fire flow calculation area in excess of 3,600 square feet (344.5 m2) shall not be less than that specified in Table B105.1. EXCEPTION: 1. A reduction in required fire flow of 50 percent, as approved, is allowed when the building is provided with an approved automatic sprinkler system. 2. When there are not more than one each, Group R, Division 3 and Group U occupancies or agricultural building, as defined by ORS 455.315, on a single„ parcel of not less than one acre, the requirements of this section maybe modified provided, the Group R, Division 3 occupancy does not require a fire flow in excess of 1500 gpm (based on NFPA Standard 1142) and in the opinion of the chief, firefighting or rescue operations would not be impaired B105.2 Buildings other than One- and Two-Family Dwellings. The minimum fire flow and flow duration shall be determined by the size and construction We of the structure under consideration building for- buildings athef dwm one and twe family dweffings shaH be-as speei&4 inTable A B1 A 1. EXCEPTION! A reduestien in required fL-e flew of up to 50 per-seA as appreved, is allewed when the r rrF r..,u.,. a syu«.uz kiste.Ued aerser-danee it Seatien 903341 er- 903.3.1.2 ft r. . The r-esuking fire fiew shall not be less than 1,500 gallens per- ffiklute (5677.5 hazexd eeoupaney as defined by 1,W-PA 13, the Feduefien maybe up te 75 B105.2.1 Occupancy Hazards 5.2.1.1 Single Occupancy Hazards. Where only a single occupancy hazard is housed in a building the minimum required building fire flow shall be multiplied by the hazard factor in Table B105.2 to determine the total required fire flow. B105.2.2 Multiple Occupancy Hazards. Where more than one hazard is housed in a building the minimum required building fire flow shall be proportioned by percentage of the floor area used for Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue 3 Ordinance 04-01 each occupancy hazard. The proportioned building fire flow shall be multiplied by the hazard factor, relating to that portion of the building in Table B 105.2 and totaled to determine the required fire flow. Table B105.2 Light Hazard Occupancies 1.0 Ordinary Hazard (Group 1) 1.2 Ordinary Hazard (Group 2) 1.3 Extra Hazard (Group 1) 1.4 Extra Hazard (Group 2 1.5 B105.2.3 The total required fire flow may be reduced by one of the following options, but in no case shall be less than 1500 GPM an, 20 psi residual. 1. Reduced by 75 percent where a complete approved automatic fire extinguishing system meeting the requirements of NFPA 13, is installed throughout the building and the system is electronically supervised and is monitored by an pproved central receiving station. 2. Reduced by 25 percent where an approved automatic and manual fire alarm system is installed throughout the building that is monitored by an approved central receiving station. The systems shall meet the requirements of NFPA 72. SECTION N - PENALTIES Any person who violates any of the provisions of these regulations hereby adopted or fails to comply therewith, or violates or fails to comply with any order made thereunder, or who builds in violation of any detailed statements, specification or plans submitted and approved thereunder and from which no appeal has been taken, or shall fail to comply with such an order as affumed or modified by the Board of Appeals or by a court of competent jurisdiction within the time affixed herein, shall severally, for each and every such violation and non-compliance respectively, be guilty of a violation of the Fire Prevention Code as provided in ORS 478.930, punishable upon conviction as prescribed by ORS 478.990. All fines or punishments authorized upon conviction shall include the costs to the District to remedy the violation including costs of towing, storage or removal of the hazard or obstruction if necessary. Any person who violates the provisions of ORS 478.960 (Burning of certain materials permitted only with permission of the Chief, Burning Schedule (1) through (8)) shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, shall severally, for each and every violation be punishable upon conviction as prescribed by ORS 478.990 and shall be subject to costs under 478.965. The Chief or designated representative may bring a complaint in law or in equity to alleviate a violation of this ordinance as well as in addition to the rights to enforce said ordinance under the provisions of ORS 478.930 and ORS 478.990. Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue 4 Ordinance 04-0I c ' SECTION V - FIRE CODE BOARD OF APPEALS As authorized by ORS 479.180, the District may establish a board of appeals. 'Such board of appeals may be implemented through bylaws and other procedures adopted by ordinance of the District. In the event that the fire district Board adopts a board of appeals, the provisions of this ordinance, where appropriate, are subject to the board of appeals procedures. SECTION VI - REPEAL OF CONFLICTING ORDINANCES Pursuant to ORS 478.924, the provisions of this ordinance, i.e. the Fire Code, shall be controlling within the territorial limits of the District and within each city or county within the District approving pursuant to ORS 478.924. The existing fire code, Ordinance 99-01, has been approved within each city and county within the District. The District desires that the existing fire code continue in effect until such time as the cities and counties within the District have approved this new Fire Code pursuant to ORS 478.924. Accordingly, Ordinance 99-01, and all former ordinances or parts thereof, which are conflicting or inconsistent with the provisions of this ordinance or of the code or standards hereby adopted, are hereby repealed, effective the effective date of this ordinance; provided, however, that Ordinance 99-01 shall continue in effect in each city or county which has approved it until the city or county approves this Ordinance 04-01. Further, prosecutions or violations under repealed ordinances may continue after the effective date of this ordinance. SECTION VII - VALIDITY The District hereby declares that should any section, paragraph, sentence or word of this ordinance or of the Codes or Standards hereby adopted be declared for any reason to be invalid, it is the intent of the District that it would have passed all other portions of this ordinance independent of the elimination of any such portion as maybe declared invalid. SECTION VIII - DATE OF EFFECT The Board of Directors of the Fire District finds and determines that it is necessary and expedient that the provisions of this ordinance become effective 30 days following the final reading. First reading by Title only this C day of 2004. Second reading by Title only this l ~D day of ~1sJ U~l~{c ~ .2.004. PASSED by the District this day of /y) Ur::~k4fie; . , 2004. PRESIDENT ~ECMARY-MAP~ft Tualatin Valley f7re & Rescue 5 Ordinance 04-01 AGENDA TIGARD CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS MEETING January 25, 2005 - 6:30 p.m. 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon • STUDY SESSION > JOINT MEETING WITH THE BUDGET COMMITTEE o Craig Prosser, Finance Director > LOCAL CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD UPDATE AND FEEDBACK ON REVISED PURCHASING AND CONTRACTING ADMINISTRATIVE RULES o Finance Director, Craig Prosser > CITY ATTORNEY TRAINING ON LAND USE PROCESS • EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session to discuss pending litigation and review and evaluation of the employment-related performance of the chief executive officer under ORS 192.660(2)(h)(i). All discussions are confidential and those present may disclose nothing from the Session. Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend Executive Sessions, as provided by ORS 192.660(4), but must not disclose any information discussed. No Executive Session may be held for the purpose of taking any final action or making any final decision. Executive Sessions are closed to the public. >ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS a. Distribute Revised Agenda - Staff requesting removal of Items Consent Agenda Items 3.4a and 3.4b. b. Correction to December 28, 2004, Council minutes. Memo from City Recorder attached. C. Agenda Item No. 4 - Elect Council President. City Recorder will distribute ballots when Council considers this Agenda item. Section 18 of the Charter states "...the Council by ballot shall choose a president from its membership." d. Bull Mountain Meeting, Monday, February 7, sometime between 4-9 p.m., location tba. (Copy of e-mail attached.) e. Distribute Copy of Tualatin Resolution No. 4301-04 describing proposed changes to the Urban Growth Boundary expansion process. f. Calendar Review • February 1: Council Tour - Capital Improvement Program - 3 p.m. (Reschedule if Councilors Woodruff and Wilson are unable to attend?) • February 7: Bull Mountain Meeting; sometime between 49 p.m. (tba) • February 8: Council Business Meeting - 6:30 p.m. - Town Hall • February 15: Council Workshop Meeting - 6:30 p.m. - Town Hall • February 21: President's Day Holiday - City Hall Closed, Library Open • February 22: Council Business Meeting - 6:30 p.m. - Town Hall • March 8: Council Business Meeting - 6:30 p.m. - Town Hall • March 15: Council Workshop Meeting - 6:30 p.m. - Town Hall • March 22: Council Business Meeting - 6:30 p.m. - Town Hall • March 29: 51 Tuesday Council Meeting - 7 p.m. - Water Auditorium Executive Session - The Public Meetings Law authorizes governing bodies to meet in executive session in certain limited situations (ORS 192.660). An "executive session" is defined as "any meeting or part of a meeting of a governing body, which is closed to certain persons for deliberation on certain matters." Permissible Purposes for Executive Sessions: 192.660 (2) (a) - Employment of public officers, employees and agents, if the body has satisfied certain prerequisites. 192.660 (2) (b) - Discipline of public officers and employees (unless affected person requests to have an open hearing). 192.660(2) (c) - To consider matters pertaining to medical staff of a public hospital. 192.660(2) (d) - Labor negotiations. (News media can be excluded in this instance.) 192.660(2) (e) - Real property transaction negotiations. 192.660(2) (f) - Exempt public records - to consider records that are "exempt by law from public inspection." These records are specifically identified in the Oregon Revised Statutes. 192-660(2) (g) - Trade negotiations - involving matters of trade or commerce in which the governing body is competing with other governing bodies. 192.660(2) (h) - Legal counsel - for consultation with counsel concerning legal rights and duties regarding current litigation or litigation likely to be filed. 192.660(2) 0) - To review and evaluate, pursuant to standards, criteria, and policy directives adopted by the governing body, the employment-related performance of the chief executive officer, a public officer, employee or staff member unless the affected person requests an open hearing. The standards, criteria and policy directives to be used in evaluating chief executive officers shall be adopted by the governing body in meetings open to the public in which there has been an opportunity for public comment. 192.660 (2) Public investments - to carry on negotiations under ORS Chapter 293 with private persons or businesses regarding proposed acquisition, exchange or liquidation of public investments. 192.660 (2) (k)- Relates to health professional regulatory board. 192.660 (2) (1)- Relates to State Landscape Architect Board. 192.660 (2) (m)- Relates to the review and approval of programs relating to security. iAadm\cathytcouncihplnk sheet • study session a0endas120051050111,doc Mayor's Agenda Greeter: Margaret Barnes Revised 1/20/05 (Revision was to remove Item 3.4 b.) Revised 1/24/05 (Revision was to remove Item 3.4 a.) Revised 1/25/05 (Revisions were to add 192.660 (2) (1) to Executive Session and remove the Study Session Review of the City Manager's 360 Review Process) TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 25, 2005 6:30 p.m. CITY OF TIGARD OREGON TIGARD CITY HALL 13125 SW HALL BLVD TIGARD, OR 97223 PUBLIC NOTICE: Anyone wishing to speak on an agenda item should sign on the appropriate sign-up sheet(s). If no sheet is available, ask to be recognized by the Mayor at the beginning of that agenda item. Citizen Communication items are asked to be two minutes or less. Longer matters can be set for a future Agenda by contacting either the Mayor or the City Manager. Times noted are estimated; it is recommended that persons interested in testifying be present by 7:15 p.m. to sign in on the testimony sign-in sheet. Business agenda items can be heard in any order after 7:30 p.m. Assistive Listening Devices are available for persons with impaired hearing and should be scheduled for Council meetings by noon on the Monday prior to the Council meeting. Please call 503-639-4171, ext. 2410 (voice) or 503-684-2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf). Upon request, the City will also endeavor to arrange for the following services: • Qualified sign language interpreters for persons with speech or hearing impairments; and • Qualified bilingual interpreters. Since these services must be scheduled with outside service providers, it is important to allow as much lead time as possible. Please notify the City of your need by 5:00 p.m. on the Thursday preceding the meeting by calling: 503-639-4171, ext. 2410 (voice) or 503- 684-2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf). SEE ATTACHED AGENDA COUNCIL AGENDA - JANUARY 25, 2005 page 1 AGENDA TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 25, 2005 6:30 PM • STUDY SESSION > JOINT MEETING WITH THE BUDGET COMMITTEE o Craig Prosser, Finance Director > LOCAL CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD UPDATE AND FEEDBACK ON REVISED PURCHASING AND CONTRACTING ADMINISTRATIVE RULES o Finance Director, Craig Prosser > CITY ATTORNEY TRAINING ON LAND USE PROCESS • EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session to discuss pending litigation, and to review U evaluate the employment-related performance of the chief executive officer under ORS 192.660(2)(h)(i). All discussions are confidential and those present may disclose nothing from the Session. Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend Executive Sessions, as provided by ORS 192.660(4), but must not disclose any information discussed. No Executive Session may be held for the purpose of taking any final action or making any final decision. Executive Sessions are closed to the public. 7:30 PM 1. BUSINESS MEETING 1.1 Call to Order - City Council U Local Contract Review Board 1.2 Roll Call 1.3 Pledge of Allegiance 1.4 Council Communications U Liaison Reports 1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items COUNCIL AGENDA - JANUARY 25, 2005 page 2 7:35 PM 2. CITIZEN COMMUNICATION (Two Minutes or Less, Please) • Follow-up to Previous Citizen Communication Consent Agenda to be reviewed by Youth Advisory Council President Rob Williams: 7:40 PM 3. CONSENT AGENDA: These items are considered to be routine and may be enacted in one motion without separate discussion. Anyone may request that an item be removed by motion for discussion and separate action. Motion to: 3.1 Approve Council Minutes for December 14, 20 and 28, 2004 3.2 Receive and File: • Fourth Quarter 2004 Council Goal Update 3.3 Approve Intergovernmental Agreement Between City of Tigard and Clean Water Services 3.4 Local Contract Review Board: a e V aFd Citywide janrritv orierrcrl Semvdces Contract to Y~Cttsp nrrirtng Senrvc-eesc7-mvc~srrr~t-rrcc~--vrm-r--r~-vc~-vi j-a Division of Cascad*a Beha Aoral He ltheire bApprove Trr"'endment to Engineering tn.rce-S_C-ont-r-act Murray Smith & Associates, In-n`..., f~~ign of ' 550-Foot Zone Deservoir No. 7 Staff requests Items 3.4 a. and b. be removed from the Agenda. c. Receive and File: Agent of Record Contract - Service Fee Reduction • Consent Agenda - Items Removed for Separate Discussion: Any items requested to be removed from the Consent Agenda for separate discussion will be considered immediately after the Council has voted on those items which do not need discussion. 7:45 PM 4. ELECT COUNCIL PRESIDENT TO SERVE UNTIL DECEMBER 31, 2006 a. Nominations b. Council Action: Cast Ballots 7:50 PM 5. TIGARD VISION UPDATE REPORT a. Staff Report: Liz Newton, Assistant to the City Manager and Loreen Mills, Risk Manager b. Council Discussion COUNCIL AGENDA - JANUARY 25, 2005 page 3 8:10 PM 6. UPDATE ON THE LIBRARY STRATEGIC PLAN AND OPERATIONAL HOURS a. Staff Report: Margaret Barnes, Library Director b. Council Discussion 8:25 PM 7. CONSIDER AFFORDABLE HOUSING FEE ASSISTANCE REQUEST a. Staff Report: Jim Hendryx, Community Development Director b. Council Discussion C. Council Consideration: Motion to approve the housing fee assistance request(s). 8:45 PM 8. PUBLIC HEARING (LEGISLATIVE) - ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT INCORPORATING FEMA REQUIREMENTS (ZOA 2004-00002) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA) 2004-00003/ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT (ZOA) 2004-00002 REQUEST: The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has required the City, as a condition of continued eligibility in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), to adopt floodplain management regulations that meet NFIP standards. Therefore, to meet these standards, the City proposes to amend Chapter 3, Natural Features and Open Space, Volume II of the Comprehensive Plan and the Sensitive Lands chapter 18.775 of the Tigard Development Code by revising references to the updated FEMA Flood Impact Study (FIS) and Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), effective February 18, 2005, and regulating recreational vehicles located in the 100-year floodplain. LOCATION: The 100- year floodplain within the City of Tigard's incorporated boundary. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: All designations within the floodplain. ZONE: All zones within the floodplain. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.380, 18.390 and 18.775; Comprehensive Plan Policies 1.1.1, 2.1.1, 2.1.2 and 3.2; the Metro 2040 Plan; and Statewide Planning Goals 1, 5 and 7. a. Open Public Hearing b. Staff Report: Jim Hendryx, Community Development Director C. Public Testimony d. Staff Recommendation e. Council Discussion f. Close Public Hearing g. Council Consideration: Ordinance No. 05-01 COUNCIL AGENDA - JANUARY 25, 2005 page 4 Councilor: I move for adoption of the proposed Ordinance. Councilor: I second the motion. Mayor: Will the City Recorder please read the number and title of the Ordinance. City Recorder: (Reads as requested.) Mayor: Is there any discussion? Mayor (after discussion): Will the City Recorder please conduct a roll-call vote of Council. City Recorder: Conducts roll call vote. Mayor: Ordinance No. 05-_ (is approved or fails) by a (unanimous or however votes were split) vote. Tie votes = failure to pass 9:00 PM 9. PUBLIC HEARING (INFORMATIONAL) - CONSIDER RESOLUTION FORMING SANITARY SEWER REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT NO. 32 (Fern Street) a. Open Public Hearing b. Summation by Gus Duenas, City Engineer C. Public Testimony d. Staff Recommendation e. Council Discussion f. Close Public Hearing g. Council Consideration: Resolution No. 05-05 Councilor: I move for adoption of the proposed Resolution 05- Councilor: I second the motion. Mayor: Will the City Recorder please read the number and title of the Resolution. City Recorder: (Reads as requested.) Mayor: Is there any discussion? COUNCIL AGENDA - JANUARY 25, 2005 page 5 Mayor (after discussion): All of those in favor of adopting Resolution No.. OS- please say "aye. " Mayor/Councilors: Mayor: All of those opposed to adopting Resolution No. 05- please say "nay. " Mayor/Councilors: Mayor: Resolution No. 05- (is adopted or fails) by a (unanimous, or however votes were split) vote. Tie votes = failure to pass. 9:10 PM 10. CONSIDER ORDINANCE TO ADOPT TUALATIN VALLEY FIRE & RESCUE'S ORDINANCE 04-01 AMENDING THE 2004 FIRE CODE AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY a. Staff Report: Jim Hendryx, Community Development Director b. Council Discussion C. Council Consideration: Ordinance NO. 05- 02 Councilor: I move for adoption of the proposed Ordinance. Councilor: I second the motion. Mayor: Will the City Recorder please read the number and title of the Ordinance. City Recorder: (Reads as requested.) Mayor: Is there any discussion? Mayor (after discussion): Will the City Recorder please conduct a roll-call vote of Council. City Recorder: Conducts roll call vote. Mayor: Ordinance No. 05-_ (is approved or fails) by a (unanimous or however votes were split) vote. Tie votes = failure to pass 11. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS 12. NON AGENDA ITEMS COUNCIL AGENDA - JANUARY 25, 2005 page 6 13. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council may go into Executive Session. If an Executive Session is called to order, the appropriate ORS citation will be announced identifying the applicable statute. All discussions are confidential and those present may disclose nothing from the Session. Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend Executive Sessions, as provided by ORS 192.660(4), but must not disclose any information discussed. No Executive Session may be held for the purpose of taking any final action or making any final decision. Executive Sessions are closed to the public. 10:00 PM 14. ADJOURNMENT i:1ad mlcathylcca120051050125).doc COUNCIL AGENDA - JANUARY 25, 2005 page 7 MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: Honorable Mayor & City Council FROM: Cathy Wheatley cDATE: January 25, 2005 SUBJECT: Correction to the December 28, 2004, Council Minutes Attached is a copy of Page 4 of the December 28, 2004, Council Minutes. I was reviewing the minutes to respond to a research question, when I noticed an omitted word. I have marked the change on the attachment showing where the word "advantage" should have appeared. If the Council approves the minutes as listed on the Consent Agenda, I will replace Page 4 so the statement reads correctly. (A 4a C b rn e to continue the dialogue with people in their respective areas. There are some common interests and he would like to work together to see what could be done to address those. On this particular issue, he supports the annexation, which continues a practice of about 15 to 20 years to annex an average of three annexations per year up to nine in a given year, which were similar to this one. Mayor Dirksen commented that this annexation process is not unique to Tigard, but annexations like this one happen in other jurisdictions in the same way. The Mayor agreed with the comments of the Councilors and added that there would be nothing gained and much lost if the Council were to vote no. If the Council voted no, then the development could not take place and this decision would probably be appealed to a higher level and ultimately there would be no purpose to a no vote at this time. The opportunity would be lost to receive funds for parks acquisition and park improvements. Councilor Sherwood said that this would give the City an opportunity to prove that with the SDC funds collected the City is working in the direction for park improvements. When ~l the opportunities are there, "we need to take advantage of it." Councilor Woodruff said that at some point in the near future, he would like to have a presentation from the Parks Board to hear what is being done with the SDC funds. Mayor Dirksen pointed out that there is a public City meeting on January 19 for the capital improvements program to gather citizen input for the coming year's capital improvement plan for projects they would like to see accomplished in the coming year. The City Recorder read the following: ORDINANCE 2004-15 - AN ORDINANCE ANNEXING 36.1 ACRES, APPROVING ARBOR SUMMIT ANNEXATION AND OTHER ADJACENT PROEPRTIES (ZCA 2004-00001) AND WITHDRAWING PROPERTY FROM THE TIGARD WATER DISTRICT, WASHINGTON COUNTY ENHANCED SHERIFF'S PATROL DISTRICT, WASHINGTON COUNTY URBAN ROADS MAINTENANCE DISTRICT, WASHINGTON COUNTY STREET LIGHTING DISTRICT #1, AND THE WASHINGTON COUNTY VECTOR CONTROL DISTRICT, AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. Tigard City Council Minutes Page 4 December 28, 2004 Cathy Wheatley - Scheduling a Meeting Regarding Bull Mountain Page From: Noreen Lee <Noreen_Lee@co.washington.or.us> To: "Roy Rogers (E-mail)" <royr@rascpas.com>, Brent Curtis <Brent-Curtis@co.washington.or.us>, "Bill Monahan (E-mail)" <bill@ci.tigard.or.us>, "Nick Wilson (E- mail)" <nickw@ci.tigard.or.us>, "Lisa Hamilton-Treick (E-mail)" <lisa@hamiltonrealtygroup.com>, "Dick Franzke (E-mail)" <rafranzke@stoel.com>, "Craig Dirksen (E-mail)" <craigd@ci.tigard.or.us> Date: 1 /21 /2005 1:43:14 PM Subject: Scheduling a Meeting Regarding Bull Mountain Good morning, I am scheduling the above meeting for Chair Brian to include: Tom Brian Roy Rogers Charlie Cameron Brent Curtis Bill Monahan Mayor Dirksen Council President Nick Wilson City of Tigard Staff Person Lisa Hamilton-Treick Dick Franzke Julie Russell The meeting will be scheduled for a two-hour period. Please let me know your availability between 4:00 - 9:00 p.m. on Monday, February 7, 2005. The location is to be determined, but will be held in the Tigard area. Thank you. Noreen Lee Executive Assistant Washington County Administrative Office 155 North First Avenue, MS-21 Hillsboro, OR 97124 Direct Line: 503-846-8302 Phone: 503-846-8685; Fax: 503-846-4545 e-mail: noreen_lee@co.washington.or.us CC: "Joanne Bengtson (E-mail)" <joanne@ci.tigard.or.us> RESOLUTION NO. 4301-04 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUALATIN, OREGON DESCRIBING PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY EXPANSION PROCESS WHEREAS Tualatin is a city in the territory of the Metropolitan Services District (known as "Metro"); and WHEREAS cities in the Metro region have their urban boundaries established by Metro; and WHEREAS the Metro Policy Advisory Committee (MPAC) is a Metro committee charged with providing a voice and input for Metro cities on Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) expansion issues; and WHEREAS there has been mounting frustration and concern in Tualatin in particular, and many cities in general that the UGB expansion process does not balance local needs and concerns with regional issues, and that soil classification predominates in Metro led UGB expansion decisions; and WHEREAS the City of Tualatin proposes the following seven principles of legislative change be adopted and incorporated in appropriate sections of Oregon Revised Statutes, Oregon Administrative Rules and Metro drafted rules and guidelines concerning UGB expansion. BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUALATIN, OREGON, that: Section 1. Additions to the Urban Growth Boundary should not be determined solely by soils classifications, with exception lands always being the first to be considered for addition. Metro should be allowed to consider other factors, such as preexisting development in the area, the wishes of the adjacent cities that would have to serve the area, and other appropriate local concerns. Section 2. The frequency for reviewing whether the land supply is sufficient for development purposes should be changed from 5 years to no more often than every 7- 10 years. Section 3. The Legislature should enact or amend a statute to make it clear that Metro cannot add land to the Urban Growth Boundary of a city without the city agreeing to that addition. Resolution No. 4301-04 - Page 1 of 2 Section 4. The Legislature should enact or amend a statute clarifying that cities retain their zoning authority, separate from a UGB expansion. Metro cannot add land to a city's Urban Growth Boundary and specify the zoning type that the City would have to impose on that land. Section 5. The Metro Council election and representation process should be changed from districts to at-large to ensure a broader-based representation process. Section 6. The Legislature should enact or amend a statute to require lands added to the Urban Growth Boundary by Metro concurrently identify a viable transportation system to support the added land and the existing city transportation system in coordination with a city. Section 7. The Legislature should enact or amend a statute to require lands added to an Urban Growth Boundary by Metro concurrently have allocated funding for transportation infrastructure development in the added land and the existing city transportation system. INTRODUCED AND ADOPTED this 25th day of October, 2004. CITY OF AL IN, OREGON By Mayor ATTEST: By ClLtu City Recorder Resolution No. 4301-04 - Page 2 of 2 Agenda Item No. S4-u d j SesS wr~ Meeting of I c5 Budget Committee Agenda January 25, 2005, 6:30 p.m. Town Hall 1. Budget Amendments - Report on actual and planned Budget Amendments in FY 2004-05 2. Preliminary Financial Forecast - Preliminary outlook for 2005 - 20010 3. Budget Calendar 4. FY 2005-06 Budget Principles 5. Draft 2005 Strategic Finance Plan 6. Social Service Subcommittee Membership Copy of letter sent to Budget Committee December 17, 2004 Dear The next meeting of the Tigard Budget Committee is scheduled for Tuesday, January 25, 2005 at 6:30 pm in Red Rock Creek conference room, 13125 SW Hall Blvd. This meeting will occur during a regular Council Study session prior to the Council business meeting. Enclosed with this letter is an agenda for the Budget Committee portion of this meeting. We expect the Budget Committee portion of this meeting to last approximately 30 minutes. The Council will have other items on the study session agenda, however, that may be of interest to Budget Committee members, so we encourage you to stay for those items. One other item on the workshop agenda that may be of interest to you is review of changes in State Purchasing rules and gathering Council input on possible changes in Tigard Purchasing rules. Please contact Maureen Denny at 503-718-2487 or maureen@ci.tigard.or.us to confirm your attendance at this meeting. I look forward to seeing you on the 25th. I hope you have a very happy holiday season Sincerely, Craig Prosser, Finance Director cc: Bill Monahan, City Manager Tom Imdieke, Financial Operations and Planning Manager Michelle Wareing, Management Analyst Approved Budget Amendments FY 2004-05 Please split between account Amendment # Description Fund Amount Date Approved R&O Division numbers See Detail See Detail 1 SEW and Management COLA's Various - See Detail Worksheet $371,482 July 13, 2004 04-49 Worksheet Worksheet 2 Police DARE Grant General $23,467 October 12, 2004 04-71 1130 3 Police Grant & MDCs General $414,958 October 26, 2004 04-84 TBD 4 Network Firewall Central Services Fund $23,000 November 9, 2004 04-88 3140 627000 5 Residential Services Emergency Fund General $5,105 December 14, 2004 04-94 1500 601000 6 DUST Facility Fund $80,000 October 26, 2004 04-80 6100 750043 7 DUST Facility Fund $25,000 December 14, 2004 04-93 6100 750043 8 Tri-Met Police Position - Funding for back-fill position General $20,700 February 22, 2005 1120 503000 9 Library open for four hours on Sunday General $11,440 February 22, 2005 1420 502000 $14,560 1440 502000 10 TPOA and City Manager General and Central Services March 8, 2005 City of Tigard FY 2005-06 Budget Calendar r • February 4, 2005 o Budget requests and revenue due to Finance o Training plans due to HR & Finance o Social Services/Arts/Events funding request due • March 2005 o City Manager/Finance/Department meetings o City Manager Decisions • April 25, 2005 o Budget Committee begin meetings o Financial Forecast Update o Distribution of Proposed Budget • May 2, 2005 o Budget Hearings • May 9, 2005 o Budget Hearings • May 16, 2005 o Budget Hearings o Final Decisions • May 23, 2005 o Potential Budget Committee meeting • June 14, 2005 o Council Adopts budget t FY 2005-06 Executive Staff Budget Principles 1. Do it right! a. Efficiency b. Maintain organizational infrastructure c. Proactive d. Reflect customer viewpoint 2. Address Funding Needs (General and Other Funds) a. Responsibly and efficiently direct existing resources to community priorities b. Provide the best services possible within the funding available as directed by City Council 3. Public Safety - maintain levels of services and public safety 4. Communications and Customer Service - Build strong relations with community to strengthen public support 5. Manage Human Resources - hire and keep the best people to provide quality services 6. Manage external, expanding City assets - maintain and operate streets, parks, water, sewer, storm, etc: assets to be good stewards of the community's investment in infrastructure and to provide quality services 7. Manage internal City assets - maintain and operate City buildings, computer systems and communication systems (information technology), fleet, and property to be good stewards of the community's investment, to support City operations, and to provide quality services. 8. Risk management/Exposures/Insurance Liabilities - enhance worker safety and limit risk exposures. 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 is\adm\cathy\council\goals 2005\Tigard City Council Goals-2005 Cva.i F}L-Z.s`A `la !0S' MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Craig Dirksen Tigard City Council and Councilor-Elect FROM: Craig Prosse , finance Director RE: Draft Strategic Finance Plan DATE: December 14, 2004 Attached to this memo is a draft of the 2005 Strategic Finance Plan for your review and consideration. The City prepared its first Strategic Finance Plan in 2003. It is time to update that plan to reflect current conditions and issues. As we did in 2003, Executive Staff first brainstormed a list of issues that they feel are current or will soon be faced by the City. Executive Staff then organized that list into rough order of priority. Finally, staff wrote brief (1 to 2 page) issue papers on each issue to present to Council. The attached packet contains these issue papers. Council will have at least two opportunities to review and discuss these issues. The first opportunity will come on January 18 at the annual Goal-setting session. At that time, Council may choose to bring some of the issues forward from the attached packet to be considered as possible Council goals for 2005. The second opportunity will come at a second meeting to discuss the Strategic Finance Plan itself. Staff is suggesting that this second meeting occur at the Council workshop meeting of February 15, 2005. At these meetings, Council may choose to include all of the attached issues in its Goals or in its Strategic Finance Plan. It may also drop any issues that it feels appropriate and add any issues it feels are missing from this packet. Finally, Council will be asked to discuss the final list of issues, to assign priorities and timelines, and to provide direction to staff on how the Council wishes staff to proceed on these issues. Most of this discussion will take place at the Strategic Finance Plan meeting. The packet starts with summary tables that also serve as a Table of Contents. The summary tables provide a one-stop look at all issues. They also contain three columns that require particular attention by Council: ■ 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 Budget 2 2005 Comprehensive. General $225,000 Council Goal & Yes Yes Yes 15 Plan Update Budget 2 TBD Library Operational General $105,000 Council resolution No Yes 17 Hours and funding 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 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 Acquisition & 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 Implementation 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 Programs 5 2007 Senior Center General $450,000 Council direction No Yes 45 CDBG Grant Match (Facilities) plus $450,000 rant 5 2005 Solid Waste General $156,000 Negotiation with No Yes 47 Mgt./Recycling/ Haulers & Council Code Enforcement resolution 5 2005 Youth Programs General $100,000 per Council Resolution Yes Yes 49 Grant year & Budget Overall 2005 Employee Benefit Various TBD Union negotiations No Yes 51 Issue Costs & Council Action Strategic Finance Plan Issues Executive Staff Priorities Revenue Options Method of Council Strategic Vision Rec. Potential Fund(s) Approval/ Goal Finance Plan Survey Page Priori 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 Tax. 1 2004 Long Range General $40,000 Council resolution No No 57 .Planning Fee 1 2005 Other User Fees General TBD Council resolution No Yes 59 1 2004 Parks SDCs Parks CIP $5.6 million Council ordinance No No 60 & resolution 1 2005 ROW Fee Review Various TBD Council resolution No Yes 62 1 2005 Street Maintenance Street TBD Staff report to No No 64 Fee Review Maintenance Council Fee 1 2005 Telecommunication General $325,000 to 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 Citywide 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 0 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 February15, 2005. That will be the opportunity for Council and the Commission to finalize the approach for the update of the Comprehensive Plan. The purpose of this agenda item is to start the discussion on the approach and scope of the program. Council Priority/Discussion: 16 Funding Needs Library Operational Hours Issue Summary Definition: A basic measure of library services available to the public is the number of hours per week that a library is open. In FY 2001-02, the Tigard Library was open 69 hours per week. Since that time, funding for library operations from the Washington County Cooperative Library Service (WCCLS) has been steadily cut back. In addition, the Tigard community authorized the building of a substantially larger facility with accompanying increases in operational costs. At the time of the bond measure, there was much discussion as part of the campaign about the need to authorize a countywide local option levy to help cover the increased operating costs of the new building. Voters have twice failed to pass a WCCLS local option property tax levy. City funding for the library has increased, but not enough to maintain the historical level of open hours. Thanks to temporary funding made available by Curtis Tigard and his late sister, Grace T. Houghton, the library has been open 54 hours per week during its first three months of operation. The 54 open hours have been maintained longer than anticipated due to savings from vacant positions, but hours will need to be reduced by the end of December. Once this temporary funding has been expended, it will either be necessary to find additional funding or to reduce library open hours below the current 54 hour level. Revenue Required/Revenue Potential: The additional revenue required to maintain the 54 open hours for the remainder of the fiscal year would be approximately $52,000. The revenue required over the next five fiscal years would be approximately $105,000 per year (in 2004 dollars) more than the base budget. Work Completed to date: A countywide levy for library operational funding was placed before the voters in November 2002 and again in May 2004. Each time the levy was unsuccessful. In addition, staff has worked very hard with WCCLS member libraries to review and modify the formula used by WCCLS to distribute funds to members. Some changes were made, but not to the full extent advocated by Tigard. Currently, the Library Board is examining the open hours question. At the October 12, 2004 City Council meeting, the Library Board discussed with the Council the dilemma/challenges facing the library in terms of operational hours. The Library Board will meet again with Council in January 2005 to further discuss available options. Implementation Action Required: Both short-term and long-term resolutions to open hours questions need to be explored. The long-term resolution to this issue is a stable funding source, for example, a local option levy for the City of Tigard or a local option WCCLS levy. 17 Timing: Temporary funding for the current 54 open hour level will shortly be expended. Without increased funding to maintain the current hours, open hours will need to be reduced in January. Advantages: ■ Increases access to programs, books, resources and other library services. ■ Introduces more people to services of new library, thereby increasing library use. ■ Promotes goodwill in the community. • Provides a gathering place and destination point for residents of all ages. Disadvantages: ■ Competition with other General Fund needs ■ Confusion for the public regarding the resources used to maintain open hours vs. funding used to build the new building ■ The number of open hours is part of the formula used to distribute WCCLS funding. A further reduction of open hours could reduce future WCCLS funding for the City of Tigard. Recommendation: ■ Provide additional funding to the library in order to maintain 54 open hours to the public for the remainder of FY 2004-05. ■ Develop additional revenue support to restore Sunday open hours in FY 2005- 06. ■ Develop a method to incrementally restore library open hours to the historical level of 69 hours. ■ Continue to explore a future local option levy for the City of Tigard. ■ Strongly support a future WCCLS levy. Council Priority/Discussion: 18 Funding Needs Enhanced Neighborhood Program/Community Assessment Program Issue Summary Definition: The City Council has expressed an interest in expanding the Community Connector/Community Assessment Program (CAP) to create a neighborhood-based program that will give citizens and business owners opportunities to work as partners with the City to enhance the community's quality of life. The program would be designed to facilitate citizen involvement in the Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) program, Neighborhood Watch, land use and development issues, the Capital Improvement Program, neighborhood beautification, traffic and pedestrian safety and other activities. Revenue Required/Revenue Potential: To be determined. Revenue required for this program will cover staff costs for developing and implementing the program structure and for neighborhood grants - should Council choose to authorize grant opportunities. The program activities (CERT, Neighborhood Watch, land use neighborhood meetings, etc.) are already incorporated into various department work programs and should not necessitate much in additional funds. There are no revenue sources identified for this program although the availability of grant funds will be explored. Work Completed to date: The City Council discussed the concept at the October 19, 2004 workshop meeting and agreed that staff should work with the Committee for Citizen Involvement (CCI) to develop the concept further. The CCI has discussed the concept at three meetings and the members are enthusiastic about moving forward. The CCI is gathering input from the community about how to define the neighborhood areas and how the program might be structured. Implementation Action Required: The CCI will review the input from a December 7, 2004 community meeting and develop a recommendation for Council consideration in April 2005. 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 r-, U 5 r~ 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 RequirediRevenue 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 support of the Search Institutes Assets, the Youth Council plans and coordinates a wide range of activities and events to involve Tigard's youth. In addition, they are charged with providing support to other youth activities such as the Skate Park Task Force, and serving as a communication connection for the youth in the community. Revenue Required/Revenue Potential: Currently a few hours of staff time each month is required for the Youth Forum to support the monthly meetings. Some staff support is also required to support the Youth Advisory Council meetings and chaperone activities/events. Staff time is currently incorporated into work assignments. The Federal Drug Free Communities Program offers a grant - $100,000 each year for 5 years - to support youth activities and programs that provide positive alternatives to drug and alcohol use. Tigard-Tualatin School District and City staff are working with the Youth Forum to apply for the grant in March 2005. If successful, the funds could be used in part to support the Youth Forum and Youth Advisory Council activities. Work Completed to date: Tigard Turns the Tide is an existing 501c3 non-profit that exists primarily to sponsor the Alcohol Free Grad Night Party. The Youth Forum group has been working with the Tigard Turns the Tide Board members to revise their bylaws to reflect a community partnership whose purpose would expand to provide positive programs and activities for youth. Implementation Action Required: Once the Tigard Turns the Tide Bylaws are completed (scheduled for December), the Youth Forum and Tigard Turns the Tide groups will merge into one non-profit entity called Tigard Turns the Tide. That group will submit the request in March for.the Drug Free Communities Grant. 49 Timing: If the grant request is awarded, funds will be available for the 2005-06 fiscal year. Advantages: ■ New source of funds for youth programs ■ Multi-year funding Disadvantages: ■ Short term. Only for five years although under the current program application could be made for the next 5 year cycle. Recommendation: Submit the request of the Drug Free Community Grant in March 2005. Council Priority/Discussion: 50 Funding Needs Employee Benefits (Insurance) Issue Summary Definition: Over the last few years, no issue has polarized employers and employees more than health care. The City of Tigard has gone to arbitration twice in three years over the issues of health insurance. Rising costs have necessitated that the City require workers to shoulder an ever-escalating portion of the costs, as have most other agencies and businesses. A Kaiser Family Foundation survey shows that monthly premiums for employer-sponsored health insurance rose 13.9% over a recent twelve month period - the third consecutive year of double digit increases and the highest premium spike since 1990. The City is committed to offering high quality health care, and has also implemented plan changes, increased deductibles and co-payments, and offered health screenings to address issues. It is a problem that isn't going to disappear anytime soon, and the City needs to adequately fund health insurance while at the same time continue to explore cost efficiencies. Revenue Required/Revenue Potential: The City experienced a 16% increase this last plan year to its Blue Cross Blue Shield coverage and a 11 % increase for Kaiser insurance. It is anticipated that double digit increases are here to stay for the long term, and the next plan year may see national trends of 20-23% adjustments. Budgeting should take this into account. Work Completed to date: The City has worked extensively with its Health Plan Committee to review and assess options relative to health insurance for its workers. Human Resources has brought in experts in the health insurance field for consultation, worked with regional human resource representatives, and expended a growing amount of staff time and resources with the City's insurance representatives (CCIS) to insure that the most cost effective options are utilized. Implementation Action Required: Impact or interest based bargaining will be necessary in some cases with existing labor units depending on next plan year increases, and Council action will be needed to set the terms for non-represented personnel. 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 projected fund 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 Required/Revenue Potential: To be determined. The Transportation Financing Strategies Task Force was reconstituted to evaluate new potential funding sources that could be established to address high-priority transportation projects. In early 2005, the Task Force will meet with Council to discuss potential projects and receive direction on the high-priority projects that need new funding sources for implementation. The intent is to focus the efforts of the Task Force on the areas that Council deem as highly important and better match the proposed funding with the appropriate projects. Work Completed to date: The Task Force has met three times and will continue meeting regularly to discuss potential funding sources. The Task Force will meet with City Council in early 2005 after Council goal setting has been completed. The intent is for Council to provide direction on the high-priority projects that need to be matched with funding sources for implementation. Implementation Action Required: The Task Force will report to City Council periodically on the progress of the Task Force effort. Any proposed new funding sources will be discussed with City Council at a workshop session. New funding sources classified as fees or non-property tax may require an ordinance and resolution. A bond measure to accelerate implementation of numerous projects would require a public process for development of a list and a vote of approval by the Tigard citizens. Timing: The Task Force will evaluate new funding sources with the intention of making an initial recommendation to Council by mid-2005 at the earliest. A bond measure, if proposed, would most likely be scheduled for the general election in 2006 at the earliest. 68 Advantages: ■ New funding sources would address high-priority projects that need to be constructed to meet current and future traffic volumes. ■ Sidewalk improvements and rights-of-way maintenance can be programmed annually once funding sources are identified. The sidewalk projects can enhance safe access to schools and transit stops from the residential neighborhoods. Rights-of-way maintenance on collectors and arterials can spruce up the City's image and minimize the fire hazards by keeping brush cut during the summer months. Disadvantages: ■ The voters have indicated that they have limitations on what they can afford, regardless of the existing needs. Any bond measure would face stiff competition in just about any scheduled election. ■ Adding a new fee or tax in these or any other economic times is not going to be popular and may be referred to the voters for approval. Recommendation: That the Task Force receive direction from Council, continue to evaluate potential new funding sources for recommendation to Council, and make periodic reports to Council on Task Force progress. Council Priority/Discussion: 69 Revenue Options Urban Renewal Issue Summary Definition: Creation of one or more urban renewal districts to generate dedicated revenues to pay for needed improvements in the Washington Square Regional Center, Downtown Tigard, and/or Commuter Rail Line. The Tigard Charter currently prohibits any renewal districts without an approving vote of the people. Revenue Required/Revenue Potential: To be determined. The Washington Square Regional Center Plan identifies substantial improvements needed in that area, with costs to match. These costs can only be partially covered by existing revenues and fund sources. The Downtown Plan is still in the development stage so public improvements needed to support the plan are unknown at this time. Work Completed to date: Council has received three informational briefings on the mechanics of urban renewal and urban renewal financing. Council has approved the Washington Square Regional Center Plan and the Washington Square Regional Center implementation study, which identify needed improvements and potential costs. Washington County is actively pursuing funding for the Commuter Rail Line and is exploring urban renewal as a means of providing funding for a portion of the improvements identified in the Regional Center Plan, particularly in the area of commuter rail stations, of which Tigard will have two. The Downtown Task Force has been meeting with interested parties and stakeholders to develop a vision for the downtown. A concept plan is under development and will be considered by Council in June 2005. Once the plan is adopted implementation will take another 12 to 24 months to complete. Urban renewal is a potential funding tool to implement the Plan. Implementation Action Required: City Charter prohibits the formation of any urban renewal district without an affirmative citywide vote. Council could refer one of two measures to the people: 3. An amendment of City Charter to remove the requirement for a citywide vote, or 4. Approval of one or more urban renewal districts. Timing: To be determined 70 Advantages: ■ Creation of a dedicated funding source that grows with growth in assessed values in the urban renewal district and that can be used to pay for needed improvements. ■ Public improvements paid for by urban renewal will spur private investment that will further increase values in the district, and will accommodate job and housing growth ■ Once the urban renewal plan is accomplished and all costs are paid for, the assessed value is returned to the general tax roles and help pay for citywide service. Disadvantages: ■ Urban renewal "locks up" growth in assessed values during the life of the urban renewal plan, thereby limiting growth in tax revenues for all overlapping taxing jurisdictions. ■ Urban renewal mechanics are complicated and difficult to explain to the public in an election setting. ■ Creation of an urban renewal district requires the active support of major property owners within the proposed district. Recommendation: ■ Continue to explore urban renewal as an option for Tigard ■ Work with property owners in the Washington Square Regional Center and the Downtown Task Force, and with Washington County to assess the level of interest and support for urban renewal. ■ Develop a proposed timeline for resolution of this question. Council Priority/Discussion: 71 Revenue Options Water Utility Rates Issue Summary Definition: The Water Fund is an enterprise fund, which by definition used in accounting principles and guidelines, operates as a business enterprise. In the case of the City's Water Fund, the primary source of revenue is water sales. The City operates the fund on the financial principle that the costs associated with the delivery of water shall be borne by the user. Thus, water rates become the mechanism through which the revenue to operate the water system is derived. Tigard uses a rate-making financial model to evaluate future costs, both operational and capital, and design water rates to accommodate these costs. The City Council last reviewed rates in 2000, when a 3-year rate plan was approved. It is anticipated a new rate plan will need to be approved in 2005. Revenue Required/Revenue Potential: Revenues generated by water sales are anticipated to be $6 million dollars in FY 04-05. This number can be impacted by weather; cool wet summers reduce water sales thus affecting rates. Work Completed to date: The water rate model is updated annually as the budget is approved. Implementation Action Required: Water rates are set by resolution of the City Council. It is anticipated that the IWB will forward a recommendation to the City Council and that the City Council could approve any water rate changes as a part of the master rates and charges resolution adopted annually in June. Water rates are generally effective October 1 through September 30tH Timing: Staff will be preparing a water rate recommendation to be presented to the 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 Revenue Options WCCLS Local Option Levy Issue Summary Definition: WCCLS Levy: A Countywide Local Option Property Tax Levy for library services is allowed under the Oregon Constitution (Measure 50) to increase the local property tax rate for needed services. It cannot exceed a period longer than 5 years, after which, it must be re-approved by voters. Revenue Required/Revenue Potential: It is projected that the tax rate of this levy will be approximately .26/$1,000 of assessed valuation. This would raise approximately. $9,500,000 per year. Tigard's share of this amount will be determined according to the WCCLS funding formula. Work Completed to date: A countywide levy for library operational funding was placed before voters in November of 2002 and again in May 2004. The measure failed in 2002 by approximately 600 votes and failed in 2004 for lack of a double majority. A needs analysis for the levy was completed in 2002, as was a phone survey. A citizens group was formed in 2002 and again in 2004 to provide information to the voters of Washington County concerning the benefits of the levy. Significant background information has been compiled concerning this issue. Implementation Action Required: A WCCLS Local Option Property Tax Levy must be approved by the County Board of Commissioners and placed on the ballot for approval by Washington County voters. It may only be voted on at one of the following elections: 1. May of any year, subject to double-majority requirement 2. November of an odd-numbered year, subject to double-majority requirement 3. November of an even numbered year (general election), subject to simple majority. Timing: If the WCCLS Local Option Levy is approved by county voters in May 2006, the first revenues would be received by the County in November 2006. If the Levy is approved by the voters in November 2006, the first revenues would be received by the County in November 2007. Advantages: ■ Easily understandable ■ Will restore cuts to library service countywide. ■ 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 (interge ne ratio na I 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 ~ envi MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Craig Dirksen Tigard City Co ncil FROM: Craig Prosser, inance Director RE: Property Tax Revenues from Washington Square Expansion DATE: January 25, 2005 At the Council Goal Setting meeting last night, Councilor Woodruff asked what property tax revenue increase the City will see as a result of the recently announced expansion of Washington Square. The County Assessor will set the final real market value after construction is complete. Building permit records, however, show an estimated total valuation for that project of $12,773,010. The County Assessor sets the assessed value of new construction at the same real market to assessed value ratio as exists for other property in the County. Based on an estimated ratio of 70%, the expansion would therefore be assessed at $8,941,107. The City of Tigard's permanent property tax rate is $2.5131 per $1,000 of assessed valuation. The City would therefore receive an additional $22,470 of property tax revenues from the expansion of Washington Square. Washington Square plans to complete the expansion in November 2005. It will not go on the tax rolls until after completion. The City will start receiving the additional $22,470 in November 2006. Please let me know if you have any additional questions. cc: Tigard Budget Committee, citizen members Bill Monahan, City Manager Jim Hendryx, Community Development Director I✓iS~. L.~. a~ ~ has 1 v~ General Fund Outlook FY 2004=05 Adopted Budget h w. City of Tigard r , FY 2004-09 Financial Forecast General Fund Projected Ending Fund Balances $9,000,000 ,t t$7,500,000 $6,000,000 $4,500,000 I $3,000,000 $1,500,000 $0 ($1,500,000) i ($3,000,000) ($4,500,000) ' FY 01-02 FY 02-03 FY 03-04 FY 04-05 FY 05-06 FY 06-07 FY 07-08 FY 08-09 is Ending Fund Balance . rr~.> M[ltr►s b NNE X111 i General Fund Outlook December 2004 t City of Tigard FY 2005-10 Financial Forecast General Fund Projected Ending Fund Balances $10,000,000 ` $8,000,000 $6,000,000 $4,000,000 "h $2,000,000 $0 Y ($2,000,000) r^ t ($4,000,000) ($6,000,000) ($8,000,000) a FY 02-03 FY 03-04 FY 04-05 FY 05-06 FY 06-07 FY 07-08 FY 08-09 FY 09-10 p Ending Fund Balance fit-;. aa•-F, . _ _ _ <?; ' r-' - 'rte ~ - N~-~ S Road Funds Outlook } December 2004 v City of Tigard FY 2005-10 Financial Forecast Road Funds Projected Ending Fund Balances $2,750,000 $2,500,000 $2,250,000 ~ h o-f• 3 $2,000,000 $1,750,000 r . dt $1,500,000 r ~ $1,250,000 $1,000,000 $750,000 $500,000 $250,000 $0 FY 02-03 FY 03-04 FY 04-05 FY 05-06 FY 06-07 FY 07-08 FY 08-09 FY 09-10 Gas Tax p Traffic Improvement Fee ❑ Traffic Improvement Fee US ❑ Street Maintenance Fee r ` X Development Funds Outlook December 2004 7 77 7-7-7 City of Tigard FY 2005-10 Financial Forecast Development Funds # . 1 Projected Ending Fund Balances .k $1,500,000 ti. $1,250,000 $1, 000, 000 $750,000 { - $500,000 $250,000 $0 ($250,000) ($500,000) ($750,000) s FY 02-03 FY 03404 FY 04-05 FY 05-06 FY 06-07 FY 07-08 FY 08-09 FY 09-10 t.. ❑ Electrical Inspection ■ Building o Urban Services r• h 3t.,.!It x ~p ~~,-.rt t ►ti. Water Funds Outlook December 2004 . City of Tigard FY 2005-10 Financial Forecast Water Funds Projected Ending Fund Balances r ~ $10,000,000 77 $8,000,000 ° 3t= 4 I 1 [+~"I 'r'9iF) $6,000,000 $4,000,000 $2,000,000 ' $0 FY 02-03 FY 03-04 FY 04-05 FY 05-06 FY 06-07 FY 07-08 FY 08-09 FY 09-10 ■ Water o Water SDC ® Water CIP r 4 r•. kk ~.5 Sewer Funds Outlook December 2004 City of Tigard FY 2005-10 Financial Forecast 4 " Sewer Funds ( `x Projected Ending Fund Balances 4M1 ~f Mh f . $10,000,000 r $8,000,000 v 1 $6,000,000 4 $4,000,000 $2,000,000 $0 FY 02-03 FY 03-04 FY 04-05 FY 05-06 FY 06-07 FY 07-08 FY 08-09 FY 09-10 ® Sanitary ❑ Storm c3 Water Quality/Quantity All CPI, General Fund Revenues, & Total General Fund Operating Expenditures Percentage Change 25.00% t 20.00% 15.00% .90010 10.00% 5.00% 0.00% (5.00%) FY 01/02 FY 02/03 FY 03/04 FY 04/05 -CPI -General Fund Revenue -General Fund Expenditures neral Fund Operating Historical Ge Expenditures by Category rA Historical General Fund Operating Expenditures by Category .y.Mt$12,000,000 $10,000,000 $8,000,000 $6,000,000 $4,000,000 $2,000,000 FY 01-02 Actual FY 02-03 Actual FY 03-04 Actual FY 04-05 Adopted p Personal Services ❑ Materials & Services ■ Capital Outlay ❑ Transfers rk.~Pi J Will Projected General Fund Revenues Yr~ and General Fund Operating Expenses Percentage Chanqe 12.00% 10.00% t 8.00% 6.00% 4.00% '00~ 2.00% 0.00% FY 04-05 FY 05-06 FY 06-07 FY 07-08 FY 08-09 FY 09-10 Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Total Revenues Total Expenditures .s Projected General Fund Operating p Expenditures by Cate o J rY Projected General Fund Operating Expenditures by Category $18,000,000 $16,000,000 $14,000,000 $12,000,000 $10,000,000 $8,000,000 $6,000,000 ` $4,000,000 $2,000,000 'LEI] L~11 FY 04-05 FY 05-06 FY 06-07 FY 07-08 FY 08-09 FY 09-10 Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected o Personal Services o Materials & Services ■ Capital Outlay ❑ Transfers ' Agenda Item No. U d 55 I Meeting of o~.SP MEMORANDUM To: Tigard Local Contract Review Board Members From: Joe Barrett, Buyer Re: Revision of City's Purchasing and Contracting Administrative Rules Date: January 11, 2005 On March I" of this year, significant revisions to Oregon Revised Statue (ORS) 279, the guiding statute for governmental procurement in the State of Oregon, will go into effect. All agencies within the State must have rules conforming to the revised statute on this date or they will fall under the direction of the Attorney General's model rules. In accordance with this mandate, staff has initiated a proposed rewrite of the City's current Purchasing and Contracting Administrative Rules (Purchasing Rules) in order to meet the new requirements. Staff will present the recommended changes to these rules to the Local Contract Review Board (LCRB) at it's January 25, 2005 study session. Under state law, all contract and purchasing rules used by the City must be approved by a Local Contract Review Board. Under Tigard Municipal Code (TMC) 2.46.030 (1), the City Council is the City's acting Local Contract Review Board. The LCRB is to have all the powers that may be exercised in the State at large and shall adopt rules governing the awarding of City contracts and bidding procedures. The LCRB also will authorize formal contracts throughout the year as well review and vote on any waivers, exemptions, or other issues involving the adopted rules. In addition to the changes required in order for the Purchasing Rules to conform to the revised ORS 279, staff will also be recommending changes that will modernize the City's Purchasing Rules. While the changes made to ORS 279 are intended to streamline public purchasing in the State of Oregon, there are also aspects of the City's Purchasing Rules outside of the scope these changes that should be reviewed and possibly altered. Staff intends to combine these two aspects of change into a recommended revision to the City's Purchasing Rules. As ORS 279 had not seen a major revision in a couple of decades, and nearly every legislative session has modified the statute in a some way or another, the statue had become confusing and dated. The practical application of the statue was for public improvement projects. For most other forms of procurement, the statue didn't really fit. The statue will, as of March 1St, consist of parts A, B, and C and will specifically address non-public improvement procurement. One of the key issues staff will be recommending the LCRB consider is raising the dollar level exemption figures. The currently levels have not been addressed in a number of years and staff believes it to be in the City's best interest to bring these levels more in line with other agencies. The following chart details staff's recommends levels: Level Current Pro osedS ;New'Siate . Solicitation Method Small 1 $2,500 1 $5,000 1$5,000 Obtain quotes as feasible Intermediate 1$24,999 1$49,000 1$149,999 Obtain three quotes/proposals Formal t $25,000 t $50,000 t $150,000 lTB/RFP Required Staff also will recommend the LCRB consider a higher formal threshold for public improvement contracts. Staff recommends a level of $75,000 (up from $25,000) for these contracts ($50,000 for transportation related contracts, i.e. roads, bridges, etc.). Another issue that will be addressed in the revised Purchasing Rules is the City's policy on Minority-owned, Women-owned, and Emerging Small Businesses (MWESBs). Under ORS 200.090, the City is required to aggressively pursue a policy providing contracting opportunities to these classes of businesses. During the rewrite staff will work on developing a recommended policy to include in the Purchasing Rules and will present the recommendation and analysis the LCRB for review and approval. Staff has been working closely with the City Attorney, along with the Cities of Milwaukie and West Linn, on a draft of the proposed new Administrative Rules. At the January 25, 2005 City Council meeting, staff intents to bring a draft of the recommended revisions, supporting findings, and handouts of the key changes, before the Board. This will be an opportunity for the Board to review, discuss, and provided guidance to staff. Staff will then, based upon the recommendations of the Board, prepare a final revision of the Purchasing Rules and present them to the Board for approval at its February 22, 2005 meeting. This schedule will allow the revisions to the City's Rules to be in effect on the required March 1, 2005 date. cc: Bill Monahan Liz Newton Craig Prosser Tom Imdieke LCRB Update & Feedback on Revised Purchasing & Contracting Administrative Rule's January 25, 2005 LCRB Study Session Background • As of March 1, 2005, existing public contracting laws under Oregon Revised Statue (ORS) 279, the guiding statute for governmental procurement in the State of Oregon, are repealed and replaced with three new chapters which together will constitute the new Oregon Public Contracting Code. • All agencies within the State must have rules conforming to the revised ORS 279 adopted before this date or the agency will fall under the direction of the Attorney General's model rules. Background (contj • In accordance with this mandate, staff has initiated a proposed rewrite of the City's current Purchasing and Contracting Administrative Rules (Public Contracting Rules) in order to meet the new requirements. • Staff has also worked cooperatively with the cities of West Linn and Milwaukie along with the City Attorney's Office on these changes. This cooperation has helped to reduce the cost of this rewrite to the City. • Staff will also take this time to propose additional changes to the Purchasing Rules that will help modernize and streamline the City's procurement functions. Significant Proposed Changes • Solicitation/Award Protest - The process has changed under ORS 279 and is actually more in line with the City's current process related to protests. The key change is that aggrieved bidders/proposers must exhaust all avenues of administrative review before seeking judicial review. • Insurance Agent of Record Contract - Staff seeks to have the contract terms for an Insurance Agent of Record contract increased to five years, up from the current three years. This would bring Insurance Agent of Record agreements in line with other City contracts. • Competitive Process - Proposals will now be seen as an official form of competitive procurement that may be used whenever the City feels it is in the best interest to do so. • The City has something similar in the current rules. Significant Proposed Changes (cont.) • Solicitation Threshold - Small - up to $5,000 - Intermediate - 3 quotes required up to $49,,999 - Formal - $50,000 and over • ORS 279 will now have a $150,000 level - Public Improvement Contract -Formal Solicitation Required over $75,000 ($50,000 for transportation facilities, i.e. roads, bridges, etc.). • ORS 279 will have a $100,000 level ($50,000 for transportation facilities.) • Ammunition Exemption - Staff is seeking for ammunition to be exempted from competitive bidding thus allowing the City to secure ammunition properly even under a tight time frame. - The City uses specialized ammunition that is difficult and very time consuming to secure. This will help expedite the process. Next Step in the Process • Formal approval of the City's revised Public Contracting Rules will be brought before the Local Contract Review Board at its February 22, 2005 meeting as a public hearing item. • Public notice of the action item will be posted no less than 2 weeks prior to the meeting as required. • Under this schedule the City will meet the March 1, 2005 deadline for the new Public Contracting Rules to be filed. 6D Co u,6 L "`JJJ c CITY OF TIGARD LAND USE BASICS Timothy V. Ramis Gary Firestone Ramis Crew Corrigan Et Bachrach, LLP 2005 LAND USE PROCESS I. QUASI-JUDICIAL AND LEGISLATIVE DISTINGUISHED A. A legislative decision is one affecting either the entire City or large areas or numbers of people. Examples of a legislative decision is a change in the text of the Comprehensive Plan or Community Development Code. Rezoning of entire areas is also primarily legislative. B. A quasi-judicial action is one affecting a small number of people and applying pre-established standards. An example would be a land use approval for a single property, such as a conditional use approval. II. LEGISLATIVE DECISIONS A. Legislative land use decisions come before the Council on a recommendation from the Planning Commission for a Comprehensive Plan, Community Development Code text or map change. B. In making a legislative decision, the Council needs to act consistently with statewide land use planning goals, applicable statutes and regulations, in some cases Metro regulations, and provisions of the Comprehensive Plan that are not being changed. C. A wide range of options is normally available in a legislative decision. So long as the legislation is consistent with the goals, statutes and plan, the City has discretion as to what precisely it wants to include in its land use regulation and what zones it wants to apply throughout the City. D. No exparte communication prohibition. Not usually restricted to the record. 2 III. QUASI-JUDICIAL DECISIONS A. Quasi-judicial decisions typically come before the Council on an appeal from a decision of the Planning Commission. Not all quasi-judicial decisions come to the Council, some are resolved by the Hearings Officer. B. In making a quasi-judicial decision, usually the only relevant standards and criteria are those set out in the Community Development Code. The Community Development Code is consistent with and implements the goals and plan provisions. Staff will advise in any situations in which standards other than CDC standards apply. C. In making a quasi-judicial land use decision, the City Council's options are limited. It has only 3 choices: 1. Approval 2. Approval with conditions 3. Denial D. The decision must be based on compliance (or noncompliance) with applicable standards and criteria. The City cannot deny a land use application that meets all applicable standards and criteria. It cannot approve an application that does not meet all applicable standards and criteria unless it grants a variance as permitted by the code and/or imposes conditions that will result in compliance with all applicable standards and criteria. 3 IV. FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS A. Findings are statements of fact relevant to the application. 1. Staff will have prepared proposed findings for every matter that comes before the Council. 2. The Council must adopt findings. 3. These can be based on the staff findings or others which the council directs. The council may reject the staff findings and its recommendation. It can direct preparation of alternatives. It may make a "tentative decision" and adopt findings at a future meeting. B. Conditions of approval are issued only with approvals, and impose obligations that must be complied with by the applicant. 1. Conditions may be imposed when expressly authorized by code or when needed to ensure compliance with applicable standards and criteria. 2. Staff will normally prepare conditions, which the Council may modify. 3. Statutory mandate to use conditions to support approval. ORS 197.175. 4 V. DUE PROCESS A. Both the applicant and opponents have due process rights to present testimony and rebut testimony. B. The normal procedure is to have the staff present a report, followed by the applicant and supporters, followed by opponents, followed by a chance for rebuttal by the applicant. An opportunity for neutral testimony may also be provided. C. The ethical rules discussed above must be followed. Councilors will be given the opportunity to withdraw, to declare ex parte contacts and conflicts of interests at the start of the hearing. D. In some situations, a decision that is primarily legislative will have enough effect on individual properties to trigger notice requirements and other due process rights. For example, rezoning of an area is legislative in nature, but those who own property being rezoned have rights to notice and other due process. 5 VI. ETHICS IN LAND USE CASES A. In land use cases, a council member is subject to both the financial conflict of interest rules administered by the GSPC and other considerations specific to land use cases.. The general rule for financial conflict of interest is that a council member must disclose actual and potential conflicts of interest and cannot participate if an actual conflict is present. An actual conflict is present if the decision would result in a financial benefit or detriment to the councilor, relative, or, associated entity. A potential conflict is present if the decision could result in a financial benefit or detriment to the council member. 6. Ex parte contacts must be disclosed. An ex parte contact is any contact concerning the substance of the quasi-judicial matter with a person other than staff. If ex parte contacts are fully disclosed, the council member may participate. C. Site visits must be disclosed. D. In land use cases, as well as all other quasi-judicial proceedings, the applicant or other person involved has a due process right to an impartial tribunal. Therefore, if a council member is personally biased so as to prevent that council member from making an impartial decision, the council member must refrain from participation. 6 AGENDA ITEM NO.2 - CITIZEN COMMUNICATION DATE : January 25, 2005 (Limited to 2 minutes or less, please) Please sign on the appropriate sheet for listed agenda items. The Council wishes to hear from you on other issues not on the agenda, but asks that you first try to resolve your concerns through staff. Please contact the City Manager prior to the start of the meeting. Thank you. NAME, ADDRESS & PHONE TOPIC STAFF CONTACTED (p S v 7 S~ y ~b5 ef'S Sh-e~ U~ 0 9"1Iy CITIZEN COMMUNICATION Page 1 TEg-/ p~ STOW` ",ON GTS >owry ~c IDS u!"lS.r- r c It, f~a ~ ~ mi'x'. ~ ; ' ~ti". 1~~~ ~ • - • ~ ~ - 4 i ,~,.-jam A .1 04 e~ 20 . r Su Societl~ of ~A a u ~J 4 ry Audubon Society of Portland would like to acknowledge the following people and organizations in the completion of this report. Without their support, input and feedback, this project would not have been possible. (o There are marry organizations, a(rencies and individuals that are tryin'to reduce the impacts of impervious surfaces. Where appropriate, they have been referenced. Our thanks also goes out to V, those who were not referenced, but continue to work towards a lasting `'greentiastnacture' V' V' This project was fiinded by a grant ti-om the Tualatin Valley Water Quality Endowment Fund (TVWQEF). TVWQEF board members Jack Smith, John Jackson, and Toni Davis provided helpful feedback; staff rnerraber Susan I'ayseno provided project assistance and coordination. V V G. We would like to thank the following people who participated in interviews and were able to identify code and process that provided support or impeded holistic stormwate.r manaoement: Mike Houck, Audubon Society of Portlaud;Gary Bliss, Alpha Egiueering; Wayne Stewart, 1'+aIker Allacy; V Jeff Gottfried; Hal Bergsma, City of Beaverton; Jim Duggan, City of Beaverton Barbara Fryer, City of Beaverton; Roy Gibson, City of Hillsboro; Deborah Raber, City of Hillsboro; Joel McNelly, City of Hillsboro; Karen Hoffman, City ofTtalatirt; Mike McKillip, City i fTualatin; Julia Huffinan, Washington Cottony; Ross Van Loo, Tai/ashington County; Heidi Berg, Clears Water Services; Nora Curtis, Cleari. Water Services; Randy Cunningham, Clears hTVater Services; V Doug Gates, Clean Waler Services: Jill Ory, Clean 11flater Services; Kendra Smith, Cleari f4%ater Services; and Lee Walker, Clean Water Services. G V We would like to thank Kendra Smith, Clears Water Services; John LeCavalier, Farts of Fan.tr.o; Jere Retzer; Keshmira McVey, Tualatin Riverkeepers, and Brian Wegener, Tualatin Riverkeepers for providing feedback on early drafts. G G Ron Carley, Project Manager Amber Marra, Project Assistant, Winter 2003 - Summer 2004 Lori Faha, Project Assistant, Fall 2001 - Fall 2002 Amanda Fritz, Project Assistant, Fall 2001 - Fall 2002 c c. c c c Arnber Marra, photography. C' Barbara Schaffner, BeBop Graphics, graphic design and production. c CMUdubon Society of Portland. The Storunvater/Pavccutcut hupacts Reduction (SPIR) Projecl report ' c is copyrighted to Audubon Society of Portland. No portion of this report may be reproduced without the express, written consent of Audubon Society of Portland. C c Stormwater/Pavement Impacts Reduction Report Audubon Society of Portland • Summer 2004 Table of Contents Executive Summary ..........................................................3 a Stormwater/Pavement Impacts Reduction (SPIR) Project Report 1.0 Project back round and Purposc 5 1.1 Definitions ......................................................5 1.2 Project Goals, Objectives and Focus Areas 6 ,J Map of Focus Area 7 2.0 Phase 1: SPIR Interview Process and kesults 8 2.1 Existing Code Supporting Goals and Objectives 8 2.2 Existing Code That May Impede the Goals and Objectives 9 2.3 Non-Code Related Obstacles and Issues 11 3.0 Phase 2: SPIR Project Reconunendations 12 3.1 Overall Recommendations 12 3.2 Recommendations for Clean Water Services Design and Construction Standards 13 3.3 Recommendations for Codes and Standards 13 3.4 Additional Recommendations 14 Appendix A: Recommendations for Codes and Standards Washington County, Comprehensive Plan 16 Washington County, Community Development Code . 16 Washington County, 2020 Transportation Plan 21 Washington County, County Code 21 Clean Water Services, Design and Construction Standards 26 Beaverton, Comprehensive Plan 28 Beaverton, Development Code 29 „a Beaverton, Municipal Code 31 Beaverton, Engineering Design Manual 32 Hillsboro, Comprehensive Plan 35 Hillsboro, Municipal Code 38 Hillsboro, Zoning Ordinance No. 1945 41 Tigard, Comprehensive Plan . 42 Tigard, Municipal Code 42 Tualatin, Development Code 47 Appendix B: Responses to Concerns on Implementation of SPIR Recommendations 50 References and Resources ....................................................56 .y L~ l~ Audubon Society of Portland Summer 2004 1 Stormwater/Pavement Impacts Reduction Report V V' 4 _ ' ~ 4 „y,. ~ ..ter r . a, ~ r r -w' T> n any ~ 27, 7' i W Y- X555 Nti Moore Ct•, soil. Ole into the blocks °t ~'°tt~ce Sem1conductor ~ ous Pow 9 voter runoff by °QOV'ing {°in 1o infilir in The P°r reduce storm tlillsborol Audubon Societ}' a` POrdand t in~Pacrs Rcdtiction ~Z eport r/Pavcn'cn crarm~'~''ttc Audubon Society of Portland Stormwater/Pavement Impact Reduction (SPIR) Project ExECUTtVE SUMMARY Project Goals and Methods The Tualatin Valley Water Quality Endowment Fund provided a grant to Audubon Society of Portland (ASoP) to undertake a review of municipal code, planning language and design standards for jurisdictions in Washington County to identify impediments to reducing the impacts of stormwater runoff. The Stormwater/Pavement Impact Reduction (SPIR) Project aims to provide feasible recommendations that will reduce stormwater runoff, stormwater pollution, and negative impacts to local stream channels by reducing imperviousness, increasing stormwater management options, and promoting implementation of newer standards for 7,4 infiltration such as those in the Metro Green Streets design manual. The project focused on new development, significant redevelopment and public projects such as streets and water quality facilities. jurisdictions reviewed included Washington County, Clean Water Services, .,ai Beaverton, Hillsboro, Tigard, and Tualatin. Review of Interviews with Stormwater Practitioners 4 ASoP interviewed over twenty stormwater practitioners representing local governments, design and planning practices, and local citizens. The interviews identified code and procedures that hinder stormwater management. The following is .a summary of comments from the interviews: ''tl Even in jurisdictions where alternative stormwater management options are permissible (such as pervious pavement), implementation of these methods is difficult because of operations, maintenance, and enforcement costs and concerns. Landscaped stormwater facilities should be allowed to fulfill site landscaping requirements. a Transportation-related areas should incorporate a variety of stormwater measures. Incentives and education are needed to increase implementation of recommended stormwater measures. Review of Code, Plan and Design Standard Review and Recommendations Clean Water Services (CWS) is the regional sanitary, storm and surface water management agency in urban Washington County. CWS develops surface and stormwater management design and construction standards, and administers the standards in urban unincorporated areas and in some smaller cities within their service boundary. Other cities inside the service boundary administer surface and stormwater management standards, but by intergovernmental agreement, must use CWS standards or something more stringent. To meet the stated goals, 7 CWS should expand stormwater management options and increase their minimum standards. A list of approved Stormwater Impact Mitigation Measures (SIMMS) should be added to the 7 CWS Design and Construction Standards. Language should be incorporated that is more permissive on perviousness and more restrictive on unmitigated imperviousness. CWS, county and city codes should be amended to allow more stormwater management options at all levels of design, construction and ongoing maintenance. Audubon Society of Portland • Summer 2004 3 Stormwater/Pavement Impacts Reduction Report bl' Final Recommendations The primary SPIR recommendation is for a fundamental change in how stormwater is managed for streets, new development, and redevelopment. Stormwater is a secondary consideration in most design processes, with the goal of quick disposal by conveying all runoff to water quality facilities, storm sewers or the nearest stream. There are no apparent incentives or design criteria to encourage the reduction of runoff volume or velocity. The SPIR recommends managing stormwater by reducing runoff, then using pervious areas and vegetation to capture as much remaining runoff as possible. This will require site design methods that incorporate stormwater management at the beginning. In addition, CWS,µ Washington County and cities should: • Incorporate existing water quality and sustainability standards, such as Metro's Green Streets and Creating Livable Streets design guidelines. C.• • Increase minimum standards and provide more stormwater management options for new 6r and redevelopment while providing incentives for exceeding standards. G- G 4 r a ,tom - arM ~':k A V. i "F •"aY 4 ~ 11 ^ r1ti' 1eZ.Y `sf, _o C t~ u a The Clean Water Services Field Operation Facility (2025 SW Merlo Court, Beaverton) includes green C street features such as streets without curbs that drain to a swale, which manages stormwater on-site through infiltration and evapotranspiration. _ c Stormwater/Pavement Impacts Reduction Report 4 Audubon Society of Portland Summer 2004 J Audubon Society of Portland STORMWATER/PAVEMENT IMPACTS REDUCTION (SPQR) PROJECT 1.0 Project Background and Purpose The Audubon Society of Portland received a grant in August 2001 from the Tualatin Valley Water Quality Endowment Fund' allowing Audubon to conduct an evaluation of municipal codes, development codes and design standards of jurisdictions in Washington County, Oregon. The purpose is to recommend changes or additions to the codes and standards that will encourage implementation of stormwater management measures that reduce the impacts of runoff and pollution from impervious surfaces. The project focused on the following local jurisdictions: Washington County, Clean Water Services, and the cities of Beaverton, Hillsboro, Tigard and Tualatin. (See map on page 7.) Stormwater quality facilities are already required for most new developments in Washington County as part of local jurisdictions' efforts to meet state and federal water quality regulations, including Tualatin Basin Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs)'-. This project focused on identifying code and plan language and design standards that may conflict with or be an impediment to reducing the impacts of stormwater runoff. SPIR project recommendations are meant to be feasible and complementary to existing programs and efforts, including the Tualatin Basin's Healthy Streams Plan and effective impervious area reductions and Metro's Green Streets' and Creating Livable Streets" design standards and guidelines. The SPIR project included discussions with stormwater practitioners, review and use of relevant materials from related projects, and collaboration with representatives of local governments to help make these recommendations. 1.1 Definitions The following definitions are used throughout the report to provide consistency in discussing stormwater. Effective Impervious Area (EIA): the amount of impervious area that has not been mitigated through on-site infiltration or retention. On-site mitigation measures reduce the amount of impervious area that contributes to stormwater runoff, and the remaining, un-mitigated impervious area is the EIA. 7 Detention or Detention Facility: the act of or a facility designed to receive and hold stormwater and release the full volume of water at a slower rate. 7 'The Tualatin Valley Water Quality Endowment Fund is administered by the Oregon Community Foundation. More information can be found at www.ocfl.org/grant-programs/t-vwqeC_info.htrril. Information on TMDLs can be found at www.deq.state.or.us/wq/tmdls/tmdls.htm Metro. 2002. Creating Livable Streets: Street Guidelines for 2040 (Second edition). Portland, Oregon: Metro. ' Metro. 2002. Green Streets: Innoiative. Solutions for Stomuvater and Stream Crossings. Portland, Oregon: Metro. Audubon Society of Portland • Summer 2004 5 Stormwater/Pavement Impacts Reduction Report Ca Retention or Retention Facility: the act of or a facility designed to receive and hold stormwater and permanently retain water on-site through infiltration, evaporation, or absorption. Cam, Ca Vegetated or Landscape Stormwater Facility: a facility designed and maintained to utilize, enhance or Ce mimic the natural functions of soil, gravel or rock and vegetation to reduce pollutants and flow from stormwater. Examples include swales, ponds, vegetated planter boxes, and ecoroofs. C e, Water Quality Facility: a stormwater facility designed and maintained to improve water quality through infiltration, retention, detention or treatment during and after a storm event. G: Water Quantity Facility: a stormwater facility designed and maintained to control water quantity through infiltration, retention, or detention. 1.2 Project Goals, Objectives and Focus Areas ' G~ SPM Project Goals: • To minimize and mitigate the impact of stormwater from paved surfaces on receiving L streams. These impacts include increased volumes, frequencies and velocities of stormwater flows into local streams and wetlands. These excessive flows cause erosion, de-stabilization of stream banks and beds, and related losses of instream and riparian area habitat. Impacts also include decreased water quality from pollutants carried by stormwater and turbidity created by runoff. G • To promote implementation of effective urban stormwater management measures and G' the protection and enhancement of natural landscape features. G G SPIR Project Objectives: • Minimize stormwater runoff. G • Minimize erosion and erosive stormwater velocities. G • Minimize pollutants entering storm systems and streams. G • Achieve goals and objectives through appropriate implementation of stormwater G management measures that may include: G, • Minimizing pavement areas and structure footprints; G • Directing runoff to pervious areas; C • Using and improving infiltration capabilities of pervious areas; C • Reducing use of traditional curb and piping systems; C • Increasing use of landscape features such as swales for developments and streets; • Increasing use of pervious pavement materials; C • And use of other measures that will reduce runoff flows that directly C enter pipes and receiving waters. C C C . C C c Storinwater/Pavement Impacts Reduction Report 6 Audubon Society of Portland Summer 2004 C Project Focus Areas • Neu, Developnnent and Redevelopment, including streets, parking areas, structures, 41 sidewalks, stormwater conveyance systems, water quality facilities, and landscaping. 7 • Public Projects, including streets, public structures, public parking areas, sidewalks and trails, 4 stormwater conveyance and management systems, and water quality facilities. The first phase of the SPIR project included interviewing a variety of people representing public 3 agencies, the development community, design professionals and citizens. The primary purpose of the interviews was to gather information to focus review of the codes and design standards that impede use of stormwater management measures or the use of new or innovative methods. The interviews were designed to gather suggestions and concerns about existing stormwater standards. The second phase of the SPIR project included developing a refined set of goals and recommendations for stormwater management for new development, redevelopment and public projects. Stormwater related codes and standards were reviewed and additions or changes are recommended. Based on this information and examples from other locations, this report presents c~ Audubon Society of Portland's recommendations for changes in local codes and design standards, as well as responses to concerns raised in interviews. Map of Focus Area a • F7 i 1•'~. l~ t'y y 't1 ~ 'h ' .4.• ,;141. ~ _ , r , ~ E,a 7 u s~ L ':,.ail •it'tw, Major rivers and Streams Beaverton Highways and Freeways Hillsboro t.•• Clean Water Services bounds ry Portland Washington County boundary a " } Tigard Urban Grown Boundary " 77'"' Tualatin Metro jurisdictional boundary - 0 1.5 J 6 9 12 - .i Mils Information compiled by Amber Marra from Metro Data Resource Center (RLIS Nov. 2002),-'Washington County, Clean Water Services, City of Beaverton, City of Hillsboro, City of Portland, City of Tigard and City of Tualatin. 2 Audubon Sociery of Portland • Summer 2004 7 Stormwater/Pavement Impacts Reduction Report 2.0 Phase I: SPIR Interview Process and Results Ls Audubon staff developed a questionnaire to interview various parties involved with or interested in Gr stormwater standards in Washington County. Over 40 people representing local government, the design and development community, and citizen groups were mailed or given the questionnaire along with information about the project. Interviews were conducted by phone or in group meetings. Gi Twenty people completed questionnaires or participated in interviews. A majority of the participants represented local government, but the private sector and citizens were also represented. The interview results are summarized in the following sections - Audubon staff inte jetted no additional responses. G 2.1 Existing Code Supporting Goals and Objectives L According to interview participants, the following local requirements either fully or partially support G the SPIR project goals and objectives. G Overall • Implementation of Metro's Title 3 requires minimum standards for floodplain protection, erosion control and vegetated corridors (primarily along riparian corridors). • Tree protection ordinances vary on type of trees or areas covered, often focusing on sensitive areas. Street trees are generally required. • Alternative paving techniques (pavers, porous pavement) have been approved in a few limited cases, but there are no current standards for alternative techniques. • Non-continuous curbs, curb cuts, or bumpers are allowed on private parking lots. ~i Washington County • Stormwater facilities are allowed as part of the required site landscaping, except in transit districts. G • Stormwater quality facilities are allowed in subdivision front yard setback areas. Gi • The parking lot code includes standards for the number of maximum spaces allowed, not just minimums. G Clean Water Services (CWS) • Standards require stormwater quality facilities for most new development and allow for ~i reduced facility size if site effective impervious area is reduced. • Stormwater pretreatment is required for new development; CWS allows a Fee-in-Lieu when pretreatment can not be provided due to topography or significant site restraints. Beaverton C, • Stormwater management practices similar to those proposed in the SPIR project are C. allowed under existing codes; however, concerns from the fire department, maintenance C managers and others make approval difficult. C Stormwater/Pavement Impacts Reduction Report 8 Audubon Society of Portland • Summer 2004 K M 2.2 Existing Code That May Impede The Goals And Objectives Interviewed parties provided the following information about existing codes and standards that could be improved upon to meet the SPIR project objectives. While all jurisdictions are required by intergovernmental agreement to use CWS standards as a minimum, most jurisdictions do not implicitly encourage or explicitly require stormwater management facilities in many situations. Clean Water Services if redevelopment does not add additional impervious surface, water quality facilities and vegetated corridors are not required by Clean Water Services standards or only in a very limited fashion. A current proposal regarding redevelopment would require pre-treatment r on redevelopment to the same standards as new development. • Existing stormwater standards from Clean Water Services address very big storms (flood control/water quantity) and very small storms (water quality - phosphorus control). They do not address the most damaging events to stream channels (one to two (1-2) year storms) and the increased frequency of such events as urbanization occurs. • While Clean Water Services standards allow for alternative water quality facilities to be proposed beyond those listed in their design standards, it can be difficult to get alternative facilities approved by CWS staff due to existing code limitations. Transportation Related i7f T .4~ird r • Street standards generally require curb and pipe storm systems to confine and convey flows away from streets for safety and street maintenance, and to keep w .r:~ LL a right-of-way width as narrow as possible.' Street standards typically require specific widths for each type of street. Width' _ reductions are generally not allowed s , except for some private streets. J ;t •;a ; . • Existing code requires parking and street areas to be hard-paved surfaces with asphalt or concrete. • Some parking lot standards do not have maximum space number limitations, only minimums. • Pavement overlays don't typically require , a permit, so pervious pavement or pavers could receive an impervious overlay without enforcement action. Jurisdictions do not offer incentives for reducing the overall footprint devoted 74 to parking to encourage more efficient use of space, such as parking structures or underground parking, which would River rock and winter vegetation make a nice contrast in this improve the overall water quality vegetated infiltration Swale at the Hillsboro Stadium (4450 of stormwater runoff from the site. SW 229th Ave., Hillsboro). Curb cuts allow stormwater runoff from the parking lot to infiltrate and evapotranspirate. Audubon Society of Portland • Summer 2004 9 Stormwater/Pavement Impacts Reduction Report v • v Drainage • Plumbing codes require downspouts and foundation drains to connect to an approved drainage system. Local governments typically interpret this as a requirement for connection to a storm lateral leading to a storm drain or adjacent natural drainage course. City Council in Tualatin directed staff to require house drain piping when citizens' crawl spaces flooded. Hillsboro and Washington County staff indicated some flexibility is available, - but they require an engineer's stamp on any 'non-standard' drainage systems (such as , onsite disposal), which is an obstacle to applicants because of time and liability concerns. Landscaping • Vegetated stormwater facilities are not allowed to be part of required site landscaping in t, some cases, and must be in addition to it. Tualatin allows water quality facilities to be up ~ to 15% of the required site landscaping. Washington County does not allow stormwater facilities to be part of required landscaping in transit areas. • Stormwater facilities are generally required to be in separate tracts, especially in residential areas. This makes for easier enforcement, but may not allow the facilities to be located in G. rear-yard setbacks, which are easements, not tracts. Local government staff are concerned L that rear-yard water quality facilities will be difficult to access for maintenance. • There may be conflicts between existing solar access codes and a desire to protect and plant more trees. OTM A71 ' ~„a, t i.y drys-.,1C' :a• t t" x'7:3}.-1~~>.:-1°W`r 'd Y ~;i• ~ '4'~Y' t~'~5 kill? •i:(, i' 'rY';r~''e{/~7 '}~'i(i`f yr: i~~ r r~ C y t C This vegetated infiltration basin, shown ponding water in winter, accepts stormwater runoff from the parking lot at APGR, Inc. (4375 NW 235th Ave., Hillsboro). Vegetated stormwater facilities such as this can provide habitat as well as improve water quality. C c Stormwater/Pavement Impacts Reduction Report 10 Audubon Society of Portland • Summer 2004 C' J 2.3 Non-Code Related Obstacles And Issues Additional Requirements Americans with Disabilities Act requirements can make alternate pavement surfaces difficult to approve. American Association of State Highway & Transportation Officials (AASHTO) street, highway, pavement and curb design standards may also cause conflicts. Maintenance and Enforcement • The ease and cost of maintenance and access are important issues for local governments that maintain facilities. • Local government staff are concerned about stormwater facilities on private property, including the difficulty and cost of inspections, ability to enforce design standards, and ensuring facilities are protected and maintained over the long-term. Decentralizing stormwater facilities to individual on-site facilities are expected to cause increased and more difficult inspections and enforcement. • If streets are built without raised curbs, leaves and gravel are more difficult to remove because only curbed streets are swept. Maintenance of roadside ditches is difficult and expensive and seen as undesirable by some local governments. Curbs are also seen as safety devices that keep cars on the road. • Current enforcement methods, such as financial penalties and court cases, may not be adequate if judges do not take them very seriously. Feasibility • There is concern about the low infiltration capability of local soils and areas with high groundwater tables. • Aesthetics is important to the cultural sustainabihty of stormwater facilities. Water quality m7 facilities such as swales and dry ponds are perceived as weedy, unmanaged and unattractive. • It may be difficult for infill projects to meet current or new stormwater management standards due to lack of space and costs. • More swales in parking lots and along streets might cause complaints because people will try to take short cuts through them, compacting soil or killing plants or because mud and J water blocks their path. • Driving lanes (streets and parking lots) must be able to structurally support loaded trucks and fire trucks. • Alternate paving surfaces have unproven durability, strength and maintainability. • Conifers may be best for stormwater uptake, but are not seen as good street or median trees because of low branches and leaf litter. • There is concern that existing or dedicated transportation funds cannot be used to fund public Green Street-type projects. Audubon Society of Portland Summer 2004 1 Storm water/Pavement Impacts Reduction Report . L La -L L Innovation and Incentives • Financial incentives are needed for the development community. Existing stormwater fees L (System Development Charges and monthly fees) may be low and therefore not provide L much incentive for reducing effective impervious area. Existing budgets may not be able L to provide funding for incentives. L • New and different ideas may be a hard sell to both local government staff' and the development community. Education, incentives and demonstration projects are needed. • Local government staff fear that allowing innovative or different stormwater facilities may L lead to enforcement actions by the Oregon Department of Envirorunental Quality (DEQ) L and/or legal actions by third parties if such facilities are unproven. G • The effectiveness of these new approaches to stormwater management needs to be L demonstrated. The effectiveness of current water quality facility requirements are not known or advertised. • How local government staff interpret codes and standards may be as much of an obstacle as what is actually in the codes. G. • Several people were concerned that protecting more trees, widening right-of-way (ROW) to fit swales, etc., may conflict with desires for greater density and not expanding the urban growth boundary. Desires and requirements for bike lanes may conflict with desires for less pavement and for fitting swales within,the ROW. • Clean Water Services is seen as reluctant to approve use of some water quality and detention facilities such as underground vault-type facilities due to the confined space entry requirements for maintenance. G 3.0 Phase 2: SPIR Project Recommendations G 3.1 Overall Recommendations G G Our primary recommendation is to fundamentally change how stormwater is managed for streets, new G development, and redevelopment. Stormwater is an afterthought in the design process, with the goal of quick disposal by conveying all runoff to water quality facilities, storm sewers or the nearest stream. G' There are no apparent incentives or design criteria to encourage the reduction of runoff volume or G velocity. While regulations and standards requiring water quality facilities prevent pollutants from G entering receiving streams, the continued impact of new and existing pavement and resulting runoff flows and velocities are evident in all urban streams. C' G. Stormwater management should first reduce runoff through reducing impervious area, then pervious C areas and vegetation should capture as much remaining runoff as possible. This will minimize the C distance and time of travel that stormwater runoff has over impervious surfaces. This will require site design methods that incorporate stormwater management at the beginning. This approach presumes C that all elements of site development impact stormwater. This approach will not necessarily result in C more development costs, and can be less expensive than traditional stormwater management, such as C lower costs for underground infrastructure. The anticipated results are healthier stream systems and better attainment of water quality and fish related regulatory mandates. This change to site design methods C. will require code and standards amendments. It will also require education efforts, demonstration C projects, new incentives and enforcement, and ongoing evaluation and adjustments. Demonstration C projects should be encouraged in private and public projects without fear of punitive actions should C a new method or technology not act as expected. Demonstration projects that include educational opportunities, such as monitoring or information sharing, should be provided with financial incentives. C C Stormwater/Pavement Impacts Reduction Report 12 Audubon Society of Portland • Summer 2004 C 3.2 Recommendations For Clean Water Services Design And Construction Standards Clean Water Services (CWS) is the regional sanitary, storm and surface water management agency in urban Washington County. CWS develops surface and stormwater management design and construction standards, and administers the standards in urban unincorporated areas and in some smaller cities within their service boundary. Other cities inside the service boundary administer surface and stormwater management standards, but by intergovernmental agreement, must use CWS standards or something more stringent. However, since many cities do not apply more stringent standards, CWS should expand stormwater management options and increase their minimum standards. The primary recommendation is that a menu of Stormwater Impact Mitigation Measures (SIMMs) be added to the CWS Design and Construction Standards. These SIMMs should include, but not be limited to ecoroofs, roof gardens, pervious pavement or grid blocks, contained planter boxes, flow-through planter boxes, infiltration planter boxes, vegetated landscape swales, grassy swales, vegetated filter strips, vegetated infiltration basins, sand filters and trees - both retained and new. New development and redevelopment should be required to implement measures from the menu to the maximum extent possible based on the type of land use. CWS should codify both a presumptive method (pre-approved methods, designs and credits), and a performance approach (specific steps an applicant must take to have alternative or innovative approaches approved). CWS should set effective impervious area (EIA) standards at the subwatershed level that can be used for prioritizing incentives and retrofit opportunities. EIA standards can also be set for land uses, with residential land use EIA standards at 10% and industrial and commercial land uses at 20%. These EIA standards are based on studies that have shown that negative impacts to stream beds, banks, structure and habitat appear at approximately 10% watershed imperviousness'-','. 3.3 Recommendations for Codes and Standards The code, comprehensive plan and design standard review and recommendations are contained in Appendix A. The majority of the recommendations were transportation related. Street and right-of- way (ROW) standards should be reviewed for stormwater management opportunities. This includes reducing street width, increasing ROW widths, and allowing medians to function as landscape stormwater facilities. Jurisdictions should encourage and demonstrate use of alternate or pervious paving techniques on parking stalls and low use parking areas. Parking lot standards should be implemented that set a maximum number of spaces, and standards should be developed for a maximum parking lot footprint. Incentives should be provided for height or efficient use of space. Metro's Green Streets and Creating Livable Streets design standards and guidelines can provide suggestions. High priority transportation code changes have been marked in Appendix A with a 2 ' Booth, Derek. 1991. Urbanization and the Natural Drainage System - Impacts, Solutions and Prognoses. The Northwest Environmental Journal 7:93-118. 2 "May, C.W., and R. R. Horner. 2000. The Cumulative Impacts of Watershed Urbanization on Stream-Riparian Ecosystems. Pages 281-286 in P. J. Wigington and R. L. Beschta, eds. Riparian Ecology and Managetnent in Multi-Land Use Watersheds. American Water Resources Association: Middleburg,Virginia. 'Schueler,Thomas. 2000. The Importance of Imperviousness. In The Practice of Watershed Protection, edited by Thomas Schueler and Heather Holland. Ellicott City, MD: Center for Watershed Protection. Audubon Society of Portland • Summer 2004 13 Stormwater/Pavement Impacts Reduction Report 3A Additional Recommendations • Provide financial incentives for implementation of recommended stormwater measures or G7 meeting effective impervious area standards, including retrofits of existing impervious area. Include incentives for shared public and private stormwater facilities along the public right-of-way. fir • Allow disconnected roof drains in areas with suitable groundwater and topography and establish requirement to deal with lot-to-lot drainage and flooding concerns. G' • Increase tree preservation and planting requirements for increased canopy cover using G Metro's Trees for Green Streets as a reference. • Provide outreach, education and technical assistance on stormwater solutions for property owners, students, developers and other citizens. • Implement better methods to permanently record site drainage restrictions, including enforceable provisions for protection of site features used to reduce effective impervious G area, such as trees, alternate pavements, disconnected downspouts, swales, etc. • Allow a larger percentage of required landscaping to function as stormwater facilities. ('p • Ensure that stormwater standards address one to two (1-2) year, channel building storms and that existing flood control and other standards to not inadvertently increase stream downcutting problems. • Prioritize stormwater retrofit opportunities for redevelopment based on water quantity and quality benefits. Areas that need little to no pretreatment, such as sidewalks and G' roofs, should receive highest priority, followed by parking lots and existing areas without Cis pretreatment and parking lots. gi, i2 r a~vrllr~ui'~&'S 6 1, 4! (cT f'N AO ;t(7vu5 ~.f+>J 4R~ _ .r, '•;tt...... ~~l~'jl;~.i~'•1/•,I~j~„ ~'~d~s~ 1~~%ay~•~~•~:t~ ~/;!!t 1. I ~~'F' ft~ ''~QC,,•~,4~ii lif~r'j .::~d~,i~J~xltl~• r,• i I ~r ~\{~`7{'4, v"..;\~'r..;~ rl1 Y~~\_ ,;r}~ ry~,1g1 r'~•' `'is• ~ r~ 1 Y `1 7 •i _ ,.l'I R : I'l`1...:i C:Y V: r,~~ 1~`J Y,FlI ~~~t ~7~,.4Y~.•;~i •.~p•.4~~~~{~pr' tLfi~'~~j'r ~j Q: •LC W + . d+•.1 y •iU, per' wl q 1 ' T ',I it i Sw'~F Much of the overflow parking lot at Costco (15901 SE Jenkins Road, Aloha) drains to a vegetated swale, reducing stormwater runoff and providing additional landscaping opportunities. Stormwa ter/ Pavemen t Impacts Reduction Report 1 d Audubon Society of Portland Summer 2004 live :nf I~ •^x:kip~i.`::s::i:jifitiihj.> y}.- k}r}r ;kr t.}..;.; n nr}r:.t:an,;r. ,nn.,..+ 'at . ::k: `:aan. :.t,:.,:.}'fi;>;<: <'t%iif:k:f :i:e<`';: ~.Y av. } .}k~}J.n}.;f}:^f:4{{F{;;}:Qi k h..v\ :a.1. . h.<::`r.~%::::i?;fk':.'::s:nr"Fi:,rk::::`u:f:~?ii`{:Y: c:.;s•}51::;.k:.r}t:}s;i } ;.,t,n,.. ..y t}~ h k`S'v:4r:,;n:.: ';•.yr e':Ff~'}': ;tnY •S};'}}}:Y^}rr?t=:}}.,. eft;;. :k?ia::~r_ k'(~ t t~ r °i3. •ti i`' is z}k"{{~~ ..:;:.v:M . •utt. a.,•:. i't:A. ^Ci~t ,cviJ,rJ`~ :`Ev.. ^"•k• A . Y: ~ :;+~,.1.\'.~ n..;L:': • •Ca ~ M1}:'n`,:2y1i} ekG:`ti~c<\ y}v; ch7:k3: L!~ ,'~CS~~. ^~i• asc:'.. Y ~aFC.a,;r:i~Y~:~;:,w~"v' xi,':i~r c;,JXe\ +7 .jyZ;.<YtRNV ~ :.L~: k .w ~O`;`•;k a:„~?£;~~:i$+':ez:»;,Eai•c ,•<*oaj;':^r: S;vYk;S;Fi*~'~.~`.Y ~.:~~<:i:>. ^aY»s?%;Y:;cr i.>~?i•'•t:~ztat:<`: a. ~'}\r,.: aki`Xk`ki.; r. _..,;...:..~.:k.::':<aeq:iY:orr..:::::::::..:.......:.:~.a.,:.J::R<a}gt.•:`.:;.•Yk.:Oyz:i'k:~:ii5c{:° %:R:.'z ^t{::a..:o}!.:%~'+:. aw: .AVL},ynr.4h^•aJ:a:;ctJ;rv:.a;o;}<.::,: ? ,n,..-a.:,..:..,,:::.::,:k}::...g.::\),`,xji{ki<:: \.v,•.'C?;'i.~».}vor a?SS`rr}};.<>\:,a\,.,.y3., `nJkt2.3y`:iE} n..... ^..::tav:..+,rw: r:;?`>:Rk>it^ t~:;:5::>ghct•; {vkk:k•:;:v.+„. I\'•x:aYkY};»w)::k<h,.}+.~ +vt^`.C cjaVY~k`,~Yu*f:~~!%w "'r<L! nm z x z C aa ~t~ r aA\~ vs\z k fi \ r ez rS~ M NOrnASy Cy rb ..y'~i'J Yt•~~+a"r' ,LrhY~` d > \L•.,t~ ,'rt\ i-Y'\~t`a,,,~`t?s k J,^``~x'~,. •~>t L ME M. ~a }`z»'?J fig ? Yx?' s RM :6;•. • o ,.~~t; P-It. -a "J- .`Stpq^; . '}~,n,}••:p~f:3Y~~w!;,~\y~`, , °.~,..s :f>..F.Y^~;< } t7.' : -M 'x »;4:: -'0. Sy`7•~•). +`>PiYV??A'`^r.p,'.f}`. ✓xiY,k.k;vK,'kFrkt 3}.. . 3t„ :9-<7V':2 . • + £aZK2 :Oa'~r'jkY: i 4.:.k•' ♦ :0.n ~.:Y? > =„;:`.x,s. ;c'Aso?r~i`'awx•~'•``'..s<,.`o•,:;„ N?°» w r_ a ~.r'%F`yr~kb •'e..kv`;~:,.~~a,: s: to is tt`Si,~, aka. •:a'~u.,.i. >,;..:::'''sJ";a~c..,.~<:,~...',,,,',r'4r, „,w:~&cti'•::n.J.. , <ar xf~;:i`y; ~..'r<»k}~...~::>r.K.7~~,>~:iLRy~'!Ei~. ..•`''a .'"fie".: zi: e1+.~`''~:..ASM`s;%:y5z,' I I Miss: M' M The Clean Water Services Field Operations Facility M 2025 SW Merlo Court, Beaverton included porous concrete in their employee parking lot (shown in the light grey on right), which reduces stormwater runoff Porous concrete in the employee parking lot ..of the Clean Water Services Field Operations Facility (2025 SW Merlo Court, Beaverton) allows stormwater to percolate into the soil underneath. This reduces erosive causing ,4 1 e~ flows and pollutants that could otherwise xi harm nearby creeks and streams. "i5 o`•.:. \ : ko)}. C 2 2 2 Stormwater/Pavement Impacts Reduction Report 15 Audubon Society of Portland Summer 2004 Appendix A: Recommendations for Codes and Standards WASHINGTON COUNTY Chapter Section Subsection Existing Language Recommended addition or change Priority code Comprehensive Plan Summary Analysis B. Urban Service 3. Drainage "Part of the problem stems from the fad Develop a countywide stormwater of Constraints and Availability Management that no countywide drainage management management plan that encourages opportunities for plan and/or regulatory measure exist that vegetated stormwater management Land Development would provide a comprehensive strategy. facilities, encourages protection of existing The County Flood Plain Ordinance only vegetated landscape and undisturbed soils provides a passive mechanism for protecting throughout design and construction, against additional flooding and drainage utilizes rights-of way for stormwater problems by limiting additional runoff from management landscapes and references the development." Metro Green Streets and Creating Livable Streets design guidelines and standards. Amend to reference "stormwater" instead of "drainage." Amend to.explrcrtly.encourage vegetated Pali ..27 Drama e cy:.: 9 X stormwater management#ackties. Management::;°<:. Appendix A "Nonstructural Drainage Controls. Amend to include stormwater regulations, Glossary of Terms Regulations related to the land use and vegetated stormwater management development process designed to effect facilities regulations, and stormwater drainage control and minimize future runoff regulations as an example. drainage problems. Examples of non- Amend to reference "stormwater" instead structural controls are: clearing/grading of "drainage." regulations, floodplain regulations, subdivision regulations, and building codes." WASHINGTON COUNTY Article Section Subsection Existing Language Recommended addition or change Priority Community code Development Code 106 Definitions' ' 64 Drarnage "A comprehensive, basin wrde 01a& for the Rename sectron "5tormwafea`Master Plan." Master Plan provision of the m4for elements of a storm Amend to reference "stormwater facilities" J water drainage system including pipes . instead of "ditches." Amend to reference Culverts, ditches; detention ponds and "stormwater management system" instead natural water taurses!to atcommrdate the of "stormwater tlratnage s tem." ultimate 00: 6 dAVeloPmerit provrd.d by Amend to iaclutfie vegetated stormwater the Compreh6' We l ramework Plan; which management facllrtf6t and protertion:of includes the Rural/Natural Resource Plan exist ing vegetated I lscape and and Community Plans- undisturbed soils. 65 Drainageway "The normal stream or drainage channel Clarify if vegetated stormwater needed to convey the waters of a twenty- management facilities are considered five (25) year storm." drainage ways by modifying definition, add a definition for vegetated stormwater management facilities or amend to reference stormwater system instead of "drainageway." Stormwater/Pavement Impacts Reduction Report 16 Audubon Society of Portland • Summer 2004 (I (I h(I n(I (I nnnn n- 0 V rtVVV.Vr.V.VCc:C.CIV:V VsIc IV IrCCCCCIV Ck, CV j 0 0 L) V V! 10 V V IV riv A) W A) A) 14) Irv 1W W W 1L) V I) & 4) 4) Li V L) V Appendix A: Recommendations for Codes and Standards WASHINGTON COUNTY Article Section Subsection Existing Language Recommended addition or change Priority Community code Development Code d6i ic-ate-d.. -st -bl' J&A Ofistei Wbil' aserrieft mep.d.-to-re . -~~dftc es.- art f C we er:~gVprs;~~ h I -Water:- act n if ret r on.~ asiqj~,qr.~j rpjnag~,,~p c.6, ~:yeg ale! %prmyv 7"'d red:.d wpys~:: r.ainage: J e fy d' f ton -..:stfeam~br-~:Wp qr:.!c6urse.!yvi ic.. ~-prqyi esj- oj . h ~flci ~brteMp managemem:.,.-.*..-*. . t 17- . oinc u e )i:sa qguaMA Wfi- "Ahtrein- q. ~D c:: . . . ,M.naqemen act - a - t bone -W 407 Landscape 1 Minimum 3 Residential Amend to encourage use of site Design Landscape landscaping for stormwater management Standards facilities. . . . . jj, . Var Jngji Affi'e: A d':t* 6 -:e- itp-d" . ft*-.-st&6~a er.manaq men p.jng:,..pr . . e* u- * ~se* b` f k~- I t A tut 6ilb gS:_- . . . . " - - - . - . . - . . tt5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 (parking I ots) Amend to encourage use of site and parking lot landscaping for stormwater management facilities. 'minimum an maxim 0:speci -'-"d ,y 'C"e":be 6 Jnst 1 1 Arees;:re. gppy 7_.. 'e" 0 t . . h oii: . . . . . 409 Private Streets 3 Urban Private 3.A. Local Table describes minimum pavement widths Amend to conform with Metro Green Street Design Residential and structural standards Streets and Creating Livable Streets design Standards Streets guidelines and standards; include vegetated stormwater landscape standards as a structural standard. dA 6 c. 6, h, f 6r, r fi, W! Q t, -.rea ng.-*LFV4bj,, -~66 de'sigi e the 'hid t t- d . . . . . . . . . . . . . - Storniwater/Pavement Impacts Reduction Report 17 Audubon Societv of Portland - Summer 2004 Appendix A: Recommendations for Codes and Standards WASHINGTON COUNTY Article Section Subsection Existing Language Recommended addition or change Priority Community code Development Code 409 Private Streets 3 Urban Private 6 Structural A. Structural section standards require Amend to encourage pervious surfacing Street Design Section Key asphaltic concrete techniques. Standards . I I di; tUrfacihg . . t rage pqrviq o:.ppc94 ar s cre. e, ur ~:s an. eco . 9.Tass:.i. ows., Q..,. mclues; a a A n t haclemeM e . a to mwa er. . . . . . . . . X. I C. Sidewalk standards require 4' wide Amend to encourage pervious surfacing concrete techniques. 1' G e" 1. A" e A, . . t kjfltips~th :r0qQtrg:.wa,er A. fl u;§,.j VjMpr'dv'ernph,~,no id t 5 f C.- W Ve*$,)gn,: "I 'an S' c 'a' 0 t W "d d, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . d ar SAKi MT. on ruct 665tand' . . . ts ole. 1 and ng:L va Treet, . W. . . . . . A d e. .:stormWAi iJ..... f 4ty. . . . A.1. Ditches are required to "pass all flows" Amend to encourage vegetated stormwater management infiltration where soils and water table allows. Amend to reference "stormwater facilities" instead of "ditches." f Amend to''re i an ar s,provido. speclfica~iohs... n treeman 9 r -04 ence . t d M I.ditch mwater: aci B. Ditches that do not meet previous Amend to allow vegetated stormwater man- requirements shall be piped agement facilities; provide specifications for stormwater landscape standards or reference CWS Design and Construction Standards and Metro Green Streets and Creating Livable Streets guidelines. Amend to reference 11stormwater facilities" instead of "ditches." a.q :i.....prm te, t . ~e ~n tt'.e b 46f:.~ , A **"`f' . . . . .9:.re erence:;;~~.:::;.:i:; p A nto-A. d lt&: . . . ac itch.. mwa t# .ttor er I ;!is . . . . . . . . . . Stormwater/ Pave men t Impacts Peduction Peport 18 Audubon Society of Portland Summer 2004 Appendix A: Recommendations for Codes and Standards WASHINGTON COUNTY Article Section Subsection Existing Language Recommended addition or change Priority code Community Development Code 416 Utility Design 1 General 3. "Easements necessary for sewers, water Amend to include vegetated stormwater Provisions mains, electric lines, or other public utilities management facilities for necessary shall be provided. The easements will vary easements. according to the need of various utilities. When possible, the easement shall be located on one side of a lot line." t........... to. II.:o#.the.:el.ements... ha..... : .........:.::1.O.:S.treetsca e.............R f. r :.it 1.:T a sit,...................,:.. . :..:.:..:.......:....:.........................t te.the.. h sical..makeu .of... edest art..........:.......... ...........st . e . n hat as a u p Sri cl les 9.....:..p . r:anelutlrn ::bvildm ::facadeatreet:::;::::>::::>:<::°:»<::€>>::~;a::::>:::%:''s::>'»s::::rr:::::;::«::::::::<>:>::.,:>:;::::•:>;.;::::.::::;::::,:>.:::;. . ndar s.and 9:.:.:.:........9:..:... Sta d Guide a ...9 11 Streetscape "Includes but are not limited to the Amend to include vegetated stormwater Amenities following elements: street furniture, landscapes. landscaping, including trees and other plantings, awnings, signs, and lighting." ` d" . D.. 9;a::Prwatestrept: 0.90 ataniiacds'.'.:>:;::: Amenda'o: encti_ r. ge wegeiate tomwate re four. . .........5 stem: best n:........ ......._......t..? . p....::::.:::.....:.:.9 <:.;:;.of _wa. amentl:aiiapeti rm pim .~3 um:an ::.:::::.:::...:..:............._........................stn ..betw~en.cu.b.an .sd k.. Itht e s.::..::...:........................ i . 0 t...::;;:.:::• axe um':djstance:.between:..mstalle .;trees:>_::.::<;:::: : . Streets°: reaa`rn reference;: Metro: Green. : 1vabfe:5t.reets::andrTrees:for..Green:Streecs:::.' :.:..:..:...:.:..:.::..:,.:::............:................................................................f ...d sr n: urdelines,retommeri a V . . . >::::.....andotherata _ 5 Streetscapes for 1 Streetscapes - B.1. Standards call for buildings to be built to Amend to allow for vegetated stormwater Pedestrians Transit Oriented the edge of the side walk, for a minimum management facilities between building Districts of 75-90% of the pedestrian street frontage, and sidewalk. depending on zoning location . . ae r `e st w e ta • ~ I nd c s ritla dS: ' ':n t: en" o: en ourae. e ...9.. . :.Par s 'f ence. . :<:<:<>::<.:.s:: . • s: d::f r.::wa.ter::-::: n e n. , r encoura e.landsca In :.to. be.use a . _ . .................,....:..........._....................................................:._.::....:........Gara es.and...........:......and.Ga :a e.................. _ p_: 9..... 9..:.... . ;;,.;:<:::>;<>>:>:>:~::.:......:... ...:..::.:.,.::<:..>,<.:;;:;:;:-..,;::.:;;: ~ reen.:Streets fo» esi .n s. ar s.:::::::;;<':::r _::i;: ur oses:.::..::::::..:....:. Trees.for...G 9.. . Stormwater/Pave ment Impacts Reduction Report 19 Audubon Society of Portland Summet 2004 Appendix A: Recommendations for Codes and Standards WASHINGTON COUNTY Article Section Subsection Existing Language Recommended addition or change Priority code Community Development Code 431 Transit 6 Parking Areas, 2 Parking Area B.2. "Street trees are required on all Amend to encourage vegetated stormwater Oriented Design Garages and and Garage pedestrian streets with an average spacing management facilities in easement or Principles, Parking Structures Design of no more than thirty (30) feet on center right-of-way; amend to specify minimum Standards and on both sides and two (2) to four (4) feet and maximum distance between installed Guidelines from back of curb" trees; reference Metro Green Streets, Creating Livable Streets and Trees for Green Streets for design guidelines, recommended trees and other standards. Y 8 Standards f01:':;`';>°'1 ~rfticai`' 8.2.b, "Paved surfaces for existing roacJvvays Amend to encourage pervious surfacing ' 501 Pubtic Facilit and Service' DevelopmenterVaces ' shall be twenty-two feefi or greater in techniques. Requirements width' D. Pedestrian/utility easements shall be Amend easement widths to conform with 9 feet wide for Special Area Neighborhood Metro Green Streets and Creating Livable Route and 10 feet wide for Special Area Streets guidelines. Local Streets. EssenYcal G. Pedestrian/utility easements shall be Amend easement widths to conform with Services ! 9 fieetlwide for transit'orienied tlistricfs Metro Green Streets and Creating Livable Streets guidelines. 502 Sidewalk 10 Owners to "it shall be the duty of all property owners Amend to require area between curb and Standards Fill Ground to fill with earth, river rock, brick, gravel, sidewalk to be landscaped with a maximum Between Curb loam, cinders, mulching materials or percentage of impervious surface, and Sidewalk Portland Cement concrete any space encourage pervious surfacing techniques between a curb and sidewalk in front of and allow for stormwater management their property and to the curb line of the facilities in right-of-way. street at the intersections to a level grade with the curb and sidewalk. A ground cover, flowers, or trees may be used in compliance with Section 502-9." Storm water/Pavement Impacts Reduction Report 20 Audubon Societe of Portland Summer 2004 mfv onnnnnnnnnn nncr ccCrr V C C C CCc'C C C C C.C C.r Appendix A: Recommendations for Codes and Standards WASHINGTON COUNTY Section Subsection Existing Language Recommended addition or change Priority 2020 Transportation Plan code n. r`:€s ::............:..........A..;Eri' rossed>::::;::>s:<s;.:;Exhib t:>12:.::: able:6... un • ional:Ciasiification;.iviat x :.:<;,.;:::;:1{triend:ri tit,of.vva :ariii.pavertie t d able Streets d •;;;::.::;::.::;::<:<::.;C asst .uatron e . . : street.function Exhibit 26 "Sidewalk - A concrete walkway that is Amend to encourage pervious surfacing Glossary separated from the roadway by a curb, techniques. Amend to reference planter area or roadside ditch that is built "stormwater facility" instead of "ditch." to adopted standards." arduefa r. rt ian:...:.:::::. end::to.;ent ura ervious:.surfaan .................~s... Sect :t ans o at.. Am o e. P 9.:..:.>::.::..:.:.:..:.::::::.::: :..:::::.:.:.:.::..:::.::::.•.::::::::;:;:::::::::<:::::;:::::;:<::>.:::::;::.:~:.:::<<.::.:.;;::•::::::;:::>::::::::::::.:;;.:<.::.;:::;;::.>:::.:::..:;::.:::;:.:[~::>:>::;:;>.:::>"•>'.":s:faclrx..builtfor.use.b . destrrans... .............tec . . WASHINGTON COUNTY Title Chapter Section Existing Language Recommended addition or change Priority County Code code 15 Community 8 Roads 003 Purpose B. "The development of these standards Amend to include increased water quality Planning and represent a balance between the present benefits of stormwater management Roads economic realities, local governments' facilities. responsibilities to protect the safety of the traveling public, and the need to protect county taxpayers from the burden of undue maintenance costs." Deflnitton ::.%s_:<:a:::>;::::::;>;:::>:::::<:'ca: ::"f#oad":mdans>tliat C#ari :ic .08 d:.:: ryr ortion.or.. rtlons. <:; dt .w hou...: ncl r w r..:m a e ent. aciltiessin the;:>;€> ' .........................................of.: he::r h af. wa >usetl::for>vehieulae:.;.::;::::<:;::;::>;.<.sto m ate an m . . :.t:.:.::::...:....:..........::.- ..:.:...:.........:....:::..:..:.:..:....::.....:...............:.........9.........:.:..:::...::..:..::.::.:.:..:::.::..:.....:...... .tea c and:inctu esareas:two.feet_behind.;:.._::: ri ht of."via :acldcle iriitiiii►';for.:ve'etated...;: ......>::;;s:;> :<::;::><:::>::<>:::>:.... s.:>:::::>::;i::s:>::;:>:>::>>?:::::> :..:.:......:....:....::::.:.:::..:totmwafer mania rn nt. a the.:¢ucb::.or:::tw .....:.....................:............:..:.the; 021 "No road, bridge, drainage or utility Clarify if vegetated stormwater management Requirements construction shall commence prior to facilities are considered drainage ways by for public county approval of the construction plans." modifying definition or adding definition improvement for vegetated stormwater management facilities. Require county approval of vegetated stormwater management facilities. Amend to reference "stormwater" instead of "drainage." Stormwater/Pavement Impacts Reduction Report 21 Audubon Societ-% of Portland • Summer 2004 Appendix A: Recommendations for Codes and Standards WASHINGTON COUNTY Title Chapter Section Existing Language Recommended addition or change Priority County Code code ft Add lab sepi d* tormwa 5::C eitti d--- esjgns.~:..qts....... .~.qL pe 6ffiffiLihi Ti6d'subrnitta-i:-'i~-. w. grej.equ- 'management a ans.~i-grp !.ng:,;p,aQ5i,( . req 4ire ,ptrlag her 6 :dr r"equi 030 Plan View A. Plan views requires identifying the Clarify if vegetated stormwater management and profile following "6. Location, stationing and size facilities are considered drainage ways by of drainage facilities. Drainage facility modifying definition or adding definition stationing shall be located in relationship for vegetated stormwater management to the street stationing at all manholes or facilities. Amend to encourage vegetated other key locations. Show drainage facilities stormwater management facilities. Amend both above and below the project" to reference "stormwater" instead of "drainage." :Clklf~-; w004~.tatO- 3tormwa er:m4nagemen., "'d -~8n*si ere rainage:ways..y. i filio dd.ify..iog~.*dg'i.ihiti6n,~or:ia mng~deiini nage, ot*.::Vf~g6tati~d::ttorMWai*::e.",r,,i::*:ma i§hd'*:*t*o'*':'e-n-co-urag'e'.~.;- t -te'' 0 f . . . I . e n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 066 Width Table 1 Summary of Road Design Standards Amend right-of-way widths, pavement Minimums widths and illustrations to conform with Metro Green Streets and Creating Livable Streets guidelines. :-:-:-dth ft f f "13. For special area roads, a nine foot utility/ Amend right-of-way widths to conform to sidewalk easement along all frontages, Metro Green Streets and Creating Livable except for special area local streets which Streets guidelines. have a ten foot utility/sidewalk easement . . Stor rnwater/ Pave men t Impacts Peduction Keport 22 Audubon Society of Portland Summer.2004 I -h Clk (V tD M tl n (I (I rl il (1 11 r r r. r 11 P V. V. V. V. ill kl~ C, V, V, V. V; C, ~ Appendix A: Recommendations for Codes and Standards WASHINGTON COUNTY Title Chapter Section Existing Language Recommended addition or change Priority County Code code 15 Community 8 Roads 093 Structural "A. Streets may be constructed of: 1. Full Amend to encourage pervious surfacing Planning and section depth asphaltic concrete; or 2. Asphaltic techniques; specify porous pavement Roads concrete with crushed rock base or treated alternatives and designs. bases; or 3. Portland cement concrete with cushion course of crushed rock or on a base of crushed rock or treated base" . a . ~#urnaround.:< rr ht-of=wa .~nrrdths'.to conform.. . - - a s...e ebrows nd. : .....,.:....................14..Cul..tle.sacs . a .s all hava..a:tan..foot.: u61►c:.:.::: ,.:::.:............Metro.Green.Streets:and:C....... ..............:...:::::.::.::.:.:..:::.:.......::........:.:........:....................................e ebrows,.and..:.::.:;;:;are..s. h .....9..:.:.......:.:.::.:.::...: wa: tease ent.ext d . lsr d . 123 Curbs and A.2. "Rural street or interim width urban Amend to encourage pervious surfacing Grating streets shall have six-foot-wide shoulders techniques; require stormwater adjacent to the street ...The six foot management facilities within right-of-way. shoulder area may consist of a section of pavement and/or a section of crushed rock. The pavement section shall be a minimum of two feet wide and a maximum of six feet wide." tro G ea tr 'ehce:Me >:s:::;:::::::;:><::;:;;<: 126Sidevvd)ICs;;`<;'A:1°` Artiesd t0're:. fit.:. and ~reatln trvab.le::5treets desf n :::..::::::.:.:.:.::.:.::.:....:........................................9..............:::::...........:..:... :::::-;::::.»::::>::>dsaiid:: hide n 129 Bikeways C. Bikeways are required to be constructed Amend to encourage pervious surfacing of "1. Four inches of asphalt concrete (full techniques; specify porous pavement depth), or alternatives. Three inches of asphalt concrete with four inches of three-quarter-inch minus rock base, or Four inches of portland cement concrete with two inches of three-quarter-inch minus rock base." ~n`~ `tfow.'o~mwate .mana `eii~t n r' 135 Subsurface "B. Subsurface drains shall connect and Amend to allow vegetated stormwater drainage drain into the storm drainage system at management facilities as approved catch basins, curb inlets, gutter inlets, collection device. Amend to reference manholes or road side ditches." "stormwater facilities" instead of "ditches." Stormwater/Pavement Impacts Reduction Report 23 Audubon Society of Portland • Summer 2004 Appendix A: Recommendations for Codes and Standards Title Chapter Section Existing Language Recommended addition or change Priority WASHINGTON COUNTY code County Code clude;.ve etate .Ci;. ifl _ . . ,'.:rrr.,........,.;.. . ito S. mmUni......:::::::.. # fanhties, -..men "em :.:.....Plarrn ,.9:..... to n _ di............. s.and:alon ubtic',.::;.:.:_::. ......:...::::...::.::...:.:Ro3....:.........._.::::..:.::.......::.:.:.::::.......::.:...:::...::......:.:...:::..:.:::.:....:.::....:..:.:..::......:..:::.. l,ttes m:easement:. _:..:..g.p 160 Special area "C. Sidewalk/Utility Easements. Each special Amend to allow for stormwater road design - area road shall have sidewalk/utility ease- management facilities in the easement. application ments which when added to the right-of- way totals at least twelve feet behind curb face. Additional sidewalk easements are required when roadside sidewalks extend wider than twelve feet behind curb face." a`ES=:?>r::`;:::;::3::':::?'::::::>::;:;:r::::::f':::;>':Ei t;:: _ 11 On :nei hborh vcw for:3ttirrrivva eP . a emenriieiid fo;alla.......................::.:. _ . traific.man. ood 9 9...:.:..:., . fid...._mana eent:facitities:mahe _ e..ut~lized..r.~ ht.:ofi..vva :s.ou :..:..:::....:.:.:::..:9:.:.< m:::::.::..::.:_:.... be:thr2e..feet_ b . :...:..:...:..:.:;:;,:;::;:;::<.;:::>.;;<»::r:;>:;::::r:::::;<;.::;;;::;:::;::<::::>::::C<;•:«:!z::;:;:;`:i:»'x::Ez:;;:_:`E:;::i.;:>:isa1:E't:>:':;?;C,:;;:j?;_;; ;:<;j:;;•r;::,;:;,;::;..>,yg:_.;::;:;;;;q;::::::,;;;.,,.;,,;;:;:.;;.,.::.:.::.:.:.....;;.,,:::. . . e.ced'::fif~of~yva..v,~©uld:.":.::,:.`:::::...:.'':.:::; s r a _ extension . a........._.. ,.:..9:......:.:.....:. Y....::.:;:.. rematn.t a ded.thou h....................:..:..:::.................... r management 163 Specific Some road classifications require raised Amend to require stormwate requirements medians or landscape medians. facilities in medians. by road classification en d ;qudlity., ,ne _its . . >:.::.AiFiend to'include:water:_ ibe :common . he..fol (.ow.. n A...T 165 Drain . the re.uite .;;:;::::;;:;::.5t©mivratc mr~:..g..,:merT,: . ish .......:...................dent n...............::...................~:................. de establ nt n #s:fior..the.d . men K OM_. . safe. ' t h P. r I . ::i:';:r:><:E floo _ d. n f dam w..el..are..f :a ..:..............:.9:.:.:::.::.::.:::...::::.:::.................::.:.::.:......:...:............... B. "For commercial or industrial Amend to allow and encourage on-site developments, these drains shall be piped vegetated stormwater management directly to a storm drain system. In facilities. residential developments, these drains shall be piped to the street gutter or directly to the storm drain system." 24 Audubon Society of Portland Sununrr 2004 Stornnvater/Pavement Impacts Reduction Report , , . , . < . , . +t , ~ , , t',' R-, Fl, ,('F ,r-, 4-,. t'~, t-•, ~ cl n c1 ~ (1 t~~ s' a' v >`>r v v to 1a V V .rte W TV 'rk) `W W 1V 1L) r~ 11) (V 4) W riW rip tv V S) L~ W 1) W ILJ >br ► E. Appendix A: Recommendations for Codes and Standards WASHINGTON COUNTY Title Chapter Section Existing Language Recommended addition or change Priority County Code code f',:' lu eve"eta r '`water:''.Fs ted: sto m rmaystgms;mc cr. ebut:a.:A►rteri ao; inc.. 9 r~.:..:. i:; Yii"'..c::>:i;:::i`r::?:d:.::i?: <'sr:;i: <:>:'!;j?':is°r`s;:;.:;;:.:;:.;;.:<.:.;:;.;; not:lim~ted.to,.mlets...i c>s::ditches.creeks::;'.mena'ementfac€lities,such.asWales;, onds;':::'....... A... r. a t : :to.re u~re tmen c avers,and.r..unoFf..detent~oa:.faalities.:...:...:......... ...ett..~mend iorao: x a a easeto:natuaa:. reiiiageways;:suc :a :><?<i. _creeks:and:rivecs::Prov~de:atanda raw~n r :::a.::::<:r;:<::i;:'i;.;.:;;<::::-;~:::>,;:::~::::::>::::;•:;;:::;::,;:;;<::,:;>:::~.:;:.iz;;•;>rs»rri;'<:~:~»s::;';:xi.::;::>+r,::D>';C :::::::::.:::::.>s;:;>.:::;:<:;;>:::>~;r?:;;:;:~x;:ir.~~•>::::::::::<;::::::.::::~::>:::;s:;;:;r:::;:y:r;;:?::SzE>::;<s:;r;<'.t<'<;;:(::::>z::g:::c:rt:d:i;<.~:;z::Y::::r::<:::::;s:i:.~ "d .:..........................and'iiistnict~ons>for:v sto m efa.te ' ao «re{e : gene":' [<< _ ria einent::fac] hties:. men ttc es _ r water::fiact hUss:.zinstead of 174 Pipes and "B. All pipes and culverts shall have sufficient Amend to require water quality culverts slope to maintain a minimum flow velocity improvement and not just flood protection; of three feet per second when flowing just amend to add pervious pipe and culverts full; two and one-half feet per second may for infiltration where soils and water table be allowed with sufficient justification." permits. h ired;gvvfor:water:;gualjtybene itssut:, as hannels..:...._............sizetl o: a 11:.re ired:<flows _ a Intlltratran:;t.fsolfs;an. ateraa. e:a. :i sgEr:;i>':isa:;<;:;d::;rr`:i;1;>.ti>:E;.;:.,o?i>E:rf:g>i::ii:i:?<::<:;;::i isi:_<s:•>>>:a':;y>i`:;i~:ii::;s?>i >:%:i?:i>ii:'£: is>'r?:i<:iii?:i<'i':::::;4d:d is>i:<:''iii::i;:ri;3»;:;:i!;;;:;:!:r,;i::>°.r::%::,;;>:>:i::;::>.>: ;;;;Rr.:: ¢::r::::::::>::: <;;ix.:~>;za:;:,:~::i>:>::.:;:,;:; r: :.i. i;`x_, ...;iii:::;g A ili _ _ ..::..::_....Amen .3osceference.;.stormwter.#anhties:: d.. .:pss;::r:;:::::::>::;<.;'::::>:.:::>::: i;isiia`;?;i;;*.isg::::.;:r.::;>';::::>:::;-:>:.:;:2;;:Yf:z;>?><>::;;::>;:i:::<.:<:::»i:>::>::>:<::::::;::>:::><:::irE:'s`:Os SSp:S<'i?<;r:>Yt«'ri[<::;>::>:>`>:::>::<:>::»:: ~91?>;:>»:<.>::>::»::::>:::::::;::>:;?t?S}?t>:•>::;>::;<.:>>>:r:>::>:::::<::>:::>::):>::>:::;::»»:::>:::>.:<:>:::::>;: :::::a-:;:::>::;..,>::'::>:-,._>::~>;:i>:~:;;:::;:-::;::::::;.:: ir~;'::'d:i<:i.:'_ n d::of.....ditc es:;:>::::::;>:.;::::>::;`<:;:;:::;r°r::.:::<::::::<:::.;...:;.<;:.:;: C. No protruding pipes, culverts or other Amend to allow vegetated stormwater structures which reduce or hinder the flow management facilities that slow, detain or characteristics of the ditch channel or creek retain water. Amend to reference will be allowed." "stormwater facility" instead of "ditch." .s.... ; * alit` f .y dcnlo Gtves:itmlriiiri.urti:desig n re.quirerimeri'ts:#or: Arriendao require water.qu . y 9Y : : . : stfloird: :.::.<<•:.:..: E Iv im rovement:an d.:not u storm ram p..::... 198 Hydraulics A. 1. "...surface runoff waters must pass Amend to allow vegetated stormwater through a conveyance system without management landscapes in the right-of-way flooding streets, rights-of-way, public and and stormwater management facilities on private property and other items of value public or private property. not normally publicly acceptable to be flooded." m ete s.ta.mintmize otent~a ...................Amend.to. -~a;.; erm tt to,.:site. .adtn ..er#low structures ;.::a _ r water:#acil~t :::<;mstead::of.;;:.ditc <:::::<:::>::::.:::-.:...: 201 Impact "A. Overall System Design Considerations. Amend to require water quality considerations Improvement projects shall address more improvements, not just flood prevention. than just the on-site drainage concerns." Amend to reference "stormwater" instead (addresses up stream and down stream of "drainage." flood avoidance) Storm,,vater/Pavement Impacts Reduction Report 25 Audubon Society, of Portland • Summer 2004 Appendix A: Recommendations for Codes and Standards WASHINGTON COUNTY Title Chapter Section Existing Language Recommended addition or change Priority County Code code ;9 Od iKi . . . . . . . . . . Article V Amend to include standard drawings of Standard approved vegetated stormwater Drawings management facilities (swales, ponds, etc.); amend driveway standard drawings to encourage pervious surfacing techniques; amend sidewalk, walkway and bikepath standard drawings to encourage pervious surfacing techniques; set maximum amount of imperviousness in each drawing; require stormwater management facilities in rights-of-way and along easements. CLEAN WATER SERVICIES Chapter Section Subsection Existing Language Recommended addition or change Priority Design and Construction code Standards enera d'*d:'# thiti i6nt su a %are ~requ ir0d~ to:.pio'vi e..:::*.*::.~:.,::*.:*~~.:::.i....,:.... C "n'-'W'U-d--I0* or~pq,ennen br j. . t6n1or e 4: op":i:erlift A~mdh e init V I G t rigger cin-st erviou ~sur ace. pi d at. all w 0 tioatidn- m MEW:, K.: K. 05 Easements "Such facilities shall require an easement or Amend to include required deed protections dedication. Facilities shall include sanitary and restrictions for approved vegetated sewers, storm sewer systems, sensitive areas stormwater management facilities that are and associated vegetated corridors, created not located in easements or dedication. and constructed wetlands, and water quality or quantity facilities." fbl6d' 'd*4~:~~:.~:.~i~~~ii~:i-.*-~:::-:: t . . pan _q 8 Aci ;iq . r A uit . 1aWAdd1::'1",: igement r 6,q U I re d `4-~ 0, retting:-... el iteoldir1*1 n ap S mi e h- 0 I! t t . . `MAI e::::. "e d t tu. er~ P . . 01t, ~ifhklu Ing: s zing cal'a and"""' . flg:~ . t . e s~ap enan. d -main . a . an :Z or~~pnyate y M?k P ::.qua i.y.::: i~. iq gpn~!: y~:pr~ d th "t-d- e.~isuhritt e. j. a jij ep d AT.. L' in 60~~. I. ies*. n y . . Storm water/ Pave men t Impacts Peduction Keport 26 Audubon Society of Portland Summer 2004 ®933119114 1 111 '..V,I:III,~j4jj~. jjk114 j ,jF :r.~~ , ~~vv v 4,~~.~~.~ tic r Appendix A: Recommendations for Codes and Standards CLEAN WATER SERVICES Chapter Section Subsection Existing Language Recommended addition or change Priority code Design and Construction Standards 3 Standard Design 05 Hydraulic 3 Review of ',a. The design engineer for each Amend to include the construction of Requirements for Analysis Downstream development constructing new impervious detached single family dwelling or duplex. Storm and Surface System surface of more than 5,000 square feet shall Water submit documentation, for review by the District, of the downstream capacity of any existing storm facilities impacted by the proposed development, except for the construction of a detached single family dwelling or duplex." re utre:water ualtt ene..t..:.-...:....:..:.::.......... I . h If atzed.::::Amendto:_ . q..::..:....._ "...:q..::.:.:..Y.....::; tc ed..han..e s s a.. .be.........:..:... en:c h nn L cCons .uct.. .op , . : _ causin nd;.not: ust;:fla r utred.flows.without.. 1........:.:.:.::.... . to. ass.i a e. 9:::::....::................ . rosttsn..and.shalf.haves... ...............:.:....................9:.................:............... _ . : Green Streets;:;>s::>::;:::::: allows. Ref andards for ro . dent n st 12 Water Quality a. Purpose "Owners of new development and other Amend to specifically include significant Facility Design activities which create new impervious redevelopment (greater than 500 sq. ft. Standards surfaces or increase the amount of of impervious surface created). Amend to stormwater runoff or pollution leaving include SIMMs as permanent water quality the site are required to construct or fund facilities. permanent water quality facilities to reduce contaminants entering the storm and surface water system." ;~:reS~su h a, uire;watei:. uali facllttt....:...4:.:..;.::......:., eon op ~a rn2nt.ts.far.ihe. _ q. fani tl etated: storm Watec mana 9..::... .:<.<:.:::.;::::.:::.>.:. to S:.On......... VA . du lex .dwell e.or`two ) 9:.::..:::.......:...:::.;.:.::;;.:.:::::.<.:.:...:;..>.;.:.:.:.;::...:::.:::..:..:.<::;:;.;.;::::.::....:...:.:::::::: . stirs .lot o . e or. t.":..:..::.::...::::.>:..:.::.:.:.:.:.......::.:.::.......:......::.:.:.:::....:.:.:........ . str. ctttlrt. of.........art.exi . 500. s ft. o . m : erv.... a. Water..: ua . it Appendix B: 2 General 3 Access Amend to encourage pervious surfacing Water Quality and Requirements techniques. Quantity Facility Design. "viff s alt Water u . entrance.to:swa e.:.<.:;::.::<.::.;::::.::.:;::«.:~.::.:::;::<:.::.:;:: wale::..:..................:.. Stormwater/Pavement Impacts Reduction Report 27 Audubon Society of Portland Summer 2004 Appendix A: Recommendations for Codes and Standards Recommended addition or change Priority CLEAN WATER SERVICES Chapter Section Subsection Existing Language code Design and Construction Standards Appendix B: 4 Water Quality 5 Other Water "Grass swales will not be allowed." Amend to allow grass swales with specific design criteria. Water Quality and Treatment Quality Quantity Facility Facilities Treatment Design. Facilities l . A1712nd't0,.3Std,:.:dltl6na stor;rrwa e managemenil is i i;::i ~:'::'i i 1i::'ti:i;:':'f;::St:i:::::1:%:::i::i <i::::Y..:.,;::~>:;::: ~:+:;d r::::S: ;:>:::~:-»:>::...Cti v~::::;:.;': :::i:::>:: r<.>•.:: Si i;: i:: s+~~ ;;:<::::;:::a::`:;~i: %Y;?<::: Z:::;J;::;::i: ~.;;i^ < :::~.:::;:nh,;;::;:<'i;: i? J:»: z;;;c::.ai f::~::::::::::'~i:::>:ir.`.ii':::;;: i':::::i::: ~ ~::;i ~.:..:..:::..:::~:d;:::::- ~ i:.:- auZ h as.e ut . lancers stormwi~teE::<:;::°;'::;>:' .dens landsca ~Vemen ..ne. . otatts... . cart ........p...........:..::..............:...:.:.,...:..:.:..........:. dtohneCtransi:::E.Z';U ml_a ownsaut a ..::.:................::......:.........:.................:.:.............................d _ . urrements should;~nelu e.ant~crpa a br 'td_acce r •a aEent iirf :er'iious :areas::.,...:......: ' d Amend to require tilling and compost Appendix D: 2 Landscape b.2. Soil amendment for all landscaping, not just Landscape Design where new topsoil is added. Requirements Requirements BEAVERTON Chapter Section Subsection Existing Language Recommended addition or change Priority Comprehensive Plan code » widthsto.:. mends, ht-of way . r :o98:fe.etfot:a:....:.... A. 9.:. . _ ests:consider.atit.nn....:..:..:...::.::....:...:::..:.::..: . . oaL:ASafe.:::...:.a~.5ug risic::..r:.: ring _...G..Tcans artatloct.:.....:...:..::..:....p:: re.en Stceets:an Cree ( I c Me, . 7A f e .:or...:a.t ree.. ane::>::...::::.::.....:.......:..:.. ian .::..:...:..:five.ig. e. a.. :......y,.:.....::....::..:. n ortaz . r tra . s a s.art . :.:::.:...:.:....:.....:..f±ement...::......,.:...::.:::::.:....::.:.::::.:..........:::....:::......:::.:..::....:.:.._.:::.::::.:..:.:.:.....: tr oG :t Streets. urde.... s..:.:...._,: r . o ane::::::..;:.:; oa wa a . d d r. . y nin lane::;?:::::?: ddrttanal.tur . al_I2 fee. drtian sh f. w :::>:..;::::::::;.;;:>;>:;:;;•;...;::-:;:::.>::::a::.>::.: street. rr . y.....................:.:.::.:.::.:..::....... o:a for n d;.desr aatani3a Appendix 2: Defines "pedestrian way" as "paved" Amend to encourage pervious surfacing techniques. Glossary of Comprehensive Plan Terms 28 Audubon Society of Portland • Summer 2004 Stormwater/Pavement Impacts Reduction Report I L, 1P ►7 M W.) V. to W to 110 W '31J 1J 47W ;1J W W iW ikJ 1.l i> J v v `Vt) I.) Appendix A: Recommendations for Codes and Standards BEAVERTON Chapter Section Subsection(s) Existing Language Recommended addition or change Priority Development Code code .......:<"E:::i::?: a ttted.............Per.. i ............P...::!fr.:..::.....:.::............m. ..ti:ases..include:::. ubl~csewer::and ari. .:whe t h ea..v t .........:...::::..:.....................::..:.:...:::........:..:.:::::::.:........................................::::.:.................................................::.........................................................P Ci a e. ated.wat tte er . Uastrtcts.;;;;:>.:vses . ; er..transmisston..:lines:and.u ement faal~ties:such.as.swales _ I. (.i Condit oval;>:>>:::::transmission.Lnes. ;.w : ht;.cond ..............xn.i_tration.:trenches, on s,.,etc.,.ar..e n ud ....water :conse . at ses; or: conditional: uses................ :.'t)SIAS.........>~`:<;:>:»>>';;::<.;.:.>;>;:•~•..;r>z>::>c.:.:::?'c<:;<><::;:>>;:;.;:;;>,;">;.;:;>'s::?<":a:i.s:::><c::.::>.>::::_;<'; ts°:>:^>,::>::<<a;<::~>;2.::::.:::.<;;:>~:;.;:;;;>:>>;:: s;::~:;;;?.'<>?:':':`E::r.!::: . ~o a1z ; th..... r:than.transmission::::...:.Amehd.the.: ermitted.uses an each.zone I' ....:......:...........................:......................ar:..ti' amerdin .definjtions:ih:.:Cha t 25'A~ . .86'13 . 10 Commercial 05, 10, 15, 20, Does not list vegetated stormwater man- Amend to include vegetated stormwater Land Use Districts 25, 30 agement facilities as allowed, conditional facilities as permitted or conditional uses. use, or permitted. 'uires>r>` a>':con=<d;>`>'< ~as!>al'.ussz~>r.t`,`.yrE'a:E>t:;?Era'`~:`< ulfi t L . e. _~nd...:::::05.2,6,1.#, :.::.::.:.::::...:.Re rt . n e. ev~ew..for.ut~fit ........flan whether ve eta Zi: s ai. at~arts :unclear.: whether... a ei t tl.. .............................................:.::..:...:............................................::::.::.:..:......................................:.::.:...:..................................................v.. a e................mana ement:faaitties.such.as:.swales : .......5.2.13.9 r.. n.t..aciii es. ~ .e.uti. it dtratton...trench es . ands ........................::.::.....:::..:......................................:...:.::.:::..:::..........:...................:..:...::..:::..:......................................:..:g..:::.:...:.::....:............................................... . ..etc . . , J, ............:....,nstailations.:.::.:::.:..::...:......................,.....:..:....:..:.::... ~ l ctxtd t onat..uses....Amend.the conditional - 60 DAR Development standards for Town Amend to encourage pervious surfacing Supplemental Center Districts call for "12'-0" paved" techniques. Regulations recreational trails. eet Packet :.latstanda :..:::.:::.::.:.:.::::::::..::.:..::.........................:...::.;.:::::..:.:.:::..:.:.>:.:.:..:.........................::::::.:::.:.:::.:::.......:..........::.:..:.:.:.:...:..:.:....::...::.::.:....:..:...9 ncoura e.. erwous.su aan .......9 .0 2..112: . . 9..:...........:.:..................:...... nt:hes of.:as hait.. <:.:::.:::<:.:::..:;:.::...~;:.. ...............................................:..:.....:::.:..............................................::.::::..:........:.................................:.g.::::.......................... ..or.4..m¢hes.:of..::.::..:~.::.::;technt ues................................................................ 55 Transportation 15 General 3. Design are required to "meet the on and Amend to include stormwater management Facilities Street Design off-site vehicular, transit, pedestrian, and as a need and stormwater management Standards bicycle circulation needs affected by the landscape design shall also be identified on development" and "planting strips, trees, submitted plans. curbs, bicycleways, and sidewalks shall be identified on submitted plans." Storm water/Pavement Impacts Reduction Report 29 Audubon Society of Portland • Summer 2004 Appendix A: Recommendations for Codes and Standards BEAVERTON Chapter Section Subsection(s) Existing Language Recommended addition or change Priority code Development Code " conform rons:ahd'riotesa:` o. s t l ust rat mend r. 51 .2.3..4.5 60.5 ec, f? . . . o..Gt'een Streets.an Creatrn w,th. Metz Fat, r , Re u,rements.....,...........................................:..:...............9 a ,ons:b .rnclu ,n e..5treets.l lus r 9..:"::>:`::;::>::?:.:>, a .lard . . afar mana t rmw 65 Bicycle and 1 Bicycle and "A. Bicycle and pedestrian connections Amend to include reference to Metro Pedestrian Pedestrian shall conform to the design guidelines and Green Streets and Creating Livable Streets Facilities Connection standards delineated in the latest editions guidelines and standards. Design of the Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Standards and the AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bikeway Facilities." a, ;.Amend;to;;encoura_ge, pervious. s~....:::: 5.:.:..:...> s n;standards.:re u ii hn tai v tl.a dahall..m ma: 1: 14 ...q 90 Definitions "Pedestrian ways. Any paved public or Amend to encourage pervious surfacing private route intended for pedestrian use, techniques. including a bicycle/pedestrian path and/or esplanade, regardless of use by other transportation modes." : t, I' h twe etatedstocmwate:.. tru st _ Ut,lrt ..left s Y ..._..::.-..._::.:...-.:..:fy, . a ';6 f ,t,es:are:.rnclude or* nt. a ..:.........mana eme ac,l . E r: ur osesof.:thrs.:cbd , . u. der rouhd....a. n v atedatorfiiiroar>:;;:;: . zo:.water..::... a new. d - ...._...5 of mrtesi. U :...........................:..........................:.:..:..::.........................:....:.:.......................................:.,...................u I,tres.Inclde.but are..n ...1...................................:..:...:..:::.::.:...::.........:.::.:.:.......:.......:..:....:..:.:.:.:...:..:.:....:... r s otrn.sew.er .man . 1r.n.es ..sai~ to tnes•:: o . e ,n s . ul its . a n, ations:.l,nes.:.an .t. e...............................:.. . a and/or. _ _ "Utility, Public. Utilities that are subject to Clarify whether vegetated stormwater City acceptance for operation and management facilities are included or add maintenance. For purposes of this code, a new definition for vegetated stormwater public utilities include water lines, sanitary management facilities. sewer lines, storm sewer lines, and their appurtenances and any component part(s) thereof." Stormwater/Pavement Impacts Reduction Report 30 Audubon Society of Portland • Summer 2004 ^ \ ~ ~ i ~ . ~ . ~ . t , ~ . ♦ . ~ l a ♦ n ♦ r 1 :r'. .f l t~ ~ r .r r Tl :f\ .r'\ ~l i, <l !l !r !l .n .C` i w IL) Ly LP V U "J V U U "0 v v v 10 v v U V V U U U U k) U U U U U U U It U U U U EA Appendix A: Recommendations for Codes and Standards BEAVERTON Chapter Section Subsection(s) Existing Language Recommended addition or change Priority Development Code code ;;::<:<:.:;;::;;;<:.;:.;::..:: ::[><:::><:>::s>'€:>::::<::::::>::::::<.~>::<::<;;:!::>r:'ri>:>:::>;:.;:>`:':::>;.:<.'<:':::::::>:>'.:» ~~Utili ...t Privaf'-[;Utilifies>thaf _;tidhettier'.ve...etated:'stormwateC f'nltla s n erfi>to Cit;<aEcep ariEe>tor:operixfidn iana .einenfifacitifies are ncluded 40. f i"E ne m Ir n § 6 t C6 it t n..t?w...de. n. t ort..or..... et .tei:.storm p.:...q IS r..ivete:uti::'ini fudp`natural::9a.t -Ines t , s : "dw. es f e to ep'lr o ne~: e s d t: ;tMun hr onent< "art , ::>;:::::;:::::;:::::::::;:>:>:::;;:-;:.>;;:;::<:;;»;;::;<:;;:::< >::::;:;:,::;.>:.:>:<::.;::::;::;.::<.::;;,:.: com . anies:>ao . ration'.::riialntenadee >re afire::;;:a::::>.::;::»:<::>~::>>::;>;:r: <:><.::::_;::::'.::::<>:::'.:;;::'::::::;::.::>:::: •:;t':::;::>:::~ a f.same...........:. . "Utility Transmission Lines. Transmission Clarify whether vegetated stormwater lines for sewer, water or other utilities." management facilities are included or add a new definition for vegetated stormwater management facilities. BEAVERTON Chapter Section Subsection(s) Existing Language Recommended addition or change Priority Municipal Code code :l . .char .o# n. e..an : .owner>or; ..................................,................:......:::.:.:..:......:.,..:.........................................:.::.:.:.:.::..::.....::..................:......................................P ........erson....... Amend..to ailow.sto rmwater.to cross.under , rs bulldtn ;:or.:structur.e.. _ shall..cause . sut#et.or...:::..:: sidewalk t .rea h:ve etated oi•mwater ht:. <.;:.:::;.:::;.;;..:;.::.;;,;::a.,. .::.:.::.::::•::::.:,..::::..:::.::::::::.:..:.:::::::::::.::..:,.:..::•.::.:::::::::::::.:.::::..:::.:.............Drama e;€<:>:;;.:;:;:::<:;::::::: ermtt:>caln:::water:ace<or:..snow: to aci Mes.1n he ubllcn ht ot- l ln g:ars T#.W ;onto<'a stieet:or t,ti:Ilc:islde.w.alk>'.or:to:.fl''i5W:2eross:tfie'<:>'! "B. The owner or person in charge of Add "vegetated stormwater management property shall install and maintain in a facility" to list of approved overflow proper state of repair adequate drainpipes collection devices. Amend to reference or a drainage system so that any overflow "stormwater" instead of "drainage." water accumulating on the roof or about the building is not carried across or upon the sidewalk." . , ............_<:Arriend to_dar:ifiy,i#vegetated;stormw . :....:.:,:.:'the:Public:::::;:::.::::><;:><:> ;:~i:•'>:~:::..:..;:•::::;::.;>:::;.:::::>:;:;:::::~z:>.>;:;:::.>:::::~.:::::<';;<:::::;:: Stormwater/Pavement Impacts Reduction Report 31 Audubon Society of Portland Summer 20U4 Appendix A: Recommendations for Codes and Standards Chapter Section Subsection(s) Existing Language Recommended addition or change Priority BE"ERTON code Municipal Code 6 Vehicles and 02 Beaverton 060 Standards Amend to include reference to Metro Traff ic Unified Traffic Green Streets and Creating Livable Streets Ordinance guidelines and standards. W. il f :sKSIFIJO-400 0 ci. i_y, '"Ade-q . U Waterje eni storrrf~ian.d* i ic n- 1 a I t . f 0ormwa f provisions.,.-A. ::b. ji. re eteric6i-.. ter, jn~stead o . r-f d . I . e: aqe~.- men :,6r:s.ur aceiiwa S::; to i: _j0(nag!r: F 9:,r.qqyir tbrmwa erwa oping:: ace o .:.e u e 9! H . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ryi; P r- - . - U-I, t- o:Ab ho, n Wa, e rain~~:ior. d I Maim Chapter Section Subsection Existing Language Recommended addition or change Priority BEAVERTON code Engineering Design Manual Preface 100 Abbreviations Clarify if vegetated stormwater and Definitions management facilities would be considered a utility; add definition of vegetated stormwater management landscaping or facilities. I 'st-itions-an ::notes,:.. . Crea ing.:,,::. e WArations -y.:inc u mg.i::~,::: . 6 1 n* a 'd t acl. i I e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 General Design 120 Submittal 2 Design Plan DA."4. Street and storm sewer, showing Amend to require vegetated stormwater Requirements Requirements Format existing and finished contours at 2-foot management facilities. intervals." Stormwater/Pavenient Impacts Keduction Keport 32 Auclubon Society of Portland - Stimmer 200-1 IV C r 11 ) W .4 TO W 110 :U €j tj €a {j rj To To. ;o .Lj r _j r v A 1d'6! id 'U -l-) .V v `U lu v -V ;U v U V V V V V V V 1 Appendix A: Recommendations for Codes and Standards BEAVERTON Chapter Section Subsection Existing Language Recommended addition or change Priority Engineering Design code Manual : .:...::::..::.::..::::.:..::...:::.......................................:...:..:.::.::::........:..:.d......e. i. c u sidewa.ks,:.:........Amend.to. a ur.e. a etated stormwat a ::t1e Fe n < a is .::>:.:;;<.:<;::> a urge ents::>;.;:.:;.;;:.;:,.. ::....::::.::.::.::::.:....qu:.....m......................R . m. ............:..::::.Format.:.:.:..:.,:...:..:....,.btkew s :ret tarn ..walls<>arrr aYron : alf.:..:....::..:.mana ement facrlrtres<:..encouca e: rvrous.:.:.:..::.............. `a on a 9 2. 6. "All proposed drainage facilities, all Amend to encourage vegetated stormwater invert and top elevations, slopes, materials, management facilities. Amend to reference bedding, and backfill." "stormwater" instead of "drainage." >:2 10 R. ::and:: co osed .::.Amend::to.encoura e.ve etated>stormwater::....:..:. :s.s::::::::.::.:<..>::°::;:::;:..::.;::;:>:::;:>: :<`:.::.::.:::::;>.::::::.:;:::_.:><>:::::::::>•.>:::?.;:>;.:><.:stasariif..:::. ;..:::,:;:::.;.r:;.>:. a and[water mains :mana eme t ad n es"', 2. 11. "All existing and proposed sanitary, Amend to encourage vegetated stormwater water, storm lines and other utilities management facilities. crossing the profile." .:...::..:..:......g..............................................:......:....:::::..:,_::::.;.....:::::.:.:.::....:::.:..:........:.:....:.:.::::.:............ ....Clar i etat st r. '::>:_:a"` `rrn' t fa'r rt wou d. ons de a s'rrian a c l es e c d e n e ut t 2 Streets 210 Street Design 2 Structural "The following materials may be used for Amend to encourage pervious surfacing Section street structural section construction... techniques. 1. Full depth asphaltic concrete. 2. Asphaltic concrete with crushed rock base or treated bases. 3. Portland cement con- crete with cushion course of crushed rock or on a base of crushed rock or treated base." dae 'o s`o' `er d "s d to h i"u 12 Subsurface "Subsurface drains shall connect and drain Amend to encourage infiltration, retention Drainage into the storm drainage system at catch and vegetated stormwater management basins, curb inlets, gutter inlets, manholes, facilities. Replace "ditch" with "stormwater or road side ditches." facility." Stornnvater/Pavement Impacts Reduction Report 33 Audubon Society of Portland • Summer 2004 Appendix A: Recommendations for Codes and Standards BEAVERTON Chapter Section Subsection Existing Language Recommended addition or change Priority code Engineering Design Manual . t., 'd fiX f6*e-ts';'iiN--r-ki 'ng~.'i:;:::::':-::i:rnaneu.v.erling~.oi::ve: icles;:s ma :~resi, ura e,i~araiisu:fa,~e~..I.... e . ~:Jpq. i a 'over: him ggr.ega 'a' it 6,:*.:,::,,,::*,,,*4',d':d:":"':"-:'.' e:~i..asg;i:wj ~;pq.hf: pM~nfconcre e:x-:.:X inaeglb t b* ii~~ 1h: ffi~,!i xj:* i:::: iz her:31ric . eg I 3 Storm Drainage 310 General "The City of Beaverton Code, and the Amend to include water quality benefits as Development Code (Ordinance 2050), have required design element. established the requirements for the design of facilities intended to protect the public health, safety, and welfare from damage due to flooding." of d 61,' ~br to~r e'qU ire: on~s i e~:,yegetated:*.*- ra.tns.i, . a ustrigiz eveopm6ns~i~t ese: gdmo. p pe ys em.i*::, IJe-*:i-1--`d-dIr' e' 'c"t i rahs "-d" "I'd -i4ft y,iresj en ia::~.. in . h 11 * b '-.p'*'*! p-§d;:t ~%tlhd:street :'*:these:, drains::s pl: o;~ . . . . . . . . . . . . 330 Water "All development on sites one-half (0.5) Require on-site retention through Quantity acre or greater in area shall be required to vegetated stormwater management Standards provide on-site detention. For sites smaller facilities for development on sites 500 than one half acre in area or where storm square feet or larger. detention would have an adverse affect upon the receiving storm drainage system, as determined by the City Engineer, a system development charge will be assessed in lieu of a constructed facility." e e Am p 9 411 n ppta pj,payeO . . :bul mjacc bl, ffi U -asp tf`*::iAd itidha Van . . 6: pr v did otceirrientA a . . . . ni.-..U 6 - J . . . . . mo.r.wgrpie. jbe...i,p~b y"", g ii:;~~;~prpi.vtde Amtht5t!.-M edb';-: -rete,:.pavement,:i:].~~~:i:::::~ ha 1; e: a . it . . a e su C a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Stormwater/ Pave men t Impacts Keduction Report 3A Audubon Society ol'Portland Sunime.r 2004 cr 01 Cr j"T I'v jv -v 1-1 1-1 t-1 (1 (-1 f, r 0 in (1 0 0 0 C, Ic I" C C 1C, Ic" 1C, v 1`• v v v► » v W to V W W rv rij r"iv W W W rw V V V V V `i) :JU 1) V C V V V V Ad V Appendix A: Recommendations for Codes and Standards HILLSBORO Section Part Subsection Existing Language Recommended addition or change Priority Comprehensive Plan code 3 Housing (III) Policies "(L) New residential areas shall have paved Amend to include vegetated stormwater streets, curbs, pedestrianways, water, management facilities; encourage use of sewers, storm drainage, street lights and pervious pavement techniques. underground utilities. The provision of such services in older residential areas shall be encouraged." :;:<..i :.;:aies.>::::::..:.:::._:.,::::;>.:;;:;:':;;:::.>':::::::;.:.:::<:.;:>E. Stti►iri.; ;:_';:>;[::>.::::;::2';.The.:draind ea Ste.rit;trfeltades::2..nEstwork:.::.,..: Amend:td*itude:.a::com rehenstye;?:>:: ,::...._.:...._.............................:::.:..::.:::::..:.::.:.::p..........................::::::::::::..:::::.::.! h :and..r!atu fil.............. devpla ment:and: drama e_s :::,:>:>:>::::><:>s::<:::::>:;>:;:<::::<:::.:<:;: ;<.>:::>:::::»::::::::>s:=:=<>:::< :::::::::::::>:::<:::_.:<<:>:::::::>:tvleasures€>::>>;::>:>::::>:>:>:>::>:::>:><:::«~:::<:::><_>r?:~<>:>:;:.::.: :::.,i;:;.:.::,.'.:.:;:,;-':>:;:;:<:;:.;.i:. .......................na e.;ch~nnels:.that..e.v:entuall :..dischar.. E..:z.:,ndudes:ve e.tatedsttyrmvvater..:::::':::;;::...:::::.::::..` mana ement:faaHties 's: ~ac[.of:'e.<';:':.;.;,".::::::.::°':`.:::.:.':: >::.:::'.::::.i:.:..::.:;::'.:::;::.;:.;;:..::.:;;:::.;.::':::..;::;::::<.::::<.;::::.:::;;:.:;«::::i::;':;'::>;:::::..::.i::.: •.;;:.::.,.:.ii::;.i:;;.:.::';::>:<:;:;:>:::::.::::::>::::::i:;;;>::;:.;:.:;.;>: :::::.::::::::.:::;:.::.i':;:<•;:.>:::;.>::>::.>::;;::':::>;.:>::::>:<::;::s':.;>:::;::<;:<:.>.::;:>::>:::: ;:'::>::,.::.>.::'.::::.:.:;...>::'.:::;i:.. to t S sfe ..R lac . tl tc th. 6. "All major land use actions shall Amend to encourage vegetated provide for adequate storm drainage stormwater management facilities to retention or removal, or a combination improve water quality. of these two." ::.:...:.::::.::::::.:::.:...................:........:.:..P..................::.::.:::.....................:::;:.::.::::.::.;.:::.::..::.<.:;.>.i:.;.i:<::.,,::.;..:::::;.:::. a t..ou h..l .5................. ........3...... 3. rm < va ormwat to s. nc d st r. .::.:::::::::::.:::::::.'::i.:'.'.:::........... •.::mana ement: ac„ties:::.:::':';:.>::.::.:'::;: (III) Policies F. Livability (2) "Relate the design of street capacity and Amend to reference Metro Green Streets improvements to their intended use. A and Creating Livable Streets design functional roadway classification system standards and guidelines. shall be developed for Hillsboro which meets the City's needs and is coordinated with County, Regional and State Roadway classification systems." Gonstrutt.trynsportz!tion;facilit,es_fio;:;::::;":-:::;;;Arrtiend cab an'dsca e;and .stisrinwater r1:st ar . d$:'..I. and . nc use. aesthet,c:: referenceMetra'Green:Sireets:and:Creat,n : >c© sdeai s m i i . . t o t e...e ant::enance: < ?C va6le<3trepf deign standards... n s.o a . or.all`mod es'of:<'::>::»;::.;:; travet. An houltl<meet`>':'.>.'::>`>'.>' v; ~::..n:::.~:.: .:::..:.:::::::nom: n~ ~ erns dera' ion>of"'ou ` ` t s nd<walls s"' "(4) Avoid potential adverse environmental Amend to encourage vegetated stormwater impacts associated with traffic and management facilities and reference Metro transportation system development through Green Streets and Creating Livable Street facility design and system management... design standards and guidelines. Design transportation systems that promote efficient use of energy." Stormwater/Pavement Impacts Reduction Report 35 Audubon Societe of Portland • Sumner 2004 Appendix A: Recommendations for Codes and Standards HILLSBORO Section Part Subsection Existing Language Recommended addition or change Priority Comprehensive Plan code m6h * o enci keni~:pl. pwrigiloriAmprWemen :-1 . . . . lmth e- r U . ET V. J-n': an ar P::reg ona e5::s. a .::.con Ore i e in nesx::: gn::9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . nclu I . I I . :T. the.. I I Ud . (0) Street "The standards described and illustrated Amend to require private property Standards for below are for roadways that are or will be development to manage stormwater equal Public dedicated to the public (City.) Private to standards for public development. Roadways. property developers may choose to construct roadways at a lesser standard." I J es:i:~ raye.::~ anes' b 66 "d A* . M X 1. The cul-de-sac streets standards require Amend to conform to Metro Green Streets an "improvement width of 28 feet within a and Creating Livable Streets design 50 foot right-of-way, with sidewalks on guidelines and standards; encourage use each side being a minimum of 5 feet wide. of pervious surfacing techniques. A minimum 5-foot wide landscape strip shall separate the sidewalks and roadway." 0 a rds:~Jie-q% U' ir' e"." 6h- '::'fh-- V4_ 'in ric-ouraging ep, 1. Y~g xi. p .:df x:::: 7 Otto, en::! oric-6t6:~VWX 4, oot.,:.*.*.,:::'::':'::::';'-a"'.'n'.di'.~:r'~ e a 1W64: ree C t ~:~~gr4ypl d h d use; o .is..j.9p eripimeac .:.si. :e:~- 6 aeatea:6-i g.!nqs.ian, XA p.~Wayic ear~p :A tdirnative::a e.,:.,.. Y, . . . . . Stormwater/Pavenient Impacts Keduction Keport 36 Audubon Society of Portland Summer 2004 Cr. 0 Al K) P KI <I K). 4 4n on Ci 41 in in V V V C C Ic it, A ~ 1c, IC Appendix A: Recommendations for Codes and Standards HILLSBORO Section Part Subsection Existing Language Recommended addition or change Priority Comprehensive Plan code 13 Transportation (VII) (O) Street 3. The local residential streets require "a Amend by encouraging use of stormwater Implementation Standards for 32-foot roadway improvement within a management facilities in landscape strips; Measures Public 54-foot right-of-way...with a 5-foot amend to conform to Metro Green Streets Roadways. minimum width sidewalk and a minimum and Creating Livable Streets design 4-foot landscape strip separating the guidelines and standards; encourage use sidewalks and roadway on each side," of pervious surfacing techniques. with lower traffic, the "improved roadway width may be reduced to not less than 24 feet with a right-of-way of not less than 46 feet" and with intermediate traffic levels, "the improved roadway width may be reduced to not less than 28 feet with a right-of-way of not less than 50 feet." 4. The neighborhood streets standards Amend by encouraging use: of sto~mv✓atei"!. require a. -foot roadway improvement management facilities in landscape` strips; within a 60-foot right-of-way, with two amend to conform to Metro Green Streets 12 foot travel lanes, two 6-foot bike lanes= and Creating Livable Streets design' two 6-foot landscape strips and two 5-foot' guidelines and standards; encourage use sidewalks, of pervious surfacing techniques. 5. The collector street standards require Amend by encouraging use of stormwater "a 46-foot roadway improvement within a management facilities in landscape strips; 70-foot right-of-way including two 11-foot amend to conform to Metro Green Streets travel lanes, a 12-foot median/turn lane and Creating Livable Streets design and two 6- foot bicycle lanes. Five-foot (5' guidelines and standards; encourage use minimum) sidewalks separated from the of pervious surfacing techniques. curb by a 6-foot landscape strip are required on both sides of the street." 6. The arterial street standards require . Amend by encouragtng use of stormwater "standard sidewalks and landscapeatrips" ' naria ement faulit~es m landscape strip g and 'wider sidewalks shall be constructed amend fo conform:; o Metro Green Streets to at least8 feet wide rn commercla{ areas,' and:Greatir Lrvabte Streets des 9n l 9 id and 13"feet or uver alon 's eclfic itreets g, p guitlehnes and standards, encourage use the;Staton Communt P.la In 'Areas : ervi usaucfacia .tectirii ues.:.:. ri g a p o 7. The commercial street standards require Amend by encouraging use of stormwater "a 38-foot roadway improvement with management facilities in landscape strips; 60-foot right-of-way, with a 5-foot amend to conform to Metro Green Streets minimum width sidewalk and a minimum and Creating Livable Streets design 5-foot landscape strip" and the industrial guidelines and standards; encourage use street standards require a "a 40-foot of pervious surfacing techniques. roadway improvement with 62-foot right- of-way, with a 5-foot minimum width side- walk and a minimum 5-foot landscape strip." Stormwater/Pavement Impacts Reduction Report 37 Audubon Sociery of Portland • Sumner 2004 Appendix A: Recommendations for Codes and Standards Priori Existing Language ua a Recommended addition or change code Section Part Subsection 9 g g HILLSBORO Plan Comprehensive ral water:manager?en re .tn..::.:...::..::..:...::...:....:..:.:::.:.:..:::.:.:.::::....:.::::.::..:....::..... d darci5. cor ;street star t #8ctlitte .............:::4.:.:.: Vil t . ry..:..... ease e.M ans ott~ a entati m is .a i...:.............:. P royal . varied. y. .P._.............. easu . . M .the. tin .......:........:..............:.......................:..:........:........:.:...........:...........:.:.............:.............:.........................:......................:.uses,...:............:.:.:...........:...:....................:..:.................:............:.......... , th.. tan.sh... n .b ice .a. r. a ed....o. .m be.~ ter ::>isi>r: Amend to include vegetated sto m 17. NE 28th (IV) Urban Design A. Site Design management facilities as a recommended Avenue/East Main Policies and Parking characteristic. Street Plan Area ormwater>manag nd.to.:add..~ ....destrtan::amen ...ty~.:: a ian Ped r "7) Encourage a network of safe, Amend to include stormwater management convenient and beautiful streets and path- facilities as a desired streetscape element. 18. Hillsboro (II) Policies A Tanasbourne Community ity Plan ways that provide alternative travel routes Comm and parking options, while facilitating walking, biking and wheelchair uses." Recommended addition or change Priority Title Chapter Section Existing Language code Municipal HILLSBORO Cod . cross w<:stormwater; o ant.:::..:.....::.::.....::::.:::.:..;:::.:...:.::.:::.:: e.:.owner. or.........:P v::...9eta : t.is..uniawf.............:.:::.........:.::.:...........::..:..:.::.:::.:;:;;.:::.:::...::.>:..:; waxer:.:;..::.>,:;::....::.>.:::.::.. urfate s...::..::.....to:... spa. . . fl7t}.5....................................:.:....... I ...::...............trutt..tl....ce: to: reac... earth. : a .to....... e nd . d df..........::::.:......9...:.::..:.:.:....:.:::.:.:...,.:...:::.::,:....:.::.::.:.. the: ubl tprs y::.:...........:.:.........:.:.::.........:....:...........::: • iltttes..in ..P..::..............:.:.... w2 ent.fac Water.:::::::.. ana em . 5 a ..or.sno..............:.... . Saf uiate .r Y...... it.a Tarry d. d.]ce. . ht............y.......:::.:..;>...:.:.::::...::.:.::....:..:.;.::....::..:.;:::....:_;::.::.::.:::::.. 5na uctute...:.::.......g...:........::..:.........::.......:...:....:...:........:..:::::....:.....:.....:.:... n ..ot. str are .su ................g......:.:::.:.::.:...:::.:.::;;.:::::...::,;:.;.:.::::.:::.:::::::...: . Nix: em r.. clew an ..sire. :.:..:::.:...:::::....:.::.:::......::.:::.......::.:.........:.:.::.:.....:.::::........::.......................u............Y.:::........:.::.:..... p . 1nrB. t . a . r.: .ace r a sur f . ~ ter. or... .:::.::>•..:::;;;.:.:::.;:::::>...::;:.::.:::.:..:::>.>x.::o:::;:;:::.;::..:::.;;•.:::::>:;: :art ..:....:":::::;::rFi:?::;: ow. a toss.. . o n. rea.ao;.::.:...:...~..;.::..:.....Y::... . . . lo..or.. a «,:>::::::;;;r::::>r:r;;;:»: :::;;::;s:%;r%`:2"r.::;:::;':::i.? `:ci:<:r:oE:zv:>;»r::,><>;::;::r>r.;::::>:;i::;>:;::::';;>:;i:ii:::: f:'>:::;:>::>::>;;::rii:::i>>.:>;;r;.;>s;;;;:<::::;.:;::»::>::rd:i;::•z::;:;u:::.e:::: >"::;:::::x<: ::;:as::>s:>:;:_:.:;::>;:z:;::i;::.»>:::>. rs>cE::: ;is `r.::<:::::;::>;::::.:::::; E::' :.:::::::::::<..>:::;::_;>;;:::.::.;.:;:;:::>_:.;••.:=:.::;:::<:.:.::;..:,:.:>:.;::..:::..:.....:.........:.. . Every such owner or occupant shall at Add "vegetated stormwater management B all times keep and maintain, in a proper facility" to list of approved overflow state of repair, adequate drainpipes or a collection devices. Amend to reference drainage system sufficient to carry to the "stormwater" instead of "drainage." street gutter or storm sewer any overflow or drainage water accumulating upon, or from, such building, structure, parking area or open area." Audubon Society of Portland Summer 20(14 stormwater/Pavement Impacts Reduction Report 38 C it) IOU V.() u p V r V r r r a a ► av ii✓ !a7 ICJ IlJ i~d w w w v a) j V i) W V tj V 14 L~ & & & & L L V W Appendix A: Recommendations for Codes and Standards HILLSBORO Title Chapter Section Existing Language Recommended addition or change Priority Municipal Code code ..Streets::..::::::.::..:::.:.:. . 070.Street Street..~m roxement:meansexc v - 9ailiri ormwate t e.street to..s ecifiedst 9 rest p ma , ,.::..........::.:..::..::..::.::.::.::.:....:........:.:.:......na ement:#aa ~ttes.as.street.....::::...::....::..., ces ,the::installation:of.:curbs>::::.:;•:; ment..Amendao:reference m Prove . sal atiort..rif base tock.surfa.cin9..the....:..... to i i:. . st t o . al..a . n. of as ha tic. avi oc. ation:if . . a e d ali`w~: t ..d ana t e ara . ..move ment :>:_;::;:::::::.»>::;:::;•::::.:::;-.::.:::.;:':::'<?::>:':::dirbiiit:::;of;;tfae.:facilt 90 Minimum "A. Finished roadbed width shall be not Amend widths to conform to Metro Green Specifications less than thirty-two feet between curbs Streets and Creating Livable Streets design excepting those streets terminating in standards and guidelines. cul-de-sacs, where the width may be reduced to twenty-nine feet if approved by the city council." I. riot. be..less: than :Ame v p............P....... 9 nd.to..encoura a er fobs surfaci a.. th.afte .com a a _ _ er..tha' e .t.re. raadwa . "F. Portland cement concrete pavement, Amend to encourage pervious surfacing when provided in lieu of base rock and techniques. asphaltic concrete, shall be not less than seven inches in depth and shall cover the entire roadway." : a ..it.a roval..re ui s... a ....a.des ri ion.:of::.:..:::: ......................................................PP::....:...:.....q . r Amend:.to.includ :stor w r,.:.::.:....;».;::::;;:..:-:::::..: .:.........p.........:...:.::::-:::..:..:::.... a .ar.. orttons h r f.. P..:. t e:eo_ :to:::::.:..... mana ement.facillttes..as..a.re aired:...::.::....... . . roved'>ttie'riiadvva vv` > ..::::..:.::.,.::::..:..:...,...........Y:.::._.:_. <:< ::;:::r::>>:>~:::>:::::::s><.::::::<<<::::::>::::c;:; :::::::::::::::><_:>::>:::;:::::::::::»:::;;:;;:::::>;::::;;:.::::::::>:::c::::>:;:::~::::::::::<:::::::.;::::::;::;:.:;;:>;:<:.:;::::::;::::::::;.::::>.:::::;:.:..:<:;.>.:;:;eur sand:;the'::thiekries3of ba:,.:.;:.:::;.-..;::.;.;.: [`•::.::'>`::'[:'.<;<;:>?:>:'.:>:>~>:':`:>-::•:c:'°<':°[::::%:;<:<t>::>';'.::::>s::::°:::':::;;::;;:.:: e.tnstalled:' ~iori:to' avin 06 Street 10 Definitions "'Sewers and drains' means the Amend to exclude vegetated stormwater Improvement construction, alteration, repair or management facilities; add separate Procedures replacement of all sanitary sewerage and definition for vegetated stormwater storm drainage facilities, including those management facilities that improve water necessary for treatment, storage, pumping, quality if soils and water table allows. transmission and conveyance of any size whatsoever and whether considered trunks or laterals, either through dedicated conduits or by use of natural drainage courses." Stormwater/Pavement Impacts Reduction Report 39 Audubon Society of Portland • Summer 2004 Appendix A: Recommendations for Codes and Standards Title Chapter Section Existing Language Recommended addition or change Priority HILLSBORO code Municipal Code .0*n ru, h ft, 'es: fi 6-0 . . . . . 06 Street 050 Materials Amend to include materials commonly Improvement used in vegetated stormwater management Procedures facilities. . . d-stormwa er:: "'City drain ditch' means all open ditches Clarify whether "city drain ditch" includes with the water flowing therein open to vegetated stormwater management inspection, and shall include all gutters facilities; amend to encourage use of existing on the paved streets, and all vegetated stormwater management ditches constructed on the unimproved or facilities. macadamized streets, and all open ditches existing in the streets, alleys, rights-of-way, or easements owned by the city for that purpose." 1 ki Rios;. ori f t- dr' 61 4 Aqitqhs rut'".' encppragg,~sf*::1r.MW erma i*::i:-~i~.:.;~:::.:.:;:.,...:... F- dlt~h 5r-A qi~ . . 0 njisjuc... . n --.::::roo Wa er,,:"*r::: men b, re f orni: geJrj$u.0diK ter 4 a ty ntte le. C- t n e.. e: t . . . . . . . . . Stormwater/Pavement Impacts Reduction Peport 40 Audubon Society of Portland Summer 2004 I - - ( r , , . - . 1. 1 4 1 1 4 (1 61 C C C C C C I c , C tl 1i' V tJ 10 V 10 tJ 10 110 FO 10 10 10 ILL V :V :V 1) A) :V 'V 'V V V V V V V V V V V &r W W W W W W W W WF, Appendix A: Recommendations for Codes and Standards HILLSBORO, Zoning Zone Section Subsection Existing Language Recommended addition or change Priority Ordinance No. 1945 code Residential R-6 20J Sidewalk and Tree Standards. "Property line Amend to encourage stormwater Zone Map sidewalks shall be installed with a minimum management facilities in the planting strip. 4.5 foot wide planting strip between the curb and the sidewalk. Street trees shall be planted in the planting strip, concurrent with the home construction, at two trees per lot for lots with fifty feet of frontage or greater and one tree per lot for lots with less than fifty feet of frontage." c :>::<erv a i 'iis s rfa ' 'Ef1CnU tl ar In areas.. r. 9. Desi n:.:::::.::...:..._.... a Ala cnde: t.e wire..... k......:............::...:::..:........... 9:.:<p.._:........::::::; . O.ff-Street Pa kin .......~B..General.............:.::..:.::..:........................t ).....................G...:...:::.:p......... g.................................:.:.....::... :>::::>r>;:;:>.::>::.;;::::;»;:;>::::;;:;.<::.::;.;:;:;>:;:;;<;,;:.;;,.:;:;<:;;> : ::;:•;:;:::.>.:::.;.:::.;..:;::.:::.:.::.:r>::;z;:;;;;:...::.,.....:.;::::;;:::;:.;:;; x»;: to_ ass': st rmwate : It vv. M:: hat ..h ve.. .tl rabie :.dust. cee .........................:.........:........a a , .................pr. vlsio s...0.ff....:..::... re. a r. ments.............s 1.. a ..a. n . f.as ha.pc.concrete .Portland ....:...::..:.to.storm!nrateC;man...9:.............. St p.a.k~n .and......for. arkm Ci. ..o ent: ad We ..:.:::..::.:::..m...rits !i <n fit4?tif wa : or;ease e of: tn. ub c n d..mater.iaI her.r..a.AProve Ceme t, .o P........:.9 ....:..:.....:...Y..::.::..:::::..:..::.: inadin ...r.:..:........................................:..::..:..:..:............... AII::code°Pe uiiedir arkin...€a .e s. >`>wafer:':[:::' oJer.. lic::sidewalks:or:on. o:a ::::::.;;,::ubiiror:: crvate: ro e P 9..P.. Development 133 Development IV. Plans B. Landscaping plan Amend to require stormwater management Review/Approval Review Required facilities as part of plan approval. of Plans ri site t rn?-ovate o re u...... :;:::::::::>:::>.::.:<:..:::;>:;::»::;::<>:: Amend t s..o.......:.:. _ ion. ractices'tf;3oils: a ow;::;;<::;:<;:::'_:' landsca e:miti at tormwater.:P V. Standards A.S. "Drainage... consistent with [USA] CWS" Amend to encourage on-site stormwater landscape mitigation practices. rfaci r idus:.su toe o t3'.. s to n..... 9:. . l:. ainetl: ard.:su: ace ec a est a d .h . VIII Special C.2.a. "Accessways shall have a minimum 15 Amend to encourage pervious surfacing Standards for foot wide right-of-way with a minimum of techniques. pedestrian/ 10 foot wide paved surface." bicycle accessways Stormwater/Pavement Impacts Reduction Report 41 Audubon Societv of Portland • Sumner 2004 Appendix A: Recommendations for Codes and Standards TIGARD Policy Section Subsection Existing Language Recommended addition or change Priority code Comprehensive Plan :..:,::::>x: ;;•;>::.:.::;;::;:;r:.;:: :<-r::;:::iir.">::;>:::>:<<:::>tii<>:;ri<{5<;:rES;"i:>:::i:::>:;:>':>?:r><;::::::::>:bf[i °:it<::; ;?'s;?{S'<>::i;r?i%'Y?ii :ai i; :::;:ii;;~z ::.;:;[>Er»: <i?:;<i<iS2E>;K ::<<:<:[::»::>''>.;<:><: 'iti:`:-'°i:;#;:2::>i';;:: ;::i:;t>i:<:: ";::i:: <5 :::isi:';:::";: >';i::: ;;>>ii:::: i:jE ::i[::>: d o encoura a:;on-srtestormvvater.. en:a dt ntron.o::::':;9....... . ,..intreas stora ean ::re e.. anon .......tl..... e. _ Im lame . 1_ g n uali nt 4...Arr:Water a d...:..::.:2........ e Q . ::::::.::....R...._... _ r. r: atron> ra orrn<;:>andsca e;;mitl dale . eak .st to:..lowe...and. unoff. P:.:.........9 ......::.:::..:.P..:;..:::::.;.::.:...;;:....: 5 rate ies ................stormy......... ...............::...:.._:..:Y:.P.............:...:.::.::.:::::...:.....................:.:::... t . .....:.....................Land tte ua 1.4."Reduce street related water quality Add "by implementing design standards and quantity problems" given in the Metro Green Streets and Creating Livable Streets guidelines." Amend hall.r to:rnclude.starmwater nvestl ate:: .managem om ...................lm tam call aka Pactfrc. Hr hwa . rno......... 5... . e3ted:;Tnesi3;vva , attracttve.and iess.con ......Y..:.::::................ >.I . elude::Srdewa k'°:: ati ice e,:...: they rm r . eriipnts`arme :afar... 0 1 va h. 7. Public Facilities 7.2 Storm No direct conflicts with Metro Green Streets and Services Drainage and and Creating Livable Street guidelines, but Wastewater no requirements for meeting minimum Management standards. d :.:>r <::<«;::::<;:;..,..:;;>:::>~>:::::::::r:::r;:<:;;~~: >:<a:a::>:>.>::;;> ?.:..::.,.;;:o:?><.;;.:;::;;::::;.;:;::,;;.:.>::_ :r.:.:o:a::::;:;;;:<a;?;:i::r><:i>ctii>:ii;:<;:::r.;i:; es.not..a resssto 8. Trans ri im .acts;.rvm::.ransi_;:fe a_. <::.>::>:; s.>~:':::;;::>:::::':: r<:::>::«:::::;:;>::::>::c::..:>:;::>::<~::::::;::>:;r::::>:>:>::>: s::: ~ s'::>::::»:>.>:i:::F::s:c>::a::;::><:>:::::::.>:>::z::»::><::>::;>:::::::::<:::<`:i>:::::;:::>s:::<.:<.>::: >::::.:<r:i::::::::.<>:: <:r::;;;;•:::>::>::>::;:.r:.::<:a::::;:.::::.:;:.::..; ; _ . erences..to tne::Metro;'::;:>;:?:;?a<:;:;::> t nclude..ref end o I tl :.>.;vabl::$ . ........::>::::»:;:':;:>:.:::<:::zs:::::::;::;:'::>:::.<;:::t;::::;::::«;<:.>:.:;::::c::.;:>::::::<::«::>:.>t:>::z:::::::»'::::>?::::>:::~:::<:~::;::iii::>::<:<:::1:;>:;<::;::;:i;<:;>::`:":;?;r : Li ire ets ari..Cr+yatrn . en .stye TIGARD Title Section Subsection Existing Language Recommended addition or change Priority code Municipal Code 13: Local 04 General 010 Definitions 1.h. Defines local improvements as "the Add "stormwater quality facility" or amend Improvements Procedures construction, reconstruction, alteration, to reference "stormwater" instead of relocation or repair of any flood-control "drainage." dike, dam, floodway or drainage facility." e>Plarishoiild be ans.re hall..be:.dest ned .rn.........:..:.... 9..:......:...........:..:.....: s ...........Al1..dralna e. c royal 9:...:::.:.:.:::::::::::::.............:.:.:::..;:..:.:::...:::.:............:...:.:::.:.............. 360. Slte Commurnt pP..................... _ ,l. . te:Met Gree ro: . e..crtter.Ia;.In:the . ce..wlth:xh E?..a.:e.:.::o.;tncorpo•a.,;::. > Cater t....,..:.:..:....Develo men >:..:Develo men P.......................................::...:.:............................::..::..:.,......:.........................:...:.:..:.... is and :C'reahn Lrv , . ..ado #ed... Vrew Cod e.:...............,..............:.:............ e nes...Atnettd.to.ref . Ida t 385 Miscellaneous 020 Home C.B. Director may impose conditions Amend to include on-site stormwater Permits Occupation including "requiring storm drainage mitigation and pervious surfacing Permits improvements, and surfacing of parking techniques. and loading areas." Stormwater/Pavement Impacts Reduction Report 42 Audubon Society of Portland • Summer, 2004 r T' r .o ~r ti f~ !~1 R,T fl (1 01 At r1 0 9 (T I° f-' r• IC, - - - - - - ~ r. ~ ~ .w v tv a' a' s~ ~ ~ t~ V id v v v iJ ~ E% >d ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Appendix A: Recommendations for Codes and Standards TIGARD Title Section Subsection Existing Language Recommended addition or change Priority Municipal Code code 8.C rsrc..at]eaus;: ;UA0;5ensitwe:::.,...;;;;:.D. 5..lX1 ows..for:develo .ment:wit .:....:.:,..:............................::...................................:..::.:::.,....:.......:..........p.::.:.:::::.:...:.:.................................:..:...... de.ade uate.:water:. ualit De.velo .meet.:: :.::..........e ~t . ::::........:.::..:::..::::.::.:..:::..P.................:,::.:::.:p.....s.::................:.:::::::.:..1~ands;Pecmi ......:.:..:::::.::.........................:...::..::..:::..........................:..:......::.ts...:........dra n e w aY.... . ...lon.g.as... . .....:::..................:.::,.::::::.:,::.::..::.:.................:.::.::::.::..::::.......................:..:..,::.::..::::.....~.....s.a..s........ .....::.:the bitat.m t anon>as:well.as:flood g........Y........:....... 9.:....:.: .4j, a.. ub ~c..fac~li of ..:::...:......:.....:...:..:..:.::::::...::..:..::::::::..:::.:.:::.::::::.:.::.;.>::..;•:.:::.::.:..:.::..:..:...:::.:.::::......::..........:.:.:::::..:::::...:...:..:.............p................. ass e....................... a.. s e.to.accommotl m x~ . . ovv:an>.accbr. ance<.witti; > . . 430 Subdivisions 010 Purpose Amend to include protection and/or promotion of water quality. a a e..:AIL...:.....:...:..::...:Am _ ...:.::::.::...:q................... end to ~nvide.:waier: ual".treatmerif'''.;;::..;:; : < s.................subtltvision: r e uate......:... . ...:...................::..:..:......::.::.................::..:.:::.:..::.......................:..::::::.:.:::.:::::.....................:.:..:.::,.::,.::.:....................::::::..::::.:....:...........:..........:..::.::......................:..q:..,......:...... ce..e osive:runoff. volumes.and..:..:.......... . . : drains °e:! ro4i io. red , uce.ex osure:io.... ....v 1 :.lootl: lama e . . 620 Tigard 030 Site Design 3. The front yard setback standards call for Amend to encourage pervious surfacing Triangle Design Standards a hard-surfaced expansion of the pedestrian techniques. Standards path to be "constructed with scored concrete or modular paving materials." . hE+. walkwa . ci5rlnE~cfion to':btiifdin J:................... nc._ ura ,Pervious surfacin' t . ces;standard c l f al s. or... a.ved.w th:;_ a.eii2ci"c a e:tir<" r1 t rri"" a ar "3 a. 080 Street and Table 18.620.1 Street Classification and Amend right-of-way and curb-to-curb Accessways Function Table: Streets widths to conform with Metro Green Streets Standards and Creating Livable Streets guidelines; include stormwater mitigation as an addi- tional street function. w Ci s I : ...::.;::;:::r>::a':<.:;::;.>:::::•>::;.::,:.::...:::.:.::::,.X:.;,.,.:;::.:::.L:..:.~;..:~..and.::Y:<::::.;::. ht-of;vpay,:widthi fo::~onform.:with:<:: : tVl !vae eluie`s~:mcl t at ora'as:'an:' alditiorial:fn~ i` 9.. Tigard Triangle Street Plan, Street Sections Amend illustrations to conform with Metro Green Streets and Creating Livable Streets illustrations by including stormwater management facilities. a ril'Tr'a` in1e.5<- tree P t lari-~~ aArrierid~illustratio ns to;con fgrm, with ~Metro.:; reen Streets.andEreaLin iivaEi~e Streef.3:' _ . ' . '€rtahb`>.emeni.fari[ities~ Stormwater/Pavement Impacts Reduction Report 43 Audubon Society of Portland Summer 2004 Appendix A: Recommendations for Codes and Standards Title Section Subsection Existing Language Recommended addition or change Priority TIGARD code Municipal Code 18: Community 640 Durham 200 Design B. 3. The front yard setback standards call Amend to encourage pervious surfacing Development Quarry Design Standards for a hard-surfaced expansion of the techniques. Code Standards pedestrian path to be "constructed with scored concrete or modular paving materials." 9 men : . 'ura e: erv,oussucfac..:.9....,:::.;::...;....::.::..:.:::. gig- j. . b. n. s for...:. aved 9... ntrances st d..... P........... ular. od •:::':i:::'::::::::`6;:':. ~:::::::::::c. r:., y'::'.:<::: ~:6i:'::::;%~::!:+:::•: i`::'G::: %'ti:: `2:::v ~ i::::::R:~':?:::::%~::::::' ~::::::;:;;::y,%::'.>'~:::..:.::• o:::::::.: r: ~ ~ v::':i::::;Ii ::<4'!:~4::i:!:.i'::isi'::v:.'~''v:: ~:!>:~iii.`::~:~:: ':::i:: :~::'::~::!:i:'.':'i: ti':::: i'~ :~::I~i:.::^:: s:' ~:ii:'n::v: ~~i •..y: ~.::.:':::.::::j.:::.:::''%''~::::'::::i.i'::: i::':::::::::.:::::.:::v: 705 Access, Egress 030 General F. 4. On-site pedestrian walkways are Amend to encourage pervious surfacing and Circulations Provisions required to be "paved with hard surfaced techniques for required pathways. materials such as concrete, asphalt, stone, brick, etc...Soft-surfaced public use pathways may be provided only if such pathways are provided in addition to required pathways." essL c E ress.Re uirem . eh,cular.A c U L'rvab e:. treets:.. es.. n....:.:..::,::: ab}es..:1 :.2 .:and:. a lto inarrP.. at . ards.th . . 710 Accessory 020 Standards Requires additional parking spaces to be Amend to encourage pervious surfacing Dwelling Units "paved and/or covered." techniques. . a co :.:..................a60 Permit...::.:.::..::........, e . Horn 742 d.: rv,ous;sur.e..... D~cu u < ae,n .:of.; atk,n. ....::4...::.:::.:.:::<.:.. c v meats .ands rf .......P.. . Y.. a d..l. ad : , . . 745 Landscaping 030 General "H. Height restrictions abutting public Amend to allow trees, shrubs and plantings and Screening Provisions rights-of-way. No trees, shrubs or plantings in roadside swales and to allow street trees more than 18 inches in height shall be adjacent to roadways without standard curb planted in the public right-of-way abutting and gutter. roadways having no established curb and gutter." : o:inciude;o:P tions:for.:using bu...::.::..;.: Armen.:.........._:.:..._...::.:.:.:.:::.:.,:.: oas... . ff r. tombinat ...:::............Table 1.$ 24 Land cg 44 Audubon Society of Portland Summer 20(J-1 Stor,nwater/Pavement Impacts Reduction Report r t~- c: n ~1 , c; c i ' \ r. r, r r r a B n ( ri S a T T J'W 111 D t T { ? T T 4-T 41 1T 41 el 1n r .1 1 v v Ll v v v it LY V V -V V V1 v v V $1 .IV V N .fld v h J.+ !td !W d 4r W V V Appendix A: Recommendations for Codes and Standards TIGARD Title Section Subsection Existing Language Recommended addition or change Priority Municipal Code code 18: Community 765 Off-Street 040 General H. The parking space surfacing standards Amend to encourage pervious surfacing Development Parking and Design require "asphalt or concrete surfaces." techniques. Code Loading Standards Requirements dens >Dev;elo` tneni:as tlfined?asl«:'>>> d::to;iniliide'tonstr.iictiiyn land ...................:::::.:....:.A f rab f i i.i . t~f.........exc.. fu din :...tonstrutti .re n r to r n in,.. on Ct) Ct a tr ct a r.modifi fi n. st.u o to s u o ca o o a s a lip ............SY..::::. < _ : Uses::. r::: io n .4:e pee . mttt ed cs .mt7 fcat : m I :f ami 1 >r di .f a s n I o. e. es de ce f rni ..cesiden :u d dfimtlon: f:: ro : .Ite' `ari .?:><;;oit: ariexis ln'"ao#'ofrecortls.wtthq: t . tle elo meat:;:::::>_:::::;:::<::;>:>:: a _ ed.b .the 9 ] 995...................................................... 810 Street and 030 Streets E.1. Decisions regarding minimum Amend to include stormwater management Utility rights-of-way and street widths do not facilities and stormwater mitigation as a Improvement consider stormwater mitigation. consideration. Standards x>:::::::::::;•:::s:>:.:x:::< zr : b es..]8.89Q..1.Mrrnm m:wttl h .f aI _ u. a. e.._:..:..:mend.❑ ~ig ht-o.f.wa avement..width.:.::.:.:.::.:.::...,:.....,...:.. act c~st~ >..::<<>:::>>:>;::; e cs mmtmum: ane:wi. t .on_street ark n o;i:onfotrn vvi hMetro:. rePa` reets:an <'»':Creatir"G►vatifeStree~' u`delines>':::>':?i<:;:>.'>`:':':=..`: a Figures 18.810.1 through 18.810.4 street Amend illustrations to conform with Metro cross sections Green Streets and Creating Livable Streets illustrations by including stormwater management facilities. ::::::::::°:::<::::;<>::::::::::<>::;:::; :.::::::.::.::°::::<:::;::::;:;:;•>:>::::>:.:>:::;;;.::..:::::;:.:;:<::.::::.::.;::.::::.;;::::<;:::~::::;::.:.;:::::.:::.:::;::;~>;.::.:;:;..::.,;::.:..:::.:>.::.:. r m sand drtvewa :::.:.:.Rm.end.to:encoura e. erv.ioUS.sutfadn -.pp n . te...............tec n ues.:.;.::..;::..;::::..::.:;:.:..::.;:.:....:...:.::.:...::.:.:.:::.::.:•.:::.::::..::...;:......:::..:. . pproac es,:.e h . a k s` ane :%>:>:cept . n d: e a roadie'': AA. The street cross sections standards Amend to encourage pervious surfacing require "surface material shall be of techniques. Class C or B asphaltic concrete" on public roadways. Stormwater/Pavement Impacts Reduction Report 45 Audubon Society of Portland • Sumner 2004 Appendix A: Recommendations for Codes and Standards Title Section Subsection Existing Language Recommended addition or change Priority TIGARD code Municipal Code 'to encbUfage::vege a ewer:'Iffi pr` oV 6 m e'n*t:.,:I.m#a t -ted..st.b J t . . . . ::'conduifor,ai~t d. y~ ~lmprovemen ~1.::PUMCUU it e~ em: X_ d blk'::'dg t nVVay~:A'i-.0-0 iMto:proyf, 6m he y t xftfult `_h Rac . i.~:~ifjf Marine .toyidet ectior . . 0 f . 94 T;-;-j'fMAhdi:sU . a ITY'AMPT.9Y :~:fi: . . Ake :of -ert Prop . p: - . . . . 3-5 Soil Erosion, 210 Review of "For new development other than the Amend to include single family house and Surface Water Downstream construction of a single family house or duplex in downstream review of stormwater Management, System duplex" downstream capacity of the facilities. Water Quality existing storm drainage facilities shall be Facilities, and reviewed. Building and Sewers I r 11% it a MentAh a_tr:-~' 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240 On-Site 1 Procedure for determining quantities is set Amend to reference CWS Design and Detention Design forth in the King County Surface Water Construction Standards. Manual Design Manual (1990) -::-Amen 6.1re K. t j6i~ awexis ing:: Q -pf:rq~q 'ili:::,~Akew-c-ophstru iittrort::storMweiter.::~qua,nxJ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 310 Exceptions 2 ude one and two family ppen a.payi~j::::;- er 2 Cih*~site~@sposaij., 6h dr Ities::suc Red S- 7~be&j i~~tion-:We s:--::-:-:-:,::::x. y~w.e.si:Any..... asinsylli r.... n enc .:i ;~sl 5~ I er i,.~ an hc t -ii afgC Y. an.~q M 64: . . . . . . Stormwater/Pavenient Impacts Reduction Report A6 Auclubon Society of Portland Suninier 2004 Irl lp, ell .4 ii !iJ V >J ''J 1! L7 hJ 3d 'V :V V °V rV !V 1V JW iV 1W V 1W 60 W W 1110 W W W V IV W W W W1 IV W W W ® W m as Appendix A: Recommendations for Codes and Standards TUALATIN Chapter(s) Section Subsection Existing Language Recommended addition or change Priority Development Code code 14 Drainage Plan 040 Objectives 15 "Comply with Metro's Urban Growth Amend to include reference to Metro and Surface Water Management Functional Plan, Title 3" Green Streets and Creating Livable Streets Management guidelines and standards. e;: f:. e:;water;.qua itY:::..:ne:... ; ~ s the v udn effectsva im:perv Ousnes ..b.st ct.S.tantla.ds............................................................................................ .....-.......9::...:....:..:.:.:.:.:...:....:..:.:::..::...:.::.......9..::<::<:.::.:>;?;;:.;:.::: : G eral.Prn i sin aatura : e .mat . a :..........................9 ...........................:..::.:.:....:......::::::...::.::::::::::::..:::..:::.:.:.:::::..:.::.:.:..::.:..:::::..:...:.::.:::.:::.:::.:::.:::::::.::...:::.....en r e ~c a t..tlesi n. in..tbe:construction.:::...::.. erv us.s. . a ec......q : :.:::.:::.:::.:.;::;:<:::;:.;.;;::;:;:...:<:.;;::;.<:.:>_:<::::.;::::::::.;:<>:.:«::.::;::>:::;.;:::;>:«::;;::;:«:::>;:::.;:.::<::.>::<:>:::»:;.;:::;:::<»•:::::>:::>::::.:::;:;:.;:::::>;::»»:::::::>:~:;:::>;<::;::::::.:;::«;<:.>::;;::.; walk ::antl; arkin :.:areas:!.'.::::::;:>::.r:a:>.siorm:wate:.ru ofstreets ..ide . s.. . "Utility Facility or Utility Facilities. The Clarify if vegetated stormwater portion ...which is regulated... by those management facilities are considered portion of the Tualatin Development Code utilities. which regulate...storm sewer and water improvements." orrnw v stated st Addri3efmittow: or::e i i >:bc lan mana ement;#ac I t p 41-62 020 Permitted uses; Clarify whether vegetated water 030 Conditional management facilities such as swales, uses permitted infiltration trenches, ponds, etc., are permitted uses or conditional uses. went r` .re sto m waterriana e " ed•:Use::.............200.Desi n.:._...-..:.....::3.:Site.:Desi ontf:.ardaetback:desi n; standaitarequi 9 9....................... _ s; reater;than:D:<feet:re9uirefaeitattes.m:..p.ubltc:;n9hts:.of.wa ..........:.:...:....:::::::.:::....::::.:::Commer..tial:..::<:::.::..:::::.:;.;:::Standards...........,......... Standar.ds...................foc setback... Y..-.....:;:.:.>:..::... . - , t d.s : . v::::.:: v:..:. : - ...........::......:....::.:..::vv;:4:.:v.:.::.:..:~::::::::::n...: - ced front.. a etback>stari ards;::ericouea e'>':`;:; landsca in an:arcade.:or.a.hard sur#a. 9. ..::...:.:.:.:..:.:...:.:....:.:.................Overl . a <s I be. rovided>:>:<? erviousaUe aim aec a art of the sidewalk .ha . ~#~etw2en;a$trunute ana:;publ.c:street:o su a' `ed rear`s I . <>:<::::: d':vvitscnred cnn~r . ;:oristructe odular:: a a 72 Greenway 150 Modification "Nothing in this chapter shall prohibit the Amend to require vegetated stormwater Protection Overlay for Storm Drainage City or any property owner from altering, management facilities and landscaping up District (GPO) and Improvements enlarging, straightening, piping, or stream of proposed modification in order to Natural Areas otherwise modifying a creek channel in the maintain natural creek channel; eliminate NRPO District upon a finding by the City provisions to alter creek channel. Engineer that such modification is necessary for maintaining the ability of the creek to transmit storm water run-off." Stormwater/Pavement Impacts Reduction Report 47 Audubon Society of Portland • Summer 2004 Appendix A: Recommendations for Codes and Standards TUALATIN Chapter(s) Section Subsection Existing Language Recommended addition or change Priority code Development Code ~ ge:pervrouss f mil 'ing fo... i.A ant technt 'men --s Z3_Eomm... _ ace:.......... q . ....that. racted:~f:Pp........:.:.....::.:._:...:.:::.:..:...:.._..:.:.:..:.......:.........._.... 7 Walkwa s "(a) Except for townhouses, walkways Amend to encourage pervious sur aon for multi-family development shall be a techniques. minimum of 6 feet in width and paved with asphalt, concrete or a suitable all-weather material." _ minum;. me~d;to:ettcourage.p...::..;.:....._...,... _ : i .:o f.6..::.:.::..:.. . . wa kvva .f.s tan. ar O..S h.as ali._:.::::._xec,: nigues,.:<:;.;::.: dshall. fleet.... d 13tc c oncr rcuiatto . (b) (1) "a concrete or asphalt paved Amend to encourage pervious surfacing pedestrian walkway shall be provided techniques. from the main building entrance to sidewalks in the public right-of-way." . ..........:::::.:::•:::::.::>;::;:.:;:;:;;>:;.>;;;;:::::>r.>:::::::::>::<:::::_:r::;::'r::ii;'rr>::?rr>::r:':;':<;':<`:':,;`.>,;>.::::<:>:::::>'.::;;%>;:::::<::::<:>,::::::<:s:::::><:::::::>:::::::<:::;;:>:::;::;:._,`°;::>::';::':::."`,°:•:;::°: ;sur~acm cted: Amend to encourage pervious 9 . . >cu~sti•a of::.::::.::::' shall.be. _ 11;t- eat::and _ . ............................:....._.....:...................::.:::::::::::..:::..........::.;.;:;:.:;:;.:::.:.::.:.:.:.a 350 - Amend to allow curb cuts and stormwa er Par Off Street management facilities in landscape islands. Parking Lot Landscape Island Requirements - Multi-Family Uses 'd rage pervious..Wffa-cfing.: ff-Str techn Land , : ; sea e': s an U5tt12 U . . i:'i';Ei:Ji:.. n '380 Off-Street 4 "Areas used for standing or maneuvering Amend to encourage pervious surfacing Parking Lots of vehicles shall have paved asphalt or techniques. concrete surfaces." Audubon Society of Portland Summer 200! !q' Stormwater/Pavement Impacts Reduction Report 48 4117) C{ Cl In. Cj V C CI l1r. L. tir A~ ria 'rr1 .rig 4i) '1J 10 L' :~I IV %t, :V 1L' a W SC' V W 1:' IL) IL' IL) l' t' ILI W El IL.) E' E! ! Appendix A: Recommendations for Codes and Standards TUALATIN Chapter(s) Section Subsection Existing Language Recommended addition or change Priority Development Code code . ...Z3;:Evmmunl ...............6i0. Centra z~ n. .Pro t)te.c rea ...t16n:.o r f :::.>:<.:;;:<::::;;;:.><::::>.:;>;::;;:::>::>::~:::::>~<;<>::::>::::,::;;<;............, t...) m . een....streets.. aad ........Amend.to Include: water. uallt ..benefits=: stirf~ee::: arktn :areas:utlhzln ::#eature3:alke:<:::::=:reductn effective:im erviousness.#hrou.:.ls`-:~:':::;..<;; . ;peChieble;:..vmpntsolr< :ow~red:?>:;:> water>mana ement facilities;'an .:arid:nati.VClarid sca in ut'a e.: ervlousaurfacing, technl ::;:;:::;>:;:::;:::;>::<::::>;::::<;;•:>.::»:< »::>:.>::::;>;:::<:<:::::;»::::.;::::::::;:::::::.::::: s - ardVsliould:be«fieiiif3le:a'o ::::>;<::::.;:::>>;::reduce vv>d` s egn: s t o m a ;::::.:::::><.nnn-renewable<:reso 74 Public 420 Street 12 "Concrete sidewalks with appropriate Amend to encourage pervious surfacing Improvement Improvements buffering shall be constructed along both techniques. Requirements sides of each internal street..." Amend:tbJ.e ujre:Ve etate,. stormwater<.:.. . ..................:.:.:..:::.:.::.::................mana ement.factltttes..far..ne . to . ~i~trigover;500<:sy;ft~of 75 Access 200 Street Design Table 75-1 Functional Classification Design Standards Amend table to conform with Metro Green Management on Standards Summary Streets and Creating Livable Streets design Arterial Streets standards and guidelines. 1 ; >.tv.'con orm Re..orn.....etade.... ~-otdl.StFeefT3e31 Amend itlisteatidns;:and:rotcs......:. `r:E;::~~i~.~<>?~< i'~<>:;:::~~::>s:;;>>:>`::~~::>:€:`::>s€::>s:::::::<:>:~<::>::::>::>:<>~::::>:>,:a::>:<s<:><::: ~><;::<:::~z:::->a::~~::;>::::«>:»:::::>:s::;>:~::<»::::>!thi':i5ia • ~ ti`::7,5~2:G<>'.;~<St~iSdat't13::>:'<?><;i<:":>`:~<:~'.<s<i?i::~~::;:'<><>:?:'::::>::>::::>:~>~:>;;>;wit ..'Nl~tro. Gr~2n~'Stree ts:and>Cre~firi ~ ~~:;>:1~:`:<:~:`:>:`::~. Stormwater/Pavement Impacts Reduction Report 49 Audubon Societe of Portland Summer 200-# rrr Appendix B: ~.r Responses to Concerns on Implementation of SPIR Recommendations B.1 Do these recommendations support TMDL requirements? Oregon Adnunistrative Rule (OAR) 340-41-455 establishes Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) requirements for the Tualatin River Basin" For most new development, it lays out a methodology to deternune phosphorus removal efficiency requirements for runoff, with exceptions for individual single family home or duplex development and for some hardship situations. This method requires phosphorus removal rates of 65% or more, depending on the amount of impervious surface on a development site. The required phosphorus removal can be decreased by reducing the impervious area and by draining impervious areas to water quality swales or other measures that retain stormwater onsite. By the OAR method, if a development site is 70% pervious (grass, trees, marsh areas), then the other 30% can be streets, buildings and other pavement with NO water quality treatment or mitigation required. The current CWS standard is different than the OAR requirement, but has been approved by DEQ as complying with the regulations. The CWS standard requires new developments to install water quality facilities designed to remove 65% total phosphorus from the design storm runoff from all new impervious area (individual single family homes and duplexes, and redevelopment that does not C create any new net impervious area are exempted). Under this standard, new imperviousness areas C receive treatment, generally via swales or ponds, all designed to the same removal standard (65%). ` 14 : e ?>xti, s,. .w.a r ..}..,..}+::.v:.a.::::.....:....... a.?'+•a!'r':." , s.. " `C`AF. `"a..-o wik:.} . ;ecw..::.., :.:.:::ra ;:.vir`s•`•' d. : h..:, .,.-,;•p:'p.J:,,w ^';Yi/':m•1...::i;:'3...:fi}rUw:i o'~:.:~n.:::: ,:.....yf ,-^~~a< , „Kft!/::f...':':.}:,:.:::.}s»k2>'ak::::~,9~::.: ..:...a..~<20:•.:s:~:, , , .Y, , ' +:a:..w..:: .a:<ap}:S}:......,............ } ';C~fat,.:'~..'::"~%'~~~ ~•z 'r~:::.... w. r} ASS '`Y` ~J. bL . YY `.2.. , ;C2 o> > .:s;:.<,,.,`^o,.y!0:k:..wsr ;.}s•:c>'>.'" k6" k•.aYe ' L ' •.4':: .}::.::':ss:f .YY 'n "v 4 ..i<.,. ...`.vc}L'-:x,:>•:QS;'Sk;">.' <#4.;`.';5f'+:`~~_~• ~~?;'~y~:... t- it, 12:b' f' S , k.~ri';-: 3.#:, a2..}«,+:.";)k. „f, k;$?!2k<:f::.,i;-: ->•y k,..: o4c,.,.:: .:n ar>S ;>~os~`• .<2.£'?,`,:ti>;F:•y ~':"1. ^ C!, . iG*z<;f x , r+\ \l'C."2:2a' ,-:.g;Yi!<}:^?`!^<`:>! , ak.>., h`~,r.., . } z. ..•f». rte.' syx ;+f~as.. ?;c ..Y..>..•.o ::'r , >-~'#Crx:?.>, 7:.Y'@;t.:.c. < •~..;.sfC>FO.-: <c~aU 2~°;.ov f<2~''........ ;tiaej.;> cf:> "y;,„;,,,•' vi:,> a,,. " ' \ <a><C.^`fl;"`irR7fire>i f:; pfR'`}..,.' r y'y2a..yb• j '2'- ;k1M-t'u:.?"a,..~ xn .~`{b'ti:;:;. a: ,e>.;:':~.:".,•.,i;?::•. ~\N.::.L-~~ '~J'`-.'"~dn^yv'C~-.,..-`'.-q~•'''~"", MEN ...ate;°~ b ' a~ -.:•<.,',<~.;:~k,...E: d >,r,9Ahr.o6:XM•V'; s2r«' tC~>~,".:s$ ^Y \r ,.w{`h-Y}a:;^' }.:f~;o.~~> ,i i0a'€''ctY: a+?>~:.' z" l1~:<a ttkf 3a., 6i>"}`x, •~p::>: >:.°n .`<.•:»ca-..'~}l'r~;;s`:'S%.: '~13. ' a.,k , . ' .;o " >S. ...4}";,~': r.•'.: . } .f }sf`S.•'''-' : s cx> ''ti'@: ~~w~, ;<c x•'_ ..a,{;rcxkr:r.:£a :`av;.S.•`.a.`}:;.Yt~j.-;x,::;s,r..gw ^'Y3J?"i;5^•<i z<:;'yo2>';F.as°a`;':'•'.'#fi~ }'i'%t~ -'C">';'gV,czty;;<':} :..'.;ef '•>2'y.~'.3`~` rY} 22?A;. Y].. x<„ `i>^c.x: •"'y'-4„~g}Wa <.r}l ;xE aa?, :k r .~y ..7 k 'Y : } .ai . K ' eta:::>• - v 3yw;Y.~w.:.>. cF R:ri ::;✓k:n ^L•:hw2s>.a$.~}y;a:StY<::a t, . M ~f, C':s <~ie."•.vrs:: 'O,3.4w\:~;fa~i\i.~~~i"..s<C.>.:q:;t.. >.a>k}S'.?;~'>•..: r- 2t.,-S-f'r: ~'.~a'~`.1';.y4{". #R"iZ :~::oy, ti., ~.5~:7: k. ~zw'•4:. '`?ah. t{< s...: s" s a• - fir: s : •r,.a i;iY>•`z#z:3k-e'r.•>~:h>r~+"F'"i"'-:c'}t;~.::. asx ,`'a£'r, M1.•;" ,5;2' l~"'~"`:~.~1:. ~.,rsv. •r., ,,;:cv+~+w.4.~s?if:• :.:r..,} :g'; Xc<F?,: '''w's ,r?YF>':` .•w .:f<+yyv.y •,.5,`': ~`ti:o. ~ ~<E>'~[~CiE•}^. ;hi ^:.~scsr: vi+~t: 2.~R<~i:°c;.ar . 2,..'r`S . ,.N' " ';f,'. :.:`i~rkf"`-4< ,F: S*'~<%:..,..v , ~.,;.:Y,v ¢ %i%;ry', :r:;;3y..; > , na.~>;,^#;yya ,s.~ ty~':.,' ~;r}:, •;ka~?Yy~" h#a'z3:;,;}.:: - WIN, ,,fl" ' <;~°•''`'aY"~o•M~>~~'<;s<~,~','`~s,~sS.`j,;•,;>Frys~ ;s jam;;;,,. ~'^r4 ` ::y c },2}c~.. :SYas2t` :...K+a3.gY•,..: .;.h':.a `..ba~>~;`"s~'>-.-.ft'h{'a?2~ "`a'' ~'s~';r.r...,:} osb;` r.::,.2 may, '.;qYy `~;a.<:!. ;..y. :,.,~fs?T:. vf.. ,.'7S°.F;,- ::vs}o~:','~?ia"w-.•fka.•g ;T. . 3~°•+ <y#1J 4s!i a.6.?.''" ":°~;iE : . ~ ~ ' ~ x ~.:af:.r..'~t;c. H.. _ ,•::.;~q a wo::.~'4:~#~ef',3 r;'t°~'Y,»~'u:;?s :~6hc~>>'~ i ~I r n The porous paving blocks in the visitor parking lot at the Clean Water Services Field Operations Facility (2025 SW Merlo Court, Beaverton) allow stormwater to soak into the ground, instead of being piped into the nearest creek. This method reduces erosive stormwater flows and pollutants in stormwater. F Information on TMDLs can be found at v<v7m%deq.state.or.us/wq/tmdls/tmdls.htm ` Audubon Societe of Portland • Summer 2004 50 Stormwater/Pavement Impacts Reduction Report ` ' Appendix B: Responses to Concerns on implementation of SPIR Recommendations The SPIR recommendations focus on reducing or mitigating impervious areas, with required treatment for non-mitigated impervious areas. The proposal also addresses gaps in the OAR require- ments and provides more flexibility than current CWS requirements. The OAR method could allow substantial untreated or unmitigated new impervious areas (up to 30% of a site). The current CWS method uses a short list of treatment methods rather than runoff reduction. The SPIR method encourages a primary focus of reducing stormwater runoff by reducing imperviousness, intercepting rainfall with vegetated stormwater facilities and directing runoff to approved on-site pervious areas. The current CWS standard for stormwater treatment is appropriate for impervious areas that can not be mitigated. This proposal also covers significant redevelopment as well as new development and individual houses. With vegetated landscape facilities, proper design, construction and maintenance is important in ,rte. achieving and sustaining pollutant and flow reduction. If designed properly, streets designed with swales under Metro's Green Streets and Creating Livable Streets design standards and guidelines would meet the existing CWS standard for treatment. Similarly, as new practices and methods become known, they should be tested for effective pollutant removal. Design guides should provide sizing standards and examples to help practitioners. For example, if landscape stormwater facilities in Portland are designed to meet the Stormwater Management Manual design standards, they are assumed to meet pollutant removal and flow reduction standards. If alternative sizing or methods meet the same standards as proven through independent testing, they are allowed. . a~p] wiT_ tiit . At Y t 1. ' 1 I • Parking lots at the Hillsboro Stadium (4450 SW 229th Ave., Hillsboro) drain to either vegetated infiltration basins, as shown, or grassy swales. Although the total site impervious area is large, the effective impervious area is small because of the stormwater management facilities. Audubon Society of Portland • Summer 2004 51 Stormwater/Pavement Impacts Reduction Report 6~ Appendix Bi , Responses to Concerns on Implementation of SPIR Recommendations r vE r B.2 Will SPIR recommendations be more expensive to developers or local governments than r current standards? Can small infill projects reasonably accommodate water quality measures? Can incentives be identified to help encourage new and different standards and methods for stormwater management? ~c New development that incorporates as many Storm water Impact Mitigation Measures (S1MMs) as possible on-site will reduce or eliminate the need for traditional water quality facilities, which are often seen as unattractive. By incorporating the SIMMs as a part of site landscaping, developable space may be saved. This may provide reduced costs for developers and aesthetic benefits. SPIR C recommendation also gives developers more flexibility by offering more methods for mitigating stormwater impacts than currently allowed. ~s There may be concerns about applying a: stormwater mitigation requirements to individual houses and duplexes, which .a are currently not covered by water quality regulations. SPIR recommends that only SIMMs, not water quality facilities, are applied to these individual properties. These sites should be able to achieve a 10% effective impervious area without much trouble. Landscaping, U ~K4 1 W.M t.e. 7 ty tree protection and planting, driveways , and sidewalks graded to drain to landscaping, pervious driveways and y~. walkways, disconnected downspouts to msg" landscaping or small swales or other methods can achieve on-site mitigation. For example, using the current City of Portland Stormwater Management Manual (2002) simplified sizing C standards for a new house on a 5000 sq. ft. lot, if 50% of the proposed lot is C impervious, then 2250 sq. ft. of the impervious area would need mitigation C to meet the 10% EIA standard. If half of the imperviousness is drained to land- C scaping (garage roof, patio and half of the house or the driveway and sidewalk) c and four to eight new trees planted c (depending on type), the requirement The grass median also functions as a grassy Swale, capturing runoff from roadways at the Hillsboro Stadium (4450 SW 229th Ave., Hillsboro). would be met. If the property has existing trees that can be protected, C' fewer new trees would be required. C Stormwater/Pavement Impacts Reduction Report 52 Audubon Society of Portland • Summer 2004 C Appendix B: Responses to Concerns on Implementation of SPIR Recommendations The justification presented for individual houses and duplexes also applies to small infill development projects. SIMMs should be as easy or easier to accommodate on small projects as currently required water quality facilities since SIMMs can be part of the site landscape. Costs to local governments should be balanced by proposed benefits. Additional inspection and enforcement may be necessary to effectively implement the array of SIMMs, and to ensure that mitigation measures not located in separate tracts are appropriately maintained. However, the SPIR proposal should result in fewer water quality facilities constructed for residential subdivisions, which will reduce the maintenance workload for local jurisdictions (as these are currently maintained by the public agencies). Maintenance for green streets should require increases as well as decreases in funding and management. Swales along green streets could be considered the responsibility of adjacent property owners for most maintenance. Streets with swales would likely require less street sweeping. Inspection, vegetation maintenance for swales considered to be public property, and driveway culvert maintenance may require more funding than existing streets. A reduction in monthly stormwater utility fees is a possible incentive for property owners, new development and redevelopment that meet or exceed proposed standards. The City of Portland is planning to implement such a program in the near future. While we recommend providing financial incentives, this will likely require a rate review study, and an increase in monthly fees for properties ,i that do not have SIMMs to balance the reduction in fees. This would also provide an incentive for existing properties to retrofit using SIMMs. a B.3 How will maintenance and enforcement issues be managed? Can Stormwater Impact Mitigation Measures that are small and spread out over development sites, or not located in easements or tracts, be effectively protected and maintained? This is extremely important for the long-term success of the program. We recommend that, at a a minimum, SIMMs not located in easements or tracts be recorded as deed restrictions, and that CWS standards and local planning codes specifically require protection and maintenance of the SIMMs. These restrictions should be recorded in a fashion that ensures that local government permit staff readily see such restrictions when any new permit actions are initiated in the future. CWS and local government codes must also state that site improvements or amenities such as paving, roofs and landscaping that contain permit approved SIMMs cannot be altered without a permit action. !a Additionally, permitting staff should conduct annual site inspections of at least 10-20% of properties with SIMMs and water quality facilities to note if they are being properly maintained, similar to existing inspections. Property owners should be notified if maintenance or other measures are 2 necessary, and if such work is not completed, a nuisance-type enforcement procedure should be implemented. Although site inspections and maintenance require funding, this should be an integral part of any stormwater and water quality management program. 2 Audubon Society of Portland • Summer 2004 53 Stormwater/Pavement Impacts Reduction Report Appendix B: Responses to Concerns on Implementation of SPIR Recommendations Ge' B.4 Will the plumbing code, soils, and/or groundwater conditions prohibit infiltration measures such as disconnected downspouts? Local jurisdictions refer to the State Plumbing Code. This does not prohibit disconnected downspouts for new development or as a retrofit option. Local codes should explicitly allow or require downspout disconnects and provide standards for approval, which would increase the likelihood of successful installation and use. Standards should include: minimum distance from foundation, lot lines and pavement; requirements for an overflow path into streets or approved (i drainage systems; and prohibiting use on steep slopes and high groundwater areas. Preferably, G landscape areas receiving runoff should also have soils tilled and amended with compost to maximize C. opportunities for detention, absorption, infiltration and evaporation. G• There is much concern about the use of infiltrating stormwater management measures in most of r, Washington County due to "tight" soil conditions. While many of the soils are certainly inappropriate C~ to infiltrate substantial quantities of stormwater, they have capabilities to accommodate smaller storm runoff volumes. These standards will allow for adequate time for infiltration to occur and maximize G the capacity of the soils to absorb flows. An overflow path for large storms should be designated on C plans, using topography and grading or overflow piping to carry excess flows to approved drainage systems or streets. C While infiltration measures should not be used on steep slopes that may be subject to slides and in C low-lying areas where ground water tables are near the surface, there are still substantial areas of C urban Washington County that would not be impacted by these restrictions. B.5 Will use of 'Green Streets' and additional stormwater management measures conflict with Metro density requirements? On-site stormwater management measures should not require any additional developable land than is already used for landscaping and currently required for water quality facilities. C C• Green streets, in many cases, will require some additional right-of-way width to accommodate C. stormwater swales, even if narrower street widths are applied. We do not anticipate this to be a substantial amount of developable land (perhaps one acre of land per mile of local street). Metro goals for protection of habitat and water quality are equally as important as density, and we do not feel that these recommendations will create any substantial requirements beyond those pressures already existing for expansion of urban growth boundaries. r v P• u Stormwater/Pavement Impacts Reduction Report 54 Audubon Society of Portland Summer 2004 ar Appendix B: Responses to Concerns on Implementation of SPIR Recommendations B.b Concerns about safety, longevity, and maintenance of alternate pavements and curb configurations. Pervious pavements, including open-mix asphalt and concrete as well as pavers and grids, are rarely seen and a relatively new concept to most people. The professional staff we interviewed raised a variety of concerns related to the strength, durability, and long-term maintenance of infiltration capability for these alternative surfaces. We agree these are important issues. The Metro Green Streets process attempted to address some of the issues by reviewing information from other areas. Many concerns will no doubt remain, however, until alternative paving is tested on a broader scale locally. We recommend the following: 1. Metro, local governments or another entity should develop and regularly update a single database of existing local alternative paving projects (i.e., parking lots at LSI in Hillsboro, the Tualatin Police Station parking lot, the new CWS Field Operations Facility, etc.). Annual inspections of the demonstration sites should occur, preferably during wet weather, to at least qualitatively review their ongoing success. Monitoring information and photographs should be added to the database. The database should be made available for public review on a web site. 2. Local governments must encourage implementing of a variety of alternative paving projects for both streets and parking lots. This should include construction of public projects (roads, public buildings and park sites) as well as private development projects. Private developments implementing demonstration projects should receive incentives such as SDC reductions, assurances of compliance with water quality standards if the alternate pavement fails to infiltrate as expected (assuming appropriate construction methods and maintenance), publicity; and other incentives such as increases in floor-area ratios. 3. Alternative pavements should be encouraged for low use and low speed pavement areas such as parking stalls and church lots. 4. Opportunities to try alternative paving should be actively pursued, such as trying open-mix pavement for utility trench re-paving in existing roadways. (Portland plans to try pervious concrete for street section repair upon completion of a combined sewer project.) 5. CWS, Metro or a university should provide stormwater quantity monitoring for several representative alternate pavement projects to determine actual infiltration success over time. This data should be included in the projects database. B.7 Will these recommendations conflicts with solar access codes? In our review of local planning codes, we did not find any substantial conflicts with existing solar access codes. There may be some site-by-site limitations on tree types or planting locations, but it appears this could be readily accommodated, especially since tree planting is only one type of SIMM recommended. Sites with solar access restrictions could use other SIMMs in place of tree planting if necessary. 7 Audubon Society of Portland • Summer 2004 55 Stormwater/Pavement Impacts Reduction Report L Resources and References v Booth, Derek. 1991. Urbanization and the Natural Drainage System - Impacts, Solutions and Prognoses. The Northwest Environmental Journal 7:93-118. .o City of Beaverton. 2003. Comprehensive Plan. Beaverton, OR: Community Development Department. r City of Beaverton. 2003. Development Code. Beaverton, OR: Community Development Department. ;o City of Beaverton. 2002. Municipal Code. Beaverton, OR: City Attorney's Office. City of Beaverton. 2003. Engineering Design Manual. Beaverton, OR: Engineering Department. City of Hillsboro. 2003. Comprehensive Plan. Hillsboro, OR: Planning Department. City of Hillsboro. 2003. Municipal Code. Hillsboro, OR: Planning Department. City of Hillsboro. 2003. Zoning Ordinance No. 1945. Hillsboro, OR: Planning Department. City of Portland. 2002. Stormwater Management Manual. Portland, Oregon: Environmental Services. v www.cleanrivers-pdx.org/tech _resources/2002_SWMM City ofTigard. 2003. Comprehensive P1an.Tigard, OR: Long Range Planning Division. V City ofTigard. 2003. Municipal Code. Tigard, OR: City Recorders' Office. (f City of Tualatin. 2002. Tualatin. Development Code. Tualatin, Oregon: Planning Division. v City ofTualatin. 2002. Tualatin Municipal Code. Tualatin, Oregon: Community Development Department. Clean Water Services. 2003. Design and Construction Standards. www.cleanwaterservices.org w Leopold, Luna. 1968. Hydrology for Urban Land Planning: A Guidebook on the Hydrologic Effects of Urban v Land Use Planning. US Department of the Interior, US Geological Survey, Geological Survey Circular 554, Washington, DC. r May, C. W., and R. R. Horner. 2000. The Cumulative Impacts of Watershed Urbanization on Stream- Riparian Ecosystems. Pages 281-286 in P. J.Wigington and R. L. Beschta, eds. Riparian Ecology and Management in Multi-Land Use Watersheds. American Water Resources Association, v Middleburg, Virginia. Metro. 2002. Creating Livable Streets: Street Guidelines for 2040 (Second edition). Portland, Oregon: Metro. 2002. Green Streets: Innovative Solutions for Stormwater and Stream Crossings. Portland, Oregon: Metro. Schueler, Thomas. 2000.The Importance of Imperviousness. In The Practice of Watershed Protection, edited by Thomas Schueler and Heather Holland. Ellicott City, MD: Center for Watershed Protection. 2000. Why Stormwater Matters. In The Practice of Watershed Protection, edited by Thomas Schueler and Heather Holland. Ellicott City, MD: The Center for Watershed Protection. Washington County. 2003. Comprehensive Plan. Hillsboro, OR: Land Use and Transportation Department, Planning Division. Washington County. 2003. Community Development Code. Hillsboro, OR: Land Use and Transportation ~Aw Department, Land Development Services Division. Washington County. 2003. 2020 Transportation Plan. Hillsboro, OR: Land Use and Transportation r. Department, Planning Division. Washington County. 2003. County Code. Hillsboro, OR: Office of County Council. r Stormwater/Pavement Impacts Reduction Report 56 Audubon Society of Portland summer 2004 L G 'v v G G G v G G G G G G G c c • c c c c c Front Cover: The Hillsboro Stadium (AASO SW 229th Ave., Hillsboro) uses a variety of surface landscape stormwater facilities to reduce stormwater runoff. Grassy and vegetated swales, as shown, can reduce stormwater pollution and help mitigate the impacts of urban development. c C Stormwater/Pavement Impacts Reduction (SPIR) Project Report c © Audubon Society of Portland 2004 C c fjO"~ry°~° c 9'~ A ~~^ded is `9 'i ri cr, w2y"n I •as.o~ zoos- We can't stop to eliminate stormw tryi*ng ater runoff problems (Soapboxes are guest opinions jrom our New development requires treatment Summer Creek water actually backs up tour to the headwaters of the Tualatin readers, and anyone is welcome to write SOAPBOX or filtering of stormwater discharge into the drainage pipe into the parking lot! River last spring sponsored by Tualatin one. Sue Manning is a science teacher SUE MANNING a bio-swale before entering a creek. There is a huge puddle of combined Riverkeepers and Clean Water Services. in the Tigard-Tualatin School District.) Since Fowler's parking lot, track and waters - Summer Creek, stormwater How pristine it was - a meandering, trout and microinvertebrates. According pipes were being upgraded, one would from Walnut Street and parking lot - rippling river of clear water with abun- Students at Fowler Middle School to students' findings in the expect regulations to prevent increased all mixed together which parents drive dant aquatic life and surroundin native have been working to restore the ripari- earl fall, the water spring and amounts of untreated stormwater to be their cars through while delivering their vegetation. g an area of Summer Creek for man y quality in Summer Bh y Creek was "pretty good but could be a discharged into the creek. However, this children to and from school. This adds Wow! This water is clean enough to years. As a seventh-grade science lot better." was not the case. even more pollutants, which eventually drink. And people in Hillsboro and sur- teacher at Fowler, I have used this proj- In the summer of 2003, two large Some of the underground pipes deliv- make their way into the creek as the rounding areas do drink it. I was sad- ect as a teaching tool to emphasize the parking lots at Fowler were resurfaced ering runoff from parking areas and puddle slowly subsides. dened to think what happens to this components of a healthy watershed. and the drainage system was "upgrad- nearby streets into the creek have col- It is not possible for the water quality water as it travels downhill toward more Not only have students learned the ed." At the same time, the track adjacent lapsed, due to their age. These were not of any creek or river to ever improve populated areas. value of native plants in the riparian to Summer Creek was resurfaced and a required to be replaced as part of the unless we stop the direct input of Fowler students can continue to area, but they have also learned about significant number of catch basins for repaving project. untreated stormwater. improve the riparian area by planting the importance of clean water in the drain runoff were installed around the There are at least three large culverts It is crucial that new development native trees and shrubs to shade the creek. During the 2003-04 school year, perimeter of the track. that drain stormwater from the parking addresses this problem, but that's not creek and add nutrients but in the long students monitored the creek water on a Not only did these newly-paved lots and track directly into Summer good enough. Untreated runoff from run, this will not really have a lot of monthly basis by measuring the pH, impervious surfaces provide smooth Creek. Now instead of a minimal existing surfaces and development needs impact on the water quality. It makes temperature, phosphate level, coliform driving and running surfaces, they amount of water entering the creek, to be stopped completely because this is our efforts seem somewhat in vain if bacteria, dissolved oxygen and turbidity. drained a much larger volume of there is a large amount of untreated the only way we can reverse the trend. untreated, polluted water is allowed to Students began to realize that water stormwater runoff from Fowler property water entering the creek. It's an expensive problem but it needs to enter the creek at the very location we with a cool temperature and a high oxy- and the adjacent Walnut Street into In fact, there is so much water in the be addressed or we will never make any are trying to improve. gen level provides a good habitat for Summer Creek. back parking lot that on any given headway. Do you think we should give up? Or native aquatic animals such as cutthroat "rainy day" (and there are many), I had the opportunity to take a van can you help us? AGENDA ITEM # 3. D, FOR AGENDA OF 11/25/05 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Quarter 4 Council Goal Update PREPARED BY: Joanne Bengtson 4,~~'DEPT HEAD OK L&~-CITY MGR OK- ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Final progress report on the Council's 2004 goals. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Receive and file the attached summary report on the 2004 Goals. INFORMATION SUMMARY Attached are brief summaries of the efforts to date on the stated Council goals for this year. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED N/A VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY Visioning goals are identified throughout the goals and tasks developed by the City Council. FISCAL NOTES N/A iaadm\city cmmci1\goa.s\goa1 summary ais 05011 I.dotl/17105 Council Goals for 2004 GOAL 1 - FINANCIAL STRATEGY A. Develop and implement a sustainable long-term financial strategy for issues such as: 1. General Fund needs 2. Library 3. Transportation 4. Parks and open space 5. Washington Square regional center 6. Central Business District 7. Water system 8. Extension of urban services through annexation Fourth Quarter Update: The fourth quarter of calendar year 2004 Financial Strategy issues worked on during this period include: The fourth quarter of calendar year 2004 Financial Strategy issues worked on during this period include: Prepared and presented several special analyses related to the possible annexation of Bull Mountain. Continued participation of the Joint Audit of Qwest and Verizon franchise fees. Continued an audit of NW Natural franchise- fees in cooperation with Salem, Portland, and several other cities. The audit is expected to be concluded in January 2005. Council adopted updated Parks SDCs. Developed the preliminary FY 2005-10 Financial Forecast. Initiated the FY 2005.06 Budget process by training all departments in budget approach and forms. Conducted a quarterly meeting of the Budget Committee, which among other topics, reviewed potential financial impacts on Tigard from two statewide ballot measures. Supported arbitration between the City and TPOA by preparing financial analyses of both parties' Last Best Offers, and testifying at the arbitration. Third Quarter Update: The third quarter of calendar year 2004 Financial Strategy issues worked on during this period include: Prepared and presented several special analyses related to the possible annexation of B ull Mountain. Continued participation of the Joint Audit of Qwest and Verizon franchise fees. Continued an audit of N W Natural franchise fees in cooperation with Salem, Portland, and several other cities. The audit is expected to be concluded in October or November. Council approved a new franchise with NW Natural that includes an increase in the franchise fee rate from 3% to 5%. NW Natural has adjusted customer billings to reflect the 2% increase. The Parks SDC study has produced a draft report. The public review process has begun. Began work on the FY 2005-10 Financial Forecast. Conducted a quarterly meeting of the Budget Committee, which among other topics, reviewed potential financial impacts on Tigard from two statewide ballot measures. Second Quarter Update: The second quarter of calendar year 2004 has been very active for the City in financial matters. Issues worked on during this period include: Developed and adopted the FY 2004-05 Budget, Finalized the Five Year Financial Forecast based on that budget, Updated City fees and charges, Reviewed the Privilege Tax with the Budget Committee as a possible new revenue source, Prepared several special analyses related to the possible annexation of Bull Mountain, Continued participation of the Joint Audit of Qwest and Verizon franchise fees - after two years of negotiations with Verizon, the cities' auditor was finally allowed on site to review Verizon's books, and Verizon has committed to complete this audit before the end of the calendar y ear, Initiated an audit of NW Natural franchise fees in cooperation with Salem and Portland - several other cities are now joining this effort, Concluded negotiation of a new franchise with NW Natural that includes an increase in the franchise fee rate from 3% to 5%, Initiated a study to update the City's Parks SDC, Developed several financial analyses in support of the City's negotiations of the contractual reimbursement from Clean Water Services in exchange for maintaining part of CWS's service area, Implemented the City's new Street Maintenance Fee and began collections, Called the 1993 Bancroft Bonds early, saving the City $8,000 in interest costs First Quarter Update: Goal 1 Departments have been putting together budget requests and the City Manager has been developing his Proposed Budget in response to Council direction to budget conservatively. The Budget will be constructed to push the need to go to voters for a local option levy out as far as possible. Staff briefed Council in a workshop session on the drivers in the financial forecast to help answer the question why declining General Fund balances are projected. Understanding the drivers will help to develop appropriate responses. Staff has continued to support the discussion of the Bull Mountain annexation by developing special analyses as needed and responding to citizen inquiries. GOAL 2 - TIGARD CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT A. Support the activities of the Downtown Task Force as it defines a vision for redevelopment. B. Select a consultant to carry out the Transportation Growth Management (TGM) grant to create a redevelopment plan based upon the recom mendations of the Task Force and Council. C. Choose a financing mechanism, such as tax increment financing, for carrying out the redevelopment plan or vision. D. Broaden the Task Force to include citywide representation. Fourth Quarter Update #A • The City Council and Task Force met on Nov. 16 to discuss the project. • The Task Force led 24 Community Dialogs in October, with an additional three events for handing out the brochure. These small group discussions (12-15 people) were designed to elicit comments, ideas and recommendations from the community and have them help develop the Tigard Downtown Improvement Plan. • A Community Workshop was held December 4. The workshop was designed to have the community provide direction and ideas for the plan. Based on the Community Dialogs, Parametrix presented a first draft of 'a Downtown design. The attendees commented on the design in small groups. • Subcommittees were established to help accomplish the Task Force's charge: - Station Design. A Task Force subcommittee was established in November 2004. The subcommittee will meet with TriNlet to influence the Commuter Rail station design and implement the station design recommendations in the Task Force's Station Design Rec©'mmendations report from March 2001Recommendations are expected in February 2005. - A logo subcommittee created a plan logo in December 2004. #8 Parametrix was selected. The City signed the IGA with ODOT. The plan process began in August, and will be completed June 30. #C Not yet applicable. Financing mechanisms will be addressed in the Tigard Downtown Improvement Plan; the Task Force hasn't reached that part of the work program (February- March 2005). Other subcommittees will be created in 2005 and will address these topics. #D Completed in June (24 members with a Youth Advisory Council Representative). Third Quarter Update #A. ■ The Task Force is preparing for extensive community outreach through the Community Dialogs, being held from late September through October. The Task Force is holding small group discussions (12-15 people) to have the community help develop the Tigard Downtown Improvement Plan. It is important that the entire community be involved - this is the community's plan. ■ B&B Print Source donated printing and paper for 2500 brochures to publicize the process. ■ Task Force has also been meeting with TriMet to influence the Commuter Rail station design and implement the station design recommendations in the Task Force's Station Design Recommendations report from March 2003. #B. Parametrix was selected. The City signed the IGA with ODOT. The plan process began in August, and will be completed June 30. #C. Not yet applicable. Financing mechanisms will be addressed in the Tigard Downtown Improvement Plan; the Task Force hasn't reached that part of the work program. #D. Completed in June (24 members with a Youth Advisory Council Representative). Second Quarter Update Goal 2A: Council appointed an additional 12 members to the Downtown Task Force. Parametrix was selected in June as the consultant for the Downtown redevelopment program. Goal 26: The IGA between ODOT and the City needs to be adopted by the Council to proceed with the plan and work program. Goal 2C: Not yet applicable. Financing mechanisms will be addressed in the redevelopment plan. Goal 2D: The Council also passed a resolution on March 9 that expanded the Task Force to reflect Tigard's broad constituency and Downtown stakeholders. The recruitment has been completed and the Task Force consists of 24 members. First Quarter Update Goal 2A Council passed a resolution on 3/9/04 that acknowledges the efforts of the Task Force and commends its members for completing the work program. The resolution also directs that all current Task Force members be invited to continue serving on an expanded Downtown T ask Force. Goal 2B Staff is working with ODOT to finalize the project's scope of work. Once ODOT finalizes its review, an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) and Request for Proposals (RFP) seeking consultants will be completed. This groundwork will take place in the next quarter, culminating in a consultant's selection. Goal 2C Not yet applicable. Financing mechanisms will be addressed in the redevelopment plan. Goal 2D The Council also passed a second resolution on March 9 that expanded the Task Force to reflect Tigard's broad constituency and Downtown stakeholders. The recruitment process is now under way. GOAL 3 - TRANSPORTATION A. Aggressively pursue solutions to congestion of state, county and city fac ilities that cross through Tigard. 1. Reforming the Transportation Financing Task Force. a. Explore outside funding sources b. To recommend to the City Council expansion of the task force functions 2. Identify project priorities and funding needs for state and city facilities. a. Prioritize all project needs- city, county and state facilities in Tigard b. For priority facilities which are controlled by another entity, 1. Discuss the project with the entity which has jurisdiction over the facility; and 2. Negotiate a funding solution which could include partial city funding; and 3. Offer to improve a related city transportation problem in exchange for the other entity completing a needed transportation facility; and 4. Offer to accept jurisdiction for the improved facility upon project completion. B. Continue working with Tri-Met to carry out the Memorandum of Understanding and identify and fund additional improvements with an emphasis on intra-city bus routes. C. Council shall meet with ODOT representatives at least once in 2004 to dis cuss state road facilities in Tigard and the related funding needs and priorities. Fourth Quarter Update (From Engineering) Although the City submitted four projects for Federal funding through the 2006-09 MTIP (Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program), only two made the 950% list. One project that is still under consideration is the widening of Greenburg Road between Shady Lane and Tiedeman Avenue. MTIP funding has been authorized for design and rights-of-way acquisition for this project. Construction of the improvements to widen Greenburg Road from 3 to 5 lanes would address the current and future traffic volumes on that street. Another project still on the list is construction of a new street along the Ash Street corridor to provide secondary access to the planned commuter rail park-and-ride lot. This new street is intended to eventually become part of the Walnut Street Extension, which would extend Walnut Street east of Highway 99W then north along Ash Street to connect to Hunziker Street: The public comment period on the 150% list ended on December 6, 2004. JPACT (Metro's Joint Policy Advisory Committee on Transportation) will narrow the list to match the funding available in mid-January 2005. The Metro Council will conduct a public hearing on February 17, 2005. JPACT and Metro Council are scheduled to act on the final program (pending air quality conformity analysis) on March 10, 2005 and March 24, 2005 respectively. The 2006-09 MTIP with the approved final project list is expected to be adopted in August 2005. The City submitted three projects for consideration under the County's MSTIP (Major Streets Transportation Improvement Program) Transportation Capital Program covering the period 2007 through 2012. The project selection and implementation processes are still being discussed at this point. Although the anticipated funding for Tigard is expected to be approximately $5 million, the inflation rate (which is almost double the expected interest rate on the funds) and the fact that the projects will not begin until 2007 complicate the project selection process. Not every project will be initiated in the first year, and those in the out years will face the challenge of higher construction costs and potential downscaling of project scope. Also under discussion is whether or not various jurisdictions could initiate part or all of the work necessary to prepare the projects for construction and submit those projects for completion under the MSTIP program. Further discussions will be underway during the next few months to resolve those issues. Goal 3A1 The Transportation Financing Strategies Task Force reconstituted by Resolution No. 04-52 at the Council meeting on July 13, 2004 has met three times since then. At the Council meeting on October 26, 2004, Council passed Resolution No. 04-85 expanding the mission of the Task Force to include evaluation of funding'sources for sidewalk im rovements and rights-of-way maintenance on collectors and arterials. This same resolution added two members to the Task Force with Ralph Hughes representing the Tigard Chamber of Commerce and Marty Anderson representing the Planning Commission. Gretchen Buehner was selected as Task Force Chair and Ralph Hughes as Vice-chair. The Task Force will be meeting with City Council at the February 15, 2005 workshop meeting to discuss funding options, citizen involvement process for project selection, potential projects, and to receive direction from Council on priorities for emphasis in the evaluation of funding sources. The Task Force will continue its mission in 2005 to evaluate new funding sources for recommendation to City Council. Goal 3B The City staff continues to work with TriMet on the commuter rail project. In addition, the Downtown Improvement Plan Study is well underway with a citizen workshop conducted on December 4, 2004 to receive comments on the preliminary concepts developed. The Downtown Improvement Plan Study is expected to be completed by the end of FY 2004-05. The $75,000 included in the Capital Improvement Program for FY 2004-05 may be used to construct transportation-related improvements to enhance the commuter rail project and to construct other improvements that may be recommended by the Downtown Improvement Plan. Goal 3C Matthew Garrett, Region 9 Manager for ODOT (Oregon Department of Transportation), addressed Council at the November 9, 2004 meeting. The City staff continues to work with ODOT staff to resolve such issues as the signalization of the Hall Boulevard/New Library entrance intersection, temporary crosswalk while the signal system design and bid are in progress, and coordination on a regular basis to ensure sharing of information on upcoming projects. Mr. Garrett was able to report excellent progress on resolving those issues. The signal system installation has been approved, the temporary crosswalk has been approved pending installation o the signal system, and monthly meetings have resumed between ODOT and City staff. Mr. Garrett pledged to meet with Council on a semi-annual basis to continue the dialog and maintain the close contact between ODOT and the City. (4tH Quarter Update from Community Development) #B TriMet completed a comprehensive evaluation and mapping of sidewalk gaps in the vicinity of bus stops. City and TriMet staff currently worked together to prioritize needed sidewalk improvements throughout the City. Adding sidewalks will help to provide a safer, more secure walking environment than the street. With TriMet support, the City applied for four CDBG and one ODOT Bike/Ped grants to finance six sidewalk projects. ODOT included $654,000 in 2006 Bicycle/Pedestrian funding in its draft Statewide Transportation Improvement Plan for the infilling of sidewalk gaps on both sides of HWY 99 from the City's eastern limits to Canterbury Lane. Third Quarter Update (From Community Development) #B. The City applied for a number of transit-oriented sidewalk in-fill grants during the period. The streets involved include 69tH 71St Hall, Center, Garrett, and Frewing. The proposed projects will improve access to bus stops and help create a safer and more transit-friendly community. The City and TriMet completed a fourth outreach or listening post meeting regarding service and facility improvement needs. Approximately fifteen Chamber of Commerce business committee members participated in the meeting. Based on the comments received during the four outreach meetings conducted so far, TriMet is considering rerouting line 38 to provide seven hours of service along the presently unserved Bonita Road. It also is studying the feasibility of rerouting lines 62 or 92 to serve Barrows Road. Additional follow-up includes contacting two churches along HWY 99W regarding the use of their parking lots for bus rider parking. TriMet and the City together are looking at bus shelter needs within the City. At present, four bus stops in Tigard that meet the shelter installation boardings per day thresholds (35 per day) are without bus shelters. Third Quarter Update (From Engineering) Goal 3A - The City applied for Federal funding through the MTIP (Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program) process for four projects within the Tigard area. One project is for the construction of Greenburg Road improvements between Shady Lane and Tiedeman Avenue. MTIP funding has been authorized for design and rights-of-way acquisition for the Greenburg Road project. Construction of the improvements to widen Greenburg Road to 5 lanes would address the current and future traffic volumes on that street. Another project is for construction of a new street along the Ash Street corridor to provide secondary access to the planned commuter rail park-and-ride lot. This new street is intended to eventually become part of the Walnut Street Extension, which would extend Walnut Street east of Highway 99W then north along Ash Street to connect to Hunziker Street. Goal 3A1 The Transportation Financing Strategies Task Force was reconstituted by Resolution No. 04- 52 at the Council meeting on July 13, 2004. At that same meeting, Resolution No. 04-51 was approved commending the original Task Force members and completing the Task Force mission for the original task force. The reconstituted Task Force will explore potential funding sources for major street improvements. Goal 3B The City staff continues to work with TriMet on the commuter rail project. In addition, the Downtown Improvement Plan is in the initial stages. The $75,000 included in the Capital Improvement Program for FY 2004-05 may be used to construct transportation-related improvements that may enhance the commuter rail project and possibly other improvements that may be recommended by the Downtown Improvement Plan. Second Quarter Update 1from Community Development? Goal 313: A joint City-TriMet roundtable was held with social service and housing providers in April. The participating agencies included Community Partners for Affordable Housing, the Good Neighbor Shelter, the Senior Center and eight other Tigard-based organizations. The meeting focused on how the respective agencies' clients use transit and on transit access and coverage improvement needs. In May, TriMet made a presentation to the Downtown Task Force. In June, TriMet presented the program to the Planning Commission. Second Quarter Update jfrom Engineering) Goal 3A1 The reconstitution of the Transportation Financing Strategies Task Force is scheduled for the Council meeting on July 13, 2004. At that same meeting, a resolution commending the original Task Force members is scheduled for Council consideration and action. The Oregon Grocery Association will be represented in the reconstituted Task Force. Invitations were issued to the Tigard Chamber of Commerce and Washington Square management to provide representation on the Task Force. There has been no response from the Chamber and Jack Reardon of Washington Square said he could not serve, but would ask for a representative from the Westside Economic Alliance. If representatives from those groups are submitted, they could be added by amending the resolution to add those members. Once the Task Force is reconstituted, the initial meeting can be set, possibly in late July or early August 2004. Goal 3A2a A list of high priority projects regardless of jurisdiction was developed and presented for Council review and discussion at the workshop meeting on February 17, 2004. This list included high priority intersection projects along Highway 99W to move east-west traffic more effectively. A project to widen McDonald Street at the Highway 99W intersection to provide a dedicated right-turn lane and to extend the stacking on the left-turn lane from McDonald Street to Highway 99W is included in the Capital Improvement Program for FY 2004-05. This project should improve east-west traffic movement while allowing motorists to access Highway 99W more readily. Goal 3B The amount of $75,000 was included in the Capital Improvement Program for FY 2004-05 to allow for joint projects to be undertaken by the City and TriMet to provide pedestrian connections between transit amenities such as bus stops and key activity centers. Some of these funds could be used for improvements in downtown Tigard in conjunction with TriMet's Commuter Rail Project. The funding could also be used to extend existing sidewalks at key locations in the City to provide a safe path to school for children. Goal 3C A new representative to the Oregon Transportation Commission from this area will be appointed this summer. This new representative will be requested to meet with Council at a workshop meeting in the fall to discuss Tigard's transportation project needs. First Quarter Update (Update from Engineering Department) Goal 3A1 The Transportation Financing Strategies Task Force is in the process of being reconstituted to evaluate potential sources of revenue for street improvement projects. Because participation from the business community has been lacking on this Task Force, the Tigard Chamber of Commerce and Jack Reardon of Washington Square have been requested to provide representatives to serve on the Task Force. Jack Reardon indicated that he was already fully booked, but would request the Westside Economic Alliance to provide someone from the business community. The Chamber has not yet responded. The Task Force membership should be finalized in early May. Goal 3A2a A list of high priority projects regardless of jurisdiction was developed and presented for Council review and discussion at the workshop meeting on February 17, 2004. This list included high priority intersection projects along Highway 99W to move east-west traffic more effectively. Goal 3B The Engineering Department continued working with TriMet to carry out the provisions of the Memorandum of Understanding. An amount of $75,000 was included in the Capital Improvement Program for FY 2004-05 to allow for joint projects to be undertaken by the City and T riMet to provide pedestrian connections between transit amenities such as bus stops and key activity centers. The funding could also be used to extend existing sidewalks at key locations in the City to provide a safe path to school for children. Goal 3C Matt Garrett, the Region 1 Manager from Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT), met with City Council at its workshop meeting on March 16, 2004. This is the first step in establishing a dialogue with ODOT that could eventually lead to implementation of high priority projects. ODOT had been provided earlier with the list of high priority projects, most of which involved Highway 99W intersections with City streets. Mr. Garrett emphasized that strong support from the business community is important when it comes time to select projects for implementation. This message was passed on to the Tigard Chamber of Commerce by both Council and the City Manager. (Update from Community Development Department) Goal 3B Ajoint City-TriMet roundtable meeting with local social service and housing providers is set for April 7'h. The participating agencies include Community Partners for Affordable Housing, the Good Neighbor Shelter, the Senior Center and eight other Tigard-based organizations. The meeting will focus on how the respective agencies' clients use transit and on transit access and coverage improvement needs. Similar outreach meetings with the Downtown Task Force and Planning Commission are set for May and June, respectively. GOAL 4 - PARKS AND RECREATION A. Meet with the Park and Recreation Advisory Committee to: 1. Discuss the vision of the Task Force and the Counci I related to the City need for parks and recreation. 2. Discuss possible acquisition needs and financing for the City of Tigard as well as unincorporated Bull Mountain. 3. Discuss options and interest in creating a park and recreation district. B. Continue to participate in discussions with the Tigard-Tualatin School District and neighboring cities to consider the school district's funding needs. C. Meet with the Skate Park Committee and formulate a plan of action. D. Continue to support the efforts of the Youth Forum. Fourth Quarter Update (Update from Public Works Department) The Council directed the PRAB to use the Executive Summary Report to begin a process which will lead to a recommendation to City Council on what actions should be considered on behalf of parks and recreation services in the City of Tigard. The PRAB was also asked to develop and hold several community meetings to gather additional public input and gage public support for the final recommendation. The PRAB is currently working on three, 10-minute presentations to present throughout the community. The three presentations will focus on community support for: 1) creating a City of Tigard Recreation Division; 2) develop a bond measure for the acquisition of park land both passive and active; and 3) develop a bond measure for the construction of a Community Recreation Center. Goal 4A2 The Bull Mountain Park and Open Space Task Force created a Bull Mountain Parks Concept Plan which sets forth land acquisition and park development projects for the Bull Mountain area. It was presented to Council on June 22. Council accepted the "white paper". Goal 4A3 The survey revealed that the residents of Tigard opposed (53%) the creation of a separate taxing district to provide park and recreation services. The survey also concluded that well over half (57°/a) favored the creation of a Recreation Division operated by the City. Goal 4B There is nothing to report on this at this time. Goal 4C At their November 16 meeting, City Council, approved the following funding scenario for the construction of a skate park in Tigard. City Park System Development Charges S150,000 State of Oregon Local Grant $150,000 Skate Park Task Force Donations $105,000 Total Construction Cost S405,000 4r" Quarter Update from City Administration: Goal 4D: During the last quarter of 2004, the draft bylaws for Tigard Tums the tide were completed. The bylaws are scheduled to be finalized at the January 17, 2005 Youth Forum meeting and then will be submitted to the existing Tigard Tums the Tide Board for adoption. Tigard Tums the Tide is an existing 501c3 organization whose membership and mission will be expanded to serve as a community coalition to support youth program and activities. Alexander Carsh is now serving as the Youth Advisory Council representative to the Youth Forum. The Police Activities Lea ue hosted an open gym winter break rogram at Fowler. Third Quarter Update (Update from Public Works Department)Goal 4A1 A community parks and recreation assessment survey was conducted in August, and the Executive Summary Report was presented to Council and the Park and Recreation Advisory Board (PRAB) on September 21, 2004: Three hundred and eight-three (383) people were surveyed. The Council directed the PRAB to user the Executive Summary Report to begin a process which will lead to a recommendation to City Council on what actions should be considered on behalf of parks and recreation services in the city of Tigard. The PRAB was also asked to develop and hold several community meetings to gather additional public input and gage public support of the final recommendation. Goal 4A2 The Bull Mountain Park and Open Space Task Force created a Bull Mountain Parks Concept Plan which sets forth land acquisition and park development projects for the Bull Mountain area. It was presented to Council on June 22. Council accepted the "white paper". If the results of the annexation favor annexation then an update of the Park System Master Plan will be initiated and the results will be encompassed in the proposed updated SD C Methodology scheduled for Council consideration and approval in Nov/Dec 2004, and effective January 1, 2005. Goal 4A3 The survey revealed that the residents of Tigard opposed (53%) the creation of a separate taxing district to provide park and recreation services. The survey also concluded that well over half (57%) favored the creation of a Recreation Division operated by the City. Goal 4B There is nothing to report on this at this time. Goal 4C The Task Force continues meeting and pursuing their fundraising efforts. The Balloon Festival donated approximately $1,600 to the Skate Park Task Force. Skating demonstrations are tentatively scheduled for September 18 at the Tigard Blast. A portion of the city parking lot has been roped off to help determine what the impact on parking would by if a 15,000 square foot skate park was built City Hall. This test will be conducted again in December when the City Hall remodeling is completed. City staff has met with skate park members and a skate park building contractor to discuss the current design and the ability to "tweak" the design if necessary. A general skate park update is presently scheduled for the Council workshop on December 21, 2004. Third Quarter Update (from City Administration) Goal 4D The Youth Forum made progress during the past quarter to formalize the organization of a community coalition to support youth programs and activities. The bylaws of the 501(c)3 organization are being reviewed with the intent to reprise that inactive organization to serve the coordination role for the community's effort to support youth. Second Quarter Update (Update from Public Works Department) Goal 4A1 A community parks and recreation assessment survey has been recommended to Council for consideration on July 20. If Council approves the survey interviews will begin in either late July or August. The executive summary, setting forth the findings has been scheduled for September 21. Goal 4A2 The Bull Mountain Park and Open Space Task Force created a Bull Mountain Parks Concept Plan which sets forth land acquisition and park development projects for the Bull Mountain area. It was presented to Counci I on June 22. Council accepted the "white paper". Goal 4A3 This question will be addressed in the upcoming community parks and recreation assessment survey and reported in a future goal report. Goal 4B There is nothing to report on this at this time. Goal 4C The Task Force continues meeting and pursuing their fundraising efforts. The Task Force had a booth at the Balloon Festival. They also conducted skateboarding demonstrations at the Festival. The wood floor they skated on was donated by Dave Nicoli. Dave intends to make a sizeable donation to the skate park if festival revenues permit it. Goal 4D (Update from Administration) During the second quarter, the Youth Forum members focused on supporting building a Community Coalition of Youth Service Providers in the community to formalize a partnership that will qualify for grant funds to support youth programs and activities. First Quarter Update (Update from Public Works Department) Goal 4A1 The first joint meeting between the City Council and the Park and Recreation Advisory Board was held on March 9, 2004. On April 22, 2003, the Tigard City Council re-established the Tigard Park and Recreation Advisory Board. Within three months, seven Tigard residents were appointed by the Council to serve on the Board. They are Shelley Richards, Jason Ashley, David Baumgarten, Scott Bernhard, Michael Freudenthal, Darrin Marks and Carl Switzer. Two Ex-Officio members have been appointed, Barry Albertson, to represent the Tigard-Tualatin School District, and Eileen Webb, to represent the Tigard Planning Commission. Since being formed, the Advisory Board has toured many of Tigard's parks and facilities. They have heard presentations about the City's' park budget, Parks Capital Improvement Plan, and the general City of Tigard visioning process as it applies to Parks and Recreation. Additionally, they have reviewed Master Plans for Cook Park, Bonita Park, Summerlake Park, Skate Park, and Fanno Creek Park. They have also been briefed on the efforts of Rich Carlson's effort, along with many others, toward creating a Tigard Skate Park for our city's youth. The Board has adopted goals and a mission statement which reads "The Purpose of the Park and Recreation Advisory Board is to advocate for park and recreation opportunities for a growing Tigard." They have also created an e-mail address, parkrecboard(D-ci.tigard.or.us, and the Board now has a webpage on the City's website. Issues discussed at the first joint meeting were: a) what has the Board learned, b) Board goals, c) Board interest in conducting a community assessment survey aimed at community interest in parks and recreation programs - this project is well on its way, Council was updated on 4/12), d) Council Goal #4, e) vision of the Board and Council related to the city's need for recreation (COT Recreation Div/Dep't) -survey related, f) possible park land acquisition needs and financing for the City of Tigard as well as unincorporated Bull Mountain - significant work has been done on this with the Bull Mountain Parks and Open Space Task Force-a "White Paper" will be submitted soon, g) skate park-survey related, and h) options and interest in creating a park and recreation district-survey related. Goal 4A2 The Bull Mountain Park and Open Space Task Force has created a Bull Mountain Parks Concept Plan which sets for land acquisition and park development projects for the Bull Mountain area. Although the plan has not been finalized, it has identified projects totaling between $8M - $10M. This plan will be an integral part of the "White Paper". The current Parks System Master Plan will be updated once the B ull Mountain Parks Concept Plan is approved by the Task Force, Park and Recreation Advisory Board and the City Council. Basically, the Bull Mountain plan will become a part of the City's Parks System Master Plan. Goal 4A3 This question will be addressed in the upcoming community parks and recreation assessment survey. Goal 4B There is nothing to report on this at this time. Goal 4C On February 10, the Council met with the Skate Park Task Force in a joint meeting. The results of that meeting led to the Task Force, along with city staff and elected officials, meeting again on February 25 at a general meeting aimed at creating a fund raising structure. Several funding sources were identified, such as: various youth and adult fund raising activities, public and private grants, in-kind donations of materials and labor, etc. The Task Force leadership formed the following four new fund raising committees to begin fund raising efforts to raise the needed money. These committees are now meeting, some more than others, to organize the fund raising campaign. The committees are: • Communication Committee • Youth Fund Raising Activities Committee • Adult Fund Raising Activities Committee • "Grants" Fund Raising Committee Goal 4D During the first quarter, the Youth Forum focused on supporting the Police Activity League's (PAL) efforts to build a Tigard chapter and provide extended after school programs at Fowler and Twality Middle Schools. GOAL 5 - GROWTH MANAGEMENT A. Continue Bull Mountain annexation information preparation leading to a July 2004 Council action on the Annexation Plan. B. Form subcommittees and review their completed White Papers. C. Designate a subcommittee which will review the Planned Development section of the Community Development Code, led by the Planning Commission. D. Develop a framework/timetable for a Comprehensive Plan update. E. Negotiate with Washington County staff to determine who will prepare the plan and zoning for the UGB Areas 63 and 64, and identify the sour ce of funding for the plan. Fourth Quarter Update: #A. Vote held in November. Annexation was not approved. #B. Completed in Quarter 3. #C. Planned Development Sub-Committee continues to meet and is working on proposed Code text. #D. Staff conducted a presentation to Council identifying a tentative timeframe for completion. Staff is working on the public involvement program element and anticipated further discussion at a joint CC/PC meeting in February. Coordination with the County regarding inclusion of the Bull Mountain and UGB expansion areas is included in the 2005 work program. #E. See #D above Third Quarter Update: #A. City Council conducted public hearings on the Bull Mountain Annexation Plan in July and August. Council accepted the Annexation Plan as an advisory document to guide annexation. In August, Council moved to place the issue of annexing Unincorporated Bull Mountain separately before the voters of the City and territory under consideration for annexation. A majority of voters in both the City and the unincorporated territory will need to support the measure in order for annexation to occur. #B. Bull Mountain subcommittees developed White Papers for Parks, Streets, Planning, and Police. The subcommittees presented their findings, conclusions, and recommendations to Council in June. Council accepted the White Papers. The White Papers will be used in determining the delivery of services for Bull Mountain, should annexation occur. #C. Council appointed a Planned Development Committee to evaluate planned developm ent provisions of the Community Development Code. The committee continues to meet and is developing a series of recommendations to improve Tigard's planned development process. #D. The Planning Commission continues to meet on developing an approach to updating the Comprehensive Plan. Their recommendations will be presented to Council before the end of the year. #E. As directed by Council, staff is awaiting the outcome of the Bull Mountain Annexation vote before proceeding further with this effort. Second Quarter Update Goal B: Bull Mountain subcommittees were appointed and developed White Papers for Parks, Streets, Planning, and Police. Goal C: Planned Development committee members have been interviewed by Council and appointed. Their first meeting was April 14, 2004. The committee is continuing to work on PD programs. Goal D: The Planning Commission continues to work on a Comprehensive Plan update program. The objective is to finalize the Planning. Commission recommendations by September for Council review and action in the fall. Goal E: Staff is collecting preliminary information related to the scope of concept plans for the UGB expansion areas. First Quarter Update Goal 56 Bull Mountain subcommittees were appointed and are meeting to develop a program/scope for four areas of analysis: Parks, Streets, Planning, and Police. Goal 5C Planned Development committee members have been interviewed by Council and appointed. Their first meeting is scheduled for April 14th Goal 5D The Planning Commission continues to work on a Comprehensive Plan update program. The objective is to finalize the Planning Commission recommendations by June for Council review and action in summer. Goal 5E Staff is collecting preliminary information related to the scope of concept plans for the UGB expansion areas. GOAL 6 - COMMUNICATION A. Increase Tigard's communication with other local officials and elected bodies through active participation of City Council members and staff. B. Improve and expand communication with citizens, particularly communicating successes and future concerns. C. Support the Tigard Beyond Tomorrow goal to maximize citizen involvement opportunities through educational programs by implementing a citizen leadership series. D. Investigate the possibility of supporting the mission of the Tigard Youth Advisory Council "to empower, improve and connect the lives of Tigard's youth" by adding a youth representative to all City boards and committees. E. Investigate the possibility of supporting the Tigard Beyond Tomorrow strategy to "encourage public participation through accessibility and education with an annual citizens' fai r for community events and businesses." Fourth Quarter Update: 6A: During the fourth quarter, the City Council met with the Senior Center Board, ODOT, The Tigard-Tualatin School District and the City of Tualatin, State Senator Ginny Burdick, State Representative Larry Galizio, and the Washington County Board of Commissioners. Council and staff members also continued to participate with regional partners at the CDBG Advisory Board, WCCLS, CLAB, 1WB, MPAC, Regional Water Consortium, Senior Center Board, Tigard Chamber of Commerce, Tualatin Basin Natural Resource Coordinating Committee and the Westside Economic Alliance. 6B: During the fourth quarter, Focus on Tigard topics included the Candidates Forum, the C/P program and communication. 6C: No progress was made on this goal. 6D: The Youth Advisory Council developed a°work plan of programs and activities for 2005. Three subcommittees were established to carry out the goals - Education, Communication and Service. The subcommittees begin meeting in January., 6E: No activity on this goal during the fourth quarter. Third Quarter Update: Goal 6A During the third quarter, City Council and/or staff continued to participate with regional partners at the CDBG Advisory Board, WCCLS, CLAB, the IWB, MPAC, the Regional Water Consortium, the Senior Center Board, the Tigard Chamber of Commerce, the Tualatin Basin Natural Resource Coordinating Committee and the Westside Economic Alliance. The Council also met with members of the Park and Recreation Advisory Board, the Planned Development and Budget Committees, and the New Library Resource Team. The New Library Resource Team was acknowledged by the Counci I for their achievements in assisting with the construction and opening of the new library and the committee was disbanded. Goal 66 Focus on Tigard - Over the last 3 months, Focus topics included the Bull Mountain Annexation Plan, Water Conservation & Supply and Traffic Safety. Committee for Citizen Involvement (CCI) - Meetings were held in July and September. In July, the CCI discussed enhancing the City's community involvement program and the Goal 5 Outreach program. In September, the Development Proposal Neighborhood meeting process, ideas for enhancing the community involvement program, and the membership of the CCI were discussed. Goal 6C No progress was made in this area during the third quarter. Goal 6D Youth Advisory Council representatives are now serving on the Downtown Task Force and the Park and Recreation Board. Goal 6E City staff participated in the Tigard Blast. The Public Works department and the Youth Advisory Council and Skate Park Task Force participated in the parade, the Public Works Department showcased some equipment and the Engineering Department had a display of Capital Improvement Projects. Second Quarter Update Goal 6A During the second quarter, City Council and/or staff met with regional partners at CDBD Advisory Board, WCCLS, CLAB, the IWB, MPAC, the Regional Water Consortium, the Senior Center Board, the Tigard Chamber of Commerce Board, WCCCA, WCCC, the Tualatin Basin Natural Resource Coordinating Committee and the Westside Economic Alliance. The Council met with the Tualatin City Council and the Tigard-Tualatin School District on April 5. In addition, representatives of the Regional Economic Development Partners made a presentation to City Council on April 20. Metro Executive, David Bragdon, met with the Council on May 18. Goal 66 Improvement and expansion to communications efforts included the following: • Focus on Tigard - Over the last 3 months, Focus topics included the Downtown Plan, Budget 101 and Bull Mountain Annexation Plan • Website - During the last quarter, staff posted a Downtown Survey and the Tigard Beyond Tomorrow Vision Survey. Staff is able to generate customized reports from the survey data that is posted on-line and into the system from paper surveys that have been submitted • Committee for Citizen Involvement (CCI) - In May, staff recommended the CCI, made up of City of Tigard facilitators to begin regular discussions about ongoing citizen involve ment efforts and ways to expand communications with citizens. Goal 6C Staff has collected course outlines and materials for leadership series conducted in Beaverton and Lake Oswego. The next step is to finalize the schedule and topics for Tigard's citizen leadership series. Goal 6D The Planning Commission, Downtown Task Force and Park Board have requested youth representatives. Goal 6E Staff is working with the Tigard Blast Committee to combine the Citizens Fair with the Blast scheduled for Saturday, September 18. Coordinator meetings are scheduled for the week of July 12. First Quarter Update Goal 6A During the first quarter of 2004, City Council members and/or staff met with Community Development Block Grant Advisory Board, Washington County Cooperative Library Services, Cooperative Library Advisory Board, Intergovernmental Water Board, Metro Policy Advisory Committee, Regional Water Consortium, Senior Center Board, Tigard Chamber of Commerce Board, Washington County Consolidated Communications Commission, Washington County Coordinating Committee, Tigard Festival of Balloons Planning Committee, Tualatin Basin Natural Resource Coordinating Committee, and the Westside Economic Alliance. Goal 66 Improvement and expansion to communication efforts included the following: Focus on Tigard - Focus on Tigard continues to be a valuable tool to inform citizens about upcoming events, programs and projects, and educate citizens about current programs. Over the last six months, Focus topics have included the Capital Im provement Program, Bull Mountain annexation, water, the street maintenance fee, community events, and the volunteer program. Beginning with the April program, the format was changed so the focus top is is presented first with announcements closing the program. Communication Plan - As part of the budget process, staff included a brief listing of their proposed communication plan for each major program or project. Including this information in the budget shows the Budget Committee, Council, and citizens how information will be disseminated on all major city programs and projects and serves as a reminder for staff on the variety of communication tools available. There continues to be an emphasis on developing communication plans when projects and programs are initiated to ensure a proactive approach to communication and information sharing. Web Site -Staff continues to add new features to the web page. Park reservations are now available online through the city's web page. In the last six months, visits to the city's web site have increased from 34,859 to 39,888 per month. Cable Television - The Network Services Division has implemented an in-house civic studio training program. City staff members are currently being trained by Chris Myers, the city's Network Services Technician who is also trained as a Producer/Director/Camera Operator. One staff person has completed the training. The goal of the training program is to expand the city's cable program production capacity and maximize the use of the civic studio. Goal 6C A preliminary schedule has been developed for a citizen leadership series to start in October. Topics will include government finance, land use, transportation, and citizen involvement. Staff and guest speakers will present the material to the participants. It is expected that the program will be limited to 25 participants. Goal 6D The City Council has appointed Lindsey Boyce, President of the Tigard Youth Advisory Council, as an ex officio member of the Council. Lindsey reviews the Council meeting material, asks questions and enters the discussion, but does not vote. Goal 6E A tentative date, Saturday, September 25, has been set for the Citizens' Fair. Planning for the event will begin this spring. i:\adm\dty cound1\goats\2004\cound1 goats - quarter 3\goal update - quarter 3 goal report.doc9122ro4 AGENDA ITEM # 3 . 5 FOR AGENDA OF January 25, 2005 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY IS TITLE Approve Intergovernmental Agreement Between City of Tigard and Clean Water Services PREPARED BY: Brian RagerDEPT HEAD OK ~Cr CITY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Should the Council approve the revised Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) with Clean Water Services and authorize the City Manager to sign such agreement? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Council authorize the City Manager to execute the revised IGA with Clean Water Services. INFORMATION SUMMARY Clean Water Services (CWS) recently worked with the City of Beaverton on a revision to their respective IGA for maintenance of sanitary and storm drainage facilities within Beaverton. CWS then offered each of the other cities within their service area to review the revised language of the Beaverton IGA and have the opportunity to review the revised Beaverton IGA and adopt any of the revised language of that agreement into their own IGA's. The goal here was to have consistent language in all city IGA's with CWS. Tigard Staff has reviewed the Beaverton IGA, along with the City Attorney, and has made revisions to the Tigard IGA that is attached to this Summary. The terms of the agreement are not substantially changed. The majority of the language changes is considered housekeeping and provides clarity to responsibilities. Staff also negotiated with CWS concerning an expansion of Tigard's area of responsibility, which would have included the unincorporated area of Bull Mountain. However, the City and CWS could not come to agreeable terms on that issue, so Tigard's area of responsibility will remain unchanged. The map attached to the IGA shows some areas outside of the Tigard city limits that, once annexed in the future, could be accepted by Tigard for maintenance responsibility. However, this would not be automatic. If Tigard would desire to take over those annexed areas in the future, Tigard and CWS would need to take separate and specific action with their decision- making bodies to make that official. Therefore, even when areas of Bull Mountain, or other parts of the unincorporated area, annex to Tigard, the sanitary and storm systems in those areas would remain under CWS maintenance responsibility until such time that Tigard makes a request to CWS. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Discontinue participation with Clean Water Services on the Intergovernmental Agreement. VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY n/a ATTACHMENT LIST 1. Intergovernmental Agreement 2. Map: Area of Responsibility 3. Appendix A, Division of Responsibilities (Two Parts) FISCAL NOTES Since Tigard's area of responsibility will not change, there will be no immediate fiscal impact. As development occurs in the City, additional assets will be added to the system for maintenance. City Council Document Transmittal CITY OF TIGARD To: OREGON From. Date: I'm sending you: Document Type: 2""IGA ❑ Contract ❑ Other Document Name: ,L n f~ CI v✓~ rn m ~~-P q✓~ 2 /'h-P~~ Approved at the Council Meeting of: a 5 L Number Copies Included: vf~ als our document(s) have been signed by the Mayor ❑ Yo r document(s) have been signed by the City Manager our document(s) requires an additional signature(s) Z~hen all signatures have been obtained, file an original document with City of Tigard Records ❑ Additional instructions: IAADM\CITY COUNCIL\CITY COUNCIL DOCUMENT TRANSMITTAL.DOC INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF TIGARD AND CLEAN WATER SERVICES THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into as of the day of 2005, between the City of Tigard a municipal corporation of the State of Oregon, hereinafter referred to as "City," and Clean Water Services, formerly Unified Sewera e Agency, a municipal corporation and county service district, hereinafter referred to as the "District." WHEREAS as a county service district organized under ORS 451, the District has legal authority for the sanitary sewerage and storm water (surface water) management programs within its boundaries consistent with relevant laws, rules and agreements. The District is the NPDES/Watershed/MS-4 Permit holder, and operates and maintains wastewater treatment facilities, surface water collection system and sanitary sewer systems within unincorporated areas and within certain cities within its boundaries; and WHEREAS the City has certain legal authority relative to the operation and maintenance of the sewerage and surface water management systems as provided for under its charter, relevant laws, rules and the Agreement. The City performs a variety of functions critical to the operation, maintenance and management of sewerage and surface water management facilities as outlined in the Agreement. It is anticipated that this Agreement may periodically require updating or modification by agreement of the parties; and WHEREAS as a county service district organized under ORS 451, the District has the legal authority for the sanitary sewerage and storm water (surface water) management programs within its boundaries consistent with relevant laws, rules and agreements. The District performs watershed, sub-basin and facility planning, develops standards and work programs, is the permit holder, and operates and maintains wastewater treatment facilities, surface water collection system and sanitary sewer systems within unincorporated areas and within certain cities within its boundaries. The District also performs various ancillary functions throughout the basin and within various cities; and WHEREAS in 1970, City, by action of its Council pursuant to an election duly conducted within the boundaries of the District, agreed to be within such sanitary sewer. district; and WHEREAS in 1989, City consented by action of its Council to have District manage storm and surface water drainage within the District's boundary, including those portions of the system within the City, and consented to the petition to the Portland Metropolitan Area Boundary Commission (Boundary Commission) to expand District's authority to include storm and surface water drainage management, which was granted by the Boundary Commission; and Page 1 of 17 - Agreement with City of / ~LA WHEREAS District and Washington County Cities have enjoyed a strong and effective partnership over more than three decades since District's formation. This partnership has greatly enhanced protection of public health and the environment and has been the foundation of enormous economic growth. Collaboration built through communication must remain as its cornerstone. Accordingly, the District and the City commit to cooperatively and openly engage each other in the timely discussion of topics of interest to the other party. A variety of forums and means will be employed to promote the above such as the Washington County Managers meetings, the City/District Teclmical Committee as well as ongoing individual communications.; and WHEREAS, City and District have the authority to enter into contracts for the cooperative operation of service facilities under ORS 451.560 and ORS Chapter 190; and WHEREAS, City and District previously entered into an Agreement for the cooperative operation of sanitary sewer and surface water facilities, and said Agreement is in need of amendment. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants and agreements to be kept and performed by the parties hereto, it is agreed as follows: Section 1. Definition of Terms Wherever the following terms are used in this agreement they shall have the following meaning unless otherwise specifically indicated by the context in which they appear: A. Area of Assigned Service Responsibility means the area set forth in the map attached as Exhibit A as may be amended. B. Board means the Board of Directors of the District, its governing body. C. Chief Executive Officer means the City official responsible for managing the day-to-day business affairs of City. D. Council means the City Council, governing body of City. E. Industrial Waste means any liquid, gaseous, radioactive or solid waste substance or a combination thereof resulting from any process of industrial or manufacturing business, or from the development or recovery of natural resources. For the purposes of this agreement, Industrial Waste shall also include any substance regulated under 33 USC Sec 1317, together with regulations adopted thereunder. F. Operation and Maintenance means the regular performance of work required to assure continued functioning of the storm and surface water system and the sanitary sewerage system and corrective measures taken to Page 2 of 17 - Agreement with City of (j~,~( repair facilities to keep them in operating condition, and in compliance with the requirements of applicable laws, regulations, and permits. Operations and Maintenance Activities and responsibilities are defined in Appendix A. G. Order means Resolutions, Orders and Directives of the District prescribing general standards and conditions for construction or use of the storm and surface water facilities and the sanitary sewerage facilities, and Rates and Charges. H Person means the state of Oregon, any individual, public or private corporation, political subdivision, governmental agency, municipality, industry, co-partnership, association, firm, trust,. estate or any other legal entity whatsoever. 1. Program Funding means the revenues made available to City through Section 4. of this agreement to follow the adopted work programs and performance standards. J. Rates and Charges are defined in the District's "Rates and Charges" Resolution and Order (R&O) No. 01-34, or as may be amended. The following terms when used in this agreement shall be as defined in that R&0: 1. Dwelling Unit Equivalent (DUE) 2. Equivalent Service Unit (ESU) 3. Impervious Surface Area 4. Permit Application and Inspection 5. Sanitary Sewer Service Charge 6. Sanitary System Development Charge (SDC; Connection Charge) 7. Storm and Surface Water Service Charge 8. Storm and Surface Water System Development Charge K. Sanitary Sewerage System means any combination of sewer treatment plant, pumping or lift facilities, sewer pipe, force mains, laterals (to the limit of the public right-of-way and those which are subject to active rehabilitation), manholes, side sewers, laboratory facilities and equipment, and any other facilities for the collection, conveyance, treatment and disposal of sanitary sewage comprising the total publicly-owned Sanitary Sewerage System within District boundaries, to which storm, surface and ground waters are not intentionally admitted. L. Standards means the standards and conditions of use of the storm and surface water system and the sanitary sewer system as specified and adopted by the District. Standards also shall mean applicable statutes and rules of the United States and the State of Oregon. Nothing in this Page 3 of 17 - Agreement with City of agreement shall prevent the City from establishing more restrictive standards than those established by the District or standards that raise performance requirements. M. Stonn and Surface Water System means any combination of publicly owned storm and surface water quality treatment facilities, pumping.or lift facilities, storm drain pipes and culverts, open channels, creeks and rivers, force mains, laterals, (to the limit of the public right-of-way and those which are subject to active rehabilitation), manholes, catch basins and inlets, grates and covers, detention and retention facilities, laboratory facilities and equipment, and any other publicly owned facilities for the collection, conveyance, treatment and disposal of storm and surface water comprising the total publicly owned Storm and Surface Water System within District's jurisdiction, to which sanitary sewage flows are not intentionally admitted. N. Work Program and Performance Standards are adopted by the District after considering input from the cities to define the activities required to operate and maintain the sanitary sewer and storm and surface water systems. Section 2. Determination of Programs, Rules, Policies and Standards The District as the Permit holder is responsible for the management and operation of the sanitary sewer and storm and surface water systems within its boundaries. The City shares certain responsibilities for the operation and maintenance of the sanitary sewer and storm and surface water systems within the City limits. The District is the designated permittee who shall obtain and enforce timely compliance with relevant federal and delegated state Clean Water Act pen-nits for treatment plants, collection systems, and stornwater. The District, in cooperation with the cities from time to time may adopt orders, standards, specifications, work programs, and performance criteria for the proper and effective operation of the sanitary sewer and storm and surface water systems and to comply with state and federal permits, laws and regulations. The District, when it adopts orders, standards, specifications, work programs and performance criteria shall give prior notice to the City of all proceedings wherein District Board shall consider such adoption. The District shall adopt such orders, standards, work programs and performance criteria only after the Board has addressed and considered the City's concerns, if any. Any such changes to work programs and performance standards that the Board detennines are required by state and/or federal permits or regulations shall not be effective prior to 90 days from the date of adoption by District's Board or as otherwise mutually agreed to by the City and the District. The effective date of any changes to work programs and performance criteria not required by state and/or federal permits and regulations, shall be mutually agreed to by the District and City prior to consideration by the District's Board. The District agrees that whenever practical it shall connnnunicate proposed changes not required by state and/or federal permits and Page 4 of 17 - Agreement with City of regulations in or before September of the year prior to the proposed adoption so as to allow the District and the City to budget appropriately for the following fiscal year. A. City agrees to follow and enforce the Orders, Standards, specifications, work programs, and performance criteria promulgated by the District, subject, however, to program funding and to the extent that City may be lawfully authorized to act. The City shall not be responsible for any failure to act or defect in performance caused by lack of adequate program funding, inadequacies in the Work Program and Performance Standards.as adopted by the District, or lack of lawful authority to act. Lack of adequate fiuiding from the District and compliance with the Work Program and Performance Standards as adopted by the District shall be absolute defenses to any claim against the City under this Agreement. City further agrees to notify District of apparent violations of the subject Orders, Standards, specifications, work programs, and performance criteria, of which it has knowledge, which may require District legal action or enforcement. Section 3 Division of Responsibilities A. Division of Responsibilities 1. The purpose of this agreement is to delineate responsibilities for the performance of specific functions. The responsibilities of the District and City are defined in this Section and Appendix A. Exhibit A is a map showing areas of service responsibilities for the District and the City. 2. All functions relating to the subject matter of this Agreement not specifically listed in this Section or Appendix A as being the responsibility of City shall remain the responsibility of the District. B. Procedure for Modifying the Division of Responsibilities 1. Responsibilities defined in this Section and Appendix A may be modified from time to time with approval in writing by the City Manager or designee and the District General Manager or designee. Responsibilities may also be changed by notice to the District from the City that the City wishes to assume certain maintenance responsibilities for a specific area or areas that are inside the City limits and inside the City's area of Future Maintenance Responsibility as shown on Exhibit A. The City must provide such notice to the District in writing by January 1 of the year in which a transfer of service responsibilities is anticipated. Any transfer of service responsibilities will be effective July 1 of each year. The District will amend the Exhibit A responsibility map to indicate that an area has been added to the City's "Area of Assigned Service Responsibility". 2. Responsibilities defined in this Section and Appendix A may be modified by the District Board provided that the change is necessary to comply with state or federal permits, laws or regulations. The District Page 5 of 17 - Agreement with City of Board shall not reduce the total scope of City responsibilities without consent of the City unless: a. the Board, after notice to the City and a public hearing, establishes that the City has failed to correct identified instances of non- performance related to the adopted standards that are necessary to comply with state or federal permits, laws or regulations; or, b. the Board decides that there is no practical alternative to a mid- fiscal year change in the allocation of revenue between the District and the City, as provided for in Section 4 of this agreement and changes the scope of City responsibility to reflect that different allocation of revenue. 3. Upon reasonable notice from City to District, District shall assume responsibility for any portion of the program defined in this Section and Appendix A. Reasonable notice shall be at least six (6) months, unless agreed to in writing by the District and City. Corresponding adjustinents to the revenue allocation shall be made to reflect the change in responsibility upon implementation of such changes. City shall be responsible for correcting or paying to have corrected any deficiencies in the system resultuig from non-performance of the programs under its responsibility, subject, however, to funding availability. 4. The responsibilities defined in Appendix A and responsibility boundaries defined in Exhibit A are not changed due to City annexations of area currently inside the District's boundary. Provided that after formal adoption and subsequent consultation between the City and District, service area boundaries may be altered based on Senate Bill 122 boundary revisions. For annexations of territory not curferitly within the District's boundary, the District will amend Appendix A and Exhibit A to define the responsibilities for the new area in cooperation with the City and in cooperation with adjacent cities. C. Additional City Responsibilities 1. Prior to issuing any non-residential sanitary sewer permit, the City shall require the applicant to prepare and submit to City, a District Sewer Use Information form. City shall submit the completed form to the District. The District will determine if an Industrial Waste Discharge Permit is required. The District will respond within 15 days from the date that the completed form is received by the District. 2. The City will require persons who are proposing development, as defined in the District's Design and Construction Standards Resolution and Order, to obtain a Service Provider Letter from the District. At Page 6 of 17 - Agreement with City of anytime during the life of this agreement, the City may choose to issue such Service Provider Letters. 3. Concurrent with the City review and initial Land Use approval, the City will forward proposed construction drawings to the District for the following: a) Any addition, modification, construction, or reconstruction (other than repairs) of the publicly-owned sanitary sewerage system and stone and surface water system. District will review these drawings to assure conformance to adopted District standards, orders, and master plans. b) Any "development" as defined in the District's Design and Construction Standards Resolution and Order. District will review these drawings to assure conformance with the conditions of the Service Provider Letter issued following the provisions in Section 3.C.2. The District shall not charge a fee for these types of reviews. The City shall not approve or issue permits for such work until it receives notification of District approval. The District shall complete its reviews within 15 working days from its receipt of complete construction drawings from the City, otherwise the City may consider the drawings as being approved by the District. 4. The City may notify the District in writing that it wishes the District to issue Connection Pennits for either or both of the sanitary or storm water systems. In such cases, the District shall not issue Connection Permits until the City indicates in writing that the development complies with the City's standards. City will collect all connection, pen-nit, and development fees for developments within the City unless City and District agree that the District will collect the fees. 5. Other than for issuance of connection permits, obtain District review and approval prior to entering into any agreement for the use of the Storm and Surface Water System or the Sanitary Sewerage System. 6. The City will inform the District in writing not less than 30 days prior to initiating or entering into any agreement for the financing or incurring of indebtedness relating to the storm and surface water system or the sanitary sewerage system. Revenues allocated by the District to the City for the performance of functions identified in Appendix A are considered restricted, and may only be used to perform those functions (including reasonable administration and security for bonds) delegated to the City for such things as operation and maintenance of the sanitary or storm and Page 7 of 17 - Agreement with City of / surface water system. City shall not obligate any assets or facilities of the District's sanitary or storm and surface water system for any debt. For purposes of debt finding, the District's asset schedule for storm and surface water and sanitary sewer facilities shall be the basis for determining ownership within City boundaries. In general, sanitary sewer lines 24" and over are the property of the District regardless of location, as are sanitary treatment plants and pump stations, and storm and surface water quality and quantity facilities that are one acre or greater in surface area. 7. The City will allow the District access at any reasonable time upon reasonable notice to inspect and test storm and surface water facilities and sewerage facilities within City and City Area of Geographic Responsibility. 8. The City will waive fees for permits granted to the District as may be necessary for the installation of storm and surface water facilities and sewerage facilities in the public streets and ways of City without imposing permit issuance fees, but only to the same extent as the City waives such fees for itself, and provided that the District shall adhere to any conditions required pursuant to ORS 451.550(6). 9. The City agrees to issue no new permit for the construction within, or modification to, a wetland, floodway, or floodplain without first receiving the written approval by the District, pursuant to Section S.D. This paragraph shall not apply to permits issued by City pursuant to a current permit under 33 USC Section 1344(e) (a section 404 general pennit), and within the scope of such permit. This section does not apply to actions related to City flood insurance program. The City retains the responsibility to issue land use approvals and building permits. 10. The City agrees to pursue, when City deems feasible and appropriate, the conversion of storm and surface water facilities from private to public ownership, through the acquisition of easements and other property rights as necessary, for those privately owned storm and surface water facilities which are identified as being necessary or appropriately a part of the public system. 11. To the extent that it is so required by law or regulation, City shall comply,,vith Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) Chapter 340, Division 49, "Regulations Pertaining to Certification of Wastewater System Operator Personnel," including the obligation that City shall have its wastewater collection system supervised by one. or more operators certified at a grade level equal to or higher than the system classification shown on page 1 of District's NPDES permit, issued by the State. The Page 8 of 17 - Agreement with City of District shall notify City of any modification to the NPDES permits affecting their operations. D. City Responsibilities Outside of its City Limits 1. Not withstanding the procedures in Section 3.B, City is not obligated by this agreement to accept responsibility for any programs or work activities outside of its City limits other than by mutual agreement of the parties. 2. To the extent City has agreed to responsibilities both inside and outside of its City limits, for activities which are the responsibility of City, City shall perform the work to meet the minimum requirements specified in the District's adopted Work Programs and Performance Standards. When the same type of service is being performed by City both inside and outside City, the service shall be prioritized and performed in a like manner in each area, including the response to storms and other emergencies. The exception shall be if City provides a higher degree of service inside City due to its own supplemental funding. E. Additional District Responsibilities 1. The District will inform the City in writing not less than 30 days prior to initiating or entering into any agreement for the financing or incurring of indebtedness relating to the storm and surface water system or the sanitary sewerage system. Revenues allocated to the District for the performance of fiinctions identified in Appendix A are considered restricted, and may only be used to perform those functions (including reasonable administration and security for bonds) delegated to the District for such things as operation and maintenance of the sanitary or storm and surface water system. The District shall not obligate any assets or facilities of the City's sanitary or storm and surface water system for any debt. In general, sanitary sewer lines 24-inch and. over and parallel sanitary sewer lutes to a common downstream connection with hydraulic capacity equivalent to a 24-inch line are the property of the District regardless of location, as are sanitary treatment plants and pump stations. 2. The District will allow the City access at any reasonable time upon reasonable notice to inspect and test storm and surface water facilities and sewerage facilities within City and District Area of Service Responsibility. 3. To the extent District provides services inside the Tigard City limits, the District shall perform the work to meet the minimum requirements specified in the District's adopted Work Programs and Performance Page 9 of 17 - Agreement with City of :et4j Standards. When the same type of service is being performed by City or District both inside and outside the City, the service shall be prioritized and performed in a like manner in each area, including the response to storms and other emergencies. If the City provides a higher level of service inside its adopted service area due to its own supplemental finding, the District shall provide that same level of service provided that the allocation of revenue between the parties reflects the cost of the higher level of service. 4. Upon transfer of maintenance responsibilities for an area to the City, the District and the-City shall conduct a joint inspection of the sanitary sewer and storm and surface water system. The District shall confirm that it will provide funding for the correction of identified deficiencies in a manner that is consistent with the priorities established by the District's work program. The annexation of an area by the City or the transfer of maintenance responsibilities to the City for an area will not change the priority for repairs or improvements assigned by the District. Section 4 Determination and Division of Revenue-, Operating Procedures and Rules Relating to Revenue A. After consultation between City and District staff, the District Board shall determine and certify annually for both the sanitary sewerage system and for the storm and surface water system the monthly service charge and system development charge. The City agrees to impose these charges as a minimum. The City may impose additional charges as allowed in Section 4.E.4. B. After consultation between City and District staff, the District Board shall determine and certify annually for both the sanitary sewerage system and for the storm and surface water system the portion of the monthly service charge and system development charge to be retained by the City for performance of the functions defined in this Agreement and for the City's share of annual debt service payment. Except as provided in Section 4.D, District shall notify City by the September preceding the start of the next Fiscal Year of any proposed decrease in the monthly service charge and system development charge to be retained by the City and any other proposed changes that could affect the City's 5-Year Sanitary Sewer or Stormwater Financial Forecast Plans.. C. The District Board shall not implement any significant change in the division of monthly service charge revenue fiom that shown in the Rates and Charges Resolution and Order No. 01-34 effective Fiscal Year 2001/2002 until July 1, 2005 with the following exceptions: 1. The Board may make routine principal and interest adjustments for debt service repayment. Page 10 of 17 - Agreement wi th City of Lki 2. The Board may make adjustments in response to significant increases or decreases in program responsibilities D. Changes in the division of revenue for the reasons described in Section 4.B. 1 & 2 will typically be made as a part of the annual Fiscal Year budget process. However, the division of revenue may be adjusted by the District to recognize changes in responsibilities that occur outside the normal budget cycle after coordination and communication with the Cities. Any such mid-year changes in the division of revenue initiated by the District Board shall only be implemented when the Board determines such a change is necessary to comply with state or federal permits, laws or regulations. If there is a mid- year change in responsibilities, which the District determines to be significant, the District Board may, upon 60 days notice to City, adjust the division of revenue outside of the annual budget process. The Board shall not change the division of revenue without responding to the City's concerns and a determination that not other practical alternatives to increase revenues are available and can reasonably be implemented. E. Operating Procedures Relating to Revenue 1. City shall remit to the District the portion of sanitary sewer service charges and systems development charges collected, and storrn and surface water service charges and systems development charges collected, less the City Portion, as identified in Section 4.B. 2. Payments shall be remitted on a monthly basis, with a report on District designated forms. 3. Payments to the District of revenue collected by the billing party shall be due within 20 days following the end of each month, unless the payment has been appealed by the billing party. 4. The City may charge and collect a service charge or system development charge for areas within the city limits at a higher rate per EDU and ESU than that set by the District when the City determines it is needed for the system within the city limits. =The City shall retain 100% of these additional revenues collected. Such additional charge shall be consistent with the services provided by City and with applicable federal rules in order to preserve eligibility for grants and other funding programs. 5. City may request District to perform permit and inspection services for private development construction of public storm and surface water facilities and sanitary sewer facilities, and for erosion control. City shall remit to the District the fee set forth in District's Rates and Page 11 of 17 - Agreement with City of ~ v~ Charges to compensate District for its costs for such services performed relative to these fees, as prescribed by District Order or separate agreement with City. 6. For Industrial Waste fees, District shall remit to City a percentage of system development charges, volume, and monthly service charges collected equal to the percentages of service charges retained by the City as defined in Section 4.B. District shall retain one hundred percent (100%) of the annual Industrial Waste permit fee, and any penalty fees, COD, SS (as those terms are defined in the Rates and Charges) and other fees related to Industrial Waste that may be assessed. 7. City will institute administrative procedures to diligently maintain regular billings and collection of fees, adjust complaints thereto, and pursue delinquency follow-ups and take reasonable steps for collection thereof. 8. City and District shall each establish separate accounts for the storm and surface water program and sanitary sewerage program for the purpose of accounting for service charges and systems development charges collected and received pursuant to this agreement. 9. District or City may at any reasonable time upon reasonable notice inspect and audit the books and records of the other with respect to matters within the purview of this Agreement. 10. City and District shall each prepare and submit to each other a performance report of the stone and surface water functions, and the sanitary sewer fimctions for which each is responsible. The District will specify the requirements, frequency, and content of the performance report after considering and responding to the City's concerns. 11. The City and District may, each at its own cost, install permanent and temporary volume and quality monitoring stations, and other monitoring equipment, to determine the effectiveness of City and District programs. 12. Interest may accrue on late monthly payments as specified in Section 4.E.1 at a rate of 1.25 times the monthly Local Government Investment Pool (LGIP) earnings rate as posted for the previous month, and will be applied each month to the unpaid balance. Section 5 Administrative and Operating Provisions L Page 12 of 17 - Agreement with City of I~ Ul~lr A. The District will not extend sanitary sewer or storm and surface water service to areas outside the City except with prior approval of the City where such areas are included in the Urban Planning Area Agreement between the City and the appropriate county or counties and any of the following exists: 1. A new or existing single family property desires sewer service and needs to directly connect to a sewer line within the city. 2. A new development desires sewer service and needs to directly connect a lateral or mainline public sewer directly to a sewer line within the city. B. Each party shall obtain and maintain in full force and effect for the term of this agreement, at its own expense, comprehensive general liability and automobile insurance policies for bodily injury, including death, and property damage, including coverage for owned, hired or non-owned vehicles, as applicable, for the protection of the party, and the other party, its elected and appointed officials, officers, agents, employees and volunteers as additional insureds. The policies shall be primary policies, issued by a company authorized to do business in the State of Oregon and providing single limit general liability coverage of $2,000,000 and separate automobile coverage of $1,000,000 or the limit of liability contained in ORS 30.260 to 30.300, whichever is greater. If either party is unable to obtain insurance as required by this sentence, the parties shall cooperate on amending this Section to require types and levels of insurance that are available. The certificates shall provide that the other party will receive thirty (30) days' written notice of cancellation or material modification of the insurance contract at the address listed below. Each party shall provide certificates of insurance to the other party prior to the performance of any obligation under this agreement. If requested, complete copies of insurance policies shall be provided to the other parry. Each party shall be financially responsible for their own deductibles, self-insurance retentions, self-insurance, or uninsured risks. C. District will not establish local assessment districts within City, without first obtaining City approval. D. District will process applications from City pursuant to Section 3.C.9 for Wetland, Floodplain, and Floodway modifications within 15 days of receiving such applications. Upon review and approval by District, and upon request by City, the District shall act as a facilitator and liaison for State and Federal review and permit processes. E. The City shall report all sanitary sewer overflows that it becomes aware of to the District within 24 hours of learning of the overflow. The City shall require all permittees of the City to report sanitary sewer overflows to the city. City agrees to reimburse District for any expense, costs, damages, Page 13 of 17 - Agreement with City of J~ claims, fines, or penalties incurred by District that result from or are related to City's failure to so timely and adequately report. F. This agreement is for the benefit of the parties only. Each party agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the other party and its officers, employees, and agents, from and against all claims, demands and causes of actions and suits of any hind or nature for personal injury, death or damage to property or the enviromnent on account of or rising out of the operation of this Agreement, including the performance or non-performance of duties under this Agreement, or in any way resulting from the negligent or wrongful acts or omissions of the indemnifying party and its officers, employees, and agents. In addition, each party shall be solely responsible for any contract claims, delay damages or similar items arising from or caused by the action or inaction of the party under this agreement. Inability to perform an activity or to properly perform because of insufficient funding from the District is not a negligent act or omission or willful misconduct of the party charged with the activity but shall be the responsibility of the District. Performance of any activity in compliance with the Work Program and Performance Standards as adopted by the District is not a negligent act or omission or willful misconduct. G. District and City aclaiowledge that District may receive notices of violation or fines from state or federal agencies for violations of state or federal rules. As the permittee and the entity that establishes standards and controls payment, District shall be responsible for respondiig to notices of violations and for payment of all fines. District shall invite the City to participate in any discussions with state and federal agencies regarding notices of violation involving City actions or responsibility. City will cooperate with District in the investigation and response to any notice of violation involving actions relating to actions or responsibilities of the City and shall allow the City to defend its own interests in any contested case proceeding concerning an alleged violation both in the proceeding and in any appeal therefrom. If a fine is imposed, City shall reimburse District to the extent that the fine results from non-performance of adopted programs or non-compliance with District, state, or federal rules or policies by the City and those acting on behalf of the City. If possible, the City shall reimburse the District prior to the date due for payment of the fine. The City shall not be responsible for reimbursement if the City's non-performance or non-compliance was caused by lack of adequate finding by District. If more than one party is responsible, the City's responsibility for reimbursement payment will be allocated based on the degree of responsibility and degree of fault of the City. Disputes over the amount of reimbursement shall be resolved by the dispute resolution process set out in Section 6 of this Agreement. To the extent that the City is required to perform any work to correct a violation, District shall provide adequate funding for the work to be performed, unless the violation was caused by the City's omission or misconduct. Page 14 of 17 - Agreement with City of H. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed as a limitation upon or delegation of the statutory and home rule powers of City, nor as a delegation or limitation of the statutory powers of District. This Agreement shall not limit any right or remedy available to City or District against third parties arising from illegal acts of such third parties. 1. Where this Agreement calls for review or approval of a fee or charge, District shall perform such review in a timely manner, shall not unreasonably withhold approval, and shall provide its decision to City in writing. If, within 30 days of written request by City for approval by District, the District has failed to provide awritten response, the request shall be deemed approved. Section 6. Dispute Resolution; Remedies A. In the event of a dispute between the parties regarding their respective rights and obligations pursuant to this Agreement, the parties shall first attempt to resolve the dispute by negotiation. If a dispute is not resolved by negotiation, the exclusive dispute resolution process to be utilized by the parties shall be as follows: 1. Step 1. Upon failure of those individuals designated by each party to negotiate on its behalf to reach an agreement or resolve a dispute, the nature of the dispute shall be put in writing and submitted to City's Chief Executive Officer and District's General Manager, who shall meet and attempt to resolve the issue. If the issue in dispute is resolved at this step, there shall be a written determination of such resolution, signed by City's Chief Executive Officer and District's General Manager, which determination shall be binding on the parties. Resolution of an issue at this step requires concurrence of both parties' representatives. 2. Step 2. In the event a dispute cannot be resolved at Step 1, the matters remaining in dispute after Step 1 shall be reduced to writing and forwarded to the Mayor and the Chairman of the Board of Directors. Upon receipt of the written issue statement, the Mayor and Chairman shall meet and attempt to resolve the issue. If the issue is resolved at this step, a written determination of such resolution shall be signed by the Mayor and Chairman. Resolution of an issue at this step requires concurrence of both the Mayor and the Chairman. 3. Step 3. In the event a dispute cannot be resolved at Step 2, the parties shall submit the matter to mediation. The parties shall attempt to agree on a mediator. In the event they cannot agree, the parties shall request a list of five (5) mediators from the American Arbitration Association, or such other entity or firm providing mediation services Page 15 of ] 7 - Agreement with City of _.-C to which the parties may further agree. Unless the parties can mutually agree to a mediator from the list provided, each party shall strike a name in turn, until only one name remains. The order of striking names shall be determined by lot. Any common costs of mediation shall be borne equally by the parties, who shall each bear their own costs and fees therefor. If the issue is resolved at this step, a written determination of such resolution shall be signed by both parties. Resolution of an issue at this step requires concurrence by both parties. In the event a dispute is not resolved by mediation, the aggrieved party may pursue any remedy available to it under applicable law. B. Neither party may bring a legal action against the other party to interpret or enforce any term of this Agreement in any court unless the party has first attempted to resolve the matter by means of the dispute resolution of subsection A above. This shall not apply to disputes arising from a cause other than interpretation or enforcement of this Agreement. C. Parties may mutually agree in writing to waive any of the above steps, or to enter into alternate processes or additional processes such as binding arbitration prior to filing legal action. Section 7. Effect of this Agreement Thus Agreement shall supersede all prior agreements of similar scope and subject matter, including amendments and the "City Committee Agreement" between the parties with respect to sanitary sewerage and service, storm and surface water management; provided that, except as expressly modified herein, all rights, liabilities, and obligations of such prior agreements shall continue. This Agreement shall be effective upon its execution by both parties hereto, and shall continue in effect for five years. Thus Agreement shall be deemed automatically renewed for a series of succeeding five year terms up to a limit of 25 years, with the mutual agreement of the City and the District. If the District enters into an intergovermnental agreement with any other city in its territory covering the same subject as this Agreement and if any of the provisions of the other agreement differ from this Agreement, the City may elect to replace any provision of this Agreement with the parallel provision from the other agreement, with the exception of Appendix A and Exhibit A. The replacement shall be effective on receipt by District of written notice from the City. This Agreement may not otherwise be modified except by written amendment or as otherwise specified in this Agreement. Section 8. Amendments At any time, either party may request in writing to open this Agreement for specific amendment. If such request is made, the other party must respond within 90 days. If the parties do not agree and the party requesting such amendment desires to proceed with the amendment, then remedies pursuant to Section 6 shall apply. All amendments shall be in Page 16 of 17 - Agreement with City of writing and approved by the governing body of the respective parties and incorporated into the agreement. Section 9. Severability In the event a court of competent jurisdiction shall deem any portion or part of this Agreement to be unlawful or invalid, only that portion or part of the Agreement shall be considered unenforceable. The remainder of this Agreement shall continue to be valid. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this instrument has been executed in duplicate by authority of lawfiil actions by the Council and District Board of Directors. CLEAN WATER SERVICE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON OF WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON By By Chairman, Board of Directors Mayo lr~~jt,i o Attest: Approved as to Form: 'City Recorder Attorney for District ity Attorney Page 17 of 17 -Agreement with City of m u T ~ 9 ~ c U0 ~ ~m 9{ ~ i NySC ~ ~ O ~ Y t9C w16 L~ O b ~ _ 4 .4„ 18,9 1819 A r -wry Qx1 ~ . ~ ~ I t NVL w Niw-`. 5i-.,~Wp~ , , r,.N i. ~~d;; it w°a- 11 `,~.f Yl p6'~ } 1 _ f ,0 pall, s- wM" ~ 1. `r.FF"'~ , ~ ~ ~ ~t - w• t 'r ~-~CAt ,gi91w9° t 1 " ,l t -~~+fNy~~cY1}~.+~, t 7 ~ 5. ~ 1 r--Il 3 , fit, ~ i L All L tW ~ t ` .7~tl ~~~yiy5yl ~wtaC" - NlaNUSI ~.1~^,1,. „•~MN1St, „T \-i S'-~ 'l.. Hy~ ~4 444 , t ~ ~ `~~~~~~'4 6 ww w ws15 _APPENDIX A 1/11/20051 DIVISION OF RESPONSIBILITIES EFFECTIVE THROUGH JUNE 30, 2005 TIGARD Basic Workplan Inside City Limits Outside City Limits Sanitary Maintenance Lines under 24" Line Cleaning City District-----, Root Cutting City District } Emergency response City District 1 Overflow and Complaint response and investigation City District i Cross connection investigation and response City _ District Manhole adjustment city District Non-structure line sealing and point repair City District Manhole rehabilitation (sealing) City District N inspection City District Compilation of N reports and system _ evaluation City District I&I abatement and system rehabilitation projects District and City District Root Foaming City _ District Structural line repairs City District Line replacements City District Pump station maintenance District District Lines 24" and Larger All maintenance, inspection, repair, and replacement District District SWM Maintenance _ Line Cleaning City District Root Cutting City District_ _ _ Catch Basin cleaning City District Water quality manhole maintenance City District _ --Storm and emergency response City District Complaint response and investigation City District Street Sweeping City District City for local District Water Quality facility maintenance for Regional District City for local District Water Quantity facility maintenance for Regional District Maintenance of public Streams/creeks/open channels City District Processing and disposal of sweeper, catch - basin and storm line material City District _ Structural line repairs City District _ Line replacements City District Pump station maintenance and operation District District Roadside ditches and piping system in County Roads District District _ I TV inspection City I District f Compilation of TV reports and system evaluation city _ District Proactive Leaf management program City District i ENGINEERING, INSPECTION, AND SUPPORT ELEMENTS _ Development Process (development review, plan review) City District _ _ Sanitary Sewer connection permit issuance city _ District SWM connection permit issuance City District Billing and collection of monthly service charges city District Inspection of developer projects City District Installation of Sanitary Sewer Masterplan City 21" and less, Projects District 24" & up District _ Installation of Masterplan Pump Station Projects District District _ Installation of SWM Masterplan Projects City District _ Erosion control permit issuance city District _ _ Erosion control inspection District District Accounting City District Industrial Waste Program District District I Maintaining GIS information City and District _ District Maintaining system mapping City and District District Maintaining Engineering records of systems City and District District_ Preparing and revising sanitary sewer - - masterplans District District Preparing and revising SWM masterplans District District Response to customer billing inquiries City District Public information, newsletters, etc., for SWM and Sanitary programs City and District District APPENDIX A 1/11/2005 DIVISION OF RESPONSIBILITIES EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2005 Inside City, and Outside Outside City, and Responsibility Inside City, and Inside Inside Responsibility Boundary *(See Tigard Responsibility Boundary Boundary Note 1 Below) Sanitary Maintenance Lines under 24" _ Line Cleaning City Root Cutting city city Emergency response City City Overflow and Complaint response City City Cross connection investigation and response City City Manhole adjustment City City _ Non-structure line sealing and point repair District District Manhole rehabilitation (sealing) District District TV inspection City City Compilation of TV reports and system evaluation District District I&I abatement and system rehabilitation projects District District Root Foaming District District _ Structural line repairs City/District City/District Lateral Repairs in Public Right of Way City/District City/District Line replacements City/District City/District _ Pump station maintenance District District _ Vector Control City City _ Utility Locates City City Offroad inspection and locator post maintenance City City Easement and Access Road Maintenance city city Lines 24" and Larger - - All maintenance, inspection, repair, and replacement District District SWM Maintenance Line Cleaning City City Root Cutting City City Catch Basin cleaning City City Water quality manhole maintenance city City Storm and emergency response city City _ Complaint response investigation and reporting City _ City _ Street Sweeping City _ City t City Local, District City Local, District Water Quality facility maintenance Regional Regional City Local, District City Local, District Water Quantity facility maintenance Regional Regional Maintenance of public Streams/creeks/open channels City City Processing and disposal of sweeper, catch basin and storm line material (excluding _ leaves) District District Structural line repairs City/District City/District _ Line replacements City/District City/District Pump station maintenance and operation District District Roadside ditches and piping system in County j Roads District _ District Roadside ditches and piping system in City City, Funded by Street Roads Fund None _ TV inspection City City_ f Compilation of TV reports and system evaluation District District _ Proactive Leaf management program City City Utility Locates City City I ENGINEERING, INSPECTION, AND SUPPORT ELEMENTS Development Process (development review, plan review) City District _ Sanitary Sewer connection permit issuance City District SWM connection permit issuance City District Billing and collection of monthly service charges city District Inspection of developer projects City District Installation of Sanitary Sewer Masterplan City 21" and under, _ Projects District 24" & up District Installation of Masterplan Pump Station District District _ Installation of SWM Masterplan Projects City District Erosion control permit issuance City _ District Erosion control inspection District District _ Accounting City District Industrial Waste Program District District _ Fat, Oil, Grease Program District District _ Maintaining GIS information City and District City and District Maintaining system mapping City and District City and District Maintaining Engineering records of systems City and District City and District _ Preparing and revising sanitary sewer 1 masterplans District District Preparing and revising SWM masterplans District District__- _ Response to customer billing inquiries City District Public information, newsletters, etc., for SWM I ' and Sanitary programs City and District City and District Flow Monitoring District District _ Formation and Administration of LTD's City and District District Inspection of Private Facilities City District _ Marking Utilities City City _ _ Fixture Counting District District Field Yard General Maintenance City District Note 1 - "Inside City, and Outside Responsibility Boundary", This column is blank because there are no areas that this applies to. In the future, if there are areas, the responsibilities will be defined. MEMORANDUM TO: Honorable Mayor and Councilors FROM: Dennis Koellermeier RE: Removal of Agenda Item Pertaining to Custodial Services Provided by Wellspring Services DATE: January 25, 2005 After reviewing input from other staff, we have decided to extend the trial period' for thirty days longer, until March 7, 2005. Areas of concern with the service are: • Need for more supervision/management involvement in the day to day work • Numerous recurring omissions • Quality of work, etc. Wellspring Services is approximately 30-days into the original learning curve period and I am not comfortable with the progress being made by them. Until the City is comfortable with the quality of the service being provided by Wellspring, the contract will either be extended in 30-day increments or the contract will be terminated and we will look for another provider. kano ved 4my- AGENDA ITEM # 3. y a.. FOR AGENDA OF January 25, 2005 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON LOCAL CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD (LCRB) AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY IS TITLE Award of contract for Ci -wide janitorial services to Wellspring Services PREPARED BY: Jaime Dumdi DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK 01vo- ISSUE BEFORE THE LOCAL CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD Shall the Local Contract Review Board (LCRB) award a contract for City-wide janitorial services to Wellspring Services? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the LCRB award the contract for City-wide janitorial services to Wellspring Services and authorize staff to finalize the contract with the vendor. INFORMATION SUMMARY In 1977, the Oregon legislature passed the "Products of Disabled Individuals" Act (ORS 279.835 to ORS 279.855). This law obligates all state and local governments, school districts, and other tax-supported political bodies in Oregon, to purchase goods and services from Qualified Rehabilitation Facilities (QRFs) when the product or service meets their requirements. A QRF is a non-profit organization that puts Oregonians with disabilities to work. The mission of a QRF is to help disabled people achieve self-confidence and self-sufficiency by working in the community in which they live and becoming productive citizens. It is "qualified" because its programs are registered and reviewed on a regular basis by various state and federal agencies such as the Oregon Department of Human Services (DHS), Oregon Department of Administrative Services (DAS) and the National Industries for the Severely Handicapped (NISH). One of the services that is provided by a number of QRF vendors is janitorial/custodial services. The City initially contracted with Tualatin Valley Workshop (TVW) to provide janitorial services. It became apparent in the initial stages of the contract that TVW was not providing janitorial services at the appropriate levels required by the City. After many attempts to try to resolve the problems, staff determined that it was in the best interest of the City to terminate the contract with TVW. Staff has been in negotiations with a new janitorial service provider, Wellspring Services, to meet the City's needs. Wellspring has been able to meet the City's budget requirements for janitorial services. This price determination has been approved by the State Department of Adminstrative Services, as required by law in contracts between government agencies and QRFs. The City has contracted with Wellspring for interim janitorial services since January 6, 2005 and is pleased with their service level to date. Staff is recommending the award of a one-year contract with Wellspring Services, with four additional one-year options. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Do not approve the purchase of janitorial services from Wellspring Services. VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY None. ATTACHMENT LIST 1. Memorandum, dated 1/10/05, to Bill Monahan from Brian Rager, Assistant Public Works Director. FISCAL NOTES The annual cost of the City-wide services is estimated to be $180,000. The total expense of the contract, if all option years are exercised, will be approximately to be $900,000. 1 MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON DATE: January 10, 2005 TO: Bill Monahan, City Manager FROM: Brian Rager, Assistant Public Works Directoty-- RE: New Janitorial Contract As you know, the City terminated its contract with Tualatin Valley Workshop, Inc. (TVW), a Qualified Rehabilitative Facility (QRF) that was providing janitorial service to the City. The contract with TVW was terminated because they failed to provide acceptable levels of cleanliness and their personnel were having great difficulty in learning the standards and procedures the City expected. I believe the biggest problem with TVW was their inability to manage the contract. After many months on the job, the learning curve remained as steep as when they began, and complaints from Staff continued to be received regarding the same issues day after day. Effective January 6, 2005, the City retained a new contractor, also a QRF, to perform janitorial services for the City on a 30-day contract. State law requires the City to exhaust all possible QRFs before employing a private sector contractor for certain services, including janitorial maintenance. The new contractor, Wellspring Services, appears to be much more professional. They service the Multnomah County Courthouse, and are reported to be doing a very good job there. Wellspring Services was the high bidder during the City of Tigard's initial RFP process. When contacted by the City, Wellspring Services agreed to enter into a contract with the City at the same price we agreed to pay TVW ($180,000 per year for five years), hence there is no negative impact on the City either cost wise or service wise. Currently, we have one Building Maintenance Technician assigned to work with Wellspring Services for the first two weeks of the contract. They also will spend the first week or two focused on a rapid upgrade of our facilities to the cleanliness standards we set by doing some extra deep cleaning work. This will make the Library immediately more presentable to the public and will allow us to achieve the standard we aspire to in a shorter period of time. If you have any questions about this transition, please let me know. C: Jaime Dumdi, Management Analyst Dennis Koellermeier, Public Works Director i.* Abnan AdepaNnwt imes1010705-billAmitw c ftct.dm AGENDA ITEM # 3 • b FOR AGENDA OF January 25, 2005 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON LOCAL CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD (LCRB) AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Approve Amendment to Engineering Services Contract for Murray Smith & Associates, Inc., for Design of 550-foot Zone Reservoir No. 2 PREPARED BY: Brian Rager~ DEPT HEAD OK PiL, CITY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE LOCAL CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD The proposed contract amendment for additional services on the 550-foot Zone Reservoir No. 2 project exceeds 20 percent of the contract amount. Administrative Rule 10.090(1)(b) states that any change to a contract should not exceed 20% without competitive bidding. Staff requests the LCRB waive Administrative Rule 10.090(1)(b), and authorize the amendment. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the LCRB waive Administrative Rule 10.090(1)(b) and authorize the City Manager to execute an amendment to the Engineering Services contract with MSA in the amount of $58,000.00. INFORMATION SUMMARY In May, 2003, the City entered into a contract with MSA for design services for the 550-foot Zone Reservoir No. 2. The proposed location for the tank is on the Alberta Rider Elementary School site, located on SW Bull Mountain Road. MSA performed preliminary engineering work for a location on the site approved by the School District design team. However, the School District design team changed the location of their school building through the course of their design work and the tank location no longer is available. The District has offered to the City another location on the site near the northeast corner. Staff has reviewed this new location, along with other possible sites in the area, and has determined that the City should explore the new location on the Rider site. In order to move forward with this new location, MSA will need to perform preliminary engineering work again. Attached is a memorandum from MSA that explains the steps they will take and the financial impact of the amendment. The additional preliminary engineering work is estimated to cost approximately $58,000.00. The alternative to approving this amendment would be to issue a Request for Proposals (RFP) for this specific preliminary engineering work. Staff recommends against this option for several reasons: 1) MSA holds the contract for the remaining design work on the reservoir, which would mean the City would have to coordinate between two engineering consultants for the same project; 2) MSA is most familiar with this site and this project; and 3) the reservoir project has been delayed due to the issue mentioned in the above paragraph and an RFP process would add at least two more months to the delay. OTHER ALTERNATWES CONSIDERED Do not approve the contract amendment and direct staff to issue a Request for Proposals for the additional work. VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY Urban & Public Services, Water & Stormwater Goal #1, Strategy #3, "Build identified water capital improvements." The Rider School site was selected as the target site for this capital improvement. ATTACHMENT LIST Memo, dated January 7, 2005, from MSA to Brian Rager. FISCAL NOTES The amendment will increase the value of the contract by $58,000. The original contract amount was $268,355.00. Therefore, this amendment is a 21.6% increase. 11uirq, Smiih & it%odib, Inc. 1;n1i4el PInneC4 IJI :fi.: ~lnt~i~, trite ; H~ Portland; Ore~r~~~ 9?2~i 2019 ('HONE; 5th "21.9010 o FAX 50i.22> 9032 MEMORANDUM DATE: January 7, 2005 DRAFT PROJECT NO.: 03-0619.101 TO: Mr. Brian Rager, P.E. - Project Manager City of Tigard FROM: Chris Uber, P.E. Murray, Smith & Associates, Inc. RE: 550-Foot Reservoir No. 2 - Relocation Redesign Cost Summary In accordance with your direction we have resumed preliminary engineering and design work for the above reference project. We understand that the proposed 550-Foot reservoir will now be located at the northeasterly corner of the Alberta Rider School site. The original location planned for the reservoir was in the southeast corner of the property and a substantial amount of design work has been completed specifically for this site including subsurface geotechnical borings. MSA's memorandum of September 23, 2004 presented an evaluation of siting alternatives and presented estimated construction cost and engineering cost impacts of these alternatives. Constructing the reservoir at the northeasterly corner of the school site will require, among a number of items, deeper excavation, deeper yard piping and special shoring considerations. Additional engineering work is required to complete project designs, specifically for Tasks A, Task C and Task E of the approved scope of work. Additional engineering work and associated impact on design fees are summarized as follows: Item Additional Budget Task A - Preliminary Design $2,000 Task C - Geotechnical Investigation 19,000 Task E - Final Design 37,000 Total $58,000 We greatly appreciate this opportunity to continue serving the City of Tigard and are excited to be resuming work on this important project. We look forward to meeting with you soon to review a revised project schedule and to reestablish key project milestones. 03-0619.104 Page 1 Reservoir Redesign Cost Summary January 2005 City of Tigard C:YN]CUMp-I Wri.vLLOCALS-I\TmpW`a Memu I•)al.duc AGENDA ITEM # 3• C, FOR AGENDA OF 1/25/05 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE LCRB - A ent of Record Contract - Service Fee Reduction ~Y PREPARED BY: Loreen Mill DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Should the Local Contract Review Board (LCRB) receive and file an amendment to the Insurance Agent of Record Contract? STAFF RECOMMENDATION LCRB - Receive and File - Insurance Agent of Record Contract amendment which reduces the annual service fee by excluding commission payment for placing Workers' Compensation coverage. INFORMATION SUMMARY The LCRB awarded a contract to JBL&K to serve as the City's Insurance Agent of Record on 12/2/03. JBL&K have served the City well since 1995, and continues to provide excellent access to the insurance market place and has strong public sector expertise to assist the City in addressing its liability exposures. In light of the ongoing budget constraints and day-to-day management of the contract, staff and JBL&K worked during 2004 to find ways to measure performance under the contract, looking for both effectiveness and efficiency in services. Part of this staff-initiated review required an examination of the commissions earned by JBL&K to determine if there was some way to reduce the commissions while maintaining the service. After several weeks of discussion, JBL&K and the City arrived at an agreement to reduce the commission starting 111105 by JBL&K not charging for placement of the City's Workers Compensation coverage. In the 04/05 fiscal year, this would have meant a 19% decrease in the commissions paid on the contract. While a reduction in cost does not require LCRB approval, staff wanted LCRB to be aware of the change in the contract as well as advise LCRB that this type of review continues to occur as contracts are managed through the year. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED N/A VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY N/A ATTACHMENT LIST Copy of the Contract Amendment document dated 12/21/04. FISCAL NOTES Reduction of the Insurance Agent Commission would have equaled about $8,550 this fiscal year. This will be reflected in the 05/06 budget based on the anticipated cost of the Workers Comp premium for next year. Copy of the Contract Amendment document dated 12/21/04 CONTRACT AMENDMENT CITY OF TIGARD INSURANCE AGENT OF RECORD This Contract Amendment is entered into by and between the City of Tigard, a municipal corporation of the State of Oregon (City) and JBL&K Risk Services (Contractor) and amends that contract dated December 2"d, 2003 on file with the Tigard City Recorder as the Insurance Agent of Record Contract. Now, therefore, it is hereby agreed that the first paragraph of the Compensation provision (Section #3) of the Insurance Agent of Record Contract is amended as follows with underlined language being added: "Contractor will be compensated through standard commissions paid by insurance carriers providing coverage for the City of Tigard on all lines of coverage except Workers Compensation The Workers Compensation coverage will be placed by Contractor with no applicable commission. Any special projects or special services requested by the City, other than those listed in Exhibit A, which may involve extra fees, will be negotiated before the service beings." This Amendment will commence on January 1S`, 2005 and will remain in effect through the duration of the Insurance Agent of Record Contract. William A. Monahan Ron Cutter City Manager Contractor Date: December 21, 2004 Date: December 17, 2004 AGENDA ITEM # FOR AGENDA OF January 25, 2005 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Elect Council President to Serve Until December 31, 2005 PREPARED BY: Cathy Wheatley DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK livv~0~- ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Elect the Council President for the next two years (2005 and 2006) STAFF RECOMMENDATION Conduct Council President Election at the January 25, 2005, Council meeting. INFORMATION SUMMARY Section 18 of the Tigard City Charter states that the Council shall elect from its membership a Council President to perform the duties of the office of Mayor in the Mayor's absence from a meeting or if the Mayor should be unable to perform the functions of office. This election is done by ballot at a Council meeting; in fact, the Charter specifies the first meeting of odd-numbered years as the time to hold the election. After checking with the City Attorney on procedure, staff recommended that Council set over, by motion, the Council President Election to the January 25, 2005, Council meeting. This delay would give staff an opportunity to review and explain the role of Council President at the January 18, 2005, Goal Setting Council Meeting for the benefit of the new Council member and to give all Councilors the opportunity to consider whether or not he or she would like to serve as Council President. At its first meeting of the year, January 11, 2005, Council approved a motion to set over the Council President election to its January 25, 2005 meeting. Ballots will be distributed to Council members at the January 25, 2005 meeting OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED N/A VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY N/A ATTACHMENT LIST None FISCAL NOTES N/A i:tadmtpacket'05\etect council president - ais.doc /,32twL0T Election of r"igard City Council president cjanuary 2005 to December 2006 Vote for One: Councilor Sally (larding Councilor Sydney Sherwood Councilor mom Woodruff Councilor JVick Wilson Sign ture 47anuary 25, 2005 iAadm\packet '05\040125\elect council president - ballot.doc Election of Tigard City Council president cjanuary 2005 to December 2006 Vote for One: Councilor Sally !,larding Councilor Sydney Sherwood Councilor Tom Woodruff Councilor JVick Wilson Signature cjanuary 25, 2005 i1adm\packet '05\040125\elect council president - ballot.doc vywrocut Election of Tigard City Council president clanuary 2005 to December 2006 Vote for One: Councilor Sally Harding Councilor Sydney Sherwood Councilor Tom Woodruff Councilor JVick Wilson S natur cjanuary 25, 2005 iAadm\packet '05\040125\elect council president - ballot.doc ~~L02 Election of Tigard City Council president cjanuary 2005 to December 2006 Vote for One: Councilor Sally (larding Councilor Sydney Sherwood Councilor Tom Woodruff Councilor flick Wilson Signature cjanuary 25, 2005 iAadm\packet '05\040125\elect council president - ballot.doc Election of Tigard City Council president cjanuary 2005 to December 2006 Vote for One: Councilor Sally (larding Councilor Sydney Sherwood Councilor Tom Woodruff Councilor Vick Wilson Sig ature cjanuary 25, 2005 is\adm\packet'05\040125\elect council president - ballot.doc AGENDA ITEM # FOR AGENDA OF 1/25/05 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Tigard Vision Update Report PREPARED B AO Mills & Liz Newton DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Receive and file the 2004 progress and accomplishment report for Tigard's vision process STAFF RECOMMENDATION Receive and file the report. INFORMATION SUMMARY In 1996, the Tigard City Council expressed concern that the community's future was too important to leave to chance and directed a process to pull resources together to determine long-term goals for Tigard. Residents, government professionals, business people, and community group leaders volunteered to work together to determine the community's future direction. Adopting the name "Tigard Beyond Tomorrow," they established a process that defined a vision for our community and identified resources for implementing that vision through partnership of individuals and organizations. During 2004 and each year since 1996, the citizen-based Action Committees have reviewed and updated the strategies and action plans to accomplish the goals of "Tigard Beyond Tomorrow." The 2004 annual review was critical to ensure we stay on track with the changing times and desires of our community. The Council has received periodic presentations and information about some of the progress on the community's vision achievements, however, this meeting time is set aside to review the highlights of the 2004 achievements in all target areas. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED N/A VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY The Vision Task Force is a citizen-based group that is volunteering their time so the vision goal is that of Volunteerism. "City will maximize the effectiveness of the volunteer spirit to accomplish the greatest good for our community." ATTACHMENT LIST N/A FISCAL NOTES The cost of the 2004 survey was budgeted and done as part of the Cityscape mailing budget. Tigard Beyond Tomorrow 7 7 G 2004 A Achievements ® ® IE Report (CD Target Areas ❑ Since 1996 ❑ 3 Public Pamers Community Character and Quality of Life Schools and o Based on Transportation Education and Traffic Citizen's Opinions 1 What Happened In 2004P 9 CI00~ MN1 1 OR ❑ Identified issues _ ❑ Citizen survey developed & responses were reviewed oShared survey results with citizens ❑ Updated vision & created new goals ❑ Provided direction for implementation Community Character ✓ Cityscape Newsletter highly read - use will be expanded in 2005. Email s website also effective. ✓ Volunteer program continues to grow " 27,707 hours! ✓ Balloon Festival back and successful. ✓ Design of Tigard portal areas was not accomplished but this will be a focus in 2005. 2 Community Character ✓ Transportation a Growth Management Grant received for Downtown Improvement Plan $113,000. ✓ Downtown Improvement Plan being developed by Downtown Task Force. Community Character c 2009 Rad Focut Community diversity will he recognized. Community participation encouraged. V Downtown will provide gathering place for community. City policy makers will facilitate two-way communication with citizens. V Identify and implement projects a activities that enhance community aesthetic qualities. 3 Growth & Growth Management ✓ Open space a greenwav protection - Citizen's Tree Board a Planned Development Review Committee. ✓ Downtown Plan began by citizen-based committee. ✓ Bull Mountain Annexation Plan was presented to voters. ✓ City fee relief and tax abatement for affordable housing development C Growth & Growth Management Ham 2005 IM Face. ✓ Provide park and open space throughout the community j to offset the impacts of growth. ✓ Distribute affordable housing throughout the community where it is close to services and transportation. ✓ Establish a maintain an Economic Development Program attract a retain business. ✓ Comprehensive Land Use Plan will be updated. 4 Public Safety ✓ Neighborhood Watch Programs in place - 91. ✓ Monthiy forums for rental property owners and managers to assist safety and emergency responses to multi-family complexes. ✓ Address crime and public safety concerns - drug houses removed, juvenile concerns addressed. Emergency response training for citizens. Public Safety ✓ Increase community policing efforts. ✓ Strengthen School Resource Officer Program In schools. ✓ Increase crime prevention programming for businesses. 5 Schools, Education and Youth, ✓ PAL Program ✓ Tigard Turns the Tide ✓ Caring Closet ✓ Mentorships at youth camps ✓ New g remodeled facilities AB Schools, Education and Youth ✓ PAL Program in middle schools ✓ Tigard Turns the Tide ✓ Caring Closet ✓ Mentorships at youth camps ✓ New facilities AB 6 schools,. Education & Youth ✓ Schools and City will work together to achieve operational efficiencies. ✓ School districts will ensure effective two-way communication to the entire community. 0 0 Transportation & Traffic ✓ Gaarde Street reconstructed a widened. ✓ Stable source of funding for street maintenance. ✓ Partnering with Downtown Task Force $ Tri-Met to achieve Commuter Rail Plan. ✓ Regional funding applications submitted for 2007- 2012. 7 Transportation & Traffic ✓ Greenbelt trail system funding received around Washington Square Regional Center. j ✓ Council meeting with OBOT to raise awareness of City's transportation needs. ✓ Pedestrian bridge between Tualatin & Cook Park funding was approved. ✓ Began 2-year program to reduced costs with traffic signal system light replacement Transportation & Traffic 20M Nd f cww -a ✓ Reduce reliance on 99W for local traffic use. i ✓ Support and promote ECO [Employee Commute Options) Rules in the business community. 8 Urban & Public Services ~OOo a oomp, IMMOMS a Uhrae - ✓ New Library constructed & open for business. ✓ WCCLS Levy was presented to voters. ✓ Regular computer training classes available. ✓ Expanded public internet access available. i Urban & Public Services X00 ac~c~o o~ : c a PIFE C. mim ~~~~~~~~oULlo ✓ Open space a wetlands preservation training in schools. ✓ Bonita Park Phase One completed. ✓ Several grants secured for L , parks and greenways. ✓ Shelter & playgrounds built at Woodard Park. 1119 9 Urban & Public Services ✓ Aquifer Storage a Recovery IASR) successful and drilled 2nd ASR well. ✓ Continued effective school programs for water conservation. ✓ Water quality pond enhancements (2). ✓ Joint storm water debris handling o , facility ICWS, Sherwood, Tualatin) Urban & Public Services M MI MH NOM90. ✓ Continue to develop partnerships with leisure & recreation service providers in community. ✓ grill another ASR Well. j ✓ Equity position in a regional water system by 2007. ✓ Construction of joint storm water debris handling facility. 10 You are neededl < <i O i m gaa RIN Munm of aomM Mills at OO oME90 5034394111 ca QQ a Community M Mn(~ Character and U~C~M 0M4 4ul~V l'~ g CRO P9190 Quality of Life s~ ^Q is ma ~/MoanLer.us Transportation Education and Traffic 11 AGENDA ITEM # CD FOR AGENDA OF Jan. 25, 2005 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Update on the Library Strategic Plan and Operational Hours PREPARED BY: Margaret Barnes DEPT HEAD OK z~~ CITY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Update of library operations and the strategic planning process. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff recommends consideration of additional hours of operation to re-open the Library on Sundays through the end of the fiscal year.. The staff also recommends that the Council continue to support the Library's strategic _ planning process. INFORMATION SUMMARY In October, the Council received an update from the Library Board and the Library Director on the reduction of the number of hours the library was open to the public. The Board and the Director shared statistics on the first two months of library use in the new library. At that time the Library representatives agreed to return with an update after the library had been open for several more months. Statistics from the first six months of operation show significant increases in library users over the same period of time in 2003. Adult program attendance also showed considerable growth. The Board and the Director will share information about the impact of fewer hours on library operations. In the past few months Library staff have continued to receive feedback and complaints regarding the reduced hours, especially the closure of the library on Sundays. From patron comment cards, letters and emails, library users continue to advocate for the library to open on Sundays. To add Sunday hours, funds from the Grace Tigard Houghton bequest could be used. Funds are available and are not restricted, which could be allocated now for this purpose. A second purpose of this meeting is to update the Council on the Library's strategic planning process. Since the October meeting, the library has held two public meetings to help chart the course of the library for the next five years. Both meetings were productive. Participants were engaged and enthusiastic about the role the library should play in the community and how it would accomplish that. The staff and the Library Board will work together to develop goals and objectives based on the recommendations from the Planning Committee. The Council will receive a final update in the spring once the planning report has been written. FISCAL NOTES The additional revenue needed to re-open the library 4 hours on Sundays would be approximately $1,300 per week or about $26,000 for the remainder of the fiscal year if implemented within the next few weeks. ATTACHMENTS 1. Memo 2. PowerPoint Presentation CITY OF TIGARD MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD TO: Bill Monahan, City Manager FROM: Margaret Barnes, Library Directo4 DATE: January 11, 2005 SUBJECT: Library Strategic Plan and Operational Hours Library Strategic Plan The Library Citizen's Strategic Planning Committee met in November 2004 and again this month to develop a recommendation for focused service responses for the library for the next five years. The Committee envisioned the future of Tigard and discussed current conditions. Based on those discussions, the Committee then articulated the needs of the Community. In order to meet those needs, the Committee identified recommended service responses for the Library. These recommendations include the following areas for the library to focus on as collections, programs and services are developed for our community. Current Topics & Titles General Information Information Literacy Commons Cultural Awareness These recommendations have been reviewed with the Library Board. Staff will now begin to develop a formal service plan for the next five years based on the input from the Citizen's Committee. The plan will be completed by April and presented to the Council at that time. Operational Hours The new library has been open now for six months and has experienced a dramatic increase in use even with a reduction of hours. One startling statistic is the number of new library users. From August to December 2004 3,121 new library users have been registered. This represents a 95% increase in this activity when compared with the same six months in 2003. Other increased public activity includes: 33% increase in the use of public computers, 15% increase in books, DVDs, videos checked out 63% increase in Reference Desk transactions 33% increase in Visitors During this same time many of the comments from the public have been positive. People have an enjoyable experience when they come to the library. The community is starting to use the community room, and the study rooms in the library are very popular. Based on the above statistics it appears that more people want to use the library. Because circulation statistics are tied to our funding from WCCLS, it is in the City's best interests to keep the library open when people will use it the most. Because of the failure in May 2004, of the WCCLS Operational levy a reduction of hours was implemented in August. This reduction resulted in the closure of the library on Sundays. During the past six months the closure of the library on Sundays has been a primary topic of public comment/dissatisfaction. The timing of the closure has also caused confusion for some people. Many have confused the funds needed for operations in order to keep the library open with the funding needed to construct the new building. It is most unfortunate that just when the City opened a new library strongly supported by Tigard voters, it has become more inconvenient for many of them to use the library. According to state standards, a library with a service population the size of Tigard's should be open a minimum of 60 hours per week. Based on the public feedback we have received to date, the Library's current priority is to restore a minimum of 4 hours per week to allow the library to reopen on Sundays. That would bring the total number of hours the library is open to 58 hours per week, still considerably less than the 69 hours per week it was open in 2001-02. The benefits would include providing increased access to the community, thereby promoting good will. Making it more convenient to use the library would introduce more people to the programs and services it offers, thereby increasing library use. Our funding from the county is impacted by the level of library use. It may also correct the erroneous belief that the City intentionally promoted the construction of a new library without adequate operational funding. Funding Needs The additional revenue needed to re-open 4 hours for the remainder of the fiscal year would be approximately $1,300 per week. Depending upon how these hours are implemented, the total needed to restore those hours for the remainder of this fiscal year would be about $26,000. One option for the remainder of this fiscal year would be to use funds from the Grace Tigard Houghton bequest. A similar action was taken in May 2004 to allow the library to be open 54 hours per week. The Library Director has spoken with Mr. Curtis Tigard Update on Strategic Plan Library Strategic Plan ❖ Community Participation and Operational Hours Service Responses January 25, 2005 Recommended Service Responses Commons Cultural Awareness Operational Hours Update ❖ Current Topics and Titles General Information Information Literacy Comparison of New Library Users Comparison of Total Checkouts August - December 2003 and 2004 August - December 2003 to 2004 3.66o P r Grp 111{Algal{{I~I491 ' 210,000 :.1 0,000 ' Oo0A00 2.600 2fOpW n~T V.A. 1.600 tso,6ao 606 --.i 216,aao 11u00.120W tm0u0n dnme.. tOW ♦uyw110o1 mrou0n n..mwr mol 0 •O0u.12002 T ,,Wn O.am0.r 2000 11u0.120011nrau0n M...- 2001 1 Comparison of Public Computer Use Comparison of Reference Desk Transactions August - December 2003 to 2004 August - December 2003 to 2004 20.000 ~ ~--~-..f~• -._._rt - 1. ~ 35000 _ _ _ _ _ _ "t: M!_] 00000 ...~.._..i....... 00000 _ 14000 - _ _ 10000 S,ooo 100°5 i SOm 0 o •w.a..m ♦•o•o.5m •OOU310003 mou0n w5.me.r Sm3 •w•.ImmrMOwn hS.mwl~aa Half-Year Milestones Recommendation • Checkouts 15% Restore Sunday Hours at Tigard Public • Program Attendance 19% Library • Public Computers 33% • Reference Desk Inquiries 63% • Visitors 30% 2 about using the funds in this manner. He believes that transferring those funds would be in keeping with the wishes of his sister and in the spirit of the bequest. Options for Council Consideration • Authorize additional funding to allow the library to re-open on Sundays for the remainder of this fiscal year. • Allocate up to $26,000 from the Grace Tigard Houghton bequest. • Track the success and patron satisfaction of Sunday hours prior to the spring 2005 City Budget Committee meetings and report the findings to Council. Recommendation The recommendation is for the City Council to authorize additional funding to allow the library to re-open on Sundays at least for the remainder of fiscal year 2004-2005. AGENDA ITEM # FOR AGENDA OF 1/25/05 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Affordable Housing Fee Assistance Request 117 PREPARED BY: Duane Roberts DEPT HEAD OK ITY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Should Council award budgeted housing fee assistance funds to an applicant seeking assistance? The applicant is seeking $9,915 in City assistance. STAFF RECOMMENDATION After reviewing the completed application and listening to the presentation, Council should act on the request. Staff has reviewed the application and determined that the request complies with all program guidelines. INFORMATION SUMMARY In September 2002, Council adopted the Affordable Housing Program, intended to emphasize and encourage affordable housing in the Tigard community. The program includes a range of land use and non-land use affordable housing promotion tools and strategies. One of the non-land use tools was a new budget set-aside designed to reduce fees and charges imposed on affordable housing acquistion, development, and rehabilitation. A copy of the adopted guidelines that define the requirements and conditions for the award of the subsidy funds to housing providers is attached (Attachment 1). FY 04-05 is the third year of the fee assistance operation. In FY 02-03, the Council awarded $4,000 to Community Partners for Affordable Housing (CPAH) to offset building permit fees imposed on proposed repairs to the Greenburg Oaks Apartments (formerly, Villa La Paz). In FY 03-04 Washington County Housing Services was awarded $10,000 to offset fees and charges imposed and anticipated on the rehabilitation of the 96-unit Bonita Villa Apartments. According to program guidelines, applications are accepted twice per year. No applications were received during the first round of the FY 04-05 funding period. One application was received during the second intake period ending in December 2004. This is a CPAH request for $9,915 to offset building permit fees anticipated on major repairs to the Greenburg Oaks Apartments. CPAH is planning a $2.5 million redevelopment of the Greenburg Oaks Apartments located at H 905 SW 9l" Ave. Construction work is proposed to begin in May 2005 and to be completed in the period December 2005-February 2006. The City Building Official has looked at and concurs with the fee estimates provided by CPAH. The project meets City quidelines with respect to eligible activities, zoning, tenant income, time limits, Enhanced Safety Program participation, and other guidelines. As indicated in guideline #8 of Attachment 1, an in-person presentation to City Council is required as part of the application process. The date set for the presentation is the January 25, 2005, Council meeting. A CPAH representative, Martin Soloway, will be available at the meeting to overview the organization's request and to answer any questions Council may have. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Award fewer or no dollars. VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY Growth and Growth Management Goal #3 calls for the City to encourage and support "private sector programs to maintain diverse and affordable housing." ATTACHMENT LIST Attachment #1. Affordable Housing Fee Assistance Guidelines Attachment #2: Affordable Housing Fees and Charges Assistance Request FISCAL NOTES A total of $9,915 in fee assistance is requested. The approved 04/05 Community Events and Social Services budget is $10,000. Any funds not used during the fiscal year will return to the General Fund budget. Attachment 1 Affordable Housing Fee Assistance Guidelines 1. Both for- and not-for-profit entities are eligible to apply for affordable housing fee assistance funds. 2. Eligible activities include affordable housing acquisition, development, and rehabilitation. Affordable housing acquisition and development will receive greater consideration than rehabilitation. 3. High consideration will be given to projects that facilitate the dispersal of affordable housing within the City. 4. The proposed project must be consistent with City housing policies and applicable planning and zoning standards. 5. Only units targeted to households earning at or below 50% of median income are eligible for City funds. Units targeted to households earning 60% of median income are eligible when the project includes an equal number of units serving households at or below 50% of median. 6. The organization guarantees that the housing produced or rehabilitated will maintain long-term affordability, with long-term defined as the longer of 25 years, or, if applicable, the life of any State or Federal loan used to finance the project. 7. The organization guarantees that the project will be enrolled in the City Enhanced Safety Program (ESP) and maintain ESP certification for the respective (a.) period of long-term affordability defined in guideline #5, or (b.) the life of the ESP program. 8. Council review and approval of each separate award will be required. This review will include an in-person presentation to Council by a representative of the organization making the request. 9. The time limit on the use of the funds is two years. 10.Applications for assistance will be accepted twice per year. Applications shall be submitted on forms provided by the City of Tigard. 11. The maximum amount available is $500 per qualified unit, up to the current Social Services and Events Fund affordable housing set-aside line item balance. i/lrpln/dr/l-28-03 affordable housing Attachment 2 Tigard Affordable Housing Fee Assistance Program City of Tigard, Oregon 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, Oregon 97223 503-639-4171 FY 2004-05 AFFORDABLE HOUSING FEES AND CHARGES ASSISTANCE REQUEST Organization Name: COMMUNITY PARTNERS FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING, INC. P.O. Box 23206 Address: Tigard OR 97281 City, State, Zi : Martin Soloway, Deputy Director, Housing Contact Name: 503 968-2724 Telephone Number msoloway@cpahinc.org Email address: Address/location of the project site: GREENBURG OAKS APARTMENTS 11905 SW 91St, Tigard OR 97223 1. Briefly describe your organization and the type(s) of affordable housing opportunities you provide or are seeking to provide. Community Partners for Affordable Housing (CPAH) develops new and preserves existing housing resources for those with the greatest need who live or work in the Tigard-Tualatin area and Southwest Portland. CPAH owns three apartment complexes that provide housing for families at 60% or less of the Portland metropolitan area median income: Greenburg Oaks, Metzger Park, and Village at Washington Square. CPAH also owns one five-bedroom, single family rental home and has begun construction on Oleson Woods, a new 32 unit family apartment project next to Washington Square Mall. All units are priced to be affordable to very low income households earning 60% or less of the area median income. However the average CPAH household income is much lower than this at 31 % of AMI. CPAH offers a wide range of programs at its properties designed to support the healthy development of children and families. 2. Describe the activity for which you are requesting fee relief. CPAH is planning a two and a half million dollar redevelopment of Greenburg Oaks. Both unit interiors and external environment improvements are planned. Attached is a preliminary outline of anticipated work to be completed. The project hopes to include new plumbing lines and fixtures in all units, new cabinets and appliances and improvements to unit ventilation. Exterior improvements include landscape upgrades, physical enhancements to the buildings and parking area, construction of a covered play area, installation of a trash compactor and recycling area. The project will be repaved and building trim will be repainted. The rehabilitation is being financed through a number of private and public sources. The Paul Allen Foundation, Meyer Memorial Trust, and Oregon Community Fund have contributed $175,000. Key Bank will invest $1.6 million dollars in tax credit purchases. The State of Oregon is providing $100,000 in HOME funds along with $65,000 in weatherization funds, $100,000 in Alcohol and Drug Free Housing funds, technical assistance, and other financing support. Washington County is providing $125,000 in Community Development Block Grants and nearly half a million dollars in HOME funds. CPAH has already contributed more than $200,000 in fees and private donations over the last two years and will further contribute by deferring a percentage of its developer fees for as long as ten years. The City of Tigard has supported the project on an ongoing basis by supporting its exemption from property taxes and through community policing support. All operating support reduces operating overhead and therefore directly reduces the rent charged to tenants. This fee assistance program will be Tigard's primary contribution to this major rehabilitation project. For more information about Community Partners for Affordable Housing and the Greenburg Oaks Apartments, please visit the CPAH website at: www.cpahinc.org. I Describe the fees and charges (including amounts per unit) that you are seeking City funds to offset. Fees and charges for the proposed work at Greenburg Oaks Apartments have been estimated based on the schedule of fees on the Tigard web site. 2 The table below summarizes planned permittable work only and not the entire cost of rehab. Quantity Units Total Cost Interior Work: Electrical Upgrades 84 units $ 98,560 Replace Plumbing 84 units $ 74,400 Kitchen/Bath Vent. Upgrades 84 units $ 13,874 Kitchen Appliance Replacement: Dishwasher 8 EA $ 1,854 Garbage Disposal 2 EA $ 213 Range Hood 84 EA $ 5,880 Sink 84 EA $ 6,152 C Replacement 4 EA $ 6,500 ater Heater Replacement 8 EA $ 4,320 Quantity Units Total Cost Building Exterior Work: Deck Repairs 42 EA $ 138,800 Stair Tread/Handrail Replace 7 EA $ 45,000 Site Improvements Demo Parking Stuctures 2 EA $ 10,000 Repair Fire Damaged Paving 5,500 SF $ 10,000 Landscape Replacement 23,300 SF $ 78,956 Maint./Stor. Structures 600 SF $ 17,290 Recreational Structure (70x45) 3,150 SF $ 106,000 Site Lighting Improvements 1 AL $ 7,500 Sanitary Sewer Repairs 600 LF $ 54,000 Frash Compactor 1 EA $ 15,000 Total Est. Costs $ 694,299 Cont. 15% $ 104,145 Overhead $ 69,430 Fee $ 34,715 PUPD $ 19,639 Bond $ 19,638 Total $ 941,865 Trade Fees $4,540 Plan Review Fees $1,135 State Surcharge $ 363 Total Trade Permit Fees $6,038 Building Permits Fee for first $600,000 of work $2,677 Fee for each Add'I $1,000 $1,200 Total Building Permit Fee $3,877 3 Total Estimated City of Tigard Fees $9,915 Total Estimated Fees per Unit 84 Units $ 118 4. Describe the status of all necessary land use, zoning, and building plan approvals. We are in the process of selecting a project architect who will be on contract by January 15, 2005. Selection of project general contractor will follow immediately after. The team will then review the planned scope and update an inventory of project needs, develop project drawings and initiate planning and building permit applications. Start of construction is planned for late May 2005 for 7 to 9 months. At this point we are not aware of any work that will require zoning or planning variances. 5. Indicate whether the project will require the relocation of any household or business. This project will be subject to the federal Uniform Relocation Act. It will be necessary to temporarily relocate tenants in each apartment to accommodate the extensive rehab work. However, no tenants will be permanently displaced by the work or by changes in the rent structure. The project has budgeted $85,000 for relocation administration and costs. We have had an initial relocation planning meeting with tenants and have begun work on a detailed relocation plan. This plan will be monitored by State and County officials. 6. Request (express in whole dollar amounts only): [Note: the city budget amount available for all projects combined during FY 02-03 is $10,000.] Dollar amount per unit $ 118 Number of units $ 84 Total request $ 9,915 Note: This is an estimated amount based on anticipated project scope. It is possible that scope changes and unforeseen conditions could significantly affect the final amount. 4 7. Briefly describe how your project addresses each of the guidelines adopted by the Tigard City Council for considering fee assistance requests. Omit guidelines 7 & 9. [use and insert additional page if needed.] 1. Community Partners for Affordable Housing (CPAH) is a not for profit organization committed to providing high quality affordable housing in the Tigard area. 2. The planned work is rehabilitation to preserve existing affordable housing. 3. Greenburg Oaks contributes to efforts to de-concentrate poverty. CPAH's existing portfolio is distributed across its service area. New housing projects are selected that can fill existing unmet housing needs but which are geographically dispersed. By offering community-wide programs at the Greenburg Oaks community center, Greenburg Oaks offers lower income community members services that do not require their living on site. 4. Greenburg Oaks is in compliance with City housing policies and planning and zoning standards. The planned rehab project will improve the efficiency of the property and its ability to remain in compliance for an extended time. 5. Of the 143 units of housing CPAH operates in or near Tigard, all are affordable to households earning less than 50% of the area median income. Of the 138 households we currently house, 86.2% have incomes below 50% of the AMI and 67% earn below 40%. At Greenburg Oaks, 88.4% earn below 50%, 65.4% earn 40% or less and 38.5% earn less than 30% of the AMI. 6. We have covenanted with the State of Oregon that we will maintain Greenburg Oaks as affordable housing for a period of 60 years. This project will restart that covenant. 7. Greenburg Oaks is enrolled in the city Enhanced Safety Program. We facilitate an active Neighborhood Watch committee at the site and we coordinate closely with the City Police Department. 9. Technical requirements of other funds in this project require a timely start and completion. The project will take much less than two years to complete. 11. The estimated amount of the request is $118 per unit, well below the maximum of $500. 8. Describe when you anticipate being able to use the requested funds. CPAH anticipates submitting an application for building permits in April 2005 with a target start date in late May. Because of the size of the permit fees, we would like to request reimbursement of the initial application fees as soon as possible so they can be available for other project uses. Any additional fees required in the course of the project will be submitted for reimbursement in consultation with city staff. 5 9. Certification hereby certify, by signature below, that the information contained in this application is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. Date: L Z v Signature: cam"" Typed Name and Title: Martin Soloway Deputy Director, Housing Note: Submit one original of the completed application. The application deadline is 4:00 pm, December 24, 2004, at Tigard City Hall. Applications transmitted by fax or email will not be accepted. Mail or deliver to: City of Tigard Attn: Duane Roberts 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Should you have any questions about how to complete the application form, contact Duane Roberts, 503-718-2444; duane@ci.tigard.or.us. 6 MGcrkrn Svlowa,&j 1•a.5•os ~7 Tigard Fee Assistance is the Last Source Needed. Sources awarded: LIHTC (Key CDC, L.P.) $ 1,609,068 HOME (OHCS) $ 100,000 CDBG (Wa. Co.) $ 124,900 Grants (Meyer, Paul Allen) $ 1003000 Fee Waivers (City of Tigard)* $ 10,000 Weatherization Grant (OHCS) $ 62,993 Individual Contributions $ 177100 A & D Free Hous. Prgm. (OHCS)* $ 102,000 Deferred Developer Fee (CPAH) $ 75,000 Wa. County HOME Request: $ 479,343 Grant (Wa .County Trust Fund) * $ 25,000 TOTAL AWARDED $ 2,705,404 * Conditional Awards AGENDA ITEM No. 8 Date: January 25, 2005 PUBLIC HEARING (LEGISLATIVE) TESTIMONY SIGN-UP SHEETS Please sign on the following page(s) if you wish to testify before City Council on: ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT INCORPORATING FEMA REQUIREMENTS(ZOA 2004-00002) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA) 2004-00003/ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT (ZOA) 2004-00002 Due to Time Constraints City Council May Impose A Time Limit on Testimony AGENDA ITEM No.8 Date: January 25, 2005 PLEASE PRINT Proponent - (Speaking In Favor Opponent - (Speaking Against) Neutral Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. b";.~- r` ~ S03 3 ~ ~~6 0 Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. AGENDA ITEM # FOR AGENDA OF January 25, 2005 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Plan And Code Amendment Incorporating Revised Federal Emergency Management Administration FEMA Requirements CPA2004-00003/ZOA2004-0000 . PREPARED BY: Gary Pagenstecher DEPT HEAD OK TY MGR OK kl4yt- ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Should the Council approve requested Comprehensive Plan and Zone Ordinance Amendments to be consistent with the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) requirements? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approving the requested Comprehensive Plan and Zone Ordinance Amendments by adopting the attached ordinance and text amendments (Attachment 1), as recommended by motion by the City of Tigard Planning Commission. INFORMATION SUMMARY On August 18'', 2004, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) notified the City of the final flood elevation determination for the City of Tigard. FEMA requires the City, as a condition of continued eligibility in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), to adopt floodplain management regulations that meet NFIP standards. By determining the base flood elevation and assuring that structures are built in accordance with the NFIP regulations, local officials can assure that structures qualify for significantly lower flood insurance rates. In order for the City to meet FEMA's February 18, 2005 effective date, and because scheduling conflicts with the January 11, 2005 City Council meeting precluded the City's 30-day period for ordinances to take effect, the proposed ordinance is written as an emergency ordinance to take effect immediately upon Council's action at its January 25, 2005 meeting. On, December 20, 2004, the Tigard Planning Commission held a public hearing on the item. They recommended approval of the amendment by a majority vote in favor with one abstention (Attachment 2). Owners of property that are located within the floodplain have been sent individual notice in accordance with Measure 56. Notice procedures in the development code, including publication of notice in the paper and written notice to the appropriate agencies were met. The proposal makes the following recommendations: ♦ Revise references to the updated FEMA Flood Impact Study (FIS) and Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), effective February 18, 2005; and ♦ Add regulations for recreational vehicles located in the 100-year floodplain. VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY Goals, Strategies, and/or Action Plan Items from "Tigard Beyond Tomorrow" do not apply. ATTACHMENT LIST Attachment 1: Ordinance adopting the code amendments Exhibit A: Proposed Plan and Code text changes Attachment 2: 12/20/04 "Draft" Planning Commission meeting minutes Attachment 3: Staff Report to the Planning Commission FISCAL NOTES N/A ATTACHMENT 2 CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION 'DR4 Meeting Minutes Pr December 20, 2004 1. CALL TO ORDER Vice-President Munro called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was held in the Tigard Civic Center, Town Hall, at 13125 SW Hall Blvd. 2. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Vice-President Munro; Commissioners Anderson, Buehner, Caffall, Haack, Inman, Meads, and Sutton Commissioners Absent: President Padgett Staff Present: Dick Bewersdorff, Planning Manager; Gary Pagenstecher, Associate Planner; Gus Duenas, City Engineer; Jerree Gaynor, Planning Commission Secretary 3. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS The next meetings for the Commission are scheduled for January 24th and February 7th 4. PUBLIC HEARING 4.1 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CPA) 2004-00003/ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT (ZOA) 2004-00002 PLAN & CODE AMENDMENT INCORPORATING REVISED FEMA REQUIREMENTS REQUEST: The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has required the City, as a condition of continued eligibility in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), to adopt floodplain management regulations that meet NFIP standards. Therefore, to meet these standards, the City proposes to amend Chapter 3, Natural Features and Open Space, Volume II of the Comprehensive Plan and the Sensitive Lands chapter (18.775) of the Tigard Development Code by revising references to the updated FEMA Flood Impact Study (FIS) and Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), effective February 18, 2005, and regulating recreational vehicles located in the 100-year floodplain. LOCATION: The 100- year floodplain within the City of Tigard's incorporated boundary. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: All designations within the floodplain. ZONE: All zones within the floodplain. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.380, 18.390 and 18.775; Comprehensive Plan Policies 1.1.1, 2.1.1, 2.1.2 and 3.2; the Metro 2040 Plan; and Statewide Planning Goals 1, 5 and 7. STAFF REPORT Associate Planner Gary Pagenstecher presented the staff report on behalf of the PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - December 20, 2004 - Page I City. He read the relative code criteria into the record. He reported that the scope of the amendment is quite restrictive; it is primarily to make our code consistent with revised flood insurance rate maps and the flood insurance study which has just been published by FEMA. Additional regulations have been added for recreational vehicles used for human habitation (campers, RVs, etc.) that are stored in the 100 year floodplain. They must be on-site for fewer than 180 days and be licensed and road ready or they have to meet certain requirements, including elevation and anchoring requirements, that apply to manufactured homes. Pagenstecher advised that the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) will be revised, effective February 18, 2005 (Exhibit A). The old City of Tigard FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map, dated 1981, was also shown (Exhibit B). Pagenstecher explained that FEMA requires the City, as a condition of eligibility in the National Flood Insurance Program, to adopt floodplain management regulations that meet their standards. He noted that all affected property owners received notice of the public hearing. Commissioner Meads asked if the effect of development in the floodplain (e.g., the increase in impervious area and how it could affect the range of the floodplain) was incorporated into the study and the map. Pagenstecher said there is an elevated floodplain level now as opposed to 20 years ago. This may be due to increased development or it may be due to raising the base flood elevations to higher levels. Staff advised that the City code regulates recreational vehicles that are not road ready and have to be secured to the land - they are not allowed as a housing unit in our code. Vice-President Munro asked about recommendations from the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD). Staff answered that both FEMA and DLCD staff reviewed the draft language and didn't take issue it. A DLCD staff person did think the definitions could be more explicit. PUBLIC TESTIMONY Coralyn Chaney, 11730 SW Tiedeman, Tigard 97223, asked for clarification about her property classification. She asked if it was zoned A, B, or C. Staff advised that FEMA has changed their classifications. In Tigard, there are A and AE zones. For the AE zones, the base elevations have been determined. For the A zones, they know it's a floodplain but the analysis to determine the base elevation has not been done. Pagenstecher also noted that the map included with the public hearing notice identifies properties that have at least some portion of the property in the floodplain. Regulations for determining insurance rates are different from City or CWS regulations that may apply to properties. These may be more restrictive PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - December 20, 2004 - Page 2 than what FEMA requires. He noted that development is not prohibited in the floodplains unless defined by FEMA regulations. For example, the City does not allow cut and fill in residential zones. Staff advised that the new FEMA map provides more detailed information. To comply with FEMA requirements and to make people eligible for insurance, the City has to adopt the new FEMA standards. Sue Beilke, 11755 SW 114th Place, Tigard 97223, had some questions for the Commission. She asked if the Commission would be making a recommendation to Council tonight. Staff answered that the Commission would make that decision. She would like more time to go over the map and make corrections. If the Commission decides to make a recommendation tonight, she asked they include a provision for citizens to be able to make corrections to the map. Staff informed her that the map was produced by FEMA, so she would have to go to FEMA to request revisions. Randal Nelson Sr., 11495 SW Hazelwood Loop, Tigard 97223, testified that every time he refinances house, he has to deal with FEMA. He stated that the greenbelt behind his house is in floodplain, but his house is not. He has pictures showing the water level during the 1996 flood. His house is higher than homes in his neighborhood that are not shown as being in the floodplain. He noticed that the new map still catches the corner of his property. The Commission suggested that he have his property surveyed to get accurate elevations. Adam Zwerling, 10325 SW Meadow Street, Tigard 97223, stated that his house has flooded twice since he bought it. The old map shows his property in the floodplain, but the new map shows that it is not in the floodplain. The new floodplain lines are one property away from him. He wonders if he could get FEMA grant money if his house flooded. The Commission suggested having his property surveyed (FEMA floodplain elevation certification) to establish where the floodplain line is actually located. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED It was moved and seconded to send a recommendation for approval of Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) 2004-00003/Zone Ordinance Amendment (ZOA) 2004-00002 Plan & Code Amendment Incorporating Revised FEMA Requirements, including the staff report and the testimony received this evening. The motion was approved by a vote of 7-0 with one abstention. Commissioner Caffall abstained. 5. CIP UPDATE City Engineer Gus Duenas gave a PowerPoint presentation update of the current 04/05 Capital Improvement Program projects (see exhibit C). He noted that he would be back to the Commission in February for discussion and input to next year's projects. PLANNING COMNUSSION MEETING MINUTES - December 20, 2004 - Page 3 6. OTHER BUSINESS The Commission received committee reports: • Tree Board - nothing to report. • Park and Recreation Board - there was discussion at the last meeting about excessive drinking in the parks. • Planned Development Code Review Committee - the committee has drafted language for the purpose of the PD code. • Transportation Financial Strategy Task Force - the task force has been discussing potential revenue sources and is thinking of a local gas tax proposal that would be tied to specific projects. • Downtown Task Force - the task force has held 24 outreach meetings and had a public workshop on December 4th. At their next meeting, they will be looking at the ideas they received. They will be going back to the community in February and are forming subcommittees. 7. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 8:21 p.m. Jerree Gaynor, Planning Commission Secretary ATTEST: Vice-President Judy Munro PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - December 20, 2004 - Page 4 Planning Commission - 12/20/04 Meeting Exhibit A LARGE EXHIBITS MAY BE REVIEWED AT TIGARD CITY HALL UPON REQUEST. k S W D D p ~ o ~LLa e6p@p c~ \l LL 8 ft {ppI r¢ 1~6~ o ~ttE Q r C 1 . rT.l -T _ ~ - , fit. • • . . _t _ - . - . s I _ . ~ w-~~, Fa - _ ~ ,T . ~ C El) _ i - ` Ir - ~EE~~H~] EfHf[HIHffEl3 _ r fm. libhl - j) M - T - _ t °.-1• i TF, P Pd a~ • ~ rr a k 0096 E r ~ _ - c { , 1 _ - - __1:11. LL1-,S - .__I. //f T L . t LAO - r ~ EIfIf IH . EEIH . = 't* - - .r ~ ' jjj enr f EP . - .S (Irr L~ r.~ Ir 1 t z - 111 - - 1,. - - - r jpo i F cu P srrf trt¢fit.h~~ ` r. r CL) nI I _ J rTl - T c ~,,TI ~ S L ,C rr'f'~' - ~ ~ 1Q~' .I: ~3 C(1'QI, - Il _ : ~ ~ _ t ~IG.. - -L~-...__ _ I ~l ~ r - - - r 4 4T { 1.1 _ _ - mi3.Tf rc>~r~ •a- C CU L _0 CL u- FL C 1 , 0 >0 w L) U- =a- ATTACHMENT 3 Agenda Item: 7- I Hearing Date: December 20, 2004 Time: 7:00 PM .:b::i. : `.r' ; . ,.ter, ...t:: .d..:: : 1 A :STAFF REPORT TO THE K, s N M N ' CRY OF TIOARD J y. f PLE NING CO M.ISSIO h . Community Deveropment 3r`.FOR THE CITY Of T~GARD, OREGON shap1ngABetter community 7 SECTION I. APPLICATION SUMMARY CASE NAME: PLAN AND CODE AMENDMENT INCORPORATING REVISED FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT ADMINISTRATION (FEMA) REQUIREMENTS. CASE NOS.: Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) 2004-00003 Zone Ordinance Amendment (ZOA) 2004-00002 PROPOSAL: The City proposes to amend Chapter 3, Natural Features and Open Space, Volume II of the Comprehensive Plan and the Sensitive Lands chapter (18.775 of the Tigard Development Code by revising references to the updated EMA Flood Impact Study (FIS) and Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), effective February 18, 2005, and regulating recreational vehicles located in the 100-year floodplain. APPLICANT: City of Tigard OWNER: N/A 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223 LOCATION: 100-Year Floodplain within the City of Tigard's incorporated boundary. COMP PLAN/ ZONING DESIGNATION, All designations and zones within the floodplain. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.380,18.390 and 18.775; Comprehensive Plan Policies -1.1.1, 2.1.1, 2.1.2, and 3.2; The Metro 2040 Plan; and Statewide Planning Goals 1 2, and 7. SECTION II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staffirecomrx~ends that the Planning Corxtmtsslon recommentl they Gity Council adopt revised refrences toK the updated Nationals Flood Insurance Program Flood 'lnsurancetudy and ;Flood lrisvrance>Rate Maps for therOity of Igar =effective February 18t, 2005,~,antl M end.the r;SensltiveLrands A requirements In the Tigard 'Development ~Gode to regulate recreational ~ieliic'les""'locatedmtlne 100 yearfloodplain zL r ; fi ~T CPA2004-00003/ZOA2004-00002 PAGE 1 OF 7 12/20/04 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION SECTION III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION On August 18th, 2004, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) notified the City of the final flood elevation determination for the City of Tigard. FEMA requires the City, as a condition of continued eligibility in the. National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), to adopt floodplain management regulations that meet NFIP standards. By determining the base flood elevation, and assuring that structures are built in accordance with the NFIP regulations through the use of the elevation or flood-proofing information, local officials can assure that structures qualify for significantly lower flood insurance rates than policies rated with the base flood elevation undetermined. In 1982 FEMA issued a Flood Impact Study (FIS) and Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) that identified the Special Flood Hazard Areas, areas subject to inundation by the base (1 percent annual chance) flood in the Tigard area. As a result of a recent reevaluation of flood hazards FEMA provided the City with preliminary copies of the FIS and FIRM that identify existing flood hazard in the Tigard area, including Base Flood Elevations (BFEs). These proposed BFEs were published in the Tigard Times on April 15 and April 22, 2004 and in the Federal Register at 67 FR 44634 on July 7, 2004. No appeals were made of the proposed BFEs. As such, the BFEs are considered final and will become effective February 18, 2005. Pursuant to Section 1361 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, FEMA requires the City to adopt floodplain management regulations that meet the standards of Paragraph 60.3(d) of the NFIP by the effective date for the City's continued eligibility in the National Flood Insurance -Program. The City's current development code meets or exceeds all of these standards with few exceptions. If adopted, the proposed attached amendments would satisfy the FEMA requirements and retain the City's eligibility to participate in the NFIP. To meet these standards, the City proposes to amend Chapter 3, Natural Features and Open Space, Volume II of the Comprehensive Plan and the Sensitive Lands chapter (18.775) of the Tigard Development Code. The proposed amendments revise references to the updated FE MA Flood Impact Study (FIS) and Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM), effective February 18, 2005, and add language regulating recreational vehicles located in the 100-year floodplain (See attached Exhibit A - Proposed Plan and Code Text Changes). SECTION IV. APPLICABLE CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Chapter 18.380 states that legislative text amendments shall be undertaken by means of a Type IV procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.060G. Chapter 18.390.060G states that the recommendation by the Commission and the decision by the Council shall be based on consideration of the following factors: THE STATEWIDE PLANNING GOALS AND GUIDELINES ADOPTED UNDER OREGON REVISED STATUTES CHAPTER 197; Notice was provided to DLCD 45 days prior to the first scheduled public hearing as required. In addition, the Tigard Development Code and Comprehensive Plan have been acknowledged by DLCD. The following Statewide Planning Goals are applicable to this proposal: Statewide Planning Goal 1 - Citizen Involvement: This goal outlines the citizen involvement requirement for adoption of Comprehensive Plans and for changes to the Comprehensive Plan and implementing documents. This goal has been met by complying with. the Tigard Development Code notice requirements set forth in Chapter 18.390. Notice has been published in the Tigard Times Newspaper prior to the public hearing. Notice was sent to 362 property owners representing 506 affected properties. Two Public Hearings are being held (one before the Planning Commission and the second before the City Council) in which public input is welcome. CPA2004-0000320A2004-00002 PAGE 2 OF 7 12/20/04 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION Statewide Planning Goal 2 - Land Use Planning: This goal outlines the land use planning process and policy framework. The Comprehensive Plan was acknowledged by DLCD as being consistent with the statewide planning goals. The Development Code implements the Comprehensive Plan. The Development Code establishes a process for and policies to review changes to the Development Code consistent with Goal 2. The City's plan provides analysis and policies with which to evaluate a request for amending the Code consistent with Goal 2. Statewide Planning Goal 7 - Areas Subject to Natural Hazards: This goal is designed to protect people and property from natural hazards, including flooding. It requires that new hazard inventory information provided by federal agencies be reviewed by DLCD in conjunction with local government representatives. Local governments will be deemed to comply with Goal 7 for riverine flood hazards by adopting and implementing local floodplain regulations that meet the minimum National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) requirements. The proposed amendments would meet the minimum NFIP requirements. APPLICABLE FEDERAL AND STATE STATUTES Title Chapter I, Part 60, Section 60.3 Code of Federal Regulation (CFR). This section includes federal floodplain management criteria for flood-prone * areas. Communities adopting these criteria are eliblible for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program. The City's Development Code currently incorporates most of these criteria. With adoption of the proposed amendments the code would meet the criteria in Section 60.3 CFR. APPLICABLE METRO REGULATIONS: Title 3: Urban Growth Management Functional Plan (Metro code 3.07.300) The intent of Title 3 is to protect the beneficial water uses and functions and values of resources within the Water Quality and Flood Management Areas. Cities can comply with the provisions of this title by amending their comprehensive plans and implementing ordinances to adopt all or part of the Title 3 Model Ordinance or code lane, that substantially complies with the performance standards and the intent of the title. Cities must also adopt either the Metro Water Quality and Flood Management Area Map or a map which substantially complies with the Metro map. The City complies with Metro's Title 3 requirements through reference to Clean Water Services' (CWS standards which are implemented through the Tigard Development Code. Metro's Flood Management Area Map for the Fanno Creek watershed is based on the data generated by CWS, the City of Tigard, City of Beaverton, and Washington County during development of the Fanno Creek Watershed Plan. This information was submitted to FEMA in 2000 and is the basis for the current Flood Insurance Rate Map, effective February 2005. Therefore, adoption of the proposed reference to the revised FEMA FIRM will be consistent with Title 3 map requirements. APPLICABLE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES: Comprehensive Plan Policy 1.1.1: General Policies This policy states that all future legislative changes shall be consistent with the Statewide Planning Goals and the Regional Plan adopted by Metro. As indicated above- under the individual Statewide and Regional Plan goals applicable to this proposed amendment, the amendment is consistent with the Statewide Goals and the Regional Plan. CPA2004-00003/ZOA2004-00002 PAGE 3 OF 7 .12/20/04 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION Comprehensive Plan Policies 2.1.1, 2.1.2, and 2.1.3.: Citizen Involvement These policies state that the City shall maintain an ongoing citizen involvement program, provide opportunities for citizen involvement appropriate to the scale of the planning effort and that information on land use planning issues shall be available in understandable form for all interested citizens. This policy is satisfied because notice of the proposed amendment was mailed to all interested parties and 362 notices were mailed to owners of property located in the floodplain that may be affected by the proposed amendment. In addition, notice was published in the Tigard Times of the Planning Commission public hearing and notice will be published again prior to the City Council public hearing. Public input has been invited in the notice. The written notices were written in plain understandable form, and included phone numbers and a contact person for anyone who may have questions. Comprehensive Plan Policies 3: Natural Features and Open Space, This chapter addresses a broad range of topics all having to do with the natural resources located with the Tigard Urban Planning Area. Section .3.2, Floodplains, refers to the Floodplain and Floodway as defined by the Flood Insurance Study for the City of Tigard dated September 1, 1981. The proposed amendment to the Tigard Comprehensive Plan would update this reference to the revised FIS and FIRM, effective February 18, 2005. APPLICABLE PROVISION OF THE CITY'S IMPLEMENTING ORDINANCES. Tigard Development Code Section 18.775: Sensitive Lands The regulations of this chapter are intended to implement the comprehensive plan and the City's floodplain management program as required by the National Flood Insurance Program, and help to preserve natural sensitive land areas from encroaching use and to maintain the zero-foot rise floodway elevation. Section 18.775.040.13 addresses the areas of special flood hazard identified by the Federal Insurance Administration in a scientific and engineering report entitled The Flood Insurance Study of the City of Tigard, with accompanying Flood insurance Rate Maps which are adopted by reference and declared to be a part of this chapter. The section also includes land use regulations for development within the floodplain. With adoption of the proposed amendments to this section of the code, the code will effectively implement the comprehensive plan and the City's flood management program as required by the NFIP (See attached Exhibit A - Proposed Development Code Text Changes). Tigard Development Code Chapter 18.380: Zoning Map and Text Amendments This chapter sets forth the standards and process governing legislative and quasi-judicial amendments to this title and zoning district map. Legislative zoning map and text amendments shall be undertaken by means of a Type IV procedure, as governed by Section 18.390.060G. Therefore, the proposed text amendments to the Tigard Development Code will be reviewed under the Type IV legislative procedure as set forth in the chapter. Tigard Development Code Chapter 18.390: Decision-Making Procedures This chapter establishes standard decision-making procedures for reviewing applications. The amendment under consideration will be reviewed under the Type IV legislative procedure as detailed in the chapter. Section 18.390.060G states that the recommendation by the Commission and the decision by the Council shall be based on consideration of the following factors (reviewed above), including: 1) Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines, 2) applicable federal of state statues of regulations, 3) applicable METRO regulations, 4) applicable comprehensive plan policies, and 5) applicable provisions of the City's implementing ordinances. CPA2004-00003/ZOA2004-00002 PAGE 4 OF 7 12/20/04 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION SECTION V. ADDITIONAL CITY STAFF COMMENTS The City of Tigard's Long Range Planning Division, Building Division, Community Development Department, and Public Works have had an opportunity to review this proposal and have no objections. SECTION VI. OUTSIDE AGENCY COMMENTS Metro, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Oregon Department of Transportation, Washington County Department of Land Use and Transportation, division of State Lands, and US Army Corps of Engineers were notified of the proposed amendments and did not respond. The Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development commented on the proposal as follows: DLCD Staff reviewed Tigard's existing ordinance to see if any NFIP-related issues (beyond the reference to the new maps) needed to be addressed in the ordinance update. DLCD Staff agreed with the City's plans to update 18.775.040 (8) to reference the current flood insurance study and maps. Response: The proposed amendments include references to updated FIS and FIRM, effective February 18, 2005. DLCD Staff suggested the City add in the NFIP standards for recreational vehicles required per 44 CFR 60.3(c)(14). Response: The proposed amendments include standards for recreational vehicles. DLCD Staff suggested the City may want. to clarify that section 18.775.040(L), for residential construction in the floodplain, applies ►n special flood hazard areas where base flood elevation data has been provided. Response: Subsection L clearly applies in special flood hazard areas as indicated by the section title: General Provisions for Floodplain Areas, and specifically identified in Subsection B, Special Flood Hazards, which includes references to the AS and FIRM, effective Feb, 18, 2004 that provide base elevation data. Therefore, staff believes clarification is not warranted. DLCD Staff suggested the City update Chapter 18.120 - Definitions, to address the following issues ~DLCD staff noted that definitions are not required by FEMA as among those standars required to retain eligibility in the National Flood Insurance Program):. ---The city defines basement (definition #25), but the definition does not match the NFIP definition for basement. This could result in incorrect application of the NFIP standards found in 18.775. 1 strongly recommend that the city add the NFIP definition of basement into the flood-related definitions found at '71. "Basement" - any area of a building having its floor subgrade (below ground level) on all sides. Response: The City's definition of basement involves definitions of "basement", "story", and "story, first": #25. "Basement" - Any floor level below the first story in a building, except that a floor level in a building having only one floor level shall be classified as a basement unless such floor level qualifies as first story as defined in this section. CPA2004-0000320A2004-00002 PAGE 5 OF 7 12/20/04 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION #128. "Story" - That portion of a building included between the upper surface of any floor and the upper surface of the floor next above, except that the topmost story shall be that portion of a building included between the upper surface of the topmost floor and the ceiling or roof above. If the finished floor level directly above a basement or unused under-floor space is more than six feet above grade as defined in this section for more than 50 percent of the total perimeter or is more than 12 feet above grade as defined in this section at any point, such basement or unused under-floor space shall be considered as a story. #129. "Story, first" - The lowest story in a building which qualifies as a story, as defined in this section, except that a floor level in a building having only one floor shall be classified as a first story, provided such floor level is not more than four feet below grade, as defined in this section, for more than 50 percent of the total perimeter, or more than eight feet below grade, as defined in this section, at any point. Staff agrees the City's definition of "basement" does not match NFIP's definition, but believes the difference would be unlikely to result in an incorrect application of the NFIP standards. As applied in the City's flood lain regulations, it is a building's "lowest floor, including basement" that must be elevatedd above he base flood elevation, which can only be construed to not allow any floors, basement or otherwise, below that level. This was confirmed by discussion with the City Building Official. Therefore, staff believes no changes are warranted. ---The city should also clarify which definition of development it uses for flood lain purposes. Chapter 18.120 has a definition (#56) and Chapter 18.775 has a definition or sorts (18.775.020 ,A), but this one may not apply to the floodplain? The language in 18.775.020(A) is very similar to the NFIP denition but is under a section about stormwater connection permits. The NFIP defines development, as - any man-made change to improved or unimproved real estate, including but not limited to buildings or other structures, mining, dredging, filling, grading, paving, excavation, or drilling operations located within the area of special flood hazard. Response: The City defines "development" in Chapters 18.120 and 18.775 are as follows: 18.120.030 Meaning of Specific Words and Terms A. For additional words and terms, also see Use Classifications (Chapter 18.130); Mixed Solid Waste and Recyclable Storage (Chapter 18.755); Sensitive Lands (Chapter 18.775); Signs (Chapter 18.780); Tree Removal (Chapter 18.790); and Wireless Communication Facilities (Chapter 18.798). As used in this title, the following words and phrases mean: #56. "Development" - 1) A building or mining operation; 2) a material change in the use or appearance of a structure or land; or 3) division of land into two or more parcels, including partitions and subdivisions as provided in Oregon Revised Statutes 92. 18.775.020 Applicability of Uses: Permitted, Prohibited, and Nonconforming A. CWS Stormwater Connection Permit. All proposed development must obtain a Stormwater Connection Permit from CVVS pursuant to its Design' and Construction Standards. As used in this chapter, the meaning of the word development shall be as defined in the CWS Design. and Construction Standards: All human-induced changes to improved or unimproved real property including: 1. Construction of structures requiring a building permit, if such structures are external to existing structures; 2. Land division; 3. Drilling; 4. Site alterations resulting from surface mining or dredging; 5. Grading; 6. Construction of earthen berms; 7. Paving; 8. Excavation; or CPA2004-00003/ZOA2004-00002 PAGE 6 OF 7 12/20/04 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION 9. Cleann when it results in the removal of trees or vegetation which would require a permitrom the local jurisdiction or an Oregon Department of Forestry tree removal permit. 10. The following activities are not included in the definition of development: a. Farming activities when conducted in accordance with accepted farming practices as defined in ORS 30.930 and under a Senate Bill 1010 water quality management plan; b. Construction, reconstruction, or modification of a single family residence on an existing lot of record within a subdivision that was approved by the City or County after September 9, 1995 (from ORS 92.040(2)); and c. Any development activity for which land use approvals have been issued pursuant to a land use application submitted to the City or County on or before February 4, 2000, and deemed complete or before March 15, 2000. The meaning as defined in Chapter 18.120 applies generally to Title 18. The meaning as defined in Chapter 18.775 applies explicitly to t at chapter and specifically to the floodplain. Therefore, the City uses the latter definition with respect to floodplains. The general meaning in both the City's and NFIP's definitions is substantially the same. However, the NFIP definition is generally more inclusive, while the City's definition includes several exemptions. Because the definitions are similar, staff believes no changes are warranted. ---The city has a definition for recreational vehicle (#117). This definition is different than the NFIP definition. The city should consider whether its existing definition needs to be updated. The NFIP definition is: (a) built on a single chassis, (b) 400 square feet, or less when measured at the largest horizontal projection, (c) designed to be sef-propelled or permanently towable by a light duty truck, and (d) designed primarily not for use as a permanent dwelling but as temporary living quarters for recreational, camping, travel, or seasonal use. Response: The City defines "recreational vehicle" as follows: .18.120.030. #117: "Recreational vehicles" - A vacation trailer or other unit, with or without motor power, which is designed for human occupancy and to be used temporarily for recreation or emergency purposes. The unit shall be identified as a recreational vehicle by the manufacturer. Although the City's definition does not specify type of chassis or limit the size, it does address mobility and primary use of a recreational vehicle. The City's definition is generally more inclusive than the NFIP definition. Therefore, Staff believes the City's definition is substantially similar and does not warrant changing. ATTACHMENT: EXHIBIT A: PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THE TIGARD DEVELOPMENT CODE, INCORPORATING REVISED FEMA REQUIREMENTS. 1 December 3 2004 PREPARED a . genstec er DATE ssociate Planner December 3 2004 APPROVED is ewers o Planning Manager CPA2004-00003/ZOA2004-00002 PAGE 7 OF 7 12/20/04 PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION Yff,. F TIGAR.D FEMA REQUEST 114.t: ~ , u ■ FEMA requires the City to adopt floodplain management regulations a M. as a condition of continued eligibility in the National Flood Insurance RATING REVISED Program (NFIP) F"EMA REQUIREMENTS • Adopt by February 18, 2005 CRyOgioo0Hnmg effective date J -ry 25.2005 REASON FOR REQUEST BACKGROUND • FEMA requires the City to adopt floodplain management regulations pursuant to the ■ Establishing base flood elevations National Flood Insurance Act of 1968. and assuring that structures are built ■ In 1981 FEMA issued a Flood Impact Study in accordance with the NFIP FIRS) M) and for Flood Insurance Rate Maps FI regulations, local officials assure that structures qualify for significantly • With recent reevaluation of flood hazards, FEMA provided the City with preliminary lower flood insurance rates. copies of the FIS and FIRM identifying existing flood hazards in Tigard, including Base Flood Elevations (BFEs). BACKGROUND CURRENT PROVISIONS (continued) • These proposed BFEs were published in the ■ The Plan and Code incorporate by Tigard Times in April 2004 and in the reference Flood Insurance Study and Federal Register in July 2004. Flood Insurance Maps for the City of • With no appeals, the BFEs are considered Tigard dated September 1, 1981 (and subsequent revisions) final and will become effective February 18, 2005. The development • No objections to the amendments ■ code meets or proposed exceeds all NFIP standards, except were voiced at the Planning Commission standards for recreational vehicles. Hearing in December, 2004. 1 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS PROPOSED AMENDMENTS (continued) Comprehensive Plan, Volume II, Tigard Development Code Chapter 3, Natural Features and Sensitive Lands Chapter 18.775 Open Space, Policy S3.2 pace, • Revise references to the updated FEMA FIS and FIRM, effective February 18, 2005, and ■ Revise reference to the updated FEMA FIS and FIRM, effective • Add regulation for recreational February 18, 2005 vehicles located in the 100-year floodplain. RECOMMENDATION? ` Staff and the Planning Commission re recommend that City Council: A e~ • Adopt revised references to the updated t National Flood Insurance Program FIS and "1 "o 4, i FIRM for the City of Tigard effective-. ; If February 18, 2005, and • Amend the Sensitive Lands requirements in the Tigard Development Code to regulate recreational vehicles located in the 100-year floodplain. 2 AGENDA ITEM No. 9 Date: January 25, 2005 TESTIMONY SIGN-UP SHEET Please sign on the following page(s) if you wish to testify before City Council on: PUBLIC HEARING (INFORMATIONAL) CONSIDER A RESOLUTION FORMING SANITARY SEWER REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT NO. 32 Fern Street Due to Time Constraints City Council May Impose A Time Limit on Testimony I:WDM\GREER\CCSIGNUP\PH TESTMNY FORM SAN SEWER DIST.DOC AGENDA ITEM No. 9 Date: January 25, 2005 PLEASE PRINT Proponent - S eakin In Favor Opponent - (Speaking Against) Neutral Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. AGENDA ITEM # FOR AGENDA OF January 25, 2005 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Formation of Sanitary Sewer Reimbursement District No. 32 (SW Fern Street) PREPARED BY: G. B9M DEPT HEAD OK ~f r✓ CITY MGR OK t*kN ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Formation of a sewer reimbursement district to construct a sanitary sewer project as part of the Neighborhood Sewer Extension Program. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approval of the attached Resolution forming the Reimbursement District. INFORMATION SUMMARY The proposed project would provide sewer service to five lots along SW Fern Street between SW 135`' and 138" Avenues. Through the City's Neighborhood Sewer Extension Program, the City would install public sewers to each lot within the Reimbursement District and the owners would reimburse the City for a fair share of the cost of the public sewer at the time of connection to the sewer. In addition, each owner would be required to pay a connection fee, currently $2,535, before connecting to the line and would be responsible for disconnecting the existing septic system according to County rules and any other plumbing modifications necessary to connect to the public line. Each owner has been notified of the hearing by mail. The notice, mailing list and additional details are included in the City Engineer's Report attached as Exhibit A to the proposed resolution. On May 25, 2004, the City Council approved an agreement with Washington County to include the sewer as part of a project to improve SW Walnut Street between SW 121" and 135` Avenues through the Major Streets Transportation Improvement Program. Another resolution to finalize the formation of the Reimbursement District, with cost adjustments, will be submitted for Council action after construction is completed and actual construction costs are determined. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED None. VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY Not applicable. ATTACHMENT LIST 1. Proposed Resolution Exhibit A, City Engineer's Report Exhibit B, Map 2. Vicinity Map 3. Communication Plan 4. Notice to Owners Mailing List 5. Resolutions Nos. 01-46, 03-55 6. Amendment to the Intergovernmental Agreement with Washington County for the Improvement of Walnut Street through the Major Streets Improvement Program FISCAL NOTES Funding is by unrestricted sanitary sewer funds. i:\en0\2004.2005 ty cip\walnut street - phase 3 (by county)\reimbursement district 32-fem street city counciNonnatlon\7-25-05 reim dist 32 ais.doc Attachment 2 FERN STREET SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT #32 A PORTION OF THE NE 1 /4 OF SECTION 4 T2S R1 W W.M. i N WALNUT LANE '9~y x ao M FERN ST > a x M ~ 7-1 i I I I I VICINITY MAP Communications Plan Attachment 3 Sanitary Sewer Reimbursement District No. 32 (SW Fern Street) Goal: Construction of a Sanitary Sewer Extension for Reimbursement District No. 32. Timeline: FY 04-05 Construction Season. Communication Goal: To communicate to property owners within the Sanitary Sewer Reimbursement District the estimated cost of connecting to the public sanitary sewer line, the construction schedule, and final cost for the Reimbursement District. Date Item Description Responsibility Explain Program to Reimbursement Engineering 3/18/04 General Meeting District property owners proposed for Manager FY04-05 9/9/04 Neighborhood Meeting Mail Meeting Notice to property owners Engineering Notice within the Reimbursement District No. 32 Clerical Services Events Calendar Post Meeting on Web Page Events Engineering Calendar Clerical Services Meet with property owners to review Engineering 9/22/04 Neighborhood Meeting Manager estimated costs and construction activity. Consultant 1/10/05 Hearing Notice Mail Notice of formation of Reimbursement Engineering District to Property Clerical Services 1/25/05 Formation Hearing City Council reviews and forms proposed City Engineer Sanitary Sewer District 1/27/05 Notice of Decision Mail Notice of Decision to property owners Engineering within District Clerical Services Lateral Locations Confirm with property owners location of Inspector laterals Construction Notice Hang Construction Notice on doorknobs of Inspector property impacted b project Contractor Construction Inspection Inspector is available to receive and Inspector res and to complaints Notice to property Send hearing notice, Resolution, property Project Engineer owners of final hearing owner cost to each property owner. Engineering Clerical Services Send approved Resolution with final costs Project Engineer Final Notice to each property owner Engineering Clerical Services Prepared by: G. N. Berry Approved by: P. henpt2004.2005 ty cip4ainut street - p (by county)reimbursemerd district 32-fem streettdty councift"ationlt 1-23.04 reim dirt 32 commurtications plan.doc Attachment 4 Proposed Sanitary Sewer Reimbursement District No. 32 (SW Fern Street) In a letter dated November 8, 2004, you received notice of a hearing to form a sewer reimbursement district to provide your neighborhood with sewer service. The result of that hearing was withdrawn and is now scheduled for January 25, 2005, as described in the attached notice. As before, there is no requirement to connect to the sewer or pay any fee until connection is made. Each property owner's estimated fair share of the public sewer line is based on the area of the lot served and is summarized in the attached tables. Please note that the proposed district has been reduced from six to five lots so there is a corresponding increase to the estimated cost to each property owner. In addition, the total estimated project cost has been increased to include the cost of easements. This amount will be revised once construction is completed and final costs are determined. An annual increase of 6.05% simple interest will also be applied to this amount. The amount each property owner will be required to pay will be limited to $6,000 for connections completed within three years of City Council approval of the final City Engineer's Report following construction, in accordance with Resolution 01-46. Please note that this resolution also requires the owner to pay any fair share amounts, that exceed $15,000. Consequently, if the final fair share for an owner exceeds $15,000, the owner would be required to pay $6,000 plus the amount the fair share exceeds $15,000. Under Resolution 03-55, payment of the amount in excess of $15,000 may be deferred until the owner's lot is developed. The owner would also be required to pay a connection fee of $2,535 at the time of connection to the sewer. In addition, property owners are responsible for disconnecting their existing septic system according to Washington County rules and for any other modifications necessary to connect to the public sewer. I:\en0\2004.2005 y cip\watnut street - phase 3 (hy county)Veimbursement district 32-fern streekity coundlVorrnationVrotice 1 letter 1.25.05a revision.doc 2S 104BD01300 2S I04BD01400 HAVILAND, RANDALL S TR & LEUEEN M ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF PTL 13625 SW FERN ST 13665 SW FERN STREET TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 2SI04BD02100 2SI04BD02300 & 02102 BENETTI, MARCO & SALLY CLARKE, JOHN & NANCY 13650 SW FERN ST 13620 SW FERN ST TIGARD OR 97223 TIGARD OR 97223 Attachment 5 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON RESOLUTION NO.Ol- A RESOLUTION REPEALING RESOLUTION NO. 98-51 AND ESTABLISHING A REVISED AND ENHANCED NEIGHBORHOOD SEWER REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT INCENTIVE PROGRAM WHEREAS, the City Council has initiated the Neighborhood Sewer Extension Program to extend public sewers through Reimbursement Districts in accordance with TMC Chapter 13.09; and WHEREAS, on October 13, 1998, the City Council established The Neighborhood Sewer Reimbursement District Incentive Program through Resolution No. 98-51 to encourage owners to connect to public sewer. The program was offered for a two-year period after which the program would be evaluated for continuation; and WHEREAS, on September 26, 2000, the City Council extended The Neighborhood Sewer Reimbursement District Incentive Program an additional two years through Resolution No. 00-60; and WHEREAS, City Council finds that residential areas that remain without sewer service should be provided with service within five years; and WHEREAS, Council has directed that additional incentives should be made available - to encourage owners. to promptly connect to sewers once service is available and that owners who have paid for service provided by previously established districts of the Neighborhood Sewer Extension Program should receive the benefits of the additional incentives. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that: SECTION 1: Resolution No. 98-51 establishing the Neighborhood Sewer Reimbursement District Incentive Program is hereby repealed. SECTION 2: A revised incentive program is hereby established for the Neighborhood Sewer Extension Program. This incentive program shall apply to sewer connections provided through the sewer reimbursement districts shown on the attached Table 1 or established thereafter. All connections qualifying under this program must be completed within three years after Council approval of the final City Engineer's Report following a public hearing conducted in accordance with TMC Section 13.09.105 or by two.years from the date this resolution is passed, which ever is later, as shown on the attached Table 1. SECTION 3: To the extent that the reimbursement fee determined in accordance with Section 13.09.040 does not exceed $15,000, the amount to be reimbursed by an owner of a lot zoned single family residential shall not exceed $6,000 per connection, provided that the lot owner complies with the provisions of Section 2. Any amount over $15,000 shall be reimbursed by the owner. This applies only to the reimbursement fee for the sewer installation and not to the connection fee, which is still payable upon application for RESOLUTION NO.01 Page 1 i f~ f i sewer connection. SECTION 4: The City Engineer's Report required by TMC Chapter 13.09 shall apply the provisions of this incentive program. Residential lot owners who do not connect to sewer in accordance with Section 2 shall pay the full reimbursement amount as determined by the final City Engineer's Report. SECTION 5: Any person who has paid a reimbursement fee in excess of the fee required herein is entitled tp reimbursement from the City. The amounts to be reimbursed and the persons to be paid shall be determined by the Finance Director and approved by the City Manager. There shall be a full explanation of any circumstances that require payment to any person who is not an original payer. The Finance Director shall make payment to all persons entitled to the refund no later than August 31, 2001. SECTION 6: The Sanitary Sewer Fund, which is the funding source for the Neighborhood Sewer `Reimbursement District Program, shall provide the funding for the installation costs over $6,000 up to a maximum of $15,000 per connection. f EFFECTIVE DATE: July 10, 2001 O PASSED: This day of 2001. ayor Ci of and ATTEST: _.j r i Recorder - City of 'Ngard I:\CitywideVZes\R=1udon Revising the Neighborhood Sewer Incentive Program RESOLUTION NO.01-Y(! Page 2 I I TABLE 1 Reimbursement Districts with Refunds Available DISTRICT FEE PER LOT REIMBURSEMENT AVAILABLE INCENTIVE PERIOD ENDS 1 TIGARD ST.No.8 5,193 No reimbursement available FAIRHAVEN ST/WYNo.9 4,506 No reimbursement available HILLVIEW ST No.11 8,000 July 11, 2003 106' & JOHNSON No. 12 5,598 No reimbursement available 100"' b INEZ No.13 8.000 July 11,2003 WALNUT & TIEDEMAN No. 14 8,000 July 11,2003 SEVELANDBHERMOSA No. 15 5,036 No reimbursement available DELMONTE No.16 8,000 July 11,2003 O'MARANo.17 8,000 July 11,2003 WALNUT & 121ST No.1B Amount to be reimbursed will be Throo yours from sorviee av2il2bility ROSE VISTA No.20 determined once final costs are determined. 'Currently being constructed CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON RESOLUTION NO. 03-55 A RESOLUTION PROVIDING ADDITIONAL INCENTIVES TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD SEWER REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT INCENTIVE PROGRAM (RESOLUTION NO.01- 46). WHEREAS, the City Council has initiated the Neighborhood Sewer Extension Program to extend public sewers through Reimbursement Districts in accordance with TMC Chapter 13.09; and WHEREAS, on July 10, 2001, the City Council established the Revised and Enhanced Neighborhood Sewer Reimbursement District Incentive Program through Resolution No. 01-46 to encourage owners to connect to public sewer within three-years following construction of sewers; and WHEREAS, Council has directed that additional incentives should be made available to encourage owners of large lots to promptly connect to sewers once service is available. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that: SECTION 1: In addition to the incentives provided by Resolution No. 01-46, any person whose reimbursement fee exceeds $15,000 and wishes to connect a single family home or duplex to a sewer constructed through a reimbursement district may defer payment of the portion of the reimbursement fee that exceeds $15,000, as required by Section 3 of Resolution No. 0146, until the lot is partitioned or otherwise developed in accordance with a land use permit. The land use permit shall not be issued until payment of the deferred amount is made. The Annual Fee Adjustment required by TMC Section 13.09.115 shall not apply to payment of this deferred amount. SECTION 2: Lots that qualify under Section 1, within reimbursement districts that have exceeded the three-year period for connection, and have not connected to sewer can connect the existing structure, pay a reimbursement fee of $6,000, and defer payment of the portion of the reimbursement fee that exceeds $15,000 if connection to the sewer is completed within one year after the effective date of this resolution. SECTION 3: Vacant lots improved with a single family home or duplex during-& term of the reimbursement district shall qualify for the provisions of Resolution No. 01-46, pay $6,000 if the fee exceeds that amount, and may defer payment of the portion of the reimbursement fee that exceeds $15,000 as provided by Section 1. SECTION 4: Vacant lots that are partitioned, subdivided, or otherwise developed during the life of the reimbursement district shall qualify for the provisions of Resolution No. 01-46, shall pay a reimbursement fee of $6,000, and shall pay any amount due over $15,000 at the time of development. The Annual Fee Adjustment required by TMC Section 13.09.115 shall not apply to payments made under this section. SECTION 5: The owner of any lot for which deferred payment is requested must enter into an agreement with the City, on a form prepared by the City Engineer, acknowledging the RESOLUTION NO. 03- Page 1 owner's and owner's successors obligation to pay the deferred amount as described in Section 1. The City Recorder shall cause the agreement to be filed in the office of the County Recorder to provide notice to potential purchasers of the lot. The recording will not create a lien. Failure to make such a recording shall not affect the obligation to pay the deferred amount. SECTION 6: Any person who qualifies under Section 1 and has paid a reimbursement fee for the portion of the reimbursement fee in excess of $15,000 is entitled to reimbursement for that amount from the City upon request. The amounts to be reimbursed and the persons to be paid shall be determined by the Finance Director and approved by the City Manager. There shall be a full explanation of any circumstances that require payment to any person who is not an original payer. Any person requesting a refund must sign an agreement similar to that described in Section 5 acknowledging the obligation to pay the refunded amount upon partitioning or developing the lot. SECTION 7: The Sanitary Sewer Fund continues to remain the funding source for the Neighborhood Sewer Reimbursement District Program and shall provide the funding for the installation costs over $6,000 up to a maximum of $15,000 per connection and for any deferred payment pemlitted by this resolution. SECTION 8: This resolution is effective immediately upon passage. PASSED: This - day of 2003. 17 GityefTigard Craig E. Dirksen, Council President j ATTEST: City Recorder - City of Tigard ,%&V% tg%m TN l ea 6lslrk VwWoru nu 01-48 2tq 28 071oa 14 03 covr FWo-14-0.7 i00MOn to m 146 T Aoc RESOLUTION NO. 03- Page 2 Attachment 6 INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT MAJOR STREETS TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FOR ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS TO: .SW WALNUT STREET: SW 121St AVENUE to SW 135th AVENUE CITY OF TIGARD AMENDMENT NO. 1 THIS AMENDMENT modifies the Agreement dated February 24, 2004, between WASHINGTON COUNTY, acting by and through its Elected Officials, hereinafter referred to as "COUNTY"; and the CITY OF TIGARD, acting by and through its City Council, hereinafter referred to as "CITY." i WITNESSETH ARTICLE 1 - RECITALS WHEREAS, the COUNTY and CITY have determined that because of the 9roposed closure of SW Walnut Lane at the intersection of SW Walnut Street and SW 135 Avenue, SW Fern Street, from SW 135th to SW 138', will receive an increase in traffic volumes as residents will be diverted to use SW Fern Street for access purposes because of the closure of SW Walnut Lane; and WHEREAS, the COUNTY and CITY have determined that SW Fern Street, from SW 135th to SW 1381', is deficient to safely handle the projected increase in traffic volume in its current state; and WHEREAS, the COUNTY and CITY have determined that safety and road improvements consisting of widening, new pavement, extruded curbs, storm and sanitary sewer modifications, herein after referred to as "Fern Street Improvements", should be undertaken; and WHEREAS, the COUNTY and CITY have agreed to include these-foad and safety improvements as part of the SW Walnut Street Improvement Project, and both parties desire to modify the original Agreement to include this increase in scope and costs, and CITY agrees to pay for such improvement work that is further described and shown on attached Exhibit A. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and of the covenants and agreements to be kept and performed by the parties hereto, it is agreed that the original agreement is hereby amended as follows: ARTICLE 2 - WASHINGTON COUNTY OBLIGATIONS 1. COUNTY shall perform, or cause to be performed, all actions necessary for the design and construction of the Fern Street Improvements as part of PROJECT. 2. COUNTY shall review the Fern Street Improvements plans, bid items, quantities and technical specifications and incorporate the Fern Street Improvements as specific bid items into the bid documents for the PROJECT. 3. COUNTY shall, following the bid opening, notify the CITY of the amount of the construction cost of the Fern Street Improvements as contained in the bid and provide CITY the opportunity for review of the contract bid proposal prior.to contract award. ARTICLE 3 - CITY OF TIGARD OBLIGATIONS 1. CITY shall provide all inspection and testing of the Fern Street Improvements in coordination with the COUNTY. ARTICLE 4 - COMPENSATION 1. DESIGN: As design work upon the PROJECT, including the Fern Street Improvements, is performed, County shall, on a quarterly basis, prepare and submit design invoices to CITY for the cost of the work for.Fern Street Improvements. Estimated design costs are $37,695. Notwithstanding, the estimate of the costs shown above, the CITY shall reimburse the COUNTY for the actual amount of its cost incurred for the design of the Fern Street improvements. 2. CONSTRUCTION: As construction work upon the PROJECT is performed, COUNTY shall, on a quarterly basis, prepare and submit construction,invoices to the CITY for the construction of the Fern Street Improvements. Estimated construction costs for the Fern Street Improvements are $114,900, not including overlay, which is estimated at $5,500. In addition to the Fern Street Improvements bid items, the CITY shall also pay COUNTY for any easement acquisition cost associated with the Fern Street Improvements, an allocated share of the costs of applicable lump sum contract items (i.e. mobilization, erosion control), extra work required for the Fern Street Improvements and non-construction costs. Non-construction costs include the cost of COUNTY services including project management and surveying which shall be calculated at a flat rate of five percent (5%) of the Fern Street Improvements -2- I . ARTICLE 5 - PROJECT DEFINITION AND SCOPE 2. SCOPE: The scope of improvements associated with the PROJECT and described in the original Agreement shall remain unchanged, but include: A) CITY desired elements for improvements to SW Fern Street, from SW 13511i to SW 138th Avenues, including road widening, new pavement, extruded curbs, storm and sanitary sewer modifications. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have set their hands as of the day and year hereinafter written. DONE AND DATED this day of , 2004. i CITY OF TIGARD WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON Mayor Chair Date: U Date: - b 7 APPROVED WASHINGTON BOARD OF COMMISSIONDZS ATTEST: MNUTEORDERf .Q` :.t.y. DATE ~.~a.,]................ Ll7 City Recorder Recording Secre APPROVED AS TO FORM: Loretta S. Skurdahl Senior Assistant County Counsel -3- Reimbursement District No. 32 SW Fern Street Formation of Sanitary Sewer Reimbursement District No. 32 ~SW Fern Street) 0. t January 25, 2005 V , Reimbursement District No. 32 ' Fern Street ` Meetings Conducted •e General meeting AConducted March 18, 2004 in Town Wall to Sewer service will be provided to 5 lots explain the Citywide Sewer Extension Program and answer questions Project is incorporated into the MSTIP project Neighborhood meeting to improve Walnut Street between 121 and 1354, Av. AConducted September 22, 2004 at Town Hall ♦Staff reviewed project details with these owners Reimbursement District No. 32 Reimbursement District No. 32 T' Fern Street `DES Fern Street Estimated Project Cost for 5 lots: $66,003 Estimated Reimbursement Fee (Per Owner) e. In addition, each owner pays the following: A$0.36599023 per square foot A$2,535 connection and inspection fee, which Incentive Program funds treatment facility constriction AReduced to $6,000 to the extent that it does not exceed ♦ $50 (average) service charge per two months for $15,000 if connection is made within three years after operation and maintenance of the entire system service becomes available AAmount over $15,000 can be deferred upon request until AAII costs to connect to the lateral installed development occurs through this project s n 1 Reimbursement District No. 32 ~SfV Fern Street Staff Recommendation Project will begin this summer e• That Council approve the resolution forming Final costs will be based on actual Reimbursement District No. 32 (SW Fern construction costs plus 13.5% engineering Street) and inspection fees Finalization of the district will be brought back to Council after all work is completed and actual costs are known 7 N 2 AGENDA ITEM # C) FOR AGENDA OF January 25, 2005 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE An Ordinance Adopting Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue (TVF&R) Ordinance 04-01, Amending the 2004 Oregon Fire Code and Declaring an Emergency PREPARED BY: Gaa Lampella DEPT HEAD OK ITY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Should Council approve an ordinance to adopt Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue (TVF&R) Ordinance 04-01, amending the 2004 Oregon Fire Code? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends Council approval of an ordinance to adopt Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue Ordinance 04-01. INFORMATION SUMMARY Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue is the agency that provides fire prevention and firefighting services to the City of Tigard. They are granted authority by the Office of the State Fire Marshal to amend the State adopted Fire Code. The State Fire Marshal adopted the 2003 edition of the International Fire Code on October 1, 2004. After adoption, the International Fire Code then became the 2004 Oregon Fire Code. Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue further authored amendments to the Oregon Fire Code by way of TVF&R Ordinance 04-01. The proposed ordinance before Council would effectively adopt those amendments. The City Council has historically adopted previous Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue ordinances whenever a new edition of the fire code was adopted. Some of the major points in the TVF&R Ordinance are: ■ Reference to Oregon Revised Statute 478.910, which grants authority to adopt a Fire Code; and ■ Limits fire flow for buildings to 3,000 gallons per minute and sets a minimum of 1,000 gallons per minute for 1&2 family dwellings; and ■ Creates hazard multiplication factors for determining fire flow. Since the 2004 Oregon Fire Code has already been adopted by TVF&R and the State Fire Marshal, and because this ordinance is necessary for the preservation of the health, safety and welfare of the City, staff is requesting that an emergency be declared and that this ordinance become effective immediately on passage. -IqW OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Do not adopt the ordinance. This will cause the City of Tigard to be inconsistent with other jurisdictions served by Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue in application of the fire code. VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY Public Safety, Goal #1. "The community residents, business owners, and service providers understand their roles through effective communications to successfully enhance public safety and emergency services." ATTACHMENT LIST Attachment 1: Proposed Ordinance Adopting Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue Ordinance 04-01, Amending the 2004 Oregon Fire Code Exhibit A: Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue Ordinance 04-01 FISCAL NOTES N/A r. 1 X: