The URL can be used to link to this page

City Council Packet - 07/22/1986 CLIP OF TIGARD, OREGON AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING In the Matter of the Proposed CIO STATE OF OREGON ) County of Washington) ss City of Tigard ) I, �o�,cgn (� being first duly sworn, on oath depose and say: That I posted in the following public and conspicuous places, a copy of Notice of Special Meeting for the Council Meeting dated 2- $40 a copy of said notice being hereto attached 98and ► by reference made a part hereof, on the JI day of �A _• 3 J42�L4 Cj CA:4,-� Subscribed and sworn to before me this �1�a y of 198 &U waw l .A.4 X�Qrf Notary Public for Oregon My Commission Expires: a NOTICE OF SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING Notice is hereby given that a special Council meeting, called by the Mayor with the common consent of the Council will be held on July 22, 1986, at 6:30 PM, in the Tigard Civic Center Town Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd— Tigard, called for the purpose of reviewing the Oregon. The meeting is .' Metzger-Washington Square Annexation issues. r, o John E. Cook r7. �r x Yz A. CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON RESOL TION NO. 86- A RESOLUTION FURTHER G ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF TIGARD OF THE TERRITORY AS OUTLINED IN EXHIBIT A" PETITION. the City WHEREAS, "consentsin the form f certain ltracts °f been land presently contiguous of Tigard requesti annexation o to the corporate 1 wits of the City; alpd WHEREAS, the cons4 nts in the form ofjja petition were signed by the owners of said tracts of la ; and I nd set the WHEREAS, the City of Tigard Council has reviewed the consents ORS 199a 90(2) and final boundary f r the annexation as required by ORS 222, .111(3); a MMEREAS, subsequent o the sett ° haeme half lofo he ryowners of gents land of land fined therein r resent territory conte. territory, who also more fihan if of the land in the contiguous and of real property stein repre nting more than half of the assessed value of all real property i the contig us territory;" and WHEREAS, the proposed a vexation lee majority"refore annexat on Wunder ce CORS 8199 9 90 ga and constitutes a so-cal ed tri "miner boundary change u or bo ndary Commission Law, 199.410 to 199.510: and "A" WHEREAS, the majority of he ers of the tracts described in Exhibit have historically provided t required many public facilities a� services and intend to continue to rovide these services until City services are phased in. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESO VED the Tigard City Council that: roves he prorsad annexation and requests that the 1. The Council hereby P v it at the August Commission meeting. Commission consider and appre 2. The Council here y approves the following schedule of tax rate phasing to reflect the ad increase in C y public facilities and services for the property: Year 198 7-88 1988 9 1999-90 1990-91 1991-92 Percent a of 40% 50% 60% Tax Ra Paid 20% 30% Year 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 Percentage of 80% 1)90% 95% 100% Tax Rate Paid 70% RESOLUTION NO. 86 Page 1 y v 3. The City Finance Director is hereby directed to pay one half of the required Commission application fee. 4. The City Recorder is hereby directed to file certified copies of the statements of consent and of this Resolution with the Portland Metropolitan Area Local Government Boundary Commission at once. PASSED: This day of 1986. :Y Mayor — City of Tigard ATTEST: Deputy City Recorder — City of Tigard LW/3952A T p: REEOLUTWO NO 96- - - .i►mgq � Resolution Na. A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE ANNEXATION OF THE M£TZtR NEN�HBORHOOD WITH SOME EXCEPTIONS TO THE CITY TIr,ARD AND REQUESTIO MODIFICATION OF BOUNDARIES I iliIEREAS. the City of Beaverton, hereafter Beaverton, believes that cities are the appropriate long term provider of urban services and Beaverton generally supports the annexation of urbanized lands within the Urban Growth Boundary; and yNERE1s, Beaverton supports the efforts of the citizens of Me City tzger o obtain an appropriate level of urban services by annexation to t Tigard; and VHEREAS, Beaverton and Tigard have formally agreed to annA26e ation5) and the Planning Area Agreement (APAA), see aan endo boundary the cities of APAA establishes a mutally agreed upon Beaverton and Tigard; and ypEREAS, the proposed annexation of the Metzger Neighborhood u undary on Commission #2260, to the City of Tigard cross over the mutually agreedP APAA line; and VHEREAS, Beaverton wishes to support the annexation of the Metzger Neighborhood south of the APAA line to Tigard. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BEAVERTON, a MOV. n municipal corporation of the State of Oregon, that: Section 1. The City of Beaverton supports the annexation of all of the Metzger Neighborhood (Boundary Comission #2260) south of the Annexation Planning Area Agreement Line (Beaverton Resolution #2685 and Tigard Resolution #86-25) to the City of .Tigard. 3 Section 2. The City hereby requests that Portland Metropolitan Area Local Goverment Boundary Commission (Boundary Commission) modify the Worth Boundary line of proposal #2660 to coincide with the line established in the Annexation Planning Area Agreement between Tigard and Beaverton as previously cited. Section 3. The City of Beaverton hereby requests that the City of Tigard support the modification of the Portland Metropolitan Area Local Government Boundary Commission proposal #2660 to coincide with the lines established by the Annexation Planning Area Agreement between Tigard and Beaverton as previously cited. The City of Beaverton further requests that the City of Tigard send notice of its support to the Boundary Commission prior to the July 24, 1986 meeting. Section 4. The City Recorder is hereby directed to file certified copies of this Resolution and its attachment with the Portland Metropolitan Area ` Goverment Boundary Commission and the City of Tigard at once. Adopted this day of 1986. 4 Attest: Approved: Ann Johrson, CiRecorder La Cole, ayor ty UC:ca x Res-Annex:E 3 CtACKAMAS MULTNOMM RECEIVED WASH NGTON JUL 02 1986 ora =0 aw.STARK sTRMT MM SM PORTLAND.OFW504 mat PROW-229407 NOTIFICATION OF BOUNDARY CHANGE PROPOSAL 'l A 5bten To. 0. �N h aL -n� Attn: The Boundary Commission has received a proposal (NO.-' to: Q a=ex certain territory to 0 C i�Z, ..I _H, ,,a.,=a (b) withdraw certain territory from The'area involved is shown on the attached map. Basic information on this proposal is as follows: Area: 9Y20 _ (mss) Existing Land Use: Single family dwellings-1(092; Mult'"fly units&03; comaerci.al structures ; Industrial structures O ; Other f eas scribeq C=ent Assessed value: $.,, 59 X M Total Estimated Population:_to C)en ; Current Zoning Feason for: ® Annexation, or (b) withdrawal � •O, Proposed Dewe opment: 2c If you Nish to make written comments or recmmdaticros please present a letter to this office no later than -I% , or attend the Public Hearing le lethe above matter, to be held on -% , at 7:00 p.m. on in Room 602, Multnomah County Courthouse, 102 Ve•• PortlandOregon- Kezmeth S. Martin Executive Officer xswjl Enc. 1 STAFF: co�ss,oNERs: KENNETH&MARTIN.EMMM Ol,lee► ROBERT C TT. C04Chokff� JOHN DEN ECE WON.E■ecubw ASOWNd WAYNEKATHY SCOTT. MARC,A KREPS.Excuave ASMOWN RAYMOND BARTEL PARA LANA RULIEN.AtlmnWsbm AWWtW9 HERBERT BEALS '' BOB 1MIGtTN GREGORY FRANK Proposal - No. 2260 ror•rGr«r • • , • • _ � Ic s i ILkJL, n ee+.a..a ... �cs• w(r•.aw ••'+. no, o..o(w wo.•( w•o a •' • + fA. �. o. .000 '.Jim+q • D .oe_— � �'.`^ '•a�,�cap ,�✓ I " "w'ia.wu w' �' `Q� s • u=,wwoe d,. ...r.�.._ /c'x�jy� .;:.•�•. �`• N. .awa ,�� -ri=aw.• ( its s � rwat+ua � �•� b .. B AVE 8l� GG TAYLARSJL 'j^'i 'i',J ; '"iPo,01�"' !�`• �vJ'�'J►.: J�'.�,r.�s - 'r �' ...»oL'�IJI:J� J^J JI l � i ,i ••�J•S. � �I1 J .i•� r J••�• , • ^ .J✓ a•r.�i ,•��, 441 y t ur•r AREA TO BE P_ORT�rm�\ pa !J ANNEXED ♦. }�,. i \J S•J_ -11.� � "r •� � - .d✓ w•x'� .•,: a J� t� ••,��"-'J•• ' ' 'f•r•JJa - j 11� •, l to l:• , s ; PFAFFLE J .J 4 �To and I r.a,t t Sig bi Ore.•r 1.. ... • nG&"D PROPOSAL N0. 2260 CITY OF TIGARD ANNEXATION r, FIGURE 1 Resolution No: ��O CITY OF BEAVERTON, OREGON A JOINT RESOLUTION BETWEEN THE CITY OF BEAVERTON AND THE CITY OF TIGARD REGARDING URBAN SERVICES, DECLARING AND SUPPORTING MUTUAL ANNEXATION PLANNING AREAS OF A REENENT (APAA). WHEREAS, the cities of Beaverton and Tigard have previously adopted joint APAA Resolutions (Beaverton Resolution No. 2647), but left the Washington Square Study Area for future review; and WHEREAS, both cities have completed their analysis of the Washington Square Study Area and both City Councils have determined logical future annexation and urban service boundaries for each city in the area; and WHEREAS, the cities of Beaverton and Tigard find that municipal urban services can beprovided most efficiently and equitably by cities; and WHEREAS,,conflicting land use plans and overlapping areas of planning interest ,end to delay the ultimate annexation to cities and tend toward illogical and M.r.r Inefficient service boundaries; and WHEREAS, both cities respect the rights and preferences of property owners and residents to decide when to annex to a city according to State Law; and WHEREAS, both cities see competition and conflict between cities over individual annexation proposals as contrary to their mutual long-range community interests and wish to avoid such conflicts whenever possible by mutually adopting a clear statement of areas of annexation interest. 1lpy, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Beaverton City Council that: Section 1: The prior Annexation Planning Area Agreement (APAA) and Resolution No. 2647 is hereby repealed and replaced in its entirety by this complete new agreement upon mutual adoption by the City_ of Beaverton and the City of Tigard. Page l of 3 Resolution No. o`c(G - _ Section 2: A joint Annexation Planning Area Agreement (APAA) as to urban services and future annexations hereby exists between the two cities. Section 3: A South Beaverton - North Tigard boundary on future annexation areas of interest as shown on the map (attachments "A" and "B")shall: begin on the east at the Multnomah-Washington County line; -then westerly following the south side of Taylors Ferry Road straight past the tax lots fronting SW 88th/Bomar Court; then south to a point aligned with the rear of the tax lots facing Cedarcrest; west to a point just west of the tax lots facing gist Avenue; south to Hall Boulevard; along the north side of Hall Boulevard, westerly to the intersection of Hall and Greenburg/Oleson Road; westerly along the south side of Hall , to the west of the Washington Square access road; south behind the tax lots fronting Hall and t9 the west; to the west side of the next Washington Square access road; north to a point on the south side of the Golden Key Apartments; westerly between the south' side of the Apartments and the north side of- the commercial properties fronting into the Square; to the north side of the western Washington Square access road, westerly to Scholls, Ferry Road; from there southwest along Scholls Ferry Road to the Old Scholls Ferry-New Scholls Ferry Rcad; intersection and then southwest along New Scholli Ferry Road to the Urban Growth Boundary. Section 4: The cities declare and support Beaverton's annexation interests north and west of this APAA Boundary and Tigard's annexation interests south and east of the APAA Boundary. Section 5: The cities mutually agree that upon request from the other, that they will support annexation proposals to the other consistent with the APAA Boundary, The cities mutually agree that they will not approve annexations to their city contrary to the APAA without a resolution from the other city supporting such an annexation and specifically modifying any departure from the APAA Boundary. Section 6: The cities further resolve to generally support annexations by the other even away from the APAA Boundary areas and to further develop a joint annexation policy statement in this regard. Resolution No. c2ty J _! Page 2 of 3 Win..._ ._..: .. • . _. t Section 7: • The cities further agree to adopt the findings and consensus agreement from the staff review and Council meetings on the Murray Road connection through the Old-New Scnolls Ferry Road area from Beaverton southeast into Tigard at 135th/Walnut. Section 8: The cities agree to revise, amend, and support other planning agreements consistent with this APAA resolution, and to an annual review to this agreement as the Councils deem necessary.' PASSED: This_2_-�;Iday of L 1986. ATTEST: AFFIRMED: ICy o Reco r Mayo ity Beaverton LC.-ca Res-Ti ga rd:54 3 of 3 Resolution No. Page a . . • --mum- tea■ �.� . 4 s - ?�._..."...�. � - FS -- -wnwlriu-MWIM -� r ►.- I� MilanMLIN 1• 41W ff �s'iars++ • ,% as =i?moi �„ ��!�■ 4v � �- ��• Inti mail1w.-4 J Elk _ -,i`aa "-1 �Il�■/tn. �j��r�q.,�� -nom �� MM an � �■ AMT. - t i `fir.. .�•� �`` �� 11 an COKE! � •ili = ti A�ta'y'�r"'i. .,.� err!� �`1 �■ �' MM lots as l � � w►��► l M=811 air p�. �,kali "��' I_Q11 �7 i :■ ■■ra�s� P_ IN ��,�ti■>ui�'.� -1, �i�,A... .._".....��►'��. � ��-��' ire� ■ � tip ,�. �' = �■SS.►�� (i t"!moi Il. R>u/9 wpm quip �yw* - F7 INS Blink _ ► Inmill silo `.�. `� I :/IIID:�:1t"••'+'1•i1111/ ■or. . �� qnt■� 119'=" :�11l1/t SIL. ■iii,��■ Eus IONIC 1=1 an Hatwo irloo • �+��II. Ali ��— — %fl� { :MW 1111 � ��■ ■ ■ /ii � til •ttf••i "�. i1.■-,. �..a�■® S�li,l• �1�■a saw -rUcuMENT` I_� : • 1 N Of iE iF� r al w Z # L TI I -0 ..wr Mal- aft i► 1 a •y its r 1. ,+ i ° ,., ♦ • "' �a �s '"` t R B63Y tY i �r • _ y .— Ojai I sal+ 80 Ali DEMN alA1M{C * r soon • v rri. a.w . MAN w --�a• .a A. � ��' tr 1 •tee► 00 �1t/1 • �� rT • '�R� l! L / w Yr � w 2000 F ®u/!Mtn 14000 AKALN 14000 1 r^�e r a • I I ! a �,+�R � s st»1 i e na wL Ap ;-mama i • !! � King Ci al { � 4 1600 a.-- 160 .160 b 1 ♦ aaa r :V ►4C I(I10 a ter.. q �,� w j s ` Dutha IGO ,� :• _ 11/x7 ~�: is qtr � NN a 7/24/86 Hrg. PROPOSAL NO. 2260 - CITY OF TIGARD - Annexation Petitioner: 452 registered voters 90th Day: August 18, 1986 Proposal No. 2260 was initiated by a petition of registered vot- ers within the area to be annexed. The petition meets the requirement for initiation set forth in ORS 199.490 (1 )(a) . If the Commission approves the proposal the boundary change will become effective 45 days from the date of a proval (See section below for explanation of possible exception. The territory to be annexed is located generally on the north edge of the City generally bounded by Highway 217 and Highway 99 on the south and west, by the Portland city limits and Multnomah county line on the east and by Taylor's Perry Rd. , Oleson Rd. and Hall Blvd. on the north. The territory contains approximately 960 acres (1 .5 sq. mi.) , 1692 single-family dwellings, 603 multi- family units, 54 commercial structures including Washington Square regional shopping oenter, one school, one cemetery, one park, an estimated population of 6000, and is evaluated at $244.599.600. REASON FOR ANNEXATION. The petitioners submitted the following statements: 1 . Police: Sheriff Probstfield's Public Safety Review Com- mittee has outlined the need for increased police ser- vice in Metzger. The committee found that the unincorp- orated areas receive only the service of .77 officers per thousand while one officer per thousand was the min- imum acceptable level. Annexation to Tigard would increase our level of police service to acceptable stan- dards as well as decreasing emergency response time. Annexation to a city that could provide increased police service was one of the recommendations of Sheriff Probstfield's committee. 2. Roads: There is a major need for road repair and mprovement which the county has been unable to meet. The recently passed road levy in Washington County deleted slated improvements for Metzger. Most roads in Metzger are unimproved or substandard. The improved roads are full of chuck holes and in need of repair. Annexation to Tigard would make available needed road repair services from gas tax share entitlements without Proposal No. 2260 - Page 1 i special district fees or assessments. 3. Pedestrian and Bike ath S s�temss: This is a major con- c cern o etzger res ents:A survey conducted by that pedestrian safety eedine Washington County showed second highest concern of residents, following sp g- At the CPO meeting where the findings of the Metzger- Progress Circulation Study were accepted, there was unanimous approval to proceed in trying to implement a bikepath system in Metzger. Annexation at this time would avail us of the five years net revenue Tigard has . offered which could fund this path system without has the a $1 .4 million anticipated LID assessment. Tgardpolicy of pedestrian asthways outlinedich is in thecMetzger1Progress with the needs of Metzger Circulation Study. 4. Street Ligh _ n_d: Ths raeconcern of ethe eA $._�_�C 1'"g_"ga.Q Offes a moreaccessible system than County's for both street light installation and mainten- ance. The funding and the system for implementation are already established. 5. Pinancial Planning. Because of State statutes and other m' ions, a county cannot access many financial resources available only to cities. According to a recent study by the City of Tigard, Metzger residents abandoned $250,000 in 1985-86 shared revenues. Also, at a time when the county is having serious financial prob- lems and is cutting back services, Tigard just had their new tax base approved by City voters and has mapped out a five year financial plan. Tigard has shown that they can provide and fund needed serv: ^es. (. Accessiblit of Government Services: The new Tigard trIv c en er Ts only a en minute rive from any part of Metzger, compared to almost an hour to get to Hillsboro during business hours. This would increase accessibil- ity of local government to area residents. Also, it vurinrcloser and provide better about the problems we face as a community. 7. Storm Drain a and genital Sewers: The major natural ra nage uA o"fe ger s e s Creek Basin. This flows in its entirety from Metzger into Tigard draining into the Panno Creek area. The Ash Creek Drainage Plan ws the ditrfssisiare inter relateddand can bebeteaddresed asasingleunit - than as multiple units. ` Page 2 Proposal. Ao. 2260 - �s T i POTENTIAL ELECTION. This proposal was initiated by a petition of en percent o tHe registered voterspin the are to becannexed. Proposals initiated by this remonstrance. This means an election may be held on the If th nexa- tion. Such an election is not, however automatic. proposed annexation is approved by the Boundary Commission, it is not effective for 45 days tion requestingsan5election signedaby Commission receives a geti residing 100 registered voters or 10 96 ofthgistered voters annexation would be sub- in the area to be annexed, the proposed osed for Sect to a voteThe theregistered andvoters simplethe majorita. y of those annexation would do voting would decide the issue. If the Boundary Commission on is approves the proposed annexation and no remosh�rnQxationiwould forthcoming w me effective on ithin 45 days of the decision, day up to one becothe 45th day (or any y the Commission) and there would be no year later as specified b election. has BOUNDARY COMMISSION POLICst ofhthesendarpoliciesmission states thatthrthn adopted policies- Commission o c es. e Commission sees cities as the primary providers of urban ser- at growth of cities may cause financial vices. Recognizing th problems for districts, willmission help findstates solutianathe tn thedprob- policy that the Commissionapprove jams. The third policy states that the Commission may PP illogical annexations in long-term. The ort term if tfull text of these hese lead to al service arrangements in thehe g policies is included in Exhibit A. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Land Use. "The Metzger-Progress Community Planning Area is arge�aeveloped at this time. Most of the area consists of detached single-family dvellings. The other inmicenternant aareand se is the Washington Square/Progress regional shopping Elsewhere commercial uses are concentrateMipleHfami]yall vd.well- Scholls Perry Rd., and Pacific Highway. ings are also generally located along oesenear Downsthe Golfmajor Course8toad . Other major land uses include the g- Crescent GroveaCeemeter,Metzger Park, Metzger School, National Guard Armory, nd thou "There are relatively few remaining argevacaX containingLt rdevelopableh many dwellings are located on large lots land. An estimated total of 267 acres of land is considered buildable, i.e., undeveloped, excluding flood plain and steep slbpes" (quoted from Metzger-Progress Community Plan) - R_egi_owiTHieal Planning.nal IIrbanerritory Growth BoundarydandrMETRO�ation is Proposal No 2260 - Page 3 a r � Washington County Planning. The territory is designated Urban on e acknowledgedCounty Comprehensive Plan. The area is covered by the Metzger- Progress Community Plan. This Plan, which covers an area slightly larger than the area proposed for annexation (see Fig. 31, was adopted by the Board of County Commissioners on December 27, 1983• The Metzger-Progress Community Plan has been reviewed by hCDC and found to be in compliance with the state- wide planning goals. It is considered to be an element of the County Comprehensive Plan. In relation to the issue of annexation the Metzger-Progress Com- munity Plan states the following: "Piecemeal annexation of land within this Planning Area shall be discouraged because it damages the character of the Met- zger community. If annexation is to occur, then annexation as a community is preferred." City of Tigard Planning. The City of Tigard has an acknowledged amity ,Zimmits plan. uno215.130 provides that "land use and zoning designations on areas annexed to cities will continue in effect unless, or until the City has by ordinance or provision provided otherwise." Furthermore The City of Tigard and Washington County have entered into an Urban Planning Area Agreement the effective date of which is September 28, 1983. The Urban Planning Area Agreement is considered to be -a part of the City's adopted Com- N UPAA sets out an "Active Planning Area" prehensive Plan. The within which the City assumes responsibility for land use plan- ning, and an "Area of Interest" in which the County agrees to coordinate its planning due to the potential impacts on the adja- cent City. These are shown on Fig. 4. The following pertinent statements are from Section B, "Area of Interest" portion of tha UPAA: ` "4. The CITY may consider requests for annexations in the Area of Interest subject to the following: A. The CITY shall not require annexation of lands in the Area of Interest as a condition to the provision of urban services for development. B. Annexations by the CITY within the Area of Interest shall not create islands unless the CITY declares its intent to complete the island annexation. C. The CITY agrees in principle to a plebiscite or other representative means for annexation in the Metzger/Progress Community Planning Area, which includes Washington Square, within the CITY Area. Proposal No. 2260 - Page 4 } a of Interest. Not contrary to the foregoing, the City reserves all of its rights to annex and ( acknowledges the rights of individual property owners to annex to the CITY pursuant to Oregon Revised statutes. D. Upon annexation of land within the area of Interest to the CITY , the CITY agrees to con- lan vert COUNTY plan designations to CIroximate the designations which most closely app density, use provisions and standards of COUNTY designations. Furthermore, the CITY agrees to maintain this designation for one year after the effective date of annexation unless both the CITY and COUNTY Planning Directors agree at the time of annexation that the COUNTY designation is outdated and should be amended before the one year period is over," City of Tigard Urban Services policy. The City of Tigard has tu Y conosed -- e a un c a ery ces ib covering tdiscussehe area srannexa- for annexation. e a' u y escr es the area, revenue pro- jections, service provision, expenditure requirements, P ,sections, etc. Information from this study is utilized at the various points throughout this report. A complete copy of document is in the Proposal No. 2260 file at the Boundary Commis- Sion office (where ifttmhaYw$cordvaswthoughand itthe weeuinclude�should ineits considered a part o entirety herein. On July 14, 1986, the City of Tigard adopted an Urban Services Policy declaring its willingness to plan and ultimately provide urban services in an area around the current City limits. The- area proposed for annexation lolicyhin is a partwoftory ExhibiteE)a by this policy. (A copy P SERVICES AND UTILITIES. Sanitary Sewers. The area to be annexed is within the Unified Sewage Agency o� Washington County as is the City of Tigard. The U.S.A. provides sewage treatment and construction and maintenance of major transmission lines to the Metzger area and the City. Within the unincorporated aM4a of Metzger-Progress the Agency also maintains all smaller sewer lines and bills the customers. Inside the City of Tiga le for all lines 24 rd, the Unified Sewerage Agency is respon- sibinches and larger while the City is responsible for all sma'ler lines and for billing. hook-ups, etc. Unified Sewerage Agency bills once a year for a charge enof $129 The and its hook-up fee is $975 for a single family g- City bills monthly at $11 .50 or $138 per year and the hook-up fee for a single family dwelling is $975• The U.S.A. has a property X Proposal No. 2260 - Page 5 K. y r. 9 tax which goes toward paying off the bonds sold to construct the major improvements and regional treatment plants which is paid by everyone in the District. This tax (which for the 1985-86 tax year was S.36 per $1000 of Assessed Value) would therefore remain the same. The City of Tigard estimates the following personnel and equip- ment needs would result from annexation of the Metzger area: Estimated Personnel and Equipment Requirements: One 1) Utility Worker II - $25,000 One 1 Utility Worker I - 20+000 One 1) Maintenance Worker - 19+000 Material and Supplies - 9,000 $73+000 "2) Estimated Transition to City Maintenance: Because cur^rent USA charges are billed through property tax bills, two possible scenarios are available. a. Intergovernmental agreement with USA to retain maintenance through FY 1986-87 with the City assum- ing responsibility FY 1987-88. b. Intergovernmental agreement with USA rebating City share of sewer user charges beginning third quarter FY 1986-87 and City assuming maintenance responsi- bility at that time." Water Service. The territory to be annexed is entirely within- ee zger Water Dist:Jict which also nerves portions of the City of Tigard. The remainder of the City is within the Tigard Water District. The City does not provide water service. Therefore no change in water service will occurr as a result of this annexa- tion. Fire Protection. The territory to be annexed is mostly within Vas-Hjnon oun y R.F.P.D. #1 . A small portion of the area lying between Pfaffle and Spruce St. is within Tualatin R.F.P.D. The City t on districts.�?irenservicewwillnthse therefo eonotral changeer of as pro- tection result of this annexation. Police. Police protection in the area to be annexed is provided Sy'-the ashington County Sheriff's Dept. The level of service in the unincorporated areas of the County such as Metzger has recently been noted to be at .77 sworn police officers per 1000 population. Proposal No. 2260 - Page 6 In relation to police service for the Metzger area should this annexation be approvei the City provided the following informa- tion: 1 ) Estimated Personnel and Equipment Requirements for Servicing Metzger: Six6) Patrol Officers - $210,000 Two 2 Investigators - 70.,000 One 1) Dispatcher - 20,000 One 1) Clerk - 12,500 One 1 Marked Patrol Car - 10,000 One 11) Unmarked Car - 10,000 Miscellaneous Equipment - 17,500 $350,000 2) Estimated Transition to City of Tigard Patrol and f Emergency Response: "Emergency Police services would begin following a positive annexation vote as of January 1 , 1987 and coor- dinate with the County Sheriff throtighout the transition period. The City of Tigard will recruit and hire addi- tional officers as fast as possible after necessary sup- plemental budgetary authority is granted. The City will rotate experienced officers into the Metzger community as new officers are brought into the Dapartment. This assures a balance of experienced personnel throughout the City. Additional constraints to the immediate assumption of patrol duties are as shown on the follow- ing page. "Based upon the timelines shown on the following page ` [the timetable appears in Exhibit E] it is estimated that full assumption of Police services in Metzger would take place as early as March but no later than June 1987." Streets. The City' s intention would be to take over the vast majority of the streets in the area to be annexed. (Taking over jurisdiction for for the purpose of assigning maintenance responsibillity is a separate city-initiated action which takes place subsequent to annexation.) Possible exceptions to this general City inclination would be Taylor's Perry Rd., Scholls Perry Rd. and perhaps S.W. 80th Ave. which are major col- lectors/arterials for the County and over which the County may wish to continue jurisdiction. Hall Blvd. is still designated as State Highway and. the State therefore retains maintenance respon- sibility for it as well as for Hwy. 217. # Proposal No. 2260 - Page 7 A Generally speaking the County has not had money in recent years ~ for local street maintenance and in fact has had to carefully prioritize its expenditures on major thoroughfares. Local street improvement has been up to local property owners willing to pay the entire cost of improvements through neighborhood Local Improvement Districts (L.I.D. 's) . Tigard has indicated it will share back certain Metzger generated revenues for such capital projects as streets. (This is explained more fully in a later section of the report.) The City made the Following estimates relating. to streets: "1 ) Estimated Personnel and Equipment Requirements: One 1) Utility Worker II - $ 25,000 Two 2 Utility Worker I - 40,000 One 1 1-Ton Truck - 14,000 Two 121 Pick-up Trucks - 14,000 Materials and Supplies - 17,500 $110,500 "2) Estimated Transition for city of Tigard Street Maintenance: It is estimated that gaining budgetary authority and recruitment of new personnel will take approximately one (1 ) month after annexation. The City of Tigard would assume street maintenance responsibilities in early January 187". Street Lights. Currently street lights in the area are provided through Washington County Service District f1 , a county service district for street lights. Lighting in the District is depen- dent on-formation of Local Improvement Districts covering the area desiring lighting and then sharing the costs ofTthe lights through a yearly assessment on each benefited lot. assessments vary depending on when the particular L.I.D. was formed, the type of light, etc. There are approximately eight L.I.D. 's for street lights in the Metzger area, each one with a different yearly assessment for lights. Additionally some areas particularly in the central part of the territory are unlighted. Below is a llreaofand thheicurrentD. 19 yearlyich chargesaperobe lot within the Metzger a lights: r' 2260 Page 8 Proposal No. r a Ashbrook Farms $37.68 Lehman $30.32 ( Bomark Park $37.13 Raspberry Patch $58.64 Wash. Sq. Estates #1 $77.00 Mash. Sq. Estates #2 $65.54 Wash. Sq. Estates #3 $59.62 Metzger Acres $45.75 The City of Tigard pays for street lighting costa out of its Street Fund which has as its primary source of revenue state shared gasoline tax money. Therefore, if the annexation were approved, property owners currently paying street lighting assessments (these show up on the yearly tax bill from the County even though they are not taxes) would be relieved of those obligations. The City estimates this change would take place on July 1 , 1987 to coincide more closely with the time by which the City would be receiving the State shared revenues generated by the annexed area. The City also states that some new street lights would need to be installed in the area to be annexed and that these installations could begin on July 1 , 1987. NOTE: It should be noted here and for future reference in this report, that an annexation to the City would not generate any property taut revenue for the City until July 1 , 1987. At this time property would be officially entered on the tax roles of the City and included in the teat bills received by the property own- era in November and hopefully paid shortly thereafter. Other City revenues likewise would be unevenly received during the first year after annexation depending on distribution formulas . for various programs. Storm Drains e. The bulk of the territory to be annexed is 'win 7Fe--Xsh Creek drainage basin. This basin in turn extends south and west into the City of Tigard where Ash Creek joins Fano Creek. A small county service district for storm drainage exists around Washington Square shopping center but no district for drainage covers the balance of the territory. The Ash Creek Drainage Master Plan has been completOd by the Washingf—onZounty We—pT of Land use and Transportation but the Study is still under discussion at this point. Funding has not been determined and therefore work has not commenced on any of the 21 capital pro- jects identified in the Plan. Of an estimated $2.25 million costa for the identified projects for the Ash Creek basin, approximately $2.0 million of them are within the Met- zger/Washington Square area. `�- k` Proposal No. 2260 - Page 9 t fultimate adoption of the Ash Creek The County is anticipating Drainage Study along with several others as a new Countywide Master Plan for Drainage. They then hope to create a ca fund its entity dor drainage or attach the function ossto ible the County and with a county-wide levy or change. It is p onsibili cities could shthe are drainage maintenance rwsfunctions hey split up the sanitary seerfties unctions- so same gray that t there could be a sharing of the county aide funds also- there lso District ice The existing Ass Creek never functioned.ton S�ifwtheoDistrictunty vboundary (See- For Drainage h existing city or the area to be Pig. 5) was wholly within anby annexed, the District would be extrtgunshedthe automatic llaanexed operation of ORB 222.510. Any p to the City would be automatically withdrawn from the District the upon approval of the City annexation. ofutheThsfDistrict~ent would annex- ation is approved, only a tiny remain in existence (see Pig. 5)• inside the The City now maintains all drainage pipe ditches. etc. The City City and the County is rement sponsible f or tholl monthlyoutsiuser charge to payforythis servicstem e. charge Parks. The City o! Tigard has four City parks including Coop Par a 57 acre facility on the banks 1eldsof eforasoccer latin Rand rbase �h - boating, picnicking, f oilers fishing, ball and nature trails. ed in- Within the area to bets ofxthe lMetzger ies soommunity through er Park which is aacon- tained by theresidents uous Z.I.D. In the as $.16 fiscal year,V. Thests for this petitioners to tin residents was $.12 per x100 the Metzgerthe the have generally indicateis d continueptoffundcandf control tthis er com- munity ,at this time he through the L.I.D. The City of Thasrindicatedra willingnessto City's general budget. The City allow the Metzger community to continue with the L.I.D. arrange- sent if they wish. This is elsionlonathisuannexation and lated in ialso sin mitted to the Boundary Comms the City the resolution of support for this annexation passed by Council on May 5. 1986 (see Exhibit B) • e area to be annexed by The City Library is currently Washingtonilable tCountydCooper- ents of I`ibrar virtue of the Washington ative Library Service. This would not change with annexation. Page 10 Proposal No. 2260 - A- ' Services- The City submitted the following statements Other Servs etc. Of Other serviCeB: 3 re_a ting o� timing, requirements are "Building and Codes Enforcement= The areaStaffinhasnot exhibited a dependent upon rowth related activity and it is presumed that great deal of 8 wishes to con- the City will assume building and code enforcement during third quarter FY 1986-87• unless the County k with the City for permits issued in the interim." tract bac "Planning and Engineering: Personnel requirements are mostly on permit activity. The area has not exhibited a dependent up P and it is presumed the great deal of growth related activity .responsibilities will assume planning and engineering City following annexation. Comprehensive land use plan- shortly services would begin immediately Hing and traffic engineering upon annexation." "Finance and Administrative Services: 1 ) Personnel Requirements: clerk $15,000 One 1 Sewer Billing 2 One 1 Municipal Court Clerk _ -__1.11-0 0 0 $27,500 City of Tigard: 2) Transition to Basic services are available immediately upon annexa" would begin in the first quarter of tion. Sewer billing FY J987-88- Municipalitiont activity will begin is con- cert with Police trans and should be complete Full ternthan firstion to tquartehe r FY 19of �7-SS." no la the City As noted earlier, S cial Ca it&l Im roCeQentu yrcoverjng this area. Included a er a un t Study was a "Capital Needs Assessmont" which idents- within the act on the City's edeatrian network, pied areas conTheBewhich includedlstreets, p P estimated capital budget. Also in the study, the City drainage and wastewater. The City has revenues which would be generated from the area. n the committe d to spending all NST revenue liveryearsifollowing annex- area on the Metzger area for at lase at This is explained further in materials submitted by the a 3 x City: 2260 Page Proposal 90. 11 S "The City of Tigard will dedicate all NET revenue gener- ated from the Metzger annexation for at least five years to a special Capital Improvements Program to upgrade the I infrastructure to the City of Tigard standards, particu- larly in the areas of streets and pedestrian and bike paths. NET revenue is defined as those funds from Met - zger's total revenues remaining after the subtraction for the service costs (direct and overhead cost) each year. EXPENDITURES FROM THIS FUND WOULD BE IN ADDITION TO THE BASIC CAPITALEOITO A YNEIGHBORHOOD, PDH AND WOULD BE BASED NAMETZGERCPO/NPODEVEELECAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN." This commitment is reflected in the City Council resolution adopted in Support of the annexation (Exhibit B) : "Section 4• Special CIP. The City further agrees to dedicate all the net revenues (total new revenue less cots of City services in #3 above = net revenue) coming from annexation back into the Metzger/Washington Square area for 5 years following annexation into a Special Cap- ital Improvements Projects (CIP) fund for sidewalks, bikepaths, street, sewer, storm drainage and other public improvements." The City of Tigard has estimated the total Revenues and Expendi- tures for the Metzger area for the next five years and calculated the difference as the Net Revenue they would expend specifically in the Metzger area. These Figures are shown in the last table in Exhibit E. BOUNDARIES As a part of its overall effort to deal with urban services issues,, the City of Tigard held joint meetings with the City of Beaverton to discuss and decide upon mutually recommended bound- aries between the two municipalities. For the Metzger-Progress- Washington Square area, this process resulted in a Joint Reso- lution of the two cities (City of Tigard Re®. No. 86-25 See As can Exhibit C) agreeing to a specific boundary in this area. be seen on Pig. 6, the boundary of the proposed annexation inoludes several more lots near Hall Blvd. and Scholle Perry Rd. and Hall and Oleson Roads than would be allowed under the Beaverton-Tigard Annexation Planning Areas of Agreement (APAA). Proposal No. 2260 - Page 12 c H Both the boundary proposed by the petitioners and the one in the APAA leave the entity of the Hall/Scholls Ferry intersection within a eingle jurisdiction. This is generally desirable from } the standpoint of coordination of traffic control, street maintenance, police jurisdiction, etc. At the intersection of Hall Blvd. and Oleson Rd., the petitioners' boundary leaves the entire intersection in one jurisdiction while APAA appears to partially split the intersection. The City of Beaverton has taken a position favoring the annexa- tion with'a boundary modified to reflect the APAA. (See Exhibit Additionally, concern has been expressed by some Metzger revs- idents at a CPO sponsored meeting on July 16, 1986, that the entire_ territory covered in the Metzger-Progress Community Plan was not included in the annexation. That plan area extends north of Hall Blvd. at Scholls Ferry and between Scholle Ferry Rd. and - Olsson Rd. (See Fig. 3) OTM INFORMATION: Yashia on County. A Washington County staff representative has or e _ oun aryy Commission staff that the proposed annexa- tion gill bereviewedby the Board of County Commissioners dust prior the BC hearing. The Wash. Co. staff will recommend to the Hoard that it go on record in support of the annexation. Off oial response from Washington County will be forwarded to the Boundary commissioners as soon as received. Wash i_n tow 8 ware. At the time this report is being finalized, Xv appears tha e owners of Washington Square Regional Shopping Center have decided they would prefer to annex to the City of Tigard via a ®eparata triple-majority annexation. It must be = r, definitely known whether this course is going to be pursued prior %©_the time the Boundary commission makes a final decision on the current proposal. Once a decision on the current proposal is made, Washington Square would be looked into the boundaries of that proposal and any subsequent remonstrance election which a ght follow. During the remonstrance period and the time it } Mould take o-fla�,1, and hold an election there would be no meehan- ls:a for removing hes from the proposal in order to be dealt with Prop s . No. 2260 Page 13 r , r. - 4 M� T t Washington Square representatives and the City will present their e case for this separate annexation at the July 24th hearing. They _41will likely ask that after testimony has been taken on the our- rent proposal, the hearing be continued to August 21st to allow yi the separate Washington Square proposal to be heard on that same agenda or at least to allow themtoplace a valid triple-majority proposal before the Commission. Other Responses. Attached as Exhibit D is a written response received at the boundary Commission office relating to this proposal'. Attached as Exhibit P is a cover letter concerning a large peti- tion in opposition to the annexation. (The Petition itself is on file in the Boundary Commission office.) Those delivering this petition stated they will have additional petitions to present at the hearing. They also noted they will have plat maps showing the location of those objecting. They believe that they will have strong enough showings in given areas to justify requesting that the Commission delete those areas from the proposal Recommendation. Based on the statement below, the staff recom- mends a o owing the July 24th hearing, Proposal No. 2260 be continued to the August 21, 1986 hearing. Several circumstances lead the staff to make this recommendation. Pirst, this proposal affects a significant number of people and it is readily apparent there is wide diversity and strength of opinion amongst this group. The public hearing will provide a measure of this diversity and opinion which we do not now hA,ve. Second, it appears that owners of land in the Washington Square area will be desirous of a continued hearing to allow them the opportunity to pursue a separate triple-majority annexation. _ Thir!, there are at, least four possible boundaries being sug- gested -- 1 ) As proposed; 2) The Beaverton-Tigard line; 3) The Metzger-Progress Community Plan boundary; 4) Adjustments sug- gested by petitioners who want out. Continuance x111 allow time for these to be presented by their proponents and studied by the Comsiesi.on. V r! ; Prapoeal No 2260 - Page 14 era �� Prop• �--Z-�'o r s tMTRATnm RULES � . 1 • R REA LOCAL.GOA Bp1tiNDARY COl 1ON _ CHAPTER 193. DMSiON S—POR'IZ•AIdD DIJON S by the Legislature since the original law was passed.is to hold down the number of governmental units. When there were } Boundary Commission came into existence approximately 303 units under its jurisdiction.Today there are POLICIES 150.1 Annexation of urban and urbaniaabk land to cities slowly but surely lessens the need for new single Purpose units of of _ �. government and will eventually lead to elimin ttncu were 193.46.000(1)Policy on incorporatePoliciesd status: existing single purpose districts. Special z 1 sees cities formed as interim devices to deliver services until (a)Policy:The Boundary Y services. the areas served became highly urbanized and neecied the as the) Basis providers This policy is based on the Commis- full services of a city. (b) Basis for Policy: purpose in ifying go` 1- t was slot's understanding stmpl when Columbia Coon Y tal structure and an its long term view of how and quyof 1 16 of these were structure: relates to the economy. efficiency and equity dropped fratti SC jurisdiction. ustan service Provision- (2)policy on mediation, coordination and maintenance of (c) The existence of many dyfcrent governmental units financial integrity: Commission's tole includes makes the delivery of urban services unnecessarily complex. (a) Policy: The Boundary coordinating The visibility and hence political accountability of many of disputes arising over boundaries• ern- these units is relatively low. (The average election turnout . very. and expiocing waYs to keep units of gov ming to a study in the early '701 was in the neigh borhood servicMMent financially secure- of 4-3%roc special district elections).Cis on the other hand (b)Socia for policy: This policy is based on the Commis' visibility and accountability. (A long have a relatively much higher sion s desire to act as a catalyst to bring about greater city with 3 elected officials might deliver the same Meige planning and coordination of the boundary change single needs and pe+op p This role is especially important during Periods of services as tour special districts with Zfl elected ice n ed time when special settee districts have lost much of their Cities have the ability to balance the relative merit of withdrawals of allocate scat+ce rpourciss after comparing financial ba3e as a result of annoxaaon-caused each Vie.Sl�el s�Ce diaa cannot do this. territory but still have duties to Perform- (d)Within cities the ts. miry equity ft n tort.service levels' (5)Pb1icY on 1o11g rs�lge SOM-11 sem' favors With delivery by many thi (a) policy: The Boundary Canmel iissioin itlnuetalm of service varies widely, with some being unacceptably low �v song is of govemn>rn which mtny dictate a�irregular,boundaries in the short std others being ffera wide range of necessary (e) Cities generally :This policy is based on the Commnis- services for an urban area. Outside of cities some lass PoPt1 _ (b) Basis for that the Legislature desires ttsc Coirtnus- lett necessary services such as storm drainage and parks •s alis often not available.Cities generally do a better sioncreate a lasting system of responsive.efficient and recreation finning for service delivery. particularly sion�itis structu:e.•� iiig comas job of long rauige P and visbb services.They of etre SoundarY statue when it comes to these less popular to be full from a reading ..arid..sky sections).and free, do so precisely because cities are by nature supposed the ..standardsServhold a.. As the need increases for a new service.the � intent expressed in numerous It i>� weir first ctry responds by b�n!imq to Plan for it. Each district reports issued since the Boundary Canmissiotl s only for the service a currently provides. pinning created. for a new service is often not done until the need for the in ;Stat,Aiitb.: ORS Ch.153 A 199 service is critical and with crisis at hand- Me: pLG8 3.199t f. 12�a2.ef.t•2-as (f)Cities offer greater opportunity for economics partmiental loins and operation,! coordination. Through nS.economics can be effected in t Policy Payr: Pre -reel lit n small single purpose units. chip that are usually possiblet in a city, for instance. may A water and a sower departrineln Iee�poeuad Status have a single clew and share beckhoes.t> eas aY 10}05.405(1)Background: Advisory Caeriniittea water district and a amdsewerd1 strict tservii g the same am(s) 'lite !Boundary Commission es resources available to them recently(1961-M held a series of heartnp welt n� W eci�have � of special districts and cities. A repos was issued wkti than many single or limited purpose units. Thus. cities are joco endations to the Commission.one of which states: better able to balance the burden of laying for services andthe reducing potential heavy impacts on any one segme nt of-M Boundary CatmmMdm sbodd let It be kFA 'n that community. shoiild be placed hit" ineaapoe>tiad (2)Policy constraints: status does relate to the cWW for inunieipal _Jhk goalsboaW be speWd (a)This Policy on inCOrI.prated the section of boundary commission law which changes op std se well as Posey.., Commission with maintaining the financial integrity of ap units merit. Cleady. the Commission must uphold chis policy states rite desires F most d e' • prvposedBoundary �, jin'i ortion of the statute as well as to meet its structural improv S sdiction• goas. The Policy on Mediation. Coordination and the pokey reflects what rnaruy of them see to be the reality Maintenance ttr at+ee of Friamcia!Integrity addrnses this need.wtett it the situation even if this does not coincide with their P� I Thus.the this k:Y integrity of a -rice. Many of the units feelCommissiont �aa,even conflicts with maintenance of financial integrity -Airy de facto and would P service district.The Commission should view financial though they may disagree with it. int as applying in each individual case as well a the (b) One very clear reason far the existence of boundary cumulative effect. However. the potentia! negative impacc of commissions which has been re-emphasized a number of times 1_ Div.S (Martdt. 1983) OUWoN ADIbUNIRItAT1VE RULES CHAPTER 193 D[VISM S—PORTLAND ME t0PO[1TAN AREA LOCAL CAvERNbCWr BOUNDARY COWAISSION as action (or actions) on a unit's financial integrity must be Long Range Governmental Structure considered to be.an actual threat to the unit's fiscal integrity. 19345415 (1) The Boundary Commission views as a ability to contitwa operation.solvency or efficiency. major reason for its existence the facilitation of an economical ntal structure. T efficient system of governmerac boundary Stat.Aui>s.:ORS Ch. 183 do 199 commission statute charges the Commission with guiding the tltln: pLGA 3-t982.t.12-682.ef.1-2413 creation and growth of units of government with this In mind. MW statute likewise cautions the Commissionalpust - ng Coos anion and d Fknandal , Mog=W extensions of boundaries.The Commission believes it 193.05410(1)It is the intent of the Boundary Commission should prevent mon of permanently illogical boundaries- . (2)However.the nature of the boundary change process is to P greater long songs planning and coordination in incremental. Because large inhabited areas generally resort relation to the boundary change Process.The CommdssM and annexation to units of government, most annexations are its staff will attempt to be a analyst in expicring better ways to relatively smell. Growth of city and district boundaries when provide public services from a governmental suntans point of viewed in this light. is almost always -Mogicsl•' by definition view.involving pKawwrty the districts.cities and rounders it since the addition of each lot or group of lots creates b e Wari- serves as wail as otter interests in the region. ty in the boundary. (2)This role of searchitlg for ways to improve the service (3)The Boundary Coaunissionn must therefore look at the vwy '� emphasitoie positive innovative apt- range p of governmental structure and ser vice dellproiwbgs. As a continuation of bntgitanding paotde. thecoalmission when reviewing individual proposals. When that view indicat es es eventual tragic.ecronartty.efiiden- and staff will attempt to mediate inuxrrr>sdktoeti longer rangcy, structurai simplification. greater conunuaity i am*y.. al disputes arising trona boundary determination and service fit, ,_and other long term results compuble with sound delivery. long term governmental structure. — the Comadasio" may (3)An important aspect of the above role is the Commis- choose to approve proposals which at first glance may QpPp�ea�r sionis charge to-maintain the fi tux ial integrity of units of to be illogical extensions. This long term view may dictate gpverament involved In the boundary change p-n m es . annexations of '•island•• atom or conscious creation of island (4)On a case by caw basis the Commission and its stats areas where circumstances warrant this.appcosch. wilt study ways to keep districts fituinrdeUy rewire during particularly in the!suer case.the Boundary Connrmssnon eixotnagaw units periods of daw when they have lost mach of their fhurA;W 1t 4 to workthe theComm�ission�hass aid �• logo row due to+gni dry annexation.but stip have a (4} to the past. Is I 8 MX My to P-MMMsesviae.In many eases true eaatmtudty at tugs ashes to i ways of eliminating 81 dandy service boundaries. Such �oceragemmet s always tOMEt, (t•e.lbs p n ons of sueh+Miers)may have a responsibility to with ether standards and requirements of the law(such as the belp phase OM dna i"s that eventually will be entirely anntxtd timing and availability of services); $o that while its pin MA and dInethe Boundary n� Caassion could be the spot to dni8me the V sois me an Wpd accooted and some rejected. Y- Sess.Aaft:OftS Ch.183 A 199 Sat.Attu.:OAS Ch. 183 a 199 Mae: PLGB 1.1952.t.1244L ef.1-2.83 Ma: Ptl3B 1-19Q f.12-642.d.1-243 (Marsh. 19631 2- Div.3 mat . Pf�p.2z6a EXHIBIT CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON e• RESOLUTION NO. 86 - &RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON, DECLARING THE CITY'S SUPPORT FOR THE METZGER/WASHINGTON SQUARE ANNEXATION TO TIGARD. Whereas, the Metzger/Washington Square Community Planning Organization (CPO) has been studying its options in maintaining and improving municipal services; ity to conduct a Municipal Services Study for the Whereas, the CPO asked the C area and outline the City services available upon annexation; Whereas, the Tigard Municipal Services Study for the Metzger/Washington Square CPO has been completed and presented at a CPO meeting; and, Whereas, citizens in the community and through the CPO have asked the City to formally declare its position towards a Metzger/Washington Square annexation proposal; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that: Section 1. Election. The City reaffirms its preference for a Metzger/ - Washington Square community vote on a comprehensive proposal for the MEC2gcC/ Washington Square area; and encourages timely hearings and an election by November, -1986 if possible; Section 2 CPO Plan Recognition. The City agrees to the County CPO Land Ilse Plan and recognition of the CPO as a new City Neighborhood Planning Organiza- tion (NPO) immediately upon annexation; Section 3. City Services. The City agrees to extend the same levels of Cicv services into the Metzger/Washington Square area as provided inside currant Library, Parks (unless City limits, providing but not limited to: police, he Park LID), Streets, Sewers. Storm Drainage. fetzger opts to continue t Street Lighting, Building. Planning, Engineering and all other General (:.•v.•rn- Rent-services. RESOLUTION NO. 86 - �3 PACE t . Prop. z-zi� P r leZ- Section 4. S cial CIP. The City further agrees to dedicate all the net revenues total new revenue less cost of City services in #3 above - net revenue) coming from annexation back into the Metzger/Washington Square area for 5 years following annexation into a Special Captial Improvements Projects (CIP) fund for sidewalks, bikepaths, street, sewer, storm drainage and other public improvements- Section S. Representation. Upon annexation, the Metzger/Washington Square shall have all jthe rights and opportunites available to Tigard residents . and property owners. PASSED: This 5th day od May, 1986. r r - City of Tigard c/ ATTEST: Deputy LCLty Aecor er - City of Tigard itE 53 OLUTlo NOi 86 - F==wX 41 BIT CITY OF TIGARD. OREGON RESOLUTION NO. 86-25 A JOINT RESOLUTION BETWEEN THE CITY OF BEAVERTON AND THE CITY OF TIGARD REGARDING URBAN SERVICES, DECLARING AND SUPPORTING MUTUAL ANNEXATION PLANNING AREAS OF AGREEMENT (APAA). WHEREAS, the cities of Beaverton and Tigard have previously adopted joint APAA Resolutions (Tigard Resolution No. 85-82), but left the Washington Square Study Area for future review; and WHEREAS. both cities have completed their related staff reports affecting the Washington Square Study Area and both City Councils have determined logical future annexation and urban service boundaries for each city in the area; and WHEREAS, the cities of Beaverton and Tigard find that municipal urban services can be provided most efficiently and equitably by cities; and WHEREAS, conflicting land use plans and overlapping areas of planning interest tend to delay the ultimate annexation to cities and tend towards- illogical and inefficient service boundaries; and WHEREAS. both cities respect the rights and preferences of property owners and residents to decide when to annex to a city according to State Law; and WHEREAS, both cities see competition and conflict between cities over individual annexation proposals as contrary to their mutual long-range community interests and wish to avoid such conflicts whenever possible by mutually adopting a clear statement of areas of annexation interest. - NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that: Section 1: The prior Annexation Planning Area Agreement (APAA) and Resolution No. 85-82 is hereby repealed and replaced in its entirety by this complete new agreement upon mutual adoption by the City of Beaverton and City of Tigard. Section 2: A joint Annexation Planning Area Agreement (APAA) as to urban services and future annexations hereby exists between the two cities. Section 3: A South Beaverton - North Tigard boundary on future annexation areas of interest as shown on the map (attachments A, 8, and C) shall: begin east at the Multnomah-Washington County line; westerly follow the south side of Taylors Ferry Road straight past the tax lots fronting SW 88th/Bomar Court; `then south to a point aligned with the rear of the tax lots facing Cedarcrest; west to a point just west of the tax Pots facing 91st Avenue; south to Hall Boulevard; along the north side of Hall Boulevard, westerly to the intersection of Hall and Greenburg/Oleson Road; westerly along the south side of Hall, to the west of the Washington Square access road; south behind the tax lots fronting Hall and to the west; to the west side of the next Washington Square access road; north to a point on the south side of the RESOLUTION NO. 86-25 Page 1 of 2 IMCC. G;K '11C side of the Apartments Golden Key Apartments; westerly between the south into the Square; to the ' the north side of the commercial properties fronting to Scholls north side of the western Washington $gs`ho11scFerry R d westerly to the Old Scholls Ferry Road; from there southwest along Ferry--New Scholls Ferry Road; to the Urban Growth Boundary. • The cities declare and support Beaverton's annexation interests Section 4• Boundary and Tigard's annexation interests south north and west of this APAA and east of the APAA Boundary- Section oundary-Section 5: The Cities mutually agree that upon request* from the other, that they will support annexation proposals to the other consi ten t with heroAPAA, to Boundary. The cities mutually agree that 'they will not 'app their city contrary to the APAA without $1resomodifying lution from Y departure from supporting such an annexation and specifically the APAA Boundary. Section 6: The cities further-resolve to generally support annexations by the other even aMMY from the APAA Boundary areas and to further develop a joint annexation policy statement in this regard. Section 7: The cities further agree to adopt the findings and consensus Council meetings on t agreement from the staff review and a from Road Be connection through the Old-New Scholls Ferry Road area from Beaverton southeast into Tigard at 135th/Walnut. Section 8: The cities agree to revise, amend, and supportother planning this APAA 1eCQss ry1O^, and to an annual r agreements consistent with review to this agreement as the Councils doom E day of 7 7' i�t,c.,�" 1986. PASSED: This ,L,,..,,! o • - City of Tigard ATTEST: 1 eputy City Recorder - City of Tigard lw/3706A ' RESOLUTION NO- SSS Page 2 of 2 �' V � s e a� 'Von - ♦ C _ _ c �.. IWO _ • 116 ' \.1 1 1 1 � r 1 MINOR t � o • low., f / E 1 � r AL�.. _ 6 1 _ s • *Awl _ r � / k • �► � 1 �� • All 0 � adv i ® _ EXHIBIT July 2.4, 1986 CITYOF TE�ARD M Metropolitan Area Boundary Commission 320 SW Stark - goon 530 OREGON gortland, OR 97704 25YOM OfSefv1c0 SQbj=; yetsger Annexation to Tigard l�61.19�86 Honorable Persons:of Tigard is pleased to support the cOmunity initiated annexation The Citywith the City of Tigard. Tiger Proposal foswally joining the Metzger communityds and Metzger have a long common history and share many of the same interests is echools, transportation, sewers, storm drainage, public safety, business and community liveability. The city of Tigard is pledged to work with the coomunity in obtaining a vote on this annexation. Tigard'at 22,800 popula tion and it billion valuation -- no longer that "small town ng city in on the way to the coast is Omerons they years have devlargest and aeloped thstest e Capacity to Oregon's fastest groxtio County. ort. A basic, high quality, manage growth, annexation and expand neighborhood support- well. With the low' cost, services philosophy has served our changing community approval newly completed t2.5 million Tigard Civic of T Cardehasatheour organizatio9% voter nal and financial. of a "car Tax.Base plan, the City ig capacity to serve the needs of the Metzger community. C. As the Municipal Services Study of the Metzger area shows, this annexation of the area to Tigard is a WIN-WIN scenario. Tigard residents are even better and more economically served through the economies of scale affecting existing Programs in spreading the costs of city-wide bonded debt over a broader base. The Metzger areas capture abandoned revenue . entitlements uncil ResolutionThei City hastpledged unavailable to unincorporated areas y to return all revenues from the area directly back into area services and projects for at least five years. The Metzger `community is mature and politically capable of determining its own future. Tigard supports that determination. Tigard does not presume to tell to Tigard or . Our task is t Metzger citizens whether they should now acapital improvementstwe can con and to welcome thea in as full elc participating hould inform them of the services we articipating members of one of Oregon's finest cities. The City of Tigard supports the community's right to decide for itself and vote on their annexation proposal. Thank you for your consideration and assistance. To my neighbors and friends in Metzger, Tigard welcomes you. ' Sincerely/�,` /�� • John Z. Cook " Mayor JEC/dc -4171 13125 SW Holl Shrd.P.O.Box 23397.Tigard.Oregon .97223 (503)639 , r;' $t"L, _ - ..•..e,rva.rdaw» sexi. �a.a+w„ra+,.�x+w,, -..e+„ .,. --t M+ua,..�,,.:exin..x �+,ti..i, ,-,,., _,rve.'�-,...,-ht�x r,. ra .a � q �`' EITIIIATEO REVENUES i �ENOITUREI NET REVENUE PNOMTION FY , }` FT FT 1990-91 i 1967-42 1911-t9 1961-9b HIGH LOW - HIGH LOM- IGH LOM -HIGH LOM- 1966-t7 i, UM- NIGH A tA 'B A / A t � REVENUES 102700 - 107135 215670 - 2264S3 226453 - 237775 237777- 249665 249665 - 162141 Franchise Fees ' F66a C Chargee 86616911S6 91256 116518 - 195640 195140- 205632 303432- 21563 215915- 216710 TOTE=Y/EAR state Shand Rev. 91340 - 95907 itSOOO- 1942SO 165000- 203962 185000 - 214160 165000- 22466/ 40816 35000- 42541 SERVICES: County Gas Tax 17500 - 16175 18000 - 36750 15000 - 1f5t7 35000 - 4 34611280(A) - 44 430!94- 451913 1}6236 :X7047 ii Property Tax _ 4ttt4o �44P11` —�4�Z4i 6027 017 115 109-, 1�" 7 JIM- 4 4 TOTAL 30"s$ - � 114 - L US }� � HIGH- LOM NIGH- LOM NICH- LOM NIGH- LOM HIGH HAM Polio services 210000- 199500 196000 - 376200 415600- 4131!0 479160 -► 4b8202 b67076 • 800762 r. 84000'- Streets 42000- 19900 14000- 79100 14000- 79100 84000 74600 64000- 79!00 f 6 YEAR Stnatlightirg 21000- 26600 56000 - 53200 56000- 53200 56000 - 81600 56000- b1200 " porn Drainage 21010- 26676 51961 - S6019 61916 - $8920 65021 - 63760 61260- 64447 OIRf.Cf (pry Be~ S5959 - 53161 1!2453 - 107210 117516 - 111640 123191 - 117!21 129560- 123062 SERVICES: San Parks 4 Rec. Bldg t Collet 9525 9044 20001 - 19000 21001 - 19950 22051 - 20440 23151 - 21-099_5S.141511101 -0- Planning t Erg. ^�' -O• •4•• -O- .0.. -0- ••0•• Library N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A NJA Finance i Admin. --0- TOTAL 371564 - 3546/5 72n2= --�� 776 1 -� t 96 - 711 t1! 49 - 648641 S YEAR NET NET REVENUE t7 >- t39512�, 3"203 - 461445 311 7�7, 4 S 24410- 314016 „ }17�- . g REVENUE FOR SPECIAL CIP: $1093179(A) -• S7t461 0 x /H:bs62 r• F_ j y y PORTLAND MEM AREA BOUNnRY MMMICRlM JUL 171986 8310 S.W. Pine Metzger, Oregon 97223 July 17, 1986 Portland Metropolitan Area Local Government Boundary Commission 320 S.W. Stark Street (Suite 530) Portland, Oregon 97204 Dear Boundary Commission: 2n this folder you will find a petition of those persons aex $ nonSquare Area t are community to the nneationof our City opposed to the of Tigard at this time. The petition opposing annexation consists of 33 pages with a total of 853 signatures. A map showing the property homeowners, residents, and businesses who have signed the petition within the CPO-4 boundry will- be submitted to you for your review at the July 24 hearing. Thank you for your kind attention. + Respectfully, Kevin LAPP F Y ITr.-A - is EXHIBIT _ Resolation No. 12— 7-1 • PROPOSAL NO. a %:� _ A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE ANNEXATION OF THE METZGER NEIGHBORHOOD WITH SOME EXCEPTIONS TO THE CITY OF TIGARD AND REQUESTIONG MODIFICATION OF BOUNDARIES VHEREAS, the City of Beaverton, hereafter Beaverton,,believes that cities are the appropriate long term provider of urban services and Beaverton generally supports the annexation of urbanized lands within the Urban Growth Boundary; and WHEREAS, Beaverton supports the efforts of the citizens of Metzger to obtain an appropriate level of urban services by annexation to the City of Tigard; and WHEREAS, Beaverton and Tigard have formally agreed to an Annexation Planning Area Agreement (APAA), see attachment "A" (Resolution 2685) and the APAA establishes a mutally agreed upon annexation boundary for the cities of Beaverton and Tigard; and WHEREAS, the proposed annexation of the Metzger Neighborhood Boundary Co®ission #2260, to the City of Tigard cross over the mutually agreed upon APAA line; and WHEREAS, Beaverton wishes to support the annexation of the Metzger Neighborhood south of the APAA line to Tigard. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BEAVERTON, a municipal corporation of the State of Oregon, that: Section 1. The City of Beaverton supports the annexation of all of the Metzner Neighborhood (Boundary Commission #2260) south of the Annexation Planning Area Agreement Line (Beaverton Resolution #2685 and Tigard Resolution #86-25) to the City of Tigard. P: Section 2. The City hereby requests that Portland Metropolitan Area Local Goverment Boundary Commission (Boundary Commission) modify the North Boundary y line of proposal #2660 to coincide with the line established in the Annexation Planning Area Agreement between Tigard and Beaverton as previously cited. Section 3. The City of Beaverton hereby requests that the City of Tigard sup pot the modification of the Portland Metropolitan Area Local Goverment Boundary Commission proposal #2660 to coincide with the lines established by the Annexation Planning Area Agreement between Tigard and -Beaverton as previously cited. The City of Beaverton further requests that the City of Tigard send notice of its support to the Boundary Commission prior to the July 24, 1986 meeting. Sect 4. The City Recorder is hereby directed to file certified copies of this Resolution and its attachment with the Portland Metropolitan Area Government Boundary commission and the City of Tigard at once. Adopted this to day of L 1986. Attest: Approved: Ann Johnson, City Recorder La Cole, kayor LC:ca Res-Annex:E H } Proposal No. 2260 b.vt... Q 1. 'Tt Ea a I: 1 1 ,�` .A Tj I 1A to�ppp •'t0,0•i stOu•Y M = ? �• t fir.. inOy. • •G•+ !_ �• INOWif{ Z �� famms --.�L a wea• aw lw --� l BEAVE C f O 1 •C-1'� -. 8 ,•a� ,...a. TAYIARS ,.tI ROA �•. ,e .lv ''1 �{=="D�� I, -_ ,gyp,• � � w... �(� �• JL JJ i:' j�r:i '•J. a� '• ji+J'li�� fi{�f4r flfi��,• J .rJ 'S' it t t( Irs•� J)JJJ� a.� 1 t,. !. +y'F. JJlr J jI ..J_ •�� ,, o..w. .. S J� �1�.'l jajJ •_ ��/�! .� i1•' AREA TO BE •J. •.fk t'� (`+�'\ a,/ oswr PORTIMR)r ::_ �::��.`•• �,;�:- i ,r�• :\ •'�. _ 'J• toy c •t LFa r..{.{ .J.• it ti '�4 e all ANNEXE .306 _ PFAFFLE jigand - •� - �`�� •'°` ' t _ fir'" fourrfw000 AM SHOW AC I t .ARK _•—. } M ae vet 36— 1 o L i1 � •fr ,�� ' a� �� `1 ! TI — PROPOSAL NO. 2260 1: ` CITY OF TIGARD ' ANNEXATIM FIGURE 1 1 1 7�ffr.�•+ i . ^" r .:...A....,w.:_w•..v..w-...........s:......_i....au..._.u�.:rcsnvr.+w4.c.-rrYiYYr u.r+.••�J�i.WF.w'w' augnu■ruuuu■ru -.. 22460 ' fi re 2a se■espos nProposal Na. onons ■ I ■ figure 2C Tr_ n see uunuuiuiiiiu■63 a01-- �ununonon neon-u■g■iw on■runi ... f rr , S■■reg on rid ■ lowE/unuuu■ �^ - - - '�f figure 2g : figure 2hgure ./; _ girly – _ figure 2d! _ gure 2e- i 2E: -- I figure 2b . / ,-�', r�liras ;-T -,-.- , -rr - ■ o ; .. •, _ top er —• ■ g all roue' t y�# r ■ a"RAN a y ■ i � Q l I � � \ —� � :.' -.r-.=:. - _'+- ems_i.I -- ! I r figure 2i -'r-_ _ or " : �- • � �r` 11• iii ~; 5 ~: — - �_ - ge�f ■'� `\Zji"i� / r w ■e i rn n� /s /r ' �j_ ��. ' ?l ♦p�•A .iv rye BE 34 s i :4 `—t —AM sr _L7r r I r I■ ANNNCV��1 I ■ + 3L Bill Figure 2t r • 1 � til--a f'�7- ,- '—.� � �- •. "T�'�I .t ■ ■ ry , i ■ ■■s `-}tel –�. r'■ 'a goes er�Illrr ■ gs!s. .-� ti■ � — � :-.�..�..y figure 21 6■i ■ loggias n■ lo a • figure Zr TT ■ ` ' ,. ! figure 2k L g -T- �`` ■ figure 2s ■u uu■�I■os■figure 2q mq long ■Else figure 2n . � 1 i_ u ` + r.r {, r ` ■ �C. I I r f lgure 2m its IT L ' t N0� 2260 4 figure 2p g ` 1:�a!■ a�/ 4�'i / �/�u■ PROPOSAL _ � •""" CM OF TIMM r' `�,co C ARVATION au �': `figure 20 C- �. ► ,� FIMRE Z MINI rl Mi I ►' ,% :-`�1 _.-_!� . ' ~ y r R f Proposal A &W1/4N.1K1/4 SECTION 26 TIS R I W WIA IS 1 268C K14��M KAIE�NIEGdt •mow •w'M• Mh �"� w _ i •��''�tt t.+�.ss wa un I, - ...1 t - a t• t ..w 51-74 VILL IL .xN �:tw•�w 1 � l � ••'.'�.M•. I C� . IM�1 1100 ) � -•., r. .�° JI ' i • t M ., "y� 1 �a � � 1 1 h � 1 ttrws i 2 BEAl � I r•t�r ----�-- �__ so" .tlp. IM IS 1 2680 PROPOSAL NO. 2260 CITY OF TIGARD z` ANNEXATIM ._. FIG{JRE 2a �, _: Pr oppsal No. 2260 SW IA4 SECTION 26 TIS RIW WK IS 1 2E WAIHM oN cawrr ancon+ VALE r•7:o0 - f at MAP ac w► /1'• 171 low •R" 6 ` low 23-72 1., pot ..... '4"'•"ta 25-72 . III ♦ S' 1 .ar r J.%LOJLP*— .; 4 ANNUM _ role �.►r r f=~ —- — — 5 —I 2364 1 I 1-77 `an« t ;��i i.+tR?——_ _ — 1♦'r�i�. i �. .+rte.. fL:VM A �` C t7 [a..ss1 r r v \ t ~00 10 chnowl01" ancon eaavc uenn r MUCT[+W 23'( 2 •s ss •. , _ sn�+•�e*+•. see rsr .,� 54_9 tp ` •' M• ttea 1`�::y'� �tYNN t7Kmwv 10 oom t lop I on rtr N r!• �1 ax �,t1t► n 1 7s" '" 11736 TIGARD PROPOSAL NO. 2260 .- . CITY OF TIGARD ANNEXATIM 4; FIGURE 2b Proposal No. 2260 NWASEM SECTION 26 TIS RIW WK IS 1 2608 WASHMMITOU COUNTY CROON #1 SCALL 1'•fOd att w a......1aaw•.a>_.1. _ 4 • set YA►- - 260 �..a as• - . wwe ♦'�' 1 .1 ssA : �• = t G O o am +� ... 1 it i Y Y J iq Jr Arm m as ANMMM a .... ...ane w1 NI• aa.K .www M w ♦NM. � 71� •.!• • �_w • 1 /1 1 NOA ,; • ' D F N1NooD _` ��•r �C. i • > a10 aws .111 � . "`• � x„00 11 L 'A E' •� '. . • 1 "� Of t a\ – 1uo �8.� �• ! f900 :•r • ' -J t'.A1�'•..i. 'tea "'�.`• ► J . qOs mil � � ' IY11 1 RM N. �� 4•••. par•a1a1 �r •� i•1•• > � 1100 �i •..•„ •� est aaal '� i1 IS �; � 1 f i 1 too - ? + • � •1 C E D A R O O K �«Y 1 ,,, ®C�o•� iVt r • ;ice . �.-it1Ar �noV�»- o,� 3 �Y 1� T , t +• J if Ir •'t • — It .COs - .•aa F R' m -� 11743 . ►, ., ..«......W—low Mrs— �.... .... - .... ... 1 S i 2608 _ .....». PROPOSAL NO. 2260 _= CITY OF TIGARD ANNEXATIM FIGURE 2c ate :« , s t .. Proposal No.. 2260 IS 1.260A 0 4 O r ii00 w .ar b B 0 M A"R � Iw 1°0t 3M ' 700 " L11 i,r ra S AR »os AREA 70 88 100 3mm1 ANS® s .. se. 1w sts lis leo Kir/o11 1 140 141000 1.07 141 1100 MOO 00 +"� s#r'11s P•.•.•.s.f•..1sf• s ''-.s1Yaw• '}`st1 .ii. l•o�o 'a° }l_soow.oa.. '."• BIRCH 70 T R --i Alt� l340w1•" STREET � •N♦ INtNTOEMI•C4OYMSSEY I /04 aw1«.A SECTION2STIS R11tI WtOMWW K U WALt f.loaf soims�o :..... SW CEDARCRESr ST s .. ....�. r, 1 •. ... H•I Ka rA1 • �.l.1Lw•Z�..� 1• :3" R alis +� ar .rte / .i *600 IHH y>1 .1 r 7Jp _ H ! ' JM{ Ra• 3000 tSao • • •' J I `..• N01 N 1�A 1 7i00 ]too - 1100, / � d rw. .Lf' a woe ... � ,• • •W, y 1000 10➢0r 7001 IP-00 ' ' j. .... .� ... ... fit 1rA. .. IIr �• ., too=tee 1if t sat MAP • '_ ISI 2 � 1812604 :`. PWPOSAL NO. 2260 CITY OF TICARD FIGURE 2d Proposal No. 2260 . NW 114 SW 1/4 SECTION 25 T 1 S R I W W.M. IS 1 25C 8 WASMNOTOM CONNT7 Ot[GON . KALE i•+10Q• itt MY IIIr4•�.1� 4•..fM ... � .y;y. .-a1lli':......y...c...�rwL`7 ,q1q j ' i t t f 1 ~• f00 f01 s f04 ARFw TO BE 1000 i II 000 W KA'� `~ S W. BIRCH STREET .►w" •"t- tCf- sf« tios t y ( IF V �1. i q. 1 s st c MAP i m ofr .ralp C i � t w... ..r •w� �� CECARCREST STREET ti; V tteii ast aoi; MAG twe smtA , s a t:m im s f tsao seta + S. w CHESTNUT STREET' t •—w•••••• ' see Ma+. =- 11713 is I sate 1$ i 25Ce pWpocAL NO. 2260 CITY OF TIGARD ANNEXATION 4 FIGURE 2e s. ----------------- - u - Proposal No. NEIM SWLA SECTION 25 TIS RIW WK 1S 1 25CA m Ire Is.l ss" SCALA �•.100' w.w.w r... w...w .�.� .,1•yW - - ..yw��R' RY ww..►r.r. Isoo jos .. $as sss s Rp,�Q fu �, I4M IfsO Isao. 1700 � ► 'G F roo 1 r'$.'` m 3 Z G R , �, 1 N i < q00 F AM TO 16 { ANKM SW r"" = BIRCH u.ww STREET..."1 ,,,; am— Mos Ieoe ..a.. ... sal �uoo soon efoo rw i < O U L V A ano x C R + is .;.t 800 ,..,.. :foo ts4o :eoo arm ala t .//r.. aeon . 1 6'37f ar• ., I • Y frf0 •N•a.. _ �1 afcf FE `StlV ..«.. a k CEOARCREST STREET »R.. ,41� aae idol .eoe ffoa iffT00 sa N00 !Ir MY a r Y •N.r- ,ii.i. Fn«. yr. 1!« IM• sow q C :�' H E !, I G H 7 S I -remfood —4. • 3 SM. f100 NOO 1700 MOI Ike „ � w..' Nn• "Mo am sam 6400 �w Sara .w« IIa.. JR.a 1 r s s me 1 _ n s FA s �a"`� STREET �,� = �-•�• Sw ..w.. CHESTNUT - Rss, sfso ;- I car. yM It K9 MA� 36. IS 1-25ct. (� Y PROPOSAL NO. 2260 CITY OF TIGARD ANNEXATION FIGURE 2f Irv; t Proposal No. 2260 ISI 2506 NW 1/4 SE U4 SECTION 25 T 1 S R IW W&t C W"W mWa CCU""GROW �P SCALL 1•.IpOr Q • pw �.w•wr.•.. sag li 1 am M Ta t A. 23-64 �� K a 1�•/A W ; ir. ,It+ • .Soo . ac a."N TAYLORS atr•� .j- d .-C = os r .+ �.. il.wY rr ' r; „"•.+•• sloo a � s• tt p•y A . },�/ 1 O i 1�� '•M` •1 y M 700 � a•ea aa•e •' t.00 7 Q low .Sm saw .o. f �f • ,� ''rr • CR 4"r�! � 68 laVR ao: _ a 1 aia+ a 7ursN �• tin • is a— Wao of w / C r f STKCT aKai i w. S•a. S• �O • �y►. V s 40 1s •aw PON s« " r a� W ' ism. ti i .�tw t >a p•6 ti9 �.. .d 7 4 IS" W4— . � SS00A •a0a ! a st 39 al•• i 1 r l ad SM Sa00 � a� w • T S•� � ` aoo =.n.. w.. a..aa• LANE& t w ... S.W `M i S H ADI 8 • / •was nos sm �wm am e aaa. n sao. * s. as � 00 _ at a: » H.. H l H T 5 •arr•} .� } • .wy. • •...Oro T H. ' /� :dl w anus a tons • p°0 E • 0.MM►OODSTREFrT 1«10.2 , ` .Ut LOLA LAS •am sm S moa tB E RR •aooM • +aae » awew • pA C «« ,.... asea • alas Sas w! a• *am am we sr • y ..r am . .ar... a••. i �.. sa gyy, SARSARA U1NE a I S 1 25 DB pROPOSAL NO. 2260 CPPV OF TIGAM ANlE=CN FIG= 29 a Proposal No. 2260 NE V4 SE V4 SECTION Z5 T I S k w L+� 1 S I • fit 71►►Jf/*SAO ••�'�TON CWNt?OiEfAw. - "ALE 1'•100' - w�w.� M�•�• ROAD i YOo •ao�° 11 Ti 0: '100 way. Z � �' ......,...• F � Moo aoo •000 * m— MaN r. 7 N O: 1000 a.e tfee • fe• «. 400 40 stay 0 �•qq .p� 3 07 # N w w.0 i.NM i�iM u' ••1 t • e0D „� fOt •-w •. •i0e " Ti00• two syr To W • j� .�� 100 TN 79 BOB a•* +•• ilei t700 � i • � nor i•oo aoo *••o am f•oo ifoo am* Toa T•oo ;= N if i f 14 to ti N 5 r �sie � •.ee Tia •• 'a► . { a # ti WALNUT STREET •0o +® Ina Teoo" 314 s•oo sowLu sow 4m 11 s.00 »oo Tfoe • • e. 1• •Q T•s0 �' iT N as � N � *f 2 as *1 i0 i ; • •• 01 •f00 4400 ••m MOO 470D 4•0o Nm *000 sWD its Q sr V I E 1N -.r is 1 fA ff' so 7 sm ' .�► aao ALFRED ,:�.- STREET • roe �' 1 9T00 s•0o w •�y ssfrrr •Me eoof fico i•oo As 0700 i ' '' • •: 44 • f•� � _ 770[_ - ••i4 � _ '. • ••eo N y ( •....• —117 Is Boom YIt.ASHINGTON"""'-SQUARE;; ES7A7ES"" NO 3 PROPOSAL NO. 2260 CITY OF TI" 11t+NE(ATION FIG= 2h F...4 } rod.. ... Proposa- t NOW 22,601 SE 1/4 SE IM SECTION 25 TIS R i W WK w*aaron auen owcooM -► SSM[ ALFRED 's eu r.► � +it r aM KING $ VIEW •�- ,, .�- 23-64 �-. .roe aae aem .as eoaa wio rrMa neo >'ue *Me reoa nao rrm .eao aoo ras ... A r ' Ai<8A rt!a Em 4P AI'IIIII= VENTURA � '„� far eem regio � ema weo sr® ebu w sa rr, low el0• ow �IOa ♦.jirw y� sero W ses aoa aM rLY a� a • teeo aM am L1C 4 o a . +K a ..r • . is * s wra k sr w ♦ no ya a aw as L DRIVE v ~� sm. ee0e• !eY M� `ems" w ~- am raN « a .� Ct V �'� »a ' .e a ♦1� O Mea eeae MM eaa7101 • O' ♦�,.,♦♦ wrnYat at • r wn ..r• WOW a E TOld, . .- ♦ I~ � as MIM i i mrRY -;ee• s w W A $ H I N G T Osrt vENttIRA 33 aos aM seeo .. am aeeo oeos � » N � � V �• � �. M W MM Mea aea ,� Y &VL - UMA a+ ? A T E„ n.w QtleY• ' ISO MA FTNOM NO. 2260 3 CITY OF TIGAIE•ID AWE=FIG= 21 Proposai -MOW. DRIVE - - i-NMI" 04 T� o"s STOTT 1d[� it 2800 arZa�a u 3012D1 "r ; stsac� [u 3 6 5 2600 23_ . O 1 w 8 30 8 Z \'. 2400�r 25300 = 00 W 1 3 2 1 R 3100 . SWL LOCUST ST. 3200 , 63 47" r ID t° 0-5 3600 3700 Y' 33 34 33 E,.—� S Y w 6 5]00 c 1 a J n :a u w y Ll `W `-M O Y J 1 5400 3 AN/ 0D� 3432 to H • It 533900 00 31 = 37 a.r«a e•" ,1 3300 � r a � 4000 ap $RAM TO M rM. 30 38 3400 �G` 3700 15 Q� 303 .»aa, X29 40 r 3900 t 4900 6300 ra4o27 41 �-- 2+00 >_ 3900 r 1 � 4000 17 as 2 � 0% /s i 14100 4700 "' 6800 v- ww 19 »y 23 43 z t h 4900 24 44 6f00 X4200 .{p �raa•r'w s.�. _ . 2C 4500 PAMONA TREET moo +soo -i ` 4300 � Nr as •/_ 4400 r 21 :: 23 saw —64 owl? [+Sn l �� OAK 1 STREET •r4 ° fte t PAL ID. 2260 CITY OF TIGARD ANNE TION FIGURE 2j • 1, Proppsal I 1 36AU SE{ NEIK Eg C 36 TIS RIW WI+I• _ tour",now fbooq SW ♦..» OAK » q 'am oor/ es aee A.• aao a aee � » t a noo awo wa' aeo �eee , . L .•....�.. am +lae ; nrir z /!N N � a•/ � L£ = YI s ��O �*so aaoo I! , m No 31 ` 2N��M. M `�i�0 jig► t 70 DR •/ !7 11 • M» i as= 3 _ •--- - "" E gt tom• e a —per •=iw • r Y so""* � aoio - ' VN i ` ♦ a nor q� , M • • SW PINE •�%�•' 1 J » Sze siee !1N ••• !iN /Ne us r 1 » G OR 4 — - - •trt - - - L• - -Q 4W M ------------ o o C earan �8 son +v 1 PE y PRDPOSAL NO. 2260 CITY OF TIGARD AT NE)rATICH FIGURE 2k 1 Propoal� o t SW IA NE IA SECTION 36 TIS R 1 W Wk M•t1f1wm CWNTTQAF.G r SC11tt 1••100' sur•► Z ul f4to • 23-64 a J s SW K STREET s » 400 4p f fal foo 400 ' w .sof • i 100 s = 1400 100 4 4 a 1 fw tOf :1 000 pr 000 1100 i f W i t t T 1 Z z G E ' wlo 1 a ►•� 1 M 1 �' 1�•I1RF/110 u STREET : ' __'"•• s S w ..«. PINE laeo 1 s7w •••• • saw s _� =000 aw 14100 4101 1 1 � � ftt r4► t JA �7 S ( 1f14N0 •=lp 1 !1 •i: c 1f0C •1 ;} 0' 1161 we stw fteo •� so" =IN S foo So" f=°° � 1 tSW tato, >'„we tow f•oe � � C • 8 i WP► +� O I fKa 1 K 1 . _ M•M• ��• MM —r ftl TIGARD i .. \` .. PROPOSAL NO. 2260 1. CITY OF TIGARD ' AFIII NATION FIGURE 21 476 r Proposal No.. 2260 ISI NW Ifo SE V4 SECTION 36 T 1 S R I W VIRGA. [ratlMlfi ODiiMT 01i[60N � � S99 FAA y.[R ♦1.. N4• MM .•♦♦qy♦' Mr r• Mme. •N ..1 •'��♦FI � ' .�l r.Y./•q•r '{� 4 nee MN ARBA 10 Is, ( .• , ' X'� y t f ja- 1 i+r •�llp �!t i etee tees I i Neo .'� i[ee«•e �! ; , •�,i JIIl. 'sA pN, le e68 A �•• r.ewna n S • Ass" .i.N wf.• 1 ; f � Mgt ru i[I&OR! of t •�4 • Sam tf jfm now ese a TIGAM . + ,mac• cc map • s� � � iueses • y iit biz; • w ss res r « 23.8 C sm ., i /••• � 11993 ISI e[t rei x '• %O! IH 7Me P�R��P/0 3Al N0. 2260 a„ TIC 11NW-t'n }w FIGUM Proposal N ®. 2260 NE V4SW V4 SECTION 36 T I S RI W W.M. I S I 36CA i JAttN101"COOK"afto M ! �* �L _.. ac-1-11 't�9 .23_64 act raw -I: t S w ter• st also too• aoo roo sao +woo "1 X am Imo Iwo z G E F t • .� t : 1 TR. ACRE 4444 t t p 2804 Oft 4 2100 1 J R - t ; { `a..e•... 41 � trot I .Iw i„ • q0 �iraJrc...r��4�i a i 3T11E[T` ti 2 i i 2je+•+ `.ii'•,�„ 1 '-f iwa .••I—at0 .f t of # r aor t t > 1 a a LEEPY HOLLOW 4100 tt.i a INP ••• .1100 •. ii 4t • AI.N 2200 1 Ii •O� 4403 2002 240 ste• � p,o n VWXA 70 tow t 4 + �,,, Kt w• tt^� 3 IH 2400 u_ 4402 1 AREA BE ANMEM4 2 {•O u "68 • tt�q 2 :i 2363 go" 1w Ty■//�. .MIr. HW . � � •�� ~ t- 114s w r.4a. 2 � • •• m � 1!W �' u • . FL2 Wig Q •u°,°.. j t g� tar IJ IY 1rD0 � to M JIr t4N 2 �- 22N /•tl M YrM w. f 5 1 T X414 $ •�•� POAFFLE REST c, 11987- . .G` •- - --- PROPOSAL NO. 2260 CITY OF T•IGARD ANNEXATION FIGURE 2n Proposal No. 2260 SW Ifo SW 1/4 SECTION 36 TIS R 1 W WK Is 1 36 CC x"WigT"court*0"W" t SCKE P•Door ARRA In u s' SW urn STREET aoo :oo no M YM !IM 11.iw 23 -66 - • y'� � `� •` � TIGARD 23-8 a �. *01 soft 01. loo - , r. • E� ,r��"1,ac t AC, !EE r.► TIGARO 1 IS 1 36 CC . PROPOSAL NO. 2260 CITY OF TIGAM ANRM11CN FIGURE 20 Proposal N 2260. NEIl4 SEV4 SECTION 35 TIS RIW WM IS f 35C wwftta cow"oatcat r.tod x " } ' rr ------ ----� 23-64 14. - - 371 ' elm1 . t 2 68na ,t ORAMAM - - u�►to IM sw no I ,, j� .ays AtjE;7ZGEFj� ACRE ft 23-64 _ A C „ ~ — TRACT ` 23-63 — too M f. � amS fir'., �t � aq . a00 . Irr BLK� � } _. ttt O.► M ISM t/a1 Ir • _ :. � j w 1041 f, yno TIGARD —68 ata a{f + Will 10W t ( NrIm t j YM MbM- �sgp ftp ! 23-81 to~ N/ no �Nt ftp J.Y ..Yt ♦ p M now [pis \ TIGARD is I T!• PROPOSAL NO. 2260 CITY OF TIGARD FIGURE 2p 60 Proposal N SE IA NE LK SECTION 35 T I S RI W WIL Is IM stc _ x s w ~ 4 an of M a" am PINE -s ' STFdEu F M a ' w ff� w ya • �.. w N law w wr --W-, M T •Z fG E R TIGAM -- ,. AIM Im as ={ 4 _ 1 a • SPRUCE tit •• •.� fTNEET x x � ffta fms sff, faef7. s art � A • i� f A aM, ut -- -TNWW St . • ' � 3 A.�=rte.•Z i • i — A � C nff � fa '� s � f+� .�'s'. � C C+� `:-7—til— it L aff ass r s afff s ,1 _` >•� Lf1U eft t -. --ff�•— 23 lu �x MFOSn NO. 2260 MY OF TIGARD A[NEXM(M FIG= 2q 22tou Pro' Posal -sW V4 WEIA SECrIOM 35 TAS R I W WU an ;W 5 i 300 am .YhY �. sm awa t � e Ana= !t x i r H H R i7 G j ¢ i Xr� 1+� • � « ' 1 r� t AA vas � r i t OF TIGM ' _i F a ------------ Proposal NoZ2, 460 5E!l4SWIh4;;SECT(ON M TIS-i21W ';WAA. IS-1 :Down naEaeM .. $CALK r.Cw' 1#n AM TO;JS Mum J 3 it t O O K ,p an imp r� J ! i sa.oe► // ��" ...... i �. 1 r � /f y.; • 3W. aN,►OY LANE Hrr 1 t,w s+ r� ! ! !/ 40 (W imam -25 �i- posAt Na y21- n t iff - - - - (, { "W NE W {e SECTION ='35 :TIS Rtw--WK IS µ 'm r ,wl -QII�Y1 .i _ t 1 t 1ALL- .10 , t it �a mai � 1 , 1 • 1 11 I I •� 1 1 1 , 9 ,$ 5; t 1 ,1 1 1 t 1 , 1 4 ( �' • y aM , •' 1 s` .': .�rL.i.�a..«.j..7...r;.:7L.pj..J..f.�K. .w-y..�..:...•.R...:i..Ar..l..rL..*—..—a.aAn,.. , 5 tMf -_a:nww. et.00UST T J. it ANNERD • 1 t 1 �' ♦ � i�.�. 1 .yam �� - t '4t �li�r�ir.•'�+'S:.1tTa.., «� !M ,...,er.��.�. � A.. :. .. J`' / i aw11.r i) z� w.t 41p- 1 Also AIR Higull _ ■ /!� �! Iiia Uzi. res* ,_ _ - 1 it r 1 am Nil nii:F ►�►��+� I'll 1usw 3 t�itsh'�� ii :�' �:� •ftif . ��Ir.,--�'��!t �•,�� ,`' atl rs.� � ..1� �� tw ,. ♦� - III IYtIR4. �_. r I !� dye �• ��-. liittlttlti"r► fl "'r�i r"i.Mli'�' .+' ,-=r' i riu"I lo�..1i� I: .S�aid ..5�'t �1 s flit '�hili .r. r.nt•+ /iiliii111; Y=I Miw rr�'� ai "UP-1111W-11131 '1115'.'' tN -j r all .1lnftftttftONI fittli Gfl■ tiil f � i°a�f-s'(0 'p ll11f •pfilftil•It11 Y� .■ ■■I','1' all is l silo". .. iii Ilf { � ' • k i'ly� t �� i.a•a€••rir.�� M i ':� I,•r 1 ►R ■' f1/Y(t j.ftt82tfftitttl�' •l.. r.11.-- S'ti'i ■�1 r11 � ►� w �Yi - ,$�j�, ' ��en+tiitt��: ��!ai:::��'.:�:■ ::�rt{rniiiw��s_��:' SiHE Im2■r w fie. _ •.r .w�� \I wrw ii111181 SYtE==A w w ■ �`� - mom w Ilillli. � =C �� y�N�� y w rw eww *r"•�fF� '.'•i �� l♦it f�ei � �:�E i1��. it Ell r. l% Er r •� \ a -� l.T r!�ar w is ■tr w.t+■ 1.�' I� ON L11*:�Irr-"_ii i i'.ar�Y■1yrt t�l liii.tA' w so :i:.+. ww��+rllilil=��il��`��flfiff� w t}oti rw�r r Ali"'iti�i �Mj t SII �'�rr(r`if.�arf r '� i ff iiNitil♦1 r W��.�«r ri+•iTi w.. I lij 11I s M r E �1E+�Com!NOW .� rrr rr'+w�•�r�r + � L f e Y= I ` .F4 " t \ .I I* or W .. = � art• ;I /may/r a � f ter ...;j� r �•��.r ~ ��/ �`�i�,' .�_ C 1 INA mw r Adrd wig PC •,� �.�' , �� - "'�,r,�-ref,._ .l� on rld / ir r� 1083 URBAN f ., . . PLANNING AREAARZA OF INTEREST �- ACTIVE PLANNING AM �j i Pr mat . Jig'lc ! CIN ► T o at < < • &w" <a OEN M gyp'' RD - '1 \NE'r �iRJtt !'t.A �.M. Ni OR _ OLL .., I c RIDGE Ta s ; .w. R S. CA i� TER OAS EN �S.w. yA� y ANAL= R .i » =w ? r wCLPH s a W. ! Plir -coup �A '' M O LMA T & . NSTWAIIE S.W.MA! Res opo ,m R,,•� � w OAVIEf RD u t;w [t 00 INT S.W.GREENw Ar w.NO '• i rQj 41A 1.LIM FIRwOOD iu ��.'' � +'S' ESLIEAP1 �N S.W �•�SINOTo S.W.LESL1 2.S.W.SEA � -7" , 3.S.W.SETTS CT S' t +a; , 4.S.W.BEA 00 C ir7 S: ivaQ� y w^ h w... cT s.s.w.TRAIL PL s.w. <FL 1. 6.S.W.TRAIL Q CT llg s�, . , L,: F Q ; ..• cr SOMAR S.W.TAY ORS HRR1� 411E N C ASNI QT S ArV�t�r/ CEDAR REST <CM S.W.BIRCH I sT SNOT !G Cf S;� �T r� S.W.CEOA4 it S S.W. set[� a `9 �L __ AM SAWS. T OR DL=Ct BOERS , s.w __ a sT !1! 1 a wiLil a s W. ROBINSON W. LOWANI s,Rc NEMIL K•ST 1 - +pELCH S.W. T S,W tA11 sT " CT to o c CORAL q ___s_T_ ' 9 METZGE c eTF LOCUST � ST > a+ w Locu T m a I.LEAF jS ton, IIEAPI LEAP ' i.w. OAK S.W.OAK z i► DSTit l scho i 1L1. Op A t. ft RAT `i < PO a ct .__ -- ►RiN °�° x N•"` ��' la t1i06N ; s.W.THORN � D^< AMM is L TA of T • wr ~S.W. ST r S �, ST S.W.R1AN MIOTH LW.NORTH D TA Zi PL ST.o s N. NORTH DAKOTA T•• W.11 ;^ AR' S.W.tURLHEI Ts `+� '' '4 4" ; wl. ssrlEa IIMEII �4e m sW. T . 0 TT LEWIS a ..t •� !ST Dui_ �� S, C trP/��.• � PROPOSAL NO. 2260 CITY OF"TIGARD ASH CREEK-MM. SQ. DRAINAGE DISTRICT FIGURE S t Proposal No R - itlt CREiTa000 ST � LAI f wl s Ia MOatSTEAO 1 LANE I� lY/!O� la OOO�IM ' —� Sal LES uc ST. it SaN a oil j ♦:�s`j:?e::tii ti��l•LrC e � � a .z , S.. . "t s;v:' 'v��G:'�j•ry ' � t `c E• .iv. e��f`��.i—I �J �� .f.r,�'fl~+�w'�PS ..•�e„�!f}y'-'�•�/r:•r! 1 � �._ S"`e. ,�ycX'.e, a ::,a, <toaa l.�>--t--t••I f ^t r�f.,+,!!•fl.y �.t. S � � �,Yj �� r. .o-e:� w, � ! s. i it ,�'«�a'•a i§ ` *-..?• ' A d•' ' �' ,ra.. ~< �.;,r.�Y r�L I Lot'.?, L � `•�'� .H r �� •mar. v ��-s yi: s,.� S •.��.. tRCwl .i� �-a:'•a�t `�.r3-�=�s ii•.s. .-�=::vr;,`!y �u ry.';."c �v... t .a.',ate ':'sai •:s`•t'1'w'•.•t� � �r � r,; ..r°t :r. ,,. c.+w u etwa<asr n � < 1 � M• �_ 1 hall 4ri �..y A♦R I t j sa071 wRoaRs sTRter 1 < AREA TO BE 'Ia I I H ANNEXED / 1 _. 1 ii • t Sa w� CO—RAL�i�1 fTR[t7 26 x s s=.....; PROPOSAL BOUNDARY BEAVER'TCN-TIGARD JOINT BOUNDARY AREA OF DIFFERENCE PROPOSAL NO. 2260 CITY OF TIGARD DIFFERENCGE BETWEEN PROPOSED ANNEXATION & BFAVEUM-TIGARD JOINT BOUNDARY FIGURE 6 84 4M14M THE ppEtit7 am.TUESDAY.JULY 22.1906 WEST METRO nnexation hearin Me Panel ma expend Ti'�ard a '7 t4�b wea"t trbe a rtmrosrbstlor for x lira� V&!z the eelotrt,Wirth stsleb."At �bytyb°dee�l�y� anoau ped pQv y0�10E11RIulMRiTON curd)we get to a later the titse 13k repaR b beteg 1 8 appal: b W aero u mee6 information AM Lad S MnOa aW tiK Ibe awawr...itee)celled tLef wtiaN pre "Toe : pa a and you 1� "�'M' WAY am M had W reommaedoN to for b antes to tM city of T%srd ria a separate ad to a aumy PaPte aid."It's lotnMry Ceetstisgan usut��NM—i rtnlbwt tit ioetfn0 so several tiraartatoa, tripbr ojoeltyamenwta." owt't b ffiai ld two weeb,"Roberts motor j� wbr.altsd!<be had received aMiraudin not as Baty thing to explain to tomeoue who gable heoring act for TiarMq sa Ile p qo d td04 ahem tie ttfbt lifhnate Ot opidan� gra in St.Lads what is going on In Metzger. dad ihu fatnttdnrMa gar die aaatuar.At last fox dif• tram No repreteatadva that they would ped It'r mot a reel qukk record t aatOseelaa fly Tlgad ab tin Wteger/womm oa IOSW htaeitrisure tavOsrd by vwiws tacslusc tla for asessttea4 us*alai."1"It think it Waaidagtae County,Oregon Square was be otuthasl arab Aft 21. vra 100 paoest axe.tilt that Certainly seemed tom" regions Tie nsotwaeadOuoa by Ren Ua.11s wen eta- tie put SWOON� tie to be the way tiny wen letafag" By the Aug.21 hearieg,boundary Commission FVeat t! ` fele!r a i/pyt staff tgeA ren the iaedoty b tigtrd 'tin Rask)Bard C"attorney.aid Mooday stet!may submit a recommendation for approve) The ttsuaimlea titee was haemeb ptlM. q derrtole+tx ne geed petl snort AM NeiCbM M tie raplut was ter abMwry dsa IN Metw resident bei flood.the MCttsger that mal �� 01r would be Ukely that the staff would come meedol rtsa ws rooasae A w pier CeCmanigr Riau booaYr1 ad* tew�i own With a teoommeedatbn on that by then," The Nape y� � as pstp frj pstllfoatea win do as wet hold a npedal are�i at fc90 pm Tuesday es Eaviroa tM 6a a" itethag i Cat tee• wimme marl t would as Ca a prddoe if mall maaagemeat gloUlaotid on the hferUe rated that one error appears Includes etd is a of the aruttndea,toting a Awdw hefar in WOW$f0c"Madatktt r ll= auud M Aug.18 being cityami � " one the kaeh M araWhk Information on tie "fie last thins 1 heard Was,'lost need a mach fist pee of the teeth•� Uoo Petition for tee d err Opinion N tot no m um Ne am be dme a we an get so tldat about it'"Rteofs the deli day don the a prauthors Pe' �ppaot� was degrCxed W boundary authorities,the date portlaoC 'ihe 7lxrity tardg w81 be ieig at Tllg p m lief intaawtlao to ke prnvibd to tie sold. should rad Sept.18.7be boundary oommiaaton one Rema the Multnomah be I Mat 7 111PJL ammitiau dnuO tsphtaey ci the pabtic tear• Ron Roberta.general Mager sod vitt alai• most eel m petidana within g0 days of their sub- CBD,Is In Iare.1021 Shp. aFmwftM�l Ave.l3 owrdalL R the log"d by brtlx frau Mm malty mmt�who dmf of the I22•acte shopping teeter.emphasized howa. Tse err agro wRh b b of low dw heat• the time factor In an interview Monday.Roberts Wind that he found"no specific gbo• oothetV boOdonsude s.a toadsmat n wabb man ten• Ala rtted err,etoea for adluatog the hotag :cid sal ataeegers phmned to keep their optkms atony ala would be accepted at the was the l fy of a� mon to open a long a poadide.but he add he d' not Ing taemai her pa(O any materials submitted by Cod site tit niNisoet by Ws�a$gmnt par aumts• expect to be able to obtain all of the signs• 77gard or ashes pardCw for the commission report. fain Ro River a Aorgmt ede Riv Went DirectComeous memo I memo I `��__... fir"r. shouman pleads cousid conddet innocent c OM The Maim—ON of two ides. has D" can atlaa4 totesed of being part of a grant I '"�. gnat►d 12 run who taped toe 1S of Tra C all w �P adet itin ly and • � WtNgr ht waYhtgtoa Caaty C4'abt .N CirrL �T ag,I,And Soo*they were '. Frt Repowarns ofgreater rural road costs � o :Bat an toomaL which eaverton _w aaiaaaoAa«til atesiai aAi esBaeae oasis iadro m PD'"ere ter ince. the 1207 per dwelllog 1 sit !testae D arts director * TM prlarM4 paler!coves we*W Now l k• ��-i ce Owners Marlon No It1LL4 D—H nmsd IYaf1ilBlAt Ossnty red 1°airnl4aeateWtat WR tu:km aierperIn DOIeM 4=01 zed that molt information on is g !laid ear fWEOa goes on leave dA�a� « to«• '"'"r'`rraldae10 tataaa weeks", amseind/etp. sties la tI a c to team e� �° and in the"out, local roprda the Dual wBl be six thus gntbr tray N .is terb lase tains=W " aerobe district for roodu—and a comparable _ they a oxssty ei diNdct Ont ail Yabla aa� saodt you.CovernbW raft theueet Plnence t i6°ald mold district far it presented to b�the am on showed up to the tv00 Us 16M AM, teal :�ROlt�yOLetOs subarbabomeavrom I'he Hcown& dferst BEAYERTON—Tie oBiarder Of the PreF�th eMeeW oone"Iss oanslMass o* &wool sus lar.dsgrAdmad time Qov�sart FISSION AswelMes bm.for N as away wee Island by a county arvlee ie. Par a isle.he notal.runt areas my ferns a axpeose•Peld wedding and Beesata Arts Comrdos received tint WAdmhmgtos Casrty DepafttmAm«Ental lfa and tefct—atlas Ila creatine had hese Apptovsi by lab mairtenamce level that keeps roads In'fair"u eymooa to na confit the :the Cly Coondl's bat wI"Monier T mapwu*L The reedy wo he prwaad Twomey the 11*11aed/ktrepolitaa Ara Loaf Car UUM Mod is"good"condition and thus reduces,main• et their asteb t and Dight a it approved a yeaPa lace of p the each Bard Of Camel eisum Bestiary Commission no by rates—the coat tAiu=Coda. the euemuey dm Mch aboom to esab10 her M saw with the The MW&Aa A tree sited M downing how world be$74 It y�Per OoaseboY ti she new do- the iactmr latera into account by the Government and Deleon told key thou! -National Endowment for the Arts �it wggij east to qIy bpi reade—solobar. trkt Wisd a am vice charge ear hoadid4 meth a Ffeance teaks that ha tat been iaduded to over for two weeks beton i :I Dula Program 10 Waahims10s,D Cg d[a a 10 edrmtpxme4 AsbsrMr move and fist bsiM by the flnitkd Sewerage Agary b aper tonxet oxamty roes fioAace ProP�k la the total cast log to have their wedding, Emma Barnett will regrrs to the qd ,trave4ei rmsal(sada pclmmBy tirew�—eP tbtteat�d Pip sad UN&Mea d hr[sgbig the 1.200 rnik system into Bond condi- Red Sleet. •commission Post upon completion of to e°nmy staodaedr and to maintain these Is good 1t the N diarist was divided into ntamoam rise .her year's work with the national coaditift and reef arae—b nose coenh'fesAkeu burs To rash tbla goal the county would have to$Pend Brass plates sho :tnodingorpudutkn. About hslt of Waddngum Cosmy's 1,200.31110 atnoate4 the we would very dra y—a between$11.3 million sad$13.5 million ouch year ' Jack Brune,who aorta in mayor tom suburban household and$207 per n by v tarry D.Cole's office,will serve u erstat 10 tdassiHd a"brei"f0�'the taBa� sash u$42 per between row asci 1991.the wnaltsot3 determined. PORTLAND— P d whkh is tarn 4 spot mnlq**a bailee s real Atter 1991,with the system in good sbW,only of the bra P� m i :interim commission director.devoting urban and runt areas The raadit foods Is the The disparity would be soused by the grater 1171lmOlanper year(Ad�for inflstioa)would be EagUsh knights and marc Z half bar time to the arta commtsdos county system ore cubes atter10l a esaieuast reads etmber of people 10 suburban areas—110.000 vs. needed to h thus way. display hoped to be remembered n Barnett will make weekly coda- which at present carry 93 WNW of the t AML 2Q�0001n recd ata—Richard A.Daniels,county d St James Luti once calla to help give dbectbn Int the A priority policy agop�i by as nonny loud otlfle4ar d land use end traarperrutioa Bated.Aka, The countyboard tentatively h scheduled to move Cb ch.1315 S.W.Park Ave eomm wows rations programa.But, i Aug.as 5 by b Barnet told the conndl,mad of the cD°antratea rad Tussis the county sow hos— be aid,gavel reads are more egefa ive to maintain forward oo the service dWA,.t concept Vlofos Can snake rubbia derived[tans stat!motor vakle ad gasoline tax Ilia paved roads. directing thebDanish to prepare as ion. fc feasibility �stylized deigns etched i .lpognms planned by the oommWion may.Phu the ommty's 4 rata pet•Sali s W tax Eves though rural residents have expressed a report for the bcou dory commission. baa.Rubbings Are made by dog101 :are already is shape.Iocludag the rob paper over the with A si annus!gala Showcase'90,to be bell Cra//� �i'� rubbing the plate with A sl :is the faB. ■ M�i�N ksn ar�� selects developer Hillsboro panel ;on�° �na the m« : Connie L.P.oWs bard o,president d the eommisdm's bmN d direceora thplan Materials w mate the told the council that the board hated to bine range In psis from$3. 1 :see Burgett go but It thought the emu NAlf0YANN LOFGAEN abs,t d the City Cound4 for said Councilman Richard Devlin. t? ear $12.50,said Richard A. Et •Washington,D.C.assignment would a final vote Monday.July 26.it Is Pacific Rim Development Corp.box for care center direetorolthelasdonBrans y( :be"a vroaderf°I opportuolty"tat her. TUAL►TIN—City offfdals voted seamed the mmmi"m will approve developed orae flue 4,120.000 square bins Centro of W°sbiugton, Burnet wil%work with Robert Can- aaAoimously Monday to choose A fuse the allec"dace fou of seven aur- feet of retail and 300.000 square Ice'of HILLSBORO—The Planning Com- Proceeds will help maintain nos,a former arta group coliague d California company to turn about i di member served co the Interview office space in Its 27-year history.The restore the English chs / -hers from San Anww%Taxes.Cum saes d mostly vacant lad downtown committer company's credit with F7tst laterstate misaloa will consider a request Tues housing the original brasses, C," :Is director of the National Endow• into the Village Square. The committee Also interviewed A Bank of California exceeds$100 0311- day to Pave the way for development Etches,who brought the ex meat's lanais Programs,which assist Members of the City CouaciL the smaller caapany.Northwest Commer- icon,according to portfolio informA- of a two.and three-story congregate to Portland. dates and cities in funding local Arts Urban Rmewai Advisory Cemmiftee, aid Develop west Co.of Tuslstin.It tion.it has developments in Cal forolL care center for the elderly in down- city staff and an arddted"Omni. plagued an Islas view C.omisey Group Oregom.Utah And Nevada.The Oregon town Hillsboro. P Fat tae flat time 10 my terse[.1 tent voted to remaggend Pad&Rim iac dP umano.CABi»bat thatomt- developments are a 100,dd0-square- The commission meets at 7:30 p.m. Into Fri toot project f°McMinnville and lar City Hatt 205 S.E.Second Ave. County to sue bo, -will be giving away money,rather Development Corp.of She Reason, pay wlOdrew Its ePpBrabou Developers of the care center want :than trying to Sather It la"Burgett Calif.The special oaR received bad me day.mq* received soother devet- 94.000-square toot project m Graham. VANCOUVER, Wash. �the coundl for almost seven hours in a dosed. Opaatdler. Urban Rae"Manager Jeff Tash- ac build a y a full complex o°here ClarkMond County pursue u de Councilwoman Carol Angstman execadve seaiaa. "PAdfie Ala has the expertise,the man said be hoped the city would enter arra,nearly a be city block,where Monday to pursue a salt erg Mnal Bald she war worried that the Their recommendation will be experiesa and the nuacial capability into a contract by next spring.cod. 70 omits would be allowed it recently Washington Correc requested zoning is approved,as commission d ractoes position would brought to the Lvvdepmeut Commis- to sake the YfBAge Square A reality." eluding 11 ran d planning. 6 requested Hood,to seek to stetted only part-time.She aid die i expected Its decision tri week trod it the eommdsios's work A moue change war requested Ise do the county from expAr would be Able to survive vmda those ' wed before the PlAseia and Zoning