08/06/1998 - Minutes COMMUNITY HOUSING TASK FORCE MEETING
Minutes of
Thursday, August 6, 1998
Tigard City Hall
MEMBERS PRESENT: Paul Alig, Henry Alvarez III (for Susan Wilson), Renita Gerard
(for Sheila Greenlaw-Fink), Sally Parks, and Councilor Ken Scheckla.
MEMBERS ABSENT: Sharon Fleming-Barrett, Emily Cedarleaf, Cecilia Maciel and
Dedi Streich.
ALSO PRESENT: Margaret M. Carley (Oregon Health Care Association), Sally
Goodwin (Oregon Alliance of Senior and Health Services), Donald Nyberg (Oregon
State Health Division) June Sulffridge (Adult Care Providers of Oregon, Washington
County Chapter), Eric McMullen, Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue, and David Scott,
Building Official, City of Tigard.
The meeting was convened at approximately 1:15 p.m.
I. SELF INTRODUCTIONS:
Self introductions were made.
11. APPROVAL OF JULY 9, 1998, MEETING MINUTES
The minutes were approved.
III. WORK SESSION:
A. Discussion of Social Care Facilities.
(Staff note: the following is intended to summarize the comments and
discussion from the meeting. The summary is not necessarily presented in
the order discussed at the meeting, but is organized to facilitate quick
review. The audio tapes of the meeting are available for review.)
• Staff and Parks began discussion by reviewing the purpose of the meeting.
• Margaret Carley, representing the Oregon Health Care Association,
addressed the Task Force concerning I and SR occupancies (nursing,
assisted living and residential care facilities). Carley indicated that her
organization would like to see these facilities excluded from the ordinance.
Carley's arguments in support of this position are presented in her submitted
written comments, titled "Tigard Municipal Code," attached. Sally Goodwin,
representing the Oregon Alliance questioned whether there have been any
specific problems in Tigard with respect to these facilities to indicate that the
current regulatory scheme was inadequate.
Community Housing Task Force Meeting
Minutes of July 9, 1998
Page 2
• June Sulffridge, representing the Washington County Chapter of Adult Care
Providers of Oregon (Adult Foster Care Homes, R3 occupancies - essentially
single-family dwellings), indicated that her organization would like to see
these facilities excluded from the ordinance as well. Sulffridge's arguments in
support of this position are presented in her submitted written comments,
attached.
• Don Nyberg (Oregon Health Division) commented that it will be very difficult
for a local ordinance to address all of the various types of social care
facilities. Each of these types of facilities have unique circumstances which
are reflected in licensing rules. It will be very difficult to incorporate all of this
in a local ordinance, resulting in conflicting and cumbersome regulation.
• Eric McMullen, Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue, recommended that the Task
Force exclude I and SR occupancies from the ordinance. Responding to
Task Force questions regarding the adequacy of existing licensing and fire
code regulations and enforcement, McMullen indicated that the existing
regulatory scheme is adequate and that additional local regulation would be
redundant and cumbersome for I and SR occupancies. Responding to a
similar question regarding R3 occupancies (Adult Foster Care), McMullen
indicated that TVFR cannot inspect these facilities unless invited by the
state.
• Throughout the discussion, the Task Force posed questions to the Social
Care Facility provider representatives. Issues raised included:
Q. Do state regulations for these facilities address the exterior condition of the
building?
A. Yes.
Q. What happens if the state realizes they cannot regulate in an area they think
should be regulated?
A. New rules may be promulgated.
Q. What is the "problem" in including these facilities if they most likely will not
have violations of Tigard's ordinance (since they comply with generally stricter
state requirements) and inclusion provides a safety net just in case there is an
issue not addressed at the state level?
A. (Carley re: I and SR occupancies): An additional layer of regulation will add
costs due to the increased compliance effort (they must be aware of and pro-
active regarding the regulations) and increased coordination with other
regulations and agencies. These costs do not seem warranted given that
Tigard's ordinance does not appear to add value to the existing adequate
regulatory scheme.
A. (Sulffridge re: R3 occupancies): Similar comments regarding the adequacy of
the current regulatory scheme and concern that a complaint based system is
Community Housing Task Force Meeting
Minutes of July 9, 1998
Page 3
flawed because complaints can be and often are frivolous, resulting in "negative"
records in a file for a property for no real reason.
• Carley, addressing the issue of direct conflicts between state licensing rules
and Tigard's ordinance, suggested that there appear to be two options for
addressing this issue: (1) not including licensed facilities and (2) providing
and maintaining a long list of detailed exemptions for these facilities within
the body of the ordinance.
• McMullen commented that short of excluding these facilities, language in the
ordinance deferring to state license and fire code requirements (so that
Tigard's requirements were not an additional layer) might mitigate some of
the concerns. Staff and others expressed concern that this would require
Tigard's staff to become enforcers of requirements from other agencies,
dictating the need to become articulate in these other requirements.
• Staff indicated that the preliminary staff recommendation is to exclude
occupancies from the ordinance, because the purpose of housing regulations
is not to regulate housing uses, not institutional uses. Staff is ambivalent with
respect to SR occupancies because some of these uses can be very similar
to "non social care facility" residential uses (although some more resemble
institutions). Staff is more ambivalent with respect to R3 occupancies (Adult
Foster Care) because these facilities are essentially single-family dwellings.
Staff is concerned that Tigard's ordinance would add another layer of
regulation and may result in conflicting requirements which would have to be
addressed throughout the ordinance (a cumbersome task which could be
performed).
• It was indicated that the current definition of Social Care Facility will need to
be revised to strike "Adult Foster Care." Adult Foster Care by definition is a
single-family dwelling and is already included within the existing definition of
single-family dwelling (unless explicitly excluded). The Social Care Facility
definition is scoped to include those uses with more than three dwelling units.
B. Other
No other items were considered.
IV. MEETING SCHEDULE CONFIRMATION:
Staff will send a fax requesting availability for several dates for future meetings.
V. ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at approximately 3:15 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
David Scott, Building Official i:\bldgkfavidlcommhous\minutes\mino8o6.doc