City Council Packet - 12/17/2019 1111 City of Tigard
Tigard Workshop Meeting—Agenda
TIGARD
es
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE AND TIME: December 17, 2019 - 6:30 p.m.
MEETING LOCATION: City of Tigard-Town Hall- 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, OR 97223
PUBLIC NOTICE:
Times noted are estimated.
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 503-718-2419 (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).
VIEW LIVE VIDEO STREAMING ONLINE:
htto://www.tigard-or.gov/city hall/council meeting.php
Workshop meetings are cablecast on Tualatin Valley Community TV as follows:
Replay Schedule for Tigard City Council Workshop Meetings-Channel 28
'Every Sunday at 12 a.m.
•Every Monday at 1 p.m.
•Every Wednesday at 2 p.m.
'Every Thursday at 12 p.m.
•Every Friday at 10:30 a.m.
SEE ATTACHED AGENDA
III City of Tigard
Tigard Workshop Meeting—Agenda
TIGARD
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE AND TIME: December 17, 2019 - 6:30 p.m.
MEETING LOCATION: City of Tigard - Town Hall- 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, OR 97223
6:30 PM
1. WORKSHOP MEETING
A. Call to Order- City Council
B. Roll Call
C. Pledge of Allegiance
D. Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items
2. JOINT MEETING WITH THE PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD
6:35 p.m. estimated time
3. EXTERNAL FINANCIAL AUDIT AND CAFR PRESENTATION WITH MOSS ADAMS
7:20 p.m. estimated time
4. JOINT MEETING WITH THE BUDGET COMMITTEE 7:50 p.m. estimated time
5. RECEIVE BRIEFING ON SAFE LOTS AND TRANSITIONAL CAMPGROUNDS 8:30
p.m. estimated time
6. RECEIVE LOCAL OPTION LEVY UPDA 1'E AND REPORT ON COMMUNITY SURVEY
RESULTS 8:50 p.m.estimated time
7. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council may go into Executive Session. If an Executive
Session is called to order, the appropriate ORS citation will be announced identifying the applicable
statute.All discussions are confidential and those present may disclose nothing from the Session.
Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend Executive Sessions, as provided by ORS
192.660(4),but must not disclose any information discussed. No Executive Session may be held for
the purpose of taking any final action or making any final decision. Executive Sessions are closed to
the public.
8. NON AGENDA ITEMS
9. ADJOURNMENT 9:30 p.m. estimated time
AIS-3986 2.
Workshop Meeting
Meeting Date: 12/17/2019
Length (in minutes): 45 Minutes
Agenda Title: Joint meeting with the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board
Prepared For: Steve Martin, Public Works Submitted By: Steve
Martin,
Public
Works
Item Type: Joint Meeting-Board or Other Juris. Meeting Type: Council
Workshop
Mtg.
Public Hearing: No Publication Date:
Information
ISSUE
J oint Meeting with the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST
Staff recommends the Council meet with the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board.
KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY
The Parks and Recreation Advisory Board (PRAB) meets annually with the council to discuss
items of importance to both. The joint meeting allows the PRAB to get direction from the
council and for the PRAB to advise the council on park and recreation related items. The
Park System Master Plan Update is just getting started, and the council will receive more
information in future months as that year-long study gets going. Discussion of the system
master plan will likely be a repeated topic at the meeting next year. For this year, the PRAB is
interested in the following topics:
•The PRAB appreciates the support from Council and the Budget Committee that
allowed the Recreation program to continue this year. The PRAB is interested in
discussing the future of the recreation program.
•The PRAB appreciates the council and Budget Committee support to fully staff parks
maintenance in 2020. There are more parks coming soon and the PRAB would like to
discuss the growing park maintenance needs.
•Discuss possible uses for the Transient Lodging Tax.
•Parks and recreation in the next few years - what is the best way to meet the growing
needs of Tigard?
•Are there any other topics of interest the council would like to discuss?
OTHER ALTERNATIVES
N/A
COUNCIL GOALS, POLICIES, APPROVED MASTER PLANS
The Parks and Recreation Advisory Board advises the Council on matters related to parks
and recreation and other associated Council goals.
DATES OF PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
The Council last met with the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board on November 20, 2018.
AIS-3934 3.
Workshop Meeting
Meeting Date: 12/17/2019
Length (in minutes): 30 Minutes
Agenda Title: External Financial Audit & CAFR Presentation with Moss Adams
Prepared For: Jared Isaksen, Finance and Information Services
Submitted By: Carol Krager, Central Services
Item Type: Meeting Type: Council
Workshop
Mtg.
Public Hearing: Publication Date:
Information
ISSUE
Present to the City Council the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) along with
other related communication and results from the external financial audit for the city and the
Tigard Town Center Development Agency for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2019. The
presentation may include recommendations for opportunities for improvement noted by
Moss Adams during the course of the audit.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST
No action required. Management, and the external auditors from Moss Adams will present
the CAFR and results from the audit to council.
KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY
Oregon Revised Statues 297.425 requires that every city publish a complete set of financial
statements presented in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the
United States of America (GAAP) and audited in accordance with auditing standards generally
accepted by a firm of licensed certified public accountants.
Moss Adams, the city's external audit firm, performed an audit of the city's financial
operations for fiscal year ending June 30, 2019. They reported their findings to the Audit
Committee on December 5, 2019. Their reports are included in the city's Comprehensive
Annual Financial Report (CAFR) and the TCDA financial report, which will be finalized and
delivered to the Council on December 12, 2019. Moss Adams will provide an overview of
audit procedures performed and highlight areas with opportunities for improvement or best
practices.
Additionally, the city's Comprehensive Annual Financial Report was submitted to the
Government Finance Officers' Association for their Excellence in Financial Reporting
Certificate program.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES
N/A
COUNCIL GOALS, POLICIES, APPROVED MASTER PLANS
N/A
DATES OF PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
Fiscal year 2018 audit presented to Council on 12/18/2019.
- X / + - X / J- - X / - X / + - X
/. + - X /. + - X /. + - X /. + - X /. +
X / + - X /. + - X / + -' X / + - X /.
+ - X / + - X / + - X / + - X / + -
/ + - X / + - X / + - >< / + - X / +
- X / + - X / + - X / + - X / + - X
+ - X / + - X .. + - X .. + - X / + -
X / + - X / + -' X _F. -- X % + - X
X / + - X / + -' / + - X / + - X
MOSSADAMS + - X + - X X / + - X +
X < + - X X + + X X + - X /
CityTigardof
Fiscal Year 2019 Audit Results
Council Presentation
December 17, 2019
SUPPIIMENTAL PACKET
(DATE OF MEETING)
Agenda
Nature of services provided O
Audit process
Audit opinions / reports
Required communications
Upcoming accounting standards
Nature of Services Provided
• Independent Auditors' Report on the financial statements of the City of Tigard and for
the Town Center Development Agency (a component of the City of Tigard)
• Report of Independent Auditors on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting and on
Compliance and Other Matters Based on an Audit of Financial Statements Performed
in Accordance with Government Auditing Standards
3 • Report of Independent Auditors on Compliance for the Major Federal Program and
Report on Internal Control over Compliance as Required by the Uniform Guidance
• Report of Independent Auditors' on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting and on
Compliance and Other Matters Based on an Audit of Financial Statements Performed
in Accordance with Oregon Minimum Audit Standards
Audit Process
C �
nR C
Internal Controls Analytical Procedures Substantive Procedures
-Includes IT -Revenue and expenses -Confirm account balances
-Revenues / cash receipting -Trends, comparisons, and -Vouch to supporting
-Cash disbursements expectations documentation
-Payroll -Representations from
-Capital assets attorneys and management
-Financial close & reporting -Examine objective evidence
0 Audit Opinion/ Reports
Government Oregon
Financial Auditing Minimum Audit Single Audit
® Statements Standards Standards Report
5 Report Report
Unmodified No findings No findings No findings
(clean) opinion
on financial
statement
Required Communication
Auditor's responsibility under auditing standards
Significant accounting policies
Management judgments & accounting estimates
Audit adjustments — see following slide
Management's consultation with other accountants
No disagreements with management
No difficulties in performing the audit
Audit observations and recommendations — No material
weaknesses noted — discussed with audit committee
Required Audit Communications
Audit Adjustments Amount
To reverse duplicate posting of the Clean
Water Services sewer and stormwater entry $913,000
for February
To correct entry for errors in posting the State
payroll tax withholding payment made in July $54,000
2019
Passed Adjustments Amounts
To record a loss on refunding — 2011 library $322,000
refunding bonds
To recognize donations received as revenue $184,000
Findings and Best Practices
Key Recommendations — Discussed with Audit Committee
• Utility billing
• Review access periodically to ensure only authorized individuals can
change rates in the billing system
• ITUser Access
• Review user access rights to ensure current listing of active users is
8 updated and no unauthorized access or segregation of duties issues
exist.
• Lake Oswego Tigard Water Partnership
• Recommend establishing a governing agreement to clearly stipulate
ownership of the assets, responsibilities for future maintenance and repair
costs, etc.
Audit Issues — NEW ACCOUNTING
PRONOUNCEMENTS
.....
..
New Standards Effective Date
GASB 83 — Certain Asset Retirement Obligations Effective now
GASB 88 — Certain disclosures related to debt Effective now
GASB 84 — Fiduciary Activities Period beginning after 12/15/18
GASB 87 — Leases Period beginning after 12/15/19
GASB 90 — Majority equity interests Period beginning after 12/15/18
GASB 91 — Conduit debt obligations Period beginning after 12/15/20
Audit Issues — NEW ACCOUNTING
i, PRONOUNCEMENTS
Alla
Other GASB Projects
Financial Reporting Model
Revenue & Expense Recognition
Public-private partnerships and availability payment
arrangements
Acknowledgements
Thank you Toby LaFrance, Jared lsaksen, Amy Lawson, and
their staff for their excellent facilitation of the audit process.
The audit progressed on time and in an orderly fashion; all
requested schedules and draft financial statements were received
on a timely basis.
All personnel across all departments were courteous, responsive,
and fulfilled all our requests in a timely manner.
'Tone at the Top' and attitude from management was one of
helpfulness, candor, and openness in response to audit requests
and discussion points.
riC)
CD
cin
•
0
•
„
I N
„
N
' N
N
+ N N +
+
AIS-4044 4.
Workshop Meeting
Meeting Date: 12/17/2019
Length (in minutes): 40 Minutes
Agenda Title: Joint Meeting with the Budget Committee
Prepared For: Toby LaFrance, Finance and Information Services
Submitted By: Liz Lutz, Finance and Information Services
Item Type: Budget Committee Meeting Type: Council
Workshop
Mtg.
Public Hearing: No Publication Date:
Information
ISSUE
Joint meeting with Budget Committee and City Council to discuss the 2021 budget process.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST
Staff will be seeking feedback from the Budget Committee on the FY 2020-21 budget process.
KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY
Staff received the City Manager's budget direction and instructions and are working on their
requested budgets for Fiscal Year 2020-2021 (FY 2021). The agenda for the joint Budget
Committee meeting is as follows:
1) Review the budget direction from City Manager Marty Wine.
2) Summary of instructions given to departments in order to comply with City Manager
Wine's direction.
3) Review of the budget calendar.
The primary direction needed in the meeting are:
A) Endorsement of Tigard's budget plan and direction.
B) Verification that the budget instructions meet the City Manager's and committee's needs.
C) Review the upcoming budget calendar for the committee.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES
Budget Committee may choose to change direction on the city's budget plan and request that
staff prepare a different budget than currently envisioned.
COUNCIL GOALS, POLICIES, APPROVED MASTER PLANS
DATES OF PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
Budget Committee last met on May 18, 2019.
Attachments
Policy Memo
Budget Calendar
Budget Committee Presentation on FY21 Process
.111 p City of Tigard
T I GARD Memorandum
To: All Staff
From: Marty Wine, City Manager
Re: FY 2020-2021 Budget Planning
Date: November 15, 2019
It is time to start planning another budget! As I outlined in my FY 2019-2020 Budget Message
(here) Tigard is financially stable, resource constrained, and service-level challenged. After the
failure of the May 2018 levy,we have spent the last two years reducing services to a level that
can be sustained with our growing population for the next 8-10 years.
Tigard will sustain service levels while our population grows through the use of savings called
the Service Level Reserve. This reserve is the result of the hard decisions that we have made
over the last two years. The purpose of the reserve is to fund small incremental changes to our
existing services intended to keep those services at a level similar to today as our community
grows. This reserve is not intended to create new services or significantly increase service levels.
I am asking General Fund and central service departments to prepare hold-the-line base budgets
for FY 2020-2021. Further, I am asking other services (utilities, building, CIP) prepare budgets
commensurate with their workload and available long-term resources. I will be working with
the Leadership Team between now and the end of February to decide what we will recommend
the Budget Committee to fund over and above the base budgets using the Service Level Reserve
and other non-General Fund city resources. Those discussions will focus on the following
priorities:
1. Implementing the Updated Strategic Plan
2. Achieving Council Goals
3. Implementing Performance Audit Recommendations, and
4. Facility Planning
These four areas are the focus of our organization that should be prioritized for funding. In
addition, many of these priorities can be addressed with one-time and limited duration project
costs. The more we can focus on short-term costs instead of adding ongoing costs, the longer
the Service Level Reserve and other city resources will last.
Lastly, on Tuesday November 12, 2019 Council provided continued direction to refer a local
option levy to the May 2020 ballot. Where the May 2018 Ballot sought to provide funding for a
mix of existing and increased service levels, this proposed local option levy will be different.
Council plans to refer a levy to voters that makes needed increases to Police services. This levy
will fund eight new officers for patrol,which will add one officer to minimum staffing for all
shifts and is intended to reduce response times. In addition, the levy will propose two new
officers for a Homeless Outreach Team and also advanced de-escalation training for all officers.
levy support, the will fund the su ort services needed to ensure that these ten new officers, and
all existing officers, receive the same level of support that our existing staff receives today.
To reinforce an important distinction listed above, the Service Level Reserve and the Local
Option Levy serve two very distinct functions. The Service Level Reserve is intended to
maintain service levels. It is relatively small in scope, about$500K per year and, like any reserve,
will eventually run out. By contrast, the levy is intended to increase service levels. It is much
larger in scope, about$2.8M per year, and as levy renewal is needed by voters every five years,
the services funded by the levy could continue indefinitely. Due to these important differences,
I am not recommending that the Service Level Reserve be used to fund, or supplement, the
services encompassed in the local option levy.
As always, please send any questions my way. And thank you for all that you do every day to
help the City of Tigard.
FY 2021 Budget Calendar Updated: 11/05/2019
ACTIVITY
Budget Training All Departments 11/20/2019 11/25/2019 Staff receive budget access after training is complete
Budget system open to department staff FIS 11/21/2019 11/21/2019
Department and CIP Budgets due to Finance All Departments 01/30/2020 01/30/2020 Changes in the budget system made by FIS staff after
this date.
Department texts and measures and perf. All Departments 02/13/2020 02/13/2020 Source from Performance Audit, Report Card,Strategic Plan,and
Measures due departmental plans.
Proposed Budget Decisions Finalized FIS/CM 03/19/2020 03/19/2020 All policy decisions finalized.
Proposed Budget sent to printers FIS 04/16/2020 04/16/2020
Proposed Budget Documents to Budget FIS 04/23/2020 04/23/2020
Committee and online
Optional Budget Committee Training FIS/Committee 04/23/2020 04/23/2020 Budget Law,Tigard Funds, Budget Document
Orientation
FIS/Community Q&A Sessions FIS 04/23/2020 05/06/2020 2 Sessions. Dates & Locations TBD.
FIS/ Budget Committee Q&A Sessions FIS/Committee 04/23/2020 05/06/2020 2 Sessions. Dates & Locations TBD.
Budget committee submit questions/issue paper FIS/Committee 04/23/2020 05/06/2020
topics to FIN
Budget Committee Hearing FIS/CM 05/16/2020 05/16/2020 8:30 AM to 4:30 PM. Determine Approved Budget
without Local Option Levy (LOL) and additional budget
for LOL that can be added on should the LOL pass.
Budget Committee Hearing FIS/CM 05/21/2020 05/21/2020 6:30 PM to Approval
Council adoption of FY 2021 Budget FIS 06/09/2020 06/09/2020
CITY OF TIGARD
Respect and Care I Do the Right Thing I Get it Done
1,11
TIGARD
g
Prep arin for FY 2020-2021
Budget Process
Budget Committee I December 17, 2019
CITY OF TIGARD
Agenda
Budget Memo from City Manager
Departmental Budget Instructions
Budget Calendar
Committee Feedback and Direction
Budget Memo from City Manager
Budget changes from last two years are complete.
Service Level Reserve used to make small budget
changes intended to maintain existing service
levels
Prioritize changes that support: Strategic Plan,
Council Goals, Performance Audit, & Facility
Planning
Preference given to limited duration projects to
extend life of reserve.
c ; T T Y OF TIG ARD
Budget Memo from City Manager
Purpose
Maintain Existing Expand Police
Service Levels Services
1Size $500K/Year $2.8M/ Year
Duration Finite: 6-10 Years Indefinite with
voter renewal
Service Level Reserve is not a responsible
option for funding expanded Police services.
( I I 1" 0 F T I G A R D
Summary of Budget Instructions
General Fund services have status quo budgets
Non-General Fund services are constrained by
long-term revenues and can request changes
to keep up with community demands.
Leadership Team discuss proposals beyond
status quo
c : 1 T Y OF TTGARD
Budget Calendar
Key Dates
April 23 : Proposed Budget Published and
Budget Committee Training
April 23-May 6: Q&A Sessions
May 6: Last day for committee members to
submit questions/issue paper topics
CITY OF TIGARD
Budget Calendar
Key Dates
May 16: Full Day Meeting. Determine
Approved Budget without levy and additional
budget required to be added with passage of
levy.
May 21 : Evening Meeting. Approve budget
based on levy vote outcome.
► June 9 : Council Budget Hearing.
CITY OF TIGARD
Budget Committee Guidance
Endorsement of Tigard 's budget plan and
direction .
Agreement that the budget instructions meet
Committee's needs.
Guidance on calendar steps and timing.
AIS-4074 5.
Workshop Meeting
Meeting Date: 12/17/2019
Length (in minutes): 20 Minutes
Agenda Title: Receive Briefing on Safe Lots and Transitional Campgrounds
Prepared For: Schuyler Warren, Community Development
Submitted By: Schuyler Warren, Community Development
Item Type: Update, Discussion, Direct Staff Meeting Type: Council
Workshop
Mtg.
Public Hearing: No Publication Date:
_
Information
ISSUE
Receive briefing on the definition and description of Safe Lots programs.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST
Information only. No action is requested.
KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY
The region and the state continue to cope with the impacts of a critical shortage of housing
units, including affordable units. Coupled with a perennial shortage in shelter options, there
simply are not enough places for people to go. Many houseless community members shelter
outdoors. Many more shelter in cars or recreational vehicles, parking wherever they believe
they will be safe from harassment. Neither option has positive results for the houseless
persons or the broader community. Without access to clean and safe sanitary, cooking, and
trash facilities, houseless community members are likely to create impacts that further isolate
them from the broader community and foster misunderstanding and mistrust. As a result,
cities are increasingly looking for alternatives that can help to shelter their houseless
community members safely, reduce the impacts of dispersed camping and overnight parking,
and provide opportunities for stabilization and transition.
Safe Lots (or Safe Parking) and Transitional Campgrounds* are two programs that have met
with success in cities all along the West Coast. Each provide a safe place for a houseless
community member to shelter in either their vehicle or a temporary structure.
Safe Lots can be a low-barrier option for houseless community members who can still legally
maintain and operate a vehicle. While sheltering in a vehicle is not ideal, for many working
people and seniors it is the only option. A Safe Lot offers an alternative to having that vehicle
parked on city streets, in parks, and in parking lots where there may be limited safety and
access to necessities.
State law provides a legal framework for cities to adopt regulations allowing Safe Lots on
properties with Religious Institution uses. These uses are limited in nature, being accessory to
the main use. Under state law, sanitation, trash and hand washing facilities must be provided,
and no more than three vehicles are allowed at one time on a property.
In adopting enabling ordinances, cities may apply additional standards and set the appropriate
procedures for approving Safe Lots. Examples of additional standards applied in other cities
include screening of the parking area from adjoining properties, security patrols, prohibitions
on substance use, and qualifying criteria for the persons sheltered.
Cities vary in their approach to approval; however, to keep the program attainable for the
Religious Institutions, approval criteria that focus on clear and objective criteria with some
limited discretion are recommended. Conditional Use approval represents a cost and time
barrier that most eligible institutions could not bear.
Tigard has been requested by Community Roundtable members to consider how to host or
allow safe lots within the city. The attached memo discusses recent local experiences with this
concept.
*Transitional Campgrounds are part of a spectrum of temporary shelter options for houseless
community members that are covered in the attached memo, but are not part of this agenda
item discussion.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES
Although no action is requested for this item, the Council will be requested to have a future
discussion about:
•Does Tigard wish to host a safe lot on its publicly owned property? What is the city
willing to do in terms of funding and staff to allow for this concept?
•What are the guidance, permits and regulations that need to be in place for a private
property owner to host a safe lot?
In addition, Council will be asked to consider addressing this need through a minor code
project or by including it in one of the current code projects in progress.
COUNCIL GOALS, POLICIES, APPROVED MASTER PLANS
Goal 4: Enhance two-way communication to understand community priorities and involve the
community in the decision-making process. Strategy 4.4: Promote an inclusive, open-minded,
and progressive community. Implement initiatives to improve city services and participation
that captures the diversity of the community and improves equity and inclusion.
DATES OF PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
Council has not considered safe lots previously.
Attachments
Briefing Memo
City of Tigard
TIGARD Memorandum
.a�
To: Honorable Mayor Jason Snider and Tigard City Council
From: Schuyler Warren, Associate Planner
Re: Safe Lots and Temporary Campgrounds
Date: December 2, 2019
Background
The region and the state continue to cope with the impacts of a critical shortage of housing
units,including affordable units. Coupled with a perennial shortage in shelter options, there
simply are not enough places for people to go. Many houseless community members shelter
outdoors. Many more shelter in cars or recreational vehicles, parking them wherever they
believe they will be safe from harassment. Neither option has positive results for either the
houseless persons or the broader community. Without access to clean and safe sanitary,
cooking, and trash facilities, houseless community members are likely to create impacts that
further isolate them from the broader community and foster misunderstanding and mistrust. As
a result, cities are increasingly looking for alternatives that can help to shelter their houseless
community members safely, reduce the impacts of dispersed camping and overnight parking,
and provide opportunities for stabilization and transition.
Two programs that have met with success in cities all along the West Coast are Safe Lots (or
Safe Parking) and Transitional Campgrounds. Each provide a safe place for houseless
community member to shelter in either their vehicle or a temporary structure.
Safe Lots can be a low-barrier option for houseless community members who can still legally
maintain and operate a vehicle. While sheltering in a vehicle is not ideal, for many it is the only
option, including many working people and seniors. A Safe Lot offers an alternative to having
that vehicle parked on city streets, in parks, and in parking lots where there may be limited safety
and access to necessities.
State law provides a legal framework for cities to adopt regulations allowing Safe Lots on
properties with Religious Institution uses. These uses are limited in nature, being accessory to
the main use. Under state law, sanitation, trash and hand washing facilities must be provided,
and no more than three vehicles are allowed at one time on a property.
In adopting enabling ordinances, cities may apply additional standards and set the appropriate
procedures for approving these uses. Examples of additional standards applied in other cities
include screening of the parking area from adjoining properties, security patrols, prohibitions on
substance use, and qualifying criteria for the persons sheltered.
Cities vary in their approach to approval; however, to keep the program attainable for the
Religious Institutions, approval criteria that focus on clear and objective criteria with some
limited discretion are recommended. Conditional Use approval represents a cost and time
barrier that most eligible institutions could not bear.
Transitional Campgrounds and Car Camping
In 1999, the Oregon Legislative Assembly (OLA) adopted SB 479 that provides cities with a
means to legally allow car camping. That legislation is codified in ORS 203.082:
(1) Any political subdivision in this state may allow churches, synagogues and similar
religious institutions to offer overnight camping space on institution property to
homeless persons living in vehicles.
(2) In addition to any conditions or limitations imposed by a political subdivision, a religious
institution located within the political subdivision and offering camping space described
under subsection (1) of this section must:
(a) Limit camping space at the institution site to three or fewer vehicles at the same time;
and
(b) Provide campers with access to sanitary facilities, including but not limited to toilet,
hand washing and trash disposal facilities.
The same year, SB 533 was passed, allowing the use of yurts in campgrounds in public and
private campgrounds, as well as up to two transitional campgrounds for houseless populations
within each municipality inside an urban growth boundary. The bill was the result of an odd
consortium of rural representatives seeking to loosen the regulations of private recreational
areas, urban representatives seeking to address increasing issues of homelessness, and the
country's first yurt manufacturer, located in Lane County.
In the 2019 session the OLA finally amended the bill to remove the upper limit on the number
of campgrounds as well as the requirement for yurts. In practice, several communities, including
Portland, had been interpreting the law more broadly allowing transitional campgrounds with
shelters other than yurts.
The transitional campground provisions in state law were the basis for allowing the Kenton
Women's Village in Portland, the Clackamas County Veterans'Village, Eugene's Opportunity
Village, and the Lane County Rest Stop Program. Each of these locations offer slightly different
accommodations,with the commonality that none are permanent dwelling units. An important
note is that while each of these locations utilize non-permanent housing, most are not actually
campgrounds, instead utilizing small constructed units to house their residents.
Role of Transitional Accommodations
In the continuum of shelter options, car camping and transitional campgrounds play an
important role. One of the greatest challenges in transitioning the houseless community to
permanent dwellings is the rate of recidivism.
Community members who have been living without shelter for extended periods of time have
high rates of trauma, and without a period of stabilization many do not find success when finally
housed. On the contrary, moving a houseless community member from dispersed camping to a
controlled and supportive environment such as a controlled car camping or transitional
encampment allows them to stabilize before moving on to permanent housing. Providers such
as Catholic Charities of Portland, the operator of the Kenton Women's Village and former
operator of the Veterans'Village, report much higher rates of success in making the change to
permanent housing for people who have first stabilized in transitional campgrounds.
Residential and Temporary Shelter Uses
In 2018, as part of the code package adopted with the Housing Options project, the CDC was
amended to comply with fair housing laws and to better define residential occupancy uses. Prior
to these changes, there existed three distinct residential uses — Household Living, Group Living,
and Transitional Housing. The code did not treat these uses equally, and the distinction between
each was not always clear. Treating Household and Group Living differentially ran afoul of fair
housing laws,which require equal treatment for group homes. Transitional Housing was defined
as having the same characteristics as Household and Group Living, but with shorter tenancy
periods of 45 days or less.
This code package included amendments that removed any differential treatment of Household
and Group Living, removed Transitional Housing from the residential use category altogether,
and instead created a Temporary Shelter use in the institutional use category. A current code
project will further collapse the Household and Group Living uses into a single use.
There are two key distinctions between Temporary Shelter and residential uses —tenancy and
facility. Temporary Shelter is arranged on less than a month-to-month basis and therefore does
not meet the threshold for a residential use. Further, it does not provide a proper dwelling unit.
Under the code, a dwelling unit includes facilities for cooking, sleeping, and sanitation, or at
least the opportunity to share those facilities. While there may be kitchen facilities in a shelter,
they are not shared and available for the use of the sheltered people.
It is not clear that either car camping or transitional campgrounds fit into the Temporary Shelter
use as currently written, although it is more likely that transitional campgrounds would qualify.
Even if they did qualify, Temporary Shelter uses are conditional in every zone where they are
allowed. It's not clear that the conditional use process is appropriate for this scale of use,
although some kind of discretionary process is likely warranted. The cost of a conditional use
permit for what is essentially a temporary use is in itself prohibitive and would likely preclude
potential community partners from pursuing these options.
Religious Institutions and Temporary Shelter
In 2017, the city was approached by a local non-profit, Family Promise of the Tualatin Valley, to
determine if religious facilities could offer temporary shelter to houseless community members.
Under the code in effect at that time, this use was not allowed.
The Family Promise model involves partnering with religious facilities to provide shelter during
the school year to a small number of families with children. Each facility only provides shelter
on a temporary basis, limited to a few weeks out of the year.
As a result of our work with this stakeholder, the Housing Options project also included code
changes that legalized Temporary Shelter as an outright allowed accessory use for Religious
Institution uses, subject to certain criteria.
Notably, the current code criteria does not require that shelter be provided indoors, potentially
opening the door for Safe Lots as an outright-allowed use. However, there are a few issues with
using this approach.
The first issue is that it is not clear that car camping would qualify as a Temporary Shelter use, as
those uses are defined as providing "mass shelter or short-term housing."
The second issue is that even if car camping is considered a Temporary Shelter use, each
Religious Institution is only allowed to provide Temporary Shelter for a total of 90 days per
year. It is likely that for the success of any program and the stability of the houseless community
members, the use will need to be allowed year-round.
A third issue is that the criteria do not implement the state-mandated limit of no more than
three vehicles at a time on one property.
The last and most important issue is that the criteria do not address neighborhood compatibility
matters that have been critical to the success of other programs, nor does the outright allowance
offer an opportunity for community notice and comment.
Case Study in Using Existing Code
As detailed above, under the current code, it is not clear that either safe lots or transitional
campgrounds would be allowed in Tigard. If they are allowed, the most likely use category for
them places them in an overly burdensome approval process. While there is some time benefit
to finding ways to utilize existing code to approve these uses, the community engagement costs
may greatly outweigh it. A case study may be instructive here.
In late 2016, a group of Clackamas County Commissioners toured a number of the transitional
housing facilities in Lane County, including Opportunity Village —a cluster of small sleeping
pods with common kitchen and bathroom facilities — and a few Rest Stops —temporary shelter
facilities featuring tents or Conestoga huts.
Inspired by this model, they returned to the county determined to implement something similar.
Upon looking at the code, staff in the community development department made a decision that
although the current code did not explicitly allow these uses, legislative changes were not
warranted given the pilot nature of the program. Instead, the decision was made to apply a
section of code that provided for "temporary uses otherwise prohibited."
The first application of this code was to the Clackamas County Veterans'Village, a transitional
pod campground opened in 2018 that features most of the same amenities as other similar
campgrounds. This project was largely non-controversial, given that the property was County-
owned and was tucked behind existing industrial and commercial developments with no
surrounding residential uses.
However, the second application of the code was a proposed safe car camping lot at the King of
Kings Lutheran Church in an unincorporated area between Gladstone and Milwaukie. From the
start, the proposal was controversial, and despite the best efforts of the applicant to address
concerns and engage the community, many of the surrounding residential property owners were
vehemently opposed to the project.
The county's decision approving the temporary use with conditions for a period of one year was
appealed to the Clackamas County Hearings Officer. After taking testimony from those in
attendance at the appeal hearing and leaving the record open for two additional weeks, the HO
issued a decision on November 7 that upheld the approval but added a number of additional
conditions, including a fence around the entire property, a surveillance system, and more
frequent nightly patrols, that will likely result in the applicant withdrawing the proposal
altogether.
One of the primary problems with Clackamas County's approach to approving this use was its
reliance on existing code that did not directly address the specific needs and concerns of the
community in implementing car camping and instead rested on a set of broad discretionary
criteria. This is not to say that discretion should not be involved in the approval process, rather
that discretion should be directed to specific situations. One of the approval criteria for a
temporary use otherwise prohibited in Clackamas is that "there is no reasonable alternative to
the temporary use." Another is that "The temporary use will not have a materially adverse effect
on the surrounding area."
These approval criteria are so overly broad as to provide the applicant and staff with no clear
path to writing findings that cannot be unreasonably contested. Reasonable people can come to
different conclusions about what constitutes a "reasonable alternative" or a "materially adverse
effect."
The experience of other communities and non-profits in implementing car camping and
temporary campgrounds has resulted in a wealth of information on what kinds of parameters
need to be put in place to address community concerns while providing applicants a relatively
straightforward process for approval. The Clackamas County experience however is instructive
in the kinds of pitfalls to avoid. A proactive approach that sets criteria and standards.
The other major issue with this approach is that it galvanizes opposition to shelter operations
and makes it more difficult for the local government to proceed with regulatory changes that
provide a clearer path. By leaving the community out of the process of setting parameters for
the operation of temporary shelter operations at the conceptual level, the only recourse for them
to exercise a voice is through opposition to specific proposals.
In this sense, the approach used with the Kenton Women's Village is far more preferable. When
the Joint Office on Homeless Services and other agencies in Multnomah County first conceived
of the project, they approached the Kenton Neighborhood Association. Initially somewhat
reluctant, the neighborhood was able to participate in the planning process and help fashion a
good neighbor agreement and a set of conditions that included a neighborhood vote on the
project, which passed. After the one-year pilot, another vote was held with near-unanimous
approval for renewal.
Recommendation
While it is probably not advisable to put projects in Tigard up for vote on a case-by-case basis,
there is a clear advantage to involving the community early in building a temporary shelter
program that will address concerns and build toward consensus. With this approach, the code
can be amended to address the specific regulatory needs of these unique uses rather than trying
to fit them into use categories that may not make sense or an approval process that does not
offer clarity to staff and applicants.
For these reasons, staff recommends addressing this need through a minor code project or by
including it in one of the current code projects in progress.
SUPPLEMENTAL PACKET
FOR
(DATE OF MEETING)
Safe Lot Programs
City Council
December 17, 2019 TIGARD
Safe Lots
City ofTigard
Safe Lots - Background
• What Are Safe Lots?
- Parking lots where houseless community members
can shelter overnight in their vehicles
- Typically patrolled for the safety of these
community members
- Offer an alternative to commercial parking lots and
residential streets, where the houseless community
members may be subject to danger or harassment
loommisiormaimiosiommominomil
City ofTigard
Safe Lots - Legal Framework
• Enabled by state law passed in 1999 (SB 479)
- ORS 203. 082
- Authorizes cities to allow limited overnight
occupancy of vehicles
- Must be on religious institution property
- Must provide sanitation, handwashing, and trash
facilities
- No more than three vehicles per property
City ofTigard
Safe Lots - Precedent
• History of Safe Lots
- First official program in Santa Barbara, CA (2004)
- Idea quickly expanded to other west coast cities
• Local Precedent
- Multnomah County
- Eugene
- Clackamas County
- Beaverton
Safe Lots
City ofTigard
Tigard Code
• Current code not clear on safe lots
- Would be accessory use
- Use assignment not clear
- No provisions to expressly address safety,
compatibility
Safe Lots
Beaverton Safe Lots Program
• Currently in pilot
- Managed by Just Compassion
- Open to more than religious institutions
- Opt-in program
- Must include all elements required by state law
- Must sign host agreements with guests
- 30 day probationary period for each guest
- Paired with ban on overnight camping in ROW
City ofTigard
Clackamas Co. Safe Lots Program
• Cautionary Example
- Applied discretionary standards for temp use
- Approval for safe lot appealed
City ofTigard
Recommendations
• Further study by staff (Beaverton program)
• Code mini-project (temporary housing)
- Safe Lots
- Temporary Campgrounds
- Short-term Rentals
City ofTigard $:,rvu �,. r �s s .. ,
Thank You.
Questions ?
AIS-4086 6.
Workshop Meeting
Meeting Date: 12/17/2019
Length (in minutes): 40 Minutes
Agenda Title: Receive Local Option Levy Update and Report on Community Survey
Results
Prepared For: Marty Wine, City Management Submitted By: Marty Wine,
City
Management
Item Type: Update, Discussion, Direct Staff Meeting Type: Council
Workshop
Mtg.
Public Hearing: No Publication Date:
Information
ISSUE
Receive a report from DHM Research providing survey findings from the recent second
survey of Tigard voters.
Have a strategy discussion about the goal of seeking a local option levy to increase police
services in May 2020.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST
The Council is asked to receive a report about the latest survey results, and then to discuss
and consider the preferred strategy for seeking a local option levy to increase police services.
As in prior levy update meetings, Council may wish to discuss these or other factors for
whether and when to pursue a levy:
•Time to establish the need for a levy with the community
•Explanation of the city's budget and for Tigard to understand public perception about a
levy and fee increases
•Presentation of a clear and defined levy proposal that illustrates community benefits
•Council unanimously resolved to support referral of a measure
•Surveys indicate a clear path of voter support for the levy by a majority or more of likely
voters
•The implications of asking voters for a levy if it is not approved
•Whether other funding mechanisms would be suited to increase police services
KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY
The Council has met approximately monthly throughout 2019 to address its goal of creating
financial stability, including the pursuit of a local option levy with Tigard voters and defining
the scope of the levy. The council has met about scoping the levy, facilities planning, reviewed
a communications and engagement plan that has been implemented in 2019, received a report
and recommendations from the Levy and Bond Task Force, and continued to receive
information about the financial estimates and tax impact of a local option levy.
Communicating early, clearly, and with a specific proposal has been a priority to scope a local
option levy.
In early November, the Council received report of the first survey conducted in October by
DHM Research. Its purpose was to understand voter satisfaction with city and police services
generally, test messages that would cause a voter to support or oppose a measure, and gauge
support for a local option levy for police patrol services. At a summary level, the first survey
results showed "low and soft" support for a local option levy of$0.46 per $1000 assesed
property value for police services: 37% support in a pre-test and 44% support in a re-test.
The survey helped gain an understanding of which messages resonated and had support of
voters, including: addressing more than one high-priority call at a time, helping people
experiencing crisis, and keeping up with population growth.
The purpose of the second survey was to test cost sensitivity of a measure, and whether
reducing the levy rate and resulting cost of the levy to a taxpayer would change the level of
support. The second survey tested a levy rate of$0.33 and $0.29 cents per $1000 assessed
value, and also the resulting annual and daily impact of those levy rates. There were three
messages about the levy's impact that were tested, and open-ended questions about the survey
respondent's reason for supporting or opposing the levy.
At the time of the Council agenda publication, the topline report was not yet available from
DHM Research. The field report as of December 9, 2019 was that reaching the required 300
completed surveys was still underway, and with 76% of surveys complete at that time, results
were not showing that support for the levy had increased significantly, even at the lowest
proposed amount of$0.29 cents per $1000 assessed value. The topline report and more
complete results will be distributed to the Council prior to the December 17 meeting and
available at the meeting for discussion.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES
If the City Council chooses to refer a local option levy to voters for the May 2020 election,
the decision to go to voters would be made in late January or early February, 2020.
If the end goal of seeking ways to fund and increase services valued by the community is the
focus, the Council may wish to discuss and explore other funding mechanisms than a local
option levy to achieve increases in police staffing.
COUNCIL GOALS, POLICIES, APPROVED MASTER PLANS
City Council Goal 1: Ensure the City's continued financial stability and sustainability while
providing mandated services. Seek ways to fund and increase services valued by the
community.
Strategic Plan Goal 4: Fund the vision while maintaining core services.
DATES OF PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
3/26/2019 - Initial Discussion of Potential Local Option Levy and/or Bond
4/23/2019 - Discuss Local Option Levy and Facility Bond Alternatives
6/25/2019 - Receive Presentation on Safe Routes to Schools Infrastructure Projects Levy
Proposal
6/25/2019 - Discussion on Timing for the Police Facilities Bond
8/13/2019 - Consider Resolution to Appoint Members to the Levy & Bond Task Force
9/24/2019 - Receive Update on Local Option Levy Planning
11/5/2019 - Receive Update on Local Option Levy Planning
11/12/2019 - Receive Update on Local Option Levy Financials
Ali :�
..,/13
m SUPPLEMENTAL PACKET 239 V ��F
/2 -
is
RESEARCH FOR rue �a • .c:;m
(DATE OF MEETING)
December 16, 2019
To: Marty Wine, City of Tigard
From: John Horvick& Tony laccarino, DHM Research
Re: City of Tigard Police Services Levy Ballot Test, #00919
INTRODUCTION & METHODOLOGY
From December 5 to 11, 2019 DHM Research conducted a survey of Tigard voters. The purpose of the
survey was to test support for a potential local option levy for police services.
Research Methodology: The survey consisted of 301 Tigard voters and took approximately 13 minutes
to complete. This is a sufficient sample size to assess voter opinions generally and to review findings by
multiple subgroups, including age, gender, income, precinct, party affiliation, education level,
homeownership status, and voting history.
Respondents were contacted from a list of registered voters. Telephone respondents were contacted by a
live interviewer and text-to-online respondents received a text invitation directing them to an online
survey. In gathering responses, a variety of quality control measures were employed, including
questionnaire pre-testing and validation. Quotas were set by age, gender, party, and precinct to ensure a
representative sample.
Statement of Limitations: Any sampling of opinions or attitudes is subject to a margin of error. The
margin of error is a standard statistical calculation that represents differences between the sample and
total population at a confidence interval, or probability, calculated to be 95%. This means that there is a
95% probability that the sample taken for this study would fall within the stated margin of error if
compared with the results achieved from surveying the entire population. The margin of error for this
survey is +/- 5.7%.
DHM Research Background: DHM Research has been providing opinion research and consultation
throughout the Pacific Northwest and other regions of the United States for over 40 years. The firm is
nonpartisan and independent and specializes in research projects to support public policy making.
City of Tigard Police Levy Ballot Test
December 5-11, 2019
Tigard Voters
N=301; margin of error+/-5.7
13 minutes
DHM Research
Project#00919
Hello, my name is from [name of fielding house]. I have some questions about the City of
Tigard and how they are doing.
As needed:
• We are not trying to sell you anything.
• The survey should only take a few minutes and I think you will find the questions interesting.
• Your answers are strictly confidential.
1. Would you say things in Tigard [TYE-gherd] are headed in the right direction, or are they off on the
wrong track?
Dec. 2019 Oct. 2019
Response category n=301 n=300
Ri•ht direction 65% 65%
Wron. track 12% 17%
Don't read Don't know 22% 18%
2. [If Q1=1]Why do you think Tigard is headed in the right direction? [Open]
Response category n=196
Good community, small-town feel 20%
Growth, development, economy 19%
Good job, generally satisfied 17%
Maintained roads, streets, infrastructure 12%
Improving downtown, Main Street 12%
Schools 11%
Max line, light rail 8%
Safe city 8%
Listen, communicate with public 7%
Parks 7%
Sidewalks, walking paths, walkability 6%
Programs, services provided 6%
Fire, police 5%
Budget 3%
Affordable housing 3%
None <1%
All other responses <1%
Don't know 4%
3. [If Q1=2]Why do you think that Tigard is off on the wrong track? [Open]
Response category n=37
New housing, overdevelopment 29%
Budget, spending too much 19%
Max line, light rail 19%
Traffic, congestion 13%
High property taxes 10%
Lack of leadership 9%
Overcrowded 7%
Poor roads, streets 7%
Schools 5%
Parks 4%
Negative mention 4%
Reduced services 3%
Positive mention 2%
Parking 2%
None --
All other responses <1%
Don't know --
4. [If Q1=3]Why are you unsure about how things are going in Tigard? [Open]
Response category n=67
Not involved enough, don't hear much 62%
Budget, spending 11%
No change 5%
Traffic, congestion 4%
Max line, light rail 3%
Positive mention 3%
None
All other responses 1% or less
Don't know 7%
I would like to read two possible measures that the City of Tigard is considering putting on the ballot in
May 2020. The City would select only one of these to vote on and is interested in your opinion as it
considers what to do.
I will read the measures exactly as they would appear on the ballot. Please listen carefully as they sound
similar.
[Rotate 33 cents/29 cents and track order]
Shall Tigard increase police services with a five-year operating levy, 330 per$1,000 of assessed property
valuation, starting in 2020? This measure may cause property taxes to increase more than three percent.
5. If the election was today, would you vote"yes" to support the measure, or"no" to oppose it? [Wait,
ask if certain/lean]
Response category n=301
Yes—certain 15%
Yes—lean 18%
No—lean 24%
No—certain 36%
[Don't read] Don't know 7%
6. If passed, this levy would cost the typical homeowner 25¢ per day in property taxes. Knowing this,
would you vote"yes" to support the measure, or"no" to oppose it. [Wait, ask if certain/lean]
Response category n=301
Yes—certain 15%
Yes—lean 17%
No—lean 25%
No—certain 38%
[Don't read] Don't know 5%
Here is the second possible measure.
Shall Tigard increase police services with a five-year operating levy, 290 per$1,000 of assessed property
valuation, starting in 2020? This measure may cause property taxes to increase more than three percent.
7. If the election was today, would you vote "yes" to support the measure, or"no" to oppose it? [Wait,
ask if certain/lean]
Response category n=301
Yes—certain 17%
Yes—lean 18%
No—lean 22%
No—certain 35%
[Don't read] Don't know 7%
8. If passed, this levy would cost the typical homeowner 22¢ per day in property taxes. Knowing this,
would you vote"yes" to support the measure or"no" to oppose it? [Wait, ask if certain/lean]
Response category n=301
Yes—certain 19%
Yes—lean 18%
No—lean 21%
No—certain 37%
[Don't read] Don't know 5%
[Ask all]
Here is what the levy would fund if passed:
• Eight additional police officers to increase neighborhood patrols
• Two additional police officers to proactively engage in homeless outreach
® Advanced training for all Tigard police officers to better de-escalate conflict
• Additional staff and support services to help officers do their jobs, such as processing evidence and
records, tech support, and human resources to help with hiring
9. Does knowing this make you more likely to support the levy, less likely, or does it make no
difference?
Response category n=301
More likely to support 50%
Makes no difference 36%
Less likely to support 11%
[Don't read] Don't know 3%
Here are four other things that the levy would do that I will read to you.
• The City would have additional police officers to respond when multiple 911 calls occur at the same
time.
• Tigard police officers would have more time to proactively address concerns of neighborhoods and
businesses.
• Tigard police officers would have more time to connect community members in need with resources
to help with homelessness, mental illness, and addiction.
• All of the City's five patrol districts would have full staffing for more hours every day and week.
10. Does knowing this make you more likely to support the levy, less likely, or does it make no
difference?
Response category n=301
More likely to support 50%
Makes no difference 36%
Less likely to support 11%
[Don't read] Don't know 3%
[Rotate 33 cents/29 cents in the same order]
Sometimes people change their minds when they learn more about an issue. I will now ask you again
about the two possible measures.
Shall Tigard increase police services with a five-year operating levy, 330 per$1,000 of assessed property
valuation, starting in 2020? This measure may cause property taxes to increase more than three percent.
If passed, this levy would cost the typical homeowner 250 per day in property taxes.
11. If the election was today, would you vote "yes" to support the measure, or"no" to oppose it? [Wait,
ask if certain/lean]
Response category n=301
Yes—certain 16%
Yes—lean 23%
No—lean 24%
No—certain 33%
[Don't read] Don't know 3%
And now the second possible measure.
Shall Tigard increase police services a with five-year operating levy, 290 per$1,000 of assessed property
valuation, starting in 2020? This measure may cause property taxes to increase more than three percent.
If passed, this levy would cost the typical homeowner 220 per day in property taxes.
12. If the election was today, would you vote "yes"to support the measure, or"no" to oppose it? [Wait,
ask if certain/lean]
Response category n=301
Yes—certain 23%
Yes—lean 24%
No—lean 17%
No—certain 31%
[Don't read] Don't know 5%
13. [If Q11=1 or 2, and Q12=3 or 4] You supported the levy at the higher amount of 330 per$1,000 of
assessed property value, but opposed it at the lower amount of 290. Is there any reason why? [Read
only if asked: The higher amount would cost the typical homeowner 250 per day, while the
lower amount would cost the typical homeowner 220 per day.] [Open]
Response category n=4
More police n=2
Need better funding n=1
None --
All other responses --
Don't know --
14. [If Q11=3 or 4 and Q12=1 or 2] You opposed the levy at the higher amount of 330 per$1,000 of
assessed property value, but supported it at the lower amount of 290. Is there any reason why?
[Read only if asked: The higher amount would cost the typical homeowner 250 per day, while
the lower amount would cost the typical homeowner 220 per day.] [Open]
Response category n=25
Too much money 27%
More affordable, cheaper 23%
Taxes, property taxes too high 19%
Unaware of police problems, issues 18%
Cost of living 12%
Budget, spending 12%
Oppose additional infrastructure, services 5%
Higher value is not needed 4%
None --
All other responses <1%
Don't know 3%
15. [If Q11=3 or 4 and Q12=3 or 4] You opposed both levies. Are there any changes that the City of
Tigard could make to a police levy to make you consider supporting it? [Open]
Response category n=141
Taxes, property taxes 31%
Too much, too costly 14%
Budget, spending 13%
Don't need additional police, feel safe 11%
Explain why more money/police needed 4%
All money won't go to police 3%
Police, positive mention 3%
Don't understand the issue 2%
Need training 2%
No, none, nothing 27%
All other responses 1% or less
Don't know 5%
16. Other cities in Washington County have supported their police departments with voter-approved
levies. Does knowing this make you more likely to support a Tigard police services levy, less likely, or
does it make no difference?
Response category n=301
More likely to support 16%
Makes no difference 72%
Less likely to support 8%
[Don't read] Don't know 5%
DEMOGRAPHICS
17. Do you describe your gender as:
Response category n=301
Male 49%
Female 49%
Non-binary or gender non-conforming n=1
[Don't read] Refused/missing 2%
Observed gender [If Q17=3, non-binary THEN interviewer code by observation] Observe and
record as separate A/B variable for Male or Female. Include as part of overall Male/Female quotas.
Response category n=301
Male 50%
Female 50%
18. Age [Don't ask, record from sample]
Response category n=301
18-29 19%
30-44 27%
45-64 33%
65+ 22%
v t r '.'\k[) r",!_SOT E 1 j DECEMBER 2019
7
19. Area of the city[Don't ask, record from sample]
Response category n=301
400 12%
402 25%
404 20%
405 25%
409 16%
411 2%
427 --
20. Party[Don't ask, record from sample]
Response category n=301
Democrat 37%
Republican 24%
Other 9%
Non-affiliated 30%
21. Vote history[Don't ask, record from sample]
Response category n=301
0-1 of 4 24%
2of4 15%
3of4 23%
4of4 38%
22. Do you own your home, rent, or do you have a different arrangement?
Response category n=301
Own 75%
Rent 16%
I have a different arrangement 8%
Refused 1%
23. Which category best describes your 2018 gross household income, before taxes? Remember to
include everyone living in your household. Your best estimate will do.
Response category n=301
Less than $25,000 7%
$25,000 to less than $50,000 10%
$50,000 to less than $75,000 18%
$75,000 to less than $100,000 18%
$100,000 to less than $150,000 16%
$150,000 or more 13%
[Don't read] Refused/Missing 17%
24. What is the highest level of education that you have completed?
Response category n=301
Less than high school --
High school diploma/GED 8%
Some college/2-year degree 19%
College degree/4-year degree 39%
Graduate/ professional school 30%
[Don't read] Refused/ Missing 4%
12/17/2019
SUPPLEMENTAL PACKET
FOR '1
(DATE OF MEETING)
City of Tigard
Police Services Levy
Ballot Test
December 2019
IN I 1. m
TIGARD
a RESEARCH
Research purpose
• Measure voter support for five-year City of Tigard local-option
levy for police services
• Test support for levy at different rates:
o29¢ vs. 33¢ per $1000 of assessed property valuation
• Assess impact of additional information on support for levy:
o cost per day for typical homeowner
o additional officers, services, training, and support staff
o other Washington County cities supporting police through levy
DHM RESEARCH I CITY OF TIGARD PUBLIC SAFETY LEVY I DECEMBER 2019
1
12/17/2019
Methodology
• Hybrid telephone and online survey of 301 Tigard voters
• Conducted December 5-11 , 2019; 13 minutes to complete
• Quotas set and data weighted by age, gender, party, and
precinct to ensure a representative sample
• Margin of error ±5.7%
• Due to rounding, some totals may differ by ±1 from the sum of
separate responses
DHM RESEARCH I CITY OF TIGARD PUBLIC SAFETY LEVY I DECEMBER 2019
A solid majority of Tigard voters feel the city is headed
in the right direction.
76%
68%
65% 65%
21% 22%
15% • 17%
•
• • 18% •
11% ?%
Jan. 2017 Dec.2017 Oct. 2019 Dec. 2019
DHM RESEARCH I CITY OF TIGARD BALLOT TEST I DECEMBER 2019
2
12/17/2019
The majority of voters who think Tigard is heading in the right
direction point to a strong sense of community, appropriate
growth, and a general satisfaction with services.
20% Community, events, small town feel
19% Growth, development
17% General satisfaction
12% Maintained road infrastructure
12% Schools
n=196
DHM RESEARCH I CITY OF TIGARD BALLOT TEST I DECEMBER 2019 5
The small minority who think Tigard is off on the wrong track
point to overdevelopment, excessive city spending, and light
rail.
29% Overdevelopm
19% City spending
19% MAX line, light rail
13% Traffic
1 0% High taxes, property taxes
n=37
DHM RESEARCH I CITY OF TIGARD BALLOT TESTI DECEMBER 2019
3
12/17/2019
Levy test
Support for rates of 29¢ and 33¢ is similar to the 46¢ rate
tested in October 2019.
57% 60%
54%
22% 24%
36% 33% 38% 23%
35% 36% 31%
Certain 17% 15% 16% 7% 7% 8%
29¢ 330 46¢ 290 330 46¢ 290 330 46¢
Yes No Don't know
DHM RESEARCH I CITY OF TIGARD PUBLIC SAFETY LEVY DECEMBER 2019
4
12/17/2019
Knowing the details of what the levy will provide
increases support for the measure.
• Additional officers for 911 More No Less Don't
likely difference likely know
• Additional offices to
proactively address
concerns 50% 11%
• Connect with homeless
• Full time staffing at patrol
districts
DHM RESEARCH I CITY OF TIGARD PUBLIC SAFETY LEVY I DECEMBER 2019 9
Support for a 29¢ levy increased to 47% with additional
information.
59% 57%
47% 48%
21% 22%
37% 36% 17%
31% 37% 35%
Certain 23% 19% 17% 5% 5% 7%
Post Daily Initial Post Daily Initial Post Daily Initial
Yes No Don't know
DHM RESEARCH I CITY OF TIGARD PUBLIC SAFETY LEVY I DECEMBER 2019
5
12/17/2019
Support for a 33¢ levy increased to 40% with additional
information.
63% 60%
57%
40%
31% 33%
17%
Certain 16% 15% 15%r 24% 25% 24% 3% 5% 7%
Post Daily Initial Post Daily Initial Post Daily Initial
Yes No Don't know
Hann RESEARCH I CITY OF TIGARD PUBLIC SAFETY LEVY I DECEMBER 2019
Being informed that about police funding in other
communities does not increase support.
More Less Don't
likely 0 likely know
Other cities in Washington
County support their police
departments with voter- 810
approved levies.
EHM RESEARCH I CITY OF TIGARD PUBLIC SAFETY LEVY I DECEMBER 2019 12
6
12/17/2019
Tony laccarino
tiaccarino@dhmresearch.com
dhmJohn Horvick
jhorvick@dhmresearch.com
RESEARCH dhmresearch.com
7