01/23/2006 - Packet Letter from Charles Radley to Tigard Water District—01-23-06 Page 1 of 4
From: Charles F.Radley
15729 SW Colyer Way
Bull Mountain,OR 97224 Monday 23`4 January 2006
To:Tigard Water District-Board of Commissioner
Cc: Twila Wilson and Dennis Koellenneier—City of Tigard
Dear Commissioners,
I would like to present the following issues for us to consider at the meeting of the
commissioners of the Tigard Water District,on 23rd January 2006.
First I wish to argue against Agenda Item 4,regarding Resolution to donate a Portion of the
Canterbury Site Property to the City of Tigard.
Following that there is a list of several non-agenda item I wish to address.
A_ gr umeat AGAINST donating a Portion of the Csegarbury Site Pronely to the City of
Tigard.
As the newest member of the Tigard Water District Commission, I have felt for some
time that I do not have enough information about the legal title and status of the various
properties and assets of the Tigard Water District to properly conduct my responsibilities as a
Commissioner. In this letter I will present a detailed list of concerns which I feel need to be
addressed before I could support any such proposal.
1) I believe that a Resolution of this board is not the correct process for completing this
asset transfer transaction. We should presumably follow the example of the Tigard-Tualatin
School District,which held a series of public hearings to determine the future of any surplus
assets and how they should be disposed. Changing the status of government owned property
might constitute a"Land Use Action"where there would be proscribed legal steps to be
followed. The Tigard City Attorney and/or Independent Counsel should be consulted to
determine the correct process.
2) Need Proper Independent Legal Opinion
The IGA is rather a complicated arrangement,and some of the parties to the agreement seem to
have difficulty interpreting it. I have realized that I do not adequately understand the legal
complexities,and I suspect even some members of the TWD Board might not be fully cognizant.
I therefore feel it would be prudent to obtain independent legal counsel as a second opinion to
clarify the legal uncertainties. This should be done prior to entering into any further legal
contracts or changes to title of assets. I recommend that at a future TWD Commission Meeting
that both the Tigard City Attorney, and an independent attorney,report to the board their
opinions regarding the legal title of the TWD assets, including the Canterbury site, and be
prepared to answer questions from the board.
Letter from Charles Radley to Tigard Water District—01-23-06 Page 1 of 4
, Letter from Charles Radley to Tigard Water District—01-23-06 Page 2 of 4
3) Need Professional Title Insurance Report
Donating real property to the city of Tigard would in effect be a real property transaction, and
should be treated a such. Therefore,the District should pursue proper due diligence and proper
process prior to closing a change in ownership. For example,a professional title search should
be performed by a licensed Title Insurance Company,to ensure that the title is clear and free of
liens and encumbrances.
4) What is the Definition and Meaning of a Surplus Property? Does this mean"Other
Asset"per the 93-66 resolution?
The term"Surplus"is not defined in the 1993 10A. Instead there are two types of assets defined,
either a)System Assets,orb)Other Assets. But even those two terms are not clearly defined in
the 12-28-93 IGA. What is the process and criteria for deciding how to classify the various
TWD assets?
5) Why is only a portion to be declared Surplus?What about the rest of the site?
Please clarify. What activities are being performed on the Canterbury site?
6) Was all or any part of the Canterbury site a"System Asset"at any time? If so,when did
it become a"system asset",and when did it become either"Surplus"or an"Other asset"?
7) Is the Canterbury site an"original asset"(per the 12/29/93 resolution 93-66),if not,when
was it acquired? Who was the previous owner?
8) Lack of Documents authorizing the Intergovernmental Water Agreement.
I would like to see copies of the documents regarding the authority of the Intergovernmental
Water Agreement. I have not received a complete set of those papers. I have received a copy
of the 28th December 1993 resolution 93-66 by the city of Tigard. However,that document by
itself does not constitute an Intergovernmental Agreement,because it is purely a unilateral action
by the city of Tigard,and does not contain any signatures by any officials of any of the other
parties to the agreement. Several pieces of the puzzle are missing,and I hereby specifically
.request copies of the following five items:
a)a copy of the instrument by which the city of King City withdrew from the Tigard Water
District, with signature of authorized official(s)of King City(July 1993?)
b)a copy of the instrument by which the city of Durham withdrew from the Tigard Water
District,with signature of authorized official(s)of Durham (July 1993?)
c)a copy of the instrument whereby the city of King City joined the IGA,signed by an official of
the city of King City
Letter from Charles Radley to Tigard Water District—01-23-06 Page 2 of 4
Letter from Charles Radley to Tigard Water District—01-23-06 Page 3 of 4
d)a copy of the instrument whereby the city of Durham joined the IGA, signed by an official of
the city of Durham
e)a copy of the instrument whereby the Tigard Water District joined the IGA,signed by an
official of the Tigard Water District
9) Need to Review all Properties, not just Canterbury Site
There are numerous properties owned by the Tigard Water District. I would like to see a full
itemized Iist of all those properties,and assets, and a definition of which of these assets are
"System Assets"and which are"Other Assets". The entire issue of TWD assets needs to be
addressed, so that the disposition of the Canterbury site can be considered in the overall context.
Also, I would like an itemized list of all assets owned by the city of Tigard in the unincorporated
(TWD)area, and a definition of which of these are"System Assets"and which are"Other
Assets",and which are"Surplus".
Other Non-Agenda item for the TWO meeting of 1.23.06:
1)Report on the CPO-4B Governance Committee Work.
Washington County supports the educational Citizen Participation Organization(CPO)program
to encourage citizen involvement in land use and livability decisions throughout the county.
As well as my work as a Commissioner on the Tigard Water District,I am also on the steering
committee of CPO-4B. In that role I volunteered to chair their committee on future governance
for unincorporated Bull Mountain,including most of the TWD area.
The recently completed"Study of Governance Options for Unincorporated Bull Mountain" was
requested by CPO-4B members,and is an unbiased review of five possible governance options
for unin..,,.Y..a.::aci Bull Mountain:
• Maintaining the status quo
• Annexing to the City of Tigard
• Annexing to the City of King City
• Forming a Community Service District
• Forming an independent City of Bull Mountain
The summary of the study was presented at the December 1,2005 CPO meeting,which over 150
people attended. At that meeting an opinion survey indicated the highest level of interest was
to incorporate a new city.
> The study and the December 14 presentation to the CPO are available on their website at:
http:l/cpo-4b.bonnie.comcast,net
A A copy of the report is available at the Tigard Library. Ask for the Bull Mountain
Governance Study.
Letter from Charles Radley to Tigard Water District—01-23-06 Page 3 of 4
. Letter from Charles Radley to Tigard Water District—01-23-06 Page 4 of 4
5> If you do not have Internet access and cannot get to the Tigard Library, CPO-4B will
arrange to loan you a hard-copy.
2)What would happen to the Tigard Water District if new a city were formed on formerly
unincorporated Bull Mountain?
There appear to be two options. In the short term it might be viable for the Tigard Water District
to continue, for as long as the new city does not open a Water Department. A new city might
choose to enter into an agreement with the Tigard Water District, where the Tigard Water
District could continue to represent the voters of the formerly unincorporated area,and act on
their behalf at the IWB meetings.
This arrangement would benefit the new city because in the early period after incorporation, the
city will probably be focused primarily on establishing new urban services,such as planning,
parks and building codes, and would likely not spend resources with regard to existing urban
services,such as water and sewer. The Tigard Water District is working well representing the
citizens of its jurisdiction,and there would be no urgency to change that arrangement. If it ain't
broke,don't fix it.
In the longer term,if a new city were to create a Water Department,then it would effectively
annex the unincorporated area per ORS-222, and the Tigard Water District would be completely
or partially dissolved per ORS-451. Subsequently,at a later date a new city might petition to
join the Intergovernmental Water Agreement.
3) Repair the TWD Sign on Hall Street side
I noticed a few weeks ago that the sign on the main Tigard Water District Building located on the
Hall Street side,has fallen into disrepair. One of the letters is missing from the sign. This
creates an unfavorable impression by members of the public who see this prominent sign every
day, and I would request that Tigard City Staff repair this signs as soon as possible. I would also
be interested to learn if this damage was the result of vandalism or another identifiable cause.
In conclusion, I would like to thank the Commissioners and City Staff for your time reviewing
this rather lengthy list of items,but they are important matters which require proper
consideration by the Board.
Yours sincerely, (J/�
Charles F. Radley
Letter from Charles Radley to Tigard Water District--01-23-06 Page 4 of 4