BOC Agenda 07-16-2002

WASHINGTON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS WORKSESSION

ROOM 140 PUBLIC SERVICES CENTER JULY 16, 2002

TENTATIVE

8:30 a.m. 1. Board of Commissioners Communication (15 min.)

8:45 a.m. 2. Discussion of Formal Agenda Items (20 min.)

9:05 a.m. 3. Briefing on Tigard Urban Service Agreement (15 min.) - Brent Curtis, Land Use and Transportation, Planning Division

9:20 a.m. 4. Discussion of the Board of Commissioners Development Philosophy (20 min.) - Mark Brown, Land Use and Transportation

Jail Inspection for Month of July: Commissioner John Leeper AGENDA CLEAN WATER SERVICES BOARD OF DIRECTORS

Agenda Category: Consent

Agenda Title: ACQUIRE AN EASEMENT TO PROVIDE SANITARY SEWER TO A PROPERTY IN CLEAN WATER SERVICES’ SERVICE DISTRICT

Presented by: Bill Gaffi, General Manager (nmc)

SUMMARY (Attach Supporting Documents if Necessary)

The following easement is necessary to provide sanitary sewer to a property in Clean Water Services’ service district:

I. SANITARY SEWER

PROPERTY OWNER PROJECT SQUARE FEET VALUE

Frederick S. Page and Cedar Dale LID (6089) 530 $685 Ann E. Page

FISCAL IMPACT: $685 Budget Information: 108.0000.0000.55220 (Project 6089) REQUESTED ACTION: Acquire an easement to provide sanitary sewer to a property served by Clean Water Services.

Agenda Item No. 1.a.

Date: 7/16/02

77 1 BEFORE THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF CLEAN WATER SERVICES 2 In the Matter of Acquisition of ) RESOLUTION AND ORDER 3 An Easement Needed for District Purposes. ) ) NO.______4

5 The above-entitled matter came before the Board of Directors of Clean Water Services 6 (Board) at its regular meeting of July 16, 2002; and 7 It appearing to the Board that Clean Water Services (District) requires a certain easement 8 for the construction of sanitary sewer; and 9 It appearing to the Board that ORS 451.550 (3) and (4) give the Board the power to acquire 10 easements determined to be necessary and proper in the exercise of District purposes; and 11 It appearing to the Board that District representatives have secured a duly executed 12 easement for sanitary sewer from the property owners named in Exhibit A, which recites thereon 13 an appropriate amount of consideration for the acquisition of the easement; and 14 It appearing to the Board that said easement should be accepted and recorded, and the 15 Board being fully advised in the premises and that the grantors thereof should be compensated for 16 the easement granted thereby as provided in the easement document and as set forth in Exhibit A; 17 it is therefore 18 / / / 19 / / / 20 / / / 21 / / / 22 / / / 23 / / / 24 / / / 25 / / / 26 / / / Page 1 – RESOLUTION AND ORDER CLEAN WATER SERVICES 155 North First Avenue, Suite 270 Hillsboro, Oregon 97124 78 Telephone (503) 846-8621 Fax (503) 846-3757 1 RESOLVED AND ORDERED that the easement granted by the property owners named in 2 Exhibit A to this Resolution and Order be, and hereby is, accepted by the Board of Directors of the 3 District. 4 DATED this 16th day of July, 2002. 5 CLEAN WATER SERVICES 6 By its Board of Directors 7

8 ______Chairman 9 10 ______11 Recording Secretary 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Page 2 – RESOLUTION AND ORDER CLEAN WATER SERVICES 155 North First Avenue, Suite 270 Hillsboro, Oregon 97124 Telephone (503) 846-8621 Fax (503) 846-3757 79 EXHIBIT A

I. SANITARY SEWER

PROPERTY OWNER PROJECT SQUARE FEET VALUE

Frederick S. Page and Cedar Dale LID (6089) 530 $685 Ann E. Page

80 AGENDA CLEAN WATER SERVICES BOARD OF DIRECTORS

Agenda Category: Consent CPO 3

Agenda Title: ACCEPT THE CONSTRUCTION OF BUTNER LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (6049) AND RELEASE RETAINAGE TO KASEY COOPER EXCAVATING, INC.

Presented by: Bill Gaffi, General Manager (dg)

SUMMARY (Attach Supporting Documents if Necessary)

On April 16, 2002, the Clean Water Services Board of Directors (Board) approved Minute Order No. 02-35, which awarded the contract for the construction of the Butner Local Improvement District (LID) to Kasey Cooper Excavating, Inc. in the amount of $36,405. The General Manager has approved Change Order No. 1. The change order covered additional work associated with additional pavement restoration quantities and trench excavation depth. Change Order No. 1 increased the contract amount by $10,843.50, to $47,248.50 (29.8 percent).

All project work is complete and in conformance with the specifications of the contract. The final actual construction cost is $47,887, a 31.5% increase in the contract price. Staff recommends the Board accept the project as final and authorize release of retainage in the amount of $2,394.35 to Kasey Cooper Excavating, Inc.

FISCAL IMPACT: N/A Budget Information: 112.062.8224.52204 Project 6049

REQUESTED ACTION: Accept the construction of the Butner LID (6049) and release retainage in the amount of $2,394.35 to Kasey Cooper Excavating, Inc.

Agenda Item No. 1.b.

Date: 7/16/02

81 82 AGENDA CLEAN WATER SERVICES BOARD OF DIRECTORS

Agenda Category: Consent CPO 1

Agenda Title: ACCEPT THE CONSTRUCTION OF SUNNINGDALE LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT SANITARY UPGRADE (6034) AND RELEASE RETAINAGE TO CANBY EXCAVATING, INC.

Presented by: Bill Gaffi, General Manager (tml)

SUMMARY (Attach Supporting Documents if Necessary)

On May 21, 2002, the Clean Water Services Board of Directors (Board) approved Minute Order No. 02-43, which awarded the contract for the construction of the Sunningdale Local Improvement District Sanitary Upgrade to Canby Excavating, Inc. in the amount of $36,985.45.

All project work is complete and in conformance with the specifications of the contract. The final actual construction cost is $37,536.25. This is an increase of 1.49% over the original contract amount due to increased pavement restoration quantities. Staff recommends the Board accept the project as final and authorize release of retainage in the amount of $1,876.81 to Canby Excavating, Inc.

FISCAL IMPACT: N/A Budget Information: 212.062.8224.52205 (Project No. 6034)

REQUESTED ACTION: Accept the construction of the Sunningdale Local Improvement District Sanitary Upgrade (6034), and release retainage in the amount of $1,876.81 to Canby Excavating, Inc.

Agenda Item No. 1.c.

Date: 7/16/02

83 84 AGENDA CLEAN WATER SERVICES BOARD OF DIRECTORS

Agenda Category: Consent

Agenda Title: APPROVE AN AGREEMENT WITH TCI CABLEVISION OF OREGON TO UTILIZE THE METROPOLITAN AREA NETWORK

Presented by: Bill Gaffi, General Manager (ms)

SUMMARY (Attach Supporting Documents if Necessary)

TCI Cablevision of Oregon (TCI) provides a Metropolitan Area Network (MAN) based on fiber- optic technology. Clean Water Services (District) satisfactorily utilized TCI’s services for the past several years to utilize this infrastructure for data communication between District sites. This allows the District to achieve high-speed, reliable communications of its distributed computing environment for significantly less then if it were to utilize traditional telephone company services. In short the District pays less for more bandwidth. Most of the District’s sites operate at 1 gigabyte of bandwidth for a monthly charge of roughly $850 per site.

The District requests the Board of Directors to approve a one-year agreement with TCI in the amount of $68,576.34, so that the District can utilize the MAN for its data communications.

FISCAL IMPACT: $68,576.34 Budget Information: 040.8305.0000.52440

REQUESTED ACTION: Approve a one-year Agreement with TCI Cablevision of Oregon in the amount of $68,576.34 to utilize the Metropolitan Area Network for the District’s data communications.

(A copy of the Agreement is available at the Clerk’s desk.)

Agenda Item No. 1.d.

Date: 7/16/02

85 86 AGENDA

WASHINGTON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

Agenda Category: Consent – Land Use and Transportation (CPO 7)

Agenda Title: APPROVE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE ROADS IN ARBOR RIDGE NO. 6 AND A DEDICATION DEED AS A COUNTY ROAD

Presented by: Michael A. Borresen, County Engineer

SUMMARY (Attach Supporting Documents if Necessary)

The roads in the subdivision of ARBOR RIDGE NO. 6 and Dedication Deed No. 2000077981 are new roads that have been constructed in accordance with approved plans and specifications meeting County Standards. Final inspections have been made and all improvements were found to meet specifications. The inspector’s reports are on file.

The Board, by Resolution and Order No. 87-108, required that as a condition of development approval, a Road Maintenance Local Improvement District (MLID) be formed with the final platting of any subdivision initiated after May 19, 1987. Resolution and Order No. 01-012 established an MLID.

As the Board is aware, MLIDs and their assessments will continue to be established for administrative purposes only. There will be no assessments as the Urban Road Maintenance District is funded as a result of Ballot Measure 50, unless otherwise ordered by the Board.

A Resolution and Order has been prepared establishing the roads contained in this subdivision, as a County Road.

Attachments: 1. Resolution and Order 2. Map

DEPARTMENT’S REQUESTED ACTION: Approve the attached Resolution and Order establishing the roads in ARBOR RIDGE NO. 6 and Dedication Deed No. 2000077981 as County Road No. 3157.

F:\SHARED\ENG\WPSHARE\Colleen\agendas\CRAGENDAS\CR3157ArborRidge071602.doc COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR’S RECOMMENDATION: I concur with the requested action.

Agenda Item No. 1.e. Date: 7/16/02

87 IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

FOR WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON

In the Matter of Establishing County ) RESOLUTION AND ORDER Road No. 3157, the Roads in ARBOR ) RIDGE NO. 6, and Dedication Deed No. ) NO. 2000077981, a Subdivision in the Southeast ) C.R. NO. 3157 One-quarter of Section 19, T1N, R1W, ) Willamette Meridian. )

This matter having come on regularly before the Board at its meeting of July 16, 2002; and

It appearing to the Board that pursuant to ORS 368.016(2)(C), this is the time and place that the Board may establish the following as County Roads:

“NW LaPaloma Lane, NW Chaparral Terrace, and NW Gold Canyon Lane, as shown on the duly recorded plat of ARBOR RIDGE NO. 6 and shown in Document No. 2000077981”; and

It appearing to the Board that on the 20th day of June, 2001, a map and plat of ARBOR RIDGE NO. 6, a subdivision of record in the unincorporated area of Washington County, Oregon , was presented to this Board and the roads marked thereon were offered for dedication to the public; and

It appearing to the Board that said map and plat was accepted and approved by the Board on the 20th day of June, 2001, and also by the following County officer or bodies: Department of Land Use and Transportation, County Surveyor and County Assessor; and that on the 21st day of June, 2001 , the same was filed and recorded with the County Clerk, thereby dedicating to the public the roads described therein; and

It appearing to the Board that the roads as designated in the aforesaid plat, are dedicated thereby, as hereinabove described; and

It appearing to the Board that West Hills Development Company, developer, has constructed the road improvements in ARBOR RIDGE NO. 6 in accordance with approved plans and specifications and that a final inspection was done on October 31, 2001, by Washington County and said improvements were found to meet specifications; and

It appearing to the Board that on the 21st day of January, 2000, a Dedication Deed offered for dedication to the public the road marked therein; and

It appearing to the Board that said Dedication Deed was accepted on the behalf of the Board of Commissioners, by Kenneth A. Bauer, County Surveyor, on the 22nd day of September, 2000 and filed and recorded as Document No. 2000077981 with the County Clerk thereby dedicating to the public the road described therein; and

88 It appearing to the Board that, West Hills Development Company, developer, has constructed the road improvements in accordance with approved plans and specifications and that a final inspection was done on October 31, 2001, by Washington County and said improvements were found to meet specifications; and

It appearing to the Board that all the files and records in this matter were submitted to the Director of Land Use and Transportation for the Director’s inspection and were thereafter approved by the Director; now, therefore, it is hereby

RESOLVED AND ORDERED that the aforesaid roads are expressly accepted and established as County Road of Washington County, Oregon and hereafter designated as County Road No. 3157; and it is further

RESOLVED AND ORDERED that this order be entered in the Journal of this Board; and it is further

RESOLVED AND ORDERED that the County Surveyor for Washington County is hereby directed to memorialize this act on the plats and records of Washington County, Oregon.

DATED this 16th day of July, 2002.

BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FOR WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON

Chairperson

Recording Secretary

Approved as to form

/s/ Dan R. Olsen Chief Assistant County Counsel Date: August 31, 1995

Page 2 - R&O No. Establishment of C.R. No. 3157

MAB:KB:JE:SY:jw-b F:\SHARED\ENG\WPSHARE\Janet\agendas\CRAGENDAS\CR3157Arbor Ridge No. 6 071602.doc 6/12/02

AGENDA

WASHINGTON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

Agenda Category: Consent – Land Use and Transportation (CPO 4M)

Agenda Title: APPROVE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE ROAD IN LA ARNOLD HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION AS COUNTY ROAD NO. 3152

Presented by: Michael A. Borresen, County Engineer

SUMMARY (Attach Supporting Documents if Necessary)

The road in the subdivision of LA ARNOLD HEIGHTS is a new road that has been constructed in accordance with approved plans and specifications meeting County Standards. Final inspections have been made and all improvements were found to meet specifications. The inspector’s reports are on file.

A Resolution and Order has been prepared establishing the road contained in this subdivision, as a County Road.

Attachments: 1. Resolution and Order 2. Map

DEPARTMENT’S REQUESTED ACTION: Approve the attached Resolution and Order establishing the road in LA ARNOLD HEIGHTS as County Road No. 3152.

F:\SHARED\ENG\WPSHARE\Colleen\agendas\CRAGENDAS\CR3152LaArnoldHgts071602.doc COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR’S RECOMMENDATION: I concur with the requested action.

Agenda Item No. 1.f. Date: 7/16/02

91 IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

FOR WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON

In the Matter of Establishing County ) RESOLUTION AND ORDER Road No. 3152, the Road in LA ARNOLD ) HEIGHTS, a Subdivision in the Southeast ) NO. One-quarter of Section 26, T1S, R1W, ) C.R. NO. 3152 Willamette Meridian. )

This matter having come on regularly before the Board at its meeting of July 16, 2002; and

It appearing to the Board that pursuant to ORS 368.016(2)(C), this is the time and place that the Board may establish the following as County Roads:

“SW Maui Court as shown on the duly recorded plat LA ARNOLD HEIGHTS” ; and

It appearing to the Board that on the 18th day of September, 2001, a map and plat of LA ARNOLD HEIGHTS, a subdivision of record in the unincorporated area of Washington County, Oregon , was presented to this Board and the road marked thereon was offered for dedication to the public; and

It appearing to the Board that said map and plat was accepted and approved by the Board on the 18th day of September, 2001, and also by the following County officer or bodies: Department of Land Use and Transportation, County Surveyor and County Assessor; and that on the 8th day of May, 2002, the same was filed and recorded with the County Clerk, thereby dedicating to the public the road described therein; and

It appearing to the Board that the road as designated in the aforesaid plat, is dedicated thereby, as hereinabove described; and

It appearing to the Board that Howard H. Arnold, developer, has constructed the road improvements in LA ARNOLD HEIGHTS in accordance with approved plans and specifications and that a final inspection was done on March 22, 2002, by Washington County and said improvements were found to meet specifications; and

RESOLVED AND ORDERED that the aforesaid road is expressly accepted and established as a County Road of Washington County, Oregon and hereafter designated as County Road No. 3152; and it is further

92 RESOLVED AND ORDERED that this order be entered in the Journal of this Board; and it is further

RESOLVED AND ORDERED that the County Surveyor for Washington County is hereby directed to memorialize this act on the plats and records of Washington County, Oregon.

DATED this 16th day of July, 2002.

BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FOR WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON

Chairperson

Recording Secretary

Approved as to form

/s/ Dan R. Olsen Chief Assistant County Counsel Date: August 31, 1995

Page 2 - R&O No. Establishment of C.R. No. 3152

MAB:KB:JE:SY:cl F:\SHARED\ENG\WPSHARE\Colleen\agendas\CRAGENDAS\CR3152LaArnoldHgts071602.doc 6/17/02

AGENDA

WASHINGTON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

Agenda Category: Consent – Land Use and Transportation (CPO 7)

Agenda Title: APPROVE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE ROAD IN SETHRICH SUBDIVISION AS COUNTY ROAD NO. 3153

Presented by: Michael A. Borresen, County Engineer

SUMMARY (Attach Supporting Documents if Necessary)

The road in the subdivision of SETHRICH is a new road that has been constructed in accordance with approved plans and specifications meeting County Standards. Final inspections have been made and all improvements were found to meet specifications. The inspector’s reports are on file.

A Resolution and Order has been prepared establishing the road contained in this subdivision, as a County Road.

Attachments: 1. Resolution and Order 2. Map

DEPARTMENT’S REQUESTED ACTION: Approve the attached Resolution and Order establishing the road in SETHRICH as County Road No. 3153.

F:\SHARED\ENG\WPSHARE\Colleen\agendas\CRAGENDAS\CR3153Sethrich071602.doc COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR’S RECOMMENDATION: I concur with the requested action.

Agenda Item No. 1.g. Date: 7/16/02

95 IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

FOR WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON

In the Matter of Establishing County ) RESOLUTION AND ORDER Road No. 3153, the Road in SETHRICH, a ) Subdivision in the Southeast One-quarter of ) NO. Section 20, T1N, R1W, Willamette ) C.R. NO. 3153 Meridian. )

This matter having come on regularly before the Board at its meeting of July 16, 2002; and

It appearing to the Board that pursuant to ORS 368.016(2)(C), this is the time and place that the Board may establish the following as County Roads:

“NW Sethrich Lane as shown on the duly recorded plat of SETHRICH and excluding Tract “A” of said plat” ; and

It appearing to the Board that on the 16th day of October, 2001, a map and plat of SETHRICH, a subdivision of record in the unincorporated area of Washington County, Oregon , was presented to this Board and the road marked thereon was offered for dedication to the public; and

It appearing to the Board that said map and plat was accepted and approved by the Board on the 16th day of October, 2001, and also by the following County officer or bodies: Department of Land Use and Transportation, County Surveyor and County Assessor; and that on the 21st day of November, 2001, the same was filed and recorded with the County Clerk, thereby dedicating to the public the road described therein; and

It appearing to the Board that the road as designated in the aforesaid plat, is dedicated thereby, as hereinabove described; and

It appearing to the Board that David Stanley Richards, Ward Patrick and Andrea Lee Hanna, and Joseph D. and Janice K. Karas, developers, have constructed the road improvements in SETHRICH in accordance with approved plans and specifications and that a final inspection was done on February 28, 2002, by Washington County and said improvements were found to meet specifications; and

96 RESOLVED AND ORDERED that the aforesaid road is expressly accepted and established as a County Road of Washington County, Oregon and hereafter designated as County Road No. 3153; and it is further

RESOLVED AND ORDERED that this order be entered in the Journal of this Board; and it is further

RESOLVED AND ORDERED that the County Surveyor for Washington County is hereby directed to memorialize this act on the plats and records of Washington County, Oregon.

DATED this 16th day of July, 2002.

BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FOR WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON

Chairperson

Recording Secretary

Approved as to form

/s/ Dan R. Olsen Chief Assistant County Counsel Date: August 31, 1995

Page 2 - R&O No. Establishment of C.R. No. 3153

MAB:KB:JE:SY:cl F:\SHARED\ENG\WPSHARE\Colleen\agendas\CRAGENDAS\CR3153Sethrich071602.doc 6/17/02

AGENDA

WASHINGTON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

Agenda Category: Consent – Land Use and Transportation (CPO 6)

Agenda Title: APPROVE R&O TO ESTABLISH ROAD MAINTENANCE LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (MLID) FOR MERLO STATION TOWNHOMES NO. 2

Presented by: Gregory S. Miller, Operations and Maintenance Division Manager

SUMMARY (Attach Supporting Documents if Necessary)

The Board, by Resolution and Order No. 87-108, required that as a condition of development approval, a road Maintenance Local Improvement District (MLID) be formed with the final platting of any subdivisions initiated after May 19, 1987.

A petition and waiver of the right to remonstrate (oppose) the formation of an MLID has been received for the following subdivision, in accordance with Resolution an Order 87-108. Proposed assessments are as follows:

(Continued on Page 2)

Attachments: 1. Resolution and Order 2. Assessment Maps-Exhibit A 3. Petition-Exhibit B 4. Waiver-Exhibit C 5. Feasibility Report-Exhibit D 6. Assessment Roll-Exhibit E

DEPARTMENT’S REQUESTED ACTION: Approve the attached Resolution and Order (1) initiating and establishing the MLID, (2) approving the feasibility report, and (3) imposing, but not levying, a maximum annual assessment.

COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR’S RECOMMENDATION: I concur with the requested action.

Agenda Item No. 1.h. Date: 7/16/02

99 APPROVE R & O TO ESTABLISH ROAD MAINTENANCE LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (MLID) FOR MERLO STATION TOWNHOMES NO. 2 July 16, 2002 Page 2

Maximum Annual Assessment No. Lots Per Lot Total

MERLO STATION TOWNHOMES NO. 2 31 $14.18 $439.58

As the Board is aware, MLID’s and their assessments will continue to be established for administrative purposes only. There will be no assessments during the life of the Urban Road Maintenance District unless otherwise ordered by the Board.

100 IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

FOR WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON

In the Matter of Receiving a Petition, Approving ) a Feasibility Report, Establishing a Road ) RESOLUTION AND ORDER Maintenance Local Improvement District (MLID) and Authorizing the Proposed Work, Imposing a ) NO Maximum Annual Assessment, Receiving an ) Assessment Roll for, but not Limited to, ) Maintenance and Repair of Local Public Streets ) Serving MERLO STATION TOWNHOMES ) NO. 2 sub-division. )

This matter having come before the Board at its meeting of July 16, 2002; and

It appearing to the Board that a petition, a waiver of the right to remonstrate (oppose) the formation of a road Maintenance Local Improvement District (MLID), together with the proposed work and assessment of costs, a feasibility report, and an assessment roll for an MLID for, but not limited to, the maintenance and repair of local public streets serving MERLO STATION TOWNHOMES NO. 2 subdivision have been filed as set forth in the Washington County Code (WCC) Chapter 3.20; and

It appearing to the Board that the location of the proposed MLID is shown on the Assessment Map, attached hereto and marked Exhibit A; and

It appearing to the Board that 100% of the property owner(s) signed said petition, attached hereto and marked Exhibit B, as shown on the affidavit on file; and

It appearing to the Board that a waiver of the right to notice, hearing, and remonstrance (opposition) regarding the formation of the MLID together with the proposed work and assessment of costs was signed by 100% of the property owner(s) within the proposed MLID at the time of MLID formation, and that this waiver was recorded and runs with the land such that all present and subsequent owners are on notice and bound thereby; and

It appearing to the Board that the feasibility report, attached hereto and marked Exhibit D, confirms the feasibility of the petitioned for work, to wit: to, among other functions, maintain and repair local public streets serving MERLO STATION TOWNHOMES NO. 2 subdivision; and it appearing that such report should be approved as submitted and adopted; and

It appearing to the Board that a program of, but not limited to, maintenance and repair of the local public streets is necessary and that a maximum annual assessment of $439.58 or $14.18 per lot should be imposed as the amount considered the maximum necessary for the annual work thereof; and

Page 1 MLID R&O, No Hearing

101 It appearing to the Board that, pursuant to WCC Section 3.20.160 the proposed assessment roll, attached hereto and marked Exhibit E, has been filed with the Board; and

It appearing to the Board that all property owners received notification of the time and place that the Board would consider establishment of the said MLID and impositioned maximum annual assessments, as shown on the notification letter on file; and

It appearing to the Board that it is appropriate to establish the MLID, in conformance with WCC Chapter 3.20; now, therefore, it is hereby

RESOLVED AND ORDERED that the petition is hereby received and that the feasibility report is hereby approved, accepted and adopted; and it is further

RESOLVED AND ORDERED that the proposed MLID as described in the feasibility report is hereby established; and it is further

RESOLVED AND ORDERED that the maximum annual assessment for all functions proposed in this MLID shall be $439.58 or approximately $14.18 for each lot, that the assessment roll described in Exhibit D is approved and the assessment imposed but not levied; and it is further

RESOLVED AND ORDERED that the Board may levy annual assessments within the maximum at such point in the future as it deems necessary.

Dated this 16th day of July, 2002.

BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FOR WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON

______Chairman

______Recording Secretary

Approved as to Form /s/ Dan R. Olsen Chief Assistant County Counsel Date: 04/11/94

Page 2 MLID R&O, No Hearing

102

FEASIBILITY REPORT MERLO STATION TOWNHOMES NO. 2 ROAD MAINTENANCE LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The road maintenance local improvement district (MLID) provides for ongoing maintenance and repair of local streets serving the MERLO STATION TOWNHOMES NO. 2 subdivision. Road maintenance may include but is not limited to the following activities: patching, fog seals, crack seals, sweeping/flushing, and traffic control.

ASSESSMENT MAP

An assessment map (Exhibit A) has been prepared showing the location of the local streets to be maintained and showing the boundary of the proposed MLID. All parcels within this boundary are specially benefited from the maintenance of these streets.

ASSESSMENT METHOD

The equal parcel method of assessment is recommended for this MLID.

ASSESSMENTS

Total Per Lot Total Cost Assessment Assessment

Maximum Annual Assessment $439.58 $439.58 $14.18 (31 Lots)

The maximum annual assessment allows for unanticipated maintenance conditions in future years.

ASSESSMENT ROLL

An assessment roll (Exhibit E) has been prepared containing a description of each parcel to be assessed by the MLID, the names of owners or reputed owners thereof, and a maximum annual assessment.

RECOMMENDATION

The MLID as described above is found to be feasible and should be established.

EXHIBIT D Page 1 of 1

110 ASSESSMENT ROLL MERLO STATION TOWNHOMES NO. 2 ROAD MAINTENANCE LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT

MAXIMUM ANNUAL ASSESSMENT

TAX LOT OWNER NAME AND ADDRESS LEGAL DESCRIPTION Lot Total 1S105CB-02100 Michael Cluff Merlo Station Townhomes No.2 $14.18 $439.58 thru 02400 11638 NW Permian Drive 31 lots* Portland, OR 97229

* Map and Tax Lot Numbers will be established by the Department of Assessment and Taxation/Cartography Division after plat is filed.

EXHIBIT E Page 1 of 1

111 AGENDA

WASHINGTON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

Agenda Category: Consent – Land Use and Transportation (CPO 2,4,5)

Agenda Title: AUTHORIZE CONTRACT AMENDMENT FOR LARKIN GROUP, INC. FOR COMMUTER RAIL

Presented by: Kathy Lehtola, Director, LUT

SUMMARY (Attach Supporting Documents if Necessary)

On September 5, 2000 (M.O 00-422), your Board authorized an amendment to the Larkin Group Inc. contract for preliminary engineering related to the commuter rail project, and on June 19, 2001 (M.O. 01-198), you authorized a further amendment to that contract. The Larkin Group Inc. provides project management and other services to the County funded by a Federal Transit Administration grant. In the September 5, 2000 amendment, you authorized specific sub- consultants to be hired, as necessary. Included in that list were the law firms of Oppenheimer, Wolff and Donnelly LLP and Davis Wright Tremaine LLP.

Representatives of both law firms have been doing work for the project. The representative of Oppenheimer Wolff and Donnelly (Kevin Sheys) moved to Kirkpatrick & Lockhart LLP. His work was being paid through an Intergovernmental Agreement with Tri-Met, but that IGA is ending. His continuing work on the railroad agreements will be charged to the Larkin Group, Inc contract. Dean Phillips, of Davis Wright Tremaine, has been working on the Wilsonville property purchase and drafting several agreements for the project.

(Text continued on next page)

Amendment available for review at Clerk’s Desk.

DEPARTMENT’S REQUESTED ACTION: Authorize execution of Amendment with The Larkin Group, Inc. as described above.

COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR’S RECOMMENDATION: I concur with the requested action.

Agenda Item No. 1.i. Date: 7/16/02

113 AUTHORIZE CONTRACT AMENDMENT FOR LARKIN GROUP, INC. FOR COMMUTER RAIL Page 2

The amendment is requested because the project completed preliminary engineering in June 2001, but has only recently been authorized by the FTA to seek approval for Final Design authorization. Because of the increased project capital cost, we were required to work with the FTA’s Project Management Oversight Consultant and provide detailed information for them before seeking the latest approval. That work is now complete and the submittal has been made. In addition, the railroad agreements have taken a great deal of time and effort to draft. Specific tasks to be addressed through this amendment include:

· Kirkpatrick & Lockhart LLP to complete negotiations of a Shared Use Agreement with Portland and Western Railroad. · Kirkpatrick & Lockhart LLP to complete real property acquisition with Union Pacific Railroad. · Davis Wright Tremaine LLP and others to develop an Intergovernmental Agreement/Definitive Agreement with Tri-Met regarding design, construction and operations of the Commuter Rail Project. · Assist in the completion of documentation required by the Federal Transit Administration preparatory to the authorization to enter Final Design. · Complete agreements with the Oregon Department of Transportation regarding the use of certain right-of-way and the flow of state funds to construct the project.

Budget Change:

Increase contract budget from $866,460.00 to $1,008,540.00, an increase of $142,080.00. Sufficient budget authority exists in the $1,854,140 Preliminary Engineering grant budget to cover these costs, and all work is grant eligible. Nearly all of the increase is for the work of sub- consultants.

114 AGENDA

WASHINGTON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

Agenda Category: Consent – County Administrative Office

Agenda Title: CONSIDERATION OF POLICY STATEMENTS REGARDING WASHINGTON COUNTY’S ROLE AS A LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICES CONTRACT PROVIDER

Presented by: Charles D. Cameron, County Administrator

SUMMARY (Attach Supporting Documents if Necessary)

Overview As our smaller cities face growing demand for law enforcement services coupled with increasing costs and pressures on available resources, some have turned to the county for information about feasibility and cost of county-provided services on a contract basis. Cities recently making these requests include Cornelius, Forest Grove and King City. In the case of Forest Grove, a short-term contract was executed late last year to assist the city through a difficult period of staff shortages due to illness and injury. Most recently, the county has received a letter from King City Mayor Jan Drangholt, requesting a proposal to provide law enforcement services on a contract basis.

For cities, the lure of contracting is related to the potential of lower costs by tapping into the larger economy of scale of a larger police agency. For the county, the challenge lies in understanding and managing its role as a contract service provider and provide reasonably priced quality services that are equitable for all taxpayers. For the Sheriff, the benefits will not only be from spreading administrative costs over a larger base, but also from the opportunity for training and enhanced skill development for assigned personnel.

Accordingly, this agenda provides some suggested guidelines and policy parameters for the county’s potential role as a contract service provider. Concurrently, the need for these policy guidelines have been requested by our cities and was identified as one of the many objectives in the Cogan Study law enforcement planning process. A list of draft contracting guidelines and background information is attached to this agenda. CONTINUED COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR’S RECOMMENDATION: I recommend that the Board review, amend as desired, and adopt the attached policy statements. Should the Board direct me to proceed with contract discussions with King City, these statements will be used to guide that process. The above-referenced letter from King City is attached to the end of this agenda. Other relevant background reports on this subject, including the full compliment of documents made available by King County Washington, and Chief Baranzini of the City of Sammamish, Washington are also available for review in the Administrative Office.

Agenda Item No. 1.j.

Date: 716/02

115 Basis for Policy Recommendations

With the advent of small cities approaching Washington County over the last several years regarding contracting for law enforcement services, we recently sought out the experience of others who have effectively addressed these issues in their jurisdictions both from the contract provider and recipient perspectives.

Among the leading professionals we discovered is Richard D. Baranzini, a veteran of 29 years of law enforcement experience and chief of police of the city of Sammamish, Washington, a contract of the King County, Washington, sheriff's office. Richard holds a Master's of Public Administration from the University of Puget Sound and a Master of Arts in national security and strategic studies from the U. S. Naval War College. In establishing the city of Sammamish’s contract relationship with King County, Washington, he collaborated closely with Captain Bruce K. Kalin and Rebecca Connolly, both of the contract services section of the King County sheriff’s office, and Jason J. K. King of the King County budget office.

So as not to reinvent the wheel in drafting these proposed policies, we relied heavily on a law enforcement contracting paper written by Chief Baranzini1. This report is available thorough the International City Manager’s Association (ICMA) web site and the portions relevant to Washington County have been incorporated into the draft policy statements below. This information (and the valuable information graciously provided by King County Washington) provides a framework for the Board to consider as it tackles the question of becoming a law enforcement services contact provider.

Draft Policies for Law Enforcement Contract Discussions with Washington County’s Cities

· County Will Entertain Contract Discussions Only Upon a City's Request

DISCUSSION: The county will only engage its municipal partners (in negotiations for provision of law enforcement services) upon receipt of a formally adopted resolution or minute order reflecting a majority decision on the part of the jurisdiction that clearly indicates positive support for pursuing a contract relationship with the county. However should a city desire to informally discuss contracting with the county, nothing in this policy should prohibit those discussions. It should also be made clear that the county will not be actively marketing its contractual services to its cities. The initiation of informal contract discussions is the responsibility of the cities.

1 Baranzini, Richard D., “Contracting Law Enforcement Services”, ICMA Report, Volume 34/Number 2, February 2002.

116 · Services Desired by Cities Need to be Clearly Stated (Although the County May Assist in Clarifying Those Needs).

DISCUSSION: Each city should have the flexibility to determine the level of services, and to identify service priorities, thereby controlling costs. In the contract development process, the county will offer advice and assistance to the city in order to clarify the desired services, service levels and potential models for delivery. Through clarification, these service priorities can have a critical impact on the successful outcome of the contract relationship. They can also provide the best possible basis for accurate identification of the costs of providing those services.

· Contracts Must be Developed with the Involvement of All Stakeholders (Contract Development Team).

DISCUSSION: There are many elements that comprise successful law enforcement contracts. The specific service requirements of the city need to be clearly articulated. The provider needs to clearly understand what is to be provided and under what conditions so services can be accurately priced and delivered effectively and efficiently. The role of the county as a service provider cannot be at odds with other vital county services and priorities. Maintenance of positive city-county relations is always a high priority—within and beyond law enforcement services delivery. Accordingly, representatives of all of these interests need to be involved in the contract development and negotiation process. At minimum, these representatives should include the sheriff; city law enforcement officials, administration and legal staff; county counsel and county administration.

· Services Need to be Accurately Priced and Recover the Full Cost of Service Delivery Based on the Services Desired by the City. .

DISCUSSION: The county should provide at a reasonable and predictable cost, efficient, high quality, appropriate law enforcement services supported by technology that furthers the goals of each city and the county. At the same time, services need to be priced so as not to result in countywide tax dollars being used to subsidize those services. Once the city’s desired service levels are clearly identified and delivery models determined, the county will provide cost estimates for service delivery that are based on the best information available regarding what the county will require to deliver those services. As part of the contract development process, a costing/pricing methodology will be identified in writing and be incorporated into the contract documents. Consistent with county policies, countywide tax dollars are to be used for services available countywide and will not be used to subsidize municipal service levels in specific geographic areas. Accordingly, cost estimates will include a “full cost recovery” approach based on the best estimate of the costs of providing desired services. Included in the full cost methodology is the need for capture of all direct costs and the recovery of all appropriate indirect costs based on the county’s full cost allocation plan. The general goal of the costing methodology is that the county receives full reimbursement for the cost of delivering contracted services2.

2 This policy assumes that the county may reserve the right to seek reimbursement for the costs of contract development prior to a contract actually being approved by both parties. The possibility exists that situations will arise when significant county legal, fiscal or other staff resources are used during contract deliberations and these costs should be recovered as well.

117 · As a Hedge Against Contract Problems—Appoint a Contract Oversight Team

DISCUSSION: The contract development team (identified above) will be responsible to oversee the contract relationship and serve as a clearinghouse for any contract-related problems that need attention. This team should be, at minimum, comprised of representatives from the city, Sheriff's Office, county administration and respective legal staffs.

· Strive for Greatest Efficiency/ Effectiveness, and the Highest Level of Service Possible in Service Delivery

DISCUSSION: The county will work with each city to achieve the highest degree of efficiency and effectiveness possible in configuring contract agreements—especially those that may involve multiple, contiguous or otherwise closely situated jurisdictions. This policy may be most relevant if and when multiple jurisdictions are interested in pursuing contracted services and services may be most efficiently delivered via a multi-agency arrangement and configuration.

In the interest of providing excellent customer service, county law enforcement employees should feel responsibility toward, and demonstrate responsiveness to, cities with agreements for law enforcement services. They should work cooperatively with city organizations in a problem-solving mode to improve the safety and welfare of city residents and visitors. The agreements should preserve, to the extent practical, the valuable law enforcement services provided by the Sheriff, while providing a high level of local service and decision making.

· Provide for Maintenance of City Identity

DISCUSSION: Each city should have the flexibility to choose unique police uniform identification and markings for police vehicles assigned to the city. Uniform variations will be coordinated (and ultimately decided upon) by the Sheriff who may be able to provide a variance of county uniforms and markings that are most cost effective.

· Contracts Shall Not Conflict With Existing County Policies or Impede Delivery of Countywide Services

DISCUSSION: Contracts should preserve the county’s existing ability to provide the service levels presently enjoyed by all county residents. At no time should a contract agreement diminish the county’s present service delivery capacity, however entities may enhance the level of county- provided service by purchasing additional services, as is the case with ESPD.

· Flexibility for Modifying Contract Terms and Conditions

DISCUSSION: These policies recognize the fact that the county has limited experience as a law enforcement contract provider and that cities may conversely not have much experience as clients.

118 Accordingly, contracting policies, contract development processes, contract teams and contract documents will be viewed as building blocks in learning processes for all. Further, as knowledge of these contract relationships and process builds, adjustments in all processes, procedures and documents may need to be considered.

· Termination Flexibility

DISCUSSION: Both contract provider and contract recipients should have ample flexibility to cease contract relationships within reasonable time frames that do not cause major hardships for either party.

Background Information—Law Enforcement Contracting

The following information is excerpted from the Baranzini report cited earlier in this discussion. Portions relevant to Washington County’s contracting situation are outlined below and provide some background perspective on law enforcement contracting issues. This information was a central influence in the drafting of the proposed policies before the Board. The full text of the Baranzini report is available at the Administrative Office.

· Why Are Cities Pursuing Contract Relationships with Counties?

Uncertainty of maintaining stable funding or increasing funding for public safety—has caused elected and appointed officials to make difficult decisions about the delivery of these services. Economic and other fiscal uncertainties of recent years have limited resources for local governments. For some police entities, reactions have included either scaling down and providing only basic law enforcement services or going out of the law enforcement business altogether and entering into contracts with other government entities to provide full or specialized services.

For other entities—potential providers of police services—it has meant a new way of doing business, including marketing the strengths and capabilities of their departments outside heir own communities and providing police services to other jurisdictions.

· Advice From Our Neighbor’s in the State of Washington About Being a Provider

Contracting should not be entered into lightly; it is hard work. When an entity with no experience as a customer enters into a contract with an entity with no experience as a provider, the results can be disastrous for both. But when two entities enter into a contractual relationship in a thoughtful manner, having done their homework, contracting can benefit all concerned-the government entities, constituents, and, last but not least, the individual police officers selected for or assigned to contract duties.

119 · Examples of Other Counties That Are Assuming the Role of Contract Services Provider

On the West Coast, the Los Angeles County sheriff’s office provides contract law enforcement services to 41 cities, 13 school districts, and 9 community colleges. In the Northwest, the King County sheriff’s office in Washington State provides contract law enforcement services to 13 cities, a county transit authority, an international airport, and an Indian reservation in addition to several smaller, specialized contracts. In the Southwest, Fountain Hills, Arizona, contracts with the Maricopa County sheriff's office for police services but also maintains its own marshal's office to handle quality-of-life issues. In Ohio, the Hamilton County sheriff's office provides law enforcement services to 10 townships and one village. In Pennsylvania, where the concept of regional policing has gained prominence and has led to some 28 regional police departments, the Westtown-East Goshen regional police department serves the citizens of three separate townships. And in Washtenau County, Michigan, the sheriff's office provides contract law enforcement services to nine townships, two villages, and four school districts.

· Incentives for Contracting (For the Customer and the Contractor)

Cost-Effectiveness Because a large percentage of a city's or a county's budget is earmarked for criminal justice and personnel costs, even an existing entity with its own police department might realize significant budgetary savings by dissolving its police department and contracting out for law enforcement services. Contracting may also allow the customer entity to provide more high-quality, specialized police services at less cost than if it had to recruit, train, and equip its entire staff itself.

For governments desiring to enter the business of providing law enforcement services outside their own jurisdiction, the incentives and benefits are many. One of the most common incentives is also one of the most basic—budgetary considerations. A larger organization benefits from economies of scale that can lower per-officer administrative and support costs. Pressure to achieve gains in efficiency can motivate an entity to seek contracting opportunities.

There is another incentive if the entity's own tax base is shrinking. For example, contracting may be an attractive option to counties faced with the incorporation of new cities or the annexation of prime taxable property into existing cities. It can allow them to maintain a stable workforce without having to resort to lay-offs in response to reduced revenues. A static or shrinking budget prevents agency growth, specia1ization, modernization, and employee advancement. On the other hand, revenue earned from law enforcement contracts, coupled with the entity's growth as a result of being a contract provider, may allow expanded growth, specialization, modernization, and advancement.

Finally, an agency may find itself considering becoming a provider by default. Small cities may not be able to maintain their own departments or fund needed specialized services, so they look at the state police, the sheriff’s office, or a larger, neighboring city for contract assistance or as an alternative to having their own department. Even if they want to maintain their independence, small cities often cannot compete with larger entities in recruiting, training, deployment, and—most important—retention of quality police officer candidates. Larger agencies may be approached by smaller ones that are able to maintain basic patrol and investigative services but cannot provide the

120 expertise required to combat local and regional crime problems like high-level drug distribution, money laundering, prostitution, gambling, forgery, fraud, and Internet crime, all of which demand highly skilled, trained, and equipped investigative personnel.

Economies of Scale A major benefit and driving force supporting the concept of law enforcement services contracting is economy of scale. In cost comparisons, apples-to-apples costs for any- given service are lower when they are spread among multiple agencies. Costs can be shared between the provider and one customer or among several customers, and duplication of support functions such as personnel, motor pool, and evidence room can be avoided; this, in turn, reduces the impact of administration, operation, specialization, and equipment on all parties involved. The smaller customer entity can then take advantage of specialization, equipment, and supplemental manpower usually available only to large departments, without incurring all the overhead costs normally associated with such advantages.

The provider, in turn, can continue to maintain, train, and equip specialty units and a force structure that might otherwise be too expensive to maintain for its use alone. Depending on the contract model adopted, the smaller entity can either prepay for these specialty and supplemental services, or it can announce its willingness to pay, on an as-used basis, at a mutually acceptable fee. In both instances, the contractual relationship provides a safety net to ensure that staffing, equipment, and services will be available when the need arises, and that all potential users will contribute to paying for the costs of trained personnel and the equipment they need to fulfill their mission.

· Pitfalls and Objections to Law Enforcement Contracting

According to Chief Baranzini, contracting is not without its problems—and that there are pitfalls to being either a service provider or a customer. Costing models and price structures must be realistic; the language of the contract must be carefully drafted; and, the concept must be supported by everyone in the providing agency. Strategic planning and long-term budgeting must reflect the importance of being able to support the commitment a contract brings.

Agencies considering becoming law enforcement services providers must make sure they do not fall prey to organizational arrogance; they must avoid a we're-the-only-department-in-town mentality. Costing models also must be realistic; it is easy for a department to price itself out of business and eliminate the savings that contracting anticipates.

For the potential customer, identity and local control are major issues. The police department is a visible symbol of the identity and sovereignty of a government entity. It is not unusual for city officials to be willing to contract out such municipal services as public works, park maintenance, animal control, and business license enforcement but insist on retaining the local government s own police department. Some people perceive that the reality and existence of a government entity may appear to be lessened if the government is without a visible police department that displays the badge, patch, and car markings of that entity. Therefore, contracting parties must consider issues of perception of local control and identity.

A major issue in any contracting proposal is the attitude of the community or entity toward the officers serving it. Giving the customer a say in selecting the officers and administration that will serve them, while allowing assigned officers to wear a unique uniform markings and drive

121 distinctively marked patrol cars, will give the people served a sense of ownership of the officers assigned under the contract. In return, customer entities often support their assigned officers with training opportunities and equipment funding far above what the officers in the contracting department enjoy. These factors, in addition to the career development and resume-building opportunities that providing contract services can bring, make contracting an attractive alternative for the line officers of the vendor department.

When neither the provider nor the customer has had experience with contracting, law enforcement or otherwise, unrealistic expectations or an inability to perform can turn a potentially mutually beneficial experiment into a negative experience. For example, in Washington State, a newly incorporated city decided to contract for law enforcement services from a neighboring, larger municipality instead of the county, which had been a contract provider to others in the past. The customer, a newly incorporated city, had no experience with contracting; the provider, although significantly larger in size, had no previous experience providing full law enforcement services to another entity. The result was that because the provider had underbid it found it impossible to provide the services it had promised, and the new city was unhappy with the quality of the service it received. The new city now contracts with the county, and a mutually positive relationship exists.

The provider's experience in law enforcement is also important. Growth into new territories— geographic or demographic—can work only if the relationship is a good fit. An urban department— where two-person patrol cars are the norm; patrol districts are measured in blocks, not square miles; and backup is less than a minute away—cannot assume it will successfully provide services to large, rural areas. The police department of a small, upscale, ethnically homogeneous, residential community cannot assume that its approach to community policing will work in an economically depressed, diverse community with large commercial areas and a significant transient population.

· Contract Models: One Size Does Not Fit All

A department dedicated to being a contract provider should adopt a menu-driven process and practice a sincere customer service orientation that gives the customer maximum flexibility and choice from an extensive menu of options. The menu may allow for the contracting of one individual to act as the temporary police chief of an existing department or for a single service or specialty. The contract menu will also provide a choice between paying for the service up front or paying for each on an as-used basis. When one agency enters into a contract to receive police services from another, a menu will allow the customer to choose among service models.

The City Model: All on-site: (also known as precinct-level) services, including command officers, supervisors, patrol officers, detectives, and clerical personnel, are dedicated to the customer entity. This option offers the most local control and consistency of service because the entity is served constantly by the same officers and staff.

The Shared-Supervision Model: Officers and precinct-level detectives are dedicated to the customer entity, but supervision and support services are shared with the provider agency. The contract might call for extra on-site supervision in the persons of a dedicated police chief and one or more administrative and operational lieutenants, sergeants, or equivalents; but most supervision and support services are shared. This model provides consistency of assignment of the officers and detectives who work the street, but it might be difficult for supervisors to keep on top of issues important to the customer when they must also supervise a large number of officers working in several jurisdictions over a large geographic area. The shared-supervision model should be used

122 only when the number of supervisors on duty during each shift is sufficient to keep the span of control manageable and mechanisms are in place to insure that the shared supervisors are aware of specific crime trends and other issues affecting the officers dedicated to the contract.

The Flex Model: Personnel are not dedicated exclusively to the customer; instead officers, supervisors, and support personnel are provided in proportion to the customer's share of the total workload of the precinct or other geographic unit or even on a per-call basis. This type of contract is appropriate for very small entities with low crime rates—such as gated communities or park systems with a large number of geographically separated park locations—where it is not necessary to have a police officer on site at all hours every day.

· The Bottom Line: A Successful Costing Model

One of the most difficult aspects of achieving success as a contract law enforcement provider is designing a costing model that will attract customers, not deter them. Costing models must:

· Recoup the cost of services provided · Levy reasonable overhead charges.

The vendor agency cannot give away services; nor can the vendor agency subsidize its customers. Full-cost recovery must be the rule in contracting. The law of the state of Washington, for example, holds that a government entity cannot give away services for free. It could be politically dangerous to a local government to appear to supply service to an outside customer for free or at a price lower than one's own citizens are paying. However, a potential customer needs confidence that it is being assessed a reasonable rate for a service and not paying for items or services that are properly the responsibility of the contracting agency. It is important to draft a costing model (or models) that answers both concerns.

A functional costing model must be comprehensive, clear, and adaptable. The foundation for a successful model is a solid financial accounting system, one that can track revenue and expenditures at a level detailed enough to separate out chargeable and non-chargeable services. This is critical for ensuring that contracting partners are not charged for direct or indirect costs supported by other revenue sources such as special levies. The contracting agency should also be able to draw on detailed financial data to demonstrate to the customer that the charges are based on valid costs. Because customers will almost always be public entities, the contracting agency will also need to produce a budget that accurately estimates the next year's law enforcement services. The use of timely and accurate data builds trust between the contracting entity and the customer, translates into better projections, and helps smaller entities plan for future service levels.

In developing the costs, the parties to the contract should agree on a costing methodology for each service provided, including enhanced services. Agreement by both parties to the calculations is crucial for maintaining a lasting contract, assuring buy-in by the party purchasing the service. One way of consistently meeting and maintaining the interests of both parties in calculating these costs is to establish and maintain an oversight group or committee composed of representatives with decision-making authority from the contracting entity and its customers. This group will compose contract wording, agree on costing models, and react to changes in service cost. The agreed methodology should be published within the contract or attached as an exhibit. In most cases the methodology will involve a projection based on a combination of workload data and the actual costs to provide that service.

123 · The Agreements And Supporting Documents

An interlocal agreement (ILA) for the provision of law enforcement services is a living document. King County, Washington, has altered its ILAs many times over the years, with city managers, city finance directors, contract city chiefs of police, and personnel of the sheriff’s contract services section playing vital roles in shaping each version. ILAs are constantly reviewed and updated to reflect changing situations, identified efficiencies in operations and methodology, and an ongoing philosophy of partnership and fairness among all parties involved.

A memorandum of agreement or a memorandum of understanding (MOU) can be used when a detailed contract is not necessary. In King County, Washington, an MOU is used for contracts with other King County agencies, but an ILA is used for contracts with agencies outside the metropolitan King County government.

A budget matrix, completed for each customer entity and appended to the ILA or the MOU, states the contract model that has been chosen, which services are mandatory and which are optional, and which services the customer jurisdiction has chosen. The budget matrix also recaps all costs and credits (including grants and charge-backs), as well as the total cost of the contract for the given year.

A service matrix should be published by the provider agency so its field and specialty-unit supervisors will know which jurisdictions (including those that actually contract for basic law enforcement services from the provider agency) have prepaid for a specialty service (such as marine patrol, SWAT, air support, and canine) and which have indicated a desire to use a service but pay only when the service is accessed. The matrix will identify the agreed formula for determining the minimum charge for the service and the current cost per hour.

The provider entity should submit an outside agency service delivery report form each time specialty services are provided to another entity. The form will include the name of the representative of the entity receiving the service, that is, the person who requested the service and authorized the charges if the request was not for a prepaid service.

124

AGENDA

WASHINGTON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

Agenda Category: Consent – Assessment and Taxation

Agenda Title: 2002– 2003 FORECLOSURE LIST R&O DESIGNATING NEWSPAPER TO PUBLISH NOTICE OF FORECLOSURE

Presented by: Jerry R. Hanson, Director of Assessment and Taxation

SUMMARY (Attach Supporting Documents if Necessary)

Pursuant to ORS Chapter 312, the Department of Assessment and Taxation has prepared a list of real properties subject to tax foreclosure. These properties became three (3) years delinquent on May 16, 2002. A letter of notification has been sent to the property owner.

A schedule of foreclosure procedures outlined by County Counsel is attached. In order to complete this process your Board is required to:

(1) Adopt a Resolution and Order declaring delinquent taxes for the tax years 1998-99 through 2001-2002

(2) Select a newspaper of general circulation for one notice, and publish the foreclosure list in said newspaper.

A copy of the 2002-2003 foreclosure list (Exhibit “A”) is available at the clerk’s desk for your review.

DEPARTMENT’S REQUESTED ACTION: Adopt the Resolution and Order declaring delinquent taxes for the tax years 1998-99 through 2001-02 and designate the Hillsboro Argus as the newspaper to provide publication of notice of foreclosure.

COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR’S RECOMMENDATION: I concur with the requested action.

Agenda Item No. 1.k. Date: 7/16/02

127 IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

1 FOR WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON

2 In the Matter of Declaring Certain Properties Subject ) RESOLUTION AND ORDER to Tax Foreclosure; Designating Publication of ) 3 Notice. ) No. ______

4 This matter having come before the Board of County Commissioners at its meeting of July 16,

5 2002; and

6 It appearing to the Board that the Director of Assessment and Taxation has prepared a list of

7 real properties subject to tax foreclosure pursuant to ORS Chapter 312, said list is marked Exhibit “A,”

8 attached hereto, and incorporated herein; and

9 It appearing to the Board that it is necessary for the Board to designate a newspaper of general

10 circulation in the County to publish notice of tax foreclosure of the certain described properties in Exhibit

11 “A;” it is, therefore,

12 RESOLVED AND ORDERED that those properties described in Exhibit “A” are delinquent in

13 payment of real property taxes and subject to foreclosure; and it is further

14 RESOLVED AND ORDERED that the Hillsboro Argus be designated as that newspaper to

15 provide publication of notice of foreclosure; said publication to be in conformance with ORS

16 312.040.

17 DATED this 16th day of July, 2002.

18 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FOR WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON 19

20 CHAIRMAN

21 RECORDING SECRETARY Page 2 – RESOLUTION & ORDER (2002 TAX FORECLOSURE)

WASHINGTON COUNTY COUNSEL 128 155 N. FIRST AVE, SUITE 340 HILLSBORO, OR 97124 PHONE (503) 846-8747 - FAX (503) 846-8636 2002 FORECLOSURE SCHEDULE 1998-99 DELINQUENT TAX YEAR

May 16, 2002 Send first notice of delinquency to accounts at least three (3) years delinquent ORS 311.510; 311.545; 312.010.

June 17, 2002 Send second notice of delinquency (not required by law).

July 16, 2002 Last day to prepare final foreclosure list. ORS 312.030(1).

July 16, 2002 Board adopts Resolution and Order declaring delinquent taxes. Selects newspaper of general circulation for publishing notice. ORS 312.030; 312.040.

July 16, 2002 Third notice of delinquency (first class mail). OAR 150-312.040(1)(b).

August 22, 2002 Publish foreclosure list. ORS 312.040(1)(a).

Notice of foreclosure proceedings by certified mail to property owner. ORS 312.040(1)(b).

Penalty of five percent (5%) assessed against total of all taxes published OAR 150-312.110 (Taxpayer can avoid the penalty if the 1998-99 taxes are paid by August 15, 2002.)

County Counsel files Foreclosure Complaint, Notice of Pendency of Action. ORS 312.050(1).

September 23, 2002 Deadline for taxpayer to file Answer contesting foreclosure (30 days after date of publication). ORS 312.070.

September 24, 2002 County Counsel files Motion, Order and Judgment for delinquent taxes against property. ORS 312.080; 312.090; 312.110.

129 130 AGENDA

WASHINGTON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

Agenda Category: Consent – Health and Human Services

Agenda Title: ACCEPT GRANTS FROM UNITED WAY, GRANT WAIVER FROM REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS PROCESS AND AWARD CONTRACTS FOR FAMILY SUPPORT SERVICES FOR FIRST TIME PARENTS (22080W)

Presented by: Susan Irwin, Director

SUMMARY (Attach Supporting Documents if Necessary)

The Department of Health and Human Services receives Success by Six grant funding from the United Way of the Columbia-Willamette for enhanced family support services to first time parents through the New Parent Network. The New Parent Network is a partnership between the County and local agencies to provide home visitation and family support services.

The Washington County Commission on Children and Families has facilitated planning for the New Parent Network since 1999 and also serves as the lead agency. As a result, Success by Six funding awarded to the New Parent Network through the United Way allocation process has been contracted to New Parent Network partner agencies by the County in accordance with the Success by Six allocation plan developed by the Network. Subsequently, expansion funds for New Parent Network services allocated by the 2001 Legislature have been awarded to partner agencies through RFP Number 21077P.

-continued on page 2-

DEPARTMENT’S REQUESTED ACTION:

Accept $96,000 from United Way of the Columbia-Willamette. Grant a waiver from the Request for Proposals process. Award contracts to agencies to provide family support services to first time parents effective through June 30, 2003.

COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR’S RECOMMENDATION: I concur with the requested action.

Agenda Item No. 1.l. Date: 7/16/02

131 ACCEPT GRANTS FROM UNITED WAY, GRANT WAIVER FROM REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS PROCESS AND AWARD CONTRACTS FOR FAMILY SUPPORT SERVICES FOR FIRST TIME PARENTS Page 2

This agenda item seeks to accept and award $65,000 to New Parent Network partner agencies from the United Way and $31,000 in Spirit Mountain Community Funds for translation of parenting materials and purchase of special equipment and program supplies. Attachment A provides further detail.

132 ATTACHMENT A

United Way United Way - Spirit Mountain Success by Six Funds Community Funds TOTAL

Virginia Garcia Memorial Health Center $24,025 $3,827 $27,852

IRCO $19,210 $3,059 $22,269

Oregon Child Development Coalition $19,210 $3,059 $22,269

Tualatin Valley Centers $ 2,555 $ 407 $ 2,962

Department of Health and Human Services (for translation) $20,648 $20,648

TOTAL $65,000 $31,000 $96,000

133 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUIRED TO GRANT WAIVER:

Per Purchasing Rule #10-150, the request for waiver shall contain the following:

A. The Nature of the Project.

The Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Division, receives funding from the Commission on Children and Families and grants from the United Way for the New Parent Network. The New Parent Network is a collaboration which includes the County and local agencies to provide community-based home visitation and family support program services.

B. The estimated cost of the project.

United Way - United Way Spirit Mountain Success by Six Funds Community Fund TOTAL

Virginia Garcia Memorial Health Center $24,025 $ 3,827 $27,852

IRCO $19,210 $ 3,059 $22,269

Oregon Child Development Coalition $19,210 $ 3,059 $22,269

Tualatin Valley Centers $ 2,555 $ 407 $ 2,962

Department of Health and Human Services (for translation) $20,648 $20,648

TOTAL $65,000 $31,000 $96,000

C. Narrative description of cost savings anticipated by the exemption from competitive bidding, and the reasons competitive bidding would be inappropriate.

United Way awarded Success by Six funds to the New Parent Network, through a competitive RFP process in 1999. Since that time, the Department of Health and Human Services has assumed fiscal responsibility for contracting the Success by Six funds with New Parent Network partners consistent with the original collaborative proposal funded by United Way. For the 2002-03 allocation process, United Way opted to continue base funding to Success by Six projects in the four-county service area in order to preserve continuity of the Success by Six early childhood initiative, rather than requiring Success by Six projects to complete a competitive RFP. Therefore, a waiver from the RFP process for Success by Six funds is consistent with this intent to maintain continuity.

134 In Spring, 2002, the United Way of the Columbia-Willamette submitted a proposal to the Spirit Mountain Community Fund on behalf of all Success by Six projects in its four county service area, to enhance early childhood services through the Success by Six initiative. Washington County Success by Six partners sought funds to support translation of parenting materials into Vietnamese and Mien, as well as funds to support equipment and program material costs in the proposal submitted by United Way. Funds from Spirit Mountain were awarded to United Way in late spring, and a waiver from the RFP process allows the County to award funds to partner agencies consistent with the proposal submitted by United Way.

D. Proposed alternative contracting and purchasing practices to be employed.

Direct negotiation with providers for contracted amounts described in the Success by Six workplan and the Spirit Mountain proposal.

E. The estimated date to let the contracts.

Through June 30, 2003.

135 136 AGENDA

WASHINGTON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

Agenda Category: Consent – Sheriff’s Office

Agenda Title: AUTHORIZE EXECUTION OF CONTRACT WITH STATE MARINE BOARD

Presented by: Jim Spinden, Sheriff

SUMMARY (Attach Supporting Documents if Necessary)

The Sheriff’s Office requests Board approval of the annual Oregon State Marine Board contract. The contract provides reimbursement to the Sheriff’s Office for law enforcement activities on Hagg Lake.

The total amount of the FY02-03 contract is $96,501. The Marine Board portion is $63,910 (reimbursed semi-annually per actual expenditures) and the County match is $32,591 that will be met from existing appropriations. This represents an increase in State funds of $3,302 and an increase in County match funds of $8,947 from last year. The increase is primarily due to the extension of the season. Funds offered under this agreement are used to reimburse the County for permanent and temporary marine salaries, boat-maintenance and operating expenses, and miscellaneous supplies associated with the County’s Marine Patrol operations. These expenditures are included in the fiscal 2002-03 adopted budget.

DEPARTMENT’S REQUESTED ACTION: Approve the FY02-03 Marine Board contract with the State of Oregon.

COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR’S RECOMMENDATION: I concur with the requested action.

Agenda Item No. 1.m. Date: 7/16/02

137 138 AGENDA

WASHINGTON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

Agenda Category: Consent – Support Services

Agenda Title: ACCEPT PROPOSAL/AWARD CONTRACT FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING SERVICES (22032P)

Presented by: Linda Baumgartner, Purchasing Supervisor, Support Services Greg Miller, Operations Division Manager, LUT

SUMMARY (Attach Supporting Documents if Necessary) It is recommended that your Board accept the proposal and award a contract for environmental consulting services to Environmental and Land Use Economics. The term of this contract will be through June 30, 2007. The estimated expenditure for the first year of the agreement is $250,000 and $100,000 in each subsequent year, for a total estimated expenditure of $650,000.

The required legal advertisement and Request for Proposal (RFP) documents were released in May, 2002. Proposals were received from Jones & Stokes, CH2M Hill, David Evans & Associates and Environmental and Land Uses Economics. Out of a total possible score of 100 points, Environmental Land Use and Economics scored 97 points, CH2M Hill 84, David Evans 75, and Jones and Stokes 57 in the evaluation process. The Evaluation Committee is unanimous in recommending Environmental and Land Use Economics.

The consultant will assist LUT in a comprehensive review of activities and legal authority and help develop a program approach to the Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act. The project will involve data gathering on LUT activities and operations that may effect water quality and endangered fish. After this review, the consultant will provide guidance and make recommendations for changes to current LUT policies, activities, operations and codes. In addition, the consultant is expected to participate with the County in resolving permit issues with the EPA, DEQ and other state and federal agencies on LUT projects. (Continued on Page 2)

DEPARTMENT’S REQUESTED ACTION: That your Board accept the proposal for environmental consulting services and award a contract to Environmental and Land Use Economics through June 30, 2007 for the estimated expenditure amount of $650,000.

COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR’S RECOMMENDATION: I concur with the requested action.

Agenda Item No. 1.n. Date: 7/16/02

139 Consent Agenda – Support Services Accept Proposal/Award Contract for Environmental Consulting Services (22032P) Page 2

Background:

Until recently, Washington County has been working with the NPDES permit (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System) and a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) allocation for phosphorous in the Tualatin Basin. These issues required periodic meetings, development and implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) and associated reporting.

Both the TMDL and the NPDES address the Clean Water Act of 1973 with the NPDES permit focusing on the urban area and the TMDL covering both urban and rural issues. Recently, DEQ implemented new TMDL requirements, which include phosphorous, temperature, oxygen, and bacteria. Also, NPDES requirements have increased and are likely to undergo major changes in the near future. Additionally, in 1999, several anadromous fish species were listed as threatened in the Willamette River basin under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). This has resulted in major changes in how the County builds and maintains roads and it will have a significant affect on land use issues.

Because of potential third party lawsuits and the possibility of substantial penalties if the federal and state requirements are not met, staff is recommending this contract. The consultant can anticipate potential problems in how LUT conducts its day-to-day operations and assist in plans for the future. It is desirable to have a team that can provide both legal advice and engineering review and monitoring. The consultant team will provide services to ensure that the County meets ongoing federal and state mandatory requirements with the CWA and ESA.

140 AGENDA

WASHINGTON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

Agenda Category: Consent – Support Services

Agenda Title: INCREASE THE NUMBER OF AUTHORIZED POSITIONS IN THE DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING SERVICES BY 1.00 FTE MANAGEMENT OFFICER

Presented by: Bob Osip, Human Resources Manager

SUMMARY (Attach Supporting Documents if Necessary)

The purpose of this agenda item is to request that your Board approve the addition of 1.00 full time equivalent (FTE) Management Officer to the number of authorized positions listed for the Department of Housing Services.

The Department of Housing Services recently completed a review and analysis of the Section 8 Rental Assistance program organizational structure, operations, workload, and number of program participants. Based on the review, the Department determined that an additional Management Officer position is needed to help with the added work activities associated with the overall increase in size of the Section 8, Rental Assistance program. The addition of this position will increase the Department’s effectiveness in assisting program participants, owners and property managers in resolving issues directly related to rental assistance.

Funding for this position will be provided by revenue generated from the approximately 150 new vouchers authorized by Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to increase the County’s housing voucher inventories. The cost including benefits for this position is approximately $46,700 for this fiscal year.

DEPARTMENT’S REQUESTED ACTION: That your Board approve the addition of 1.00 full time equivalent Management Officer to the number of authorized positions in the Department of Housing Services.

COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR’S RECOMMENDATION: I concur with the requested action.

Agenda Item No. 1.o. Date: 7/16/02

141 142 AGENDA

WASHINGTON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

Agenda Category: Consent – Support Services

Agenda Title: APPROVE RESOLUTION AND ORDER ADJUSTING THE SALARY OF THE COUNTY AUDITOR

Presented by: Bob Osip, Human Resources Manager, Support Services

SUMMARY (Attach Supporting Documents if Necessary)

The purpose of this agenda item is to request that your Board approve the attached Resolution and Order adjusting the salary of the County Auditor, effective July 1, 2002. Section 46 (a) of the County Charter states that “Compensation for the County Auditor shall be 80 percent of the salary of a District Court Judge”. The District Courts merged with the Circuit Courts in January of 1998. A Circuit Court Judge and a District Court Judge were both paid the same annual salary.

The Legislature has established that as of July 1, 2002 the salary for a Circuit Court Judge shall $95,800 annually. County Counsel has reviewed this matter and has determined that the salary for the County Auditor should now be 80% of the salary for a Circuit Court Judge. The Auditor’s current salary is $72,234 ($6,027 monthly) and will be $76,640 ($6,387 monthly) with this adjustment.

DEPARTMENT’S REQUESTED ACTION: That your Board approve the attached Resolution and Order adjusting the salary for the County Auditor effective July 1, 2002, to reflect 80% of the salary for a Circuit Court Judge. The revised salary for the Auditor will be $76,640 ($6,387 monthly).

COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR’S RECOMMENDATION: I concur with the requested action.

Agenda Item No. 1.p. Date: 7/16/02

143 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FOR THE COUNTY OF WASHINGTON

IN THE MATTER OF ESTABLING A ) RESOLUTION AND ORDER SALARY RANGE FOR THE POSITION ) NO.______OF COUNTY AUDITOR )

The above-entitled matter came before the Board at it regular meeting of July 16, 2002; and

It appearing to the Board that Washington Position and Salary Report set compensation forth all positions in the County, including compensation for the County Auditor:

It appearing pursuant to Section 46 (a) of the County Charter, “Compensation for the County

Auditor shall be 80 percent of a District Court Judge”; and

It appearing that the district court has been merged into the circuit court; and

It appearing that the District Court Judge and the Circuit Court Judge annual salary was the same; and

It appearing that the Oregon Legislature has set the salary for Circuit Court Judge at $95,800 per year effective July 1, 2002; therefore, the County Auditor’s salary should be $76,640

($6387/mo) as of July 1, 2002; now therefore, it is

RESOLVED AND ORDERED that the compensation for the position of County Auditor be established as $76,640 per year, retroactive to July 1, 2002 and it is further

\\\

144 RESOLVED AND ORDERED that the Washington County Administrator take all necessary steps, including revising the Washington County Position and Salary Report, in order to implement this Resolution and Order.

DATED this 16th day of July.

BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FOR WASHINGTON COUNTY, REGON

______CHAIRMAN

______RECORDING SECRETARY

APPROVED AS TO FORM ______County Counsel Date of Approval

145 AGENDA

WASHINGTON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

Agenda Category: Boards and Commissions (CPO 3)

Agenda Title: APPOINTMENT TO THE WEST SLOPE COMMUNITY LIBRARY ADVISORY BOARD

Presented by: Eva Calcagno, Cooperative Library Services Manager

SUMMARY (Attach Supporting Documents if Necessary)

The West Slope Community Library Advisory Board was established in 1979 (MO 79-174) and is comprised of five citizen members who each serve a three-year term. The Board advises the library on policy matters and assists with fund-raising and volunteer programs. On June 30, 2002 the term for Becky Clark expired.

As was discussed with your Board at the June 25th worksession, applications have been received from three individuals: Pat Bryant, Frank Martin, and Karen Dunlap. All applicants are registered library users familiar at the West Slope Community Library.

Of the three, Pat Bryant has the longest connection to the library. Ms. Bryant has been a regular volunteer there for many years, and is the former President of the Friends of the Library. In addition she is a retired librarian and had once served as the volunteer director of the Tanasbourne Library. Her knowledge and background make her the recommended candidate.

DEPARTMENT’S REQUESTED ACTION: Appoint Pat Bryant to the West Slope Community Library Advisory Board.

COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR’S RECOMMENDATION: I concur with the requested action.

Agenda Item No. 3.a. Date: 7/16/02

9 West Slope Community Library Advisory Board

Description Advises on library policy in matters of hiring, budget, materials selection, hours of service. Assists with fund raising and volunteer program. Represents the library on the Cooperative Library Advisory Board.

Members Five members who are registered users of the West Slope Library.

Length of Term 3 years

Current Vacancies - 1 Applicants - 3

Recommended Candidate(s) District* New Applicant Pat Bryant 2

Term First Continuing Members District* Expires Appointed Mary Boyle 2 6/30/03 10/96 Joyce Campbell 2 6/30/03 6/95 Alice Keys 2 6/30/04 7/01 Carol McCormac Wild 2 6/30/04 7/01

Retiring Members Becky Clark 2 6/30/02 1/97

Other Candidates Frank Martin 2 Karen Dunlap 2

* For information purposes only. Members are not appointed by commissioner district.

10 AGENDA

WASHINGTON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

Agenda Category: Boards and Commissions

Agenda Title: APPOINT MEMBERS TO THE REGIONAL ARTS AND CULTURE COUNCIL

Presented by: Charles D. Cameron, County Administrator

SUMMARY (Attach Supporting Documents if Necessary)

The Regional Arts and Culture Council’s (RACC) mission is to serve the citizens of Washington County and the region so that through vision, leadership and service, arts and culture will be integrated in all aspects of community life.

At the present time, Washington County has the authority to appoint two members to the Regional Arts and Culture Council. Mr. David Hudson, Executive Director of RACC, has requested the reappointment of Bettsy Preble to position number 24 and the appointment of Larry Harvey to position number 23, previously held by Joseph Wyatt, who resigned in 2000. Both appointments are for two-year terms to expire on 6/30/04.

Attachment: Profile on Larry Harvey

COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR’S RECOMMENDATION: That your Board reappoint Bettsy Preble and appoint Larry Harvey to the Regional Arts and Culture Council with term expirations of 6/30/04.

Agenda Item No. 3.b. Date: 7/16/02

11 Background on Larry Harvey

A seasoned business management professional, Larry Harvey brings nearly 25 years experience in large and small business organizations in his "tool kit” to support and enhance the Communications of his clients and the non-profit organization with which he works. Along with his excellent communications skills, Larry is an individual who appreciates the challenges of risk/reward tasks and constantly seeks innovative solutions to difficult and unusual circumstances.

A graduate of the University of Portland, Larry moved from business management to business advocacy in 1981. Capitalizing on his professional savvy, he turned his focus to public relations, marketing and governmental affairs. Since that time, he has had the opportunity to serve as a legislative assistant to a variety of Oregon lawmakers, government affairs director for statewide trade associations, campaign director for a host of candidates and also served as Chief of Staff to the Oregon House Majority Leader in 1997.

In 1998, he founded Larry Harvey Public Relations, a firm designed to work hand-in-hand with small business owners. The notion that only wealthy, large corporations are the only businesses that can afford public relations motivated Larry to make communications services available to small firms, sole proprietorships and non-profits.

Armed with the idea that effective communications is the key to developing a successful business, Larry began building his firm and developing the tools that would later be used to provide smaller companies with the "cutting-edge" advantage necessary for competing in the 21st Century marketplace. Given his background in public service and hospitality, the emphasis he places on commitment and personal contact with the clients gives the company the reputation it has earned to date.

More recently, Larry worked on issues ranging from local city and county tourism issues to interior design legislation and healthcare concerns. Larry has also worked closely with the Economic Development Department through partnering with a variety of tourism and cultural organizations.

Larry has been a member of several business organizations during the past 10 years, including the Small Business Coalition, the Tourism Industry Council of Oregon, and the Washington County Visitors Association. He has served as a board member with the Oregon Restaurant Association, the Portland Oregon Visitors Association and currently serves as a member of the Convention and Visitors Bureau of Washington County Board of Directors, the Urban Renewal Advisory Committee and the Transportation System Planning Committee for the City of Tualatin.

12 CONTINUED FROM JUNE 25, 2002 AGENDA

WASHINGTON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

Agenda Category: Public Hearing – Second Reading and Public Hearing (All CPO’s) Land Use and Transportation; County Counsel

Agenda Title: PROPOSED A-ENGROSSED ORDINANCE NO. 589 – AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE TO INCORPORATE GENERAL STATUTORY UPDATES RELATING TO RECENT CHANGES IN STATE LAW

Presented by: Brent Curtis, Planning Division Manager; Dan Olsen, County Counsel

SUMMARY (Attach Supporting Documents if Necessary)

A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 589 proposes to make limited changes to the Community Development Code (Code) to incorporate recent updates in the Oregon Revised Statutes relating to rural lands.

At its June 25, 2002 hearing, the Board directed engrossment of Ordinance 589 to incorporate the Planning Commission’s recommendations to: 1) delete Exhibit 1 dealing with gated communities; 2) modify Exhibit 7 regarding standards for a new type of land division in the EFC District to limit the size of the new parcel to two acres; and 3) require owners of these new parcels record a farm/forest waiver. The changes regarding the waiver are included as Exhibit 1 in the Engrossed Ordinance.

The Board also directed staff to prepare two issue papers that address: 1) safety issues associated with the gating of private streets in urban residential districts; and 2) proposed revisions to the Planning Commission’s recommendation that the partition provision in Exhibit 7 limit new parcels to the minimum two-acre size.

(continued)

DEPARTMENT’S REQUESTED ACTION: Read by title only and conduct the first public hearing for A-Engrossed Ordinance 589. Continue the hearing to July 23, 2002 as required by Chapter X of the County Charter.

COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR’S RECOMMENDATION: I concur with the requested action.

Agenda Item No. 4.a. Date: 7/16/02

13 PROPOSED A-ENGROSSED ORDINANCE NO. 589 July 16, 2002 Page 2

The public hearing was continued to July 16 and 23, 2002, in order to conduct two public hearings as required by Chapter X of the County Charter. Public notice describing the proposed changes to the ordinance was mailed to individuals on the General Notification List, consistent with the requirements of Chapter X.

In addition, staff will provide the Board with a third issue paper that addresses a request to modify the Washington Square Regional Center (WSRC) boundary through a subsequent engrossment. Subsequent to the City of Tigard’s adoption of the WSRC Plan, residents of Fairway Park petitioned the Tigard City Council to remove their neighborhood from the adopted WSRC boundary. Fairway Park is a fully developed residential neighborhood in unincorporated Washington County, but within the WSRC boundary.

On April 15, 2002 the County received a letter from Mr. Jim Hendryx, City of Tigard Community Development Director, indicating Tigard’s support of the petition. The City Council supported the request because the underlying land use district would not be changed as a result of the WSRC Plan and because the subject properties were not surrounded by properties whose underlying land use district would be changed. However, since the area in question is located within unincorporated Washington County as well as within the WSRC, the City does not retain sole authority to act on the petition.

Pursuant to Board direction on July 11, 1995, testimony about the Ordinance will be limited to twelve minutes for a representative of a recognized group and three minutes for individual testimony.

The staff report, issue papers, and copies of A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 589 will be provided to the Board prior to the hearing. Copies also will be available at the Clerk’s desk prior to the hearing.

14 AGENDA

WASHINGTON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

Public Hearing – Second Reading and Public Hearing (All CPO’s) Agenda Category: Land Use and Transportation; County Counsel

Agenda Title: PROPOSED A-ENGROSSED ORDINANCE NO. 590 – AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE FRAMEWORK PLAN FOR THE URBAN AREA RELATING TO URBAN SERVICE DISTRICTS AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Presented by: Brent Curtis, Planning Division Manager; Dan Olsen, County Counsel

SUMMARY (Attach Supporting Documents if Necessary) A-Engrossed Ordinance 590 proposes to amend two plan policies and add one policy to the Comprehensive Framework Plan for the Urban Area related to annexing land added to the Regional Urban Growth Boundary into the Urban Road Maintenance District, the Enhanced Sheriff Patrol District, and where applicable, the Tualatin Hills Park and Recreation District. Two strategies are also proposed to be added to Policy 21 (Housing Affordability) to implement limited provisions of Washington County’s Affordable Housing Report. At its June 5, 2002 hearing, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to forward to the Board a recommendation that Ordinance No. 590 be adopted subject to limited amendments to correct a punctuation error and to clarify the role of the Tualatin Hills Park and Recreation District as a service provider and the area it serves. At its June 25, 2002 hearing, the Board voted to: 1) order engrossment of Ordinance 590 to include the changes recommended by the Planning Commission, 2) continue the hearing to July 16, 2002 and July 23, 2002 as required by Chapter X of the County Charter, and 3) direct staff to prepare and mail the Chapter X notice describing the engrossed changes. The staff report and copies of A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 590 will be provided to the Board prior to the hearing. Copies will also be available at the Clerk’s desk prior to the hearing. Pursuant to Board direction on July 11, 1995, testimony about the ordinance will be limited to 12 minutes for a representative of a recognized group and three minutes for individual testimony.

DEPARTMENT’S REQUESTED ACTION: Read by title only and conduct the first public hearing for A-Engrossed Ordinance 590. Continue the hearing to July 23, 2002 as required by Chapter X of the County Charter.

COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR’S RECOMMENDATION: I concur with the requested action.

Agenda Item No. 4.b. Date: 7/16/02

15 16 AGENDA

WASHINGTON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

Agenda Category: Action – Board of Commissioners

Agenda Title: DIRECT COUNTY COUNSEL TO FILE ORDINANCE IMPOSING CERTAIN RESTRICTIONS ON TOBACCO SALES

Presented by: Commissioner Dick Schouten

SUMMARY (Attach Supporting Documents if Necessary)

Minors continue to obtain tobacco products. In some cases, they are able to shoplift tobacco products from self-service or displays. In addition, recently some companies have started making cigarettes available in small packages at a lower cost than the traditional 20-cigarette pack. This makes cigarettes more affordable to minors—encouraging them to attempt illegal purchases.

Several jurisdictions have adopted ordinances prohibiting self-service displays (except vending machines) and imposing a minimum 20-cigarette package size to further discourage minors from smoking. Model ordinance language is attached.

REQUESTED ACTION: Direct County Counsel to draft and file an ordinance prohibiting self-service sales of tobacco products, imposing a minimum 20-cigarette package size, and providing for penalties, generally consistent with the model ordinance.

107-8684DRsb

COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR’S RECOMMENDATION:

Agenda Item No. 5.a. Date: 7/16/02

20 AGENDA

WASHINGTON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

Agenda Category: Action – County Counsel

Agenda Title: INTRODUCTION AND FIRST READING OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 597

Presented by: Dan Olsen, County Counsel

SUMMARY (Attach Supporting Documents if Necessary)

AN ORDINANCE CREATING AN ADMINISTRATIVE ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURE

On June 18, 2002, your Board directed the Office of County Counsel to draft and file an Administrative Enforcement Ordinance. The Ordinance allows County Code violations to be handled as civil infractions by a hearings officer. Adoption of this Ordinance will provide a needed forum for enforcement of code violations by private citizens.

A copy of Exhibit “A” shall be available at the Clerk’s desk.

DEPARTMENT’S REQUESTED ACTION: Conduct first reading of proposed Ordinance No. 597 by title only and continue to July 23, 2002 for second reading.

COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR’S RECOMMENDATION: I concur with the requested action.

Agenda Item No. 6.a. Date: 7/16/02

21 22 MINUTES

WASHINGTON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

JUNE 25, 2002

CONVENED: 6:41 p.m.

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS: Chairman Tom Brian Vice Chair John Leeper Commissioner Dick Schouten Commissioner Roy Rogers Commissioner Andy Duyck

STAFF: Charles D. Cameron, County Administrator Ellen Cooper, Senior Deputy County Administrator David Maertens, Senior Deputy County Administrator Gerald Kubiak, Government Affairs Assistant, CAO Dan Olsen, County Counsel Kathy Lehtola, Director, LUT Brent Curtis, Planning Division Manager, LUT Joanne Rice, Senior Planner, LUT Andy Back, Principal Planner, LUT Paul Schaefer, Associate Planner, LUT Andrea Vannelli, Code Enforcement Officer, LUT Greg Miller, Operations Division Manager, LUT Eva Calcagno, Manager, Cooperative Library Services Bill Gaffi, General Manager, CWS Nora Curtis, Engineering Division Manager, CWS Larry Eisenberg, Facilities Manager, SS Susan Wilson, Director, Housing Services Linda Gray, CPO Coordinator Luke Ross, Audio/Visual Trainee Barbara Hejtmanek, Recording Secretary

PRESS: Doug Browning, Hillsboro Argus Henry Stern, The Oregonian Jacob Lewin, KINK Radio

23 1. CONSENT AGENDA

Chairman Brian announced the following modifications to the Consent Agenda:

· Item a. is removed because this action is no longer necessary. · Item b. is revised to delete extended authorization to the General Manager. · A modified Resolution and Order is adopted for item e. · An off docket item entitled “Approve Contract Amendment with Treatment Services Northwest to Provide DUII Chemical Dependency Treatment Services for Indigent Clients” is added to the Consent Agenda.

It was moved to adopt the Consent Agenda, as modified.

Motion - Leeper 2nd - Schouten Vote – 5-0

CLEAN WATER SERVICES

1.a. Authorize the Formation of a Local Sewer Improvement District CWS MO 02-58 for Extending a Public Sewer at NW Cornell Road at 87th Avenue (CPO 1) (Removed From Agenda)

1.b. Approve an Intergovernmental Cooperative Agreement with the CWS MO 02-59 Department of Environmental Quality for the Tualatin Basin Coordinator Position (Approved Under Consent Agenda)

1.c. Approve Amendment with HDR Engineering, Inc. for Final CWS MO 02-60 Design of Durham Headworks Operational Improvements Project (Approved Under Consent Agenda)

1.d. Award the Contract for Constructing the Raleighwood/Sylvan CWS MO 02-61 Creek Stabilization and Enhancement Project to Brant Construction, Inc. (CPO 2) (Approved Under Consent Agenda)

LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION

1.e. Adopt Budgets for Fiscal Year 2002-2003 for the Road RO 02-75 Maintenance Local Improvement District (MLID) (Approved Under Consent Agenda)

24 COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE

1.f. Approve Year-End Budget Appropriation Adjustments for Fiscal RO 02-76 Year 2001-02 (Approved Under Consent Agenda)

1.g. Approve Renewal of Terms of Three Members of the Multnomah MO 02-225 Washington Regional Investment Board (Approved Under Consent Agenda)

COOPERATIVE LIBRARY SERVICES

1.h. Authorize Renewal of Agreement with Beaverton for Provision MO 02-226 of Countywide Telephone Reference Service (All CPOs) (Approved Under Consent Agenda)

1.i. Approve Amendment to the Public Library Services Agreement MO 02-227 and Library Payments for Fiscal Year 02-03 (All CPOs) (Approved Under Consent Agenda)

SUPPORT SERVICES

1.j. Approve Option to Extend Contract for Sign Design Consulting MO 02-228 Services (Approved Under Consent Agenda)

1.k. Accept Offers for Real Property Auction (Approved Under MO 02-229 Consent Agenda)

2. ORAL COMMUNICATION (2 MINUTE OPPORTUNITY)

None.

3. BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS 3.a. Appoint Members to the Washington County Department of Aging MO 02-221 and Veterans’ Services Advisory Council

There was a motion to:

· Appoint John Zuidema, Dick Schouten, D. Gail Miller, David Clarke and Thomas Uryga to the Department of Aging and Veterans’ Services Advisory Council for two-year terms ending June 30, 2004; move Betty Pomeroy from Veterans At- Large 60+ or 60- representation to 60+ DAVS Client

25 representation to complete her term ending June 30, 2003; and appoint Corry Stolk to complete resigned member’s term ending June 30, 2003. · Direct staff to continue recruitment for the 60+ Minority vacancy and any vacancies which may occur in FY 2002-2003.

Motion – Leeper 2nd – Schouten Vote – 5-0

The Board exercised its discretion to change the order of agenda items to best utilize staff time. The following items, therefore, appear in the order taken up for consideration by the Board.

6. PUBLIC HEARING – SUPPORT SERVICES 6.a. Increase the Maximum Annual Assessment for the Metzger Park RO 02-71 Local Improvement District

Larry Eisenberg stated that this item represents a request of recommended increase from the Metzger Park Local Improvement District Advisory Board from the current maximum annual assessment of $60,500 to $90,500. He said that the funding that would be utilized for this increase includes ADA improvements at the park, a building reserve fund, capital improvements, equipment acquisition, and other items. Mr. Eisenberg mentioned that general notice was sent a month ago to all property owners in the Local Improvement District in accordance with LID procedures. He acknowledged receipt of five remonstrances from four property owners out of the 2,500 property owners in the district. Mr. Eisenberg recalled that the last increase for this LID occurred in 1996.

The public hearing was opened.

Mike Donovan, Chairman, Metzger Park Advisory Board, voiced support for the Local Improvement District assessment increase. He said that Metzger Park provides an open space environment for not only the immediate residents but also for a wide variety of users. Mr. Donovan commented that recent installation of a play structure which was partially financed by donations and volunteer help has increased the use for the young children in the area. He believed that the Metzger Park Advisory Board has been judicious in spending the LID funding. Mr. Donovan felt that it would be

26 prudent to begin to get into a good position for managing the park in future years. He referred to two letters of support for the increase. (Letters may be found in the Meeting File.)

Chairman Brian thanked Mr. Donovan for his remarks and for his work on the Metzger Park Advisory Board.

The public hearing was closed.

It was moved to approve the Resolution and Order increasing the maximum annual assessment to $90,500 for the Metzger Park LID, as required by Washington County Code Section 3.20.

Motion – Rogers 2nd – Duyck Vote – 5-0

7. PUBLIC HEARING-SERVICE DISTRICT FOR LIGHTING NO. 1 7.a. Adopt the 2002-03 Fiscal Year Budget, Make Appropriations for SDL RO 02-14 the Service District for Lighting No. 1

Ellen Cooper observed that this is the budget which was approved by the Budget Committee for the Street District for Lighting. She recommended no changes at the present time. Mrs. Cooper said that this would continue the services within the Street Lighting Districts for the next fiscal year.

The public hearing was opened.

No public testimony was offered.

The public hearing was closed.

It was moved to approve the Resolution and Order adopting the budget and making appropriations.

Motion – Duyck 2nd – Leeper Vote – 5-0

8. PUBLIC HEARING – URBAN ROAD MAINTENANCE DISTRICT 8.a. Adopt the 2002-03 Fiscal Year Budget, Make Appropriations and URMD RO 02-1 Levy Taxes for the Urban Road Maintenance District

Ellen Cooper noted that this is the budget which was approved by the Budget Committee in May. She said that no changes are recommended. Mrs. Cooper told the Board that the budget is slightly over $4,000,000 and recommended adoption of it.

27 The public hearing was opened.

No public testimony was received.

The public hearing was closed.

It was moved to approve the Resolution and Order adopting the budget, making appropriations and levying taxes.

Motion – Schouten 2nd – Rogers Vote – 5-0

9. PUBLIC HEARING – ENHANCED SHERIFF PATROL DISTRICT 9.a. Adopt the 2002-03 Fiscal Year Budget, Make Appropriations ESPD RO 02-3 and Levy Taxes for the Enhanced Sheriff Patrol District

Ellen Cooper informed the Board that the budget for the Enhanced Sheriff’s Patrol District received approval by the Budget Committee. She said that no changes are recommended at this time. Mrs. Cooper stated that the total appropriations are $15,105,149. She explained that this would continue services within the Enhanced Sheriff’s Patrol District at the current level.

The public hearing was opened.

No public testimony was heard.

The public hearing was closed.

It was moved to approve the Resolution and Order adopting the budget, making appropriations and levying taxes.

Motion – Duyck 2nd – Rogers Vote – 5-0

5. PUBLIC HEARING – COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE 5.a. Event Center Capital Improvement Proposal/Issuance of General MO 02-232 Obligation Bonds, Consideration of Proposal and Ballot Title

Chairman Brian announced that due to the amount of comment received about this matter in the last two weeks, the Board intends to hold and then continue this public hearing to July 16, 2002, in order to further work on elements of the project to the satisfaction of the public.

28 Charles Cameron explained that the proposal calls for the development of a grouping of facilities at the fairgrounds which would be collectively known as the Event Center. He said that the Event Center would meet a need in the community for a major facility in which to hold exhibitions, consumer shows, community events, and entertainment. Mr. Cameron stated that it would also serve as the new home for the Washington County Fair and Rodeo. He related that detailed descriptions of the proposed facilities will be provided later in this presentation. Mr. Cameron observed that the existing fairgrounds have served the community for years and have been developed and maintained with a minimum of financial resources due, in large part, to the dedication, hard work, and frugality of a group of committed citizens. He noted that a broad- based Task Force has worked on this matter since late last year. Mr. Cameron reported that this Task Force has recommended that, rather than expending public funds on bringing the existing fair facilities up to modern building code standards, emphasis instead be placed on the development of new facilities that would serve the community year-round while providing a home for the fair. He stated that the Task Force was comprised of elected and appointed officials, business people and representatives of tourism, arts and culture, education, and people interested and dedicated to the fair. Mr. Cameron observed that this brought to the process a tremendous diversity of perspectives, range of expertise, and a level of practicality. He commented that the Task Force worked through a number of options for the facility, its characteristics, siting, financing, and ultimately settled on the proposal before the Board today. Mr. Cameron reported that capital costs for the Event Center would be in the range of $40,000,000 and would be funded with a general obligation bond. He said that with the Board’s approval, the question of whether to fund construction of the Event Center with general obligation bonds will be placed on the November 2002 ballot. Mr. Cameron stated that in the first year of the levy, the bonds would cost about 9.5 cents per $1,000 of assessed valuation, or about $15 per year for the owner of a typical home with a value of $158,000. He commented that the cost to taxpayers would decline in successive years as the County’s assessed value grows. Mr. Cameron recognized that this community has experienced tremendous growth over the last decade. He said that developing facilities like these would meet a growing need and accommodate that growth with a significant addition to our community’s physical infrastructure. Mr. Cameron pointed out that the community has also grown in diversity and

29 capacity as well as in its willingness to take on challenges. He thought it only fitting to have a facility that responds to that growth. Mr. Cameron thought the Event Center would be a huge addition to this community’s civic infrastructure. He said that it would also offer a setting that fosters community building and exposure to new ideas while serving as a place where we can celebrate our heritage and traditions and experience our future.

Geoff Larkin, Consultant and Project Manager for the Event Center, informed the Board that the Task Force focused on:

· Refining the concept of an Event Center · Consideration of site factors · Development and refining capital and operating cost estimates · Conducting a broad public outreach effort

Mr. Larkin summarized that the Task Force recommends pursuing an Event Center and placing before voters a $40 million bond measure in the fall. Relative to capital costs, he specified that the $40 million bottom line will not be exceeded. Mr. Larkin stated that the cost estimate was developed by the same architects and contractor who built the most recent hall at the Expo Center. He referenced the operating pro forma on pages 5 and 6 of the Event Center Capital Improvement Proposal (proposal may be found in the Meeting File). Mr. Larkin said that a series of assumptions were made, including:

· The Fair will not be charged rent. · All other users of the Event Center will be charged rent. · There will be a $4 fee for parking.

Mr. Larkin reported that analysis indicates that the Event Center would generate about $2.2 million in annual revenue and that it would cost approximately $2 million to operate. He concluded that it would be a break-even proposition, with the possibility of making a little bit of money to recycle back into the facilities on an annual basis.

A short video presentation was shown, which featured County Communications Officer Walt Peck providing facts about the Washington County Event Center and placement of this ballot measure on the general election in the fall.

30 Kathy Christy, Chair, Fair Board, reported that the Fair Board believes it is nearing completion of its goal to come up with an acceptable plan for the future development of the Washington County Fair Complex property. She recognized that citizens have raised concerns about the plan but pointed out that there has been strong support by hundreds of citizens who have heard a presentation about the concept of the Event Center project. Mrs. Christy said that the Fair Board remains committed to its Mission Statement:

The Washington County Fair Complex is to provide excellent facilities and services in a self-supporting manner for the following purposes: preserve the annual County Fair and Rodeo and its heritage; promote the world class agriculture of the County; provide a welcoming environment for all volunteers, commitment to life-long learning with a special emphasis on youth; promote year-round facilities for consumer trade shows, public exhibitions and special gatherings; promote a sense of community among residents of Washington County.

Mrs. Christy reported that a group of loyal Fair supporters expressed concerns about the future of the Fair and Rodeo event at the last Fair Board meeting. She believed that the Fair Board, working with the County Commissioners, could address the concerns expressed. Mrs. Christy appreciated the team effort which has occurred already and hoped this would continue. She said that one issue raised had to do with which buildings might be retained on the site. Mrs. Christy understood that this item is being addressed, with the assistance of Chairman Brian. She stated that another important issue is how to design the Event Center and provide appropriately for the Fair and Rodeo. Mrs. Christy intended to propose forming an Advisory Committee by September made up of Fair and Rodeo supporters, year-round facility users, and future facility users at the next Fair Board Meeting. She wanted people to know that it is really important to the Fair Board to address citizen concerns. Mrs. Christy envisioned this committee assisting in the design of the new facility as soon as an architect is hired. She planned to have several options presented to the Fair Board and the County Commissioners by October regarding the management of this new facility. Mrs. Christy commented that the Fair Board is made up of dedicated members who want to take this unpolished gem and shine it up for the citizens of Washington County to be enjoyed by all and proudly displayed. She urged approval of this proposal at the next meeting.

31 Rich Vial spoke of how families in Washington County have enjoyed the traditions embodied in the County Fair. He said that citizens now face being left with crumbling buildings and insufficient revenue to continue that tradition in a way that is meaningful to those families. As a member of the Fair Board, Mr. Vial believed the solution that has been arrived at is, in fact, the best solution. He reported that the Fair Board has long lamented over not being able to get a bond measure passed to build a new rodeo facility or some other single facility. Mr. Vial felt that carefully designed, multi-purpose buildings could preserve this important tradition and expand on it for the benefit of the public in Washington County. He reviewed that in May, the Fair Board submitted a letter to the Board recommending adoption of the Task Force findings and placement of a proposal for a $40,000,000 bond measure before the voters. Mr. Vial stated his belief that this amount of money would allow for the best design to accommodate the diverse needs of the population in Washington County. He said that the County has been blessed with great leadership in Washington County, including the recent addition of Don Hillman—a man with decades of experience in managing Fair and other types of activities in a public facility. Mr. Vial thought the time was right to move forward with this kind of project. He was grateful for the opportunity to have worked on it and applauded the efforts of the Commissioners. Mr. Vial remained convinced that the concerns of some citizens can be addressed in the design phase of this project. He submitted letters dated May 2, 2002 and June 11, 2002, regarding the proposed Event Center. (Copies of all letters may be found in the Meeting File.)

Pam Baker testified in her capacity as a member of the Task Force. She stated that this concept is responsive to the community needs identified by the Task Force, i.e., need for a modern, versatile community gathering place, for a facility to host business events such as trade shows and job fairs, a broad range of community events as well as a modern, affordable facility for the annual County Fair and Rodeo. Ms. Baker regarded the plan recommended by the Task Force as fiscally responsible from both the capital construction and the operation perspective. She said that the analysis and diligence that went into developing the capital cost and operations projections produced sound products using a very conservative approach and added that the Task Force stands by those projections. Ms. Baker related that the Task Force appreciates that these are difficult economic times and that governments need to be particularly judicious in any funding

32 decisions. She said that the Task Force therefore looked at many different approaches to funding the Event Center concept. Ms. Baker commented that the decision to recommend the general obligation bond measure was not taken lightly. She explained that this was felt to be the most appropriate option after studying other alternatives. Ms. Baker felt that the rate of about 10 cents per $1,000 taxable assessed valuation is reasonable considering the long-term economic and cultural benefits which will accrue to the community. She regarded the Event Center as a place to spotlight the County’s business activity, to bring new dollars into the community from outside vendors and visitors, and to provide a modern, quality facility that will serve the broad community for years to come. Ms. Baker desired the facility to host not only trade shows and Fair events but also cultural and performing arts occasions. She hoped that this proposal would proceed to voters.

Debbie Coe identified herself as Chair of an annual event which has taken place at the Fair Complex over the past ten years. She told the Board that the Exhibit building is not large enough so her group must rent the Arts and Crafts Building as well. Ms. Coe spoke of the need to further expand but said that there is no room to do so until someone else gives up space. She eagerly awaited a new facility that would accommodate her event. Ms. Coe stated that a lot of her exhibitors come from out of town and spend money in this area as a result.

Don McCoun, Operator of KUIK Radio Station, informed the Board that his company has been a client of the Fairgrounds, a vendor, and a partner for 23 years. He recalled having eight bluegrass festivals and 18 home shows in addition to RV, auto, and outdoor shows. Mr. McCoun concluded that the current facility cannot handle the crowds. He said he loves the Fairgrounds and did not believe that the Fair would negatively change under the new proposal. Mr. McCoun pointed out that “old” is not necessarily good and said that an upgrade would be marvelous. He recalled that he was a young man in Portland when the bond measure passed for the Memorial Coliseum after years of trying. Mr. McCoun believed that Washington County needs the same type of structure and he was confident that the people with the animals would not be slighted. He looked forward to showing support for the proposed facility.

33 Cody Feinauer, Chairman of Rodeo Committee, testified that the Rodeo Committee, as a whole, agrees with the concept and the need for new facilities. He emphasized, however, that all members of the Rodeo Committee do not agree on the design. Mr. Feinauer said that the Rodeo Committee hopes to be involved with the design issues and added that he has been reassured that this will occur. Based upon this understanding, he supported the proposal.

Lori Bettineski, Communications Specialist, NW Regional Education Service District, told the Board that Superintendent Todd Herberg regretted that he could not be here tonight due to an out of town commitment. She stated that Dr. Herberg has been actively involved in VisionWest and has enjoyed his collaboration with the County as a Director on the VisionAction Network. Ms. Bettineski recognized that addressing community needs and being proactive in efforts to benefit Washington County residents have been the forces behind VisionWest. She related that Dr. Herberg believes the proposed Event Center would be a positive step in the right direction for sensible community development. Ms. Bettineski shared a letter from Dr. Herberg with the Board and submitted it for the record. (Letter may be found in the Meeting File.) She reported that Dr. Herberg sees the proposed Event Center as a viable option for hosting larger events such as in- service, career fairs, and science fairs for students. Ms. Bettineski indicated Dr. Herberg’s support for the proposed concept.

Mark Williams, General Manager of Metropolitan Exposition- Recreation Commission (MERC), told the Board that MERC manages public facilities including the Oregon Convention Center, the Expo Center, and the Portland Center for the Performing Arts. He thanked Chairman Brian for the invitation to be a part of this Task Force. Mr. Williams said he has been very impressed with the process used to arrive at the proposal for the Event Center. He was impressed, too, with the result and felt that the facility would serve the needs of the Fair and the community as well as serve as a year-round facility for County residents. Mr. Williams helped with the financial projections and he explained that these are extremely conservative. He said it is worth noting that the exhibition business in this region continues to be extremely strong, notwithstanding September 11, 2002 and the general downturn in the economy.

Jeff Blosser, Director, Oregon Convention Center, expressed support for the proposed Event Center. He spoke of past

34 experience with the Kentucky Fair and Exposition Center, which housed several agricultural events along with trade shows. Mr. Blosser stated that all of the livestock were housed inside the trade facility itself. He pointed out that the design is a critical piece in making the proposed facility operational for all types of events. Mr. Blosser said that the key component is that the Fair should be considered the major tenant. He urged Board support of the proposal on July 16, 2002.

Chairman Brian appreciated Mr. Blosser’s service on the Task Force and his expertise on these matters.

Lyle Spiesschaert identified himself as a member of the Fair Board and detailed his past experience with 4-H activities spanning over 50 years. He voiced full support for placing this bond measure on the ballot to redevelop the Fair Complex into an Event Center. Mr. Spiesschaert recognized that an upgrade and expansion of the current facilities are long overdue. He pointed out that Washington County has nearly the largest population of any County in this state and ranks fourth in agricultural production state-wide. Mr. Spiesschaert observed that Washington County has a unique blend of highly urbanized areas merging with the fully agricultural rural areas. He believed that the County, therefore, needs and deserves a facility which can accommodate this diverse and very large population on a year-round basis. Mr. Spiesschaert stated that because of visionary leadership over the last fifty years, there is ample space centrally located and easily accessed by mass transit, private auto, and air travel to provide public gathering space that could be the envy of most metropolitan areas. He commented that the current facilities on the site have not kept pace with the County’s growth and added that many current buildings do not lend themselves well for year-round use. Mr. Spiesschaert said that there is not adequate space for many of the year-round events. He stated that the concept, as presented by the Task Force, would clearly meet the projected needs for most events that would be held in the new facilities. However, Mr. Spiesschaert said it is now clear that the concept needs to be adjusted to better meet the needs of the annual Washington County Fair and Rodeo. He spoke in favor of modifying the concept to completely accommodate this event well into the future. Mr. Spiesschaert was confident that by working together, the concept could be sufficiently modified within the bounds of the measure to address these concerns. By so doing, he believed that support could be garnered from an important sector of the community.

35 Sheila Day, Fair Board member, spoke in support of redevelopment of the Fair Complex. Speaking as a Washington County resident, former 4-H member, 25-year 4-H leader, and long-time Fair exhibitor, and user of the Fair Complex, she believed that placing this measure on the November ballot would allow all County citizens to learn about and buy into this important facility. Ms. Day felt that improvements would make it possible for a multitude of diverse activities to take place in modern, convenient facilities. She hoped the Fair Complex would become a campus-like Event Center. Ms. Day related that she has always felt that a large, multi-purpose Event Center should be built on the west side of 34th Street near the light rail station. She hoped the improved facilities would meet the needs of current users and would encourage new customers. Ms. Day said that the County Fair and Rodeo (original tenants) must continue to preserve the agricultural heritage and traditions. She argued in favor of having diverse displays in appropriate buildings rather than cramming a mixture of exhibits into one building. Ms. Day stated that some of the cost data provided by the Task Force should be re-examined for need and/or reallocation. She felt strongly that a representative number of present renters and fair supporters should be involved with re-design of the complex. Ms. Day wished to provide voters with a plan that will work for everyone.

Wes Epler presented the FFA organization’s concerns about the proposed plans for the annex buildings and the effects these plans would have on livestock exhibition at future County fairs. He expressed this group’s support for an Expo Center in the Hillsboro area and for the Fair. However, Mr. Epler proposed building the new Expo Center and Annex west of the existing 34th Street. He felt this would create a common campus. Mr. Epler also wished to retain and improve some of the existing structures with funds saved by not having to provide restrictive infrastructure in the proposed buildings. He asked that a few representatives from the agricultural community be included on the Design and Review Committee. Mr. Epler said that if the Board accepts his suggestions, then his group intends to support passage of the proposed bond measure.

Joe Evers told the Board he has been an exhibitor of dairy cattle at the Washington County Fair for 54 years. He told the Board that cattle will not walk on the same cement that will later be used for a dance floor. Mr. Evers preferred to maintain the current livestock building. He mentioned that combining species can create a

36 problem. Mr. Evers testified that Washington County has the nicest large animal exhibition facility in the area. He recommended appointing the Design and Review Committee soon—prior to the County Fair.

Chairman Brian appreciated these comments. He explained that the reason this matter is being deferred to July 16th is so that the Board can benefit from the knowledge and experience of those who have been involved with the Fair over many years. Chairman Brian observed that it likely won’t be possible to obtain every answer over the next two weeks but hoped that enough could be answered in order to get this issue out to the ballot. He suggested answering whatever is possible and then identifying a process for the rest. Chairman Brian wanted to do everything possible to make this the best facility for the most people and to maintain the tradition of the Fair.

Elmer Grossen did not think the real value of the County Fair has been recognized. He called attention to the leadership training afforded to the County’s youth by the Fair. Mr. Grossen said that if this ballot measure does not pass in the November election, it should be remembered that the County still has one of the best fairs in Oregon.

Susan Wiley told the Board that she and her family have been involved with the Fair for more than fifty years. She did not want the agriculture part of the Fair to be forgotten. Ms. Wiley was heartened by the positive remarks about the Fair this evening.

Ed Cristovich represented two gem and mineral societies—both non-profit organizations—which have a five-year commitment to rent buildings at the Fairgrounds. He wanted to know that this proposal would be done right. Mr. Cristovich realized that a bigger facility would charge more for use of the exhibit hall but was confident that it would draw more exhibitors. He expected to be a good customer of the proposed Event Center but was sorry there would have to be a $4 parking fee. Mr. Cristovich asked that people keep in mind that the Event Center would be the home of whoever is having a Fair there.

John Leffel said he has worked with various Fair managers since 1964 talking about a better facility. He pointed out that the Board

37 has the opportunity now to put before voters a wonderful facility that has been needed for forty years. Mr. Leffel hoped that this would be accomplished in the year 2002.

Chairman Brian said he sincerely appreciated receiving both the written and oral testimony over the past three weeks. He promised that the Board would do its best to incorporate the concerns and ideas into the plan.

Commissioner Schouten commented that this facility is, in part, about farmers. From his upbringing, he recognized that people must be forward-thinking and cutting edge to survive in agriculture today. Commissioner Schouten believed that this facility has the potential for that. He wanted numerous questions answered before July 16, 2002:

· Should this facility be east or west of 34th? · Do the financial figures make sense? · Is the acreage too small for this Fair? · Can cattle and other livestock be placed on the floor? · Should Design Committees be appointed and, if so, when?

Chairman Brian hesitated over being able to reach an informed decision in two weeks on the east or west of 34th question because this would require discussions about which buildings stay as well as complex design footprint issues. He agreed that this must be answered well in advance of the vote.

Commissioner Leeper expressed support for retaining a strong Fair presence and for demonstrating the agricultural heritage of Washington County. He said that, at the same time, the Event Center is necessary for many of the other purposes. Commissioner Leeper just did not want the County Fair to get lost in the shuffle.

Commissioner Rogers appreciated the testimony this evening. He wished to explore the procedure for the period between tonight and July 16, 2002.

Chairman Brian said that some processes have already begun to answer some of the questions about which buildings would best be kept. He stated that square footage and how this is used needs to be reviewed as well as how concrete works. Chairman Brian proposed talking about the Design Committee and the make-up of

38 it. He acknowledged that the figures need to be discussed and the degree of flexibility allowed by them. Chairman Brian’s goal was to pin down as many of those issues as possible.

Rich Vial asked (and was granted permission) to be heard again. He was afraid that poor decisions would be made if we try to get down to specifics before we have the resources to do so. Mr. Vial felt that the important thing would be to identify the people and the process that should be involved, once the resources are available to do a good design job. He suggested that it would be a mistake to decide “east/west” or “this building/not this building” at the present time.

Chairman Brian agreed with Mr. Vial’s remarks. He reiterated that everyone would do their best in two weeks to clarify as many issues as possible. Chairman Brian did not want the time frame of two weeks to push us into decisions we might regret. He observed that design work is expensive and that we cannot get into that until receiving the “yes” vote on the measure.

Commissioner Rogers was aware that a lot of work has gone into this proposal and agreed that further consideration is necessary to fully understand the concerns of agriculture. He did not want people to go away tonight with false expectations that there would be resolution of all of these issues in two weeks.

Chairman Brian thought this was a fair appraisal of the situation. He suggested making the best effort at answering as many questions as possible before the hearing on July 16, 2002. Chairman Brian pointed out that there is time after July 16th to do other work and to receive other comments.

Commissioner Duyck concurred that not much can be settled in two weeks. He said that the location of the Fair and the philosophy of whether or not to incorporate much of the old Fair into the new are integrated into whatever gets built. Commissioner Duyck regarded this as a major policy issue that needs to be settled sometime in the near future. He pointed out that whether this measure passes or not may be contingent upon major policy decisions like that. Commissioner Duyck reiterated that the direction of this measure needs to be determined in the near future.

Commissioner Schouten stated that there needs to be a level of detail that will persuade voters to vote for this measure.

39 Chairman Brian was pleased at the fairly universal support of the proposed Event Center. He was aware that some details still need to be worked out.

It was moved to continue this public hearing to July 16, 2002.

Motion – Rogers 2nd – Leeper Vote – 5-0

5.b. Adopt the 2002-03 Fiscal Year Budget, Make Appropriations and RO 02-70 Levy Taxes for Washington County

Ellen Cooper presented the Board with the 2002-2003 Washington County Budget for adoption. She reviewed that the Budget Committee approved this budget on May 16, 2002 and that it totals a little over $502,000,000. Mrs. Cooper recommended adoption this evening with some adjustments. She clarified that the adjustments reflect:

· Cost of living increases approved by the Board last week · Some encumbrances · Some higher beginning fund balances than were projected several months ago · An adjustment in the IS budget for the new service delivery model that was recently approved

Mrs. Cooper stated that the total adjustments are about 1.3 percent of the total budget, bringing the total for adoption to $509,000,000.

The public hearing was opened.

No public testimony was proffered.

The public hearing was closed.

It was moved to approve the Resolution and Order adopting the budget, making appropriations and levying taxes.

Motion – Rogers 2nd – Leeper Vote – 5-0

Commissioner Schouten asked staff to provide more detail.

Ellen Cooper recalled that last week, the Board approved a 2.5 percent cost of living adjustment for non-represented, WCPOA

40 Union and FOPPO Union. She said that those adjustments are incorporated here and detailed in Attachment A to the Resolution and Order. Mrs. Cooper stated that most of those result in a reduction in the funds’ contingency and an increase in the operating budgets. She explained that the higher beginning fund balances are primarily in capital budget funds.

4. PUBLIC HEARINGS – LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION/COUNTY COUNSEL 4.b. Proposed Land Use Ordinance No. 590 – An Ordinance Amending MO 02-222 the Comprehensive Framework Plan for the Urban Area Relating to Urban Service Districts and Affordable Housing

There was a motion to read Proposed Land Use Ordinance No. 590 by title only.

Motion – Rogers 2nd – Schouten Vote – 5-0

Dan Olsen read the proposed ordinance by title.

Paul Schaefer called attention to a typographical error on the agenda sheet: a reference to Ordinance 589 in the second paragraph should be to Ordinance 590 instead. He stated that Ordinance 590 contains changes to the Comprehensive Framework Plan for the Urban Area Relating to Urban Services, as set forth in Exhibits 1 and 2, as well as Affordable Housing in Exhibit 3. Mr. Schaefer said that the changes set forth in Exhibits 1 and 2 will ensure that lands that are added to the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) are served by the Urban Road Maintenance District (URMD), the Enhanced Sheriff Patrol District (ESPD), and, when applicable, the Tualatin Hills Park and Recreation District (THPRD). He explained that lands brought into the UGB are not automatically added to these districts; consequently, these lands are not required to financially participate in these districts. Mr. Schaefer commented that the changes set forth in Exhibit 3 consist of adding two new strategies aimed at encouraging affordable housing opportunities within unincorporated Washington County. He said that these strategies constitute two of the recommendations set forth in the Affordable Housing Report that the Board accepted last April. Mr. Schaefer stated that immediately prior to the June 5, 2002, Planning Commission hearing, the Parks District requested that revisions be made to clarify the District’s role in the

41 area that they serve. He clarified that as filed, the proposed ordinance text set forth in Exhibit 2 identifies THPRD as providing park and recreation services to the City of Hillsboro. (The City of Hillsboro has its own Park and Recreation District.) Mr. Schaefer said that the Park District requested that changes be made to make sure it is clarified that they do not serve Hillsboro. He reported that staff supported the requested revisions and proposed draft recommended changes for presentation to the Planning Commission. Mr. Schaefer related that the changes were distributed to the Planning Commission at its June 5, 2002 Worksession and that at the subsequent Regular Meeting, the Planning Commissioner voted to forward to the Board a recommendation ordering engrossment of Ordinance 590 as recommended by staff.

Commissioner Schouten wanted to ensure that areas in the THPRD service area would be annexed if the area goes into the UGB. He said that it is currently possible for the City of Beaverton to annex an area and for the Park District not to annex that same area. Commissioner Schouten wondered if the language really avoids that situation in areas that will be added into the UGB.

Brent Curtis responded that there are two issues with regard to the parks that have been in front of the public recently. He indicated that this is the narrower of the two, i.e., what happens to lands that are outside the boundary when they come in. Mr. Curtis said that when staff first began to address that question, it dealt primarily with URMD. He stated that THPRD then entered the discussions and asked for it to be drafted in this way. Mr. Curtis clarified that this is just about all those properties that are outside the boundary now that may come in. He concluded that if the Board adopts this, they will have to join THPRD in the appropriate locations. Mr. Curtis said that there are a number of properties inside the UGB right now that are not clearly required to join the THPRD. He noted that this has been an issue in a number of the CPOs and that this issue was identified when the Board prioritized ordinances. Mr. Curtis surmised that this second question is the one now posed by Commissioner Schouten.

Commissioner Schouten interjected that this is not the case. He said that the ordinance tonight speaks of new territories that could come inside the UGB line. Commissioner Schouten was not sure that the language in the ordinance achieves that and he wanted to be assured that if there is going to be a city annexation into some

42 new territory that will be included inside the UGB, it will also be a place that will be annexed into the Park District at the same time that it becomes annexed into the City of Beaverton.

Brent Curtis observed that this is the second question he mentioned. He stated that this has not yet been sorted out: the required city annexation and the relationship between city annexations and Park District annexations. Mr. Curtis said that this topic is the subject of urban service agreements, which are hopefully going to progress to adoption this year. He acknowledged that appropriate questions of urban service agreements are: who are the ultimate urban service providers and who is the ultimate municipal service provider (looking first to a city). Mr. Curtis thought the outcome would be city with THPRD. He explained that this topic is still being worked out in the urban service agreement arena.

Commissioner Schouten said that with Hillsboro being a full service provider including park services, an area annexed to Hillsboro will have park services. He wanted to be sure that an area annexed by the City of Beaverton would also become annexed into the Park District.

Mr. Curtis understood the question and said that his answer is the same. Not being spokesperson for either the City of Beaverton or THPRD, he did not want to enumerate their policies. Mr. Curtis could say that there is existing policy about what happens when there is annexation to a city and what happens to urban park issues in the greater Beaverton area. He said this would continue to be explored and the issue of annexation to a city in regard to park services will be addressed in the urban service agreement. Mr. Curtis explained that this ordinance is about property outside the boundary coming in, which constitutes a bolder policy statement calling for joining urban service districts right away if remaining unincorporated.

Commissioner Schouten asked Mr. Curtis to summarize this ordinance.

Mr. Curtis responded that this ordinance is about lands that come into the Urban Growth Boundary and it requires those lands to join URMD, ESPD, and, where appropriate, THPRD.

43 Commissioner Schouten asked what the phrase “where appropriate” means.

Mr. Curtis said that this means where it is clear that you are not going to have park service from a full city service provider.

Joanne Rice referred Commissioner Schouten to page 1 of Exhibit 2. She said that (a.) addresses new lands brought into the UGB that will develop to urban densities in unincorporated Washington County. Mrs. Rice stated that (b.) is intended to deal with lands that need to annex into a city in order to develop, such as the cities of Cornelius, Forest Grove, Hillsboro, Tualatin, Tigard, and King City. She provided examples of both provisions. Regarding new lands brought in adjacent to the city limits of Beaverton, Mrs. Rice described two scenarios:

1. The new land is not in close proximity to the city so it will develop in unincorporated Washington County, in which case the County (through this adopted ordinance) would require that property to annex into the Park District before it could develop. 2. If the land is adjacent to the city limits of Beaverton, before the land is brought in--to satisfy Metro requirements--you must identify the service providers. In that situation, THPRD would likely be identified as a service provider and it is possible that Metro could place a condition saying that that land has to be brought into the Park District. However, in that case, the County would not have any authority over the new land coming in because the County would not be servicing it.

The public hearing was opened.

Chairman Brian entered into the record a letter from Ron Willoughby, General Manager, Tualatin Hills Park & Recreation District expressing support for the proposed ordinance. (Letter may be found in the Meeting File.)

Stephen Bosak, Superintendent of Planning & Development, Tualatin Hills Park & Recreation District, spoke in support of Proposed Land Use Ordinance 590 and thanked County staff for helping the district through the process. He offered to answer questions, if any.

Commissioner Schouten asked Mr. Bosak to summarize the benefits of this ordinance to the Park District.

44 Mr. Bosak replied that the ordinance takes the initial step in ensuring that the new folks who move into newly developed areas that are brought into the UGB will have parks and recreation services, when appropriate, by the Park District. He said the term “when appropriate” has to do with the pending urban services agreement, which will establish boundaries that will identify areas served by THPRD, Hillsboro, and other agencies. Mr. Bosak acknowledged that things have to be worked out further with the City of Beaverton in order to have them formally embrace the past partnership where joint annexations occurred. He recognized that this is the first step toward that goal.

The public hearing was closed.

It was moved to order engrossment of Ordinance 590 to include the changes set forth in revised Exhibits 1 and 2 and to continue the hearing to July 16, 2002 and July 23, 2002 as required by Chapter X of the County Charter. Included in the motion was direction to staff to prepare and mail the Chapter X notice describing the engrossed changes.

Motion – Schouten 2nd – Leeper Vote – 5-0

4.a. Proposed Land Use Ordinance No. 589 – An Ordinance Amending MO 02-231 the Community Development Code Related to Gated Communities and to General Statutory Updates Relating to Changes in State Law

There was a motion to read Proposed Land Use Ordinance No. 589 by title only.

Motion – Rogers 2nd – Duyck Vote – 5-0

Dan Olsen read the proposed ordinance by title.

Paul Schaefer stated that the proposed changes set forth in Exhibit 1 to Ordinance 589 are designed to prohibit future urban residential gated communities. He added that the changes also clarify that public streets cannot be gated or blocked except in those cases where needed to address operation or safety issues. Mr. Schaefer clarified that existing gated communities would not be affected. He said that changes set forth in Exhibits 2 through 8 update the Code to reflect limited Statute changes. Mr. Schaefer told the Board that the Planning Commission on June 5, 2002, approved a

45 motion to recommend that the Board amend Ordinance 589 to delete the prohibition against gated communities. He reported that staff continues to recommend that the Board adopt Ordinance 589 as filed. Mr. Schaefer explained that one of staff’s key concerns with gated communities pertains to the location of the gate itself, in that there are no standards currently in the Code regarding their location. He said that the closer the gate is to the public street, the shorter the queuing distance for vehicles traveling on the public street to gain access. Mr. Schaefer stated that because most residential developments typically have buildings or parking areas located at the intersection of the private and public street, there would not be any area available for queuing of vehicles; consequently, any vehicles traveling to a gated community would have to be queued in the travel or center turn lane. He envisioned the potential for problematic issues or dangerous situations to the traveling public and to those trying to visit the developments. Mr. Schaefer said this could be especially problematic on streets with high traffic volumes, such as an arterial or collector. He stated that the Staff Report further notes that the cities of Lake Oswego, Tualatin, West Linn, and Wilsonville currently prohibit gated communities; this ordinance—if adopted as filed—would not be unique. Mr. Schaefer recommended that the Board adopt Ordinance 589. He added that if the Board chooses not to prohibit gated communities, staff recommends that Ordinance 589 be engrossed to address two issues: 1) Gated communities would be prohibited in mixed-use areas, and 2) Standards would be added to the Code that address operational safety issues such as vehicle queuing. Mr. Schaefer said that adequate access for emergency service and delivery vehicles should be addressed.

Andrea Vanelli briefed the Board on Exhibits 2 through 8. She explained that the remainder of Ordinance 589 updates the Community Development Code in response to changes in State law coming out of the 2001 Legislative Session. Ms. Vanelli reported that the Planning Commission recommended some changes to Exhibit 7, which incorporates a new provision for partitions allowed in Exclusive Forest and Conservation District. She said the provision outlines standards which allow a parcel with more than one lawful dwelling to partition off one of the houses on a lot that is between 2 and 5 acres in size. Ms. Vanelli related that the Planning Commission would like the County’s Code language to limit the partitioned properties to the minimum 2 acre size. However, she commented that staff feels that there may be

46 operational reasons for keeping the flexibility offered by the 2-5 acre range. Ms. Vanelli said that the Planning Commission also wanted to see language added to require that an agreement be recorded with the new parcels, which recognizes the rights of surrounding property owners to conduct customarily accepted forest practices. She remarked that since this is already customarily incorporated as a condition of approval for EFC dwellings, staff recommends that the Board adopt the ordinance as filed.

Chairman Brian wished to clarify if the revisions suggested by the Planning Commission are already incorporated in the language.

Ms. Vanelli responded that they are not.

Brent Curtis clarified that if the Board chose to agree with the changes suggested by the Planning Commission, engrossment would be required.

The public hearing was opened.

Gregory Hines, 2300 SW Mayfield, Portland, Oregon, identified himself as a developer and owner of Shelbourne Development. He opposed banning gated communities. Mr. Hines mentioned that Clackamas County allows these and pointed out that these are typically located on private streets. He saw no problem with the concept of exclusivity as a lifestyle for those who work hard and desire such a way of life. Mr. Hines observed that citizens’ choices keep being reduced; often, he cannot give his customers what they desire. He saw benefits to the County and the public at large of having gated communities. Mr. Hines stated that people want to come home to a protected and secure environment. He told the Board that people will group together based upon likes, dislikes, and socioeconomic status—even within a large subdivision. Mr. Hines regarded the attempt to place social values through governmental process as wrong. He preferred to provide choice whenever possible. Mr. Hines argued that gates should be allowed in certain circumstances. He agreed with the Planning Commission that a prohibition of gated communities should not be added to a general housekeeping ordinance.

Larry Sullivan, Jackson School Road, said he has no real interest in whether a community is gated or not gated. However, he objected to the County taking away peoples’ right to choose. Mr. Sullivan

47 felt that some of the prejudices of the Board are behind this ordinance. He did not think this would be fair and believed that it is the Board’s responsibility to find a way to make gated communities work.

The public hearing was closed.

Commissioner Duyck was bothered by how this ordinance deals with two completely unrelated subjects. He had concerns about the gated community provisions in the ordinance but wished that this and the provisions for dwellings in EFC districts were two separate ordinances. Commissioner Duyck could not support the ordinance as proposed today. He said he might be able to support either separating these issues into two separate ordinances or following the Planning Commission’s recommendations to engross the ordinance.

Commissioner Schouten shared Commissioner Duyck’s aversion to combining these topics. He preferred to split the issues and to consider each on their merits. Commissioner Schouten asked about the standards for these private streets.

Paul Schaefer responded that the standards for a private street vary depending upon the number of lots that it serves and what standards the road is built to. He commented that private streets are typically used for smaller projects but can also be used for larger developments. Mr. Schaefer explained that private streets are primarily used when there are no possibilities or reasons to extend access to adjoining parcels. He recognized that these streets do serve the public because people visit the homes.

Commissioner Schouten asked how private driveways and private streets are defined.

Mr. Schaefer replied that the private street is typically set aside in a tract as opposed to a private driveway, which might serve an apartment complex. He noted that these are designed differently and also function differently.

Commissioner Schouten said that this ordinance calls for gates not to be allowed at private driveways unless there are certain safety and operational issues required by the Director of Land Use and Transportation.

48 Commissioner Leeper identified himself as the gentleman behind this ordinance. He acknowledged that Hank Stern of the Oregonian has provided him with a lot of publicity over this issue and that he has had many communications from citizens in various forms. Commissioner Leeper announced that he has not in any way changed his mind. He reported that communications from his constituents have favored prohibiting gated communities at a ratio of about two to one. Commissioner Leeper was aware that the Planning Commission voted this ordinance down as written and was ready to accept whatever decision the Board makes on it. He added the proviso that if it is voted down, the engrossment proposed in the Staff Report should be given a hearing to see if the engrossed version will pass or not. As to the other exhibits in the ordinance, Commissioner Leeper suggested that the Board vote by exhibit and move on.

Commissioner Rogers commended Commissioner Leeper for bringing forward an issue about which he cared deeply. He noted that the Board is designed to spearhead public debate. Commissioner Rogers appreciated that Commissioner Leeper has not solicited his vote in any manner. As a Board member who has been involved in transportation issues for a long time, he commented that connectivity is very important to him. Commissioner Rogers wrestled with the importance of connectivity versus freedom of choice. He intended to vote in conformance with the Planning Commission, i.e., to not prohibit gating. Commissioner Rogers did not view gating as a basic problem and felt that it does serve purposes in unusual demographic areas. He was prepared to support, too, the exhibit relative to the EFC district.

Chairman Brian suggested that these issues be separated. He sought further comment from staff. Chairman Brian said he would only offer his support to the gated prohibition if it was addressing specific problems. He thought the Board should follow Commissioner Leeper’s proposal to deal with the second portion (EFC) of this ordinance. Chairman Brian recommended deleting the gated community language so that the ordinance would focus on Exhibits 2 through 8 and the proposed Planning Commission amendments to those.

Commissioner Duyck wondered if it might be most efficient under the circumstances to direct staff to engross the ordinance with the Planning Commission changes.

49 It was moved to direct staff to eliminate the gated community provisions (Exhibit 1) and to make revisions to Exhibits 2 through 8 as recommended by the Planning Commission. The public hearing was continued to July 16, 2002 and July 23, 2002 as required by Chapter X of the County Charter. Staff was directed to prepare and mail the Chapter X notice describing the engrossed changes. Staff was also directed to address issues raised concerning safety impacts of gates (Exhibit 1) and staff’s requested revisions to the Planning Commission’s recommended changes to Exhibit 7 in issues papers for discussion at the July 16, 2002 meeting.

Motion – Duyck 2nd – Rogers Vote – 3-2 Nay – Leeper, Schouten

Commissioner Schouten did not feel this motion addressed practical problems of safety or access, connectivity, and those types of problems. He was not particularly fond of gated communities but did wish to look at the practical questions mentioned in the previous sentence. Commissioner Schouten had concerns about the concept of minimizing the use of private streets because he regarded streets as public facilities. He said he listened to the Planning Commission tape and heard little discussion about the practical questions.

Commissioner Leeper thanked staff for writing this ordinance. He wondered if the Board wanted to accept the Planning Commission recommendation regarding Exhibits 2 through 8.

Chairman Brian verified that this was part of the motion and asked if this conformed to staff recommendation.

Brent Curtis stated that this is not staff’s recommendation. He reported that the two issues focused upon by the Planning Commission deal with 1) limiting the new lot to two acres and 2) requiring a waiver of remonstrance against customary forest practices. Mr. Curtis did not support the former issue because limiting it to two acres can create some practical problems (Statute provides for two to five acres). He offered for staff to craft language (if the Board desires this to be two acres or as close to two acres as possible) which pushes the lot to the small size but retains a degree of flexibility for the odd case.

50 Commissioner Schouten asked how this could be crafted to be compatible with State law.

Dan Olsen was not familiar with the exact language contained in the Statute and referred the question to Land Use and Transportation staff.

Commissioner Schouten recalled from the Planning Commission tape recording that there was a suggestion of making it two acres and that Counsel Rappleyea thought this could be a problem, given that State law speaks of “more than two and less than five”.

Brent Curtis observed that staff does not have the Statute at hand right at this moment. He offered to include this information in the next Staff Report and Issue Paper. Mr. Curtis informed the Board that a second engrossment would take this into August, which has been reserved primarily for Transportation Plan issues.

10. LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION 10.a. Adopt Findings for Land Use Ordinance No. 589 MO 02-233

No action was required on this item because Land Use Ordinance No. 589 was not adopted today.

10.b. Adopt the Annual Road Maintenance Work Program for Fiscal RO 02-73 Year 2002-2003

There was a motion to adopt by Resolution and Order the prioritized work program for road maintenance.

Motion – Duyck 2nd – Rogers Vote – 5-0

11. COUNTY COUNSEL 11.a. Cooperative Library Services Local Option Levy – Ballot Title RO 02-74 and Explanatory Statement

Dan Olsen informed the Board that this item would adopt a ballot title and explanatory statement and call for a November election on the Library Services Local Option Levy. He called attention to one correction on page 1 of Exhibit B, where the word “and” is

51 replaced by the word “or” and deleting the word “provided” so that the sentence would read: “What specific library services would be maintained or enhanced?”

It was moved to adopt the Resolution and Order calling for a November 5, 2002 election, adopting a ballot title and explanatory statement for a 5-year local option levy to maintain and enhance library operations and authorize staff to take the necessary steps to place this matter before the voters.

Motion – Rogers 2nd – Leeper Vote – 5-0

12. HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 12.a. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 596 to Repeal Ordinance No. MO 02-223 566 and Declaring an Emergency

There was a motion to read Proposed Ordinance No. 596 by title only.

Motion – Duyck 2nd – Leeper Vote – 5-0

Dan Olsen read the proposed ordinance by title.

It was moved to continue this matter to July 2, 2002, for the third reading, first public hearing.

Motion – Duyck 2nd – Schouten Vote – 5-0

13. HOUSING SERVICES 13.a. Approve Home Consortium Agreement with Cities of Beaverton MO 02-224 and Hillsboro

Susan Wilson stated that Washington County is the lead agency for the Home Consortium. She indicated that the Home Consortium is comprised of the unincorporated areas and cities of Washington County. Ms. Wilson explained that these entities receive federal HOME funds for the purpose of providing affordable housing. She said that under the Department of Housing and Urban Development regulations, when a city has arrived at a certain size (cities of Beaverton and Hillsboro), it must formally acknowledge participation—along with the County—in the Consortium. Ms.

52 Wilson noted that this agreement expires at the end of this year. She asked the Board to approve the continuation of that agreement through 2005.

It was moved to approve the proposed cooperation agreement with the cities of Beaverton and Hillsboro and to authorize the Chair or designee to sign the agreement on behalf of Washington County, subject to the County’s contract review process.

Motion – Rogers 2nd – Duyck Vote – 5-0

OFF DOCKET – CLEAN WATER SERVICES CWS MO 02-62 Conduct Second Reading of Ordinance 36, an Ordinance Prescribing Revised Procedures for Local Sewer Improvement Projects and Continue for a Third Reading and First Public Hearing on July 2, 2002

There was a motion to read Ordinance 36 by title only.

Motion – Duyck 2nd – Rogers Vote – 5-0

Bill Gaffi read the proposed ordinance by title.

It was moved to continue this matter for third reading and first public hearing to July 2, 2002.

Motion – Duyck 2nd – Schouten Vote – 5-0

OFF DOCKET – CLEAN WATER SERVICES CWS RO 02-27 Declare Necessity and Purpose for Acquisition of an Easement Across Certain Real Property and Authorize Clean Water Services to Proceed with Condemnation Action for Completion of Public Sanitary and Storm Sewer Improvements for Tuscany Subdivision (8610)

Bill Gaffi recognized that this was discussed at today’s Worksession. He identified this as an unusual action in that there is a need for extension of sewer service, not only to a proposed development but ultimately to the rest of the drainage area, which is important to meet the long-term sewerage service needs of that area. Mr. Gaffi said that the parties involved have worked through the easement acquisition process and that the developer has

53 succeeded in securing all but one of the easements required. He stated that there are issues remaining with the final property owner. Mr. Gaffi acknowledged receipt of a letter addressed to Nora Curtis from Ron Scrivner—the property owner with remaining concerns. (Letter may be found in the Meeting File.) He indicated that Mr. Scrivner’s issues have been reviewed and that staff believes that care can be taken during the permitting process to ensure that those concerns are addressed. Mr. Gaffi said that staff believes the proposed compensation for the easement to be reasonable. Therefore, he requested the Board to provide staff the authority to move forward with the proposed action. Mr. Gaffi hoped that this action would result in a resolution of the issue without proceeding to condemnation but recognized that that may, in fact, become necessary.

For the record, Chairman Brian clarified that the easement being condemned here, if necessary, is a temporary easement of ten feet for a period of 90 days.

Bill Gaffi verified that this is correct.

Commissioner Schouten asked who would be paying for these easements.

Mr. Gaffi responded that the developer will pay for the easement.

Commissioner Schouten wished to go through all of the conditions. He regarded the entire package as solicitous of the property right concerns of the owner.

Bill Gaffi reviewed today’s Worksession discussion. He said that the proposal—in the judgment of Clean Water Services—is vastly in excess of what would normally be adjudicated for the granting of such an easement. Mr. Gaffi divulged that normally the Agency secures easements of this nature for a cost that is probably one- tenth of the proposed compensation to the property owner. In his view this was a generous proposal but he said the property owner is understandably concerned about activity on his property. Mr. Gaffi felt that reasonable care is being taken to address those concerns.

Chairman Brian clarified that the Resolution and Order does not include or address all of the other conditions of the private offer.

54 He noted that this is strictly a Resolution and Order on condemnation of the temporary easement, with compensation to be determined. Chairman Brian reiterated that this does not include the other benefits which have been included in the private offers. He understood that the private offer would continue to be advanced to the property owner.

Mr. Gaffi affirmed that the process would include continued dialogue with the property owner. He stated that this direction would involve district staff more directly in that process to try to bring resolution to the case and Clean Water Services would propose to address in reasonable fashion the concerns that exist there. Mr. Gaffi commented that the Court ultimately would determine what the level of compensation would be if the Agency cannot bring the parties together.

It was moved to declare by Resolution and Order the necessity and purpose for acquisition of a certain easement necessary to complete the Tuscany Subdivision (8610) and to authorize staff to proceed with condemnation action as required to obtain the easement.

Motion – Duyck 2nd – Schouten Vote – 5-0

Commissioner Duyck said that he is always very pro-property rights. In this particular case, however, he recognized the greater good and noted that the easement is only temporary. Commissioner Duyck believed that it is very important that this take place for the good of all of the properties upstream.

14. ORAL COMMUNICATION (10 MINUTE OPPORTUNITY)

None.

15. BOARD ANNOUNCEMENTS

None.

16. ADJOURNMENT: 9:23 p.m.

Motion – Rogers 2nd – Leeper Vote – 5-0

55 MINUTES APPROVED THIS ____ DAY ______2002

______RECORDING SECRETARY CHAIRMAN

56 MINUTES

WASHINGTON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

JULY 2, 2002

CONVENED: 10:15 a.m.

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS: Chairman Tom Brian Vice Chair John Leeper Commissioner Dick Schouten Commissioner Roy Rogers Commissioner Andy Duyck

STAFF: Charles D. Cameron, County Administrator David Maertens, Senior Deputy County Administrator Dan Olsen, County Counsel Alan Rappleyea, Sr. Assistant County Counsel Kathy Lehtola, Director, LUT Paul Schaefer, Associate Planner, LUT Andrea Vannelli, Code Enforcement Officer, LUT Mark Brown, Assistant Director, LUT Kevin Brice, Land Development Manager, LUT Jim Tice, Senior Planner, LUT Lynne Storz, Solid Waste Management Coordinator, HHS Linda Kelly, P&E Services Division Manager, CWS Nora Curtis, Engineering Division Manager, CWS Patt Opdyke, CPO Coordinator Jeff Friend, Audio/Visual Specialist Barbara Hejtmanek, Recording Secretary

PRESS: Henry Stern, The Oregonian

APPROVAL OF MINUTES: June 18, 2002

1. CONSENT AGENDA

Chairman Brian announced the following modifications to the Consent Agenda:

· Item a. is continued to August 6, 2002.

57 · Item c. is deferred to a Worksession on July 16, 2002. · Item g. is revised to reflect ratification of a prior action.

It was moved to adopt the Consent Agenda, as modified.

Motion - Rogers 2nd - Schouten Vote – 5-0

CLEAN WATER SERVICES

1.a. Endorse Boundary Change Proposal No. WA-2502 for Annexation CWS MO 02-64 to Clean Water Services’ Service District (Continued to August 6, 2002)

1.b. Waive Competitive Bid Requirements and Approve a Contract to CWS MO 02-63 Purchase Fuel with Bretthauer Oil (Approved Under Consent Agenda)

LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION

1.c. Approve Board of Commissioners’ Development Philosophy MO 02-236 (Deferred to Worksession on July 16, 2002)

1.d. Approve Establishment of a County Road in Merlo Station RO 02-77 Townhomes (CPO 6) (Approved Under Consent Agenda)

1.e. Approve Establishment of a County Road in Monte Vista RO 02-78 Subdivision (CPO 6) (Approved Under Consent Agenda)

1.f. Approve Establishment of a County Road in Olivia Woods RO 02-79 Subdivision (CPO 6) (Approved Under Consent Agenda)

AGING AND VETERANS’ SERVICES

1.g. Accept Contract Amendment from State of Oregon Which MO 02-237 Increases Lifespan Respite Funding (Approved Under Consent Agenda)

1.h. Accept Contract from State of Oregon to Develop and Produce MO 02-238 a Training Video (Approved Under Consent Agenda)

1.i. Approve Contract for Nutrition Services to Elderly (Approved MO 02-239 Under Consent Agenda)

58 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

1.j. Approve Program Policy Manual for the 2003-2005 Community MO 02-240 Development Block Grant Funding Cycle (Approved Under Consent Agenda)

COOPERATIVE LIBRARY SERVICES

1.k. Approve Agreement with Clackamas and Multnomah Counties, MO 02-241 and Fort Vancouver Regional Library for Exchange of Library Services (Mix Agreement) (Approved Under Consent Agenda)

SUPPORT SERVICES

1.l. Accept Bid/Award Barter Contract for Logging Services MO 02-242 (Approved Under Consent Agenda)

2. ORAL COMMUNICATION (2 MINUTE OPPORTUNITY)

An unidentified female came forward to speak but refused to give her name and address for the record. She told the Board that her name and address have been published on the County’s web page as a part of past Board Minutes. This female asked that her name and address be removed from the website. She claimed that she understood that minutes are public record but could not understand why her name and address should be posted on the web page. Unidentified female stated that her name and address could be left in the County archives, if necessary, but preferred to be listed as a citizen. This citizen did not feel her information should be a part of the public record.

Chairman Brian asked County Counsel why the County should, upon request, not show name and address in the minutes on the web. He asked Counsel to also speak to whether or not witnesses must give name or address when providing testimony.

Dan Olsen addressed the Chair’s second question first. He said that for the most part, there is no legal requirement that people who come to testify before the Board give their name and address. Mr. Olsen commented that in some cases (such as certain land use matters and other formal public hearings), the County is required to send notice of the Board’s action to those persons who have appeared. Alternately, he pointed out that if someone is going to appeal a Board action, the County needs to be able to serve all the

59 persons who testified with a copy of their appeal. Mr. Olsen summarized that for most of the routine actions taken by the Board, there is no legal requirement for the name and address. He stated that—absent some very unusual circumstances—there is nothing to require the County to delete someone’s name and address from the minutes or the web. Mr. Olsen mentioned that there is a Statute that says if a person has a specific reason why their name and address should be kept confidential and has taken steps in his/her personal life to keep name and address confidential, then he/she can express that concern and the County can make a decision as to whether to disclose it or not. He explained that the primary purpose of putting the name and address in the minutes is because many citizens who read them want to know who is testifying on matters of public interest.

Chairman Brian asked Counsel if it would be more appropriate for this witness to talk to the Office of County Counsel about the website concern versus the Board trying to make this call at the present time.

Charles Cameron informed the Board that this issue just came up last week and that this is the first time this type of concern has been brought forward. He added that the County also has not yet heard of anyone’s information being used inappropriately as a result of his/her testimony. Mr. Cameron noted that when a person appears in public and offers name and address, it is televised, it is heard by the newspaper reporters present, and it is reflected in the minutes. He said that to remove the information from the website may not be the entire solution. With regard to the information on the website, Mr. Cameron observed that this is buried in the minutes of the meeting. He clarified that the County does not have a database of all people who have testified before the Board. Mr. Cameron said that if someone wants to find the information, they can either search through the website or come to the County and look at the actual documents. He stated that this raises an interesting question that is bigger than this particular issue, which explains why staff would like some time to respond. Mr. Cameron identified this issue as differentiating between appropriate and inappropriate use of information. He noted that this is an issue that all public agencies are facing. Mr. Cameron asked for time in which to prepare a policy discussion for the Board about what information would appear on the web in terms of personal

60 information and what would not appear. He regarded this as a major public policy issue for public jurisdictions, particularly in light of Oregon’s particular attention to public records law.

Chairman Brian encouraged the witness to provide legal staff with any comments to help explain her concerns and point of view.

Citizen said that she did write to a member of the Board on May 27, 2002, but that she did not receive a response.

Commissioner Schouten looked at the practical question of how to get back in touch with concerned citizens who seek solutions to problems without a name and address.

Charles Cameron advised the Board that once the name and address are stated at the public meeting, there are video records, audio records, and written records. He suggested it may be best, in the interim, to alter some testimony documents to allow citizens to provide a reason why their information may not be given to the public.

Citizen interjected that the testimony she gave was before the County had net access and that it was retroactively put on the web.

3. PUBLIC HEARING – CLEAN WATER SERVICES 3.a. Conduct Third Reading and First Public Hearing of Ordinance ADOPTED 36 – An Ordinance Prescribing Revised Procedures for Local Sewer Improvement Projects and Declaring an Emergency (All CPOs)

There was a motion to read Ordinance 36 by title only.

Motion – Rogers 2nd – Duyck Vote – 5-0

Linda Kelly read the proposed ordinance by title and asked the Board to adopt it. She revealed that it would become effective immediately.

The public hearing was opened.

No public testimony was offered.

The public hearing was closed.

61 Commissioner Schouten asked what this ordinance would do.

Nora Curtis stated that Ordinance 36 would revise the local sewer improvement project. She said that the substance of the ordinance allows a party who has to construct off site sewer lines to then be reimbursed for a portion of those costs from people who subsequently connect to them.

It was moved to adopt Ordinance 36.

Motion – Rogers 2nd – Schouten Vote – 5-0 Roll Call: All Aye

4. PUBLIC HEARINGS – LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION 4.a. Approve Annexation of One Parcel Encompassing 0.5 Acres MO 02-234 to Clean Water Services District

Chairman Brian elected to dispense with this staff report unless there is public testimony because this matter is being continued to August 6, 2002.

The public hearing was opened.

No public testimony was provided.

It was moved to continue this public hearing to August 6, 2002.

Motion – Rogers 2nd – Schouten Vote – 4-0 (Duyck away at time of vote)

4.b. Proposed Land Use Ordinance No. 592 – Amend the Community ADOPTED Development Code Element of the Comprehensive Plan; Relating to Temporary Health Hardships (All CPOs)

There was a motion to read Proposed Land Use Ordinance 592 by title only.

Motion – Schouten 2nd – Leeper Vote – 4-0 (Duyck away at time of vote)

Alan Rappleyea read the proposed ordinance by title.

62 Mark Brown informed the Board that this begins a series of land use ordinances. He identified three options of Board action on each of these ordinances:

· Adopt ordinance as filed · Engross ordinance and continue to future date · Reject ordinance

Andrea Vannelli stated that Ordinance 592 proposes to change the temporary health hardship standards of the Community Development Code. She reviewed that in 1999, the ORS language for this provision was amended to allow an RV to be used as a health hardship. Ms. Vannelli clarified that this ordinance introduces the RV as an option for temporary hardship uses in the farm and forest districts of Washington County. She said that the ordinance also outlines standards to address the more technical issues associated with locating the units.

The public hearing was opened.

Bobbi Rychlick, 21970 SW Edy Road, Sherwood, Oregon, said she would like to see more clarification in Sections A.3 and A.4 of the ordinance. As a health care provider and an individual who has been impacted by this, she testified that allowing a person’s own physician to sign the forms could lead to abuse of the system. Ms. Rychlick objected to the lack of physical or occupational evaluation requirement to verify the person truly qualifies for this hardship. She told the Board that the woman occupying a health hardship building adjoining her property winters in Arizona; she did not believe this woman needs this assistance despite the fact that her physician signed for it. Ms. Rychlick preferred that independent evaluators make these decisions.

The public hearing was closed.

Chairman Brian asked staff to respond to public testimony.

Andrea Vannelli said that while it is a nice idea to have a third party for utmost objectivity, staff recognizes that it would place an extra burden on the applicant. She explained that the applicant would have to go outside their health care provider to get a third party review. Ms. Vannelli pointed out that the County does not have a physician on staff. She said that historically, staff has relied upon the patient’s own physician, who presumably knows the

63 patient best. Ms. Vannelli called the Board’s attention to language that has been taken out of Section A.2 and then moved to and elaborated upon in Subsections 3 and 4. She explained that the language retains the same intent but contains more specificity in guiding physicians in terms of what would qualify a hardship candidate for the temporary use.

Chairman Brian recalled dealing with the handicap parking permit issue when he was in the Legislature. He related that some physicians did not want that authority because it was hard to say no to long-time patients. Chairman Brian said that there were initially a lot of handicap parking permits issued when they were probably not really necessary. He added that this has since been substantially—but not entirely—corrected. Chairman Brian understood the concern with this ordinance language.

Ms. Vannelli stated that the proposed language is certainly more refined than what currently exists. She expected to see a big difference with the new language.

Commissioner Schouten observed that staff is striking a balance between overly intrusive requirements and those which do not provide safeguards for abuse.

Chairman Brian asked if these are two year permits.

Ms. Vannelli affirmed the Chair’s conclusion.

Chairman Brian noted that there would be an opportunity for review upon renewal after seeing more experience and evidence with each individual case.

It was moved to adopt Ordinance 592.

Motion – Duyck 2nd – Schouten Vote – 5-0 Roll Call: All Aye

Commissioner Leeper asked staff to keep this under some semblance of review to see if there are any excessive numbers of these coming in and, if so, to consider revision of criteria for this type of housing.

Commissioner Rogers mentioned that he spent about 15 minutes at today’s Worksession talking about this very issue. He was a little

64 uneasy about this ordinance because he knew that issues such as the one testified about today could arise. Commissioner Rogers spoke in favor of monitoring the situation and perhaps hearing from staff in about one year relative to how well this is working.

6. LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION 6.a. Adopt Findings in Support of Land Use Ordinance No. 592 RO 02-80 Relating to Temporary Health Hardships (All CPOs)

There was a motion to adopt the proposed findings for Ordinance No. 592 and to authorize the Chair to sign the Resolution and Order memorializing the action.

Motion – Rogers 2nd – Duyck Vote – 5-0

4.c. Proposed Land Use Ordinance No. 593 – Amend the Community MO 02-243 Development Code Element of the Comprehensive Plan; Relating to Modification of the Development Standards for New Dwellings in the Exclusive Forest and Conservation (EFC) District Which are Reviewed via the Template Standards (All CPOs)

There was a motion to read Proposed Land Use Ordinance No. 593 by title only.

Motion – Duyck 2nd – Rogers Vote – 5-0

Alan Rappleyea read the proposed ordinance by title.

Andrea Vannelli announced that Ordinance 593 proposes to amend the standards for certain types of new dwellings in the Exclusive Forest and Conservation District, which are reviewed by the template standards. She declared that the County’s standards for this type of review are based upon statutory language; however, the language is currently more restrictive than what is outlined in State law. Ms. Vannelli said that a couple of attachments to the Staff Report illustrate the differences. She stated that Attachment B shows a template touching eleven parcels and explained that the issue staff is grappling with in this ordinance deals with the locations of the three qualifying houses. Ms. Vannelli commented that according to State law, those houses can be located anywhere on the qualifying parcels, regardless of the location of the template. She stated that Attachment A illustrates a case wherein the subject

65 parcel would not qualify for a new dwelling under the current language but would qualify for a new dwelling under the proposed language. Ms. Vannelli explained that the difference is that under the current language, all three of the houses have to be inside the square template. She said that the proposed language adds a 500 foot buffer onto that template for the purpose of locating the houses only. Ms. Vannelli clarified that according to the proposed language, only one house would have to be inside the template; the other two houses could fall on the qualifying parcels within a 500 foot buffer of the template.

The public hearing was opened.

Dale Walker, 6250 SE Sigrid, Hillsboro, Oregon, expressed support for this ordinance. He commended Ms. Vannelli and staff for writing a clear Staff Report, which helped him understand the current land use regulations. Mr. Walker felt that the current process is overly complex and too restrictive. He pointed out that the vast majority of the EFC parcels are already developed. Mr. Walker believed that passing this ordinance, therefore, would not add a big burden on the County offices. He envisioned this ordinance as a good first step in bringing the County into closer alignment with the State Statute. Mr. Walker explained that the State Statute does not require a complicated overlay process. He hoped the Board would adopt this ordinance.

Chairman Brian wanted to know if there is an estimated impact from this ordinance in terms of how many additional dwellings it might facilitate.

Ms. Vannelli responded that it is hard to determine that exactly. She said that, historically, the County has not had more than eight template dwelling approvals per year since this was introduced in 1995.

Marcus Simantel, 2024 SW Howards Way, Portland, Oregon, indicated that he served on the Washington County Planning Commission for a number of years and that he respects the work that group does. He knew that the Planning Commission, a group of citizen volunteers, studies issues quite thoroughly. Mr. Simantel was aware that the Planning Commission has recommended rejection of Ordinance 593. He asked the Board to look at written testimony from 1000 Friends of Oregon regarding this ordinance.

66 Mr. Simantel stated that the proposed ordinance would loosen things up in the EFC and would increase risk of fire due to greater human activity. He reported that loosening of standards concerns him. Mr. Simantel spoke of the need either to get serious about more compact growth or to liberalize standards. He saw no problem with being more responsible than State Statute but clarified that the County cannot be more liberal than that by law. Mr. Simantel talked about vehicle miles traveled and asked that these be taken into consideration. He encouraged the Board to place more residences around mass transit rather than farther out. Mr. Simantel urged the Board to follow the advice of the Planning Commission.

Chairman Brian indicated that a letter has been received from Oregonians in Action and that it has been placed in the record.

Ed Johnson, 3834 E. Main, Hillsboro, Oregon, intended to speak about this ordinance again in two weeks, when it returns to the Board for another public hearing. He displayed a large map and provided statistics on areas that are ten acres or less. Mr. Johnson said that out of 36 parcels at Hagg Lake having 10 acres or less, 21 already have homes. He described a similar situation at Alexander Creek, i.e., 12 out of 17 parcels already have homes. Mr. Johnson did not believe, therefore, that this ordinance would make a large impact.

Sid Friedman, 1000 Friends of Oregon, 534 SW Third, Portland, Oregon, asked the Board to accept the recommendation of the Planning Commission and to reject Proposed Land Use Ordinance 593. He considered the ordinance an ill-advised amendment which is designed to increase new dwelling approvals in the forest zone and to enhance increased residential development in Washington County’s forest zones. Mr. Friedman pointed out that these forest zones and timber lands are incredibly productive. He said that they routinely produce 160 cubic feet of timber per acre per year or more. Mr. Friedman contrasted this to the highest standard in the Statute, which is 85 cubic feet per acre per year. He went on to say that the federal standard for classifying commercial forest land is 20 cubic feet of timber per acre per year. Mr. Friedman concluded that Washington County’s timber lands produce eight times as much timber as the federal standard for commercial timber lands. He quoted from the County’s Comprehensive Plan: “Forest lands in Washington County have suffered from encroachment by other uses—primarily rural residential development. Residential

67 development in proximity to commercial forestry operations often results in conflicting uses.” Mr. Friedman stated that western Washington County has a history of fire. He noted that the Planning Commission recognized the short-sightedness of relaxing standards for new homes in the wild land urban interface. Mr. Friedman said that while it is fortunate that there has not been a major fire in some time, it is a certainty that there will be one in the future. He did not believe the Board should weaken protections for valuable resource lands. Mr. Friedman said that Lane, Linn, Yamhill, Washington, Clackamas, Marion, and Multnomah counties have stiffer standards for forest template dwellings than the minimum State standards, and that Yamhill, Lane, and Multnomah counties prohibit such dwellings entirely in their primary forest zones while allowing them in other more impacted areas. He stated that this ordinance would increase residential development in forest zones; he saw no compelling reason to weaken the standards for dwellings and protection for forest zones. Mr. Friedman urged the Board to reject this ordinance.

Commissioner Schouten said that he would appreciate receiving a written copy of Mr. Friedman’s testimony at some point in the future.

As public testimony concluded, Mark Brown recommended continuing this to August 20, 2002.

It was moved to continue this public hearing to August 20, 2002.

Motion – Rogers 2nd – Duyck Vote – 5-0

6.b. Adopt Findings in Support of Proposed Land Use Ordinance MO 02-245 No. 593 Relating to Modification of the Development Standards for New Dwellings in the Exclusive Forest and Conservation (EFC) District (All CPOs)

No action was taken on this item today because Ordinance 593 was not adopted on this date.

68 4.d. Proposed Land Use Ordinance No. 594 – Amend the Community ADOPTED Development Code Element of the Comprehensive Plan; Relating to Grading Project Reviews (All CPOs)

There was a motion to read Proposed Land Use Ordinance No. 594 by title only.

Motion – Duyck 2nd – Rogers Vote – 5-0

Alan Rappleyea read the proposed ordinance by title.

Andrea Vannelli stated that Ordinance 594 proposes changes to the Community Development Code which clarify requirements for proposed grading work, including the addition of submittal requirements that applicants identify the locations of any stockpile areas on site. She added that applicants are also required to provide information on how the stockpiles will be removed when the project is finished.

Chairman Brian referenced considerable discussion of this matter in today’s Worksession.

The public hearing was opened.

No public testimony was received.

The public hearing was closed.

Commissioner Schouten recalled that several Planning Commissioners described this ordinance as a solution looking for a problem. He asked for greater detail on the problem the County is trying to solve with this ordinance.

Andrea Vannelli responded that the problem this ordinance is addressing is one not completely answered by Code language changes. She said that, in general, certain stockpiles in the County are either removed or not removed in the same way originally proposed. Ms. Vannelli explained that this change attempts to have this issue addressed and anticipated before the project begins. She stated that removal of stockpiles can be addressed with a condition of approval on the development application and also with additional enforcement or compliance actions.

69 Commissioner Schouten commented that this ordinance will require the applicant to explain where soil will be disposed of, if necessary.

Andrea Vannelli affirmed that this is correct. She pointed out that it is hard to write a condition of approval for something that is not anticipated ahead of time. Ms. Vannelli reported that it is currently not specifically required that the applicant address stockpile issues in the grading plans or at that stage. She concluded that this ordinance ensures that everyone is clear on what the intent is.

Commissioner Duyck asked if there is a volume of removal that triggers this ordinance.

Ms. Vannelli responded that these projects are typically subdivisions, which means they would usually involve a grading permit.

Chairman Brian wondered if this includes stockpiling of soils created by grading on the property as well as soils brought onto the site from off the property.

Ms. Vannelli confirmed that this is the case.

Commissioner Leeper announced that he cited a specific example during today’s Worksession as the cause for his involvement in this issue. He viewed this ordinance as a solution to a known problem. Commissioner Leeper noted that he cited at least one problem that was a protracted one and which was a matter of considerable concern to an established neighborhood.

It was moved to adopt Ordinance 594.

Motion – Leeper 2nd – Rogers Vote – 4-1 Roll Call: Aye – Brian, Leeper, Schouten, Rogers Nay – Duyck

Commissioner Duyck voted with the Planning Commission in opposition to Ordinance 594. He was not convinced that the problem is sufficient to warrant an ordinance. Commissioner Duyck wanted to achieve a balance between how much regulation is enough and how much places too much burden upon a property

70 owner in order to satisfy the neighbors. In balancing property rights versus needs of the neighbors, he felt this ordinance steps over the line.

6.c. Adopt Findings in Support of Land Use Ordinance No. 594 RO 02-81 Relating to Grading Project Reviews (All CPOs)

It was moved to adopt the proposed findings for Ordinance No. 594 and to authorize the Chair to sign the Resolution and Order memorializing the action.

Motion – Rogers 2nd – Schouten Vote – 5-0

4.e. Proposed Land Use Ordinance No. 595 – Amend the Community MO 02-244 Development Code Element of the Comprehensive Plan; Relating to Review of Previously Approved Rural Private Streets (All CPOs)

There was a motion to read Proposed Land Use Ordinance No. 595 by title only.

Motion – Leeper 2nd – Schouten Vote – 5-0

Alan Rappleyea read the proposed ordinance by title.

Andrea Vannelli stated that this ordinance proposes changes to the Community Development Code dealing with standards for review of private streets in the rural area. She said that the ordinance also attempts to clarify requirements for Fire Marshall review in cases where a portion of the street has previously been reviewed and approved by the Fire Marshall. Ms. Vannelli reported that staff is proposing this ordinance at the request of a citizen (Jim Allison). She said that a continuance is requested in order to allow staff and Mr. Allison to work out a few more details.

The public hearing was opened.

Jim Allison, 23385 SW Schmelzer Road, Sherwood, Oregon, agreed with staff that this ordinance should be set over. He had no further testimony unless a Board member was inclined to vote against the proposed continuance.

71 It was moved to continue this public hearing to August 20, 2002.

Motion – Leeper 2nd – Schouten Vote – 5-0

6.d. Adopt Findings in Support of Proposed Land Use Ordinance MO 02-246 No. 595 Relating to Review of Previously Approved Rural Private Streets (All CPOs)

No action was taken today on these findings because Ordinance 595 was not adopted on this date.

5. PUBLIC HEARING – HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 5.a. Third Reading, First Public Hearing of Ordinance No. 596 to ADOPTED Repeal Ordinance No. 566 and Declaring an Emergency – Solid Waste Management

There was a motion to read Proposed Ordinance No. 596 by title only.

Motion – Duyck 2nd – Rogers Vote – 5-0

Alan Rappleyea read the proposed ordinance by title.

Lynne Storz said that on May 9, 2002, the U.S. District Court of Oregon issued a permanent injunction in the case of AGG Enterprises v. Washington County. She stated that the terms of injunction apply to County Code Chapter 8.04 (Solid Waste Control). Ms. Storz commented that in response to the injunction, the County adopted Ordinance 566 (Interim Registration, Administrative Rules, and Related Fees). She said that on March 12, 2002, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued its opinion with regard to that case: the Court found that the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994 does not preempt local regulations on the collection of mixed solid waste and reversed the District Court’s opinion. Ms. Storz stated that as a result of the Ninth Circuit decision, staff forwarded a recommendation to the Solid Waste Advisory Committee on April 10, 2002, that Ordinance 566 and Administrative Rules and Fees be repealed as they are no longer necessary due to the Court decision. She forwarded this recommendation to the Board today.

The public hearing was opened.

72 No public testimony was forthcoming.

The public hearing was closed.

It was moved to adopt Ordinance 596.

Motion – Duyck 2nd – Leeper Vote – 5-0 Roll Call: All Aye

It was Commissioner Schouten’s understanding that this decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has been appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Dan Olsen affirmed that the plaintiff has sought review by the U.S. Supreme Court. He considered this review as very unlikely. Mr. Olsen reported that his office is preparing a very brief response informing the Supreme Court that the County does not believe that this is a case which merits review. He mentioned that there has been another case out of one of the eastern circuits that also seems to go the County’s way on this issue. Mr. Olsen believed that sometime in the next four to six months, there would be a decision from the Supreme Court denying review. He observed that that would completely finish this matter. Mr. Olsen saw no reason to hold up repealing the ordinance based upon the very slim chance that the Supreme Court would review. He added that even if it did, it would be a couple of years before a decision was rendered.

7. COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE 7.a. Reconsider Five-Year Local Option Levy for the Enhanced MO 02-235 Sheriff’s Patrol District – FY 2004 through FY 2008 – Direct County Counsel to Update Ballot Title for November 2002 Election

David Maertens remarked that the purpose of this item is for the Board to reconsider placement of the Enhanced Sheriff Patrol District levy back on the ballot for the Fall election. He reviewed that the Board approved the proposal for this levy in February and approved the ballot title in March. Mr. Maertens observed that the measure passed in the May election by a resounding margin (72%) but did not achieve the requisite 50% voter turnout and consequently failed. He recommended that the Board take the same proposal and direct County Counsel to draft an updated ballot title for consideration at the July 16, 2002 Board Meeting and

73 place this back on the ballot for the November election. Mr. Maertens indicated that this is essentially the same levy proposal approved in February. He stated that the tax impact is still at 47 cents per thousand. Mr. Maertens said it is a $6.2 million per year levy that runs from 2004 through 2008 and which carries an increase over the current levy of about six cents.

The public hearing was opened.

No public testimony was given.

The public hearing was closed.

It was moved to authorize the re-submittal of the Proposal for a Five-Year ESPD Local Option Levy to the voters for the November 5, 2002 election. Included in the motion was direction to continue this matter to July 16, 2002, and direction to County Counsel to draft an updated ballot title and explanatory statement for review and adoption on that date.

Motion – Rogers 2nd – Leeper Vote – 5-0

Commissioner Schouten said it is important for everyone to realize that this is a replacement levy. He added that this provides a level of service that his district needs and wants.

Chairman Brian noted that this is a measure that has been extremely strongly supported in the May election. He observed that there clearly is support for the continued service delivery provided under this special service district.

8. ORAL COMMUNICATION (10 MINUTE OPPORTUNITY)

None.

9. BOARD ANNOUNCEMENTS

Commissioner Schouten stated that one great way to celebrate the 4th of July is to visit the Art Train, which is located about one block behind the Jail. He said he learned from the exhibit that NASA commissioned artists beginning in the early 1960’s to help memorialize their space efforts.

74 Chairman Brian commented that, given the events of the past year, our freedom and independence seem ever more precious. Having just had the opportunity to visit China—where there is very little freedom and very little independence—he valued it even more. Chairman Brian encouraged everyone to recognize that in a safe, enjoyable way. He wished everyone a wonderful holiday.

10. ADJOURNMENT: 11:20 a.m.

Motion - Rogers 2nd - Leeper Vote – 5-0

MINUTES APPROVED THIS ____ DAY ______2002

______RECORDING SECRETARY CHAIRMAN

75 76 Washington County, Oregon Board of Commissioners Last Update: July 9, 2002 MEETING NOTICE WASHINGTON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS JULY 16, 2002 10:00 A.M. Tom Brian, Chairman Dick Schouten, Commissioner John Leeper, Vice Chair Roy Rogers, Commissioner Andy Duyck, Commissioner The Board of Commissioners will meet for a general worksession in Room 140 of the Public Services Building at 8:30 a.m. Worksession Agenda (PDF, 8K) (RTF, 56K) The Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, as the governing body of Washington County, the Housing Authority and all County service districts for which this Board so acts, will meet for its regular Board meeting in the Shirley Huffman Auditorium of the Public Services Building at 10:00 a.m. MEETINGS AND SCHEDULES Meeting Calendar Current Meeting Schedule Regular Business Meetings Worksessions Second Tuesdays of the Month Board Meetings when there is a Fifth Tuesday in a Month Executive Sessions Once the Regular Business Meeting Begins Ordinance Testimony Time Limits Alternatives to Televised Proceedings Assistive Listening Devices Sign Language and Interpreters Meeting Protocol * SEE ATTACHED AGENDA - POSTED JULY 11, 2002 *

WASHINGTON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AUDITORIUM JULY 16, 2002 All public meetings are recorded. The agenda items listed below are provided in Adobe Acrobat and Rich Text Format. The The agenda items listed below are provided in Adobe Acrobat and Rich Text Format. The latest free Acrobat reader may be downloaded from: http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep.html. As some of the attachments are not available in Rich Text Format, you may call 503-846-8685 for an alternative means of viewing these items. 1. CONSENT AGENDA The items on the Consent Agenda are considered routine and will all be adopted in one motion unless a Board member or person in the audience requests, before the vote on the motion, to have the item considered separately. If any item is removed from the Consent Agenda, the Chairman will indicate when it will be discussed in the regular agenda. A list of Consent Agenda items is included at the end of the agenda packet. 2. ORAL COMMUNICATION Limited to two minutes per individual; ten minutes total. 3. BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS a. Appoint Member to the West Slope Community Library Advisory 9 Board (CPO 3) (PDF, 13K) (RTF, 18K) b. Appoint Members to the Regional Arts and Culture Council 11 (PDF, 11K) (RTF, 13K) 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS - LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION a. Proposed A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 589 - An Ordinance 13 Amending the Community Development Code to Incorporate General Statutory Updates Relating to Recent Changes in State Law (All CPOs) (PDF, 8K) (RTF, 16K) b. Proposed A-Engrossed Ordinance No. 590 - An Ordinance 15 Amending the Comprehensive Framework Plan for the Urban Area Relating to Urban Service Districts and Affordable Housing (All CPOs) (PDF, 8K) (RTF, 13K) 5. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS a. Direct County Counsel to File Ordinance Imposing Certain 17 Restrictions on Tobacco Sales (PDF, 158K) (RTF, 11K) 6. COUNTY COUNSEL a. Introduction and First Reading of Proposed Ordinance No. 597 21 (PDF, 6K) (RTF, 10K) 7. ORAL COMMUNICATION 8. BOARD ANNOUNCEMENTS 9. ADJOURNMENT CONSENT AGENDA

APPROVAL OF MINUTES June 25, 2002 23 (PDF, 68K) (RTF, 91K) July 2, 2002 57 (PDF, 41K) (RTF, 48K) CLEAN WATER SERVICES a. Acquire an Easement to Provide Sanitary Sewer to a Property in 77 Clean Water Services' Service District (PDF, 17K) (RTF, 22K) b. Accept the Construction of Butner Local Improvement District and 81 Release Retainage to Kasey Cooper Excavating, Inc. (CPO 3) (PDF, 15K) (RTF, 11K) c. Accept the Construction of Sunningdale Local Improvement 83 District Sanitary Upgrade and Release Retainage to Canby Excavating, Inc. (CPO 1) (PDF, 14K) (RTF, 11K) d. Approve an Agreement with TCI Cablevision of Oregon to Utilize 85 the Metropolitan Area Network (PDF, 14K) (RTF, 11K) LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION e. Approve Establishment of the Roads in Arbor Ridge No. 6 and a 87 Dedication Deed as a County Road (CPO 7) (PDF, 99K) (RTF, 18K) f. Approve Establishment of a County Road in La Arnold Heights 91 Subdivision (CPO 4M) (PDF, 67K) (RTF, 17K) g. Approve Establishment of a County Road in the Sethrich 95 Subdivision (CPO 7) (PDF, 57K) (RTF, 17K) h. Approve Establishment of a Road Maintenance Local Improvement 99 District (MLID) for Merlo Station Townhomes No. 2 (CPO 6) (PDF, 592K) (RTF, 26K) i. Authorize Contract Amendment for Larkin Group, Inc. for 113 i. Authorize Contract Amendment for Larkin Group, Inc. for 113 Commuter Rail (CPO 2, 4, 5) (PDF, 10K) (RTF, 17K) COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE j. Consideration of Policy Statements Regarding Washington 115 County's Role as a Law Enforcement Services Contract Provider (PDF, 346K) (RTF, 64K) ASSESSMENT AND TAXATION k. Designate Newspaper to Publish Notice of 2002-2003 Foreclosure 127 List (PDF, 12K) (RTF, 22K) HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES l. Accept Grants from United Way, Grant Waiver from Request for 131 Proposals Process and Award Contracts for Family Support Services for First Time Parents (PDF, 12K) (RTF, 19K) SHERIFF'S OFFICE m. Authorize Execution of Contract with State Marine Board for Hagg 137 Lake Law Enforcement (PDF, 6K) (RTF, 10K) SUPPORT SERVICES n. Accept Proposal/Award Contract for Environmental Consulting 139 Services (PDF, 8K) (RTF, 13K) o. Increase the Number of Authorized Positions in the Department of 141 Housing Services by 1.00 FTE Management Officer (PDF, 6K) (RTF, 11K) p. Approve Resolution and Order Adjusting the Salary of the County 143 Auditor (PDF, 8K) (RTF, 13K)

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Meeting Calendar Tuesday, July 16, 2002 Worksession - 8:30 a.m. Board Meeting - 10:00 a.m. Tuesday, July 23, 2002 Reception with the Youth Advisory Council - 1:30 p.m. Worksession - 2:00 p.m. Board Meeting - 6:30 p.m. Tuesday, August 6, 2002 Worksession - 8:30 a.m. Board Meeting - 10:00 a.m. Tuesday, August 13, 2002 Extended Worksession - 8:30 a.m.

MEETINGS AND SCHEDULES Current Meeting Schedule

First Tuesdays: Worksession 8:30 a.m. Regular Business Meeting 10:00 a.m. Second Tuesdays: See "Second Tuesdays" section below. Third Tuesdays: Worksession 8:30 a.m. Regular Business Meeting 10:00 a.m. Fourth Tuesdays: Worksession 2:00 p.m. Regular Business Meeting 6:30 p.m. Fifth Tuesdays: See the "Fifth Tuesday" section below. Regular Business Meetings Regular business meetings are the time during which the Board will consider the items published in their Board Agenda at the times noted above. Worksessions Prior to the Boards regular business meetings, the Commissioners will meet for a general public worksession in Room 140 of the Public Services Center according to the schedule above. The purpose of this meeting is to provide the Board an opportunity to conduct informal communications with each other, review the agenda and identify questions they may have for staff before taking action on the agenda items in their regular business meeting. The Board typically asks our citizens observing the worksession meetings to hold their agenda comments and questions for the regular business meeting. Second Tuesdays of the Month The Board has designated the second Tuesday of each month as a time that may be set aside for in-depth discussion of broader, strategic policy issues. Accordingly, Board consideration/action on regularly scheduled agenda items normally set on the second Tuesday of each month will be held only if necessary to make decisions that, in the Boards judgment, cannot be reasonably held over to a regularly scheduled meeting. If formal actions are not considered on these Tuesdays, the Board may use this time to conduct an informal worksession, retreat or similar informal meeting. Minutes will be recorded of these meetings. Board Meetings When There is a Fifth Tuesday in a Month Historically, the Board has not held meetings when there is a fifth Tuesday in a month. Since May of 1999, the Board has set aside these fifth Tuesdays to hold a worksession, retreat or similar informal meeting. The purpose of these meetings is to provide the Board some additional time to focus on specific issues on a more in depth basis. Unlike its regular Board meetings, these informal meetings are not recorded verbatim, but minutes will be taken as required by law. No formal actions will be taken during these meetings unless special meeting notices are provided as outlined in the Boards Rules of Procedure. The Chairman will designate the location of these meetings 96 hours in advance. Executive Sessions There are times when the Board must discuss confidential matters such as lawsuits, real estate transactions (or other sales transactions) and labor relations matters. When the Board calls an executive session (posted on the worksession agenda), it is done under the guidelines allowed for by Oregon State law. Each type of executive session generally fits under one of three types of State Laws that allow such closed sessions. These statutes are indicated on the worksession item. Although the press is allowed to remain in the room, they are not allowed to report on executive session issues. The Board recognizes the sensitivity of conducting closed sessions and only conducts them when confidentiality is required (and allowed by law) to protect the interests of Washington County and its taxpayers. Once the Regular Business Meeting Begins The Boards formal meetings typically include the following elements:

1. Call to Order: At the start of the meeting, the Chairman (or Vice Chair) of the Board will call the meeting to order. 2. Consent Agenda: The items on the Consent Agenda are considered routine and will all be adopted in one motion unless a Board member or person in the audience requests, before the vote on the motion, to have the item considered separately. If any item is removed from the Consent Agenda, the Chairman will indicate when it will be discussed in the regular agenda. A list of Consent Agenda items is included at the end of the agenda packet. 3. Oral Communication (for non-agenda items): This is the time when members of the audience may step forward to address the Board. This opportunity is time-limited to 2 minutes. If more time is needed, another (longer) oral communication opportunity is available at the end of the regular agenda. 4. Public Hearings: The Board will generally conduct all public hearings before regular agenda items. Special rules regarding testimony and time limits may be established by the Board at the start of the hearing. 5. Regular Agenda Items: Regular agenda items are also known as "action" items and will follow the public hearings. These items are less formal than the public hearings but still provide the public the opportunity to comment on the proposed actions. 6. Second Opportunity for Oral Communications (for non-agenda items): As noted above, this is the second opportunity for the public to address the Board if more than two minutes are needed. 7. Board Announcements: This is typically the time when the Board may want to provide other Board members, staff or the public with information regarding items that may or may not be on the Boards agenda. 8. Adjournment: At the conclusion of the items on the Boards agenda, the Board Chair will formally conclude the Boards regular business meeting. Ordinance Testimony Time Limits Public testimony for ordinances may be presented within the following time limits:

First and second hearing - 3 minutes for individuals and 12 minutes for groups Additional hearings - 2 minutes for individuals and 5 minutes for groups Alternatives to Televised Proceedings An alternative format to the televised proceedings of the meetings of the Washington County Board of Commissioners is available on request. Interested individuals may call the telephone number or TTY number noted below and request a verbatim transcript for this meeting. Assistive Listening Devices Assistive Listening Devices are available for persons with impaired hearing and can be scheduled for this meeting by calling 503-846-8611 (voice) or 503-846-4598 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf) no later than 5:00 p.m., on the Monday preceding the meeting. Sign Language and Interpreters The County will also upon request endeavor to arrange for the following services to be provided:

1. Qualified sign language interpreters for persons with speech or hearing impairments; and 2. 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 County of your need by 5:00 p.m. on the Thursday preceding the meeting date (same phone numbers as listed above: 503-846-8611 or 503-846-4598). Meeting Protocol The Board of Commissioners welcomes public attendance and participation at its meetings. Anyone wishing to speak on an agenda item at a regular business meeting should feel free to do so. In doing so, the Board asks that the following guidelines be observed:

1. Please follow sign-in procedures located on the table by the entrance to the auditorium.

2. When your name is announced, please be seated at the table in front and state your name and home address for the record.

3. Groups or organizations wishing to make a presentation are asked to designate one spokesperson in the interest of time and to avoid repetition.

4. When more than one citizen is heard on any matter, please avoid repetition in your comments. Careful attention to the previous speakers remarks will be helpful in this regard. Washington County Phone: 503-846-8681 Administrative Office Fax: 503-846-4545 155 N. First Avenue, Suite 300 E-mail: [email protected] Hillsboro, OR 97124