Loading...
City Council Packet - 04/23/2013 a TIGARD City of Tigard TIGARD CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS MEETING April 23, 2013 COUNCIL MEETING WILL BE TELEVISED I: \Design & Communications \Donna \City Council \ccpkt3 • • City of Tigard Tigard Business Meeting — Agenda TIGARD TIGARD CITY COUNCIL AND LOCAL CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD MEETING DATE AND TIME: April 23, 2013 - 6:30 p.m. Study Session; 7:30 p.m. Business Meeting MEETING LOCATION: City of Tigard - Town Hall - 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 Agenda Revised on April 18, 2013 - Added Executive Session for Real Property Transaction Negotiations 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 beard 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 . 4 VIEW LIVE VIDEO STREAMING ONLINE: http: / /live.tieard- or.2ov CABLE VIEWERS: The regular City Council meeting is shown live on Channel 28 at 7:30 p.m. The meeting will be rebroadcast at the following times on Channel 28: Thursday 6:00 p.m. Sunday 11:00 a.m. I Friday 10:00 p.m. Monday 6:00 a.m. U City of Tigard Tigard Business Meeting—Agenda TIGARD TIGARD CITY COUNCIL AND LOCAL CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD MEETING DATE AND TIME: April 23, 2013 - 6:30 p.m. Study Session; 7:30 p.m. Business Meeting MEETING LOCATION: City of Tigard - Town Hall - 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 Agenda Revised on April 18, 2013 - Added Executive Session for Real Property Transaction Negotiations 6:30 PM • EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session under ORS 192.660(2)(e) to discuss real property transaction negotiations. 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. Note: Executive Session will take place after the business meeting (see below). • STUDY SESSION A. Discuss River Terrace Community Plan Consultant Selection B. Discuss Social Gaming Regulations 7:30 PM 1. BUSINESS MEETING - APRIL 23, 2013 A. Call to Order B. Roll Call C. Pledge of Allegiance D. Council Communications & Liaison Reports E. Call to Council and Staff for Non - Agenda Items 2. CITIZEN COMMUNICATION (Two Minutes or Less, Please) 7:35 p.m. - estimated time I A. Follow -up to Previous Citizen Communication B. Citizen Communication — Sign Up Sheet 3. CONSENT AGENDA: (Tigard City Council and Local Contract Review Board) These items are considered 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: 7:45 estimated time A. Approve City Council Meeting Minutes for: 1. January 29, 2013 2. February 26, 2013 3. March 19, 2013 B. Local Contract Review Board: 1. Award a Contract for the City's 2013 -2014 Pavement Management Program - Slurry Seal Project to Blackline, Inc. • ConsentA.2enda - Items Removed for Separate Discussion: Any items requested to be removed fmm the Consent Agenda for separate discussion will be considered immediately after the Council / City Center Development Agency has voted on those items which do not need discussion. 4. PROCLAMATIONS: 7:50 p.m. - estimated time A. Proclaim May 5 -11 as Be Kind to Animals Week B. Proclaim May as Bike Month 5. DISCUSSION WITH METRO COUNCILOR CRAIG DIRKSEN 7:55 p.m. - estimated time 6. CONVENE LOCAL CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD: 8:25 p.m. - estimated time A. Consider Award of a Contract for System Integrator Services to Portland Engineering, Inc. B. Consider Award of a Contract for the FY 2013 -2014 Pavement Management Program - Pavement Overlay Project to Eagle Elsner, Inc. C. Consider Award of a Contract for Grounds Maintenance at Various City Facilities, Water and Water Quality Sites to Portland Habilitation Center Northwest, Inc., an Oregon Qualified Rehabilitation Facility 7. SELECT A SOLID WASTE RATE MODEL AND CONSIDER A RESOLUTION TO ADJUST SOLID WASTE RATES BASED ON THE SLECTED RATE MODEL INCLUDING A ONE - PERCENT INCREASE IN THE SOLID WASTE FRANCHISE FEE (PUBLIC COMMENT TO BE HEARD PRIOR TO COUNCIL CONSIDERATION) 8:40 p.m. - estimated time 8. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS 9:10 p.m. - estimated time 9. NON AGENDA ITEMS 10. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session under ORS 192.660(2)(e) to discuss real property transaction negotiations. 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. 11. ADJOURNMENT 9:20 p.m. - estimated time AIS -1255 A. Business Meeting Meeting Date: 04/23/2013 Length (in minutes): 20 Minutes Agenda Title: River Terrace Community Plan Consultant Selection Submitted By: Darren Wyss, Community Development Council Business Mtg Item Type: Update, Discussion, Direct Staff Meeting Type: - Study Sess. Public Hearing Newspaper Legal Ad Required ?: No Public Hearing Publication Date in Newspaper: Information ISSUE Staff will update Council on the status of the River Terrace project, including the consultant selection process for infrastructure master planning. STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST Council is requested to receive briefing from staff, ask questions and provide input as desired. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY The city has commenced its effort to complete a River Terrace Community Plan. For the plan to comply with land use planning regulations and be successful, the city needs to update its infrastructure master plans to include the area, as well as identify the financing strategy to ensure the infrastructure can be built in a timely, efficient and cost - effective manner. The city published a request for proposals for consulting firms to help complete the infrastructure tasks. Proposals were due April 17, 2013 and city staff intends to bring a contract before city council on May 14, 2013 for consideration. The selected consultant team will conduct the following tasks: 1. Tigard Parks System Master Plan Update 2. Tigard Water System Master Plan Update 3. Tigard Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Update 4. Tigard Transportation System Plan Update 5. River Terrace Stormwater Master Plan 6. River Terrace Infrastructure Financing Strategy 7. Tigard Public Facility Plan (Compilation of 20 -year master plan needs) 8. Project Communication and Coordination The consultant work will be a critical component of the River Terrace Community Plan, particularly the infrastructure financing task. This task will be ongoing throughout the project and will be particularly important in helping the city council decision - making process when it comes time to adopt a financing strategy. The consultant will outline available tools, funding opportunities and policy options the council will need to weigh and consider and ultimately adopt to ensure implementation of the community plan is successful. The overall project is still on schedule to be completed March 2014. Staff has been working with the technical advisory committee, stakeholder working group and gathering feedback from the community on the zoning and natural resource mapping tasks. An update on these tasks will be given in more detail at the Council's May 21, 2013 meeting. Staff will returning to Council at regular intervals to give project updates as well as discuss key policy decisions the Council will need to deliberate over the next year. These include: financing the needed infrastructure, holding or amending the recommendations from the West Bull Mt. Concept Plan, the provision of parks and partnering with Beaverton, Clean Water Services and Washington County on various infrastructure improvements for efficiency and cost - effectiveness. OTHER ALTERNATIVES N/A COUNCIL OR CCDA GOALS, POLICIES, MASTER PLANS Complete River Terrace Community Plan DATES OF PREVIOUS CONSIDERATION Fiscal Impact Cost: $134,100 Budgeted (yes or no): Yes Where Budgeted (department /program): CD Additional Fiscal Notes: Washington County transferred CET funds to the city for completing the community plan. The city has applied for additional CET funds for specific infrastructure master planning and financing strategy tasks. dy SESS AIS -1249 B. Business Meeting Meeting Date: 04/23/2013 Length (in minutes): 20 Minutes Agenda Title: Discuss Social Gaming Regulations Prepared For: Kent Wyatt Submitted By: Kent Wyatt, City Management Council Business Mtg - Study Item Type: Update, Discussion, Direct Staff Meeting Type: Sess. Public Hearing: No Publication Date: Information ISSUE The Council has provided prior policy guidance to allow social gaming in Tigard. To what extent should social gaming activities be regulated? STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST Provide input on regulating social gaming in Tigard. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY At the March 19, 2013 City Council meeting, the Council discussed whether or not to allow social gaming in Tigard. A majority of the Council expressed an interest in allowing social gaming and requested more time for discussing the extent of regulations on social gaming. Upon further discussion, some guidance was given that less restrictive business regulations were desired. The purpose of tonight's discussion is for Council to provide consensus direction to staff on regulation that balances: • the level of restrictions on social gaming desired by the Council; • the legal parameters for social gaming operations that were set forth by the 2010 Oregon Attorney General's opinion; and • allowing Tigard Police Department enforcement within existing resources Staff provides a discussion draft ordinance that lessens restrictions in several areas including allowable floor space for social gaming from 25% to 50 %, and allowable number of days a week from one to seven, for social gaming at a business. The revised ordinance also eliminates the requirement that a business must be open six months before hosting social games. These revisions will allow more flexibility for Tigard businesses wishing to offer social games, while allowing the Tigard Police Department to adequately enforce the ordinance with existing resources. As a point of clarification, staff reviewed draft section 5.22.020, section J of the revised draft ordinance which restricts rental fees for hosting social games. The Oregon Attorney General's opinion addressed this point by stating, "private businesses, private clubs or place of public accommodation that will allow social games and their personnel may not derive any income from the game (including charging cover, usage, or rental charges for the place or equipment)." Staff also reconsidered the license denial appeal process outlined in the draft ordinance and recommends no change to the section. The proposed appeal process maintains consistency with Police Department administration of permit and appeal as a least -cost and consistent option for due process than involving the Tigard Municipal Cout. The appeal process mirrors Tigard Municipal Code rules for Police Department review of liquor license and burglary alarm permits. In a review of these procedures, city staff consulted the City of Portland's experience with enforcement and concluded that there were legal and enforcement considerations with recommending a less restrictive ordinance. In a few years, Portland will consider updating their code to create tools to allow more effective enforcement while allowing business to continue offering social games. Staff and legal counsel believe the revised draft ordinance allows Tigard to comply with state law and locally enforce a revise code without additional enforcement staffing resources. OTHER ALTERNATIVES Council may adopt other regulations than the draft ordinance suggests; the proposal is a point of discussion for the Council to provide policy guidance for staff. Council may approve an ordinance disallowing social gaming in Tigard. COUNCIL GOALS, POLICIES, APPROVED MASTER PLANS N/A DATES OF PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION March 19, 2013 - Council Workshop September 18, 2012 - Council Workshop Attachments Draft Social Gaming Ordinance Attorney General Opinion on Social Gaming Revisions highlighted in yellow CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TIGARD CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. 13- AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADOPT SUBCHAPTER AUTHORIZING SOCIAL GAMING, SUBJECT TO SPECIFIED CONDITIONS. WHEREAS, currently the Tigard Municipal Code does not contain provisions relating to the regulation of "social gaming "; and WHEREAS, ORS 167.121 allows cities to authorize the playing or conducting of a social game in a private business, private club, or place of public accommodation; and WHEREAS, the Tigard Police Department requests clarification from the City Council on whether they wish to authorize social games in Tigard; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that it is in the public interest to amend the Tigard Municipal Code to include a new chapter to set forth terms, rules, regulations, and responsibilities of involved parties, authorizing social games. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The Tigard Municipal Code is hereby amended to include and incorporate a new Chapter 5.22 Social Games, attached hereto as Exhibit A. SECTION 2. This ordinance shall be effective from and after thirty (30) days following its passage and approval by the Mayor. PASSED: By vote of all Council members present after being read by number and title only, this day of , 2013. Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder APPROVED: Approved by Tigard City Council this day of , 2013. John L. Cook, Mayor Approved as to form: City Attorney Date Ordinance No.13- Revisions highlighted in yellow EXHIBIT "A" Chapter 5.22 - SOCIAL GAMES Sections: 5.22.010 Definitions 5.22.020 Social Games — Authorization and Conditions 5.22.030 Responsibilities of Owner and Person in Charge 5.22.040 Inspection of Social Games Premises 5.22.050 Notice of Social Games Required 5.22.060 License; License Fee; Civil Penalties 5.22.070 Appeal Process for License Denial 5.22.080 Appeal Process for Assessment of Fine 5.22.010 Definitions As used in this chapter, A. CHIEF OF POLICE or CHIEF means the chief of the Tigard police department or designee. B. SOCIAL GAME means a game, other than a lottery, between players in a private business, private club or place of public accommodation where no house player, house bank or house odds exist and there is no house income from the operation of the social game. 5.22.020 Social Games — Authorization and Conditions Social games as defined in Section 5.22.010 of this chapter are allowed only when each of the following conditions is met: A. The owner of the business where social games are being played holds a current, valid license to play social games issued by the City; B. No house player, house bank, or house odds exist; C. There is no house income from the operation of a social game; D. The social game cannot be observed from a public right of way; E. Persons under 21 years of age are not permitted in the room or enclosure where the social game takes place; F. The room or enclosure where the social game takes place is open to free and immediate access by any police officer. Doors leading into the social game room must remain unlocked during all hours of operation; G. No owner or "principal managing employee ", as described in more detail below, shall participate in any social game on the premises; H. A charge for consumer goods sold on the premises to an individual playing a social game must not be higher or lower than the price charged to a non - participant in the social game; Ordinance No.13- Revisions highlighted in yellow I. No owner or principal managing employee may accept any payment, fee, service or gratuity from a social game participant as consideration for participation in the social game on the premises; J. No owner or principal managing employee may charge a rental or lease fee for the use of the social game; K. At no point in time may a social game be conducted without an owner or principal managing employee present; L. No membership fee or cover fee may be charged for participation in the social game; and M. All social gaming activities and the business where social gaming is permitted must comply with applicable federal, state and local laws and regulations. 5.22.030 Responsibilities of Owner and Person in Charge An owner or person in charge of a business where social gaming is permitted shall: A. Clearly designate the areas set aside for social gaming. B. Designate an agent or employee to act as person in charge of a social gaming premise whenever social games are being played. An owner shall be strictly liable for any violation of this chapter which occurs when no person in charge is present at the social gaming premises. C. Be strictly liable for any violation of the provisions of this chapter by a person in charge, agent, employee or designate. D. Limit hours of operation of social gaming activities on the premises to those hours during which the primary business is open. E. Limit social gaming activities exceeding 25 °/ (Twenty five percent) to no more than 50% (Fifty percent) of the floor area of the premises - ; -- ; - .- . - . - - .. - . Social gaming may occur 7 days per week. For purposes of this provision, "floor area" means gross floor area excluding areas such as restrooms, hallways, mechanical spaces, elevators, stairwells and loading docks. FT Not allow Social gaming activitic3 on the prcmi3ca unlc33 the private bu3inc33, private club or place of public accommodation mcct3 all applicable requirement3 of the Tigard Municipal Code and has been legally e3tabli3hcd and in existence for at lca3t Six month3. 5.22.040 Inspection of Social Games Premises All persons who authorize social games on premises owned or managed pursuant to this Chapter shall permit entry to premises to any member of the Police Department, upon presentation of official identification, for the limited purpose of inspecting the premises and any activities, records, or devices involved in such games to ensure compliance with Tigard Municipal Code. 5.22.050 Notice of Social Games Required Where social games are conducted, each owner or person in charge of the premises shall continuously and conspicuously post notice that is clearly readable and in letters at least one inch high that such games must be conducted in accordance with the conditions set forth in Section 5.22.020 which shall be listed in their entirety. The form and content of the notice required pursuant to this section shall be as approved by the chief to assure uniformity of notices in establishments allowing social gaming. 5.22.060 License; License Fee; Civil Penalties Ordinance No.13- Revisions highlighted in yellow Application for an annual social gaming license shall be made to the Police Chief. The Chief may assess a license fee of One Hundred ($100) dollars per year. The social gaming license fee is due in full every January 1st. If a business applies for a social gaming license at any time on or after July 1st, the fee for such license shall be equal to one -half the license fee. The Chief may assess a fine for operating without a license of Five Hundred ($500) dollars for the first violation for each year, and a subsequent violation will result in a fine of One Thousand ($1,000) dollars. Violations for all other offenses of this subchapter are One Hundred ($100) for the first offense each calendar year; Two Hundred Fifty ($250) for the second offense; Five Hundred ($500) for the third offense and One Thousand ($1,000) for all additional violations during the same calendar year. 5.22.070 Appeal Process for License Denial In the event the Chief of Police denies an applicant a social gaming license, the Chief of Police shall first notify the applicant in writing of his intent to deny the license within three (3) working days of receipt of the application. The notification shall include the reason(s) for the denial and a date and time within the next five (5) working days to hear the applicant's appeal, if any. The applicant shall have the right to be heard and to present witnesses and evidence purporting to refute the reasons given by the Chief of Police for a denial. The hearing shall be administrative in nature and held before the Chief of Police. Rules of evidence shall not apply. Upon completion of the hearing, the Chief of Police shall make finding and shall mail the final decision to the applicant within three (3) working days of the hearing date. 5.22.080 Appeal Process for Assessment of Fine In the event the Chief of Police assesses a business owner with a fine, the Chief of Police shall notify the business owner in writing of the fine assessment. The notification shall include the reason(s) for the fine assessment and a date and time within the next five (5) working days to hear the business owner's appeal, if any. The business owner shall have the right to be heard and to present witnesses and evidence purporting to refute the reasons given by the Chief of Police for a denial. The hearing shall be administrative in nature and held before the Chief of Police. Rules of evidence shall not apply. Upon completion of the hearing, the Chief of Police shall make finding and shall mail the final decision to the business owner within three (3) working days of the hearing date. Ordinance No.13- Lieutenant Glenn Chastain January 22, 2010 Page 2 Question 3: The prohibition on a "house player ?" The prohibition on a "house player" means that the house may not in any circumstance bet in a social game. Question 4: The prohibition on a "house bank ?" We interpret the prohibition on a "house bank" to mean that the house may not act as a banker in a social game by having any involvement in the financial aspects of the game, including selling, keeping, and redeeming chips even if the house makes no profit from doing so. Question 5: The prohibition of "house odds ?" We interpret this prohibition to mean that the house may not have any advantage in a social game or establish the ratio between the amount of a bet and the payoff amount. Question 6: The prohibition of "house income ?" This prohibition means that the house may not make any money directly from operation of the game or from its participants. Businesses where social games occur may not charge for participation in the game, a rental fee for the room, table, or equipment or otherwise extract money from social game participants. Those businesses may make money from selling food and drink to social game players on the same terms that they sell those goods to all other patrons. Even if an establishment sells food and drink on the same terms to all patrons, if it charges inflated prices in relation to other similar establishments and its only patrons are social game players that may be evidence that the establishment is in fact making income from operation of social games. SOCIAL GAME DEFINITION ORS 167.117(7) defines the term "gambling" for purposes of the gambling offense statutes, ORS 167.108 to 167.164, and excludes "social games from that definition: "Gambling" means that a person stakes or risks something of value upon the outcome of a contest of chance or a future contingent event not under the control or influence of the person, upon an agreement or understanding that the person or someone else will receive something of value in the event of a certain outcome. Gambling does not include: * ** (c) Social games. (Emphasis added.) Lieutenant Glenn Chastain January 22, 2010 Page 3 "Social game" is defined by ORS 167.117(21) to mean: (a) A game, other than a lottery, between players in a private home where no house player, house bank or house odds exist and there is no house income from the operation of the social game; and, (b) If authorized pursuant to ORS 167.121, a game, other than a lottery, between players in a private business, private club or place of public accommodation where no house player, house bank or house odds exist and there is no house income from the operation of the social game. ORS 167.121 permits cities and counties to authorize social games in private businesses, private clubs or places of public accommodation." The requirements for social games are the same in those places and private homes. You ask us to clarify the requirement that the game be "between players" and the prohibitions on "house" activity. "BETWEEN PLAYERS" REQUIREMENT 1. Statutory interpretation In interpreting the phrase "between players" (as well as the other terms about which you inquire), we follow the statutory interpretation method set out by the Oregon Supreme Court in PGE v. Bureau of Labor and Industries, 317 Or 606, 610, 859 P2d 1143 (1993), and subsequently refined in State v. Gaines, 346 Or 160, 171 -172, 206 P3d 1042 (2009). The first step is an examination of the statute's text and context. PGE, 317 Or at 610 -11. In doing so, we apply statutory and judicial rules for reading the text and context, including giving terms of common usage their plain meanings. Id. The second step is to consider legislative history where it appears useful to the analysis of the statute. Gaines, 346 Or at 171 -172. The third and final step is resort to general maxims of statutory construction to aid in resolving any uncertainty as to the legislature's intent that remains "after examining text, context, and legislative history." Id. 2. Defined a. "Between" While the statutory definition of "social games" was initially enacted in 1973 and amended in 1974 (as discussed at length later in this opinion), the "between players" statutory language predates that definition and was enacted in 1971. When we consider the plain meaning of a statute's text under the interpretational method described in PGE and Gaines, we are directed to consult dictionaries in existence around the time of the enactment of the statute. See, e.g., State v. Perry, 336 Or 49, 53, 77 P3d 313 (2003). Accordingly, we consult the 1961 edition of WEBSTER'S THIRD NEW INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY (UNABRIDGED), but note that the pertinent definitions in the 1961 edition are identical to those in the most current edition published in 2002. Beginning with "between," the most apt plain meaning is "involving the Lieutenant Glenn Chastain January 22, 2010 Page 4 reciprocal action of: involving as participants: jointly engaging <the job was completed between the two of them> <two years of quiet talks between the three>." WEBSTER'S THIRD NEW INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY at 209 (unabridged 1961). As the examples illustrate, "between" implies exclusivity; accordingly "between players" means between players only. b. "Player" ORS 167.117(16) defines "player" to mean: [A] person who engages in any form of gambling solely as a contestant or bettor, without receiving or becoming entitled to receive any profit therefrom other than personal gambling winnings, and without otherwise rendering any material assistance to the establishment, conduct or operation of the particular gambling activity. A person who gambles at a social game of chance on equal terms with the other participants therein is a person who does not otherwise render material assistance to the establishment, conduct or operation thereof by performing, without fee or remuneration, acts directed toward the arrangement or facilitation of the game, such as inviting persons to play, permitting the use of premises therefor and supplying cards or other equipment used therein. A person who engages in bookmaking is not a player. (1) Conundrum posed by "gambling" requirement The first requirement for a "player" is that the person must engage in gambling — that is stake or risk something of value upon the outcome of the game in return for the chance to receive something of value if they win. The requirement that a "player" must "gamble" creates a recurring conundrum in interpreting the term "social game." Namely, ORS 167.117(7)(c) excludes "social games" from the definition of "gambling," so a person who plays in a social game does not engage in "gambling." But ORS 167.117(21) defines "social game" as a game "between players," and ORS 167.117(16) defines "player" to require that a player engage in "gambling." In short, no game could ever qualify as a "social game" under those definitions, because no one who plays in a social game is a "player," but social games must be "between players." 2 " The obvious solution is to interpret "gambling," as used in ORS 167.117(16)'s definition of "player" to mean "gambling," as defined in ORS 167.117(7), omitting the exclusion for social games contained in subsection (7)(c). It might be argued that such an interpretation requires us to omit words that have been inserted in the definition of "gambling" in violation of the rule that we refrain from doing just that. See ORS 174.010 (in construing statute, judges should not "omit what has been inserted "). But ORS 167.117 provides that its definitions apply "[a]s used in ORS 167.108 to 167.164" "unless the context requires otherwise." (Emphasis added.) The context here requires us to adopt a modified definition of "gambling" for the purposes of the social game definition. Also, we must adopt a construction that gives effect to all provisions of a statute, if possible. ORS 174.010 ( "where there are several provisions or particulars such construction is, if possible, to be adopted as will give effect to all "). Lieutenant Glenn Chastain • January 22, 2010 Page 5 We conclude that, for purposes of ORS 167.117(21)'s definition of "social game," the legislature likely intended "gambling," as used in ORS 167.117(16)'s definition of "player" to mean gambling as defined by ORS 167.117(7), excluding the social game exception in subsection (7)(c). Applying that definition, a "player" in a social game must stake or risk something of value upon the outcome of the contest, i.e., bet, in the game. A "player" must engage in gambling "solely as a contestant or bettor." That means, first, that the person may not receive or become entitled to receive "any profit therefrom other than personal gambling winnings." That requirement distinguishes a "player" from one who "profits from unlawful gambling," which is defined as when: * * * a person, acting other than solely as a player, accepts or receives money or other property pursuant to an agreement or understanding with another person whereby the person participates or is to participate in the proceeds of unlawful gambling. ORS 167.117(17) (emphasis added). (2) No material assistance The second requirement for a person to engage in gambling "solely as a contestant or bettor" is that the person not "render[] any material assistance to the establishment, conduct or operation of the particular gambling activity." That requirement distinguishes a player from a person who "promotes unlawful gambling," which is defined as: * * * a person, acting other than solely as a player, engages in conduct that materially aids any form of unlawful gambling. Conduct of this nature includes, but is not limited to, conduct directed toward the creation or establishment of the particular game, contest, scheme, device or activity involved, toward the acquisition or maintenance of premises, paraphernalia, equipment or apparatus therefor, toward the solicitation or inducement of persons to participate therein, toward the conduct of the playing phases thereof, toward the arrangement of any of its financial or recording phases or toward any other phase of its operation. A person promotes unlawful gambling if, having control or right of control over premises being used with the knowledge of the person for purposes of unlawful gambling, the person permits the unlawful gambling to occur or continue or makes no effort to prevent its occurrence or continuation. ORS 167.117(18) (emphasis added). A "person who gambles at a social game of chance on equal terms with the other participants" does not "render material assistance" by arranging or facilitating the game, such as by "inviting persons to play, permitting the use of [their] premises," or "supplying cards or other equipment" to be used in the game as long as they do so for free. The requirement that such Lieutenant Glenn Chastain January 22, 2010 Page 6 persons gamble in the game on equal terms means that they must gamble on the same or like terms as other players and have no advantage. WEBSTER'S at 766 (defining "equal" to mean "of the same measure, quantity, amount, or number as another or others : LIKE * * * like, as great as, or the same as another or others in degree, worth, quality, nature, ability, or status * * * like, as great, or the same for each member of a group or class[]"). If the gambler who arranges or facilitates the game does not gamble on equal terms as the other players, the person is not a "player," but instead a promoter, and the game does not qualify as a social game. The same result occurs if the person receives any fee or remuneration for arranging or facilitating the game. 3. `Between players" applied a. Dealers who do not gamble in the game We next apply the "between players" requirement to various scenarios that we are informed may arise, beginning with the situation where a person deals cards but does not gamble in the game. Such a dealer is not a "player" because he does not gamble in the game as players must. The question is whether the requirement that the "game" be "between players" precludes a non - player dealer in a social game, or stated alternatively, may only players deal in a social game? As discussed above, "between" means "involving the reciprocal action of: involving as participants[.]" WEBSTER'S at 209 (emphasis added). Thus, the question becomes whether being "involved" in the "game" means playing in the game as a contestant or bettor, or whether it also includes performing acts that materially assist the game. We conclude that the legislature likely intended the former. The legislature did not define "game." The pertinent ordinary definition is "a physical or mental competition conducted according to rules in which the participants play in direct opposition to each other, each side striving to win and to keep the other side from doing so -- see GAME OF CHANCE." WEBSTER'S at 933. A "game of chance" is one where "chance rather than skill determines the outcome." Id. We glean from that definition that participating or being involved in a social "game" means "play[ing] in direct opposition," i.e., taking part in the competition as a contestant or bettor. By contrast, in ORS 167.117(18) the legislature described acts that materially aid the game, including "conducting the playing phases of the game," which would include dealing the cards. The legislature expressly allows private businesses, private clubs, and places of public accommodation to materially aid social games by providing their premises (and presumably the tables and equipment as well) if cities or counties authorize it. 4 But, at the same time, as we will discuss below, the legislature prohibited the persons connected with those places from being players. Thus, the legislature distinguished between playing in the game and materially aiding the game, and intended to allow non - players to facilitate the game at least in some ways. For that reason, it appears from the text and context that the legislature intended the "between players" requirement to ensure that only the contestants and bettors in social games meet the requirements of ORS 167.117(16). We consulted legislative history for guidance and found none to alter our conclusion based on the text and context. Lieutenant Glenn Chastain January 22, 2010 Page 7 Consequently, if a group of friends gathers to play and one does not want to bet in the game, but offers to deal the cards, the game would qualify as a social game if all other requirements are met. But as discussed further below, such a dealer may not receive a tip or any fee, due to language in the definitions of "player" and "social games" (i.e., the "house" prohibitions) that forbid anyone from dealing cards for a fee or remuneration. b. Bankrolled players A second issue arising from the "between players" requirement is whether a social game may have a player who is not betting their own money but is "bankrolled" (who plays with capital supplied in whole or part by someone else who shares any winnings). We addressed that issue in a previous opinion and concluded that a social game may not have any bankrolled players; we adhere to that conclusion. 38 Op Atty Gen 1455, 1457 -1460 (1977). Although not expressly stated in the prior opinion, the conclusion rests implicitly — at least in part — on the rationale that only the people who play in the social game may stand to win or lose any money from the game. To qualify as a "player" a person must engage in gambling (risk something of value) solely as a contestant or bettor without receiving or becoming entitled to receive any profit other than "personal" gambling winnings. "Personal" means "of or relating to a particular person." WEBSTER'S at 1686 (emphasis added). There is no question that the "particular person" referred to in the definition of player is the contestant or bettor, not a third party. A bankrolled player does not risk his or her own funds (at least to the extent of the "bankroll "). Moreover, the presence of a bankrolled player makes the game take on a professional, rather than social, flavor. 38 Op Atty Gen at 1457 -60. c. Fee or advantage by person arranging or facilitating game Finally, the "between players" requirements makes clear that if a person who gambles in a social game receives any fee or remuneration for arranging or facilitating a game, the game is not a social game because the person would no longer qualify "solely as a player," and the game would not be "between players." Similarly, if one who arranges or facilitates the game has some advantage in the game, he or she is not playing on equal terms with other players, and the game is not social. We interpret "facilitating" the game to include dealing the cards. The "player" definition exempts from prosecution for materially assisting unlawful gambling (i.e., promoting) persons who perform "acts directed toward the arrangement or facilitation of the game" if they gamble in social games on equal terms with other players and receive no fee or remuneration for facilitating or arranging the game. Although dealing the cards is not one of the listed examples of arranging or facilitating the game, as discussed above, "conduct[ing] the playing phases" is listed as an act that "materially aids unlawful gambling" under ORS 167.117(18), and dealing the cards is part of conducting the playing phase of the game. Consequently, a person who gambles in a social game and also deals the cards must not have any advantage in the game or receive any fee or remuneration for dealing. This means that for games like blackjack where the dealer has an inherent advantage, no player may hold the deal; rather the deal must rotate. It is not enough for Lieutenant Glenn Chastain January 22, 2010 Page 8 the dealer to offer the deal to other players, who then may decline to accept it. If the deal in a game like blackjack does not in fact rotate, the game is not a social game. HOUSE PROHIBITIONS 1. House a. Text and context We turn now to the prohibitions on "house" involvement in a social game. Specifically, a social game must have no "house player," "house bank," "house odds," or "house income from operation of the social game." Because all of those prohibitions are on "house" activity, we begin our analysis with the meaning of "house." Two rules for construing statutory text and context are particularly pertinent here. First, we assume that when the legislature uses the same word in related statutory provisions enacted as part of the same law, it intends the word to have the same meaning in all provisions. Tharp v. PSRB, 338 Or 413, 422 -23, 110 P3d 103 (2005). Where, as here, the legislature used the same word repeatedly in the same provision, that assumption is particularly strong. Second, we assume that the legislature did not intend any portion of its enactments to be meaningless surplusage and should adopt a construction, if possible, that gives effect to all provisions. ORS 174.010 ( "where there are several provisions or particulars such construction is, if possible, to be adopted as will give effect to all "). See, e.g., State v. Connally, 339 Or 583, 593, 125 P3d 1254 (2005) (stating rule against surplusage). Several of the "house" prohibitions established in ORS 167.117(21) potentially overlap and the latter rule guides us to adopt a construction that gives each some independent meaning if possible. "House" has three plain meanings in the gambling context: (1) "the operators of a gambling game "; (2) "the management of a gambling establishment "; and, (3) "a gambling establishment: CASINO." WEBSTER'S at 1096. Beginning with "operators of a gambling game," the most relevant definition of "operator" is "a person that actively operates a business * * * whether as owner, lessor, or employee." WEBSTER'S at 1581 (emphasis added). The relevant definition of "operate" is "to manage and to put or keep in operation whether with personal effort or not[.]" Id. "Business" means "a [usually] commercial or mercantile activity customarily engaged in as a means of livelihood and typically involving some independence of judgment and power of decision" as well as "a place where such an enterprise is carried on [.]" Id. at 302. The relevant definition of "commercial" is "from the point of view of profit : having profit as the primary aim." Id. at 456. In sum, "house" in the sense of an "operator of a gambling game," means a person who manages, puts, or keeps in operation a gambling game as a means of livelihood with profit as the primary aim. The second and third potential meanings of "house" are a "gambling establishment" and "the management of a gambling establishment." The former encompasses the latter as "establishment" means "a more or less fixed and usually sizable place of business or residence together with all the things that are an essential part of it (grounds, furniture, fixtures, retinue, employees)." WEBSTER'S at 778 (emphasis added). Another potential meaning of "house" in Lieutenant Glenn Chastain January 22, 2010 Page 9 this context is a "gambling house," which is "a place where gambling is carried on or allowed as a business[.]" WEBSTER'S at 932. Obviously all of those definitions are closely related, differing only in whether they refer to the personnel of a gambling establishment, the place itself, or both. "House" in the sense of "operator of a gambling game," differs from those definitions in that the "house" is not tied to any particular place, but includes any person who operates a game for profit. It is not readily apparent whether the legislature intended "house" to encompass all of those plain meaning senses or not. The context suggests that none of those definitions are completely satisfactory. Specifically, ORS 167.117(21) expressly prohibits the "house" from receiving any income from operating a social game, but in all relevant definitions, a "house" operates the game for profit. In other words, ORS 167.117(21)'s requirement that the "house" not receive any income from operating a social game effectively prevents there from being a "house" — as Webster's would define it — in a social game. The legislature may have intended "house" to mean any private business, private club or place of public accommodation where a social game occurs even if the place makes no income from the game. That interpretation would stretch the plain meaning of "house" to include any business where social games occur, rather than only places that operate gambling games as a business. It is true that those places operate for a profit and, if they allow social games, do so from a profit motive (e.g., the sale of food and drink) even if they derive no income directly from the game. Although that interpretation solves the problem of reconciling the definition of "house" with the prohibition on "house" income, it gives no effect to the "house" prohibitions that apply to games in private homes pursuant to ORS 167.117(21)(a). Alternatively, the legislature may have intended "house" very broadly to include any place where a social game occurs, including a private home. Although that interpretation gives effect to the house prohibitions in ORS 167.117(21)(a), it creates other problems. First, that definition does not fall within any of the plain meanings. Second, subsection (a) prohibits a "house player" in games in private homes and interpreting "house" to include any place where a social game occurs to mean that the person who invited friends into his or her home to play a "social game" could not play. That interpretation would conflict with the definition of "player" which, understandably, recognizes that a person who hosts a social game in his or her home may play. Finally, the legislature may have intended "house" to include any business establishment where a social game occurs (including the owners, managers and employees of the place) and any person who operates a game for profit rather than for social purposes. That interpretation gives effect to the house prohibitions, both in business establishments and private homes, and reconciles the prohibition on a house player in a private home and the definition of "player" because only a person who sought to make a profit in a private home would be prohibited from playing. But that definition continues to have a rather nonsensical application to the house income prohibition, because that prohibition would literally mean that anyone who operates a game for profit cannot make any income from operating the game. No potential definition of "house" that gives effect to all prohibitions remedies that problem. Because the legislature's Lieutenant Glenn Chastain January 22, 2010 Page 10 intended meaning of "house" is ambiguous after examining the text and context, and the legislative history may help us understand the intended meaning of "house," we consult that history. b. Legislative history The "social game" exception (but not the statutory definition of the term) first appeared in Oregon law in 1971. In 1970, the Criminal Law Revision Commission drafted a proposed criminal code for Oregon, accompanied by an explanatory commentary, both of which it submitted to the 1971 legislature. Article 30 of the proposed code concerned gambling offenses and was adopted by the legislature. Or Laws 1971, ch 743, §§ 263 -265. Sections 264 and 265 criminalized promoting or profiting from unlawful gambling; participating as a player was not unlawful under those provisions. Id. at §§ 264 and 265. Article 30 did not exempt social games from the definition of "gambling "; rather the definition of "player" — which was important at the time to describe behavior that would not be subject to criminal sanction — contained a social games exception that provided then, as now, that a person who gambles on equal terms in social games does not promote gambling by arranging or facilitating the game for free. Or Laws 1971, ch 743, § 263(7). The commission explained the social game exception in its commentary on Article 30: The underlying purposes of the sections [264 and 265] are to get at the professional who exploits the popular urge to gamble. The individual citizen who places a bet is not criminal * * *. Neither are friendly social games criminal under the draft and a person does not promote gambling if he merely invites friends in for a game and provides cards or other paraphernalia. This results from the definition of "player" in § 263(7) * * *. The Michigan revisers neatly state the case for excluding the friendly social game: "Private consensual games are generally accepted as socially if not legally proper, and there is no point in preserving the fiction that they are undesirable." Id. at 257 (quoting Michigan Revised Criminal Code at 465 (emphasis in original)). Criminal Law Revision Commission, Proposed Oregon Criminal Code, Final Draft and Report, Article 30, § 263(7) (1970) (emphasis added). Therefore, in 1971, the social game exception appeared to be confined to games in "private" homes, and only players could "invite friends in" for a game without subjecting themselves to criminal sanction. The social game exception did not expressly allow social games in public places like card rooms. At the next legislative session in 1973, representatives of hotel, restaurant, and bar workers' unions, as well as representatives of private clubs, asked the legislature to amend the gambling laws to allow social games in business establishments. They informed the legislature that card rooms had been shut down due to the 1971 legislation and those closures had caused unemployment among waitresses, bartenders, card room attendants, and workers who made the Lieutenant Glenn Chastain January 22, 2010 Page 11 food and beverages sold in card rooms. See, e.g., Minutes, Senate and Federal Affairs Committee (SB 803), May 10, 1973, at 5 -6. Some opposed the amendment, arguing that allowing social games in public places would encourage professional gambling. Id. at 6. But John Runstein, the president of a private social club, testified that "[c]ard room owners thin[k] that if these social games are permitted on their premises and a reasonable service charge is required for the use of the premises and for the labor involved of not more than 25% of the total income of the overall operation of the complete premises, that anything like professional gambling would be eliminated." Id. at 5. The legislature agreed. It retained the "social game" language in the definition of player, amended the gambling laws to exclude social games from the definition of "gambling," and provided the following definition of "social games," which allowed social games in public places: [a social game is] a game, other than a lottery, between players in a private home or private business, private club or in a place of public accommodation where no house player, house bank, or house odds exist and the gross income from the operation of the social game does not exceed 25 percent of the gross income of the private business, private club or public accommodation. Or Laws 1973, ch 788, § 1 (emphasis added) 4' That definition was somewhat ambiguous about whether the "house" prohibitions applied to games in private homes or only to business establishments. The income limitation, at least, expressly applied only to private businesses, private clubs, and places of public accommodation. The legislature did not discuss whether the prohibitions applied to games in private homes. Nor did it discuss the meaning of "house." But when the legislature first used the term "house," public places expressly could make income from operating a social game as long as that income was a small percentage of their overall business. Thus, in 1973, "house" could have referred to a place that operates a social game for profit. The reason given for limiting the income that those places derived from social games was to prevent professional gambling in Oregon. Unfortunately, that purpose was not achieved. In the 1974 special legislative session, House Speaker Eymann told the House Rules Committee that the 1973 legislation had allowed large stakes professional gambling to take place in Oregon and that the Attorney General had received numerous requests for corrective legislation. Minutes, House Rules Committee (LC 283), February 7, 1974 at 7; Minutes, House Rules Committee (LC 283), February 11, 1974 at 5; and Minutes, House Committee on Judiciary Special Session (LC 283), February 11, 1974 at 2. Phil Roberts, representing the District Attorneys Association, stated that enforcement of the 1973 legislation's income limitations had been difficult "because of the various ways a house may collect money, such as charging to enter an establishment or charging an amount per hour for use of a table. Accounting of funds collected in such ways would be almost impossible." Id. at 3. Lieutenant Glenn Chastain January 22, 2010 Page 12 Legislative Counsel Rich Gatti testified that to remedy professional gambling and enforcement problems that "the broad definition" of social games had caused, he and the Attorney General's office had drafted a bill that deleted the provision allowing social games in public places and the corresponding income limitations on those places. Id. In subsequent hearings, legislators voiced their support for allowing social games in businesses as well as private homes for the limited purpose of allowing people to play a social game of cards in a warm place where food was served. See, e.g., House Judiciary Committee Minutes HB 3327 Hearing (HB 3327), February 18, 1974 at 3 (statements of Senator Keith Burns and Representative Grace Peck to that effect). Pat Randall, Representing the Oregon AFL -CIO, favored allowing only playing rummy and pinochle in taverns, as those games had been happening in bars in Oregon for many years. Minutes, House Judiciary Committee Special Session (HB 3327), February 20, 1974 at 1. The minutes from that meeting reflect the following remarks by Representative Paulus: [T]he last session of the legislature had amended the gambling law specifically to take care of the problem in the Portland area where the district attorney had raided and closed down all card games. The law as enacted by the 1973 regular session, she said, was doing exactly what the opponents of the measure had predicted — bringing big time, professional gambling into Oregon. The thrust of that amendment, as advanced by its proponents, was to allow exactly the type of gambling Mr. Randall was advocating, and the result was that in order to allow a few individuals to play a game of cards in the warmth of a tavern, the law had permitted organized, professional gambling to come into Oregon, which was not the intent of the legislature. The current problem had been forced upon the local governments by the action of the legislature, and she believed it was the responsibility of the legislature to undo the harm that had been done. Id. at 2. Although various amendments were proposed, at the end of the day the legislature "undid the harm" caused by the 1973 legislation by continuing to allow social games in business establishments, but by amending the social game exception to prohibit the "house" from receiving gny income from operation of a social game. Or Laws 1974 (spec sess), ch 7, § 1(now codified as ORS 167.117(21)). The amendment also expressly applies the "house" prohibitions to games in private homes. In sum, the legislature never discussed what it intended "house" or any of the house prohibitions to mean, except the prohibition on house income. But its discussion of that prohibition reflects a clear intention to apply the prohibition to private businesses, private clubs, and places of public accommodation. Thus, the Assembly considered those places to be the "house." And even though the legislature's discussions focused solely on games in those places, it expressly applied the same prohibitions to games in private homes. It appears, then, that the legislature intended a broader definition of "house" than merely the business establishments where social games may occur. Finally, the history demonstrates that the legislature intended the prohibition on "house income" to prevent professional gambling and to make the gambling laws Lieutenant Glenn Chastain January 22, 2010 Page 13 easier to enforce. It is evident that these were primary considerations in defining social games. Accordingly, we keep those purposes in mind when interpreting the house prohibitions. Based on the text, context, and legislative history, wve interpret "house" to include: (1) all private businesses, private clubs, and places of public accommodation where social games occur, including their owners and personnel; and (2) any one who operates a social game for profit rather than for social purposes. "Operates" for those purposes would include any action that materially aids the game as described in ORS 167.117(18). 2. "House income from operation of the social game" Having interpreted "house," we now examine the prohibitions on "house" activity in a social game, beginning with the prohibition on "house income from operation of the social game." The plain meaning of "income" is "a gain or recurrent benefit." WEBSTER'S at 1143. Hence, the house may not receive any gain or benefit from the operation of a game. In a 1974 opinion, this office opined that: no "house income" * * * mean[s] precisely that: counties and cities cannot, by ordinance, authorize an establishment to charge for the privilege of holding or participating in a social game. Whatever benefit the business derives must be a consequence of the mere existence of the game, not revenue specifically exacted from the game or its participants. So construed, the Act prohibits not only a [$1.00 per hour per player fee to defray expenses of the operation of the social game] but also, inter alia, the raising of prices charged for some or all of the establishment's regular services in a manner to coincide with the hours during which social games are permitted on the premises. Attorney General opinion letter dated April 17, 1974 to Honorable Robert Elliott. That interpretation accords with the plain language, context, and legislative history of the provision. In addition, since anyone who attempts to operate a social game for profit is the "house," the prohibition on house income effectively prevents anyone at any place from making any income from operation of a social game. 3. "House player" The prohibition on a "house player" prevents the house from gambling in a social game. Again, `player" means: A person who engages in any form of gambling solely as a contestant or bettor, without receiving or becoming entitled to receive any profit therefrom other than personal gambling winnings, and without otherwise rendering any material assistance to the establishment, conduct or operation of the particular gambling activity. A person who gambles at a social game of chance on equal terms with the other participants therein is a person who does not otherwise render material assistance to the establishment, conduct or operation thereof by performing, Lieutenant Glenn Chastain January 22, 2010 Page 14 without fee or remuneration, acts directed toward the arrangement or facilitation of the game, such as inviting persons to play, permitting the use of premises therefore and supplying cards or other equipment. ORS 167.117(16). Assuming, however unlikely, that the house could ever qualify solely as a player, it is expressly prohibited from doing so. Thus, in addition to being prevented from making any income from operation of a social game, the house is prohibited from betting and becoming entitled to receive gambling winnings from competing in the game. That prohibition prevents games where players bet against the house from qualifying as social games. For example, a bar, restaurant, hotel, private club, or any person who attempts to operate a game for profit could not supply a dealer in a blackjack game, because the house would be competing to receive gambling winnings. More broadly, the prohibition on a house player prevents the house from betting in any social game, even games where players bet against each other, rather than the house, because the house may never compete for gambling winnings. 4. "House bank" Next, a social game may have no "house bank." Webster's contains several definitions of "bank" that specifically apply in the gambling context: (1) "GAMBLING HOUSE" [which, as discussed above, is a place where gambling is carried on or allowed as a business]; (2) "a person or persons conducting a gambling house or game; specif DEALER "; (3) "the sum of money in certain gambling games (as chemin de fer) that is deposited or stated by the dealer as a fund from which to pay his losses "; and, (4) "the whole supply of chips available for purchase and use by players in a game played with chips (as poker)." WEBSTER's at 172. In addition, the verb "bank" in the gambling context means "to act as banker for (as a gambling game)." Id. And, "banker" in the gambling context has three meanings: (1) "the player who keeps, sells, and redeems the supply of chips used in a game — compare BANK (referring to the meaning of the whole supply of chips available for purchase and use by players in a game played with chips (as poker) "; (2) "the person who agrees to cover the bets of all players up to a certain limit established as the bank "; and, (3) "a dealer (as in blackjack) or a gambling house or its representative against whom all bets must be placed." Id. The most natural meaning of "house bank" in this context is the house acting as the banker for a game. Some prohibitions on activities that the house might do as the banker are duplicative of other prohibitions. For example, the house player prohibition prevents the house from competing in a social game, thus, bets may not be placed against a house dealer. And covering bets or selling chips to the extent that the house would make a profit from doing so is precluded by the prohibition on house income. But we construe the house bank prohibition to go further and to preclude the house from having any involvement in the financial aspects of a social game, even if the house makes no profit from its involvement. This construction gives the house bank prohibition some independent meaning, For example,.- the house could not keep, sell or redeem chips in a social game, even if the house makes no profit from doing so. On the other hand, the house does not appear to be prohibited from simply supplying chips that the players Lieutenant Glenn Chastain January 22, 2010 Page 15 themselves sell, keep and redeem. That interpretation gives effect to the legislative purpose for the prohibitions — ease of enforcement and preventing professional gambling — while still recognizing that the house may provide equipment for a game if it handles no money and does so Free of charge. 5. "House odds" Finally, no "house odds" may exist in a social game. Potentially pertinent definitions of "odds" are: (1) the "amount of difference by which one thing exceeds or falls short of another: amount in excess or defect"; (2) the "difference favoring one of two opposed things : balance of advantage or weight of opposition "; (3) "the probability that one thing is so rather than another or that one thing will happen rather than another : balance of probability : greater likelihood CHANCES "; (4) "the ratio existing between the amount to be paid off for a winning bet and the amount of the bet placed <the horse was running at odds of 6 to 1." WEBSTER'S at 1563. No context or legislative history clarifies which meaning the legislature intended. Nor could we find any definition of "house odds" in the texts that we consulted on gambling law. Again, our guiding rule is to give this provision some independent meaning, if possible, that is not subsumed by the other prohibitions." To give "house odds" independent effect, we interpret it to preclude the house from having any involvement in establishing the ratio between the pay off for a winning bet and the amount of the bet placed even when it has no money at stake in the game. For example, this prohibition would preclude the house from setting odds governing pay -out for a bet between players or awarding a prize or gift certificate to the winner of a game. CONCLUSION We summarize our conclusions as follows: Private businesses, private clubs or places of public accommodation that allow social games and their personnel may not: (a) derive any income from the game (including charging cover, usage or rental charges for the place or equipment), or extract any money directly from the participants other than for the sale of food and drink on the same terms as all other patrons (even if an establishment sells food and drink on the same terms to all patrons, if it charges inflated prices in relation to other similar establishments and its only patrons are social game players that may be evidence that the establishment is in fact making income from operation of social games); (b) compete or bet in the game; (c) act as "banker," by being involved in the financial aspects of a social game, including selling, keeping and redeeming chips even if it makes no profit from doing so; or (d) have any advantage or set the ratio between the payout and bet amount; • Anyone who attempts to operate a social game for profit — no matter where — will be deemed to be the "house" and subject to the same prohibitions; Lieutenant Glenn Chastain January 22, 2010 Page 16 • A person who invites friends in for a social game in the person's home may bet in the game as long as the person is not operating the game for profit and may arrange the game and provide the necessary equipment as long as the person receives no fee or remuneration for doing so and plays on equal terms with the other players; • Any social game players who deal in a game where the dealer has an inherent advantage, such as blackjack, must pass the deal and receive no fee or remuneration for dealing; and, • All persons who bet in a social game must stand to gain only their own personal gambling winnings and no other profit from the game. Sincerely, David Leith Chief Counsel General Counsel Division ARA :JTM:mcg/1311273 -v3 It ORS 167.121 provides that "[c]ounties and cities may, by ordinance, authorize the playing or conducting of a social game in a private business, private club or in a place of public accommodation. Such ordinances may provide for regulation or licensing of the social games authorized." 2' Obviously, if no participants in a game are betting, the game does not meet the general definition of "gambling" and requires no legislative exemption or authorization to be lawful. 3/ We also recognize that we have answered this question differently before. See Letter of Advice dated September 17, 1982, to Polk County District Attorney Doug Dawson (OP -5409) at 3 -4 (rejecting that notion that a "dealer does not participate because he handles the cards, supervises and * * * inevitably works for tips "); Letter of Advice dated April 14, 1983, to Senator Fred Heard (OP -5460) at 5 (concluding that providing a role for anyone other than "players" — in that case dealers — "takes the activity out of the social gaming exception "). Those opinions were issued prior to PGE and Gaines and did not examine the issue using their methodology. To the extent that the opinions are inconsistent with this opinion, we overrule them. 4r Changes in statutory text over time are considered part of the context of the statute. Krieger v. Just, 319 Or 328, 336, 876 P2d 754 (1994). We discuss the change in statutory text in our discussion of legislative history, because the statutory change alone does not eliminate ambiguity and it makes more sense to do so. 5/ Several gambling websites do discuss "house odds." A typical website explains "house odds" this way: Lieutenant Glenn Chastain January 22, 2010 Page 17 A casino earns money by paying winners at "house odds." This is an amount that is slightly less than the true odds of winning the contest. Let's say we're flipping a coin and the bet is one dollar. The true odds of winning are 1 to 1, but the house odds might be 0.95 to 1. In other words, a loss to the casino costs $1, but the casino will only pay 95 cents when a player wins. That's the house edge. Sometimes professional gamblers can use strategy to shift the edge away from the casino, but in most situations the casino has an advantage. Imp. ca;intri:mt!hIin about con) od m _I n,l.: ,� h �! c.hi�u. Whatever clarity that definition provides, the courts are unlikely to rely on gambling website definitions. And, since the house may not bet at all in the game under the prohibition on "house player" that definition gives no independent meaning to the prohibition on "house odds." 6/ The house cannot gamble in a social game, nor may it pay off winning bets. Consequently, the prohibitions on a house player and house bank effectively preclude the house from having any advantage in a social game. House odds must mean something more than simply having an advantage in a game or it adds nothing to those prohibitions. I I ' City of Tigard T I G A R D Memorandum I j SUPPLEMENTAL PACKET To: Honorable Mayor Cook and City Council FOR /An 13 (DATE OF MEETING) From: Kent Wyatt, Senior Management Analyst Re: Alternate Language for Draft Social Gaming Ordinance Date: April 22, 2013 Staff is proposing the following alternate language (seen in red) to the draft social gaming ordinance included in your meeting packet. 5.22.010 Definitions SOCIAL GAME means a game, other than a lottery, between players in a private business, private club or place of public accommodation (such business, club or place of public accommodation collectively referred to herein as, "Business ") where no house player, house bank or house odds exist and there is no house income from the operation of the social game. 5.22.020 Social Games — Authorization and Conditions D. A business may not charge an entrance or access fee of any kind, including but not limited to a cover charge or door fee, on days when social games are being played in the Business. 2013 Oregon Leeislative Session To Date CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TIGARD CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. 13- AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADOPT SUBCHAPTER AUTHORIZING SOCIAL GAMING, SUBJECT TO SPECIFIED CONDITIONS. WHEREAS, currently the Tigard Municipal Code does not contain provisions relating to the regulation of "social gaming "; and WHEREAS, ORS 167.121 allows cities to authorize the playing or conducting of a social game in a private business, private club, or place of public accommodation; and WHEREAS, the Tigard Police Department requests clarification from the City Council on whether they wish to authorize social games in Tigard; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that it is in the public interest to amend the Tigard Municipal Code to include a new chapter to set forth terms, rules, regulations, and responsibilities of involved parties, authorizing social games. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The Tigard Municipal Code is hereby amended to include and incorporate a new Chapter 5.22 Social Games, attached hereto as Exhibit A. SECTION 2. This ordinance shall be effective from and after thirty (30) days following its passage and approval by the Mayor. PASSED: By vote of all Council members present after being read by number and title only, this day of , 2013. Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder APPROVED: Approved by Tigard City Council this day of , 2013. John L. Cook, Mayor Approved as to form: City Attorney Date .,v. ./av11a 116 1111,11LLL 111 y C11VW EXHIBIT "A" Chapter 5.22 - SOCIAL GAMES Sections: 5.22.010 Definitions 5.22.020 Social Games — Authorization and Conditions 5.22.030 Responsibilities of Owner and Person in Charge 5.22.040 Inspection of Social Games Premises 5.22.050 Notice of Social Games Required 5.22.060 License; License Fee; Civil Penalties 5.22.070 Appeal Process for License Denial 5.22.080 Appeal Process for Assessment of Fine 5.22.010 Definitions As used in this chapter, A. CHIEF OF POLICE or CHIEF means the chief of the Tigard police department or designee. B. SOCIAL GAME means a game, other than a lottery, between players in a private business, private club or place of public accommodation (such business, club or place of public accommodation collectively referred to herein as, "Business ") where no house player, house bank or house odds exist and there is no house income from the operation of the social game. 5.22.020 Social Games — Authorization and Conditions Social games as defined in Section 5.22.010 of this chapter are allowed only when each of the following conditions is met: A. The owner of the business where social games are being played holds a current, valid license to play social games issued by the City; B. No house player, house bank, or house odds exist; C. There is no house income from the operation of a social game; D. A Business may not charge an entrance or access fee of any kind, including but not limited to a cover charge or door fee, on days when social games are being played in the Business. E. The social game cannot be observed from a public right of way; F. Persons under 21 years of age are not permitted in the room or enclosure where the social game takes place; G. The room or enclosure where the social game takes place is open to free and immediate access by any police officer. Doors leading into the social game room must remain unlocked during all hours of operation; H. No owner or "principal managing employee ", as described in more detail below, shall participate in any social game on the premises; __ �..�v�av aubauar. 111 J V11V W I. A charge for consumer goods sold on the premises to an individual playing a social game must not be higher or lower than the price charged to a non - participant in the social game; J. No owner or principal managing employee may accept any payment, fee, service or gratuity from a social game participant as consideration for participation in the social game on the premises; K. No owner or principal managing employee may charge a rental or lease fee for the use of the social game; L. At no point in time may a social game be conducted without an owner or principal managing employee present; M. No membership fee or cover fee may be charged for participation in the social game; and N. All social gaming activities and the business where social gaming is permitted must comply with applicable federal, state and local laws and regulations. 5.22.030 Responsibilities of Owner and Person in Charge An owner or person in charge of a business where social gaming is permitted shall: A. Clearly designate the areas set aside for social gaming. B. Designate an agent or employee to act as person in charge of a social gaming premise whenever social games are being played. An owner shall be strictly liable for any violation of this chapter which occurs when no person in charge is present at the social gaming premises. C. Be strictly liable for any violation of the provisions of this chapter by a person in charge, agent, employee or designate. D. Limit hours of operation of social gaming activities on the premises to those hours during which the primary business is open. E. Limit social gaming activities - - - ::.: ° . _ - _ - - - - to no more than 50% (Fifty percent) of the floor area of the premises . Social gaming may occur 7 days per week. For purposes of this provision, "floor area" means gross floor area excluding areas such as restrooms, hallways, mechanical spaces, elevators, stairwells and loading docks. 5.22.040 Inspection of Social Games Premises All persons who authorize social games on premises owned or managed pursuant to this Chapter shall permit entry to premises to any member of the Police Department, upon presentation of official identification, for the limited purpose of inspecting the premises and any activities, records, or devices involved in such games to ensure compliance with Tigard Municipal Code. 5.22.050 Notice of Social Games Required Where social games are conducted, each owner or person in charge of the premises shall continuously and conspicuously post notice that is clearly readable and in letters at least one inch high that such games must be conducted in accordance with the conditions set forth in Section 5.22.020 which shall be listed in their entirety. The form and content of the notice required pursuant to this section shall be as approved by the chief to assure uniformity of notices in establishments allowing social gaming. _ . _ . _ ..viviivi t) r it.ri _ ini Ink It,: April 23, 2013 (Please keep remarks to around 2 -5 minutes. If a large number of citizens have signed in, the Mayor may ask that testimony be kept to around 2 minutes.) 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. This is a City of Tigard public meeting, subject to the State of Oregon's public meeting and records laws. All written and oral testimony becomes part of the public record. The names and addresses of persons who attend or participate in City of Tigard public meetings will be included in the meeting minutes, which is a public record. NAME, ADDRESS & PHONE TOPIC STAFF Please Print CONTACTED Name: Also, please spell your name as it sounds, if it will help the presiding officer pronounce: • Address City State Zip Phone No. Name: Also, please spell your name as it sounds, if it will help the presiding officer pronounce: Address City State Zip Phone No. Name: Also, please spell your name as it sounds, if it will help the presiding officer pronounce: Address City State Zip Phone No. AIS -1277 3. A. Business Meeting Meeting Date: 04/23/2013 Length (in minutes): Consent Item Agenda Title: Approve City Council Meeting Minutes Submitted By: Cathy Wheatley, Administrative Services Item Type: Motion Requested Meeting Type: Consent Agenda Public Hearing: Publication Date: Information ISSUE Approve City Council meeting minutes. STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST Approve minutes as submitted. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY Attached council minutes are submitted for City Council approval. OTHER ALTERNATIVES N/A COUNCIL GOALS, POLICIES, APPROVED MASTER PLANS N/A DATES OF PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION N/A AIS -1245 3 . B. Business Meeting Meeting Date: 04/23/2013 Length (in minutes): Consent Item Agenda Title: Award Contract for FY 2013 -2014 Pavement Management Program Slurry Seal to Blackline, Inc. Prepared For: Joseph Barrett Submitted By: Joseph Barrett, Financial and Information Services Consent Item Type: Motion Requested Meeting Type: Agenda - LCRB Public Hearing Newspaper Legal Ad Required ?: No Public Hearing Publication Date in Newspaper: Information ISSUE Shall the Local Contract Review Board award a contract for the city's FY 2013 -2014 Pavement Management Program - Slurry Seal project to Blackline, Inc.? STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST Staff recommends the Local Contract Review Board award the contract for the city's FY 2013 -2014 Pavement Management Program - Slurry Seal project to Blackline, Inc in the amount of $345,609 and authorize the city manager to take all necessary steps to execute the contract. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY The yearly Pavement Management Program (PMP) protects the city's investment in the street infrastructure. The program typically includes a combination of minor maintenance projects (slurry seal applications) and major maintenance projects (pavement overlays). Slurry seal applications are used throughout the country to restore deteriorating streets. Deterioration occurs as rain, sun, and freezing and thawing cycles eat away at the sticky asphalt binder that holds the pavement together. In a slurry seal application, the street is cleaned, cracks are sealed, and a hot, liquid mixture of asphalt emulsion and sand is applied to the roadway. The mixture hardens as it cools. The process restores the asphalt binder near the pavement's surface and extends the useful life of the roadway. The city issued an Invitation to Bid on February 27, 2013 and advertised the project in both the Daily Journal of Commerce and The Tigard Times. Bids were publicly opened at 2 pm on March 12th with the following results: Bidder's Name - Bid Total Blackline, Inc. - $345,609 Intermountain Slurry Seal - $359,359 Valley Slurry Seal - $369,300 City's Engineer's Estimate - $354,000 Staff has reviewed the bids and has found Blackline, Inc. to be a reputable company fully capable of performing the work required on this project. Therefore, staff recommends that the Local Contract Review Board award the Fiscal Year 2013 -2014 Pavement Management Program - Slurry Seal contract to Blackline, Inc. The City will contract for the pavement overlay and crack seal portions of the program under a separate contract solicited and issued at a later date. OTHER ALTERNATIVES The Local Contract Review Board could choose not to award the contract. COUNCIL GOALS, POLICIES, APPROVED MASTER PLANS DATES OF PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION This is the first time the Local Contract Review Board has seen this award item for the FY 2013 -2014 Pavement Management Program - Slurry Seal project. The Board saw last year's request at their April 24, 2012 meeting. AIS -1268 4. A. Business Meeting Meeting Date: 04/23/2013 Length (in minutes): 0 Minutes Agenda Title: Proclaim May 5 -11 Be Kind to Animals Week Prepared For: Joanne Bengtson Submitted By: Joanne Bengtson, City Management Item Type: Update, Discussion, Direct Staff Meeting Type: Proclamation Public Hearing: No Publication Date: Information ISSUE Should Mayor Cook proclaim May 5 -11, 2013 as Be Kind to Animals Week? STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST n/a KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY Tigard resident Judith Kent asked the Mayor to make this proclamation in an effort to draw attention to the American Humane Society's Be Kind to Animals Week ®. Celebrated nationally every year since 1915, it commemorates the role animals play in our lives, advocates responsible pet ownership and promotes the need for adults and especially children, to treat all animals humanely. OTHER ALTERNATIVES COUNCIL GOALS, POLICIES, APPROVED MASTER PLANS DATES OF PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION This proclamation has been issued in Tigard since 2000. _____— Attachments Be Kind to Animals Proclamation AIS -1214 4 B • Business Meeting Meeting Date: 04/23/2013 Length (in minutes): 5 Minutes Agenda Title: Proclaim May as Bike Month Prepared For: Joanne Bengtson Submitted By: Joanne Bengtson, City Management Item Type: Update, Discussion, Direct Staff Meeting Type: Proclamation Public Hearing: No Publication Date: Information ISSUE Should Mayor Cook proclaim Bike Month in Tigard during the month of May? STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST Issue the proclamation. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY The city's Pedestrian and Bike Advisory Committee made a request for Mayor Cook to issue a Bike Month proclamation at a City Council meeting. The League of American Bicyclists report, "if you avoided driving just 10 miles every week you would eliminate about 500 pounds of carbon dioxide emissions in a year." Bike Month celebrates bicycle awareness and cycling's benefits for reducing environmental pollution and improving personal health. OTHER ALTERNATIVES COUNCIL GOALS, POLICIES, APPROVED MASTER PLANS DATES OF PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION This proclamation has been issued annually at the request of the Pedestrian & Bicyclist Advisory Committee, a subcommittee of the Tigard Transporatation Advisory Committee. Attachments Bike Month Proclamation L _, AIS -1248 55 Business Meeting Meeting Date: 04/23/2013 Length (in minutes): 30 Minutes Agenda Title: Discussion with Metro Councilor Craig Dirksen Submitted By: Cathy Wheatley, Administrative Services Item Type: Update, Discussion, Direct Staff Meeting Type: Council Business Meeting - Main Public Hearing: No Publication Date: Information ISSUE Update about Metro activities; discussion about Tigard issues with Metro Councilor Craig Dirksen. STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST N/A KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY First update from Metro Councilor Craig Dirksen to the Tigard City Council. Councilor Dirksen will forward discussion topics to the City Council prior to the meeting. OTHER ALTERNATIVES N/A COUNCIL GOALS, POLICIES, APPROVED MASTER PLANS N/A DATES OF PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION Periodic updates from Tigard's Metro representative. Former representative for Tigard, Carl Hosticka, visited the Tigard City Council on February 14, 2012, to talk about "Climate Smart Communities." 4 /L3 /LU1i SUPPLEMENTAL PACKET FOR -L i I a3la) )3 (DATE OF MEETING) j gridA District 3 Metro update Overview : • Southwest Corridor Plan Tigard City Council • Climate Smart Communities • Urban Growth Management process • Natural areas program Councilor Craig Dirksen • Convention Center hotel April 23rd, 2013 • Oregon Zoo Southwest Corridor update CLIMATE Climate Smart Communities SMART • Online open house from i , a C OMMUNITIES • Legislature requires region to reduce April 15 through mid May }.' • SCENARIOS PRO :' greenhouse gas emissions 20% from cars, • Evaluation of project light trucks by 2035 bundles available in May • Plan to test three scenarios this summer based on local land use, transportation • Community forum: plans May 23, 6 p.m., Tualatin • Evaluation criteria based on input from Library 111 lo, mmunity, business leaders • Engagement through • Findings cal officials to be shared co with cities this fall Opt In in June tom_ 1_a • Preferred scenario to be adopted in 2014 www.swcorridorplan.org www. oregonmetro .gov /climatescenarios Urban Growth Natural areas update • Expanding wildlife Management process • corridor in Tualatin • • Technical work underway to prepare t Valley for Urban Growth Report ''r r , " " • Ice Age Tonquin Trail •1 } ' "_- master plan approved 11111 • Council must accept final Urban j " • Missing link in Growth Report by end of 2014 - ( . ,f,, - : , Can Bluff ... °' . i "```° purchased • Council intends to complete its Westside Trail Master growth management decision, based Plan nearing ..�,; on needs identified in the UGR, by completion —May 8'h •:'" the end of 2015 open house Convention Center hotel update Oregon Zoo • Goal: attract new national convention business • 10 -year land use plan f � " • Ongoing negotiations for 600- approved room Hyatt Regency • Independent study confirms •Elephant Lands positive outlook for "– , ',-> construction begins in convention, hospitality June markets 1 • Metro, Portland, Multnomah • Animal welfare work Co. negotiating lodging taxes 1 underway in Asia r ry • Metro, PDC negotiating financing •• "y' :.' 4/23/2013 Your questions... Craig Dirksen Metro Councilor, District 3 503 - 797 -1549 craig.dirksen@oregonmetro.gov O PORTLAND tin -VANCOUVER AREA ONLINE PANEL f m www.oregonmetro.gov /connect AIS -1258 6. A. Business Meeting Meeting Date: 04/23/2013 Length (in minutes): 5 Minutes Agenda Tide: Contract Award - System Integrator Services Prepared For. Joseph Barrett Submitted By: Joseph Barrett, Financial and Information Services Local Contract Item Type: Motion Requested Meeting Type: Review Board Public Hearing Newspaper Legal Ad Required ?: No Public Hearing Publication Date in Newspaper: Information ISSUE Shall the Local Contract Review Board award a contract for system integrator services to Portland Engineering, Inc.? STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST Staff recommends the Local Contract Review Board award the contract for system integrator services to Portland Engineering, Inc. for an estimated $150,000 over the five year life of the contract and authorize the City Manager to take the necessary steps to execute the contract. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY The city's Water Division utilizes a Water Distribution "System Control and Data Acquisition" (SCADA) radio frequency modem system consisting of one master station and 17 remote control sites in order to operate the water distribution system storage levels, flow rates and maintains system pressure on a continuously operating basis. Each remote telemetry site consists of a PLC for controlling the local equipment and a radio modem for communication with the master controller. The master controller initiates all communication between remote sites and provides information to the operator interface (OI) computer. The city utilizes the services of expert consultants for the preventative and corrective maintenance of the SCADA equipment including: master and remote radio telemetry system; variable frequency drives; and process equipment and other electrical and electronic instrumentation. The consultant assists city maintenance staff in troubleshooting and repairing instrumentation, software application changes or upgrades; and any deletions or additions to the system as required. The city also utilizes the services of the consultant with the inclusion of new SCADA remote radio telemetry sites associated with new construction of water distribution facilities as required. The city issued a Request for Proposals (RIP) for the services on February 27, 2013 and published the public notice in the Daily Journal of Commerce. Proposals were due on March 19th and the city received responses from three companies. These firms were scored by a review team on the criteria identified in the RFP: project approach; project experience; project team experience; proposed rates; and references. Each criterion was assigned twenty points for a total of 100 points possible for each proposal. After completion of the independent review by the review team members the points were total with the following result: • Company Score Portland Engineering, Inc. 289/300 • Industrial Systems, Inc. 270/300 • Taurus Power & Control 258 /300 With these results, staff had determined Portland Engineering, Inc. to be the most responsible proposer and best meets the needs of the city. As a result, staff recommends Portland Engineering, Inc. receive the contract for the needed services. Projects assigned to PEI will be on an as- needed basis. Once a project is assigned, PEI will prepare and submit a cost proposal to the city for review and approval. Corrective and preventative SCADA and electronic instrumentation maintenance will be assigned to PEI on an as- needed basis. The contract will be for an initial term of one year after Local Contract Review Board approval and may be renewed for four additional one -year terms. The estimated spend over the possible five -year life of the contract is $150,000 and will be budgeted in the Water and Water CIP funds. OTHER ALTERNATIVES The Local Contract Review Board could elect to not to award the contract and direct staff to resolicit for the services. COUNCIL GOALS, POLICIES, APPROVED MASTER PLANS Water System Master Plan DATES OF PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION This is the first time the Local Contract Review Board has been presented this award for consideration. The Board's last award for these services was in late 2007. Fiscal Impact Cost: $8,000 Budgeted (yes or no): Yes Where budgeted ?: Water Additional Fiscal Notes: Funding for annual operational support for SCADA exists in the Water Fund; there is $8,000 budgeted in FY 12/13 for this task. Staff anticipates an estimated $150,000 spend over the possible life of this contract. Funding for future support of SCADA and expansion and design work will be in the Water and Water CIP Funds and will be contingent upon budget approval by the Budget Committee and City Council. No services in future years shall begin until the appropriations are granted. AIS -1259 6. B. Business Meeting Meeting Date: 04/23/2013 Length (in minutes): 5 Minutes Agenda Title: Contract Award - FY 2013 -2014 Pavement Management Program - Pavement Overlay Prepared For: Joseph Barrett Submitted By: Joseph Barrett, Financial and Information Services Local Contract Item Type: Motion Requested Meeting Type: Review Board Public Hearing Newspaper Legal Ad Required ?: No Public Hearing Publication Date in Newspaper: Information ISSUE Shall the Local Contract Review Board award a contract for the FY 2013 -2014 Pavement Management Program - Pavement Overlay project to Eagle - Elsner, Inc.? STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST Staff recommends the Local Contract Review Board award the FY 2013 -2014 Pavement Management Program — Pavement Overlay contract to Eagle- Elsner, Inc. in the amount of $945,048 and authorize the City Manager to take the necessary steps to execute the contract. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY The yearly Pavement Management Program (PMP) protects the city's investment in street infrastructure. The program typically includes a combination of minor maintenance projects (slurry seal applications) and major maintenance projects (pavement overlays). In a payment overlay project, the pavement on a street has deteriorated due to traffic usage and weather, and is at the point where pavement repairs and overlays are necessary to avoid further deterioration and return the street to a good condition. Work under the project will include: • Construction of asphaltic concrete overlay • Asphalt concrete removal (grinding) and repair • Adjustment of facilities to match new payment level • Installation of vehicle detection loops for traffic signals • Application of sealant along pavement edges and joints • Temporary signage, protection, and traffic control • Striping and pavement marking For fiscal year 2013 -2014, the city has identified the following streets, or sections of these streets, in need of this level of repair: • Sattler Street • Oak Street & 95th Avenue • 103rd Avenue & View Terrace • 68th Avenue • 98th Avenue • O'Mara Street • Alderbrook Drive • Center Street & 87th Avenue • Oak Street, 71st Avenue, Pine Street & 69th Avenue The city issued an Invitation to Bid for the project on March 13, 2013 and published notice in the Daily Journal of Commerce (March 13th and 18th) and in the Tigard Times (March 14th.) Bids were due on March 26th and the city received responses from six companies (Engineer's Estimate $946,000). • Eagle- Elsner, Inc. $945,048 • S -2 Contractors, Inc. $993,875 • Brix Paving Northwest $1,007,304 • Baker Rock Resources $1,013,719 • Knife River Corp. $1,020,298 • Roy Houck Construction $1,081,793 Staff has reviewed the bids and determined that Eagle- Elsner, Inc. has submitted the lowest responsible bid. Eagle - Elsner, Inc. has no State of Oregon Contractor Construction Board violations and is not on the Bureau of Labor and Industries ineligible list. Staff recommends the contract for the FY 2013 -2014 Pavement Management Program — Pavement Overlay project be awarded to Eagle- Elsner, Inc. for $945,048. OTHER ALTERNATIVES The Local Contract Review Board could choose not to award the contract and direct staff to resolicit or stop the project. COUNCIL GOALS, POLICIES, APPROVED MASTER PLANS DATES OF PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION This is a yearly project and the contract is presented to the Local Contract Review Board for award consideration. The Board awarded the FY 2012 -2013 contract to Baker Rock Resources at their May 15, 2012 meeting. Fiscal Impact Cost: $945,048 Budgeted (yes or no): Pending Where budgeted ?: Street Maintenance Additional Fiscal Notes: The overall construction portion of the FY 2013 -2014 Pavement Management Program project is estimated at $1,520,000 according to Tigard's 2013 -2017 Capital Improvement Plan. This includes all three components of the overall project • pavement overlay, • slurry seal, and • crack sealing. This contract is for the first of the three listed components at $945,048. The other two components of the program have the following estimates and will come forward as separate contracts. The slurry seal component is estimated at $345,609 and while the crack seal component has an estimate of $90,000. The city may elect to move the crack seal component to FY 2014 -2015 if funds run short to fully complete the slurry seal and overlay portions of the program. This project is for Fiscal Year 2013 -2014. All amounts are contingent upon budget approval by the Budget Committee and City Council. No construction shall begin until the appropriations are granted. AIS -1270 6. C. Business Meeting Meeting Date: 04/23/2013 Length (in minutes): 5 Minutes Agenda Title: Contract Award - Grounds Maintenance for Water, Water Quality, and City Facilities Prepared For: Joseph Barrett Submitted By: Joseph Barrett, Financial and Information Services Local Contract Item Type: Motion Requested Meeting Type: Review Board Public Hearing Newspaper Legal Ad Required ?: No Public Hearing Publication Date in Newspaper: Information ISSUE Shall the Local Contract Review Board award a contract for grounds maintenance at various city facilities and water and water quality sites to Portland Habilitation Center Northwest, Inc., an Oregon Qualified Rehabilitation Facility. STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST Staff recommends that the Local Contract Review Board award the contract for grounds maintenance at various city facilities and water and water quality sites to Portland Habilitation Center Northwest, Inc. for an estimated $600,000 over the next five years ($120,000 annually) and authorize the City Manager to take the necessary steps to execute the contract. KEY FACTS AND 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 products or a service meets their requirements. A Qualified Rehabilitation Facility is a non - profit organization that puts Oregonians with disabilities to work. It is a place of business and a training facility; with workshops, equipment, class and meeting rooms, offices and other business necessities. Many QRFs have other business locations as well, such as a downtown office, bakery or mail room. 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. A QRF often has a variety of programs to help disabled people achieve maximum economic and personal independence through vocational development. 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). Disabled people are referred to a QRF from the Vocational Rehabilitation or Mental Health Divisions of the Oregon Department of Human Services. Every QRF puts a lot of energy into finding and creating opportunities that provide jobs for disabled people, as well as quality products or services to their customers. One of the services that a number of QRF vendors provide is grounds maintenance. The city has a need for grounds maintenance services at various city facilities and water and water quality sites. Due to this need, staff reached out to Portland Habilitation Center, a QRF that operates out of Portland and is authorized by the state to cover Washington County, regarding their interest in the work. Portland Habilitation expressed interest in the work and staff from both the city and the vendor reviewed the scope of services and, in accordance with state process and statute, agreed to pricing for the work. The pricing must be detailed in "costing workbooks" approved by the state and limits the amount of overhead and reserve the QRF can charge a city. Once completed, the price determination was forwarded to the state for approval, again in accordance with state guidelines. Approval of the pricing was received from the state (attached to this Summary) thus allowing the contract to move forward to the Local Contract Review Board for award. As such, and in accordance with the "Products of Disabled Individuals" Act (ORS 279.835 to ORS 279.855), staff recommends the Local Contract Review Board award the contract for grounds maintenance at various city facilities and water and water quality quantity sites to Portland Habilitation Center Northwest, Inc. Staff estimates an annual spend against the contract of $120,000 which brings the total amount of the contract to a possible $600,000 over the five year life of the contract. OTHER ALTERNATIVES COUNCIL GOALS, POLICIES, APPROVED MASTER PLANS DATES OF PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION This is the first time this award recommendation has been presented to the Local Contract Review Board. Fiscal Impact Cost: 600,000 Budgeted (yes or no): Yes Where budgeted ?: Storm, Water, General /Facilities Additional Fiscal Notes: The contract is estimated at $120,000 annually for a lifetime total of $600,000. Stormwater will appropriate approximately $67,518 /annually, Water approximately $18,300 /annually, and General /Facilities approximately $34,182 /annually. Attachments State Approval - Grounds Maintenance AIS- 1244 7 Business Meeting Meeting Date: 04/23/2013 Length (in minutes): 30 Minutes Agenda Title: Consider a Resolution Adjusting Solid Waste Rates and the Solid Waste Franchise Fee Prepared For: Michelle Wright Submitted By: Greer Gaston, Public Works Council Business Meeting - Item Type: Resolution Meeting Type: Main Public Hearing Newspaper Legal Ad Required ?: No Public Hearing Publication Date in Newspaper: 1 , Information ISSUE Shall council: • Select a solid waste rate model from the following three options: cost of service, fixed rate or commercial subsidy? • Adopt a resolution adjusting solid waste rates based on the selected rate model and including a 1- percent increase in the solid waste franchise fee? STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST Select a rate model and adopt the resolution. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY The council discussed solid waste rate and franchise fee adjustments at its March 19, 2013, workshop meeting. During that meeting, the council requested the following additional information: • The number of customers in each service type. • Cost of service, fixed rate and commercial subsidy rate models. • Rate comparison with neighboring jurisdictions. The requested information is provided in the attached memo. The City of Tigard has two franchised solid waste haulers, Pride Disposal Company and Waste Management Incorporated. Every March these haulers provide the city with financial reports for the preceding calendar year as required by Tigard Municipal Code 11.04.090. Staff then reviews the reports in accordance with the Annual Haulers' Financial Report Review Procedure found in Resolution No. 01 -54 -A (attached). This resolution: • Sets an aggregate target profit rate of 10 percent annually for the solid waste haulers. • Automatically triggers a solid waste rate adjustment when the aggregate profit rate falls below 8 percent or exceeds 12 percent. The aggregate profit rate for 2012 was 4.22 percent. Since the aggregate profit rate falls below 8 percent, rates will need to be increased. The Tigard Municipal Code and Resolution No. 01 -54 -A dictate that rates are based on a cost of service model. The city retained Bell & Associates, an accounting firm with expertise in the solid waste industry, to review the cost of service by customer class. The review is attached as the2012 Reported Results & General Recommendations for Solid Waste Rate Incnzases; it identified some interclass subsidies. Namely, commercial customers are subsidizing drop boxes and residential customers. Additionally, last spring the Tigard Budget Committee held several hearings regarding the current fiscal year 2012 -2013 budget. In the course of those hearings, the committee reviewed franchise fees. Staff was instructed to prepare a 1- percent solid waste franchise fee increase for council consideration and to bring the increase before the council the next time solid waste rates are adjusted. The 1- percent franchise fee increase would bring the fee up to 5 percent, which is consistent with other city franchise fees. Staff estimates the increase will generate an additional $90,000 annually. At the request of council, the city's solid waste consulting firm, Bell & Associates, developed three rate models: cost of service, fixed rate and commercial subsidy. These rate models are attached as options 1, 2 and 3 respectively. The 1- percent increase in the franchise fee has been factored into all the rate model options. The council is asked to select one of the rate model options and consider —via resolution —adopting the corresponding adjusted rates which includes a 1- percent increase in the solid waste franchise fee. The adjusted rates will become Exhibit A to the resolution. OTHER ALTERNATIVES The council could: • Choose not to select a rate model and not to adopt adjusted solid waste rates and the solid waste franchise fee increase. Such a decision is contrary to the procedure outlined in Resolution No. 01 -54A. • Propose a different rate model than the three models provided in this agenda item. • Give staff direction on some other course of action. COUNCIL OR CCDA GOALS, POLICIES, MASTER PLANS Tigard City Council Priorities for 6 -Month Focus in 2013 Financial Sustainability • Maximize franchise revenue - Implement solid waste franchise fee increases DATES OF PREVIOUS CONSIDERATION The council discussed rate models, solid waste rate adjustments and the franchise fee increase at its March 19, 2013, workshop meeting. Fiscal Impact Cost: n/a Budgeted (yes or no): n/a Where Budgeted (department /program): n/a Additional Fiscal Notes: Last spring the Tigard Budget Committee held several hearings regarding the current fiscal year 2012 -2013 budget. In the course of those hearings, the committee reviewed franchise fees. Staff was instructed to prepare a 1- percent solid waste franchise fee increase for council consideration and to bring the increase before the council the next time solid waste rates are adjusted. The 1- percent franchise fee increase would bring the fee up to 5 percent, which is consistent with other city franchise fees. The increase has been factored into all the rate model options. Staff estimates the increase will generate an additional $90,000 annually. Attachments Resolution Rate Model Options Memo Addressing Questions /Issues from the March 19 Workshop Meeting 2012 Results Review & General Recommendations for Solid Waste Rate Increases III ■ " City of Tigard R Memorandum To: The Honorable Mayor and City Councilors From: Business Manager Michelle Wright Re: Responses to Solid Waste Questions /Issues Raised During the March 19, 2013, Workshop Meeting Date: April 9, 2013 The council discussed solid waste rate and franchise fee adjustments at its March 19, 2013, workshop meeting. During that meeting, the council requested the following additional information: • The number of customers in each service type. • Cost of service, fixed rate and commercial subsidy rate models. • Rate comparison with neighboring jurisdictions. This information is included in the following tables. The council also briefly discussed de- regulating drop box service. In 2012, the city received $84,955 in franchise fees from drop box services. If this service was de- regulated, the city would lose this revenue and would likely see an increase in the number of trips made by area solid waste haulers. Increased trips would have a negative impact on traffic, the condition of city streets, fuel consumption, etc. Tigard Customer Cart Count and Solid Waste Rate Including Franchise Fee (Option 1, Option 2 and Option 3) Residential Collection OPTION 1 OPTION 2 OPTION 3 Residential CCounter ^� of TIGARDteurrent Cost of Service Fixed Rate Commercial Subsidy Customers INCREASE RATE INCREASE RATE INCREASE RATE 20 al 1,655 13% 51 - .80 13" 520. l 0 10.39° ° 310.65 9.6° S19.50 32 al 8,577 67% 520.60 11% 577. 1 0.44% 5 8.3% S22.30 60 _al 1,903 15% 531- - 5 53 - 0 5 10 7 1% S35.00 5.4 533.45 90 _al 515 4% 338.35 6% 540.03 10.30% $42.30 ' 16 /0 540.05 On call 189 1% 51 0.85 5 1 1 . 1 3 10.60% S12.00 4.1 S 1 1.30 Commercial Collection hard 78 0"% S93.14 ' 399.04 -.30% $99.94 1.5 yard 78 9 SI 19.62 ° 5128.35 7.30 °% S128.35 9.9% $131.46 2 yard 198 22% -ii. 5133.67 7 .30% S153.62 1111 ` .. 3 yard 169 19% S190.13 Z,,5204.0 I -.30 S204.01 9.9% $208.9 4 yard 187 21% S237.10 41 7 .30% S254.41 41111111 5 and 46 5% S284.12 L .56 - .30% S304.86 9.9% $312.25 6 yard 109 12°0 7 .30% 5355.00 4 8 and 44 5" $425.65. r 5 -.30% S456.72 9.9% $467.78 1 and com acted Wrillinillt 522 -1. 7 .30% S224.87 = 2 and com acted 5322. 1 3 - k . $345. - .30° % S345.65 9.9% $354.02 3 and corn acted S42 - . - 8 , 111.1.111•01 7.30% $459.01 MI 4 yard com acted $533. -18 '. 300 1 .4_2 7.30% $572.42 9.9% S586.29 Drop Box Service dbilthiliillif 10 Cubic Yards S109.00 2316 5131 00 23.00% S134.00 23.0% $134.00 20 Cubic Yards S109 ^^ irk, S I HI& 23.00% 5134.00 30 Cubic Yards 5109.00 S 1 341I 23.00"'. S134.00 23.0% $134.00 40 Cubic Yards S109.00 MO 5134.00 23.00% S134.00 "MI� All Com actors 5100 00 28°;, ill S 1 28.00% S140.00 28.0% $140.00 Delivery 563.011 8" ��r 368.00 8.00% S68.00 Medical Waste Collection Service On -Site Pick -u Char !e S28.50 52850 $28.50 Dis .osal Cost cr 17 to 31 _allon unit S13.90 $13.90 1 1.111.111 Disposal Cost per 43 gallon unit S14.80 S14.80 514.80 Rate Comparison Residential Collection Residential Proposed Tigard Hillsboro Beaverton * Wash County 20 gal $20.10 $18.65 $18.00 $20.10 32 gal $22.90 $22.35 $21.00 $21.88 60 gal $34.05 $32.20 $34.00 $31.75 90 gal $40.65 $41.90 $40.00 $37.54 On call $11.45 $11.65 $10.75 $9.24 Commercial Collection Container Size Proposed Tigard Hillsboro Beaverton Wash County 1 yard $99.94 $79.40 $85.53 $84.56 1.5 yard $128.35 103.71 $113.10 $106.14 2 yard $153.62 128.08 $136.20 $127.78 3 yard $204.01 176.63 $182.22 $170.82 4 yard $254.41 225.29 $228.27 $214.00 6 yard $355.00 321.94 $320.21 $299.62 8 yard $456.72 420.67 $413.06 $387.55 Drop Box Service Drop Box Size Proposed Tigard Hillsboro Beaverton Wash County 10 Cubic Yards $134.00 $127.00 $117.00 $147.00 20 Cubic Yards $134.00 $127.00 $117.00 $147.00 30 Cubic Yards $134.00 $137.00 $132.00 $175.00 40 Cubic Yards $134.00 $157.00 $132.00 $175.00 All Compactors $140.00 $160.00 $157.00 $224.00 Delivery $68.00 $ 40.00 $58.00 $60.00 * The City of Beaverton is considering increasing the residential rates by approximately $2.19 to fund the compressed natural gas fleet upgrade. Bell & Associates 2012 Reported Results & General Recommendations for Solid Waste Rate Increases The reported results from collection operations during the calendar year 2012 show a composite return of 4.22% for all services. The following table is a summary of the results by service: Line of Business Residential Commercial Drop Box Composite Revenue 3,626,880 3,373,056 2,256,750 9,256,686 Expense 3,484,198 3,076,002 2,305,427 8,865,627 Income 142,682 297,054 - 48,677 391,059 Operating Margin 3.93% 8.81% -2.16% 4.22% While there is further analysis to be completed on these figures, the above amounts will not change significantly. Additional costs such as increases in disposal fees, labor, and capital purchases that will be incurred in 2013 and beyond will be incorporated into the rates and presented to the Council in the future. It is assumed the City will continue the policy of setting the rates for each line of business at the cost of service. The two areas of concern are residential service where the reported result is 3.93% and drop box service is - 2.16 %. Residential rates were last adjusted in January 2006 when the City implemented the commingled roll cart recycling program. Assuming no changes to the current collection system, the estimated increased for residential service will range from $3.00 to $3.50 (15% to 17 %) per customer per month. This increase includes the additional 1% increase in franchise fees. While this is a significant amount, consider the following increases incurred by the hauler since 2006: Expense 2006 Cost 2012 Cost $ Increase % Increase Driver Wage per Hour $20.22 $24.52 $4.30 21.3% Health Ins. per Month $739 $1,223 $484 65.5% Diesel Fuel per Gallon $2.16 $3.20 $1.04 48.1% SW Disposal per Ton $74.20 $97.52 $23.32 31.4% Automated Collection Truck $202,000 $300,000 $98,000 48.5% The US Bureau of Labor has calculated the CPI increase at 14.4% from 2006 to 2012 for the Portland -Salem area. One approach that may be of interest to the City Council is to consider setting residential collection rates on a service delivery approach. This is the current method used to assess the collection services in King City. The rate is calculated on the base level of services currently being delivered rather than on the size of the garbage cart. The charge for garbage would be comprised of two components: the fixed cost and the disposal. The fixed costs would be included in the monthly service fee and the disposal cost would be charged on a per gallon basis when the cart is set out for collection. This method encourages residents to divert more materials to the recycling cart. In addition, it doesn't penalize customers that have large families who generate more than 32 gallons of waste a week. Drop box service will require an increase. The modified approach will be set on the average time required to provide these services. The significant change will be the consideration of the additional time required to service roll -off compactors. Commercial rates will increase slightly when recalibrated to the allowable margin. The topic for Council discussion will be commercial food waste collection and the impact on collection rates and operations. The reported costs for each line of business are detailed on the following spreadsheet for Council review. City of Tigard Solid Waste and Recycling Rate Review Reported 2012 Return on Revenues Residential Service Commercial Service Grand Solid Waste Recycling Yard Debris Solid Waste Recycling Drop Box Totals Collection & Service Revenues 3,498,642 92,827 35,411 3,276,147 96,909 2,256,750 9,256,686 % of direct % of direct % of direct % of direct % of direct % of direct Direct Costs of Operations 1,691,970 costs 796,691 costs 395,636 costs 2,121,006 costs 474,308 costs 2,058,293 costs 7,537,904 Disposal Expense 748,850 44% 10,277 1% 73,918 19% 1,194,370 56% 1,532 0% 1,238,714 60% 3,267,659 Labor Expense 396,876 23% 389,809 48% 163,808 41% 427,493 20% 251,537 53% 396,706 19% 2,006,229 Truck Expense 283,784 17% 243,025 31% 102,827 26% 227,727 11% 154,504 33% 240,061 12% 1,251,928 Equipment Expense 81,817 4% 45,049 6% 34,348 9% 93,089 4% 29,805 6% 44,420 2% 308,526 Franchise Fees 141,878 8% 2,269 0% 0 0% 130,841 6% 2,714 1% 84,955 4% 362,257 Other Direct Expense 58,965 3% 128,282 16% 20,739 5% 47,688 2% 34,216 7% 53,437 3% 341,305 % of G&A % of G&A % of G&A % of G&A % of G&A % of G&A Indirect Costs of Operations 254,241 costs 261,992 costs 83,459 costs 321,997 costs 158,493 costs 247,015 costs 1,327,197 Management Expense 51,924 20% 55,253 21% 18,174 22% 65,628 20% 33,740 21% 50,447 20% 275,164 Administrative Expense 73,692 29% 78,595 30% 28,087 31% 92,941 29% 48,110 30% 71,470 29% 390,875 Other Overhead Expenses 128,825 51% 128,144 49% 39,218 47% 163,430 51% 76,543 48% 125,098 51% 661,158 Total Cost 1,946,211 1,058,683 479,095 2,443,003 632,801 2,305,308 8,865,101 Less Unallowable Costs - 111 - -10 -155 -43 -119 -526 Allowable Costs 1,946,322 1,058,771 479,105 2,443,158 832,844 2,305,427 8,865,627 Franchise Income 1,552,320 - 965,944 - 443,694 832,989 - 535,935 - 48,877 391,059 Return on revenues 44.37% - 1040.59% - 1252.98% 25,43% -553.03% -2.16% 4.22% Revenues 3,626,880 3,373,056 2,256,750 9,256,686 %ot %of revenue revenue Direct Costs of Operations 2,884,297 80% 2,595,314 77% 2,058,293 7,537,904 Indirect Costs of Operations 599,692 17% 480,490 14% 247,015 1,327,197 Total Cost 3,483,989 3,075,804 2,305,308 8,865,101 Less Unallowable Costs -209 0% -198 0% -119 -526 Allowable Costs 3,484,198 3.076,002 2,305,427 8,865,627 Franchise Income 142,682 297,054 -48,877 391,059 Retum on revenues 2012 3.93% 8.81% -2.16% 4.22% 3/6/2013 Prepared by Bell Associates 10:21 AM Date: April 23, 2013 PUBLIC COMMENT SIGN -IN SHEET FOR AGENDA ITEM No. 7 - Solid Waste Rate Model and Solid Waste Rates and Franchise Fee Increases PLEASE PRINT Proponent — (Speaking 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. Due to schedule constraints the Mayor may choose to limit testimony time. Rate Model Options Requested by Council (All rates include 1- percent franchise fee increase.) Option 1 —Cost of Service Option 2 —Fixed Rate Option 3 — Commercial Subsidy Selected Option Will Be Exhibit A to Resolution City of Tigard (OPTION 2 -Fixed Rate Increase) Solid Waste & Recycling Collection Rates - July 1, 2013 Residential Cart Recyling and Franchsie Fee Increased to 5% Residential Cart Colleciton Rates Recycling only (recycling carts & yard debris cart) $ 11.85 (recycling cart only) $ 6.35 (yard debris only) $ 5.50 Mini cart (20 gal) with yard debris $ 19.65 without yard debris $ 17.40 Cart (32 gal) with yard debris $ 22.75 without yard debris $ 20.40 Cart (60 gal) with yard debris $ 35.00 Cart (90 gal) with yard debris $ 42.30 On -call service (mixed waste, recycling cart and yard debris) $ 12.00 Commercial Cart Collection Rates Cart Size 20 gallon $ 19.65 32 gallon $ 22.75 60 gallon $ 35.00 90 gallon $ 42.30 Commercial Container Collection Rates Every- other- Weekly Collection Frequency week One Two Three Four Five One yard $ 61.18 $ 99.94 $ 186.87 $ 270.42 $ 353.98 $ 437.75 Each additional 65.55 126.44 187.20 247.96 308.86 One and 1/2 yards 71.98 128.35 236.88 345.32 453.77 562.31 Each additional 90.78 176.45 262.10 347.74 433.42 Two yards 84.38 153.62 286.94 420.26 553.57 686.88 Each additional 116.07 226.52 337.04 447.55 557.99 Three yards 109.25 204.01 387.07 570.03 753.02 936.09 Each additional 166.44 326.64 486.81 647.00 807.20 Four yards 134.14 254.41 487.24 719.86 952.48 1,188.53 Each additional 217.39 426.81 636.63 846.47 1,056.42 Five yards 158.9 304.86 587.23 869.62 1,152.00 1,434.39 Each additional 267.30 526.83 786.39 1,045.97 1,305.50 Six yards 183.79 355.00 687.15 1,019.18 1,351.21 1,683.34 Each additional 317.45 626.72 935.93 1,245.18 1,554.47 Eight yards 233.44 456.72 888.16 1,319.62 1,751.05 2,182.50 Each additional 419.17 827.74 1,236.39 1,645.03 2,053.61 1 yard compacted $ 224.87 $ 420.47 $ 608.46 $ 796.47 $ 984.96 2 yard compacted 345.65 645.62 945.60 1,245.55 1,545.50 3 yard compacted 459.01 870.88 1,282.53 1,694.25 2,106.15 4 yard compacted 572.42 1,096.29 1,619.68 2,143.07 2,674.18 Drop Box Collection Service 10 Cubic Yard Container $ 134.00 Demurrage 20 Cubic Yard Container $ 134.00 $ 5.00 10 / 20 Yard Box after 48 hours 30 Cubic Yard Container $ 134.00 $ 6.60 30 Yard Box after 48 hours 40 Cubic Yard Container $ 134.00 $ 6.60 40 Yard Box after 48 hours All Compactors $ 140.00 $ 8.00 Drop Box with Lid Delivery $ 68.00 Service Fee plus actual disposal cost and franchise fee Medical Waste Collection Service On -Site Pick -up Charge $ 28.50 Rate is the on -site collection Disposal Cost per 17 to 31 gallon unit $ 13.90 charge plus the disposal cost per Disposal Cost per 43 gallon unit $ 14.80 medical container unit City of Tigard (OPTION 3- Commercial Subsidy) Solid Waste & Recycling Collection Rates - July 1, 2013 Residential Cart Recyling and Franchsie Fee Increased to 5% Residential Cart Collectton Rates Recycling only (recycling carts & yard debris cart) $ 12.50 (recycling cart only) $ 6.70 (yard debris only) $ 5.80 Mini cart (20 gal) with yard debris $ 19.50 without yard debris $ 17.25 Cart (32 gal) with yard debris $ 22.30 without yard debris $ 19.95 Cart (60 gal) with yard debris $ 33.45 Cart (90 gal) with yard debris $ 40.05 On -call service (mixed waste, recycling cart and yard debris) $ 11.30 Commercial Cart Collection Rates Cart Size 20 gallon $ 19.50 32 gallon $ 22.30 60 gallon $ 33.45 90 gallon $ 40.05 Commercial Container Collection Rates Every- other- Weekly Collection Frequency week One Two Three Four Five One yard $ 62.66 $ 102.36 $ 191.40 $ 276.97 $ 362.56 $ 448.36 Each additional 67.14 129.51 191.73 253.97 316.35 One and 1/2 yards 73.72 131.46 242.62 353.69 464.77 575.93 Each additional 92.98 180.73 268.45 356.16 443.92 Two yards 86.43 157.34 293.89 430.45 566.99 703.52 Each additional 118.88 232.01 345.21 458.39 571.51 Three yards 111.9 208.95 396.45 583.84 771,27 958.77 Each additional 170.48 334.56 498.61 662.68 826.76 Four yards 137.39 260.57 499.04 737.31 975.56 1,217.33 Each additional 222.66 437.15 652.06 866.98 1,082.02 Five yards 162.75 312.25 601.46 890.70 1,179.92 1,469.14 Each additional 273.77 539.60 805.45 1,071.32 1,337.13 Six yards 188.25 363.60 703.80 1,043.87 1,383.95 1,724.13 Each additional 325.14 641.90 958.61 1,275.36 1,592.13 Eight yards 239.1 467.78 909.68 1,351.59 1,793.48 2,235.38 Each additional 429.32 847.80 1,266.35 1,684.89 2,103.37 1 yard compacted $ 230.32 $ 430.67 $ 623.21 $ 815.80 $ 1,008.85 2 yard compacted 354.02 661.26 968.53 1,275.75 1,582.94 3 yard compacted 470.13 892.00 1,313.62 1,735.33 2,157.20 4 yard compacted 586.29 1,122.85 1,658.97 2,195.04 2,739.03 Drop Box Collection Service 10 Cubic Yard Container $ 134.00 Demurrage 20 Cubic Yard Container $ 134.00 $ 5.00 10 / 20 Yard Box after 48 hours 30 Cubic Yard Container $ 134.00 $ 6.60 30 Yard Box after 48 hours 40 Cubic Yard Container $ 134.00 $ 6.60 40 Yard Box after 48 hours All Compactors $ 140.00 $ 8.00 Drop Box with Lid Delivery $ 68.00 Service Fee plus actual disposal cost and franchise fee Medical Waste Collection Service On -Site Pick -up Charge $ 28.50 Rate is the on -site collection Disposal Cost per 17 to 31 gallon unit $ 13.90 charge plus the disposal cost per Disposal Cost per 43 gallon unit $ 14.80 medical container unit