The URL can be used to link to this page

City Council Packet - 12/29/1986 T I G A R D C I T Y C O U N C I L SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES — DECEMBER 29, 1986 — 5:42 P.M. 1. ROLL CALL: Present: Council President, Tom Brian; Councilors: Carolyn Eadon, Jerry Edwards, and Valerie Johnson; City Staff: Bob Jean, City Administrator; Bill Monahan, Community Development Director; Jill Monley, Community Services Director; Tim Ramis, Legal Counsel; and Loreen Wilson, City Recorder. 2. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council met in Executive Session at 5:42 p.m. under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d) & (h) to discuss labor relations and current/pending litigation issues. SPECIAL MEETING 6:12 p.m. 3. CALL TO STAFF AND COUNCIL FOR NON—AGENDA ITEMS a. City Administrator Jean noted, for the record, that Maycr Cook was not in attendance at the meeting due to illness. 4. ZONE CHANGE ANNEXATION ZCA 8-86 ALBERTSONS' INC. NPO M6 A request by the City of Tigard to forward an annexation proposal consisting of 19.04 acres to the Portland Metropolitan Area Local Government Boundary Commission. Also, to assign the Development Area designation and to change the zoning on the property as follows: Washington County City of Tigard Tax Map Tax Lots Zoning — Zoninq- 2S1 150A 200, 300, 400 R 25+ R 40 2S1 15A 2800, 2802, 2900 s, 3000, 3001, 3002 R 24 R 25 The property is located on the east side of Pacific Highway and south of Durham Road and west of SW 113th Ave. 16120 SW Pacific Highway, 16270 SW Pacific Highway, 16265 SW 113th, 11430 SW Durham, 11480 SW Durham, and 11400 SW Durham (WCTM 2S1 15BA Tax Lots 200, 300, and 400; and 281 15A Tax Lot 2800, 2802, 2900, 3000, 3001, and 3002.) a. Public Hearing Opened b. Council President Brian commented that the State of Oregon does not require public hearings on resolutions of annexation; however, the City of Tigard's policy is to hold a public hearing. C. Councilor Eadon declared that she would not take part in the discussion or vote on ZCA 8-86 due to a conflict of interest. d. Community Development Director Monahan summarized the events to date on this annexation request resubmittal. More specifically, with the current decision on the State's annexation law by the Oregon Court of Appeals, the Boundary Commission voted to deny the annexation request p` since it was originally submitted as a triple majority annexation. He noted the application was consistent with the City's Urban Planning Area agreements. Page 1 — COUNCIL MINUTES — DECEMBER 29, 1986 ?>: 3301, 3302, 3303, 3304, 3400, 3401, 3402, 3403, 3404, 3500, 360303C1701I 35AD Lots 900, 901, 1000, 1100, 1101, 1102, 1103, 1301, 2000. 2001, 2100, 2101 2200, 1702, 1703, 1705, 1706, 1800, 1801, 1900' 2300, 2301, 2302, 2303, 2401, 2402, 2403, 2404, 2405, 2500, 2501, 2502, 2503, 2504, 2505, 2700, 2800, 2900, 3000, 3100, 3200; WCTM ISI 3 5AA Lots 401, 500, 590, 600, 800, 802, 8034 804, 805, 806, 900, 901, 902, 903, 904, 1301 1400, 1900, 1901, 905, 1000, 1001, 1002, 1100, 1101, 1102, 1200' 3703, 3704, 3705, 3800, 2O0Q, 2500, 2600, 2700, 3600, 3700. 3701, 3702, 3900, 3901, 3902. 4000, 4100, 4101, 4200,90010; 0 T S1 5 100, 90001, 90002, g�200. 90004, 90005. 90006. 90007, 90008, 90009, 300, 400, " '10, 600, 700, 800, 900 1900, 2000. 2100, CB 1 , 20 2300, - ; 2400, 2401; -w�TM 1Si 36CC Lots 300, 400; WLTM 1S1, 36CB 100, 200, 202, 203, 204, 205 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 300, 301. 400, 401, 500, 501,502, 503, 504, 700. 701, 790. 890, 900, 1000, 1300. 1400. 1500, 1600, 1700, 1800. 1900, 2000 2100, 2200, 2300, 2400, 2500, 2600, �• 00, 2700, 2800, 2900, 3000, 3100, 3200, 3300, 3400, 3500, 3600, 3700. 38 3900, 4000, 4100, 4200, 4300, 4400, 4500, 4600, 4700, 4800, 4900, 5000, 5500, 5600, 5700, 5100, 5200, 5300, 5400, 5800, 5900, 6000, 6100, 6200, 6300, 6400, 6500, 6600, 6700, 6800, 6900, 7000, 7100, 7200. - 7300. 7400, 7500, 7600. 7700. 7800. 7900, 8000, 8100, 8200, 6300, 8400, '8500. 8600, 8700, 8800, 8900, 9000. 9100, 9200, 9300, 9400. 9500. 9600; 05WCTM S12206A Lots 100, 1600, 1601, 1700, 1800 2100, 2201. 2202, 2203, 2204, 2207, 2208, 2209, 2300, 2400, 2500, 2700 2800. 2900, 3000, 3100, 3200. 3300, 3301, 3500, 3600, 3700, 3800, 3900, 4000, 4100, 4201, 4300, 4400, 4500. 4600. 4700. 5600. 5700, 5800, 5900, 6000, 6100, 6900, 7000, 7100; WCTM 1S1 3608 Lots 600, 700, 800, 900, 1000, 1100, 1200, 1300. 1400, 1500, 1600, 1700, 1800, 1900, 2000, 2100.6 200, 300 , 8�3SI 36AD�L04 WCTM ots100, 00, 200, 300, 400, 500, 501, 600, 601, , 4001, 4100, 4400, 4500, 4600, 4700, 4800, 4900, 5000, 5100, 5200, 5300, 5400, 5500, 5600, 5700; WCTM !S! 36AA Lots 2200, 2201; WCTM 1S! 36AC Lots 3800, 3801, 3900.) o Public Hearing Opened o Declarations Or Challenges a Summation By Community Development Director o Public Testimony: ey PCommunitysDe elopment, Cross 0irectorx�ination a Recommendation a Council Questions Or Comments o Public Hearing Closed n/JO as map amended a Consideration By Council - Resolution Na. 86-140 g3-0-1 Ed Abstained 5, NON-AGENDA ITEMS: From Council and Staff 6. ADJOURNMENT 9:00 P-m- lw/4461A PAGE 2 COUNCIL AGENDA - DECEMBER 29, 1986 - 71 Q. Public Testimony - No one appeared to speak. f. The Community Development Director recommended that the annexation be initiated by Council and be forwarded to the Boundary Commission. g. Councilor Johnson asked who would be responsible for the payment of the filing fee with the Boundary Commission. Community Development Director Monahan said Albertsons' has agreed to pay the actual costs of the processing of this application. A record will be kept of all costs; Albertsons' has deposited $3,000 for the Comprehensive Plan changes. h. Public Hearing Closed. i. RESOLUTION NO, 86-139 A RESOLUTION INITIATING ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF TIGARD OF THE TERRITORY OUTLINED IN EXHIBIT "A" AND DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT "B" ATTACHED (ALBERTSONS' INC, ZCA 8-86). J . Motion by Councilor Johnson, seconded by Councilor Edwards, for the adoption of Resolution 86-139 with the additional condition that the costs of both the staff time and filing fee be borne by the applicant. Approved by a 3-0-1 vote of Council with Councilor Eadon abstaining. S. ZONE CHANGE ANNEXATION ZCA 20-86 SOUTH METZGER NPO 02 i 4 A request by the City of Tigard to forward an annexation proposal to the Portland Metropolitan Area Local Government Boundary Commission. The property is located on the east side of Highway 217, 6 south of Hall Blvd. , Locust and Spruce Streets, 6 west of the Multnomah County Line, 6 north of Highway 99W and Pfaffie Street. (WCTM 1S1 26C Lots 100, 200, 300, 400, 401, 402, 1107, 1108, 1109, 1300, 1301, 1302, 1303, 1401, 1403, 1700, 1900; WCTM 1Si 26DB Lot 1300; WCTM 1S1 26DC Lots 900, 901, 902, 1000, 1001, 1002, 1003, 1004, 1005, 1006, 3100, 3200, 3300, 3301, 3302, 3500, 3600, 3700, 3701, 4100, 4200, 4400, 4500, 4600, 4601, 4602, 4700, 4701, 4800, 4801, 4900, 5000, 5100, 5101; WCTM 1S1 35BA Lots 100, 101, 1802; WCTM 1S1 35AC Lots 2900, 3000, 3100, 3200, 3300, 3400, 3500, 3600, 3900, 4000, 4100, 4200, 4300; WCTM 1S1 358D 100; WCTM 1S1 35AB Lots 100, 202, 203, 204, 400, 500, 501, 600, 700, 701, 702, 800, 801, 900, 901, 1000, 1002, 1003, 1004, 2800, 2901, 3200, 3201, 3202, 3203, 3205, 3300, 3301, 3302, 3303, 3304, 3400, 3401, 3402, 3403, 3404, 3500, 3600; WCTM 1S1 35AD Lots 900, 901, 1000, 1100, 1101, 1102, 1103, 1301, 1302, 1303, 1701, 1702, 1703, 1705, 1706, 1800, 1801, 1900, 2000, 2001, 2100, 2101, 2200, 2300, 2301, 2302, 2303, 2401, 2402, 2403, 2404, 2405, 2500, 2501, 2502, 2503, 2504, 2505, 2700, 2800, 2900, 3000, 3100, 3200; WCTM 1S1 35AA Lots 401, 500, 590, 600, 800, 802, 803, 804, 805, 806, 900, 901, 902, 903, 904, 905, 1000, 1001, 1002, 1100, 1101, 1102, s' 1200, 1301, 1400, 1900, 1901, 2000, 2500, 2600, 2700, 3600, 3700, 3701, 3702, 3703, 3704, 3705, 3800, 3900, 3901, 3902, 4000, 4100, _ 4101, 4200, 90000, 90001, 90002, 90003, 90004, 90005, 90006, 90007, 90008, 90009, 90010; WCTM 1S1 35DA 100, 200, 300, 400, 500, 600, 700, 800, 900 1900, 2000, 2100, 2200, 2202, 2300, 2400, 2401; WCTM 1S1 36CC Lots 300, 400; WCTM 1S1, 36CB 100, 200, 202, 203, 204, 205 206, ' 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 2124 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 300, 301, 400, 401, 500, 501, 502, 503, 504, 700, 701, 790, 890, 900, 1000, 1300, 1400, 1500, Page 2 - COUNCIL MINUTES - DECEMBER 29, 1986 1600, 1700, 1800, 1900, 2000 2100, 2200, 2300, 2400, 2500, 2600, 2700, 2800, 2900, 3000, 3100, 3200, 3300, 3400, 3500, 3600, 3700, 3800, 3900, 4000, 4100, 4200, 4300, 4400, 4500, 4600, 4700, 4800, 4900, 5000, 5100, 5200, 5300, 5400, 5500, 5600, 5700, 5800, 5900, 6000, 6100, 6200, 6300, 6400, 6500, 6600, 6700, 6800, 6900, 7000, 7100, 7200, 7300, 7400, 7500, 7600, 7700, 7800, 7900, 8000, 8100, 8200, 8300, 8400, 8500, 8600, 8700, 8800, 8900, 9000, 9100, 9200, 9300, 9400, 9500, 9600; WCTM 1S1 36CA Lots 100, 1600, 1601, 1700, 1800 2100, 2201, 2202, 2203, 2204, 2205, 2206, 2207, 2208, 2209, 2300, 2400, 2500, 2700 2800, 2900, 3000, 3100, 3200, 3300, 3301, 3500, 3600, 3700, 3800, 3900, 4000, 4100, 4201, 4300, 4400, 4500, 4600, 4700, 5600, 5700, 5800, 5900, 6000, 6100, 6900, 7000. 7100; WCTM 1S1 36DB Lots 600, 700, 800, 900, 1000, 1100, 1200, 1300, 1400, 1500, 1600, 1700, 1800, 1900, 2000, 2100, 2200, 2300; WCTM 1S1 36AD Lots 100, 200, 300, 400, 500, 501, 600, 601, 602, 603, 700, 800, 900, 1000, 4000, 4001, 4100, 4400, 4500, 4600, 4700, 4800, 4900, 5000, 5100, 5200, 5300, 5400, 5500, 5600, 5700; WCTM 1S1 36AA Lots 2200, 2201; WCTM 1SI 36AC Lots 3800, 3801, 3900.) a. Public Hearing Opened b. Councilor Edwards declared a conflict of interest with regard to the proposed Metzger annexation and would abstain from voting. C. Community Development Director summarized the events leading up to the proposal. The request was initiated by several residents of the affected area who came to the City following the November vote on the annexation of the entire Metzger community. Their request was for the City to initiate an annexation for a lesser area. Community Development Director noted a correction in the Council's packet: The resolution included a map showing more area than should be included, however, the boundary description was correct. Mr. Monahan illustrated to those present how the boundary should be drawn eliminating a portion of Highway 217. d. City Administrator highlighted points contained in his December 24, 1986 memorandum to the Mayor and City Council. (The memorandum is attached a made a part of the minutes.) 6. The City Administrator's remarks included the following: o The City has stated its willingness, on the record, to the County to work with the entire community within the Area of Interest to provide urban services either by contract with the County or upon annexation to the City. o The Urban Service Impact Analysis showed the City has the ability to provide urban services. The services particularly highlighted dealt with police, street maintenance, street lighting, sewers and storm drainage. I o The City's annexation policy towards the entire community is essentially unchanged. The reduced size of the current proposal is viewed as a step towards implementing the final annexation of the whole Metzger area which is consistent with the City's Urban Service Policy Goals and the Urban Planning Area Agreements with Washington County and City of Beaverton. . Page 3 - COUNCIL MINUTES - DECEMBER 29, 1986 f. Public testimony: Proponents o August Erdman, 7522 S.W. Oak Street, Tigard, (out of current annexation proposal area). Mr. Erdman stated fie has worked for many years to see the entire Metzger area in the City. o Reid Iford, 9970 S.W. Greenburg Road, Tigard, (in current annexation proposal area). He distributed some materials to the Council which were circulated by the "Committee of Concerned Metzger Residents." Mr. Iford stated that these flyers contained information which was untrue and cited examples. He further offered his support of the annexation. o Trudy Knowles, 10430 S.W. 82nd, Tigard, (out of current annexation proposal area). Ms. Knowles was in favor of the proposal and expressed her desire to have improved sidewalks and street lights. o Stanley W. Yansky, 10895 S.W. 82nd Avenue, Tigard, (in current annexation proposal area). Mr. Yansky voiced his favor to the proposal due to current inadequate police protection. He would like to see better street lighting and overall street improvements. o Harry Chase, 8365 S.W. Steve Street, Tigard, (in current annexation proposal area). Mr. Chase was in favor of the proposal noting the close proximity of the Metzger community to Tigard. This closeness in locale, he explained, would also equate to the responsiveness the Metzger residents could expect from the _ government in Tigard as opposed to the cities of Beaverton or Portland, or Washington County offices in Hillsboro. } o Cathy Chase, 8365 S.W. Steve Street, Tigard, (in current annexation proposal area) . She stated her children attend the Metzger School which is part of the Tigard School District, but is the only Tigard School which is not actually located in Tigard. She felt her children miss out on things because of not being in the actual City of Tigard. She also expressed concern about the existing level of police protection noting it was inadequate. o Dorothy Hirning, 6325 S.W. 90th, Tigard, (in current annexation proposal area). She stated that she was a property owner in the Metzger area along Spruce and Oak Streets. Ms. Hirning signed as proponent for the annexation, but stated she was attending the meeting "to see what's going on." o Herb Elsner, 10385 S.W. 87th Avenue, Tigard, (in current �. annexation proposal area). Mr. Elsner signed as a proponent, but did not wish to testify. o Don Lyon, 10440 S.W. 87th Avenue, Tigard, (in current annexation proposal area). Mr. Lyon stated he would support the annexation rather than depend upon County services which may be cut. o Louis Bondi, 10985 S.W. 82nd, Tigard, (in current annexation proposal area). Mr. Bondi was in favor of the annexation citing increased police protection and road improvements. He noted that police protection is now inadequate. Page 4 — COUNCIL MINUTES — DECEMBER 29, 1986 o Mary Bondi, 10985 S.W. 82nd, Tigard, (in current annexation proposal area). Ms. Bondi signed in as proponent, but declined to testify. o John S. Blomgren, 9460 S.W. Oak Street, Tigard, (in current annexation proposal area). He noted the traffic impact that Washington Square has created and stated he felt Washington Square was opposed to the annexation because they do not want to pay any city taxes. Mr. Blomgren stated the nearby residents should benefit by receiving street improvements and that the annexation to Tigard would make this possible. Mr. Blomgren was also in favor of another entry into Washington Square which would reduce the traffic congestion on Greenburg Road. o Marjory Haglund, 11075 S.W. Hall Boulevard, Tigard, (in current annexation proposal area). Ms. Haglund expressed her desire to annex as she felt there would be little chance of the area receiving help with needed improvements to Hall Boulevard without being a part of the City. o Leila Whitford, 11070 S.W. Hall Boulevard, Tigard, (in current annexation proposal area). She was in favor of the annexation but did not wish to give further testimony. o Dan 6 Linda Schiewetz, 10470 S.W. 67th Avenue, Tigard, (in current annexation proposal area). They signed in as proponents, but did not wish to give testimony at this time. o Roger Smith, 8935 S.W. Oak, Tigard, (in current anne, ation E proposal area). Mr. Smith stated he understood and empathizes with Washington Square's economic reasons for fighting the annexation proposal. He did contend there were strong reasons to believe that that those living in the area would benefit from the annexation. o Sheilah Kasten, 9885 S.W. Ventura Court, Tigard, (out of the current annexation proposal area). She stated she was in favor of the annexation. o Joe Kasten, 9885 S.W. Ventura Court, Tigard, (out of the current annexation proposal area). Mr. Kasten supported the annexatior. proposal to obtain improved roads, more responsive police protection, and the provision of city services at a reasonable cost. He stated he looked forward to this annexation of the South Metzger area and hoped it would be the first step in annexation of other Metzger areas. Mr. Kasten wanted Washington Square to accept the role as a responsible corporate citizen in the area. o John Judkins, 11207 S.W. 81st Avenue, Tigard, (in the current annexation proposal area). He stated said that Tigard could offer increased services, such as better road maintenance, excellent police protection, and improved schooling more economically. o Karen Ballard, 11235 S.W. 83rd Avenue, Tigard, (in the current annexation proposal area). Ms. Ballard signed as a proponent, but was not present to give testimony. Page 5 — COUNCIL MINUTES — DECEMBER 29, 1986 .r • i o W.A. & Vietta Earls, 11215 S.W. Hall Boulevard, Tigard, (in the current annexation proposal area) . Mr. Earls stated they were in favor of the proposal and would like to see a bike path along Hall Boulevard. o Gene Davis, 10875 S.W. 89th, Tigard, (out of the current annexation proposal area). He express his support of the annexation proposal and the amenities it would offer, including improved streets and street lighting. Mr. Davis stated this would enhance property values. Opponents o Terry Hauck, Attorney, 1600 Pacwest Center, 1211 S.W. Fifth Avenue, Portland. Mr. Hauck stated he was representing Washington Square, Inc. which was included in the proposed annexation area. He offered rebuttal comments to Mr. Iford's testimony concerning the amount contributed by Washington Square to the campaign (approximately $1,300). He stated the Square did not write the information which was published during the November election campaign period. Mr. Hauck noted the annexation costs would not be borne by the owners of Washington Square but that virtually all of the costs would be paid by the local merchants as real property taxes are paid through lease agreements. Mr. Hauck's noted that his client did not object to annexation as a! whole, but to the annexation of the Washington Square area. The objection was based on the increased costs for services that they do not require from the City of Tigard. The service that the Washington Square utilizes presently, that would be used from the City of Tigard, is police transport services from the Center to the retaining facilities. He advised Council that the current level of service provided was sufficient. Mr. Hauck cited examples of Washington Square's history of paying their share for substantial right-of-way dedication and development and off-site improvements. He further advised that Washington Square is participating in (and were instrumental in forming) a LID assessment for the Scholls/Hall signal light. This share was approximately $500,000. Mr. Houck addressed concerns with the adequacy of the staff report stating ii: was conclusionary and contained little factual information. . He questioned what the actual ratio of assessments were between the commercial and single-family properties and other figures in the memorandum from the City Administrator. Mr. Houck cited other figures which were published by the County. He expressed his concern that much of the information presented was bused on the presumption that special taxing districts would be formed to pay for certain urban services. Mr. Houck stated since there would be no change in the school district boundaries upon annexation this should not be considered a valid basis for approving the annexation. Page 6 - COUNCIL MINUTES - DECEMBER 29, 1906 Mr. Hauck further addressed concerns regarding the City's prior statements that no piecemeal annexation would take place nor would anyone who did not want to come into the City be annexed. Mr. Hauck stated he felt the City staff designed a district where there was approval at the November election and, basically, are trying to make a sham out of the concept, "one man, one vote." Since Washington Square does not have any residents in its boundaries the landowners and merchants would have no vote. Mr. Hauck did not see how it would be possible to lose an election with the gerrymandering of the boundaries. He stated that to send the proposal on to the Boundary Commission would be a breach of faith. Mr. Hauck said he did not feel the notice of this public hearing was calculated to give anyone a reasonable opportunity to be prepared. He stated that the proceedings were a violation of the agreement of September 9, 1986 and that the annexation proposal was a violation of the principle of fair dealing with the constituents within the City. o Mary Anderegg, 8512 S.W. Spruce, Tigard, (in the current annexation proposal area). She stated she did not wish to testify. o Arlie Ott, 8500 S.W. Spruce, Tigard, (in the current annexation proposal area). He relinquished his testimony time to a member of the CPO in his neighborhood. o Julie Mainz, 8100 S.W. Locust, Tigard, (out of the current annexation proposal area). She asked to see improvements in Metzger, but was not willing to "sell out the community" on the basis of promises that the City would "fix" Metzger's needs. o Richard W. Mainz, 8100 S.W. Locust, Tigard, (out of the current annexation proposal area). Mr. Mainz was opposed to the annexation and asked the Council to honor promises made before the November election that the City was opposed to piecemeal annexation. o Kevin Lapp, 8310 S.W. Pine Street, Tigard, (out of the current annexation proposal area). Mr. Lapp represented CPO N4 and asked that the record show that the following was the official CPO position on the annexation. "Due to the piecemeal nature of this annexation proposal and that ; this proposal shows little adherence to the full extent of Tigard's Urban Growth Boundary and that this proposal does not adhere to Metzger—Progress Community Plan General Design Element No. 22, we must disapprove of this proposal until such time as the 4. City Planning Department demonstrates efforts to involve CPO 4's general membership with the specifics in planning of this - proposal. This proposal contains areas of special concern, wildlife and, if development of these areas are not done in accordance (with) Washington County policies on growth management and code standards, the livability of our planning area will suffer. We feel this is not an unreasonable request." Page 7 — COUNCIL MINUTES — DECEMBER 29, 1986 o Jay Groshart, 8465 S.W. Pfaffle, Tigard, signed as an opponent but did not come forward to testify. o Bob McGuire, 8470 S.W. Pfaffle, Tigard, signed as an opponent but did not come forward to testify. o Thomas 0. Smith, 9930 S.W. 77th Avenue, Tigard, (out of the current annexation proposal area). He advised the Council of his opposition to the annexation due to the piecemeal nature of the request and stated he considered it gerrymandering. He questioned what effect this annexation proposal would have on the Metzger Park LID funding. a Geoffrey Byler, 10305, S.W. 87th, Tigard, (out of the current annexation proposal area). Mr. Byler was opposed to annexation and felt facts are lacking on both sides of this issue. He stated his main reason for opposition to this proposal was that the issue was voted down in the November election and he did not understand why this was being considered again so soon after the election. o Leroy Collins, 10565 S.W. 71st, Tigard, (out of the current annexation proposal area). He said that he voted to join Tigard in the last election, but now felt the City went against their word, and will now oppose the annexation proposal. o Ray Baldwin, 10470 S. W. Clydesdale Place , Tigard. He stated he was the President of Mellow Trucking, at 11655 S.W. Pacific Highway, inside the annexation area. Mr. Baldwin noted his opposition to the annexation due to increased property taxes. He objected to the piecemeal nature of the proposal and noted that City services were only a possibility and not a guarantee if the area is annexed. o Virginia M. Dunigan, 8110 S.W. Spruce, Tigard, (in the current annexation proposal area). She was opposed to annexation due to the increased costs associated with street improvements, street lighting, etc. which are needed to upgrade the area. Since the annexation failed at the election, she felt the issue should be abandoned. o Nancy Lue Tracy, 7310 S.W. Pine, Tigard, (out of the current annexation proposal area). She opposed the annexation since the timing was inappropriate. Ms. Tracy noted her concern of potential commercial growth which could occur in Metzger were in the City of Tigard. o Frances Baynham, 10495 S.W. 71st, Tigard, (out of the current annexation proposal area). Ms. Baynham opposed the proposal based on the November election results and stated she did not want streets, sidewalks, and other improvements in her area. She also noted objection to the "piecemeal" nature of the proposal. o Harry Vincent, 7509 S.W. Locust, Tigard, (out of the current annexation proposal area). Mr. Vincent did not believe the police T' protection would be improved by annexation. He stated the election results from November should be honored and objected to piecemeal annexation. Page 8 — COUNCIL MINUTES — DECEMBER 29, 1986 a o Don Kramer, 10545 S.W. 82nd Avenue, Tigard, (out of the current annexation proposal area). Mr. Kramer expressed the desire to have the election results from November should apply for the ' entire Metzger area. o M. Louise Collins, 10565 S.W. 71st Avenue, Tigard, signed as an opponent but was not present to testify. o Judy Wood, 10370 S.W. 90th Avenue, Tigard, (in the current annexatio►i proposal area). Ms. Wood opposed the annexation since she had the services she wanted at this time. She further stated the applicant of record was the City of Tigard and not a group of citizens living in the Metzger area. Ms. Wood raised concerns regarding the timing of the notice due to the holidays. o Pat Whiting, 8122 S.W. Spruce, Tigard, (in the current annexation proposal area). Ms. Whiting was opposed to the proposal due to its piecemeal nature and felt it was gerrymandering. She also noted the CPO plan speaks against piecemealing. o Jay Waldron, Attorney for Washington Square, 1211 S.W. 5th Avenue, Portland, OR 97204 (in the current annexation area) . He questioned why there was so much haste in hearing the proposal and cited the staff report as being inadequate, containing no facts, conclusions or evidence, and further had no CPO input. He opposed the inadequate timeframe given for preparation of facts for the hearing and debated the dollar values as stated in the City's papers. Mr. Waldron suggested that the hearing be delayed to allow time for factfinding. He further stated that the proposed annexation was a case of classic gerrymandering. o Alan Jones, 9240 S.W. Beth Street, Tigard, (out of the current annexation proposal area). Mr. Jones opposed the proposal as he stated the City's promises made to the Metzger community had not been consistent. He noted that Tigard had not disclosed the amount of time or money which was spent in the prior campaign. He stated that the representations of the City that taxes would be lower if annexed to Tigard were false. Mr. Jones wanted the election results to be honored and further advised the Council that the proposal was gerrymandering. He addressed concerns regarding the timing of the hearing due to the holidays. o Council President Brian read into the record a note from Daniel Boyden, Trammell-Crow Company, 10300 S.W. Greenburg Road, Tigard. The statement read that they "agree fully with the comments made by Washington Square" and are opposed to the annexation. g. Community Development Director advised that staff recommended approval of the annexation request and ask that Council forward it to the Boundary Commission for the formal public hearing. h. Council Questions and Comments: o Councilor Johnson requested an accounting of the persons who spoke at the public hearing and whether they were in or out of the proposed annexation area. Page 9 - COUNCIL MINUTES — DECEMBER 29, 1986 1 o Council President Brian reported the following statistics from his meeting notes: Proponents — Total Speaking = 23; 18 were IN 5 were OUT Opponents — Total Speaking = 17; 7 were IN 30 were OUT o Council President Brian questioned whether the inclusion of Spruce Street in the proposal for annexation was intended. o City Administrator reported Spruce Street was included for alignment purposes. Council has the ability to reduce the boundary line and still stay on schedule for a March 31st election. o Legal Counsel commented that the Boundary Commission review, and under the statute, will probably give more attention to a rational service boundary rather than a precinct analysis. o Councilor Johnson outlined the process for this annexation proposal and the reasons for the timing and the perceived haste of this proposal. City Attorney Ramis confirmed that the deadline for filing a request with Washington County elections is February 25th. In order to meet that date, the City would have to file with the Boundary Commission in January. i. Public Hearing Closed. RESOLUTION No. 86-140 A RESOLUTION INIT'IA'TING ANNEXATION TO THE CITY J. OF TIGARD OF THE TERRITORY OUTLINED IN EXHIBIT "A" AND DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT "B" ATTACHED (SOUTH METZGER ZCA 20-86). k. Motion by Councilor Eadon, seconded by Councilor Johnson, for adoption of Resolution No. 86-140. 1. Discussion on the motion: o Councilor Eadon commented that there had been many inaccuracies and innuendos voiced during the hearing; however, she was aware that the issue is an emotional one for the residents. She advised the citizens that the factor which would weigh heavily in her decision was that 18 of the proponents lived inside the affected area while 10 of the opponents did not live in the affected area. She stated that indicated people in the area do want annexation to the City and they should have the opportunity to make that choice. Therefore, she would vote in favor of the annexation. o Councilor Johnson commented that she could empathize with those citizens who wish to keep Metzger as a rural community. However, she voiced her opinion that Metzger would develop at an urban rate of growth as outlined in the Comprehensive Plan of the State of Oregon. Councilor Johnson noted she believed the citizens of Metzger should have the opportunity to vote on the annexation issue, and stated she did believe the majority of the residents in the area outlined in the current proposal do want to be part of the Tigard. Page 10 — COUNCIL MINUTES — DECEMBER 29, 1996 o Council President Brian said that he believed the resolution to be consistent with representations made over the last year—and- 0 The majority of residents who voted in the last election he City- He in the current proposed it waslstatedt very clearly to be in tin all of the advised the audience the City's meetings, as well as during the campaign activities, that one of the negatives of not coming in as a whole would be the He further noted that possibility Of partial annexations. Beaverton has ut together a proposal for annexation of the area vised, also to the north of Washington Square. at°areasdin th, hee east portionhas°f an active annexation staff looking Metzger. Council President Brian commented that Tigard is going to address the needs of those who expressed the desire to annex and limiting He rerted the proposal to b ion o a consistent, and cal otogerrymandering ink the political) sense as undary area. co referred to earlier in the meeting. allorotion the M. Council President Brian ceflectftheadescriptfonvote oneattachedwtoh the map to be amended to r resolution as outlined earlier by City Staff. The -0-1 vote of the Council present; motion carried with a 3 Councilor Edwards abstained. 6. AD30URW*W: 9:00 p.m. C ty Recorder — City of Tigard ATTEST: May r — City of Tigard 1.W-ew/4486A a _ j Page i1 - COUNCIL MIM EB — DECEMBER 29, 1986 r :} - MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON a TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council December 24, 1986 FROM: Bob Jean, City Administrator SUBJECT: South Metzger Annexation This staff report should be considered an addendum to the City of Tigard Municipal Services Study, Metzger/Washington Square Annexation. The City has stated its willingness to extend urban services to the entire area either by contract with the County or upon annexation. The urban services impact analysis in the earlier study remain the same. The City's annexation policy is unchanged towards the entire Area of Interest. The reduced size of the South Metzger Annexation proposal is intended as only a step towards implementation of these annexation and urban services policy goals. Following the November defeat of Measure 026, the proposed annexation of the entire Metzger/Washington Square community to Tigard, the City was approached by proponents still desiring annexation of their neighborhoods. The City had committed itself in its Urban Planning Area Agreement (UPAA) with Washington County to get the community an opportunity to vote on annexation of the entire community. The UPM also provides that notwithstanding that pledge, that the City retains all of its rights and alternatives for consideration of annexation 'proposals provided under State Law. Having worked with the community and paid for the related costs of a communit7-wide vote, the City is now free to work with and consider small neighborhood proposals from area residents and property owners desiring annexation per their rights under State Law. The South Metzger Annexation proposal includes: all of Precinct 0192 basically south of Spruce which voted "Yes" in November by about a 2-1 margin (652 were "Yes", 352 were "No"); the area South of Locust around and including Metzger School which included several petitioners and a mixed Precinct 017 vote (442 were "Yes", 562 were "No"); the predominately commercially zoned properties along • Greenburg and Washington Square, south of the Beaverton-Tigard Annexation Planning Area Agreement (APAA) line. All of these areas are currently contiguous to the City. If the South Metzger Annexation proceeds as scheduled, it could be complete at the March 31 election and tax cut-off for FY 1987-88. This would assure the needed revenues to begin services on July 1, 1937 with the start of the Fiscal Year. Sufficient revenues would also be generated by the inclusion of Washington Square to immediately extend services to other neighborhoods as they decide to annex during the year or at some later date. -2- The one significant event that has occurred since the November election is the C refinement of the County 2000 Policy. With passage of the County Tax Base, essential County-wide services are assured but local street maintenance, street lighting and sheriff/police patrol services will be provided through County Special Service Districts. In its report to the County, Government Finance Associates, December, 1986, indicated a range of cost options for these Districts. Compared with the annexation to Tigard, the cost of minimal County local service costs are: Local Services Count Tigard (1987-88) Street Maintenance $ 1.30 Included in City Rate Sheriff/Police 1.02(0 1:1000) Included 0 1:750) Tax Rate ; 2.32 $ 1.88 X 60,000 home X 60,000 home Sub-Total $ 139.20 $ 112.80 Street Lights _ 35.00 (ave.) Included Total/Year S 174.20 S 112.60 The average cost for a typical $60,000 assessed value household would be $60 cheaper per year to annex to Tigard than to be in the County Service Districts. Additionally, the City's services average about 331E greater service for the lower cost. Area residents get more for less from the City. In addition to basic municipal services, upon annexation the City would begin Capital Improvement Projects throughout the area for storm drainage, street improvements and needed bikeway/walkway improvements, particularly, around Metzger School. There would be, as before, no change in existing fire, water, school or utility services. The Metzger Park LID is not affected by this proposal, nor is the Metzger Park included in the annexation. ST:ew Attachments: o City of Tigard, Municipal Services Study, Metzger/Washington Square o Washington County 2000, Feasibility Study, Government Finance Associates, December, 1966 o South Metzger Annexation, Legal Notice and Map o Seaverton/Tigard Annexation Planning Area Agreement o Washington County/Tigard Urban Planning Area Agreement o Measure 026, November, 1986, Precinct Results o South Metzger Annexation Map and Area of Interest Map RWT:cw/4466A TIMES PUBLISMUG COMPANY P.O.BOX 370 PHONE(503)884-0380 NOtic6 7-6 8 9 8 BEAVERTON,OREGON 87075 Legal Notice Advertising e • ❑ Tearsheet Notice City of Tigard e PO Box 23397 w p Duplicate Affidavit Tigard, Or 97223 r AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION STATE OF OREGON. COUNTY OF wAMINGITON. )"s' i Anne Jean bebW flizet duty sworn.deposeand say, t i Ad�,ertising Meow.or his prMcipal clerk.of thea r�" m�$ a newspaper of general circulation as defined in ORS 103.010 cad 103.020;dished at ,Xga zd the aforesaid county and state;that the c44ty cnu33r411 !?12a1af a prYKed copy of which is fersto annexed.was published in the satin issue of said aswspapar far and oomsecutive in the Wowkm issues: Dec. 26, 1886 -„ Lot�-�- BubecrWd before nes s .c. 2 6_, 1986 PubNc for Oregont ffl � 9-2fl-88 NWWff i ,y r �Yn CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING In the Matter of the Proposer! EXECUTIVE SESSION AND SPECIAL MEETING OF THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL STATE OF OREGON ) County of Washington) ss City of Tigard ) Ii x CatherineWheatley 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 December 29, 1986 a copy of said notice being hereto attached and by reference anode a part hereof, on the 25th day of December 1984, Tigard Civic Center, 13125 S.H. Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon. R Subscribed and sworn to before ere this day of !�X�cr�Cr i9si. .� No Public tor Oregon '.` IV Comission Expires: _,�/•JS-� ARCHA K. HUNT NOTARY PUBLIC -- OREGON i December 26, 1986 NOTICE OF EXECUTIVE SESSION AND SPECIAL MEETING OF THE _ TIGARD CITY, COUNCIL Notice is hereby given that a special Executive Session Council meeting, called by the Mayor with the common consent of the Council, will be held on December 29, 1986, at 5:30 - 6:30 p.m. in the Tigard Civic Center Conference Room, 13125 S.W. Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon. The meeting is called for the purpose of holding an Executive Session under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d) & (h) to discuss labor relations and current/pending litigation issues. Notice is hereby given that a special City Council meeting, called by the Mayor with the common consent of the Council, will be held on December 29, 1986, at 6:30 p.m. in the Tigard Civic Center Town Hall, 13125 S.W. Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon. The meeting is called for the purpose of Public Hearings for Zone Change AnneLation ZCA 8-86 Albertsons' , Inc. NPO #6 and Zone Change Annexation ZCA 20-86 South Metzger NPO M2 & 4. E. Cook, Mayor cw/4466A E DATE December 29, 1986 I wish to testify before the Tigard City Council on the following item: (Please print the information) Item Description: Zone Change Annexation/ZCA 8-86 Albertson' , Inc NPO #6 (AGENDA ITEM NO. 3) eco out for. I.s�sue) Opponent (Against Issue) A •v� k�te#�►+�reee*eee**********e*****rr**e**,�**�c*t�*�****e*ease*******e��t*******e* Name, Address and Affiliation Name, Address and Affiliation � n ny r . r=s i =s • 0 a -Y tll �!- a� 4n o co ) a $410 o O54 i otft to 404 Q 84 r O i 1 64 � N a G i N ;D `c s C H O - Vp O z H to d 43as N f.V —Its, co o as 43 4 In — 1 0 ° v w + � r 1 1 t � a .0 o us �J f � • � V o O 3 • N V) A C IC' ID i .� W,- 71 MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: Honorable Mayor & City Council December 26, 1986 FROM; toreen Wilson, City Recorder SUBJECT: TPOA Fact Finding Report Dan Scott will be preparing a summary and report for presentation to Council at the Executive Session on December 29, 1986. cwl4466A CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA OF: December 29, 1986 DATE SUBMITTED: December 22, 1986 ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: PREVIOUS ACTION: Council adopted Albertsons' Annexation ZCA 8-86 Resolution 86-93 on Auqust 25,_1986 PREPARED BY: Elizabeth Newton DEPT HEAD OK,�jYF_�Q„ CITY ADMIN OK REQUESTED BY: City Council - POLICY ISSUE Should the City Council initiate a 19.04 acre annexation to the City as originally proposed by Albertsons' Inc. The property is located on the southeast corner of Durham Road and Pacific Highway. INFORMATION SUMMARY On August 25, 1986 the City Council adopted a resolution to forward a triple majority annexation request for the subject property to the Portland Area Local Government Boundary Commission. In addition, the Council adopted a resolution to change the zoning on the property. On December 8, 1986 the City Council adopted a resolution with conditions to change the zoning on the subject property to C-G. One of the conditions attached to the approval is that the property be annexed to the City. On October 1, 1986 the City submitted the triple majority annexation to the Boundary Commission. On December 11, 1986, the Boundary Commission denied the triple majority annexation based on a recent Court of Appeals ruling. - 'ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Adopt the attached resolution to initiate the annexation proposal. 2. Take no action. 3. Deny the resolution. FISCAL IMPACT SUGGESTED ACTION Adopt the attached resolution to initiate the annexation proposal. (EAN:cn/2921P) i 4 AGENDA ITEM STAFF REPORT DECEMBER 29, 1986 - 6:30 PM TIGARD CITY COUNCIL t TIGARD CITY HALL - TOWN HALL , 13125 SW HALL BLVD, TIGARD, OREGON 97223 A. FACTS 1. General Information CASE: ZCA 20•-86 Zone Change Annexation REQUEST: A request to annex 390 acres into the City of Tigard. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Community Business District Institutional Residential 5 units per acre Residential 9 units per acre Residential 15 units per acre Residential 24 units per acre Office Commercial Neighborhood Commercial General Commercial APPLICANT: City of Tigard OWNER: Various 1325 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 LOCATION: East of Highway 217, South of Hall Blvd. , Locust and Spruce Streets, west of the Multnomah County line and north of Highway 99W and Pfaffle Street. 2. Background On May 5, 1986 the Tigard City Council adopted Resolution No. 86-53 supporting the citizen initiated petition to annex Metzger to the City of Tigard. On June 20, 1986 the citizen petition was submitted to the Portland Area Local Government Boundary Commission. On August 21, 1986 the Boundary Commission approved the annexation request. After the approval signatures were collected to put the Metzger annexation to a vote of the Metzger residents. The annexation was defeated at the polls on November 4, 1986. The proposal submitted here includes the southern portion of Metzger and an area around Washington Square including Washington Square. 3. Vicinity Information The area under consideration for this annexation proposal is bordered on the north by developed single family lots. Highway 217 forms the west border; the City of Tigard lies to the south and the City of Portland to the east. STAFF REPORT ZCA 20-86 - PAGE 1 4. Site Information Most of the area consists of detached single-family dwellings. he Other^ commercial use is the Washington Square shopping center commercial office uses are Lincoln Center and the office buildings along Greenburg Road. Also located in the area proposed for annexation is the Crescent Grove Cemetery, and Metzger School. There are few remaining large vacant parcels. 5. Agency and NPO Comments No written comments had been received at the writing of this report. B. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The relevant criteria in this case are Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policies 2.1.1, 6.3.3, 10.1.1 and 10.1.2 and Chapter 18.136 and Chapter 18.138 of the Community Development Code. a. Plan Policy 2.1.1 is satisfied because the Neighborhood Planning Organization and surrounding property owners were given notice of the hearing and an opportunity to comment on the applicant's proposal. b. Plan Policy 6.3.3 is satisfied because the annexed area will be designated as an "established area" on the Development Standards Area Map. C. Plan Policy 10.1.1 is satisfied because services are available to the area or will be made available upon annexation. d. Plan Policy 10. 1.2 is satisfied because the Police Department has been notified and the land is located within Tigard's Urban Planning Area. The Planning staff has determined that the proposal is consistent with the relevant portions of the Community Development Code based upon findings noted below: a. Chapter 18.136.030 is met because the applicant has met all of the approval standards for annexation of property. b. Chapter 19.138 is met because the property meets the definition for an established area and shall be designated as an "established area" on the Development Standards Area Map. C_ RECOMMENDATION Based upon the findings and conclusions, the Planning Staff recommends approval of ZCA 20-86 subject to the following conditions: 1. The property shall be designated an "established area" on the Development Standard Areas map. STAFF REPORT ZCA 20-86 - PAGE 2 2, All development in the area shall be reviewed and approved in accordance with the City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan and Community Development Code, 3, The City of Tigard Police Department shall review the proposal. �� "• AP na an PR PAR BY: Elizabeth . Newton pire_tor of Planning 6 Senior Planner Development (EAN:bs2825P) _j 4 { p F ,rs STAFF REPORT ZGA 24-86 — PAGE 3 MEMORANDUM ` CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: Honorable Mayor & City Councilr December 22, 1986 FROM: Bob Jean, City Administrator ' SUBJECT: Metzger/Washington Square Anne ation 2 The City has been approached by several residents of Metzger still favoring annexation to Tigard to see if a reduced proposal might be possible. After meeting with these residents and reviewing the election results, the attached proposal was developed. The proposed annexation does not include those neighborhoods which, by voting "No" on the November measure, indicated they wished to remain outside the `MF City. It does include all of the contiguous neighborhoods which voted "Yes" or had mixed precinct results. Metzger School falls within the proposed annexation. Washington Square is in the proposal for the same economic and service-impact reasons as the prior proposal. <` The boundary follows the Beaverton-Tigard APAA line, includes the predominately commercially zoned properties along Greenburg, and follows Locust to Hall then along Spruce to include all of Precinct 192. The proposal does not include the other positive Precinct 16 area, around Ventura Court/Washington Square Estates at the northeast corner of Tigard's Area of Interest, since it is not currently contiguous. Mayor Cook has called a Public Hearing on this proposal for 6:30 p.m., December 29, 1986. A Hearing at this time is necessary to afford the opportunity for a decision prior to the March 31, 1987 setting of assessed - values and tax base adjustments for FY 1987-$8. If approved on this schedule, full revenues and services could begin July 1, 1987. BJ:cw/4466A Attachment AGENDA ITEM STAFF REPORT DECEMBER 29, 1986 - 6:30 PM TIGARD CITY COUNCIL TIGARD CITY HALL - 'TOWN HALL ` 13125 SW HALL BLVD. TIGARD, OREGON 97223 r s i A. FACTS 1. General Information CASE: ZCA 8-86 Zone Change Annexation s 9.04 acres into the City of Tigard. REQUEST: A request to annex 1 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: 2S1 00 15BA 200, 3Density Residential 2S1 15A 2800, 2802, 2900, 3000, 3001, 3302 - Medium High Density Residential t DESIGNATION' 2S1 15BA 200, 300, 400 - R40 ZONING DES 2SI 15A 2800, 2802, 2900, 3000, 3001, & 3002 - k c. OWNER: Herbert and Betty Dayson APPLICANT: 102230tSWnHallnBlvd. H. E. and Amy Randall Gary and Nadine Randall Portland, OR 97223 Donald & Jo Ann Randall Health Resources Inc. Arthur and Ann Marie Low C/o William & Judith Brownson LOCATION: The property is located on the southeastern corner of 99W and Durham Road. 2, Background Information Council adopted a resolution to forward a On August 25, 1966 the City triple majority annexation request for the subject property to the Commission. In addition, the Portland Area Local Government Boundary zoning to he Council the anationa indicat diabove. c Thniis propertyon t to notsubjecti the desig after one year limit this z ropertysone swithin the Urban Planning Planning Area Unlike Metzger, P time. and the City may consider zone changes and plan amendments at any On December 8, 1986 the City Council adopted a resolution with One of conditions to change the zoning on the subject tproperty the t ty be annexed the conditions attached to the approval is _s STAFF REPORT - ZCA 8-86 (Albertsons') - PAGE 1 i to the City. On October 1, 1986 the City submitted the triple majority annexation to the Boundary Commission. On December 11, 1986 the Boundary Commission denied the triple majority annexation based on a recent Oregon Court of Appeals ruling. 3. Vicinity Information The property to the north across Durham Road is zoned C-G and medium high density residential and is developed as the Summerfield commercial and residential development. The property to the east is zoned medium density and is underdeveloped as large lot single family housing. A 30 acre mobile home park lies to the south on property zoned medium density. King City lies across Pacific Highway to the west. 4. Site Information and Proposal Description The property slopes gently to the southeast and has second growth trees scattered on the site. There are 6 single family homes on large lots within the area proposed for annexation. 5. Agency and NPO Comments No written comments had been received at the writing of this report. B. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The relevant criteria in this case are Tigard Comprehensive Pian Policies 2.1.1 and 10.1.2 and Chapter 18.136 and Chapter 18.138 of the Community Development Code. .. The Planning staff has determined that the proposal as submitted is consistent with the relevant portions of the Comprehensive Plan based upon the findings noted below: a. Plan Policy 2.1.1 is satisfied because the Neighborhood Planning Organization and surrounding property owners were given notice of the hearing and an opportunity to comment on the applicant's proposal. b. Plan Policy 10.1.2 is satisfied because the Police Department has been notified and the land is located within Tigard's Urban Planning Area. The Planning staff has determined that the proposal is consistent with the relevant portions of the Community Development Code based upon findings noted below: a. Chapter 18.136 is met because the applicant has met all of the approval standards for annexation of property. b. Chapter 18.138 is met because the land meets the definition for buildable lands as defined by OAR 660-07-000 and shall be designated as "developing area" on the Development Standards Area Map. STAFF REPORT - ZCA 8-86 (Albertsons') - PAGE 2 i C. RECOMMENDATION 3 i Based upon the findings and conclusions, the Planning Staff recommends approval of ZCA 8-86 subject to the following conditions: 1. The property shall be designated as a "developing area" on the Development Standard Areas map. 2. All development on the property shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Tigard. 3. The City of Tigard Police Department shall review the proposal. REPARE BY: E1 z beth Newton APPRO D B : William Yk. Monahan Senior Planner Director of Community Development (EAN:cn/2814P) f. Y l d" i3- " STAFF REPORT — ZCA 8-86 (Albertsons') — PAGE 3 MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council December 24, 1986 FROM: Bob Jean, City Administrator Q� SUBJECT: South Metzger Annexation This staff report should be considered an addendum to the City of Tigard Municipal Services Study, Metzger/Washington Square Annexation. The City has stated its willingness to extend urban services to the entire area either by contract with the County or upon annexation. The urban services impact analysis in the earlier study remain the same. The City's annexation policy is unchanged towards the entire Area of Interest. The reduced size of the South Metzger Annexation proposal is intended as only a step towards implementation of these annexation and urban services policy goals. Following the November defeat of Measure #26, the proposed annexation of the entire Metzger/Washington Square community to Tigard, the City was approached by proponents still desiring annexation of their neighborhoods. The City had committed itself in its Urban Planning Area Agreement (UPAA) with Washington County to get the community an opportunity to vote on annexation of the entire community. The UPAA also provides that notwithstanding that pledge, that the City retains all of its rights and alternatives for consideration of annexation proposals provided under State Law. Having worked with the community and paid for the related costs of a communitywide vote, the City is now free to work with and consider small neighborhood proposals from area residents and property owners desiring annexation per their rights under State Law. The South Metzger Annexation proposal includes: all of Precinct + 192 basically south of Spruce which voted "Yes" in November by about a 2-1 margin (65% were "Yes", 35% were "No"); the area South of Locust around and including Metzger School which included several petitioners and a mixed Precinct #17 vote (44% were "Yes", 56% were "No"); the predominately commercially zoned properties along Greenburg and Washington Square, south of the Beaverton-Tigard Annexation Planning Area Agreement (APAA) line. All of these areas are currently contiguous to the City. If the South Metzger Annexation proceeds as scheduled, it could be complete at the March 31 election and tax cut-off for FY 1987-88. This would assure the needed revenues to begin services on July 1, 1987 with the start of the Fiscal Year. Sufficient revenues would also be generated by the inclusion of Washington Square to immediately extend services to other neighborhoods as they decide to annex during the year or at some later date. V - - -2- 1` The one significant event that has occurred since the November election is the refinement of the County 2000 Policy. With passage of the County Tax Base, essential County-wide services are assured but local street maintenance, street lighting and sheriff/police patrol services will be provided through County Special Service Districts. In its report to the County, Government Finance Associates, December, 1986, indicated a range of cost options for these Districts. Compared with the annexation to Tigard, the cost of minimal County local service costs are: Local Services Count Tigard (1987-88) Street Maintenance $ 1.30 Included in City Rate Sheriff/Police 1.02(@ 1:1000) Included Q 1:750) Tax Rate $ 2.32 1.88 X 60,000 home X 60,000 home Sub-Total $ 139.20 $ 112.80 Street Lights _., 35.00 (ave.) Included Total/Year : 174.20 112,90 The average cost for a typical $60,000 assessed value household would be $60 cheaper per year to annex to Tigard than to be in the County Service Districts, Additionally, the City's services average about 33% greater service for the lower cost. Area residents get more for less from the City. P In addition to basic municipal services, upon annexation the City would begin Capital Improvement Projects throughout the area for storm drainage, street improvements and needed bikeway/walkway improvements, particularly, around Metzger School. There would be, as before, no change in existing fire, water, school or utility services. The Metzger Park LID is not affected by this proposal, nor is the Metzger Park included in the annexation. BJ:cw Attachments: o City of Tigard, Municipal Services Study, Metzger/Washington Square o Washington County 2000, Feasibility Study, Government Finance Associates, December, 1986 o South Metzger Annexation, Legal Notice and Map o Beaverton/Tigard Annexation Planning Area Agreement o Washington County/Tigard Urban Planning Area Agreement o Measure N26, November, 1986, Precinct Results o South Metzger Annexation Map and Area of Interest Map RWJ:cw/4466A .• • � MUNICIPAL SERVICES STUDY METZG£R/WASHINGTON SQUARE �. TABLE OF CONTENTS F' Chapter 1— Ba_�ckaround 1.1 Study Area 1.2 Annexation Process and Legal Requirements 1.3 Special Districts 1.4 Metzger Park LID 1.5 Demographics and Population 1.6 Washington County/City of Tigard Expenditures Survey 1.7 Tax Rates meter2,Resources 2.1 Vacant Buildable Lands 2.2 Revenue Estimates 2.3 Estimated Revenue Flow star S — outlay Reauiremynts 8.1 Capital heeds Assessment 3.2 Service Delivery Chanter 4 — Aaaendix 4.1 Expenditures 4.2 Revenues - 4.3 Methodology F 4.4 laps 4.5 Sibliography , z 3' kc - ups - t ■ 0 6 MEMO@ li In oil atl tI L Ii 17 rsata ■ 1 rr ■{I■ !1M •• . •t' �� _.■u s �� r ■■�■ ■�i� it III■■■■ R11111 ■n. .. ■ �ilA ■ ' 1Ma . . logo 1111"■■■111111 - .r .i 1 ter■ r: . . i wwur■r�tr■■ �� Moll .' �■ .. H.r a.. :1�Lal. ■MZ .. 1rr>ll■In�11/■r �� Be ■ tri ii .�■ ■ ■1 111• �!± 1101111111111180, am-- rU• 'll_ 'iYi 1Ntunwulw 1■�■ ■ 1 r a J J = �:�r�i ■r�i wrr■ ..■� �111� Ir �� it . ■�. � � _ ..� .... 22 ■■. .7 `tlily�■ ■nln ■�t ■It■ u I■ su■ ■� w ■tom �l� ■iiuu It>rN■■■■ . �.( rl_ 011 •1 ON '■0111■ .r SRI ■ ■._ r .. .._ ter. n■.rt■ ■111111111. _ .. a. � -.— .. 1111■■ .■� ■� '.Mr S S ■■� ■r■■ ■. pr: 311.1111/trr. rn■ ■r■■ 1111=61 rt■■■�■ —i 111: M.: :�: ME� r'- �►�' 1!.11 •� .� �� !� t.■t Illi[ 1E' �� ! � � � ,r r ■� �� =_ sr S l ■t �IltiigR Rte. .�` ■�i ' i�R7w��►�■I w� 'Alt■ '11111 r �i� \��1 LI ':■■��.�4r.J �1 �,._ Imo■■ 111111' �l fill .w� �Ilf �� ll ..� ^/ ■�.flul �II1�1�`� mown "Ibill son �' •• �11''r iti :iii ai s . ' �..WO OF UE I ■IIIc■�rf��SIM Rrp, Mowniullillr�i � MM Man ■OW ■rAr 1 ■ ttl. SII1��■/W■ L l ■ �•r� . - � ►fir ! �► ■ U _ rf � ■�\I 1111 / ��• ' 1111111 _ �1�� `-11111''11■ �■ ' .■ttti.f- O i.P METZGER/WASHINGTON SQUARE STUDY AREA The Metzger/Washington Square study area consists 1.5 square miles of unincorporated Washington County. Oregon, north of the City of Tigard and generally bounded by the Multnomah-Washington County line on the east, Taylors Eerry Road on the north and State Highway 217 on the west. The area has an approximate population of 5,590 residents in 2,150 dwellings units with an assessed valuation of $232,559,700.00. A largely urban area, Metzger is primarily residential with commercial properties dominating the Washington Square area west of Greenburg Road. The infrastructure is in place with the most significant problems being surface streets, pedestrian network and drainage of storm water. Under a joint resolution of the Tigard and Beaverton City Councils establishing an Annexation Planning Area Agreement (APAA) the City of Tigard has been indicated as the most logical provider of municipal services for the Metzger/Washington Square area. The Metzger area lies east of Greenburg Road and contains 100% of the population and housing stock with an assessed valuation of $154,077,300.00. Urban services are currently provided by Washington County and six special districts. Washington Square is the commercial complex west of Greenburg Road within the APAA with the residential and non-commercial land in the complex in the City of Beaverton's realm of influence. Approximately 35,000 to 40,000 transient trips per day are spade to the Square complex. During the holiday seasons. the transient population increases to over 75.000 per day. The employee population is estimated at 2,500 with average annual sales in excess of $200 million. 1.2 PROCESS AND LEGAL REQUIREMENTS The authority for annexation of contiguous territory to a city is outlined in ORS 222.111 and may be initiated according to ORS 199.490 as follows: (a) By resolution of the governing body of the affected city (City of Tigard), or (b) By petition of 10% of registered voters in 'tha affected territory, or — 1 — 's (c) By petition signed by owners of at least one-half the land -area of the affected territory, or (d) By resolution of the Boundary Commission, or - (e) By resolution of the governing body of the affected territory upon receipt of consent to annex in writing from more than half of the owners of land who also own more than half of the land representing . more than half the assessed valuation of the territory to be annexed. t The petition or resolution shall: (a) name the affected city and state it is proposed to annex, and i (b) describe the boundaries of the affected territory, and (c) have attached a county assessor's cadastral map showing the location of the affected territory, and (d) be filed with the Boundary Commission. Upon receipt of the petition, the Boundary Commission shall cause a study to be made of the proposed annexation and conduct one or more public hearings on the matter. After study and hearings, the Commission r may alter the boundaries of the proposal to either include or exclude territory. The notice of hearing shall be in accordance with ORS 199.463. The Boundary Commission shall issue a final order, stating the reasons for the decision (approving or disapproving), on the annexation issue _- within 90 days after the petition, resolution or application is filed E unless a postponement is agreed upon by the parties at the hearing. The postponement shall not be for a period exceeding one year-from the date of filing. Judicial review of the order is conferred upon the Court of Appeals i - under ORS 183.482. (ORB 199.461). If the proposed annexation is approved by the Commission, the final order shall be effective at the time specified in the final order. If no effective date is specified, the order shall take effect 45 days after the Commission adopts the final order. The change shall not take effect unless approved by the electors if within 45 days after the date of the adoption of the order: (a) Written objection to the change by not less than 10 percent or 100 6 of the electors registered in the affected territory are filed with the Comaission; or (b) a resolution objecting to the change is filed with the Commission by the affected city. If objection is filed by the City Council, the Council shall call for an election in the affected city. I ' I f , i_ - 2 - _ If objections are filed by electors of the affected territory, the _ • Commission shall certify the fact to the County Board of the affected territory and the County Board shall call--for an election. When the minor boundary change has been initiated by resolution of the City Council, the cost of the election shall be paid by the affected city. The election shall be held on the next appropriate election date as authorized under ORS 203.095, 221.230, or 255.345. The City Council or County Board shall certify the results of the election to the Commission. If a majority of voters approve the change approved by the Commission, the Commission shall proclaim the results. Upon adoption of the proclamation the change shall take effect. (ORS 199.505) 1.3 SPECIAL DISTRICTS Currently, six special districts serve the Metzger/Washington Square community providing education, fire protection, water and wastewater systems. 1.3.1 Education HY The Metzger area is served by the Tigard School District (233T) with the .Seaverton School District (493T) bisecting the Washington Square island including the Golden Key Apartment complex. Current 1995-96 tax rates are $11.55 per $1,000.00 A.V. and $13.25 per $1,000.00 AN. respectively. . 1.3.2 Fire Protection ...•- Washington County RFPD 01 is responsible for fire protection service in the majority of the Metzger/Washington Square area with the Tualatin RFPD serving the area south of Spruce Street. 1995-36 tax rates are $2.65 per $1,000.00 A.V. for WCRFPD 01 and $2.60 per $1,000.00 A.V. for TRFPD. 1.3.3 Water Water service in the area is provided by the Metzger Water District with delivery contracts with the City of Portland for Bull Run water through the year 2000. ' Current charges are $6.50 for the first 400 cu. ft. and thereafter S.95 per 100 cu. ft. and 1995-96 tax rate of S.67 per $1.000.00 A.V. - 3 - 1.3.4 Wastewater The unified Sewage Agency is responsible for the wastewater system in the area. The Washington Square Complex has its own collection system with discharge into the USA Network. 1.4 METZGER PARK LID The Metzger Park LID was formed to provide funding for Metzger Park and Pavilion construction. The Metzger/Washington Square area lies within the Park District and levies S.12 per 51.E A.V. for 1985/86. The LID is within the Washington County budget and it is assumed that unless specifically requested to the City will not assume the debt or operation of the park. 1.5 DEMOGRAPHICS POPULATION AT,ION The Metzger/Washington Square study area -lies within three census tracts, 305, 306, 309. for the purposes of this study census tract 305 was disregarded due to its relatively small impact on the area. Urban Decision Systems, Inc. was contracted to provide demographic data • on the study area. for the purpose of an area comparison, tracts 306 and 309 were compared to tracts 307, 308, and 319.02 in the City of Tigard. Tract 309 contains an approximate 50/50 split between Tigard and the Study area. The numbers that are the result of the 1980 census are relatively less important then the percentages drawn from them. o The Ethnic background of both areas is relatively the same, white/European. o In both areas approximately 75% of the population over the age of 18. with the greatest numberfalling between the ages of 25-34. o Over 5(M of the Study area is apartment/cow units while the base is 37%. o Roughly 63% of the Study area housing stock was built prior to .1970 while only 49% of the base area was built prior to 1970. o Turnover (% of owner-occupied units that change hands) is 9.3% in the Study area to 11.27% in the City. o Stability (% of population age 5_or older living in- the same unit for 5 or more years) was 34.5% for the Study area vs 36.8% for the City. a Average housing value for the Study area was $67.976 versus $80.356 for the City. o Average and median household incomes are approximately $4.000 less in the Study area. The demographic study shows that in most respects the Metzger/Washington Square area is similar to the City of Tigard. The majority of differences are due to the commercial development and apartment complexes that are within tract 309 (generally west of Wall Boulevard). The more detailed Area Profiles show that tract 306 is very much similar to the City. 1.6 EXPENDITURE EFFORT The Metzger/Washington Square area has received consistently lower levels of municipal services than if in the City of Tigard. The . Metzger/Washington Squarm area currently receives a per capita service level approximately 45% of that provided- for City of Tigard residents. of specific categories studied. only Parks consistently has a greater per capita effort greater than Tigard. . The most visible of municipal services delivered. Public Safety, shows an expenditure level of approximately 471 of Tigard's delivery level. ' Over the last 5 years the Metzger/Washington Square cowsunity has _ received approximately $340 per capita in expenditure effort versus $775 per_ capita for City of Tigard residents. This is $435 per capita less ' upon 5,800 residents, the average over 5 or approximately $2.5M based years. 5 Year CUMULATIVE EXPENDITURES PER CAPITA i i r&-UGER/Wash. Sq. Tiger 169.38 Public Safety 305.00 31.00 Finance 79.45 81.60 Community Development 276.45 8.67 Administration 40.06 34.89 Parks 24.42 f 11373 Library 49.18 339.27 Total 774.56 1.7 Thi RATER 1 Tax rates are compared for the municipal jurisdictions in the Metzger/Washington Square area per $1,000 AV. Those jurisdictions are Beaverton. Portland, Tigard and Tualatin. During the term of the study period the City of Portland and the City of Tigard both show the least : percentage of change, with the City of Tigard showing the lowest municipal tax rate. MUNICIPAL TAX RATES �yR�901�!_ 80/81 81/82 82/83 83/84 84/8 85/86_-- Portland 6.29 6.48 6.79 6.58 6.43 6.71 Beaverton 5.37 7.01 6.48 5.23 5.52 4.23 F Tualatin 2.12 3.59 3.36 3.30 3.51 4.13 Tigard .60 1.19 1.12 1.18 1.06 1.35 �x m _ 6 �k To more accurately compare the tax rates of the jurisdictions providing municipal services, the following table shows tax rates adjusted to include applicable special district rates. MUNICIPAL SERVICE DELIVERY SYSTEMS TAX RATE PER $1,000 AV JURISDICTION 80/81 81/82 82/83 83/84 84/85 85/86 Portland 6.29 6.48 6.79 6.58 6.43 6.71 Beaverton Municipal 5.37 7.01 6.48 5.23 5.52 4.23 Tual. Hills P.& R. 1.14 1.13 . 1.33 1.19 1.21 1.34 TOTAL 6.51 8.14 7.81 6.42 6.73 5.57 Tualatin Municipal 2.12 3.59 3.36 3.3. 3.51 4.13 Tualatin RFPD 3.40 3.21 3.28 3.15 3.12 2.60 TOTAL 5.52 6.80 6.64 6.45 6.63 6.73 Tigard Municipal .60 1.19 1.12 1.18 1.06 1.35 WGRFPO 2.80 2.75 2.70 2.70 2.71 2.65 TOTAL 3.40 3.94 3.82 3.88 3.77 4.00 The following is a table of tax rates as they would apply for Metzger/Washington Square tax payers and the estimated property tax cost for 1985/86 based upon a $65,000 assessed valuation. BAR METZGER TIGARD BEAVERTON PORTLAND Municipal - .86 4.23 6.71 Wash. Co. 1.93 1.93 1.93 1.93 USA .36 .36 .36 School Dist. #23 11.55 11.55 11.55 11.55 Metzger Water .03 .03 .03 .03 Metner Sanitary .26 .28 .28 .28 Metzger Water Combined .64 .64 .64 .64 Wash. Co. ESD .25 .25 ' .25 .25 Port. Comm. Coll. .58 .58 .58 .58 Wash. Co. RFPD Ail 2.65 2.65 - - Port of Portland .37 .37 .37 .37 Metro Serv. Dist. .16 .16 .16 .16 Metzger Park .12 .12 - - Tual. Hills Pr. t Rec. Dist. - - 1.34 - Total Tax Rate 18.92 19.78 21.72 22.50 Total Property Tax $1229.0 1285.70 1411.90 1462.50 From Washington County Summary of Assessment a Tax roll, 1985-86. a - 7 - MOM 2.1 vACANT BUILDABLE LAND - Approximately 106 lots with 73.6 buildable acres exist in the Metzger/Washington Square area. Current Zoning N of Lots Acreage Residential 5 Units/Acre 79 46.23 is 9 to 7 9.54 •� 15 2.87 24 a 25t •• -0- office/Commercial 11 6.6 Neighborhood Commercial 3 .91 Community Business District 3 7.45 General Commercial -0- ".0_ Institutional "a' "0- Current zoning standard in the area would permit for appi^oximately 360 new dwelling units to bu built. About 25 per cent of the land is in areas that would not be developable in the near future. 2.2 LEVENUE ESTIMATES . Revenues to be generated from the iiatzger/Washington Square community are based upon current rates and estimates received from the franchise holders in the area. These revenue estimates are broken into four general area; franchise fees, fees and charges, intergovernmental shared revenues and property tax. Each specific revenue is explained preceding the estimate work ups. TOTAL REVENUES GENERATED Franchise Fees $205.400.00 Fees i Charges 177,632.00 Shared Revenues 241,599.80 Property Tax 313.955.59 TOTAL $939,587.39 r, ` 2.2.1• FRANCHISE FEES Franchises are granted by governmental bodies to private corporations providing utility services for a given area and allow those corporations to act as monopolies in those areas. This licensing of the utilities allows them use of public right-of-ways. FRANCHISE SERVICE AND PROVIDERS SERVICE PROVIDER FRANCHISE FEE Electricity Portland General Electric 3.5% of gross revenue Natural Gas Northwest Natural Gas 3.0% of gross revenue Telephone General Telephone 3.0% of gross revenue Pacific Northwest Bell 3.0% of gross revenue Solid Waste Disposal Miller's Sanitary Service 3.0% of gross revenue Cable TV Storer Cable 3.0% of gross revenue TCI Cable 3.0% of gross revenue ESTIPATED YEARLY FRANCHISE FEE FRANCHISE ESTIMATED FEE Portland General Electric 150.000.00 Northwest Natural Gas 15,000.00 - General Telephone 14,400.00 Pacific Northwest Bell 15,000.00 Miller's Sanitary Service 4.000.00 Storer Cable 1,000.00 TCI Cable 5.,E00.OA TOTAL $205,400.00 2.2.2 EEE$_AND CHARGES The City of Tigard requires payment for the provision of administrative and regulatory services such as business tax, sewer system, building permits, etc. These fees and charges all computed to offset the cost of providing the specific services provided. _ g _ � z ' w Business Tax jjof Eap. it of Bus, Fee Total $10.000.00 0-10 50 250 $ 7705 3.750.00 11-501.500.00 51+ 10 $150 SUBTOTAL $15,250.00 Liquor License 25 $ 25 _ 2 65.00 SUBTOTAL $ 625.00 SgMr User Charwes R-2sido�1 Monthly Monthly Yearly Me ly-off3tf�s Rate Total DIM ewer User 2,150 $10.75 $23.112.50 $277,350.00 <Loss USA Monthly Service Charge! 70% <16,178.75> <194.145.00> SUSTOTAL $6.933.75 $93.205.00 .75 1.612.50 19.350.00 Sewer Maint. 2.140 .75 1,612. 12ALS-0-M Storm Drainage 2,150 SUBTOTAL $1A,158.50 $121.905.00 €g newer User Charges N2n-Residentis►1 Monthly Monthly Yearly S o P3101 WWIBar—al Sewer User 260 $10.75 _ $2.T94.00 $33.540.00 <Less USA Monthly Service Charge), 70% (1,,956,50 <23,478.00>. $ • SUBTOTAL .838.50 $10,062.00 Sewer Maint. 260 .75 .195.00 2.340.00 .75 2,247.50 27,X150. Starve Drains" 100!2950 SU8T4TAL $3.321.00 , =39,852:00 DUE Dwelling Unit Equivalent ESU - Estimated Service Unit (2.500 sq. ft. m i ESU) to — _ S3 TOTAL FEES ANO CHARGES _ Business Tax $15.250.00 Liquor License 625.00 Sewer User Chgs (Res) 121.905.00 Sewer User Chgs (Hon-Res) 39.652.00 TOTAL $177.632.00 v , 2..2.3 Ir E GOVERNMENTAL SHARED REVENUES ANO ENTIT1BWM Revenues of the State of Oregon and Washington County are returned to incorporated areas through various revenue sharing Programs• These intergovernmental shared revenues (ie. gas tax, cigarette tax, etc. . .) are essentially "abandoned" by residents of unincorporated areas such as Matzger/Washington Square- These are taxes which are currently being paid, but to which only City residents are entitled. For 1995/66 this amounts to more than $250.000 with over one-third designated for streets, sidewalks and other transportation system improvements. Federal revenue-sharing funds are not projected due to uncertainty of the program continuing, UMERGOVERNMENTAL SHARED REVENUES (1965/86 RATES X POP OF 0? 5.59 SATE OF OREM TOTAL Cigarette Tax $ 1,89 3 10,565.10 Liquor Tax 7.31 40.662.90 Gas Tax (Streets) 18.25 , 102,017.50 State Revenue Sharing 5.23 29g235.70 SUBTOTAL $32.66 $192,661.20 WASHIN( �QAi COUNTY Lias Tax (Streets) 5.76 32,199.40 Library (W=.$) 4.78 26,720.20 SUBMAL $10.54 $59,919.60 TOTAL $43.22 3241,599.80 /77 Elk En ..k § w - - t 2.2.4 PROPERTY TAX REVENUE Estimate of property tax revenues to be generated from the Metzger/Washington Square area is based upon t 196 bof assessed valuation of $233.871,100.00 and computed upon y g 1985/96 tax rate of $1.99 per $1.x•00 A-V- - $1.99 x $233.971.1 = $465.403.49 12 — O O 8 w, e» 9-9 $ — N M < O C4 in co o-� $ . m I 8 Q[1 N CII t0�- O c 4 d d CK 80 N er! 0 4� 8 0, � C" �.� � v v a re in 9-4 enr � 8 N e�r1 00 lw M p p p 8 O O N o M A C 8 �y t 1L1 ~ W fA C Wr L at l0 8 cr! � N _ am, 9 241 AI 1 v Y Q► 3 d W $ N OM 4 A a 8 C � • J w �VD O N t of M A A d 10 in w :0 low A a c O �+ c z 40 d M w J ~ A d >• N a a 009 ac M � L r _ M L s L C4 I. V 3.1 CAPITAL NEEDS ASSESSMENT _ The capital needs assessment for the Metzger/Washington Square area is compiled from reports prepared by and for the agencies (Washington county and USA) currently responsible for the infrastructure as it exists. Areas of concern that will have an impact on the capital budget %if any jurisdiction assuming responsibility for the study area are: o Streets - Vehicle movement within the study area o Pedestrian Network - Movement of pedestrian traffic to schools and public transportation in the study area. o Drainage - Dispersal of storm water in the Ash Creek Basin. o Wastewater - Upgrade and/or replacement of the existing system. The Metzger/Washington Square area is largely developed with its urban infrastructure in place. Transportation and drainage are the capital segments which require the greatest amount of attention. over vi' Strolls Fourteen major capital projects have been identified by the `- Metzger/Progress Circulation Study as being needed to facilitate improved vehicular movement in the area. Costs for these projects have been estimated at $12.75m with $9.50 of those costs anticipated to be borne by outside agencies. Pm�destrian Ne ork Currently, approximately 2 miles of sidewalk exists scattered throughout the area, mostly in newer subdivisions and the Washington Square Area. About 7.5 miles of additional sidewalk is required to provide adequate facilities to insure safe pedestrian access. Estimated cost is in the area of '$250,000. Dra_i+tea s The Ash Creek Drainage Master Plan has identified 21 capital projects necessary to improve drainage in the Ash Creek Basin. An estimated $2.0m of the total $2.25m has been identified as lying in the Mbatzger/Washington Square area. 't - 14 - i Wastewater _ USA has identified two problems areas in he study area. They are the addition of a parallel line to the Ash Creek interceptbr and replacement �i of the Hemlock Street interceptor. Cost estimate is approximately $400,000 for both projects. 3.1.1 STREETS Movement of vehicular traffic in the area is hindered by the lack of direct North/South and East/West connections on the mainly rural type local roads. Washington Square and Lincoln Center have also increased the amount of vehicle movement within the study area. The Metzger-Progress Circulation Study conducted by the Washington County Department of Land Use and Transportation is the source document for this portion of the analysis. 1. Taylors Ferry Road Extension Extend Taylors Ferry Road from Washington Drive to Oleson Road upgrading it to major collector standards (70 feet right-of-way, 40 feet pavement width). Requires purchase of additional right-of-way. Project would provide more direct East-West route for Beaverton-Portland traffic and reduce traffic on Washington Drive. Because of the amount of traffic on Taylors Ferry, it is anticipated Washington County would maintain it as a County Road. 2. Lincoln Street Extension Extend Lincoln Street from Locust Street to Oak Street and improve to minor collector (60 feet of right-of-way. 32 feet pavement width). Requires additional right -of-way. e. Locust Street Improvement Upgrade Locust Street to major collector status from Lincoln Street to 80th Avenue. 4. 74th Street Extension Extend 74th Street from Barbara Lane to Locust Street and Improve to minor collector. Requires construction of a structure to traverse Ash Creek (approximately 250 feet) and additional right-of-way. Would provide better North-South access from Taylors Ferry to Highway 99W. is - f 5. Intersection Safety Improvements - F Reduce accident rates at intersection of 72nd and 80th' at Oak Street through improved sight distances. 6. Hall Boulevard/Scholls Ferry Road Intersection Improvements. Improve traffic flow through the intersection by increasing traffic capacity and reducing safety hazards. Requires additional right-of-•way. Preliminary engineering to begin with construction anticipated to begin in 1986. Funding combination of state, federal and local (LID) monies. LID feasibility study approved by Washington County 12/17/85. 7. Oleson Road Improvement Increase traffic capacity on Oleson Road from Hall Boulevard to Garden Home Road. It is anticipated Oleson would be maintained by Washington County. 8. Hall Boulevard Improvement Increase traffic ccpaeity on Hall Boulevard to accommodate existing and future demand and reduce demand on local streets. Requires additional right-of-way. Hall Boulevard is state road and Proposed for inclusion in ODOT Six-year Highway Improvement Program. 9. Greenburg Road Improvement f Widen final section of Greenburg Road to five lanes. Additional right-of-,way required. 10. 80th Avenue Improvement Upgrade 80th Avenue from Oleson Road to Oak Street to major a collector standards. 11. Oak Street Improvement Drove Oak Street to major collector standards from Hall Boulevard to 71st Street. R 12. Taylors Feral Road Improvement Upgrade Taylors Ferry Road to major collector standards from 80th Avenue to 65th Avenue. Requires additional right-of--way. Anticipate Taylors Ferry to remain under county f jurisdiction. 18. Greenburg Road/Highway 217 Interchange Improvement. E Provide additional traffic capacity on the Greenburg overpass from southbound Highway 217. State has allocated $200.000 in ODOT Six-year Highway Improvement Program. - 16 - 14. Locust Street Bridge (Ash Creek) Replace existing culvert with bridge wide enough for pedestrian and bicycle traffic. County is applying for $60,000 bridge replacement grant from Federal Highway Administration. Preliminary engineering under way. E s CAPITAL NEEDS ASSESSMENT — Streets COST COST TOTAL i PROJECT AREA CONST. RIGHT-0F-MM COST 1. Taylors Ferry Rd. Ext. Metz #915,000 $263,000 $1,178,000 2. Lincoln St. Ext. Metz 165,000 73,000 298,000 3. Locust St. Imp. Metz 520,000 — 520,000 4. 74th Ave. Ext. Metz 715,000 951000 613,000 S. Intersection Imp. 72nd 6 80th Oak St. Metz 1,500e — 1,500 6. Hall Dlvd/Scholls Fy. Rd. Intersection Imp. Wash. Sq. 379,000 856,000 1,235,000** 7. Olsson Rd. Imp. Metz/ 1,125,000 140,000 1,265,000 Wash. Sq. 5. Hall Blvd. Imp. Oft Netz/ 3,305,000 900,000 4,205,000 Wash. Sq. 9. Greenburg Rd. Imp. Wash. Sq. 330,000 70,000 400,000 10. 80th Ave. Imp. Metz 1,030,000 — 1,030,000 11. Oak St. Tap Metz 700,000 — 700,000 12. Taylors Ferry Rd. Imp. Metz 540,000 1001000 9401000 13. Greenbur9A%j+. 217 Metz/ Interchange Imp. Wash. Sq. 200.000 200,000 TOTAL $10,225,500 $2.497.000 $12.72S,SOD +r Estimate of Const. cost, wrrrr Inclusion of 6—Yr. Hwy. Up. Joint Funding USOOT, 0001T. LID. Prog. Prelim. Eng. —. 1987 Const. 1959. + No Cost Est. Widening $200,000 ODOT budget for Re—striping. 14. Locust St./Ash Creek Mgd. No Cost Estimate. Wash. Co, has applied for $60,000 Widening (Ped/Bicycle Imp.) Fed. Hwy. Admin. grid" Replacement Grant. SOURCE: Metzger/Progress Circulation Study, Washington County WT, Aug. 1955 3.1.2 PEDESTRIAN NETWORK Improvements and now construction of the pedestrian and bicycle networks are required to ensure safety of residents transitting to schools or the Tri-filet system. 17 - The existing pedestrian network consists of approximate) 11,700 feet of sidewalk widely scattered inthe cossaunity. The Metzger/Progress circulation study has identified another 39,406 feet of sidewalk needed to provide a suitable network. Based upon an estimate of $1.25 per square foot of sidewalk, total estimated cost of these projects is 4246,250. 3.1.3 DRAINAGE The Metzger/Washington Square area lies entirely with the Ash Greek Basin and faces the impact of the drainage problems within this basin. Washington County Department of Land Use and Transportation conducted the Ash Creek Drainage Study with the assistance of Kramer. Chris, and Mayo, Inc. and David Evans and Associates, Inc. The Master Plan, currently under discussion, has identified 21 problem areas within the basin with approximately 90% of those in the Metzger/Washington Square and Tigard Communities. Cost estimates have been prepared and projects prioritized. Funding formula are still under study with user fees assumed to be the greater proportion of funding. ASH CREEK BASIN CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (PROPOSED) COSY YEAR FROM BASE i Replace Hemlock Culvert $74,300 it 2 Replace Cadarcrest Culvert 15,400 10 3 Replace Taylors Ferry Bridge 118,900 12 4 Replace Taylors Ferry i iOth Culvert 15,000 13 5 Replace Both Culvert 16•500 14 6 Replace Oleson Culvert 13.900 17 7. Pipe Taylors Ferry 150,100 17-18 A Pipe 71st 52.540 1S 9 Replace Park Place Culvert 27.200 11 to Replace 82nd Culvert 18,604 15 11 Replace 80th Culvert 16,500 17 COST YEAR FROM BASE .� PROJECT 1 147.900 12 - Replace locust Crossing 147,900 2-4 13 Replace Hall Crossing 141.700 19-20 14 Regrade Channel Hwy 217/Fano 17.500 3 15 Gold Course Detention 156.600 13-14 16 Pipe Hall 125.300 2 17 pipe Locust 175,300 15-16 16 pipe 91st 741.400 5-10 19 Pipe Channel 24.100 20 20 new Ditch 99th/Ash Creek 42 100 19 21 Replace RR Spur Culvert $2.237.900 Source: Ash Creek Drainage Master Plan 3.1.4 V er area Responsibility for thestust►re has collear'd ►ctionSystem tains its own system and lies with USA. Washington Sq 217. enters the USA network north of Cascade Blvd and Highway 2 lea areas The majority of the SystemiUSAilRastePlan lace th onlyb existing and identified in the Goats are estimated to be approximately $400.000 with those costs to be potentially shared with upstream users of the system. Construct 3.•0feet of interceptor parallel to existing line 00 from Hall Blvd/Hemlock to 69th/Spruce Strwet. 1, 2• Replace 4.000 feet of 15" interceptorVtura �m Hail Blvd/Howlock street east to a point south of - s e - 19 - 3.2 SERVICE DELIVERY - The provision of municipal services in the urban environment is most generally gauged by cost, efficiency of operation and-ease in obtaining s` specific services such as building permits, etc.' For the purpose of ; this study efficiency and ease are the standards of measurement most easily defined. Cost of providing municipal services in the Metropolitan area are fairly uniform and generally are not as great a factor in the perception of quality of service. Following is a list of municipal services provided to the Metzger/ Washington Square area, identificaton of current providers and potential providers as they would occur if the area were to annex to the surrounding jurisdictions: Service Current Provider Tigard Portland Beay._..!"t°n Comm.Oev. Wash. Co, Tigard Portland Beaverton Fire WCRFPDYi WCRFPD#1 Portland Beaverton Water Metzger W.O. Metzger W.Q. Portland Beaverton Sewer U.S.A. U.S.A. U.S.A. U.S.A. Streets Wash. Co. Tigard Portland Beaverton Police Wash. Co. Tigard Portland Beaverton Parks i Rec. Metzger Park ? Portland Tualatin Hills Pi, R Community-Development - Currently. Metzger residents suet obtain all building services f Hillsboro. approximately 15 miles from Metzger. The City of Portland provides ane-stop permit service at the Portland Building. 8.5 miles from Metzger. Beaverton and Tigard both provide adequate service with Beaverton 3 silos and Tigard 1.5 miles from Metzger. Fire - The City of Portland and the City of Beaverton provide fire service and would withdrew the area from Fire District di,while the City of Tigard would not. Mater a The Metzger Water District currently serves the area and would not be affected by the area annexing to Tigard while withdrawal of the area is probable with Beaverton and Portland. Sender The Unified Sewerage Agency is primarily responsible for provision of service in the East Washington County area. O"knges would occur in the areas of billing and maintenance of lines under 26 inches. Streets - Street maintenance would be provided by the jurisdiction that would annex the area after negotiation with Washington County or the transfer of roads to *be municipality. n s n � . 3 , Y 20 z P31tce - The Washington County Sheriff's Department currently serves the area and` provides an average response time of 10 minutes on emergency calls. The average for the three surrounding jurisdictions is in the 4 - 5 minute range. Greatest impact on providing IqW enforcement servi-ees to the area is in down time for squads transporting prisoners for booking. Current down time is map" approximately 1 ill hours per incident if transport to Hillsboro is necessary. Booking of suspects at the local jurisdictions facilities would impact down time coresponding to distance from Metzger: Portland at the Downtown Justice Center (8.5 miles), Beaverton at City Hall (3 miles) and Tigard at the Civic Center complex (1.5 miles). Parks and Recreation -• Annexation to Beaverton would also annex Metzger to Tualatin Hills Park and Recreation District. Portland would most likely absorb the Metzger Park into their Parks system, while Tigard will let the residents decide upon the continuation of the Metzger Park IID. t. x . ... .. 21 t.i 1 Y OE T'IGARD. OREGON T R1.`;o1.0 T 10N NO. 86--25 j A 301NT RESOLUTION 01.1WI1.:N 111t r-ITY 01 BEAVERTON AND T'tit CI1Y 01 11t.,ARD 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 cities; eci ha1municipal urban services can be provided most efficiently and equitably by 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 ind 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 lots facing 91st Avenue; south to Hall Boulevard; along the north side of Hall Boulevard, westerly to the intersection of Hall and Greenburg/Olsson Road; westerly along the south side the Washington Square access road; south behind the of Hall, to the west of to the west aids of the next tax lots fronting Hall and to the west; Washington Square access road; north to a point on the south side of the RESOLUTION NO. 86-25 Page i of 2 Police — The Washington County Sheriff's Department currently serves the area • and ,provides an average response time of 10 minutes on emergency calls. The average for the three surrounding jurisdictions is in the i — 5 minute range. Greatest impact on providing lakw enforcement services to the area is in down _ time for squads transporting prisoners for booking. Current down time is approximately 1 1/2 hours per incident if transport to Hillsboro is necessary. Booking of suspects at the local jurisdictions facilities would impact down time coresponding to distance from Metzger: Portland at the Downtown Justice Center (8.5 miles), Beaverton at City Hall (3 miles) and Tigard at the Civic Center complex (1.5 miles). Parks and Recreation — Annexation to Beaverton would also annex Metzger to Tualatin Hills Park and Recreation District. Portland would most likely absorb the Metzger Park into their Parks system, while Tigard will let the residents decide upon the continuation of the Metzger Park LID. 21 — t.IIY OF TIGARD. OREGON R1::;011J1IQ111 NO. 86--25 3 A JOINT RESOLUTION T1E,WI I_N 111i CI 1 Y 01 OC AVER TON AND TNl Cl 1 Y 01 1 1 GARD 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 fib citias�;nandpal urban services can be provided most efficiently and equitably y 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. MOW, THEREFORE. BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that: Section 1: The prior Annexation Planning Area Agreement (APAA) and Resolution No. 85-42 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 mind 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. B. 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 Sath/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 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. 46-25 Page 1 of 2 • r,lden Key Apartments. westerly between the .outh aide of the Apartments and �, lh,e nor th side. of the commcercial propor 1. =�ti �•=,nt i= 3 ini.#. I.h_p. Square; to the nortt, sid+• of ltu• wester-to W:rshinytoo '.(=u+►+ w " �••.` r•,a+d =aster ly to ::Choi l 1-,•rr•y Ro.ai, front thcrr•e suuthwr.yt ,yl"(19 'r.tu,l1' rrry R�.•,•1 t-+� l.hp Old `;+holly ferry New `�+:hol l s ferry Road; to the 1)r$,aarn ,:,r nail v: ItuulIdW'y � Section 4: The cities declare and support R<eaverton'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. 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-Naw Scholl* Ferry Road area from Beaverton southeast into Tigard at 135th/Walnut. Section 6: The cities agree to revise, amend. and support other planning agreements consistent with #his APAA resolution, and to an annual review_ to this agreement as the Council's dean necessary. .PASSED: This day of1996. t / y - City of Tigard ATTEST: r / epu y t Cit Reco r - City of Tigard y lw/3706A RESOLUTION NO. 86-25 Page 2of2 _ - Resolution t: � J C'.TY 0y: BEAVERTON, OREGON - i A JOINT RESOLtiT10K BETWEEK THE CITY OF BEAVERTON AND THE CITY OF TIGGRD REGARDING URBAN SERVICES, OECLARIIiG AND SUPPORTING MUTUAL ANNEXATION PLANNING AREAS OF AGREEKENT (APAA)- WHEREAS, the cities of Beaverton and Tigard have previously adopted joint APAA Resolutions (Beaverton Resolution No. 2647), but left the Washington Square °+tudy k-cz for review; and 1 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 k WHEREAS, the cities of Beaverton and Tigard find that municipal urban services can be provided most efficiently and equitably by cities; and 1AiEREAS, conflicting land use plans and overlapping areas of planning interest E tend to delay th-e ultimate annexation to cities and tend toward illogical and inefficient service boundaries; and WHEREAS, both cities respect the rights and preferences of property owners and 4 { residents to decide when to annex to a city according to State Law; and i WHEREAS, both cities see competition and conflict between cities over individual annexation proposals as contrary to their mutual long-range cacmaunity interests and wish to avoid such conflicts whenever possible by mutually adopting a clear statement of areas of annexation interest. NW, THEREFORE, BE- IT RESOLVED by the Beaverton City Council that: .Section 3: The prior Annexation Planning Area Agreement (APAA) and Resolution No. 2 647 is herebyrepealed and replaced in its entirety by this complete new agreement upon mutual adoption by the City of Beaverton and the City of Tigard. f'S Page 1 of 3 p ,. Resolution-00. - 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 i 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 tots facing Cedarcrest; west to a point just west of the tax lots facing 91st Avenue; south to Hall Boulevard; along the north side of Hall Boulevard, westerly to the intersection of Hall and Green burg/Ol e son 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 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 Road; intersection and then southwest along New Scholls 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 Tirgard'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 b: 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. Page 2 of 3 Resolution No. 02�0 t b 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 Scholls ferry Road area from Beaverton southeast into Tigard at 135th/Walnut. Section 5: 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.' 5 PASSED: This of 1956. ATTEST: AFFIRMED: e� Zara Cy Reco r. Kayok ity o Beaverton i - LC:ca Res-Tiga rd:54 3 of 3 Resolution 4.1• EXPENDITURES DATA 1980/81 Metzger/!dash. Sq. Tigard Population - 5.445 Population - 14,855 Total Per Total Per Expenditure capita Expenditure capita 141,810 26.04 Public Saf. 812,700 54.70 19,350 3.55 Finance 128.857 8.67 53.573 9.84 Co". Dev. 649,354 43.71 7,272 1.33 Admin. 79.205 5.33 33.958 6.23 Parks 120.839 8.13 13.909 2.55 Library 110,748 7.45 269.872 49.54 Total 1,901,703 127.96 1981/82 Metzger/Wash. Sq. Tigard Population - 5.555 Population-15,750 Total Per Total Per Expenditure Capita Ex2qnditure Capita 192,360 34.62 Public Saf. 955,789 60.70 29.741 5.35 Finance 206,975 13.14 63.414 11.41 coags: Oev. 8;9,073 59.90 8,431 1.51 Admin. 127,085 8.06 38,786 6.92 Parks 103,459 6.56 16.130 2.90 Library 135.048 8.57 348.852 62.71 Total 2,377,429 150.93 1992/83 Metzger/Wash. Sq. Tigard Population - 5.675 Population - 18,000 Total Per Total Per Expenditure Capita Expenditure Capita 222.569 39.21 Public Saf. 11034,428 57.46 29,741 6.61 Finance 301,879 16.77 120,667 21.26 Coma. Dev. 95115.28 52.86 �- 8.431 1.61 Admin. 154,184 8.56 38,786 6.74 Parks 67.927- 3.77- - 14.772 2.60 Library 149.435 8.30 434,966 78.03 Total 2,659,381 147.72 -77 .. _ Me1983/84 tzger/Wash. Sq. Tigard Population - 5,790 Population 18,200 - Total Per Total Per Expenditure Capita Expenditure capita 209.566 36.19 Public Saf. 1,130,715 62.12 42,169 7.28 Finance 370,839 20.37 108.761 18.78 comm. Dev. 1.077,356 59.19 .25 12,128 2.09 Admin. 168,500 39.030 6.79 Parks 53,030 2.91 16.366 2,82 Library 175,980 9.66 428,020 73.95 Total 2.976,420 163.50 1984/85 Matzger/Wash. Sq. Tigard Population — 5.940 Population — 19,000 Total Per Total Per Expanditure capita Expenditure Capita 197,950 33.32 Public Saf. 1.330.5000 70.02 48,616 8.21 Finance 389.500 20.50 120,631 20.31 Comm. Dev. 1.269.073 66.79 12.684 2.13 Admin. 1655 500 8.96 00 3.05 17.0 Library 8.21 Parks 228,924 15.20 445.854 75.04 Total 3,501,397 184.42 (1) Public Safety — (a) 60% of Administration plus operation times .0375 (equivalent population of unincorporated Wash. Co.). (b) 401 of Administration plus jail time .022 (equivalent population of Wash. Co.). (2) Comm. Dev. — Total Expand. time .0375 (equivalent population of unincorporated Wash. Co.). (3) Parks — Total expenditure of Metzger Park Special Assessment District. (4) Library — 2S% of West Slope library operations. ` (5) Finance and Admin. — Total expenditure of budget times .022 (equivalent population of Wash. Co.). SOURCE: Washington County Annual Budget Tigard Annual Budget t ............ r t EXPMM!IES f8R TICARD 00(9"NNlT1_f(3) Total Per Total Per Total Per Total Per Total Per . Capita U22nd. ftita Expend Capita Exp Cay ita Expend. Capita` 1980/81 1981/82 1982/83 1983/84 1984/85 Pyblic 8af. (1) 76,524 5.15 112,992 7.17 123,216 6.84 121,872 6.69 125,904 6.6; fhanCr (2) 52,773 3.55 811112 5.1 102,314 5.68 115,008 6.32 133,136 7.0( Mae, pev N/A N/A N/A NX N/A N/A NIA N/A N/A N/F ti 19,834 1.33 22,996 1.46 24,991 1.39 33,079 1.82 34,594 1.8; Pick= N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/F L;tbra4ry _ -MIA .M _._. A MIA To : 149,131 10.03 217,100 13.77 260,521 13.91 269,959 14.83 293,634 15.4 tal 'f O .8. - 40% Admin. a Jail Expend. X .06 (Pop. Equiv. Tigard). (vt) DipaMmwnt Expend. X .06 (Pop. Equiv. Tigard). 0 Bxcyudpe'Mash. Co. Expenditures Community Development, Parks, and Library. r�Qe WALIMUM EXPE310ITUREB (WARN CO. t TICARo)(i) 1980/ii 1981/82 1982/83 1983/84 1984/85 Total Per Total Per Total Par TotaCal 912 l Per Totayl Per Exp Capin Expands Ca ita Expend. Ca t: 1(e safety ' 889,234 59.85 1,068,781 67.87 1,157,644 64.30 1,252,587 68.81 1,456,404 76.6, niwnCv ' 181,630 12.22 288,087 18.28 404,193 22.45 485,847 26.69 522,635 27.51 Doy. 649,354 43.71 849,073 53.90 951,528 52.86 1,077,356 59.19 1,269,073 66.7! ` Admin 99,039 6.65 150,081 9.52 179,175 9.95 201,579 11.07 203,094 10.61 p6 120,839 8.13 103,459 6.56 67,927 3.77 53,030 2.91 55,000 3.0! b*7 11w 7.45 135,044 9 1,M 1494„435 8.30 175,,980 9.66 288.824 15.21 foul- 2,050,834 138.02 2,594,529 164.70 2,909,902 161.63 3,246,379 178.33 3,795,031 199.81 r ii ' Excludes Wash. Co. Expenditures for Comae. Dov., Parks and library. BdIRCEs Washington Co. Annual Budget Tigard Annual Budget i PROPERTY TAX/PER CAPITA EFFORT --General Govt. Property Tax Vs. Household ExpenditureEft®rt (12 Metzger/Wash. Co, Tigard 198b gl 1.65 x 65 = 107.25 .60 x 65 = 39.00 49,54 x 2.2 = 108.99127.99 x 2.2 = 281.58 1.73 242.57 g 1991/92 4.23 x 65 = 274.95 1.19 x 65 = 77.35 62.71 x 2,2 = 1137.96 150.93 x 2.2 = 332.05 <136.99), 254'70 1981/63 4.02 x 65 = 261.30 1.12 x 65 = 72.80 78.03 x 2.2 = 171.66 147.72 x 2.2 = 324,96 <99.64), 252.18 1993/94 1.88 x 65 = 122.20 1.18 x 65 = 76.70 73.95 x 2.2 = 162.69 163.50 x 2.2 = S$j„7►Q 40.49 283.00 . 19$4/05 1,97 x 65 = 128.05 2.06 x 65 = 68.90 75.04 x 2.2 = 165.09 184.42 x 2.2 = 405,72 {{ 37.04 336.82 ' (1) Based upon Assessed Valuation of $65.000 and 2.2 Residents. PROPERTY TAX/PER CAPITA EFFORT %f Tigard/Washington Co. Property Tax Vs. Household - Expenditure Effort (1)(2) 1980/81 1.65 + .60 x 65 = 146.25 138,02 x 2.2 = 303.64 157.39 4.23 + 1.19 x 65 = 352.30 164.80 x 2.2 = 362.34 ff 10.04 4.02 +-1-11 x 65 = 334.10 161.63 x 2.2 = $55.59 21.49 1.88 + 1.18 x 65 = 198:90 178.33 x 2.2 = 392.31 193.43 1.97 + 1.06 x 65 = 196.95 199.86 x 2.2 = 439'.69 242:74 {i). Exclu�s Wash. Co: - Expenditures for Parks. t.ibrac7 and community �ii e�9!Io �ieot. ;2) grid upon iRss�sasd`,V4i w►tioa o1' 565.500 4" 2.2 R$sidi�nts: -^5c�- v: 1 4.2 REVEMJ This section includes all correspondence in reference to revenue estimates from outside agencies. -.i ------------ M Jt' •• 1 N Pacific Northwest Belt'. Seattle, January 10, 1986 City of Tigard City Administrator P.O. Box 23397 Tigard, Oregon 97223 ATTRMTION: MR. BRIAN HARTUNG Dear Mr. Hartung: Per our conversation on December 16, I an furnishing you with projected telephone franchise fees associated with estimated telephone revenues in the Metxger/Washington Square area. As we discussed, this area is outside the Tigard city limits and PNB does not have actual revenue data for that specific area. You indicated that there ars about 2,000 residential dwellings in the study area. The tariffed rate per month for 1 party premium telephone service is $16.33. The annual telephone revenues from service to 2,000 residence telephones would be about $392,000. Based on these revenues, the franchise fee at 3% would -be $11,760. For your information, the tariffed single line business monthly rate for telephone service is $40. If you determine that your sample area includes businesses, it may be helpful to reflect the higher business service rate in your projection. I hope that this information is helpful in your planning process. Please call me if you wish to discuss this matter further. Sincerely, Susan L. Wood Manager - Gross Receipts Taxes 1600 -7th Avenue, Room 2306 Seattle, Washington 98191 (206) 345-7074 r jfoj��CATIQNS COMNUSSIO 12655 S.W. Center Sweet d Suite 390 o Beaverton. OR 97005-1601 0(503) 641-0218 January S• 1985 Mr. Brian Hartung City of Tigard P. O. Box 23397 Tigard# Oregon 97223 Dear Brian: Storer Metro Communications built their cable system in part of Metzger in fulfillment of the Franchise Agreement requirement to test market in the TCI-Liberty service area. -The area in which they built is bordered by dreenburg Road on the went# Oak Street on the south, and Hall Boulevard. I would estimate they have 100 to 150 subscribers which would generate $1,000 to 1$1#400 in franchise fees annually. ' Sincerely, William J. Tierney Administrator WJT:jyh N ._.... .. .e..T.r.14.+-1�1�' '�n. ••�.^T^''.. •. - +rwwo :n'w Y ... v.••: ....,.. v3l=tav' M an alw�'•�aaa aiA o� o�ate►•eaa�s+w VO low LOOMCA"W December 12, 1985 Mr. Robert M. Jean city Administrator City of Tigard 12755 S.W. Ash p,p, eox 23397 93223 Ti gard. Oregon Dear Mr. Jean: er ashington Square This is in response to your December 6 inquiry about the Metzg !W area. area: 1 estimate that we tomes in the study cable eased on the City's estimateimat`llyy ;5200 in annual franchise fees from 8 n county 4" "o PAY cc to homes in the area. television service Provided Sincerely, Dave Reynolds Area Manager DMR:eaf cc: Michael MCClOskTierney Willi � sQ phone 644-6161 • CG� o AN Saxi&V- Spedalized Container Service c.M..a_a 00" ..Atga� 515.w v�o++.OR 97005 December 10, 1985 r Robert W. Jean city Adi"istrator 12755 S.W. Ash p.o. sax 23397 -nerd, OR 97223 Dear Mr. Jean, constrain your corraspondanca required, ida res Dina to the time �� your Sequest with any S would be nearly impossible to comply of accuracy. but I can offer an estimte which should serve well as a "*Ork-up" fiSura. soon, I astia�sto the After coMsulting Your asp of the area in unstated to be $373.00 say of franchise fees) currently S w ve""we $b This estimate is based on the rates curren1,1 to V".00 per sionth. a copy of rhich is enclosed per 'Your ragwst* Ipp�g", in the assn, lease fool-.free to contact f I can be of further assistance, p M. A Sincerely, Tan Killer Miller's Sanitary Service, lace cc/on file i=CM C PordantJ General BectrIc " December 20, 1985 Robert W. Jean, Administrator City of Tigard P0 Boz 23397 Tigard OR 97224 Dear Bob: The estimate for 1985 of the annum franchise fee that would be paid for the area described in your Urban Services Study of the Metzger/Washington Square area is approximately $150.000• From the map you provided, we found 12 different meter routes some of which are entirely within the proposed area and others only partially inside. Using a percentage estimating factor on the boob only partially in the area, we calculated the revenue on which we would be paying a franchise fee to be approximately $4,300,000. Although this is only an estimate, we are confident that it will provide a suitable figure for use in your planning. Best regards, t" Chuck McClellan General Manager Western Division CM/9tb3.2A3 Western Division--14655 SW Old SchoMs Ferry Road—Beaverton.Oregon 97007-643-5454 tcl tna General Telephone Company p Y of the Northwest, Inc. 178-iE. N ti' %omei! Road, ?C. Box :.UG 3 $e2'veric C,rc.ron 97075 December 18, 1985 Robert W. Jean City Administrator City of Tigard P. 0. Box 23391 Tigard, Oregon 97223 Dear Mr. Jeans This is in reply to your letter of December 6, 1985, requesting fran- chise fees information within your Urban Services Study of the Metzger/ • Washington Square area. Based on the estimated services within the area designated by the A map you furnished and a 3% franchise fee, the estimated amount of revenue is $14,358.79. We estimate the annual revenue for our services within the prescribed area to be $478,626.24. If additional information is desired, please advise. ,Sincerely, mss► J. E. Sherar Vice President - General Manager An Equal opportunity EmpkW A part of GTE Corportion -a� . as,Y. ,+,. " '�s— s�arr m _ "':k`.�£iPs'$•rn, +fz..i!+„?. �e; ";�`ac, .a"."7i3i;:fiej 2'.},»... _;:^f{�s.s.. t d CFTY OF F PORTLAND, ^� 1120 S.W.54h Avenue, 9T2064 POR D, OWVOM (503)7965157 BUREAU OF L KENSES 3. CITY OF PORTLAND BUSINESS LICENSES Who is required to have a Business Everyone doing business in the City of License: Portland except: (a) businesses whose only activity is regulated by the State Insuranr.e Division: (b) businesses which sell oal alcoholic beverages: (c) businesses which earn less than $2,500 per year before expenses. t What is the fee? The minimum annual fee is =25.00. The fee for renewal is based on the amount of profit or loss earned in Portland the year before. Isn't this just a business tax? The eall Business generLicense Feeof ss t axessinhPortace land. it is a purely revenue license and has many of the features of an excise tax. Unlike most city business taxes, Portland's fee is based on profit after expenses, not on gross receipts..- f Now do E get my licenser Complete the simple form, Application for City Business License and submit it to the Bureau of Licenses with :25.00• You will receive a license which will expire at the end of your current tax year. i You will doing business illegally be What happens if I do business withhold ermits and/or in Portland without a licensey license? and Under the City Code, the police may cite anyone for encouraging others to do business with an unlicensed business. And, there are substantial penalties which may be invoked if you must be taken to court by the City. Nill I receive a license If you need immediate evidence that you immediately? are licensed, bring your application and $25.00 fee to the Bureau of Licenses for a temporary number you may use. FOR MORE IIIFORNATIOtii2C0NTAC�.'�I ,LPO�eTI.AND PORTLANSES ON THE DTH FLOOR OF, OR PHONE PORTLAND WILDING, (503) 796-5157. . L-202 (4/85) DO NOT WRITE IN THIS SPACE ' t . B)W V OF UCENSES ACCT.# •1120 SW 5th Ave.R M 1206 �"d6.5,57 • 1 g'�°" APPUCATION FOR DT SIC 72— CITY BUSINESS LICENSE T# S PLEASE PRINT OR TYPE 1. To be issued to a. iwm.middle twm and tea rand d WuMm dueft) Rama aM oiwiar.vamas �awonl(R+i 2. Checkata: p kxkvxkW PMPrietor*NP O Partr+er" 0 Corporation 0 Personal Corporation 0 S C,orporstiort p Oats 3. t int owner,partwS orcorpaate orfioers TWO Reskience Address Pham Number 4. T"payer ID#(kndiA&mis use Social Sfwft#) S. Aseurrod bu*wn name used(d any) 0. Duskms Addressbw 0.4 VM Q (cars sm"and MP) teuaY+aaa w«>n.tasabar) 7. Is Lias 6 a prorate residenoa or a commwviat biding ?(ChOck ane) Is business address located tvdhin the MY Of Portland? Yes No(Check Orta) S. Meft address 0 different than Lim 6 9. fine and address orproperty owner of manager of bustneas location.M business adtess is rented,give name and address of person a whom rerd Is paid 10. Blcsirteas 0eecr113*M &x0e tie type of goods sold&designate whether Wall.wholesale,etc.or service performed.n application is for renWog or leasing a resider-Mal or oommerdal property please IM locations of property on the reverse side.) 11. fret date a dcktg busigme In city of PortWW 12.-Number of employees in Portland(IMI ids owners)- 13:-Ale books-io b's kept on a calendar' - Or fiscal yearn it fiscal.state 4mKb date 14.is illi'a-new buskiess venture?_or a previously Yoeaaed buakwn purdweed by you? 15. ■previously lloensed bu*wM from whom purchased? - 16. Hance you ever been licensed In Portland before? ' what years Address Reasonable estirnaW license fee(to a000m;kv-W 4*11catlort)is aDcuteted at tlhe rated 22%of net knoome subject to fee. WNWW FEE IS SU-00 and is subject to adjudbnertt upon renewal. Make check payable to City of Portland and mall In:Bureau of Liewmes. 1120 SW 5th Avg.Rm.12M Portland,OR 97204 TIM takm 1lpuMe*Am used ln,vw ordirhanoa.is no(b be construed 1q mean peril•,Thi Business icortse Fes In for,reverm purposes,and Is not a .y�{�.,.yY,.•'. neo payrtwrt a aylko"fob ow accep im a,e,dh'tati arta Issust,oewof ya�ao�«t a gr me sty doe.snot value.eo«taee w '[f1�e� f� �W.. p�y4q�. t�aO�'�__—_'.."_�tt1@ fn ,a.: H � +a••.r+•={��si'e zYJ'JA.�;.le 'w+%KC� VO�� "' ..�..t... )p.. nr`•1 W M �^ww••.•st .' ^ \.., I� £'1..,.1�►•L�-;r. S!•'1?'jL1rS{1S e' � ..r + � 4,t"ai=tE:iJltS "dam 2�.' .r r�� si?`tib!s"�t'!"x%flL?r' �" '��9[7Li1:��1 3:1,ttit�'.:i:•.r..s:=: }.�.f:N'3i.tJ4t._..b:fi.�1 :i�4 .•a � ii!.l•.� �I:� ., r �r��a,rcga��•3uW.p;�v13 u:g's Ort v is 3i.1Q'�•fl1 biltli��`�s�:►•::t-'F,"9it>•.�6 t;itta.i'.f:„xS'!r`�:tG:t:•::G::.."=:�::� . _ - . . (Oaaw,PsA�rr,Owaraha Orear ar sew eurtr sMtiataad wpaawrtaawl U12 Rev.944 009 Over u?R+w y .pox-G•o.Oo.xR puma w 7++�s>o�tN:nh�xru a•u+ _ _ �►` License b required of aN ift ds> wiWrs tl�o Cly Ot P�tlend.Oiro�on L e based tion net kmonie - from the prior veer;the rn *Mxn amud foo is SMOCL When abtairaRg the o license.cogo"tlsia °r°and ream It with S�.00..Yva� neoeive a re rtr�need btmneceit%�:Its_.sfsf>icta•oos�pst•stl4�en4i � You wY1 renewal isms in the asc trisir>�of irsess year.Graf wl�t:av8 four ritoa+b�siwai�oiD� "i he`reriAwaRe�iidR ba detertr>ined b!►the ti9ures ' — y�r!' i;�u„�,Tib<rTS25,00 payn,entis eie which mazy be adne?d Ared:in on}�e ih�s�n�r tcais tV+fiidi -� � the.Bur<eaa,�tioenees�ts,�?96��sT; year'soer<yoiit,asstusl,inbon+at '.:,fir:' �a,:�•';i •..:+<.;:,:+tx a'.3_�B a^. {�::.�;r.7�`+!'_K10 9Utj+►%3If SO' s1+..»!1 at P'CStr207' .;:•1�..,?}: ��-�..:jam! '`'�• ••-- :ih�; ,::3p t.n!2 2�it'ai8 xrC .i ..•pi9c.1..YG';t?.�.Wts3,:"xrJ _-:.:•:�s� •:'�� ....,.- _z.: `.'!t�< < _.�... ._, -y-.,.�.._ . . , ADDITIONAL OWNERS.PARTNERS OR CORPORATE OFFICERS(_cor:tln ��Lino 9)ued__—._ - ,,. _e -_ TEE Asaidence/lddraeo __ - _- PhoneNumber SPIAL BUSINESS LOCATIONS IN PORTLAND(Cons WW from LIM 8) — ADDRESSES OF RENTAL PROPERTY OWNED IN PORTLAND' Reeidersllet commordal c ''Told Aesad�d Dwelling Units: Total Carmaercied Units: t "RTANT NOTICE: Possession of a vaid City of Portlend Bussinew License does not entitle flee Nsasnaee to carry on any bossiness Ii wOMA comp ft with aN other pertinent laws and MWAdbns. _ - 4.3METHODOLOGY Expenditures Washington County and City of Tigard Budget documents for the periods 1980/1981 through 1984/1985 were examined for actual or budgeted operational expenditure in categories relating to the prevision of urban services. Actual expenditures reported were used when available. A. Categories examined were: 1. Public Safety - This relates to the provision of police and jail services of both Washington County and the City. 2. Finance - All expenditures relating to provision of Accounting, Auditing, Financial Management, Data Processing and Word Processing services. 3. Community Development - All expenditures relating to services in the areas of Building and Zoning. Engineering. Planning, Public Works arra Surveying. 4. Administration - All costs relating to general administration, governing bodies and related functions. 5. Parks - All costs relating to operation of the Metzger Park and City of Tigard Park Siem. 6. Library - All costs relating to operation of the City of Tigard Library System and 25% of operation of the WCCLS West Slope Library. B. Expenditure Breakout Washington Co. Expenditures as they relate to provision of • services in the Metzger/Washington Square area were formulated as follows: • 1. Public Safety - 100% of Patrol/Operations costs plus 60% of Administration multiplied by .0375 (population proportionate to the unincorporated population of Washington County) plus 100% of jail costs plus 40% of administration multiplied by .022 (population proportionate to the total population of Washington County). 2. Finance - Total costs multiplied by .022 (see above). 3. Community Development - Total costs multiplied by .0375 (see above). 4. Administration - Total costs multiplied by .022 (see above). l_ 5. Parks -Total costs of operation of the Metzger Park. 6 Library Total .cost of ,operation of WCCI.S West;Slope Branch multiplied ;by, 25x.. .. ..mil Beloit nu, .■�llll lad r� �^ MTI;-R.4 kq i t ..�. N■Iii ISI87 "roe . i ce_n a =1 me 110111- 0 . .■ ..r�1 •1 wr ■ 1 MOM; p"Mon#If1Its 11llI M! t ' ♦ :AlilllC :��il: llfll�/� ` ' R 1111/1:1■r'. :IIIAIII► •. Maps: ■' �i e..rr' IIIIif 1q :.il+�i"�.. ■1� C ,. n/• w.11.,� . �.�. •h: nut/� �., .11■■■x. 111 .■. ■ ■ _ ' � ii1i11't1f1: :11�: :111/�■ 1�11� rr!01 -1r7 ■E IF....1. I :1 1 �j�••, � �� ==�/t ■ ■laaitt■ ROD� �� • w'1'� / I�r■: ■i: :11■111 ■■Ii .. 1: 1��■ ■ id ' ■— ��Ilut1• .��Ila ■ CONCUR fl. " 1 '%Kfi 1=.t:�.. •__ <.._, A+3•: =i_ 111.1 )a .��r. rrlo• - , CI� Si1111 :IIlh: x-11 :: i1 1 :!t!■ �' ■■—_ ,, 11! NDi: milli 0'i!i■ . IJ. . NOWd ■� ■ w —_ .� 1 t r .. iilr■► '��■�'.. !r/�rii ■Il i■ 1111 ►�� 111 ■'1�. 1i . .�t � ,. Vii'� � s.a�a..d■ •' � _ awn _�� 7�: _ �� ■ •n�r� IIIU`��e.l/rte r!.Z � �� w■� �� .�. � 9 1p ff- Owl No ON oil _,w pIRS IRS Joel- one.1i g� ■ t ♦.��■ }�,r all + 1.. As Albi— IIt■ ■/ 1111 im V- sit . j/ �. �""I■.. 11111111 v =■� L ' I'i ■r...,� 9w All 01111111 21 MMW alliNiii , 11 WE" � �E' 1111. :Itliht■ - ;�Ih ��z1;M 'Millis: 01011'- -/11!!x// Ai■Ilil/l :IU; AM, 'I MCI �� 1■■■�: lil ,1111// ■�";: ageism■ /1IM11�� ' "■�.� It �1:. :111ire . elf -- 11�. '!., :,;r.■ ■ ■la :1111: 1 1 �� HIN . ■ ILII �, 1:" INS ■ r. :: 1 •• ii,'� ��l l J` # �'■Pt W. :11111 :11 15 wanNOW 1111,421 ■1111�9�_ : ►,J: 1'! � .E ��►� _ ► - ��'■* upra Oft ��—+.--,'rte•v �r ,ss■• O}• �, w ' ,,, '4 �t1� �OV ii l//tsum imm 64 om+�� 1 � I �aalow yi. it /i �['a sr, T_ �. ��i swr"�■ -�E ag on a 11 1 1 ■ tie ■ lUmm a.�► ! NOW -kio Isis swans �� ' +.,� � Ut■: .iii{I{� oil I logo IFs Ila,I� �• , let. ■ �'�"�. ..moi■ �till� ■ /■ �./�1•-s.�l.r ``•� i I �l• . = 1. 1137411011 == as - - — ,, 1 �►,_-ire f:,` „��•TIMM . � .- •� S .`OWN ',iNi ii ': 1t1.� Ii I t - • HIr :'11!:'1 .; lot.m *',, �111■■: 111"� i�111lR� r �rrir�irl: .�lll� _IMS= =� r 111111tills W- ,. . E �on =111. •• ! 1� ■., •11. ■i.. -loll- 511111. 1 ;. nus �L• .. .'.'1: milli S'1 !8 FEW §602mlix 1 pp will MEN 0104, ME ■ ■ _ :�: � 'IA ..�r- IIIL1'1 f�JI ■ �� a �� awe • w. - 10 E== _ Olin, ■ �. ��t i ��Itl 1 :�� a,■ ��.�i �� r l�_mow`� w�r •�� !1'. 1 :1 1 ' _� � i • r �� fir' � ��• :.��■ Z �. INN INN Mill Moore lob law- ..■�.. ��. we It ttr� ►i. �[ttt .�. IM-W 111"Ims �� 1111 :Iltlirr■ /r ■IL'll • .Alliin. ■ .. H / `• , �11t■,��i 111��.: t1t1111 r r �l4i tttt.l. 1 1 �•:.�; � � :1�1 i � HIS>� _ i � ��► �� :1.. .1111! � � Ll: ■fill g•1�l: INN ' �� ,�� _ /■�' ■■..w�.. .ter •,� • n■� �• r. one ier of -Mae lion, I fir 0.1 scas II MIA "k,414F Emma �'; .� _w -�� : � �lr• _� ��-t�1�' 91'x:■ `� '� � . �� , '� _II/r�� '�tL.■ 11111► s ■ _ aI►1�L tt�i�lll� ' S� �``►��`` r J /3► i SII ■ t,�j � �. . 1 �� .. ..�rte, jtl ■11■RUN;� WINE- seen ■1•---- - �I I�' %� ■ '�'C ,� •�� ILS M, low • � Nib 'miles : , _l/1m :' X111 1 `.. ..iu3I 'l1 .ai 7iili �: lw�llt�a� iN■. syn �■ �� , � ♦ :Alllli: �Mal;or�1{lit ►/ /11111 a■:"III�Ir/1� �' ' �� w*r1 !�1lliOF =14 :.il!_il r ..c He was d . . u 1 �'r■11 s■■ ■IINL .�Ilil �.... ��t►■ � �� :-/fit ■ �1� �1111r� � .. � �Ir. 111. � r _I = � 1�� a !�1 / 9 ■?1 Ik. .1.. Mill - ■L� �—,�� ■.�• ::{. ■n11 ■■111= - it— Ila '!; ■ E w mop one Susan .■ sill-11P.102 .. a. n _ I Bil�• ��'��■■Q• !tom r �_ am MUM a = ROOM�� ram ��:a` '7�•`'� �■11 F n: : �l�I�'�•� 1 � � ■� Iii � lotl Paz Pir A �.�.�•rlI11. ■ ► • Iia_ ( , - i. --■■s �I��IIII�I�I�II11►A %.�:� W3 ■■ r.z r_. off ®�� A��I�' ■� � t! r r - Ll. 1 11.1 1. •1 ■;L:out, . 1. mom Itals m 6=1 Nos 01 all ■ M Nil g�ii= 0111! f v � :AIME ; 1' "211010 �11111E: �IIf� ".111, • � '� e. . 1 � � , ; i� 1��i ■11116: i 1� 1� r.■ a bo i�.■ 511111 s i 1 �� ,— �� ■., �1: ■1111 •'1 :� J: tt- _ ■ s dp all it 1 M IM :4_ -'[ �w a■iM ".'J► .r.:■1 �■ ;� �� 1 cm �� 111 �, +��,�h'�I�JI, •t ,` �t SII■ nc vp •r , MOM :rrr� rf i it ts� AR= w art �[ ,••r •� ■� j■ile ■u r #/NI■1 -- U■ ,, `; ttiJ4 rI memo* r.r` m. • r 5oil. ■■ a. ■ f Ill L ow a ryrn �E Iiil: :11111■■t/ i� ■IL'll mr-14Ng _ ' Al111111 ■rj►1■■ ��If'�i� �' ,� ,•r w L ■� 111"� :�ilil�t :'. ttl�i. u11n■ � IF 1 111 R Moir .3 . 11 * s IOWA•.1■. .11111 : 1 s �► ■ .`�... �� LLO :111' i� E top 3 Com' mom _ FIR Ais MIN , rr 11 jZ w ■■ re ■■ �t� _•S r w��l. ?'1; .�`�' . ■. rir IIU1' I, • _.,�'a. �� rra• w �=r'�� ■w � ,1 — �Y ))' �� ■ ' �! J�,,1 121Y 11� SCI :``�, ,met■t •� ��_■ :�_ ho'VAN H AN _n —MOONS :.►jai r i l!►�!� ��t�U�� lop all ZIA ► `_ Ai�11t1 r . 0101111, JINNUNN In on am I NMI mi 111 � ��r--- /1 /�.■■—rr�►�� Film 64" m s �1■�� 111". rIII// �l�L: allow 00 IND R :ate "• [ 1 : i ii '■�i !!rf HUloss PIN WEE is illll� . ..� Hills . 7 . S �� .3 i� .. ntt ,. ■ of Sam WIN WWP NEW err � �.••�:; to �"'� ■.� ■,� ■ t 11 ► �I 1 ■ I � �� -�r i1[ GOP t•I :C==:_= ��I■.�� , ■•• �f�>tt� elm 1► !■l (11• to r ■ ■t ,� 1: •� 'i� t til�til� `fes �� flUL f ■� �+ .... ►, %yam��A,�r � �r` MAl �� '" � I, • � . AN off ® ; r.A � !� �\,;'• � �� .moi ��•'� • • r ' ♦ larva �� j■.tt .� Big, W,� � ■ 'a.�,�L r�ti�� /IIE N■ / 1`wiiiir� • �� 1, �� L,■ // dooms �•�■r � �1 j :■ M! so ,111! .. ■ ' 11 `m on, 'f ■tIts"",.� t ii Mir■ �� ■ �� 1111 11111// i{ OILll X111111 :i '■ art r ■ X11#1/l writ!:. cirlRmlr A , ��•• Q • �1■■�■: 111":: i■�11H// /N. tutuoff _M ■ •1nFAff 7n -I Lao ■ 1 1 hii iYM■11i ■ Ith1 �-�1i ■ oil.i1111■"i 1 o.9 an ■ • '�Il�rtr■��/�w�ll. IP ma .11■111 lr 1 �� r. � �.. •111• � •■ /• 1 1 .. 11111 :1Fro =111:sell 1 ' r �'' � ��lA ■�. ■flll� M/IE ■T IgloosIL_r vz,!.. . ■�1 tt�r �Irn■ ■u■r Q r ff w 0 1, .04 a �► , /. _i _ J �. �` t■ ■ t 6�I ��.� �t�,•� ii ■_�■ � , �►h" 1/l1 t tl: �'1/:` r at. J a �jj1i ��tiw .. - Raw IMI 'r • •: t r , 'MIS � 4■�■1•i'll• ■, Ij ' i c ■ . „ =j ■ �. • iiI ■ . i ■■ Ir uk�+tr�z■ems ', • .� �� `�.��`— ■■■!� �sit so ■ tint: .■■�Il1!� _ � �_, � � ' A►l�il elf ■t//■1 ■� r ro _- V■I , ��►��Iri11EPMOPAIRM . I■�•� . X11 �� 1_ ��or z 1 - 11 ■ei —. _ 111 a111� t. ON. err. �. !!*1-r `a 11y-■ 1its �■ 1111 211111■■ ' ff1�rr ■IL'1 �►: Will: ;1511: =1111114 /111111 '8.102. 11111111�� 1L' i� _��;� No rrla_:_M' �, -�7W� .c �, .� ►. .. '/!/��! Ifo'"�` .:1111// ' ■R. lives ■r. . N� lMimiNCA Eli I PW IN 111; Untl al� �1>�/!� �. X1:11: :1l1` i111■ lE MR Wi HIII-ITMAZEM111111 fr■� ihi,•111�f11i f►, 111 ,log ■ ��. i `11 N� ■ii !111111 1111.■ �! �1: 's rli i 1 11' IS I ■II E �� Moil: t11�or•::I{Ilm 1111111:-MM .. �� i� .i.. rflf11 .►1 il. IJMIIJIL1911: W. �' ■�'" Ci. ■1111 Ito �iff�. .l■ _ 11. - ■. —f— rr . 11. — •r ■ ■ �' p �►..hli► �� '7 1 Mon ■1111 Nil �!!!it 11111 Iii I,ii l!� :1'n.lm MURVINIM 401, Ilii*MINIMUM is� '.r�r .Z F. .� . ��■ _':i: __ _ ��•. ..loll AN 1 1 1/�r . v �_�•� �.� •w • sljl �' !j � ►'t �� ■ , tl"'.'.1 it I! RUN r, ! +i=amlwAs=� AN. IN '�:�':9■1� t��l f Ili ii Itli ■ feel �Wjmasss i r Ice—IN MOM 1E 3 2B �■ lo* ,�1•�, w.�...l_01010iaNt -■�t; ■*t11 moi- : .l �\ w ' INS i wl �� `; i •fir ( ' _�� ►Ts Amalfi � IP A i� '�`� •ate: � I,■,f� j ■rl .� 'fill wig 1 a 41 1 `7` Now� ■�ti�I,11� 111■ : 'wT�l� h � -:s main 1■ �' '�'�: 'f 111 Bills WIN oil �Alllt : � : ! Pill IIIL'ii _ /r -„ '• i! :IIMOlfil'tl� � /IL' l'. }::: :...,',■!t .■ �. Tj �I�o0 sttn w• � i•: •.r�. ..��w �1■ ■Iw 1/.lII�• /'ta �Iili' '1�!*I i11►11 IG ,fir 11�UZ INN; aw►'1 irl` �r w L ' ■ra �� tib!' I 1}1't S 1♦=,a1:� "!AI 1:1111 ■�a� ■ll :: :1r.� nor, _ l■�1.! � ■■�■.��■■�► F, � ` givr .11111 ii1111 1�m I'� ■' w:i�:lti/1�l ME :'.All: ails ■ e thilM�■b = =001 �han- II / Il , y isj� �� Nu;11� :fi11111 :1_IF; 1,16� - -'..I ■rte r�■■■■ � i■� �■■■il� G■�j- �.■' �'� 1111101 NM WH ril[ !fiago n iilnnt! ■■lA4,.�liltw, • �- Ism w - � '�Ir _ '�f ■ •.r,,. IftIF 1 trTrr} � a ��r a- - �i ttr ttt �� ■i< �� •� ■� :'i ■viii�''� ■� IlL■ ��1,,,11. f* s■�■i a e �� / 11■ ■� 1�..■ : of �� alw "owl la, ffe alp �- plc ��,�,� �'I�•�,r .� _ f ■In � I 1 IfAll was 11..• T- - 1� rSMNo. .... --- -- i��►.. *c. IL Z ,� sad ,■ !t. INi'. •i �� C — ,rat ■ �!-.I.r� R 1111: SII111/�� IR vigil +ii1111�� :Iar :ul�!i nr Russ Nil W, sell off I so ,,•�•., :-�.rlr. � tis .nt�— �: ;� � �Illrn�■�� . ■ ila S Mill. :► �[�r t< Crit. C1� :11111 : Ire1 : 1 a Mull Bel low : r:EMISSION _ tom•• �� l� � �_ � �� 1t/��{fit■t''�1 .■' iim _ - 04 1,Tj Fall wow Is � . C' ■� �. Soot ■■■. ..1 Ani MM Nis �u.. lill111►�. � `. 417 9 sellIVA _ i 1\f r � ��,�.�• �� 111■: _��tu ... --� f� I � •,� f ■ +�. . Alil� ■:IIS a:� Ir.;h{;il� �t ....;.•�a�IG !�ll� tom■ .� � /�iil, 11 r• ,'• '+ �Ott•NO divan sweva MO. :its � 11 ` « ■ PM M._ . 11111 � m NOW 0 111 4 fill= _11111 /■ rr1! ■��L'�tl 1 � � �� tC ■Itllll a■� :1111111 / oL L� zj�.m ` ,. =1■/■■!' 111"� .:11N// � ■F�: �a..: MEM rp •�'• ■:f . ��1lSli �% r#Ifa '11 11 too w an fill :11111150 �.n :il: X111/ v �w 11� rr, �., �► SIR 0.all .0nn; rl _ 1 r .. IND one M�, ` vto ■1t 1{H!►moi t �' Sol � • � ��:_.� ■� !. � IMP Ion .. �1 �� it 1 ■ �\ SM INS = K or:" • ►' If F il; I��li■n ' ,: ,� :; woo •�� i�� fes✓ ■ r f :.... J1111111►�_ \ �` IT no t►'q � / ��i�t�= moi• Ai �ii.`. :■f�lll 14 �.• . Ii . ■ w�"..'j�ifl� A1110 ■Jiff allum- NMI � � �'� � i Qr �;'� .;.;,;..., ■ 1■ .. :� 11 111 .. i GOP � I► :Allilf: ;�•�1: :l1HIM ga - , ®� /111!!1 :1■:" :1/1111i/ � . ' �; til' _ . ■111111 ��I ►1,......��r1r G !�1•.. � an # 1H111111., 01111111 '"Mal - �`�•� ,�� :-.int ■ [t: aitll� i� :: PC WIN ` • 11111. . ii Ill ' '.3 : ■ [ "-` "111• ■113 "111■ i/i 1111 11511" in ��a� �� : �� fi■".+ �I: ■1111 ■'It. :11l:J: . "= �11� � ., ��1� •= ■III!-. r!1[ Ism ii4i�r .■1 ,. la anoints PA lot low r : - r r Z r r �.• AM silt an el' 11w, 11sling MOM muffs: � �► x.11 F rl: :'��: ■r :�, Il ', am an ■ AM� Aw ir--- .... ■ ill 1. III■:set will ZC M�III u , �d �,►�.iArri a..jt �IIIII �I �, �� •..h!•r•�r (fails ■U�LJN 1■9WN IN 4 ::`iiiir' f j r,, !'111#� II•/■M�� w IF a III .1► _ sea no ■■ • � ' ':" -:: 'lllf■ ::ir /'1: '1 111 v �i �� ■.� / �!� CI«!I s#1111 ��, ■e slim ��1�r Illt� , J� low sob Ong a 141 sea fill= =11 ■11111 51�:." :II#111#� Egli! :;tmeet / . ON Sw Irtr>I ■ ■��• YMi1MM'MAIL .-C ■'+i�t1#■1t■� ■1!r! i111A - ,� - ,> �a JL ,_ all.IN :l!UNWORN ■� .■, W`�t■■ 11-we- ■Illl r■ ■IltiC . �U �' ■■ ry : 0.1 111= lip. 11 Its 1111 li �,+P K ��!l��+'��/j��lla �'�`-1'■ ii1�1111111■ IC l�rt! ! 0� F ��■ Cllr ■11= ::lli■ MIN# III,1.. J }' • o; —�,`. ci t -� ■1t �I� 111111 alll/i X11:! I V r As JI �I: ■1111 ■'Ir. ail:: -�..'� ►� ,, _' ■. 111111117 rllr aw■1 ENO An 16 MIN Ml tn 51. a■ r --- �� •• o1 urn �1•� ■� �, moi■ •I :�as irs�■ s� f Ilh�i 111 ■ �■, =- �� ;w�.t '� ■■i1 F nam w �■: ■ a�� Il �_i��ll■�.� , �►��r� . . r_ >a 1■ Moo -.W weses MIN e. �yl��w�r � � ( �i� ■A f � MIND — u�� ate■ ,. � — ! �-•i '"'rri�...� ape air( r �11 i �� '�� ■r ■i s 11N _a1t1�G. trim. z S ��" �►� I( Irl.:. ��1�� ., ,. , �= 1111: W11111o! a �timl1 f ) I. :A11111: :1ia1: 111FIR ri i .�1111W.a111 walil�/ ■k: ..n..■ eta /111!'111 : RI C1�/■� 5, RME ►, � '�� s'�:�! �i I!la■ ■IIIIG. ■1 111 �_ r �" • 1:OKI 1, O41 F ■:: :1111111M O 1 .. MEN Will I ro nu , . _ � � !fit .1.. .111/1.■ I r . IR top- mi 41 all All, me Otis, some as Carl ■w ��II g_��• �� 1 ��i1,11 -ir -tt •*i`•�=, Irl �� :�/'Ej`_ t _'� '��. , �. �E, 1 ��=E/fre t�i�IM►�t�/1�fIlii _tLTAson IPI MIN Nipple go tome AMIN t t t � IF. � �,� G �■t 1�,r! j.rtt • looms �� • �"� L �■■ ��nl!' CJI■I�: ■ ..::c�` � ISO■ifs%�1�� 111■ a #1 •� �, w ��sttl •t II/ .. r t _ _ _ = ri� z - lll�i � ''■ ttr t� ■. .wP�II's!ta i�u t■ ..� • �� 1 1111 :iHIM ,,��• ■It��tli It 1� � /��) � n :811111; ;i�il: 111P1�►� Etl� ■rfM �� ■�#1111 :fl/:: :r1r1111� ,� • � � :;�:_ ' t` X11111( :U `: 1N■��R 111"a :.:1111/� _ �lti. nrr t� bhf S lit �i� ■ �,� i :I"INN :11111 z A t " M■t.1 I�io rAll.. � All •VS " ..111:lo • I na►• INS ' p ■1111 ■'1 J. '. .. �► r tr• ti��IA 1. ■111b r11E _. E f r ■� ��' ��, .�•e�■ ■�■'� Role 1:! t . = �t'�� r■ ■ltd=�� , Iall L 41 firHOW, ::�;� -■ � � ,. Fin .-i IZ ii ■ w. t. a>ta sums _.. 'm low r- ...;t MOR t los l �►� RM �_ �: __ Me ■ ■ �Iutttt�lll��ll►rte, r � � C 1• 47.!C SOURCES (r Expenditures o City of Tigard Budget — 1980/81, 1981/82, 1982/83, 1983/84, 1984/85 o Washington County — 1980/81, 1981/82, 1982/83, 1983/84, 1984/85 Revenues o City of Tigard Budget - 1985/85 Population 0 1980 Census of Population and Housing U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of Census - August 1983 o Population and Housing by Census Tract Portland Metropolitan Area Metropolitan Service District - July 11, 1985 o Center for Population Research t Census Portland Stats University Dewo4 ice o Urban Decision Systems, Inc, Los Angelos, CA - November It, 1985 Assessment 6 Tax Rate 0 Susrpu-y Assessment i Tax Roll Washington-County Assessor's Office • 1950/61, 1901/81. 1901/83, 1983/84. 1984/85. 1985/66 Quital P,r2ieats o Metzger-Progress Circulation Study washington county Department of Lwnd Use and Transportation Planning Division - August, 1955 Ash Creek Sasin Master Plan r -77 :.- a 4r' Mshhoton(Dunty or w 2000 /vl"finglheFukveN0 FEASIBILMY STUDY for COUNTY URBAN POLICE SERVICE DISTRICTS 4 {tib dw County by Gova.11IMMOt F WM6 Associates € ' In to n disfIGti on of tion Brow and Assoaistes FEASIBILITY OF COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICTS FOR LAM ENFORCEMENT SUMMARY Public safety and justice services in Washington County -- police protection. courts and corrections -- are no longer adequate to meet the needs of the County's growing population. The problem is money. County funds have not increased fast enough to keep up with population growth. Patrol services in the County' s urban unincorporated neighborhoods are particularly hard hit by the funding shortage. By 1988 . the Washington County Public Safety Review Committee , a countywide advisory panel of community leaders and law enforcement officials. found that the Sheriff' s urban patrols had fallen significantly below the level of nearby cities . and below the level considered by the committee to be a minimum standard to ensure public safety. The committee recommended the County seek new methods to finance improved urban patrols. bridging the gap until these duties can be turned over to cities . County policy identifies urban patrols as the type of municipal service that is best handled by cities . But there are approximately 125,000 Washington County urban residents who live outside cities now. And annexations take time under Oreton law. and require careful planning to acquaint citizens with new service arrangements and to ensure a smooth transition. One possible solution for the interim is creating law enforcement service districts, or special taxing districts . to provide the funds to improve urban patrols. As recommended by the Public Safety Review Committee. such districts can be structured so that the added cost is paid by those receiving the enhanced service. The feasibility of law enforcement service districts has been analyzed recently by independent consultants : Government Finance Associates and Don Barney 8 Associates . The results show that the committee's minimum recommended service level . 1 .0 sworn officers per 1.000 residents . can + 1 be wet at an annual cost of only $68 per household in 1987- 88. A higher level of protection, 1 .6 officers per 1 ,000 residents, can be provided for about $175 per household. The consultants conclude that the creation of a service or taxing district for lap enforcement would be a viable option. Even at the committee ' s minimum recommended level , there would be a marked increase in Sheriff' s patrols . The number of sworn officers patrolling urban neighborhoods would double , response times would be reduced significantly, and the deputies would be able to respond to some or the non-emergency calls that go unanswered today. Fig r: 3 2 low TRS DISTRICT CONCEPT The purpose of law enforcement service or taxing districts is to provide added funds. The money Mould be earmarked to support more police in the County' s urban neighborhoods . County service districts for law enforcement. authorized under state statute ORS 451 , are one way to raise the needed funds. There is another option . As a home rule County, Washington County could establish special taxing districts to achieve the same purpose without creating a new governmental unit. Under either option. the County Board would serve as the district' s governing body. The goal is better and faster service, and safer neighborhoods . The Sheriff ' s current service level is approximately .7 officers per 1 .000 residents. Without additional funds. County officials expect this service level to decline further in the next few years, falling to .5 officers per 1 ,000 residents or below. At this reduced service level . the Sheriff predicts that the present level of public safety will deteriorate further . The time it takes for deputies to respond to emergency calls will increase dramatically over current levels , from 5--15 minutes at present in the urban area, to 10-25 minutes in ( the future. officers will be able to respond to priority *1 4 and f2 calls only. With new monies , a higher service level can be delivered through increased Sheriff' s patrols, or by contract with police departments in nearby cities. For purposes of analysis , two enhanced service levels are examined: the Public Safety Review Committee 's recommended minimum of 1 .0 officers per 1 .000 residents; and 1 .6 officers per 1 .000 residents . which is the average police service level in nearby cities . Forming law enforcement or taxing districts requires that the County Board resolve a number of issues concerning the districts . Matters which need to be analysed and decided in getting up districts are discussed below: * District boundaries '► Leval of enhanced service • Costs Method of funding • Administrative structure 3 Boundaries The boundaries of a service or taxing district must be defined before a district can be formed. Key issues to be decided in setting boundaries : * Should the district(s) serve rural residents as well as urban? How is the urban area to be defined? * What is the appropriate number of districts? One or ■ore? * if more than one district is formed within the urban area, on what basis should boundaries be established? The first question is easiest to answer. Since the purpose of the service or taxing districts is to provide more money for urban patrols. the County' s rural areas would not be included. The service area for enhanced patrols would logically encompass the County' s urban neighborhoods , where better patrols are so urgently needed. This higher service level is not yet needed in the county' s rural areas . The service area may be defined as the area which lies within the urban growth boundary, but outside existing cities. A district formed to cover the urban unincorporated area would serve approximately 125,000 citizens . or 50.000 dwelling units . The second issue is more difficult . The urban area could become a single service district. or could be split into two or sore smaller districts . A number of possible methods and rationales may be employed to divide the urban area: - Sub-areas could be drawn along neighborhood lines such as CPO boundaries or smaller identifiable communities - - Rack Creek, Raleigh Hills, Test Slope, Metzer. Cedar Hills, etc. Larger districts could be created along existing geographic or physical boundaries, for example. by dividing the urban area east/west. or north/south. or into quadrants. - Another option would be to create sub-areas surrounding each existing city. covering the entire unincorporated area; or - Districts could be defined according to existing service patterns of the Sheriff and other local law enforcement agencies. ff Por purposes of analysis only. six study areas have been drawn to approximate the Sheriff ' s existing patrol 4 ` districts . This makes it possible to use actual police service and cost data in determining the allocation of additional personnel and other resources . (A map and other information on the study areas are attached to this report . ) The six areas are: Service Area fi Cedar Hills. Cedar Mill , Oak Hills , West Slope (northwest) t2 West Slope (southeast) . Raleigh Hills , Progress e3 Metzer. Tualatin area. Sherwood area, Bull Mtn . ad Rock Creek. Somerset. Aloha (north) s5 Aloha (south) , Cooper Mtn. i6 Non-urban portions of unincorporated county (would not receive enhanced service) Itabamced Service Lgvgls The current level of police service provided by the Sheriff in the unincorporated area is estimated to be .7 sworn officers per 1 .000 residents. According to the Sheriff , about .38 officers per 1 .000 residents are actually assigned to patrol functions. The Public Safety Review Coamittee found this service level is insufficient to ensure public safety for Washington County's urban residents . Most cities in the area have 1 .2 to 1.8 sworn officers per 1 .000 residents; the average is I .S. So there is a wide gap in the level of patrol services in the unincorporated areas as compared to the cities. This difference in service level means that deputies respond less Quickly. and to a lower percentage of calls outside cities. The Coanittee concluded that 1 .0 officers per 1 ,000 resideuts is the minimum acceptable level for police protection in urban neighborhoods, and advised the County to seek addtional funding to improve this critical service . The advantages and costs of two enhanced service leveis have been analyzed: s 1 .0 officers per 1 .000 residents : the Committee' s ainiana acceptable level 4 5 •+ * 1 .6 officers per 1 , 000 residents : the average of nearby cities. The analysis shows that patrol service would improve markedly, even at the minimum enhancement level ( 1 .Othe officers per 1 ,000 residents) . By the second year, number of deputies available for urban patrol under this option would double present levels. Response tiles for emergency Patrolwould drop from officers would belablentoereassumet8onely o 5 minutes. Pat f ollowup investigation duties and increase emphasis on impaired driving enforcement. Patrol service would improve in every urban neighborhood. by the second year, the number of deputies added to each patrol district would range from a low of four to a maximum of eleven. For most patrol districts, this would mean one or two new officers assigned per shift. The improvement would be still more dramatic atthe cesid ig er enhanced service level (1 .8 officers per 1,OO The number of patrol officers would triple immediately. Response times would be sliced to 2-5 minutes for emergency calls . Officers would respond to priority s4 calls, which are currently handled by telephone report , Officer safety would also improve, with two deputies assigned to many patrol vebiclesAtraffic motorprogram aarrier�uld andbpark patrol re-established by the Sheriff and K programs would be enhanced. Staffing of special teams would be increased for burlary and narcotics enforcement, and utreach ime analysis.ensive , including icommunity ning and oeducation oand public schuld become isor ool extensive, programs . Again. patrols would improve in every corner of the County' s urban area. At oleast eight, and as many officer a would be added atoty additional patrtr each patrol district . (An analysis is attached to this report showing how the new officers would likely be allocated to individual patrol districts) . This analysis assumes the enhanced patrols would be provided by the sheriff . However. an alternative would be for nearby cities to deliver the higher service levels under contract with the County. The Cost of Enbanced service Today's cost of police protection in the County' s urban neighborhoods is about $3 million annually. 6 To improve urban patrols , additional monies would be required. primarily to pay the cost of supporting more patrol officers . Analysis shows the price tag for enhanced service is affordable for Washington County residents . To reach the Committee ' s recommended minimum of 1 . 0 officers per 1 ,000 residents. the added cost is estimated to be only $68. 10 per household in 1988, rising to $92 .53 in 1991 . If this amount Is collected as a property tax, the resulting rate would be $1 .02 per $1 .000 assessed value in 1988. rising to $1 . 27 per $1 ,000 in 1991 . These figures can be compared to taxes that area residents pay for fire protection. in 1986-87 , fire district tax rates in the same urban area are about $2.65 per $1 .000 assessed value. Even at the higher enhanced service level , 1 .6 officers per 1 .000 residents. the cost for better police protection would remain less than fire protection. The added cost is estimated to be $175. 11 per househould in 1988. growing to $196.02 in 1991 . Coverted to a property tax. the rate would be $2.62 in 1988 rising to $2 .72 in 1991 . C jnmdia= 3gurces ( Additional monies to pay for enhanced police protection are proposed to be Collected from those who benefit from the Improved service. To collect these revenues, service districts or taxing districts are to be formed in the urban area. It is possible to assess the additional charges to service recipients as either a tax or a service fee. There are two principal options for the funding of police service district: 1) A property tax serial levy 2) Service charges which relate the services received to the charges . Based on a review of the options . the consultants concluded that the most logical method of funding the police service district is a serial levy. This conclusion is based on the following factors : ' There is a very strong tradition in the United _ States and in Oregon to fund police services (considered to be a "property-related" service) with the basic funding source of local governments: property taxes. r 7 a The cost of instituting a property tax levy is lower than those associated with instituting a new fee system. Although property tax serial levies are the recommended mechanism. there are countervailing factors which favor a "fee-for-service" based system, one of the most important of which is the ability to charge properties which are property tax-exempt . Another potential advantage is that a fee system may be able to be established more quickly than a property tax system. The nature of the fee system would most likely relate the number of properties or the type of land use to the benefit charged for each tax lot in the urban unincorporated area. Similar systems already exist in numerous locations for services such as street lights . The final decision on the optimal funding source for the districts will balance these factors to determine the most efficient and effective mechanism. Adm+nistration of the District There are several administrative issues to be considerd in analysing the feasibility of districts. The first concern is the legal structure of the district, i .e . , whether it is a county service district , or a special taxing district. A county service district for law enforcement is enabled by ORS 451 . While the district would become a legally distinct unit of government, the County Board would serve as its controlling body. An independent special service district for law enforcement. with its own board of directors. is not authorised under Oregon law. Another option is a special taxing district . Oregon law allows counties to create such districts to assess taxes or charges upon recipients of a special service. The mechanism is similar to a local improvement district (LID) . The legality of taxing districts, sometimes called "sones of benefits" . has been upheld by the Oregon Supreme Court . However, they have been little used in Oregon. Multnomah County voters turned down a similar proposed 1061 charter amendment which would have allowed creation of similar districts for law enforcement and parks . The functioning of the district would be nearly identical under either option. The County Board would govern both. The selection of either option would not affect service levels or funding. The principal distinction would be in the process used to establish the district. As a new unit. of government establishing a county service district would g • require approval of the Portland Metropolitan Area Boundary Commission, as well as the County Board . Funding for the new district would be approved by voters within the district once it is formed. Taxing districts could be established at the discretion of the County Board. since no new governmental unit is created, funding would again require voter approval . A charter amendment authorizing the districts and establishing a funding mechanism could serve as the single ballot measure sumbitted to the voters. A second administrative issue is the number of districts to be established. A number of smaller service or taxing districts might be formed within the County's urban area . In theory. the service and funding level could vary from district to district. with residents choosing the service level in their neighborhood. For analysis purposes . five urban patrol service areas are described. These are configured to match the urban portions of the Sheriff ' s present patrol districts. Practically speaking. however, a single district would be such easier and cheaper to administer. It is difficult to conceive how services and costs could be isolated for smaller districts, unless service was provided in each area by a different police department. Still another issue is the intended life span of the districts. Washington County policy labels urban police patrol* as a "municipal" service, the type best handled by cities. Jistablishing new law enforcement districts might Conceivably act as an impediment to cities taking over these services by enabling citizens in the unincorporated area to receive city-level services without annexing. Possible remedies include adopting a sunset clause limiting the district's life to five years . Another safeguard night be to use district funds to contract with the cities to protect unincorporated neighborhoods . while confining the Sheriff 's patrol to rural areas only. •E=T STEPS The process for implementing either a county service district or taxing district differs somewhat between options. The key distinction between the two processes is that the Boundary Commission largely controls formation of a county service district. while taxing districts may be established at the discretion of the County Board. A description. follows of the formation process for both options. 9 Formation of a County Service _District Formation of a county service district would follow the procedure outlined in ORS 451 , and general statutes regarding formation of special districts set forth in ORS 188. The major steps involved in forming the service district include: 1) Initiate service district formation. 2) File formation petition with Boundary Commission. S) Conduct final hearing on County order. 4) Hold election on service district formation if sufficient written requests are received prior to or at the time of the final hearing. 5) Approve final order creating service district. Because the proposed county service district mould be located entirely within Washington County, the County Commissioners can initiate the formation of such a district. An order setting forth the County' s intention to form a district, along with the district' s name and boundaries must be filed with the Boundary Commission for approval . Subject to approval by the Boundary Commission. the County Commissioners are required to hold one final hearing on the petition to fors the district. If sufficient written requests for an election (15 percent of the electors or 100 electors , whichever is less) are not filed with the County prior to the date of the final hearing. the County' s order creating the district will take effect at the date of the final hearing. If sufficient petitions for an election are received, an election of registered voters in the proposed district must be held at the neat available election date . After the service district has been formed. the governing body of the district is required to prepare an order that specifies the facilities to be constructed and/or maintained and the method in which they will be financed. This order, notwithstanding the prior authorisation that may have been approved by voters during formation proceedings . is subject to referendum either by resolution of the governing body or by the 80th day after the date of the order. The petition must be signed by a number of electors registered in the district that is not less than 25 percent of all votes cast In the district for the office of Governor at the most recent election at which a candidate for Governor was elected to a full term. If sufficient signatures are obtained, an election must be held at the next district election but no sooner than 40 days after the date of the order calling for the election. The full process is estimated to take up to 345 days from the time a petition to form the district is initiated by the County until final approval of the preliminary construction ,_. and financing order is received. 10 Boundary Commission Review Establishing a county service district as discussed above , requires Boundary Commission approval . The Boundary Commission' s function outlined in ORS 199.410: * Guide the creation and growth of special districts * Assure adequate quality and quantity of services and safeguard the financial integrity of each local governmental unit . * Provide an impartial forum to resolve jurisdictional questions. * Determine boundaries that are consistent with local comprehensive planning, and considering timing, phasing and availability of services. The Boundary Commission sets standards to judge the feasibility of a proposed unit of government. Commission policy in effect over the years has encouraged the provision of municipal-type services by full service cities. while it has discouraged the proliferation of special service districts in the review process. The burden is placed upon the proponent, in this case Washington County, to demonstrate the feasibility of the proposed service district. Statutes require a feasibility study for any such major boundary change. The study must include: * A description of services or functions performed and provided. _ * An analysis of their (services) relationship to other existing or needed governmental services. A; Alternative service providers . * An estimate of the tax rate required to provide services. Once a proposal and feasibility study have been submitted. the Boundary Commission has 120 days to review and approve the proposed district. - 11 w .r Formation of a Special Assessment District The alternative to formation of a county service district is to create a special taxing district for urban law enforcement. The process for formation of such a district would first warrant review and approval by County Counsel . once the district mechanism was okayed by Counsel. the County Board could establish the district by order . Again. the formation and funding for a special assessment district would be subject to voter approval . Successful formation and funding law enforcement districts through either option depends upon public support. Citizens in the district. and county-wide. need to understand the critical demand for enhanced services . and how these proposed services are to be provided and financed. The time required for formation of districts , which may be as short as several months or as long as a year, leaves an Interval for informing the public. Community groups in the affected area, leaders in nearby cities, law enforcement officials , and others should play a role in reviewing and improving upon the service district proposal. 12 h APPENDICES A. Map of Service Areas B• Analysis or Enhanced Service Levels ' Basic Patrol - .7 Sworn 0 " ,'4cera Population per 1000 * Enhanced Patrol - 1 .0 Sworn Officers per 1000 Population • Enhanced Patrol - 1 .8 Sworn Orficers per 1000 Population C. Costs or Service Districts D. Allocation of Now Patrol Officers E. Description or Service Areas F. Call Priority Criteria and Response Protocols fi u� - .. ''yam*`.. "'..a�. • .- ..-- ::.:.:... .'4" ......w_ ` �e'S4 ad i �E.-- - Ir IRA Of' �^"'t�Sf. " 'r Ilk - ILI IL A AVE F�- ►i F �M - APPENDIX B WASHINGTON COUNTY SHERIFF ALTERNATIVE FUNDING FOR URBAN PATROL BASIC PATROL Service Level: Current 1986-87 service level .7 sworn officers/1000 pop. Response Time by Area Prior s 4 5 6 r5__1Omin. 5-10 min. 5-15 min. 5-15 min5-10 mix:. 10-40 mi . nse time to varyb availabilityof units # 3 response time to vary by availability-of units Follow-up Investigation: Person-to-person crime > By detectives Property crimes (over $200) > based on > solvability > factors Property crimes (under $200) > by insurance report Traffic: Emergencies you Major traffic Yesj Minor traffic As available y; Crime Prevention/ 3 individuals Community Education: pOTE: This is the current level of staffing .for the non-jail sworn officers in the department. At this level, response time can vary significantly due to the vast area to be covered with few patrol cars. Patrol response to priority #3 and minor traffic would be jeoparited. Priority #4 and #5 calls would be handled by alternate response. staffing levels of detectives and special teams could be re- turned to current service levels with the increase in sworn LL patrol/1000 population to .39. All follow-up investigations are performed by detectives when it has been determined that the chances for solvability are high. 1 j IF- WASHINGTON COUNTY SHERIFF ALTERNATIVE FUNDING FOR URBAN PATROL ENRANCED PATROL (Urban Minimum) Service Level: Minimum recommended by 1.0 sworn officers/1000 pop. Public Safety Review Comm. RESPONSE TIME BY AREA -Priori t 1 2 3 4 S 6* 1 5 min. 5 min. 5 min. 5 min. t 5 min. 10-40mi . 4r 2 response time to vary by availabilityof units �It 3 --response time to vary by availability of units Follow-up Investigation: Person-to-person crime >By patrol and detectives Property crimes (over $200) >based on solvability >factors. Property crimes (under $200) >By patrol based on >solvability factors. Traffic: Emergencies Yes Major Traffic Yes Minor Traffic As available Crime Prevention/ Community Education: 3 individuals NOTE: This level of service would emphasize the reduction in response time to Priority 1 calls. Patrol would reassume some level of follow-up investigation, again based on solvability factors. The additional patrol officers would allow for an increased emphasis on drugged driving/MIP and some directed patrol activities. Priority *3 and minor traffic calls would be handled when units were available. Priority *4 and *5 calls would continue to continue to handle by alternate response. .,'• No change or enhancement to service level expected for this area. WASHINGTON COUNTY SHERIFF ALTERNATIVE FUNDING FOR URBAN PATROL ENHANCED PATROL (City Average) Service Level: Average for Wash. Co. cities 1.6 sworn officers/1000 pop. Response Time by Area Priority 1 2 1 3 1 4 5 6* 2-5 min. 2-5 min. 1 2-5 min. -5 min. 2-5 mir_. 10-40mi . 2 response time to vary by availability of units f 3 1 res onse time to vary by availability of units response time to vary by availability of units Follow-up Investigation: Person-to-person crime >By patrol and detectives Property crimes (over $200) >based on solvability Property crimes (under $200) >factors. traffic: Emergencies Yes Major Traffic >Established traffic Minor Traffic >program. Crime Prevention/ Community Education: 3 individuals plus the use of senior deputies and deputies to perform community education activities. NOTE: The "City Average" level of service would almost triple the existing patrol staff. Response time to priority *1 calls would be approximately one-half the current level with the addition of priority i4 calls as patrol units are available. . Officer safety would be enhanced immeasurably by allowing assignment of two deputies to each patrol vehicle. The Traffic and Motor Officer (Motorcycle) Programs would be reestablished, and the K-9, Motor Carrier; and Park Patrol programs would be enhanced. Priority *5 calls would continue to be referred to the appropriate agency or person. Staffing of special teams would be increased to include more burglary suppression and narcotics enforcement team members. �- More extensive training would be in force in such areas as community education, crime analysis, and public school programs. No change or enhancement to service level expected for this sfs&. ' APPEMIX C COSTS OF POLICE SERVICE DISTRICTS UNINCORPORATED WIASHINGTON COUNTY - URBAN ONLY FISCAL YEAR 87 88 89 90 91 ----------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- BASIC PATROL COSTS - CURRENT LEVEL Positions 48 49 50 51 52 Patrol Budg A110c . (02) $3.004 $2 ,479 $2, 161 $1 ,842 $1 , 524 Adjusted Positions 48 38 32 26 21 (based on patrol allocation) INCREMENTAL COST - TO MINIMUM URBAN UNINCORPORATED LEVEL (1 .0/1000) Incrantal. Positions n.a. 49 57 64 71 Capital Costs (000) n.a. $448 Incr.Tot. Cost (000) n.a. $3,622 $3 ,835 $4,517 $5.220 INCRENEPTAL COST - TO CITY AVERAGE (1 .8/1000) Incrontal . Positions n.a. 126 135 144 153 Capital Costs (000) n.a. $1 , 152 Incr.Tot. Cost (000) n.a. $9, 315 $9. 126 $10, 128 $11 . 172 FISCAL YEAR 87 88 89 90 91 IMPACT OF ENHANCED PATROL COSTS - MIN. UNINCORPORATED LEVEL (1 .0/1000) S per $1000 A.V. n.a. $1 .02 $1 .03 $1 . 16 $2 .27 $ per capita n.a. $28 .32 $29 .40 $33.98 $38.48 $ / dwelling unit n .a. $68. 10 $70.70 $81 . 65 $92.53 s, i IMPACT OF ENHANCED PATROL COSTS - CITY AVERAGE ( 1 .6/1000) $ per $1000 A.V. n .a. $2.63 $2.45 $2 . 59 $2.72 $ per capita n.a. $72 .82 $69.96 $78 . 14 $82.35 $ / dwelling unit n.a. $175. 11 $168.23 $183 . 07 $198.02 t, tvW APPENDIX D WASHINGTON COUNTY POLICE SERVICE DISTRICTS ALLOCATION OF NEW PATROL OFFICERS* ---------------------------------- 1 .0 Officers ! 1.6 Officers / 1000 residents 1000 residents Estimated --------------- --------------- SERVICE AREAS % Assigned 70% 80% 70% 80% ONE 27-29% 9-10 10-11 24-26 27-29 TWO 14-17% 5-6 5-7 12-15 14-17 THREE 9-16% 3-5 4-6 8-14 9-18 FOUR 24-29% 8-10 9-11 21-26 24-29 FIVE 14-18% 5-6 5-7 12-16 14-18 * Assumes 70% of new officers would be assigned to patrol duties in the first year , with 80% of new officers assigned k to patrol in later years . r$ wig APPENDIX E WASHINGOTN COUNTY SHERIFF ALTERNATIVE FUNDING FOR URBAN PATROL SERVICE AREAS ONE Location: Patrol Grids 10 - 19 population: 31 ,786 Current officers assigned: See Attached Reported Crimes: 2,055 (Part 1:1,367; Part 2: 397; Part 3: 291) Community Groups: See Attached Adjoining service providers: State Police, Beaverton and Portland. —TWO Location: Patrol Grids 20 - 27 Population: 18,686 Current officers assigned: See Attached Reported Crimes: 996 (Part 1: 739; Part 2: 179; Part 3: 78) Community Groups: See Attached Adjoining service: State Police, Beaverton and Portland. THREE Location: Patrol Grids 30 - 33, 1/3 of 35 Population: 10,133 Current officers assigned: See Attached Reported Crimes: 1,101 (Part 1: 904; Part 2: 133; Part 3: 64) Community groups: See Attached CAdjoining service providers: statertolice, Portland Tualatin, k Page 2. Service Areas (continued) F Location: Patrol Grids 51 - 52, 54 59 Population: 32,322 Current officers assigned: See Attached Reported Crimes: 1,692 (Part 1: 1,124; Part 2: 345; Part 3: 223) Community groups: See Attached . Adjoining service providers: State eland. Beaverton, Hillsboro and FIVE Location: Patrol Grids 62 - 63, 1/2 of 65, 66 (. Population: 20,519 Current officers assigned: See Attached Reported Crimes: 1,148 (Part 1: 687; Part 2: 262; Part 3: 199) Community groups: See Attached Adjoining service providers: State Police, Hillsboro and Beaverton. SIX Location: Patrol Grids 34, 2/3 of 35, 37-38, 50, 53, 60-61 , 64� 1/2 of 65, 70-78 Population: 34, 813 Current officers assigned: See Attached Reported Crimes: 1,133 (Part 1: 748; Part 2: 221; Part 3: 164) Community groups: See Attached Adjoining service providers: STualatinli8111sbororand�Portland. tr.� } . APPENDIX F • CALL PRIORITY CRITERIA AND RESPONSES PRIORITY 1 Criteria - Any call where the circumstances present an immediate threat to 1 i fe or property. Response: Officers will be dispatched immediately. Calls will not be held. Calfs can be dispatched up to 15 minutes before the end of an officer's shift. Overtime is automatically authorized; supervisors will be notified. •^A Officers can be called out of breaks, etc., to respond. Contract cars may be called from cities to cover. PRIORITY 2 Cri_ t_ e_ rie: Calls whichi require an officer's presence to resolve the problem. This includes all cold major crimes. OR: A call where there is no immediate threat to lite or property present, but a potential threat to life or property may be involved. OR: Calls involving crimes where the suspect is known and the officer has a reasonable expectation of bein� able to contact the suspect (e.g., suspect there, location knowni. OR: If injuries exist, they are nonlife threatening and victim wishes medical attention. Response: Notify supervisor before holding the call if an officer in the area is not available. Can be dispatched up to an hour before the and of an officer's shift with supervisor approval. Contract cars will not be dispatched outside cities without supervisor's approval . PRIORITY 3 . Criteria: Cal's involving minor crimes that may not require an officer's y presence to resolve. OR: If injuries exist they are minor and victim does not desire medical treatment. CAIS PRIORITY CRITERIA AND RESPONSES - Page 2 PRIORITY 3 (Continued) suspect is not present and OR: There is good suspect information; there is no reasonable expectation of being able to contact suspect. Response: Refer to Response. Priority 4.. PRIORITY 4 Criteria:_ Calls which do not regal re an officer's presence to resolve*funs- OR: Those calls which ir❖clve the and order maintenance tions of the Sheri W s Department- OR: An officer at the scene would take a report and do no additional investigation. OR: There is no usable suspect information. OR: No prosecution is desired; civil compromise. Res nse: Calls may be dinotifiedofficer callthe is held �morearea is othana1/2bhour. Supervisor will 19e No overtime will be authorized. Contract cars will not be dispatched outside the cities. Officers will not respond out of district without prior approval of a supervisor. Calls can be dispatchedup to an hournto before Overt end of the offi- cer's shift unless the call nay run Tile desk may service calls without usable suspect information. Calls may be serviced by alternate response (see Priority 5) in some instances. PRIORITY 5 Cris: Calls which do not require any response sefr the her agency Sheriff's or Department and should be handled by person(s). Alternate Refer to an appropriate agency or person• Res nse: These calls are generally not services by patrol or the Desk. CALL PRIORITIZATION .cGORY TITLE PATROL - RECORDS - REFER SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS Accident Noxi-Injury 1.2 3•'i �Ifdecides� king, manpower ) Inj ury All Nit i Run 1,2 3,4 Follow-up 1111 All Private Attorney He ,si n Advise Neighbor Problem A1l Private Attorney, 9 Landlord/Tenant Authority 3.4.5 Emergency Only, otherwise Deliver Message 1,2 rifer to other source Civil Problem Al Private Attorney message iinfo ave Other All Pro All someonertoereturCali. 3,4.5 Refer to family. neighbors, Aid Check Welfare 1.2 Welfare 3,4,5 Refer to family. neighbors. Person Doan 1,2 Welfare, reuse. ambulance All Refer to Welfare, C.S•D•. Needy Family rescue. ambulance, Loaves i Fishes, etc. Otfrtr 1.2 3,4,5 Refer to appropriate agency. AI arse Si i ent Burglary Al l Audible Burglary AlAl I Hol d-up 1 AlI Other Rifer to Animal Control Noisy Animal 3l4 Refer to Animal Control Animal Vicious Dog 1,2 All Refer to Animal Control Injured Animal 3;; • Refer to Animal Control imal Control Loose Livestock 1,2 3,4 Refer to An Other Fir Arson/Suspected 1.2 3.4 S e Marshall decides: Arson/Se Detectives. Patrol• Fire Arson Investigator. Relay info to Detectives. All Fire Department Reckless Burning All Refer to Detect ives Follow-up All Fire Department other All Patsupervisor 6notify Detective Assault Shooting Patrol i notify Detective Cutting All supervisor if major. Patrol i notify Detective other Weapon Al 1 supervisor if major. CALL'VRIORITIZATION - Page 2 TE gORY TITLE PATROL - RECOROS - REFER SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS Assault12 3.4 (Continued) No Weapon , Harassment 1.2 3.4 3.4 g Refer into to Detectives. Follow-up Other 1,2 3,4 Residential 1.2.3 4 Burglary Commercial 1.2.3 4 Attempt 1+2,3 45 Refer into to Detectives or Follow-up 3'4 assigned officer. Other 1,2 3.4 Death Natural/Unknown Al I All Suicide A11 Detectives i Patrol Homicide All Patrol Accidental ll Patrol A Vehicular 11 3,4 5 Detectives i Patrol Follow-up 3�4 Info broadcast to area tars. Disturbance Careless reek ss Shooting i 2 3,4 info broadcast to area cars. 1.2 3.4 Info broadcase to area cars. Noise �y incomplete Call Ail Restraining 5 Info broadcast to areas. Order Viol. 1.2 3.4 S - Refer private attorney. Other All Family Disturbance All Refer to private attorney. Standby 102 3.4 ; Refer to private attorney. Child Custody 102 3'4 Refer to private attorney. Other 192 3'4 5 Fight No Weapons All Weapons All Possible Weapons All ether 192 3.4 Susci info broadcast to area Fraud No Pay 1,2 3.4 3,4 Patrol I.D. suspect; secure Credit Card 1,2 scene. Refer to Dets. 8 AN - 4 �- Bad Check 1,R A�I Refer to Det s. 8 AN - 4 PM. Follow-up All Refer to Dets. 8 AM - 4 PM- Other CAL�PRI&ITItATION - Page 3 • PATROL - RECORDS - REFER SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS CATEGORY TITLE _ Garbage Dumping All oage 3,4,5 Refer to appropriate road Hazard Traffic Signal 1,2 department. Traffic Obstruct All 3,4,5 Refer to appropriate- agency. public Utilities 1,2 agency. Fire or Disaster Al 3,4,5 Refer to appropriate other 1,2 3,4 Refer to Juvenile Dept 3,4 . Juvenile Disturbance 1.2 Notify Juvenile Depart. Unmanageable 1.2 Neglected/ 3,4,5 Refer C.S.D./Detectives 1,2 Abandoned 1,2,3 4,5 Refer C.S.D./Detectives Child Abuse All Runaway A11 Detectives follow-up child Follow-up abuse. Other 1,2 3.4 5 Notify J wenile Dept./C.S.D. 2 3,4,5 Refer County Mental Health Mental Non-violent Al Violent Attempt Suicide 1,2 ATL info broadcase to patrol 3,4 . Escape 1,2 3.4,5 Refer County Mental Health. other 3,4 5 Refer to Juvenile Dept. issing 'Missing Juvenile 2,2 4 *NOTE: Always dispatch patrol A *missing C 1 2'3 4 � The * re are heof foul play *Age 1,2 3.4 - or suspicious circumstances +Adult 1,2.3 4 OR if the missing person is Found accompanied by a person who is potentially dangerous. - Endangered by mental instability, physical handicap, frailty or need for medication or medical assistance. - Senile or retarded. Potentially dangerous to others. under 14 years of age. q 1.2,3 4 Notify Detective supervisor. *Abduction Alt Refer to Detectives if Follow-up assigned. Cover A11 Police Assist Al 1 Al other k: CALL PRIORITIZATION - Page 4 PATROL - RECORDS - REFER SPECIAL INSTR2ZTIONS Cp,n;0RY TITLE All (May refer back to patrol. Property Foind 3,4,5 Lost 3,4 Fol 1Ow-up 3,4 other Purse Snatch 1.2 3,4 Robbery StronDarm 1,2 3'4 Patrol and Detectives. Armed/Holdup Al 3,4 Patrol and Detectives Follow-up other 1,2 3,4 S 1.2.3 4 Refer into to Detectives. ex Offense Expose Molest/Sex Abuse Ali *Child Molest/ 3,3,4 Refer to Detectives. Sax Abuse 1 3,4 Phone company• Obscene Call Ali Patrol i Detectives. Rape Peeper 1.2 4 S Refer to Detectives. Follow-up *It one or mors hears old. Suspicious *Auto 1+2 3.4 desk will take info and *Suspicious 1,2,3 4 broadcast, especially for Activity 1.2 3.4 problem areas. *Person 1.2 3,4 * Auto/Person 1.2 3,4 *Prowler *Othar 192 3,4 From Vehicle 102 3,4 Theft 3,4 Desk: Icon Custod From Premises Sho pt i n 1,2 3,4 Patrol: Custody Only 1,2 3.4 Desk: Mon Custody Till Tap Patrol: Custody Only Bicycle 1,2 3.4 Follow-up 3.4 Other 1,2 3.4 Telephone` 3,4 Threats Personal 1,2 3.4 Bomb 1.2 3,4 Follow-Up 3.4 Other 1.2 3'4 Broadcast/Forward into to Squ'Prel s 3,4 patrol.y'rattic 495 Tow, locksmith. taxi. etc. Assi st i Lock-outs All Dull CAL1ARITIZATION_ - Page § ESORY TITLE PATROL - RECORDS - REFER SPECIAL INSTRUCTIOt1- Broadcast/Forward info to Traffic 3,4 patrol. Continued Parking Follow-up 3.4 Other 3.4 Unknown A11 UnwanteddKnown All Trespass 1111 promises 1,2 3.4 vandalism Vehicle 1.2 3,4 Follow-up 3,4 Other 1,2 3,4 Stolen All Vehicle Recovered All ATL Broadcast Only Locate All (Other - see Hazard) Abandoned A11 1,2 3.4 follow-up Other 1.2 3.4 1,2 3�4 Refer info to Detectives. vice Narcotics All Patrol I.D. suspect: secure Forged Prescrip- scene. Refer Fraud tion Detectives B AM _ Ali Refer to Detectives. Gambling/Liquor3 4 Refer info to Detectives. Prostitution 3,4 Refer to Detectives. Follow-up 1.2 3,4 Refer to Detectives- Other Felon Al l Wanted Ilisdemeanant Al Suspect All Other Al 1 72 MOM r CITYOF T16 AR® OREGON 25 Years of SenAca 1961-1986 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON N O T I C E O F P U B L I C H E A R I N G NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVE THAT THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL AT ITS MEETING ON MONDAY, DECEMBER 29 1986 AT 6:30 IN THE TOWN HALL OF THE CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING TIGARD LIVIC CENTER - 13125 SW HALL BLVD., TIGARD. OR, FILE NO: ZCA 20-86 - NPO E 2 6 4 APPLICANT: CITY OF TIGARD OWNER: various PO Boa 23397 Tigard, OR 97223 REQUEST: To forward an annezatiantproposal to the Portland Metropolitan Area Local Government Boundary Commission. the east aide of south of Hall Blvd., Locust and LOCATIONS Spruce Streets, and west w of theay y Multnomah County Line, and north of Highway 99W and Pfaffle Street. (WCTM 1S1 26C Lots 100, 200, 300, 400, 401, 402, 1107, 1108, 1109, iS1026DCOLots3900,1901, 9021 1000 00 1403, 0 10022,, 1003, 1004JSJ 26DB 1005, 1006, 3100 �•- 3200, 3300, 3301, 3302, 3500, 3600, 3700, 3701, 4100, 4200, 4400, 4500, 4600, 4601, 4602, 4700, 4701, 4800, 4801, 4900, 5000, 5100, 5101; WCTM 1S1 351A Lots 100, 101, 1802; WCTM 1S1 35AC Lots 2900, 3000, 3100, 3200, 3300, 3400, 3500, 3600, 3900, 4000, 4100, 4200, 43001 WCTM 1S1 35BD 100; WCTM 1S1 35AB Lots 100, 202, 2031 204, 400, 500, 501, '600, 700, 701, 702, 600, 801, 900, 901, 1000, 1002, 1003, 1004, 2800, 2901, 3200, 3201, 3202, 3203, 3205, 3300, 3301, 3302, 3303, 3304, 3400, 3401, 3402, 3403, 3404, 3500, 3600; WCTM 1S1 35AD Lots 900, 901, 1000, 1100, 1101, 1102, 1103, 1301, 1302, 1303, 1701, 1702, 1703, 1705, 1706, 1800, 1801, 1900- 2000, 2001, 2100, 2101 2200. 2300, 2301, 2302, 2303, 2401, 2402, 2403•, 2404, 2405, 2500, 2501, 2502, 2503, 2504, 2505, 2700, 2800, 2900, 3000, 3100, 3200; WCTM 1S1 35AA Lots 401, 500, 590, 600, 800, 802, 803, 804, 805, 806, 900, 901, 902, 903, 904, 905, 1000, 1001, 1002, 1100, 1101, 3701, 3702, 3703, 3704 3705 3800, 3900, 3901, 3902, 4000 1900, 1901, 2000, 2500, . 4100, 4101, 4200 3600, , 90000, 90001, 90002, 90003, 90004, 90005, 90006, 90007, 90008, 90009, 90010; WCTM 181 350A 100, 200, 300, 400, 500, 600, 700, 800, 900 1900, 2000, 2100, 2200, 2202, 2300, 2400, 2401; WCTM 1S1 36CC Lots 300, 400; WCTM 1S1, 36CB 100, 200, 202, 203, 204, 205 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 500, 501, 502, 503, 504, 700, 7 2 2 27, 2 28, 2 01, 790, 890, 900, 1000 0 31300 , 1400, 1500, 1600,1100, 1800, 1900, 2000 2100, 2200, 2300, 24000 2500, 2600, 2700, 2800, 2900, 3000, 3100, 3200, 3300, 3400, 3500, 3600, 3700, 3800, 3900, 4000, 4100, 4200, 4300, 4400, 4500, 4600, 4700, 4600, 4900, 5000, 5100, 5200, 5300, 5400, 5500, 5600, 5700, 5600, 5900, 6000, 6100, 6200, 6300, 6400, 6500, 6600, 6700, 6800, 6900, 7000, 7100, 7200, 7300, 7400, 7500, 7600, 7700, 7800, 7900, 8000, 8100, 8200, 8300, 8400, 8500, 8600, 8700, 8800, 8900, 9000, 9100, 9200,• 9300, 9400, 9500, 9600; Lots 100, 1600, 1601, 1700, 1600 100, 2201. 2202, 2203, 2204 220. 2206,ISI 2 2 207, 2208, 2209, 2300, 2400, 2500; 2700 2800, 2900, 3000, 0100, 3200, 3300, 3301, 3500, 3600, 3700, 3800, 3900, 4000, 4100, 4201, 4300, 4400, 4500, 4600, 4700, 5600, 5700, 5800, 5900, 6000, 6100, 6900, 7000, 7100] WCTM 181 36DB Lots 600, 700, 800, 900, 1000, 1100, 1200, 1300, 1400, 15001 1600, 1700, 1800, 1900, 2000, 2100, 2200, 2300; WCTM 1S1 36AD Lots 100. 200, 300. 400, 500, 501, 600, 601, 602, 603, 700, 800, 900, 1000, 4000, 4001, 4100, 4400, 4500, 4600, 4700, 4800, 4900, 5000, 5100, 5200,.5300, 5400, 5500, 5600, 5700; WCTM 181 36AA Lots 2200, 2201; WCM iSl 36AC Lots 3800, 3801, 3900.) (See'Map on Reverse Side) THE PUBLIC HEARING IN THIS MATTER WILL BE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH HE ROLES OF PROCEDURES OF THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL TESTIMONY MAY BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING TO BE ENTERED INTO THE RECORD- ) FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY RECORDER OR PLANNING DEPARTMENT AT: 639-4171 CITY OF TIGARD 13125 SW HALL BLVD. TIGARD, OREGON 97223. o Ck. _ • ■ �. ��G !Alii !■ JI �■� '�i� 11� �: ii '=� �� F IN ext �.�_-� .. ■■n ■■ ■ ■. ■■ ■ C • 1 = ; -JJ _tli■ tin■�. ;1111 IIG � � M•• ' 1111111111 , !, ►.. : •PRE ■PPMM :1 .1111; ' Mr. lore ��, 'litr.� •�" 111: '� F■1�\p�rwon1 /,��1ff■.■� v ® 11110 �11111�� !: 21011 !IAII t�■�■: �r ��I��;�►� 1111111 - ■L L. •■tl■ . moi _ 11111 'x!,■■ 1 �.. �,■ -�� i'� � ��+i►�++r�1111 E 11:118 ■rW■■ ■■II�Ir7/1E ■■ '� �.� otrt�tt �1 ': 111"� ::1111/� � ■�■ ��■■..■ �■ ■ ■■�■■► le ■■■� el 11: mill Q 1111■ oil- ii NOW : 111 �■ 11: 11■11: :1■■ ■f■ ■ ■ ■.(� ■: � � _. ilk 1 ■ HIM ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ t _■ .� �■■ .t 1191■ .i/11. ■L= Ili.. ■i 1 . g R :1111res 0 li1 ."" : 111■ 111 .: : ■ i�i __- � 1'11 :1111■ i ■_ 1111 1 /1111111li1: p�Ilt■ i■ : ,�_ ■ �? t 111111■ 1•©1. ■1!!e ■1! 1b ■ ■� . rte ■ - -- 111' ■1!" "111■ 11 lil 11 °� A ' , 1� 11111 'llll Alli! 11■Il lr,�li ■■ 11101- milli ana LU F-p �� _■', iii21 9w low 21mg. 00SO ° � ■ �■ , WE m ■ �r i■1 t�i l f1�!�t►► Myr �� _' �! ©i�� ► `' 1h imp A �II,!� : � � ■=- ��-_ -� 1111•' � � �- I ��Z ■t ■ wl , ■mow , : Y 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, thQ 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, B. 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 lots 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 1 RESOLUTION NO. 86-25 Page 1 of 2 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 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 suppc,rt 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. 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 Scholls 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 Council's deem necessary. PASSED: This 1 077,1, day of AJ , 1986. — City of Tigard ATTEST: 6e�pu6ty�- City Recorder — City of Tigard lw/3706A RESOLUTION NO. 86-25 Page 2 of 2 s _ . r _ �_.» �, ��.- yam,-�.• . . _ ' lAY I FE ay ! r t .M.-s•t•� _ z /ry NOR of +�7'1 t � MAN a•sr • •'�T' � • « ,[ ~P w n �,, .It It M R .. t nti rr• ttuu tt LK ' , � � �� w •y n � w e .,••«. i"S. C fERpr nn t r OAM N+ S T n hSCM�I. t' a -"% n • tuc• p r k •4v . M,N � tr t1r itln wey '` m I its' a M b Z iiA ilf sr w uwu"we I - f,. ""d q $ 1 t•t■ � a M �UtMf d! • ooll "oolu lout wars U S T '.b a r, ti h i too•+h 3 t y ,. . ,�.r, L ,•� ., _" .T+gar �tt„ ova” I to Buii Min " 11lam • , ' s ( 7 • ` ley r r• AAR 5 1 DONA[0 40N,fA ] no w _ ` 116L' Ki0g `` lYJta• j• • Mir i j I .• r w a �t S,• 4 •t•e ••i!11 � i Y r 1 z: ',• w 3r ,r•.,s(. ••Olr ..l•r;/�tl/1h • it r•"f.r � � � •`••. j r,• . • ,•• Durha 1t S, {�I�i•�1 �� y '`� :•^ t Ilt .ail �Tti '1T� ''' 1 .•I- ¢'�- ..>t� Ott • �'• i f` rte. t 17 LL 'L' llllllillllll, I L11 Oi111PIND _ --. f _ L F-'-' t ,�C'17.t t y •• lqlq Mo ILI • ._ �}C1n11' �Cl.�li�. �� .,; ��1._u��l� ,•1 i • Ptotkltlel � ,L j tr 'Tr 1ts+�55 JC til {F t� `T .J KM.1J i__Ain.�1.J� _.�i 1 {.... it- L_�.� ' = ��i r.r`t: ,,. t 1�, _ \ t t `_ 11LL:J L I '�m•• ��..`..._.._9~JL j, .r t —'J` ♦ �((��L•''-117'L��J11 L•---y1r.•7i-r7J�:.1 :_:iT�� ''!'tt''}�.1.� 1 ILl I ~ o- WIT jr �r, 7 .... .. . •S'� it r 1• k. � -• l_ / :its-. •ti} '•t , �. �r �-; �� 1 t ':. 'aF"' I� �r� j� i, f.. ,�/ j•. +` y: r �` 1 ' 1, JI3 � ,V��d i 4" }`+u°` f F 4{m 1.3 ,`f' ... , � . . . ' +r;�.'rr ' y • �J/�f•�-� '�/G�j,,»�� r+ a�i'i _ 'T"T.r.,_.{�rT- TT��j �=�N�•• :tom .. ~�� IL . Yi`•'1� ' ..1� i •��t ' 1.' �r—•_._...1�'—lYJ" �•�►•T++•; i 1 J •• • ��:.r ., .,•. �.:�.� pct � - �, frrrr , SCHOOL • � ,... ��, 22 23 -J�4 27 Q C-S. cs 1 �, vNOCEss _ ! i IRS GOLF JU i •• t _ t 1 ( :SK•SSr _ ' 1 `+�\\♦ 1 -- raAS,aINGTON t •I�! r 1 1 / CRESCENT GROVE ,� ta•..r.1. { •` ► MALI ' — =CEMETARY: Rod [ 27J26 y / 1 •. Fo E-J It ,i - � � •� �_, -,1 Y — _ • of e 5/86 WASHINGTON COUNTY - TIGARD URBAN PLANNING AREA AGREEMENT 1940— THIS AGREEMENT is entered into this Qiv Siday of219 _ by WASHINGTON COUNTY, a political s on of the State o regon, an incorpo hereinafter referred to � te hC ,�Y.0 and the hereinafter referredTtoAas�the "CITY rated municipality of the State ofOre9on WHEREAS, ORS 190.010 provides that units of local governments may enter into agreements for the performance of any or all functions and activities that a party to the agreement, its officers or agents, have authority to perform; and WHEREAS, Statewide Planning Goal #2 (Land Use Planning) requires that City, County, State and Federal agency and special district plans and actions shall be consistent with the comprehensive plans of the cities and counties and regional pians adopted under ORS Chapter 197; and n and Development Commission requires each WHEREAS, the Oregon Land Conservatio jurisdiction requesting acknowledgement of compliance to submit an agreement setting forth the means by which comprehensive planning coordination within the Regional Urban Growth Boundary will be implemented; and WHEREAS, the COUNTY and the CITY, to ensure coordinated and consistent compre- hensive plans, consider it mutually advantageous to establish: t, 1. Asite-specific Urban Planning COUNTYiandntheeCITYional maint inaanGrwth interest ,> Boundary within which both in comprehensive planning; 2. A process for coordinating comprehensive planning and development in the Urban Planning Area; •� 3. Policies regarding comprehensive planning and development in the Urban Planning Area; and 4. A process to amend the Urban Planning Agreement. NOW THEREFORE, THE COUNTY AND THE CITY AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. Location of the Urban Planning Area 4 The Urban Planning Area mutually defined by the COUNTY and the CITY t includes the area designated on Exhibit "A" to this agreement. II. Coordination of Comprehensive Planning and Development A. Amendments to or Adoption of a Comprehensive Plan or Implementing Regulation �I. Page 2 i 't 1. Definitions Comprehensive Plan_ as defined by OAR 660-18-010(5) means a s generalized, coordinated land use map and policy statement of the governing body of a local government that interrelates all functional and natural systems and activities relating to the use of lands, including, but not limited to, sewer and water systems, transportation systems, educational facilities, recrea- tioval facilities. and natural resources and air and water quality management programs. "Comprehensive Plan" amendments do not include small tract comprehensive plan map changes. Implementing__ _in �Re ul ation means any local government zoning ordi- nance, rdi- mae;-Tand division ordinance adopted under ORS 92.044 or 92.046 or similar general ordinance establishing standards for impie- menti ng a comprehensive plan. "Implementing regulation" does not include small tract zoning map amendments, conditional use per- mits, individual subdivision, partitioning or planned unit devel- opment approval or denials, annexations, variances, building permits and similar administrative-type decisions. ` 2. The COUNTY shall provide the CITY with the appropriate opper- tunity to participate, review and comment on proposed amendments to or adoption of the COUNTY comprehensive plan or implementing regulations. The CITY shall provide the COUNTY with the appropriate opportunity to participate, review and comment on proposed amendments to or adoption of the CITY comprehensive plan or implementing regulations. The following procedures shall be followed by the COUNTY and the CITY to notify and involve one another in the process to amend or adopt a comprehensive plan or implementing regulation: a. The CITY or the COUNTY, whichever has jurisdiction over the proposal , hereinafter the originating agency, shall notify 3 the other agency, hereinafter the responding agency, of the proposed action at the time such planning efforts are ini- tiated, but in no case less than 45 days prior to the final =Yi hearing on adoption. The specific method and level of involvement shall be fi nal i zed by "Memorandums of Under- standing" negotiated and signed by the planning directors of the CITY and the COUNTY. The "Memorandums of Understanding" shall clearly outline the process by which the responding -' agency shall participate in the adoption process. If, at g the time of being notified of a proposed action, the 4 responding agency determines it does not need to participate in the adoption process, it may waive the requirement to negotiate and sign a "Memorandum of Understanding. b. The originating agency shall transmit draft recommendations on any proposed actions to the responding agency for its review and comment before finalizing. Unless otherwise agreed to in a "Memorandum of Understanding," the responding Page 3 agency shall have ten (10) days after receipt of a draft to submit comments orally or in writing. Lack of response i shall be considered "no objection" to the draft. C. The originating agency shall respond to the comments made by the responding agency either by a) revising the final recom- the ri ions, or b) by letter to the responding agency menexplaining why the comments cannot be addressed in the final draft. d. Comments from the responding agency shall be given con- sideration as a part of the public record on the proposed action. If after such consideration, the originating agency acts contrar; to the position of the responding agency, the responding agency may seek appeal of the action through the appropriate appeals body and procedures. e. Upon final adoption of the proposed action by the origi- t nating agency, it shall transmit the adopting ordinance to the responding agency as soon as publicly available, or if not adopted by ordinance, whatever other written documen- tation is available to properly inform the responding agency of the final actions taken. B. Development Actions Requiring Individual Notice to Property Owners 1. Definition Development Action Re uirin Notice means an action by a local ` government c requ res not fylng by mail the owners of pro- perty which could potentially be affected (usually specified as a distance measured in feet) by a proposed development action which directly affects and is applied to a specific parcel or parcels. Such development actions may include, but not be limited to small tract zoning or comprehensive plan map amendments, conditional or special use permits, individual subdivisions, partitionings or planned unit developments, variances, and other similar actions requiring a hearings process which is quasi-judicial in nature. 2. The COUNTY will provide the CITY with the opportunity to review and comment on proposed development actions requiring notice • within the designated Urban Planning Area. The CITY will provide the COUNTY with the opportunity to review and comment on proposed development actions requiring notice within the CITY limits that t. may have an affect on unincorporated portions of the designated Urban Planning Area. 3. The following procedures shall be followed by the COUNTY and the CITY to notify one another of proposed development actions: a. The CITY or the COUNTY, whichever has jurisdiction over the ,f proposal , hereinafter the originating agency, shall send by } �;ri Page 4 first class mail a copy of the public hearing notice which identifies the proposed development action to the other agency, hereinafter the responding agency, at the earliest opportunity, but no less than ten (10) days prior to the date of the scheduled public hearing. The failure of the responding agency to receive a notice shall not invalidate an action if a good faith attempt was made by the originating agency to notify the responding agency. b. The agency receiving the notice may respond at its discre- tion. Comments may be submitted in written form or an oral response may be made at the public hearing. Lack of written or oral response shall be considered "no objection" to the proposal . C, If received in a timely manner, the originating agent-, shall include or attach the comments to the written staff report and respond to any concerns addressed by the responding agency in such report or orally at the hearing. d. Comments from the responding agency shall be given con- sideration as a part of the public record on the proposed action. If, after such consideration, the originating agency acts contrary to the position of the responding agency, the responding agency may seek apperl of the action through the appropriate appeals body and procedures. C. Additional Coordination Requirements 1. The CITY and the COUNTY shall do the following to notify one another of proposed actions which may affect the community, but are not subject to the notification and participation require- `( ments contained in subsections A and B above. a. The CITY or the COUNTY, whichever has jurisdiction over the proposed actions, hereinafter the originating agency, shall send by first class mail a copy of all public hearing agen- das which contain the proposed actions to the other agency, hereinafter the responding agency, at the earliest oppor- tunity, but no less than three (3) days prior to the date of the scheduled public hearing. The failure of the responding =dt agency to receive an agenda shall not invalidate an action y if a good faith attempt was made by the originating agency to notify the responding agency. b. The agency receiving the public hearing agenda may respond 's at its discretion. Comments may be submitted in written form or an oral response may be made at the public hearing. Lack of written or oral response shall be considered "no objection" to the proposal . It Page 5 C. Comments from the responding agency shall be given con- sideration as a part of the public record on the proposed action. If, after such consideration, the originating agency acts contrary to the position of the responding agency, the responding agency may seek appeal of the action through the appropriate appeals body and procedures. III . Comprehensive Planning and Development Policies A. Active Planning Area 1. Definition Active Planning Area means the incorporated area and certain unin- corporated areas contiguous to the incorporated area for which the CITY conducts comprehensive planning and seeks to regulate development activities to the greatest extent possible. The CITY Active Planning Area is designated as Area A on Exhibit "A". 2. The CITY shall be responsible for comprehensive planning within the Active Planning Area. 3. The CITY is responsible for the preparation, adoption and amend- ment of the public facility plan required by OAR 660-11 within the Active Planning Area. 4. The COUNTY shall not approve land divisions within the Active Planning Area which would create lots less than 10 acres in size, unless public sewer and water service are available to the property. 5. The COUNTY shall not approve a development in the Active Planning u Area if the proposal would not provide for, nor be conditioned to provide for, an enforceable plan for redevelopment to urban •, densities consistent with CITY's Comprehensive Plan in the future upon annexation to the CITY as indicated by the CITY Comprehensive Plan. 6. Approval of the development actions in the Active Planning Area shall be contingent upon provision of adequate urban services including sewer, water, storm drainage, streets, and police and fire protection. 7. The COUNTY shall not oppose annexation to the CITY within the CITY's Active Planning Area. tet_: • Page 6 B. Area of Interest I. Definition Area of Interest or Primary Area of Interest means unincorporated lands contig m us to the Active Planning Arei in which the CITY does not conduct comprehensive planning but in which the CITY does maintain an interest in comprehensive planning and development actions by ti-we COUNTY because of potential impacts on the CITY Active Plann�ng Area. The CITY Area of Interest within the Urban Planning Are-i is designated as Area B on Exhibit "A". 2. The COUNTY smial l be responsible for comprehensive planning and development actions within the Area of Interest. 3. The COUNTY 4a responsible for the preparation, adoption and amend- ment of the mublic facility plan required by OAR 660-11 within the Area of Interest. 4. The CITY may consider requests for annexations in the Area of Interest suo:zj ect to the following: a. The CITE shall not require annexation of lands in the Area of Interes._ as a condition to the provision of urban services for developmment. b. Annexat-i-ons by the CITY within the Area of Interest shall not create --!sl ands unless the CITY declares its intent to complete the island annexation. c. The CITTY agrees in principle to a plebiscite or other repre- sentatiave means for annexation in the Metzger/Progress Communi.-ty Planning Area, which includes Washington Square, within --the CITY Area of Interest. Not contrary to the fore- going, -the CITY reserves all of its rights to annex and acknowl midges the rights of individual property owners to annex to the -CITY pursuant to Oregon Revised Statutes. d. Upon ammnexation of land within the Area of Interest to the CITY, tzhe CITY agrees to convert COUNTY plan designations to CITY plaan designations which most closely approximate the density: use provisions and standards of COUNTY designations. Furthermore, the CITY agrees to maintain this designation for orae yea_r3r after the effective date of annexation unless both the CI''TY and COUNTY Planning Directors agree at the time of aranexat---ion that the COUNTY designation is outdated and an ammendmment may be initiated before the one year period is over. xxp.. Pagr. 7 5. The city of Beaverton and the City of Tigard have reached an -North Tigard boundary establishing agreement on a South Beaverton future annexation areas of interest. This boundary coincides with the northern Urban Planning Area boundary shown on Exhibit *A". Washington County recognizes that the future annexation area of interest boundary line may change in the future upon mutual agreement of both cities. C. Special Policies 1. The CITY and the COUNTY shall provide information of comprehensive planning and development actions to their respective recognized Community Planning Organizations (CPO) through the notice proce- dures outlined in Section III of this Agreement. 2. At least one copy of any COUNTY ordinance which proposes to (1) amend the COUNTY comprehensive plan, (2) adopt a new plan, or (3) amend the text of the COUNTY development code shall be mailed to •, the CITY within five (5) days after its introduction. { 3. At least one copy of any COUNTY ordinance which proposes to rezone land within one (1) mile of the corporate limits of the CITY shall be mailed to the CITY within five (5) days after its introduction. 4. The City of Tigard, City of Beaverton and Washington County have agreed to the following stipulations regarding the connection of Murray Boulevard from Old Scholls Ferry Road to the intersection of SW 121st Avenue and Gaarde Street: a. The City of Tigard, City of Beaverton and Washington County agree to mend their respective comprehensive plans to reflect the following functional classification and design consi derati ons: 1. Designation: Collector 2. Number of Travel Lanes: 2 (plus turn lanes at major intersections) 3. Bike Lanes: Yes 4. Right-of-Way: 60 feet (plus slope easements where z_ necessary) 40 foot minimum 5. Pavement Width: f a ,._ P age 8 t 6. Access: Limited 7. Design Speed: 35 M.P.N. 8. Minimum Turning Radius: 350 to 500 feet 9. Parking Facilities: None provided on street 10. Upon verification of need by traffic analysis, the connec- tion mai thePMu��ay/O1deSchollslFerryaccommodate nd Murray/Newonal lanes a Scholls Ferry intersections. 11. The intersection of SW 135th Avenue and the Murray Boulevard connection will be designed with Murray Boulevard as a through street with 135th Avenue terminating at the Murray connection with a "T" intersection. 12. The general alignment vmentExhibitothhe Murray Boulevard connection is illustrated B. b. Any changes to land use designations in the Murray Boulevard connection area shall be coordinated with all jurisdictions to assure that traffic impacts are adequately analyzed. c. The City of Tigard, City of Beaverton and Washington County shall support improvements to the regional transportation system as outlined in the adopted Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). d. Improvements to SW Gaarde Street between SW 121st Avenue and �• Pacific Highway 99W should occur coincident with the connection of Murray Boulevard from Walnut/135th Avenue to Gaarde Street. e. The City of Tigard and Washington County, with involvement by affected property owners, shall jointly develop an alignment for the connection of Murray Boulevard between the 135th Avenue/Walnut Street and 121st Avenue/Gaarde Street intersec- tions ntersec- tions in 1986. ry S. The CITY and the COUNTY shall informally establish administrative procedures and designate appropriate personnel to receive and ` + review notices required by Sections II A, B and C of this Agreement. -t� Page 9 IV. Amendments to the Urban Planning Area Agreement A. The following procedures shall be followed by the CITY and the COUNTY to amend the language of this agreement or the Urban Planning Area Boundary: 1. The CITY or COUNTY, whichever jurisdiction originates the proposal , shall submit a formal request for amendment to the responding agency. 2. The formal request shall contain the following: a. A statement describing the amendment. b. A statement of findings indicating why the proposed amendment is necessary. c. If the request is to amend the planning area boundary, a map which clearly indicates the proposed change and surrounding area. 3. Upon receipt of a request for amendment from the originating agency, the responding agency shall schedule a review of the request before the appropriate reviewing body, with said review to be held within 45 days of the date the request is received. 4. The CITY and the COUNTY shall make good faith efforts to resolve requests to amend this agreement. Upon completion of the review, the reviewing body may approve the request, deny the request, or make a determination that the proposed amendment warrants additional review. If it is determined that additional review is necessary, the following procedures shall be followed by the CITY and COUNTY: a. If inconsistencies noted by both parties cannot be resolved in the review process as outlined in Section III (3), the CITY and the COUNTY may agree to initiate a joint study. Such a study shall commence within 90 days of the date it is determined that a proposed amendment creates an inconsistency, and shall be completed within 90 days of said date. Methodologies and procedures regulating the conduct of the joint study shall be mutually agreed upon by the CITY and the COUNTY prior to commencing the study. b. Upon completion of the joint study, the study and the recommendations drawn from it shall be included within the record of the review. The agency considering the proposed amendment shall give careful consideration to the study prior 'w making a final decision. Page 10 B. Prior to August 30, 1986 the parties will mutually study the following topics: Urban services provision by the County and City; the possibility of Tigard assuming active plan responsibility for a portion of the Metzger-Progress Planning Areqa as shown as an area of interest on Exhibit A; and the possible removal of a portion of Section III 8.4.d., which now requires the City to maintain County plan designations for one year after the effective date of annexation. Proposed revisions to this agreement shall be considered by the parties as data is available as soon as possible after September 1, 1986. C. The parties will jointly review this Agreement every two (2) years, or more frequently if mutually needed, to evaluate the effectiveness of the processes set forth herein and to make any necessary amendments. The review process shall commence two (2) years from the date of execution and shall be completed within 60 days. Both parties shall make a good faith effort to resolve any inconsistencies that may have developed since the previous review. If, after completion of the 60 day review period inconsistencies still remain, either party may terminate this Agreement. V. This Urban Planning Area Agreement repeals and replaces the Urban Planning Area Agreement dated September 26, 1983, Washington County Resolution and Order No. 84-73, and City of Tigard Resolution 84-198. This Agreement commences on 9 ig �� • i IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties have executed this Urban Planning Area Agreement .! on the date set opposite their signatures. -i CITY OF TIGARO By Date Mayor .y W INGTON COUNTY B ~` ! . Date Y. '- Chairman,; Board o ounty Commissioners . �J��U► � nate { . . Recording Secretary .- r � Mai Wale, r t GA w., 4i'7/1 lit�j 4,04 IRA vd MA 41 i P of lop INS URBAN PLANNING AREA BOUNDARY ACTIVE PLANNING AREAAREA ) . 4 MMRAY 13 ,VD. CONNECTION �- ERAt:GEN 'ALIGNMENT • id � - pmrr 8 No UFWA RAMM 402 401 601 107 404 — 301 app 104 aoo 108 101 100 1100 200 1101 s 1301 1200 1304 1300 100 201 101 200 MURRAY BLVD. CONNECTION ,-4 x y MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON T0: Honorable Mayor City Council December 24, 1986 FROM: Loreen Wilson. City Recorder 7 SUBJECT: Measure #26, Metzger/Washington Square Annexation, 11/86 Washington County provided the following precinct results: Precinct yes_ No Under/Over Vote #16 413 (43X) 558 (57x) 78 #17 179 (44X) 231 (562) 50 #27 190 (30X) 438 (70x) 51 #192 147 (65X) 81 (35x) 21 #217 5 12 (71x) 9 LW:cw 4466A _- Ii . � is � p`'`! 1 1 ,, M,. «.y, ........,.� i.,J ! t(I y" .... � ., •. -- KIi -1I �,�� ..... 1 _--1 '.o.• .«,.vCllt°�i"�• t..tf..noo.► •' •��`; t^ ,� lo .14 .t•. tiw(,��•''r'/{1� t K•,•.w.t. I l.oc„e ^� I \ �.• •1 • ii' •, It, cl con r rm ' S �'"..'.r: �J .,.':"`'�,� �f..,,.. Cq moi•'.`• if w., � wo, •,J."u/'�: .01 j a i ,r.�L_---=� — .., r r tom„ �"•• _Jt��J �, - t fir. .9,,. Z lu1 �� 1� �' T.IGARD 17 ll-,-.�,. Irk •:e;. _ — :,t I pep ,\.*4 Lj Sets ` .= r� `•• .•o ��..`� � u«\,. \MI`/ 'i . �Iw.l �'•-_'-^� It C ` i • LJ cars tII j ;i�� I �� 1 �_� 4 c•.w RY A 4 I _ Li (�/_ 'fi1�' ^ V tr •W. tARI 1 s..OW w••�l _ 1 f J = j;.,,;!LLQ , TIGARD - •:. i�•;r • y C fit I 218' E)vc rsl 1fd DComm K yet�n IDOIE: 12-2 9-&o Anpr& it(iT►�tla(tl►��li(a{aitoililt alt(tlI tit(alt tlt. tit 7n r rP (Tl tlt tl,', t , t , t t t a i _._ R � � . � _ � 1'T i � � T �RTr►'1 ! �.!�i � { � Irir(I�t tellTrialtll�tla(alalt!!(!It'ala(ata't!a(4a�ala(alalala(ala�alafa{afala(ttt F! NOTE: IF THIS MICROFILMED _ ___.__ I Z 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 1! __ .. _ 12- DRAWING IS LESS CLEAR THAN - THIS NOTICE, IT IS DUE TO - THE QUALITY OF Tr£ ORIGINAL of 62 92 1Z 92 gZ — U2 £Z ZZ PZ Oz 6t el.,ti 91——Sf —$� E1—._.ZIii_..oi._ 5 _ 8- —9---S— 4 — e -z t .mrusdma0unhtn�nulNNlnulm�nN�llf�slu _ a t ijKARQH I w ' . 11111■■ ►.■'i..�►......• rte■■ IIt11111�1o1l�►,,��' .►��i� ■i .i "■ � � ��`= �� Moll x.11 ■�oi_.�. � ■ � � �' .1� .■ m ■�■■111 nu.Il■i'■■�i+�►.. :: ►�` ■ ,� .�� >>II■ NINE� - �� ' f ,L!■�;��111� ■.�1 1�1_■..LJ 7��. X11■ 0112 .wo low t.' �_ L moi..... �■ ..It 1 .. //. & _III■ HE ■11111 Ilr �� • 1. mom • �■��' � �!� �1l�--:111�1�� o�i i%® 1111111111' Hill WIN � ■ �..•� . ,�� L 11l�111� �� ! � t,� �� 1111 ■11111■■■ 1 - _ .. - �j 'fi■l�� u��r _ 1■ Illllllr ■LIL. . �•• : . mumm 11�1100 VIEW King EL 111■ ■1� ■�? � �,. • fl-ASE-1 P` aI ■:IJI! :111: ■L■ X11■■ ' 'f �■r�e� ,, ' Vii■ G1111r.illll`1 111101111 on .■It 1�� ■ NOW - '—' 6/1 :1111 11■■ 11111111 X1111111■ i� r ■ ■s'; ..c: ► -�`�— �.., ■1 1. ■. MINIM ��Ili■� � ■ . . ' - - n . # 111 ■ ..lamMINIM1 I �� ■ - : `-��111a � ��< _111. ■11� -11!■Illi■11111 J� � � _ � =- • • Bill • 111111:1116: 1111: 11■111111 X111: : . � � 1111 1■� ./IIJ. ■1■ . . � ■�'-Flu: �'' 1.■..■H.�� ■ � 111n _ � .■■■..■■./` i ` � •��,� ` fir' gaga ■ 1 ■Iu, • �r moi; i� .■ - �EON!? r: Egoi— OEM I win 091 pupol Now MIN roil mm DO"" HUU]3uuuuujj u lam - I y MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council December 26, 1986 FROM: Noreen Wilson, Recorder y SUBJECT: Metzger Annexation Public Hearing The attached flyer will be available for citizens along with the Council meeting agenda on 12/29/86. lw/4461A CITYOF TIGrARD OREGON 25 Yeas of Service � 1961-1986 ' SOUTH METZGER ANNEXATION FACT SHEET WHO? The Metzger residents' petition-initiated proposal to annex the entire Metzger/Washington Square community to Tigard failed at the November, 1986 election by about a 5-4 margin. While a majority of 1,320 voted "No," a large minority of 934 voted "Yes." The City was approached, following the November election, by area residents still favoring annexation of their neighborhoods to the City. The South Metzger Annexation proposal -- including all of Precinct #192 which voted 2 to 1 for annexation, the Metzger School area, and Washington Square — was developed in response to neighborhood requests. WHEN? If approved on the following schedule, City services could begin this July: o December 29, 1986 Tigard City Council Public Hearing. . . o February, 1987 Boundary Commission Decision. . . o March 31, 1987 Election. . . o Apr. - Jan., 1987 City begins limited services. . . o July 1, 1987 Full City services begin. . . HOW MUCH? According to the Washington County 2000 Feasibility Study, it will cost more to buy local services from County Service Districts ($174 per year) than to annex to Tigard for an even higher level of services 0113 per year). Annexation to Tigard is $60 per year less expensive for more services (streets, police and street lighting). Annexation to Tigard gives you more services for less cost. WHAT? What changes and what doesn't change? Upon annexation, the City would provide local police, street maintenance, street lighting, sewer and storm drainage services. There would be no change in school, fire or water districts; no change in phone, gas or electric utilities; and no change in the Metzger Park. TIGABD OFFERS. NEEDED SERVICES, LOWEST COST AND LEAST CHANGE. 13125 SW.Hall BMd,P.O.Box 23397,Tigard Oregon 97223 (503)639-4171 r' �� +� '; t• � 1r�ir° or■ 1111 1111!11►.�� ■Q�i�('t.>rE,� ��1r•� ""'. ` NH�1..■ s� ♦ � Ir�ir■1►IMII■ 'rte "■ rlt i ■■ �� '��rrl ■1r1' �- ill I;I� 1 ��i C �� .■�11 ■�� rruuu� ��1�1 ■ _ f/ � 1 ��, � r r � :■!■111 IIIc t11.i�u1r�1►. .r`.�►��i �■1 :}1 IN d ■ ' �� , � �^ „�: tilJiiilllllil.11�ll■.,_ �' 11 `�1� A�� llll ■ iii _U1111,01ml mile ■ 3• •• ■ ■ ■JIB �IN Itil':: {;� I ! .. ,►�:ali. 11., ■■ •r.r .�L 110 rte+■ O *�� h� u��iw :: w ►- � lr, l �. -_ M. ::11.1• u ..��... 7"n _a. : � � , `� ► C ur! �� ■11■ ■rfW�) _ ,.� rrr� sr ■III■ i - - -.�ry ♦ 1111111111 s ;_ p"' I ,: s qui ii TIGARD AREA OF INTEREST ��t � 1� �� 111'r^+r111FM!1► • _� Jluu� ill 11 111111►= r f �. Ili!.. ■11111 �� ■IW — ��,�,,�� a�'� t: :W_I: :1111 t ■ �..� t L i,��{SII .I�.w .1111111 � ■•�� ■ � ■� 111 i ' `' 1EMON ■111 !11 � -. 1111�111�Illti •r- //n ■l�L:nous ..�>.■ ■ �, 1�� ■=�■� � t. 111"� aIIII// r 1111■:111! 1111■ ■ ■IE �:': 1 !1:11:11: :ISL a■� ■ ■:i! � ' �� _,Jj;`— 1p,- - r lr�^r g't �� i .'n?'� ,. ■ r ■ ■ ■ 111■• \t'� 1 I s+�' t � � � .� �� :11:■.1.11_ .1111. ■L■ •1• • .—. auir::n11�1 : 11■111 : :1■ q1�1 •� ��k `�� a 5/I� ■1111..11•_ 11111 �IIIII 11111' ■�� Ilu/�,�, -- 11111 11111 . �'©1. ■ 1� :11 1� .r�t( + f ��h �1gg Agri �� 1Exjyr�: i 11 ■1 • Sy1 •�:l�� ■ „; t,��Yv ✓ 6P� ', 1■■ X111:■11� X111■ 11/1/11111 �� MIR ,E 1pt �a _ : 11� 111111 :1111n X111: loin ■I�� • �'E 11■111r�1 ■ • �N t■tN■►� � )"* ��F�• �£'_�n . II ■rI1�! :/IIJ: :1�111 �11:�' �� 11111 i= r ter. .� �� -.�;, � ..: - ay.cnZ�r 'Si'S' t■�,t �■■� tttt■-c%.�uuur ■.tt�� .�1�_� � ' I � '�� ca_��— "�..._.-----�.'`._'_.[ 1 ..._.._.(JI i7L 1{7C[ �r{.7J■� ' " r ._ 7 L • fri �� t�t I4 + r lrcj / 11111 �■' IIP. /��' /.� nR ,,L 6 ,r 1� E 4F'F C � kL TCS/ / `j �t�r� ��` �"�.' N � {�,� ■■� , { : �, .nn u,t� _ t �,� � -- rel '� `` ;. ' �, � �- ■ ■ ,�E� - � �l� � � ::1�:: �■ n'�rr i1� all put�'\ {' ;� _�i {I ,' �■ r / � �11;�� 1 "■ � �a�t■.�-- -.. ilei■■� �d[,{ "i��r��1 :«t r,,�t� � ■t � �� = ■ .�� !�!; MIN � ;, � �: ��_ •_ �� • _ ■ �,�1E E .: ��a ii�I� •r` mileY j ,. 1 r r NO ANNEXATION FACTS TIGARD IS NOT TELLING YOU FACT 1 YOU DO NOT HAVE TO ANNEX TO BEAVERTON, PORTLAND, OR TIGARD. YOU WILL HAVE A CHANCE TO VOTE YES OR NO TO ANNEX TO OTHER CITIES JUST AS YOU WILL BE VOTING ON THIS PROPOSAL TO ANNEX TO TIGARD. YOU CAN STAY IN UNINCORPORATED WASHINGTON COUNTY FOR AS LONG AS YOU WISH. FACT 2 YOUR TAXES WILL GO UP IF YOU ANNEX TO TIGARD. YOUR COUNTY TAX OBLIGATION WILL REMAIN AND YOU WILL BE FORCED TO PAY DOUBLE TAX - COUNTY TAX PLUS CITY TAX. FACT 3 THIS ANNEXATION PROPOSAL IS A PIECEMEAL ANNEXATION IN THAT IT DOES NOT INCLUDE ALL OF METZGER. THIS IS CONTRARY TO WHAT PROPONENTS ARE SAYING. AS THE BALLOT TITLE STATES, ONLY A PORTION OF METZGER WILL BE ANNEXED. FACT 4 THERE IS NO GUARANTEE THAT TIGARD WILL HAVE ANY MONEY TO RETURN TO METZGER FOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS. TIGARD HAS STATED THEY WILL RETURN REVENUES TO METZGER LESS THE COST OF CITY SERVICES. SO IF THE COSTS AND EXPENSES EXCEED THE NEW REVENUES, NOT ONLY WILL THERE NOT BE ANY MONEY RETURNED TO METZGER, BUT WHO DO YOU THINK WILL BE STUCK WITH A TAX BILL TO MAKE UP THE DIFFERENCE? FACT 5 IF METZGER ANNEXES TO TIGARD AND YOU WANT A NEW STREET IMPROVEMENT, OR YOU WANT A DRAINAGE OR LIGHTING PROJECT ACTED UPON, YOU WILL BE ASKED TO FORM A LID (LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT) AND PAY FOR IT WITH ADDITIONAL TAXES. TIGARD IS SPENDING THOUSANDS OF TAXPAYER DOLLARS TO CONVINCE THE VOTERS TO SUPPORT ANNEXATION. BUT FOR ANYONE WHO LOOKS AT THE FACTS, THIS ANNEXATION PROPOSAL IS AN ILL-CONCEIVED POLITICAL DECISION THAT WILL BE HARMFUL TO THE FUTURE OF METZGER. Vote NO on ffie Washington Count► ballot.measure 26. Paid for by Committee of Concemed Metzq¢r Reddens. CamlymSmtth.Treas m.8310S.W.PbmMengmOR97??3. n O YOU CAN ASSIST IN m m 3 DEFEATING THE ca95 m ANNEXATION BY o * ® o ; OBSERVING TWO VERY o 00 CONTROL 5 vo. o IMPORTANT DATES: con a N W 2 YOUR TAX � • SEPT. 23RD — CL OUR CPO 4 MEETING TO RATE! ELECT NEW OFFICERS: At: Metzger Elem. School Locust Street September 23, Tuesday 7:30 PM • NOV. 4TH — THE GENERAL ELECTION "IT'S FOR A "NO" VOTE ON YOUR MEASURE #26. CHOICE." "This is a grassroots campaign by Metzger residents for Metzger resi- dents." Let us hear from you. Please return the attached mailer. Paid for by the: Committee of Concerned Metzger Residents Carolyn A. Smith, Treas. 8310 sW Pine Metzger, Oregon 97223 .:t _ O CD cis ~ CD c ° C V C• c 7 m N O d C O Q ��. ar V m C OH m mr c � Y HN c 0 c °'c �+'C a O C.CL 0 O Z � n = E o. � ° cis D ZO a o � `. E d � mcU waEc0 CL c: ` J c° oc arae .: c � c - a`r '" � ym i- O i 3 m m c - E p J c U '° 4) 'o CJ Im CW_ co o c m m CA e Qat o c NO o v �c aro � 'vr •• •� n. ° a W cis vi to U c ° �- m m � � � a s m � ~ w e C3tW- W 3 a io M � � O Ch " m0 ; E 'er �x. W t14t t� tti+t-lsi�p �" VIM -- �� 10,300 sw tA tZo(. DarUe!J.8oydm �, � Prokct DkecEor 103t1Q S.W�bae�cnbu�¢�Rosd ' Pbttlau�Olt.$7,1123 Com)Z�'F9400