Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
City Council Packet - 03/02/1999
CITY F TIGARD OREGON TIGARD CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING ARCH 2,1999 COUNCIL MEETING WILL NOT BE TELEVISED 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772 Revised 2126199 CITY OF TIGARD PUBLIC NOTICE: Anyone wishing to speak on an agenda item should sign on the appropriate sign-up sheet(s). If no sheet is available, ask to be recognized by the Mayor at the beginning of that agenda item. Visitor's Agenda items are asked to be two minutes or less. Longer matters can be set for a future Agenda by contacting either the Mayor or the City Manager. Times noted are estimated; it is recommended that persons interested in testifying be present by 7:15 p.m. to sign in on the testimony sign-in sheet. Business agenda items can be heard in any order after 7:30 p.m. Assistive Listening Devices are available for persons with Impaired hearing and should be scheduled for Council meetings by noon on the Monday prior to the Council meeting. Please call 639.4171, Ext. 309 (voice) or 684.2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf). Upon request, the City will also endeavor to arrange for the following services: C Qualified sign language interpreters for persons with speech or hearing impairments; and e Qualified bilingual interpreters. Since these services must be scheduled with outside service providers, it is important to allow as much lead time as possible. Please notify the City of your need by 5:00 p.m. on the Thursday preceding the meeting date at the same phone numbers as listed above: 639.4171, x309 (voice) or 684.2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf). SEE ATTACHED AGENDA COUNCIL AGENDA e MARCH 2,1999 - PAGE 1 a TIGARD CITY CCUNCILSPECIAL MEETING MARCH 2,1999 AGENDA 6:30 PM • STUDY SESSION > EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), & (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, current and pending litigation issues. As you are aware, all discussions within this session are confidential; therefore those present may disclose nothing from this meeting. Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend this session, but must not disclose any information discussed during this session. > COUNCIL TRAINING: Land Use - Approvals, Denials, and Conditions of Approval O City Attorney's Office 7:30 PM 1. BUSINESS MEETING 1.1 Cali to Order - City Council & Local Contract Review Board 1.2 Roll Call 1.3 Pledge of Allegiance 1.4 Council Communications 1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items 7:35 PM 2. VISITOR'S AGENDA (Two Minutes or Less, Please) 7:45 PM 3. PUBLIC HEARING (LEGISLATIVE): TIGARD PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN On February 1, 1999, the Planning Commission reviewed a proposal from City Staff and received public testimony to adopt the Tigard Park System Master Plan (a comprehensive needs assessment and long-range plan for meeting the community's park and recreation needs). At this meeting the City Council will review the Planning Commission's recommendation and take further public testimony prior to making a decision. a. Open Public Hearing b. Staff Report: Community Development Department C. Public Testimony: o Proponents, Opponents, Neutral d. Staff Recommendation e. Council Questions f. Close Public Hearing g. Council Consideration: Resolution No. 99- COUNCIL AGENDA - MARCH 2,1999 - PAGE 2 8:45 PM 4. PUBLIC HEARING (LEGISLATIVE): WOODARD PARK MASTER PLAN On February 1, 1999, the Planning Commission reviewed a proposal from City Staff and received public testimony to adopt the Woodard Park Master Plan. At this meeting the City Council will review the Planning Commission's recommendation and take further public testimony prior to making a decision. a. Open Public Hearing b. Staff Report: Community Development Department C. Public Testimony: • Proponents, Opponents, Neutral d. Staff Recommendation e. Council Questions f. Close Public Hearing g. Council Consideration: Resolution No. 99- 9:00 PM 5. DISCUSSION: PARK SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT CHARGE (SDC) a. Staff Report: Community Development Department b. Council Discussion C. Council Direction: Consider the draft consultant report and direct staff on how to proceed with regard to updating and extending the City's Park Systems Development Charge. 9:45 PM 6. DISCUSSION: REVIEW OF USA CONVEYANCE SYSTEM MANAGEMENT STUDY a. Staff Report: Public Works Department b. Council Discussion C. Council Direction: Consider the City of Tigard's involvement (in part or whole) regarding the final recommendations of the Conveyance System Management Study. 10:00 PM 7. FOLLOW-UP REPORT - ISSUES RELATED TO 69TH AVENUE LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT a. Staff Report b. Council Discussion 10:15 PM 8. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS 10:20 PM 9. NON AGENDA ITEMS COUNCIL AGENDA - MARCH 2,1999. PAGE 3 y 10:30 PM 10. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), & (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, current and pending litigation issues. As you are aware, all discussions within this session are confidential; therefore those present may disclose nothing from this meeting. Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend this session, but must not disclose any information discussed during this session. 10:50 PM 11. ADJOURNMENT I :ADM\CATHY\C CA\990302. D O C COUNCIL AGENDA - MARCH 2,1999 - PAGE 4 Agenda Item No.= Gll~- ~~r~ TIGARD CITY COUNCIL Meeting of MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 2, 1999 • STUDY SESSION > Meeting was called to order at 6:45 p.m. by Mayor Jim Nicoli > Council Present: Mayor Jim Nicoli, Councilors Paul Hunt, Brian Moore, Joyce Patton, and Ken Scheckla. > Staff Present: City Manager Bill Monahan; Community Development Director Jim Hendryx; Legal Counsel Tim Ramis; City Recorder Catherine Wheatley; Public Works Director Ed Wegner; Utility Manager Mike Miller; and Wastewater Supervisor Eric Hand. > Planning Commissioners Present: Mark Padgett, Jim Griffith, Dave Anderson, Shel Scolar > COUNCIL TRAINING: Land Use - Approvals, Denials, and Conditions of Approval Tim Ramis, City Attorney, explained that they were reviewing the Dolan case at this time for three reasons: jurisdictions now had practical experience with how the Dolan rules operated, they now had case law developed on how to apply the rules, and the City staff has developed solutions and recommendations for applying the Dolan rules specifically in Tigard. Mr. Ramis reviewed the context and rules of the Dolan case. He mentioned the context of what the rules were that limited the ability of the government to condition development approvals in order to mitigate the impacts on infrastructure. He stated that the fundamental rule from the Supreme Court was that there had to be a "rough proportionality" between the impact caused by the project and the exactions required by the jurisdiction. Jurisdictions had to perform individual and quantified computations of the impacts. In addition, any conditions imposed had to have a benefit to the subject property. Mr. Ramis explained that the courts have determined that there was no "safe harbor." Cities had to apply rough proportionality to all exactions; the only area where they could continue to impose traditional exactions without applying rough proportionality was streets within a subdivision because that was clearly the responsibility of the developer. He noted that with rough proportionality the cities had the burden to generate the numbers and data to establish rough proportionality. Commissioner Griffith mentioned the issue with the City of Portland's major facility equalization charge for sewers. Mr. Ramis said that Portland took the position that rough proportionality did not apply to fees. He mentioned that case law both inside and outside of Oregon indicated the opposite, and someone would litigate the issue at some time. He stated that, in general, fees were a better method than exactions to address these issues because of the analysis done by cities to establish the fees. Commissioner Griffith asked about SDCs. Mr. Ramis said that litigation was currently ongoing regarding the extent to which Dolan affected SDCs. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 2, 1999 - PAGE 1 Mr. Ramis reviewed the responses available to local governments in handling applications with inadequate infrastructure. A local government could deny an application, provided that a burden to find adequate infrastructure to service the project existed in the Code and staff did not find evidence that the proposed infrastructure was adequate. He pointed out that constant denials resulted in a local government never getting any of its infrastructure built. In addition, a pattern of denial could trigger a moratorium lawsuit. Mr. Ramis noted the second response of approving the project with a timing trigger condition. For example, construction on a subdivision could begin just as soon as a new traffic signal was installed at a critical intersection. He explained that this strategy did not condition the application to install the signal itself but it did create an incentive for the developer to find a way to get it done, such as petitioning for an LID or working with the government in partnership to solve the problem. He indicated that overuse of this technique also created the possibility of a moratorium lawsuit but it was the most attractive alternative. Commissioner Padgett asked if what Mr. Ramis was saying was that the local governments could tell a developer that he could not do what he wanted to until a needed improvement (which the city could not require them to pay for) happened in some way. Mr. Ramis said yes, as long as the government had a standard of criteria that a proposal had to include adequate infrastructure, and it found that there was not adequate infrastructure proposed. Mr. Ramis mentioned the other alternatives of local improvement districts, local reimbursement districts, and annually updating the SDCs. Mr. Ramis reviewed the short-term suggestions from staff to address these issues. These included looking for opportunities to use the City's traditional tools, occasional use of the condition on timing, very selective use of denial, and encouragement of LIDs and reimbursement districts. He discussed the need for a clear interpretation by the Planning Director of those provisions in their Code which developers alleged required an automatic exaction in violation of the Constitution. He said that the Director needed to issue a response quickly that the City interpreted the provision to be consistent with Dolan and the proportionality analysis in order to avoid lawsuits based on differing interpretations. He mentioned amending the Code to fix any provisions where the City was vulnerable to the charge of automatic exactions. Mr. Ramis reviewed the long-term suggestions from staff. These include more reliance on capital improvements planning, long-term planning and updating SDCs. He noted that staff could try to determine more exactly what the City's cost exposure on its infrastructure was in order to support exactions and SDCs. He commented that over time all jurisdictions would update SDCs frequently as they found it more difficult to finance infrastructure through exactions. He mentioned the need to work with property owners and citizens to find a fair SDC level. He commented that the ultimate issue was how much did development pay and how much did the community pay. Jim Hendryx, Community Development Director, mentioned that, liven the new requirement to notify all affected property owners of code changes, staff would be very careful in handling code amendments because of the notification costs. Mr. Ramis clarified for Councilor Scheckla that Tigard, like several other jurisdictions, had been looking at the question of safe harbors for exactions and found that they had to apply rough proportionality across the board. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 2, 1999 - PAGE 2 Mr. Hendryx used examples of different development situations to review the.process staff went through in handling the issue of rough proportionality and deciding which strategy to use if the proposed infrastructure did not meet their standards. These included an in-fill development, a corner lot, improving two local street rights-of-way, and an arterial street. Commissioner Griffith asked if staff had a working "rule-of-thumb" on the cost relationship between the project and the improvements. Mr. Hendryx said that they had some working relationships. He commented that Tigard's use of rough proportionality was applied primarily to major collectors and arterials, as they did not have a city-wide study of local streets. Mr. Hendryx mentioned the issues involved with determining rough proportionality relative to a corner lot or improving two local street rights-of-way. He said that staff was faced with either denying the application or requiring improvement on one street with the recognition that over time the community at large would have to fund the improvements for the adjacent street. Mr. Ramis confirmed to Commissioner Padgett that requiring a non-remonstrance for an LID on the adjacent street was a possibility. He mentioned the question of whether or not the City would want to hold the second or third property owner to a non-remonstrance agreement. Commissioner Padgett asked if the City could condition a developer to contribute the dollar amount of the improvements needed on a lesser street fronting his project to the improvements needed for a major street. Mr. Ramis said, while the City had to demonstrate a benefit to the property owner, it did have broad discretion in deciding which benefit to give to the property and which benefit the public wanted. He concurred with Mr. Hendryx that the lack of information on the impacts on local streets made it difficult to deal with this situation. Mr. Hendryx noted another question of how much impact did a conversion from one use to another have on the infrastructure and where could the City require improvements. Mr. Hendryx reiterated that he would bring forward interpretations for Council consideration. He mentioned developing a long-term program to identify the public facility needs and costs throughout the City, especially for local streets. He commented that staff has used the Dolan case successfully but there was more work to do to prepare the City in light of the rough proportionality rule. He noted that staff would deny applications lacking adequate infrastructure. Mr. Ramis advised the Planning Commission, when trying to determine what was proportional and how to condition the application, to ask whether the proposed improvements were eligible for an SDC credit. He said that if the improvement went beyond the credit, then the Commission had to consider proportionality. Commissioner Padgett asked for verification that staff would have a policy to recommend denial when the improvements were inadequate as opposed to setting a timing condition. Mr. Hendryx said that staff would have to recommend denial if there were inadequate public facilities, unless other solutions occurred to create the improvement. Mayor Nicoli asked if a denial for lack of infrastructure involved inverse condemnation. Mr. Ramis said that, in cases where the decision deprived the property of all possible use, the answer was yes. But as long as some use was permitted of the property, the answer was probably not. He commented that the moratorium argument had greater visibility. Mayor Nicoli asked if the City could reduce standards in an area where they wanted to encourage redevelopment and not be held to those reduced standards elsewhere in the city. Mr. Ramis said that, since the City could create zones for SDCs, he did not see why they could not CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 2, 1999 - PAGE 3 do so for other capital improvements planning. He described the flexibility available to set a lower standard in a zone now with plans to achieve the higher standard later. He commented that they could not do that on a case-by-case basis. He explained that they created the zones through the CIP planning process. Councilor Scheckla asked if the City would apply these rules to areas that developed in the County and then annexed to the City or would those lands be grandfathered in under the County rules. Mr. Hendryx explained that a property annexed to the City that redeveloped had to develop under the City standards. > Administrative Items • Mr. Monahan reviewed the arrangements for the tour of the Corvallis water treatment plant this Saturday. • Mr. Monahan thanked the Planning Commission for attending the study session. • Mr. Monahan noted the employee recognition reception on Thursday, April 8, from 3 to 4 p.m. • Mr. Monahan advised the Council that he wrote to Russ Joki, Tigard-Tualatin School District Superintendent, to remind him of the upcoming annual Council/School Board meeting. He suggested April 21 as a possible date, commenting that if the Board was going to ask for help with the athletic fields, it needed to do so before the end of the budget cycle in May. He said that Dr. Joki might request the Council to meet with the Board on a Board meeting night, as historically they have alternated meetings. > Mayor Nicoli adjourned the study session at 7:20 p.m. 1. BUSINESS MEETING 1.1 Call to Order - City Council & Local Contract Review Board Mayor Jim Nicoli called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. 1.2 Roll Call Councilors Patton, Scheckla, Hunt, Moore, and Mayor Nicoli were present. 1.4 Council Communications: None 1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items: None 2. VISITOR'S AGENDA: None 3. PUBLIC HEARING (LEGISLATIVE): TIGARD PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN a. Mayor Nicoli opened the public hearing. b. Staff Report • Duane Roberts, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. He stated that the Planning Commission, a Citizens Task Force, and the park planning consultants (MIG & Associates) have put together a 10-year Parks Master Plan that covered the city proper and the adjacent urban CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 2, 1999 - PAGE 4 1 ~ 1111,111111111 1111111111~ services area. He noted the unanimous Planning Commission recommendation for approval with some modifications. Mr. Roberts reviewed the public policy implications of the plan recommendations. He said that the plan recommended a higher service standard than the City presently had, and an action plan calling for major new funding for parks in order to meet that higher standard. He mentioned the recommendation for a recreation program and the identification of the need for additional maintenance dollars to support the proposed expansion of the park system. Mr. Roberts recommended that the Council make any changes it saw fit to the plan (following the consultants' presentation and the public testimony), and adopt the plan. He noted the staff recommendation that the Council not adopt the action plan or the sewer standard until it considered proposed changes to the parks SDC fee structure. He introduced Sally McIntyre and . Jane Henderson of MIG. ® Sally McIntyre, MIG and Associates, used a PowerPoint presentation to review the highlights of the plan. She commented that the Master Plan underscored that parks and recreation were essential to a community. She reviewed the master plan process, including the identification of the benefits of parks and recreation to Tigard citizens (individual, community, environmental, and economic enhancement), identification of community needs, development of a plan to deliver those benefits, and identifying outcome measurements to gauge the success of implementing the plan. Ms. McIntyre mentioned the community values identified through the process. These included child and youth development, relief from urban development, meeting the needs of all ages from infants to senior citizens, the importance of the natural environment, and building a sense of community. Ms. McIntyre discussed in detail the vision of the plan in the four areas of parks facilities, management, maintenance, and recreation programming. She listed the specific actions to develop park facilities, including renovation and expansion of existing parks and playgrounds to meet safety and ADA requirements, partnerships with the school district to develop a community center, to expand use/improve conditions of the sports fields and to provide neighborhood parks where vacant land was unavailable, acquisition of land for parks in undeserved neighborhoods, protection of stream corridors, development of continuous link trails to parks, and cooperation with public agencies to provide on street sidewalks and bike lanes as needed. Ms. McIntyre mentioned the primary benchmark for measuring the success of the park facilities component: all residents living within half a mile of a neighborhood or community park. Ms. McIntyre commented that citizens currently underused the existing neighborhood parks. She reviewed the actions recommended for parks management, including expanding and developing joint use agreements with the school district, improving the public infonnation program about parks facilities, expanding the Parks and Citizen patrol program, extending the use of volunteers, developing a site specific ADA transition plan, improving access to parks and recreation facilities, and determining the most cost effective way to manage the park system in the future (currently parks management was split between the Planning Department and the Public Works Department). Ms. McIntyre mentioned a key benchmark for parks management: the hours of volunteer participation. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 2, 1999 - PAGE 5 Ms. McIntyre spoke to increasing the number of parks maintenance staff to maintain stability as the number of park acres increased. She recommended also increasing maintenance funding to keep pace with park acquisition and development. Other actions included developing a maintenance management plan tied to national standards and continued expansion of the volunteer program. Ms. McIntyre recommended development of an organizational structure to deliver program recreation services, as residents were enthusiastic about expanding their currently limited access to recreation programming. Ms. McIntyre mentioned the proposed ten-year capital improvements plan totaling $21.7 million with identified funding sources. She encouraged the Council to take the aggressive step of finding the money to fund the capital expenditures now because, in the future, they might not have the opportunity. c. Public Testimony o Christie Smith, 11320 SW Ambiance Court, referenced her letter in support of dog parks. She commented that the 6,000 registered dogs in Tigard also needed relief from urban development. She mentioned that undeveloped terrain or sites unsuitable for sports fields were suitable for dog parks. She emphasized that dog owners were conscientious about cleaning up after their dogs. She reviewed her extensive research regarding dog parks in Wilsonville and Eugene, presenting pictures of the facilities available at those cities and describing the variety of users. She reported that the county and city staff people with whom she has spoken all spoke highly of the benefits of dog parks, especially in reducing complaints of barking dogs in neighborhoods. Ms. Smith said that a fence around the perimeter with gates for easy access was the one absolute essential for a dog park. She mentioned water for the dogs and convenient parking as two valuable amenities for the users. She explained that convenient parking was particularly helpful to the elderly and handicapped users of the site. She stated that the size should be one-acre minimum and noted the six-acre park in Eugene. Councilor Hunt asked if Ms. Smith felt that one centrally located dog park would be sufficient for Tigard. Ms. Smith said that she was hoping for three but asking for one. o Mark Myers, 14012 SW Light Drive, and a neighbor from 13920 SW Light Drive, represented the Castlehill Neighborhood Board of Directors. He thanked the Council for the Albertson's park in their neighborhood. He presented a check for $20,000 to the City to help with development of the park. He asked for assurance that this money would be spent on developing the park this year. He pointed out that this park was scheduled in the CIP for development in 2008. He mentioned that Mr. Roberts told him that their money could be used for some small projects that could be done immediately. Mr. Roberts mentioned development of a site plan in cooperation with the neighbors, as staff did with Woodard Park. Ed Wegner, Public Works Director, confirmed that they could use the money for fencing the park and starting some landscaping (as he would do that immediately because of the slope). He said that they would not develop playground equipment and fields until the Master Plan was done. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 2, 1999 - PAGE 6 Councilor Moore suggested that staff develop a budget for the homeowners and identify those items on which they would spend the money. Mr. Wegner said that staff would present a budget to the neighborhood within 30 days. s Celinda Knott, 13375 SW 116'', spoke in support of dog parks. She explained that, as a dog trainer, she has found that taking dogs to dog parks lowered their natural aggressiveness and burned off the energy that used to go into herding or other work. She pointed out that dog parks also served as social gathering places for the owners. She concurred that dog owners cleaned up after their dogs. She stated that she supported a dog park as something that could be done immediately for the benefit of dog owners but for a small amount of money. ® Scott White, 14423 SW 130'', stated that he was a member of the Citizens Task Force on the Parks Master Plan. He expressed his appreciation for the consultants' help and willingness to listen to the citizens. He concurred that parks were essential to the livability of the community, noting that he frequently took his two small boys to play in the park. He encouraged the Council to actively pursue the acquisition of both active and passive parks, especially as available land was fast disappearing. He mentioned the need for adequate maintenance also. He supported identifying specific projects when going out for a bond as opposed to asking for money for parks in general. He said that the west side of Tigard, particularly the Bull Mountain area, was radically undeserved by parks, citing the 2.5 miles he must drive to get to Summerlake, the closest park to his home. Deborah Marcheson, 14755 SW 104'', asked the City to consider putting a park in at Murdock (between 103`a and 106th) instead of punching the road through, as this was one of the two remaining pieces of greenspace in the area. She pointed out that the nearest park to this area was Cook Park, several miles away. She mentioned the need for safe play areas for the children and the present use of the undeveloped land by the neighborhood for walking and children's play. She presented pictures showing the tree grove and meadow on this property located just behind the John F. Tigard house. Ms. Marcheson described how impressed she had been at flying into Portland for the first time and seeing all the trees. She said that if the City did not take this opportunity to preserve this greenspace acreage, it might not be there in the future. She pointed out that children could use pathways through the park for safe access rather than a road. She reported that the neighborhood was more than willing to help with maintenance of the park. She reiterated that she did not want to see the tree grove disappear. Mr. Roberts confirmed to Councilor Moore that the Water District owned that property. Mr. Wegner reported that his staff found seven dead trees inside the fenced area with the water tanks. The staff and consulting arborist both recommended removing them for hazard reasons. He commented that this was not the tree grove on the perimeter mentioned by Ms. Marcheson. i ' Councilor Scheckla asked what would happen to the surveying monument located on this property. Mayor Nicoli said that removing and relocating surveying monuments was standard procedure. f e Gerald Marcheson, 1475 SW 104'', reiterated his wife's concern that extending Murdock Street would eliminate most of the trees. He pointed out that the area around the water tank was mostly paved and could provide a parking area for access to the park while leaving the natural area with its existing paths as it was. He said that developing a park would be much cheaper than installing a road. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 2, 1999 - PAGE 7 d. Staff Recommendations Mr. Roberts recommended approval of the plan as modified. e. Council Questions Councilor Hunt stated that, while this was an excellent report, he did have several reservations and would vote against it if they went with it in its entirety. He held that trying to pass a parks bond in 2000 raised the same concern as expressed by Mayor Nicoli and Councilor Moore regarding the recent Library bond: it could detract from raising money for streets. He favored more discussion of the issue. Councilor Hunt stated that he needed more information on the initial and ongoing costs of a community center, including staffing, before he could vote to include a community center. He pointed out that different amounts per $1,000 were listed in the report for finance sources. He said that, while he knew how much dog owners enjoyed using Cook Park, he did not know whether 95% of the population wanted to fund a facility used by only 5%. Councilor Hunt agreed with the need to increase the parks maintenance staff to keep up with the additional parks. He reiterated that his concerns were with the community center and the dog park. Councilor Moore asked if the "additional taxes" mentioned in the MIG report to pay for park improvements was a bond measure. Ms. McIntyre said yes. Councilor Moore asked if, in approving the plan, they also approved the CIP projects. He stated that he agreed with Councilor Hunt's concerns regarding the community center. He said that he did not want to spend money for a community center if it would compete with Atfalati's plans. Mr. Roberts reviewed the CIP process. In the annual adoption of the seven-year CIP, Council committed only to the projects listed for the first year. The second through seventh year projects were tentative only. He pointed out that they would also adopt the CIP in conjunction with proposed SDC fee changes that was based on a tentative project list also. He commented that Council could replace projects on the tentative-funded list with projects from the recommended but unfunded project list. Mr. Roberts noted that the community center costs were located in three separate places in the report and totaled $6.5 million with $2.5 million slated for the building. Ms. McIntyre commented that they incorporated some flexibility into the CIP to allow the Council to take advantage of opportunities as they came up during the implementation of the plan in phases. She mentioned the community support for an indoor facility and the need for more program space. She said that, in her experience, she has found that a community center jointly used by the schools and the community worked well. Mayor Nicoli said that he supported a dog park, and that they should be able to find a piece of land well-suited for it. He asked to take out the reference to the year 2000 because he was not sure that the City would need to go out for a bond. He explained that once Atfalati legally formed the district and wrote their charter, they would ask for money to operate the recreational district and start addressing issues in the master plan. He held that the Atfalati process would address the Council's concerns, they just needed to give them some time. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 2, 1999 - PAGE 8 Mayor Nicoli argued that once Atfalati identified which issues they would take care of, then the City could identify what holes existed in implementing the plan. He mentioned the Parks SDCs as an additional funding source, commenting that staff would aggressively keep the SDC rate at an appropriate level. He noted that he was on record as stating that he would endorse a vote for Atfalati in the year 2000. Mayor Nicoli mentioned that originally he had wanted the master plan to address joint usage of school sites as neighborhood parks. He commented that a probable request from the school district for significant City financial aid in maintaining the green areas around the schools did not mesh well with what he had had in mind. He said that he knew that the district was open to allowing more citizen use of the fields in exchange for maintenance dollars but he was concerned that the district was headed in the direction of massive cutbacks due to the employee settlement recently made. Mayor Nicoli suggested rewording portions of the plan to avoid the appearance of pressuring the school district while still allowing the City to exchange maintenance dollars for increased citizen usage on facilities where it was logical to do so. He said that he did not want the school district's cutbacks to hold up the City or Atfalati. He asked if they could approve the plan but not the financial side. He recommended waiting until Atfalati reported back to the Council on their plans. Mr. Roberts confirmed to Councilor Patton that the proposed resolution did not ask the Council to adopt the CIP in the dollar amounts given at this time. Councilor Patton commented that she was not comfortable with the financial aspect of the plan or the specifics of various action matters, although it was an excellent plan that provided a framework to implement its concepts over the next ten years or so. She asked for further discussion of those items, Atfalati, and the Council's priorities. She said that she was more comfortable in dealing with this issue at this time, given that the resolution pulled the CEP out for adoption at another time. Mr. Roberts stated that tonight the Council could present modifications to the plan. He noted that the original park plan (which this master plan was replacing) did not include a financial section or overall action plan. Ms. McIntyre stated that they presented the CIP to a number of community groups for prioritization. In addition, the Planning Commission and the Citizens Task Force also prioritized the improvements. She commented that they did their best to tailor the improvement list to citizen needs and expressed her confidence that the capital improvements list did reflect the community needs. Councilor Scheckla asked if the Council was legally bound to this document, given that they lacked financial information and a priority list. Mr. Ramis pointed out that this plan was a framework, a general outline of the direction to go in terms of parks planning. He explained that the actual decisions would be made during the process of updating the CIP. He stated that the financial information included was essentially informational, descriptions to alert the public of appropriate costs. He emphasized that adoption of the resolution did not commit the City to expend money in any particular way. Councilor Hunt requested language specifying that financing was not identified, noting that each Councilor was interpreting the document differently. Mr. Ramis said that language could be added to the resolution or the plan text. Councilor Scheckla expressed his concern tilat the Council would be obligated to the dollar amount identified in the plan over 10 years and be unable to reduce the plan should the Atfalati group be unsuccessful. He questioned whether staff and the consultant were planning for more CI'T'Y COUNCEL MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 2, 1999 - PAGE 9 than they could handle without Atfalati. Mayor Nicoli said that he did not think so. He pointed out that a quarter of the $21 million would come from existing SDCs. He explained that Atfalati was seeking to raise between $1 million to $1.5 million from within the school district boundaries (which included more than the city limits of Tigard). He agreed that the plan implementation could take longer than 10 years. Councilor Hunt expressed concern at the lack of information on operating expenses, once they acquired all the land identified. Ms. McIntyre said that they did include operating expenses in the calculations, which were phased in according to the CIP for that year. Mr. Roberts directed attention to Table 12 (page 46) where it listed $506,700 per year for maintenance costs. Councilor Hunt questioned the dollar amount. Ms. McIntyre directed attention back to the main table which listed the type of maintenance needed by year to cover the capital improvements in the plan and the number of staff required. She confirmed that they would need to add five additional employees by 1999/2000. Councilor Moore commented that the information in the tables was based on implementation of the whole plan, which they did not know for certain would happen. He said that he would support adoption of the resolution, including language clarifying that any expenditures in the future would have to come to Council for approval. Mr. Ramis mentioned Section 2 as an appropriate place in the resolution to add further clarification. Councilor Hunt stated that he still wanted more discussion on the community center, as he could not support it. Mayor Nicoli asked if the master plan discussed a dog park. Ms. McIntyre said that the plan included three dog parks. Councilor Moore said that he understood Section 2 to say clearly that the adoption of expenditures would happen at a later date. He remarked that he was satisfied that nothing in the document required appropriation of funding. Mr. Roberts said that he understood that Council was not making a legal commitment to provide the stated amount of funding. f. Mayor Nicoli closed the public hearing g. Council Consideration: Resolution No. 99- Councilor Moore said that he had no objections to the resolution and he was satisfied that this was a good plan. He concurred with Councilor Hunt that they needed to discuss finances and referenced the transportation bond measure efforts. He commented that they could adopt the resolution with the understanding that Council would discuss allocation of funds to fulfill this plan at a later date. Councilor Hunt reiterated his request for language in the document clarifying what it was that they were actually adopting. Mayor Nicoli commented that he would be more comfortable with language stating the vote could be either a city vote or a vote of the Atfalati district. Councilor Moore suggested using generalities to indicate that the City of Tigard was not necessarily responsible for any or all of these expenses, and thus not precluding another organization from supporting the elements of the plan. Councilor Patton supported both Councilor Hunt's and Mayor Nicoli's suggestions for clarification. She said that she was comfortable with moving forward with the master plan as a CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 2, 1999 - PAGE 10 framework because they had to start somewhere to focus on the direction they wanted for the parks system. She commented that the framework allowed for minor shifts and modifications as necessary. Mayor Nicoli noted that staff would return with a modified resolution. 4. PUBLIC HEARING (LEGISLATIVE): WOODARD PARK MASTER PLAN a. Mayor Nicoli opened the public hearing b. Staff Report Mr. Roberts said that Metro purchased a seven-acre site adjacent to Woodard Park with Metro greenspaces funds. He said that Metro offered to allow Tigard to incorporate this site in with the existing three-acre Woodard Park and to develop and manage it as the City saw fit, provided that they developed a master plan to Metro guidelines and Metro Council approval. He mentioned that they used also used the consultants, MIG & Associates, to work with staff and neighbors on developing this master plan. He said that the Planning Commission recommended the plan with a few modifications. Jane Henderson, MIG, reviewed the master plan they developed through a series of community workshops and conversations with Metro. She mentioned working with ODOT also to develop the wetland mitigation area on the site. She said that the plan moved the more active recreation areas to the north part of the site, away from the existing Woodard Park acreage that flooded every winter. She noted the children's play area, the picnic areas and shelter, the restrooms, a paved entrance with turn around, an open informal playfield, and the Fanno Creek Trail. She mentioned use of the site for wetland mitigation and riparian restoration. She indicated that the lower area was still usable as a passive park with trails running through it and an overlook near the creek. She pointed out a soft surface trail running through the wetland area to the northern part of the park. c. Public Testimony: None d. Staff Recommendations Mr. Roberts recommended adoption of the concepts in the master plan for the park design. He noted that the plan did not include any funding commitment. e. Council Questions Councilor Scheckla asked if staff would erect a sign for the new park entrance. He also asked about the parking. Mr. Roberts explained that the plan did not include parking, as the main users would be neighborhood people. He noted that people could park in the turn around. He mentioned the neighborhood's concerns about using land to provide parking and Metro's concerns about increasing impermeable surface area. Mr. Wegner confirmed that staff would insure that all three entrances to the park were properly signed. In response to Councilor Moore's earlier question, Ms. Henderson noted the location of the tree buffer strip requested by the neighbors. She said that, while trees used for separation were acceptable, trees planted too densely could create a security issue. Councilor Moore said that was his concern also, and asked that that issue be made clear in the document. Mr. Roberts explained that a suggestion from the Planning Commission discussion was to plant groups of CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 2, 1999 - PAGE 1 I trees on the property line paints. He said that staff was trying to find a balance between security and privacy. Mayor Nicoli asked if the master plan addressed the need to improve the drainageway. Mr. Roberts said that the plan did not address it at this conceptual stage but it would during the construction stage. He commented that everyone in the neighborhood pointed out that problem. f Mayor Nicoli closed the public hearing g. Council Consideration: Resolution No. 99-13 Motion by Councilor Moore, seconded by Councilor Patton, to adopt Resolution No. 99-13. The City Recorder read the number and title of the resolution. RESOLUTION NO. 99-13, A RESOLUTION OF THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL. ADOPTING A CONCEPT PLAN FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AND EXPANSION OF WOODARD PARK. Motion was approved by unanimous voice vote of Council present. (Councilors Patton, Scheckla, Hunt, Moore, and Mayor Nicoli voted "yes".) Mr. Hendryx thanked MIG and Associates for their excellent work, mentioning the positive reports he received of their public input process. 5. DISCUSSION: PARK SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT CHARGE (SDC) Mr. Roberts introduced Carl Goeble, the consultant who worked on updating the Parks SDC methodology report. He mentioned that Mr. Goeble had prepared the 1994 original study which was adopted in 1996. He noted the inclusion of an automatic escalator in the new fee structure to keep the charges up to date with inflation and increases in construction costs. He stated that they asked Mr. Goeble to look at extending the park SDC to the urban services area. He pointed out that the City lost a lot of potential revenue from the new development in that area (190 building permits in 1998 as opposed to 140 units within the city proper). Carl Goeble explained that the fact that Tigard's unique methodology in charging parks SDCs on commercial properties has not been challenged meant that it was now an established methodology and safe from the 60-day challenge period. He recommended that the Council not change the methodology (in order to avoid a legal challenge) but noted that the parks master plan represented a significant deviation from the methodology. Mr. Goeble reviewed the reasons why they believed it was time to update the parks SDC. He noted the increased land prices and parks development costs over the past five years. He recommended the annual escalator to capture those price and inflation changes. He mentioned the significant increase in Tigard's inventory of park acreage. He explained that, because they based the standard recommended for parks on the existing inventory, increases to that inventory changed the standard. Mr. Goeble noted the change from the larger Tigard area-of-interest to the smaller urban services area. He reviewed the dramatic changes in Metro's population and employment projects for 2015 (a 40% and 20% increase in population and employment projections CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 2, 1999 - PAGE 12 respectively within the city with a 38% increase in population projections for the urban service area and a slight decrease in employment projections). He mentioned that they based the recommended annual adjustment process on the Hillsboro method. Mr. Goeble said that they estimated that Tigard's current SDC should be $1,410 for single family residential and $490 for commercial properties. He mentioned $910 as a fair apportionment for every ten employees. He said that if SDCs were charged to development in both the city and the urban services area, then the current SDC should be $1,180 for single family residential and $850 for commercial. He explained that the SDC decreased because the urban services area had no parks and therefore the overall parks inventory decreased, and with it the standard. Mr. Goeble reported that their estimate of the parks SDCs generated over the next ten years for the city without the urban service area (with annual inflation) at $7.7 million. The city and the urban services area together would generate $8.5 million. Mr. Goeble reviewed the SDC policy questions raised by the master plan. He said that the important question was to what level did Tigard want to build its park system. The master plan recommended a level of 11 acres per 1,000 population. He explained that it would cost $25 million for the City to bring its existing park system up to that standard, leaving another $25 million to bring areas of new development up to that standard. He emphasized that the current SDC methodology would get them "nowhere close" to building to that standard. He stated that the SDCs had to be based on the existing standard, and therefore the Council had to decide which standard it would use. Mayor Nicoli commented that, although they would not try to raise everything they needed through SDCs, he was uncomfortable discussing increasing the SDCs before they notified the local development people of these discussions. He said that he did not have a problem with raising the rates. Mr. Ramis explained that the fundamental legal principle behind the $25 million liability mentioned by Mr. Goeble was the City's obligation, over time, to apply the same rules to its existing residents as it applied to the newcomers. He said that the SDC was set to charge the newcomers the same amount currently charged to the existing residents. If the Council set an SDC standard based on 11 acres per 1,000 population but had an existing standard of 5 acres per 1,000, then the City would have to find money to address the existing deficiencies created when the Council changed the standard. Mayor Nicoli asked if the funding received from a parks district could be used to offset that liability. Mr. Ramis said that it depended on how they drew up the CIP, the vehicle they used to decide what the City's obligations were as compared to other agency obligations. He stated that they could say that they had a plan to bring the existing deficiencies up to the same level, and were working towards that goal. He commented that a parks district could have a role in making that case. Mr. Goeble pointed out that, if they used tax money in addition to SDC money, credit for the property tax money used to pay for parks had to be expended on the vacant properties at the time they developed, so that they did not pay more than their fair share in SDCs. He recommended looking at that closely when they put together a financing plan for the master plan. Mayor Nicoli said that he would not agree to fund 50% more from SDCs by tripling or quadrupling the rate. He asked if they could double the current SDC and work the numbers CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 2, 1999 - PAGE 13 backwards to find out what proportion had to come from the existing tax base. Councilor Moore commented that the Mayor was asking what doubling the SDC did to the amount of expenditures that they had to have for the existing tax base. Staff indicated that it increased the amount. Mr. Goeble said that he could calculate what the parks standard would be with doubling the SDC and then he could say what the City's existing liability would be based on that park standard. Mayor Nicoli noted that the money raised by Atfalati for parks and recreation would be split into three categories: recreational activities, maintenance and capital. He asked if that money could be considered as the match from the people and taken into consideration with the increase in the SDC. He commented that staff was saying that they had to increase both sides of the equation, creating a situation similar to the Tualatin Hills Parks & Recreation District which charged both a park SDC and a significant property tax. He asked if THPRD could take their property taxes and offset them with their SDC. Mr. Goeble said that he had not looked at that situation. Mr. Ramis said that he suspected that scenario would have two effects: crediting payments to the developers and being able to use the money, in part, to bring up the standard for the rest of the city. Councilor Moore asked if they could include language to bring the SDC fund up to meet the amount contributed by a recreation district and the city, should the recreation district come online. Mr. Ramis said that what would probably happen was that, as the district began to do CIP projects, the number of projects in the City's C1P would decrease. Mayor Nicoli commented that if Atfalati took over some of the City's maintenance work, then the City could put the money it had allocated for that maintenance work into capital expenditures. Mr. Ramis described a piece dividend concept: earmarking the money saved because expenses were down for upgrading existing parks, and then taking credit for that against the deficit. Councilor Moore suggested directing staff to proceed with the understanding that, if and when Atfalati came online, the Council would evaluate how they fit into the equation, and adjust the SDCs accordingly. Mr. Goeble cautioned the Council that this was changing the methodology by which they derived their rate, and they would be subject to legal challenge. Mr. Ramis noted the Mayor's point about the need to deal with the industry affected by the change. If the industry agreed that taking the creation of the recreation district into account was fair, then a change in methodology was not a risk. But if it was a major issue, then the City would need to evaluate the change carefully. Mayor Nicoli suggested discussing the situation with the Homebuilders to see what was agreeable to them. He agreed with Councilor Moore that they were looking too far into the future. He commented that Atfalati would come to the Council in four to six months to present their plans and financial information. At that time, the Council needed to make financial decisions based on what Atfalati could do for the city. Mayor Nicoli said that, from a practical standpoint, they needed to adjust the rates and to get the County to adopt SDCs for the urban services area. He commented that the City and County could jointly administer that fund, as they did the TIF fund. Mr. Goeble reiterated that if they coordinated with the County in setting SDCs, then they incurred an existing liability, as the County had no parks on which to base a standard to set the SDC. Mayor Nicoli suggested an interim approach of picking a random number and moving forward with the understanding that they would revisit that number after other issues became clearer. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 2, 1999 - PAGE 14 , ~ MM Mr. Goeble reiterated that the SDCs for the city and urban services area together should be $1,180 for a single family house. Councilor Moore said that the first step was for staff to find out what the County would do. If the County would not adopt SDCs, then the City went with the $1,410 SDC amount. If the County would, then the City moved to the $1,180. He pointed out that, with an SDC for both the city and the urban services area, they would get more money from the urban services area because of the amount of development occurring in that area. Councilor Hunt asked where the City could legally assess SDCs. Mr. Ramis said that, in addition to the city proper, they could assess SDCs in the county areas if they could reach an agreement with the County. Councilor Hunt asked if they would charge SDCs for other infrastructure improvements if they charged one for parks. Mayor Nicoli explained that SDCs were already charged for the other infrastructure improvements in the urban services area; the parks SDC was the only one not charged at this time. Mayor Nicoli asked if there was a way to increase the SDC to $1,500. Mr. Goeble said that it could be done if the Council was willing to have the City become liable for the resulting park deficiency and for upgrading that park deficiency. Mayor Nicoli asked Mr. Goeble to provide the Council with a couple of different rates and the liability associated with each. Mr. Goeble commented that all the state SDC statute said was that cities could not require developers to do something that cities were not willing to do themselves. Mr. Ramis reiterated the need to balance a change in methodology with the risk of opening up the 60-day challenge period. Mayor Nicoli asked what the status was of the staff work with the County on this issue. Mr. Hendryx said that the County staff decided to wait until the new Board convened before taking this matter to the Board. He said that he would check with them. Mr. Monahan commented that he thought that the long-term planning issues Mr. Hendryx has been working with Mr. Rosenberger on were a higher priority for the County. He agreed that now was an appropriate time to press the County staff to get this on the Board agenda. Mr. Monahan asked for direction on what SDC amount to start with in the discussions. The Council agreed on using the $1,180 figure as a starting point for discussion. Mayor Nicoli suggested waiting until the County acted before Mr. Goeble returned with the different rates. 6. DISCUSSION: REVIEW OF USA CONVEYANCE SYSTEM MANAGEMENT STUDY Mr. Wegner stated that USA has been thinking about urban service agreements and decided to divide up the USA district into smaller districts. He reviewed the boundaries of the district assigned to Tigard on the map. He mentioned that the unincorporated area of Bangy Road was slowly annexing to Lake Oswego, and thus the district would dwindle over time. He commented that a sewer urban service agreement should be a lot easier than the land use transportation service agreement. He noted the plan developed by Eric Hand to standardize all operations and maintenance tasks for both the city proper and the urban service area. Mr. Wegner reviewed the increases to their current facilities. With this plan, the City would add 86 miles to their existing 123 miles of sewers and 53 miles to their existing 77 miles of storm water collection lines. He stated that right now water quality facilities would go to the CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 2, 1999 - PAGE 15 individual districts (16 to Tigard) but Tigard and Beaverton were standing firm that USA itself should take care of these. Mayor Nicoli agreed that it was unreasonable for USA to expect other districts to maintain these facilities. Mayor Nicoli asked what staff anticipated as the average annual cost to maintain a water quality facility. Mr. Wegner said that it was $2,500 per facility. He confirmed that the cost of maintaining the facilities was covered in the USA fees and USA reimbursed the cities for any expenditures. He explained that Tigard and Beaverton were standing on the principle that USA designed the facilities and therefore they should maintain them. Mayor Nicoli suggested asking for more compensation from USA if they took those facilities. Mr. Wegner said that the first year figures for maintaining this USA district added $750,000 to their budget. He noted that the program would transition in over two to three years, beginning with a crew of three and building to a crew of five. He reported that USA has just begun the "number crunching" on how much each city would get if they went with these districts. Mr. Wegner asked the Council to authorize he and Mr. Monahan to continue negotiating with USA, if the Council wanted to proceed with the service district. He mentioned something one of his staff people brought to his attention: the Public Works Department has become a service district department. He pointed out that they provided water for the whole area and they maintained the parks, including Durham. He said that, in the next few years, they would double the size of the Public Works Department in any area to include the unincorporated areas. Councilor Moore expressed his concern that the costs might become more than the City was reimbursed. Mr. Wegner said that he believed that they would be adequately reimbursed, and described the process for reimbursement. Mayor Nicoli spoke in support of the urban service districts as providing a benefit to both the county and city residents and keeping the costs down. He pointed out that eventually most of the district would annex to Tigard anyway. He stated that the County has been reasonable in making the City whole with their existing agreement. He mentioned that the only service not addressed was police service but the County Sheriff refused to buy into districts. Councilor Moore said that he had no objection to the recommendation. 7. FOLLOW-UP REPORT - ISSUES RELATED TO 69TH AVENUE LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT Mr. Monahan referenced a letter from Brian Rager to Gus Duenas addressing Mr. Roth's question of what happened if the LID were delayed. He said that Mr. Rager suggested inserting a clause in Mr. Roth's approval that was similar to the clause given to Specht Development: in the event that the LID was delayed beyond the contract completion date, the condition would not prevent the issuance of temporary occupancy permits, provided that the applicant has submitted a temporary access plan acceptable to the City. Mr. Hendryx reported that he explained to Mr. Roth the next day that he needed Mr. Roth to send him a letter specifically saying that he wanted to modify the condition. He said that Mr. Roth has not yet done so. He noted that there would be further correspondence on the other issues Mr. Roth had wanted addressed, such as his obligation to do off-site improvements (which Mr. Rager's letter did not address) but commented that the initial response was fine. Mayor Nicoli left the meeting. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 2, 1999 - PAGE 16 8. ADJOURNMENT: 9:58 p.m. Attest: Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder yor,`Clity of Tigar Bate: `-t_ ~~7 l q a i i i 3 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 2, 1999 - PAGE 17 COMMUNITY NEWSPY 1PERS, INC. Legall P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 684-0360 Notice TT 9341 BEAVERTON. OREGON 97075 Legal Notice Advertising °Cii:y of Tigard o ❑ Tearsheet Notice 1.3125 SVI Hall Blvd. °Tigard,Oregon 97223 ° ❑ Duplicate Affidavit i ®nccounts Payable i AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION STATE OF OREGON, COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, )as' I, Kathy Snyder being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Advertising. Director, or his principal clerk, of therpignrri-T„a 1 nf-i n T~ mes a newspaper of general circulation as defined in ORS 193.010 and 193.020; published at r'i ga rd in the aforesaid county and state; that the Ci i-y none-i 1 Speci a'1 1jeetinci a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the entire Issue of said newspaper for ONr successive and consecutive in the following issues: F .hr»ary25, 1 999 V Subscribed and sworn to ore his r ruary,19 9 9 j OFFICIAL SEAL Not Public for Oregon ROBIN A. BURGESS NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON My Commission Expires: + V", COMMISSION NO. 062071 AFFIDAVIT i MY COMMISSION EXPIRES MAY i5,2001 'I'lea follovtiatg g_. gghhts ara published.for your' information. Full'; ageud~s,t~at >ae ottts►aded fr©m the City Recorder, 13125.SW ,Hall Boulevard, Tigard. Oregon 97213, or by calling 639-4171. TIGARD CITY COUNCIL. SPECIAL MEETING, VIiEW BOARD MEETING . AND LOCAL CONTRACT ',4E March 2,196:30 P.M. TIGARD CITY HALL - TOWN HALLS . 13125 SW HALL BOULEiI ik TIGARD; OREGON Reports and updates to Council on tWi folloi dng'topics: . * Discussion: .USA-Maintenance;ManagementConveyance Sysfe Study; ' Conduct Public Hearing: Park System IVtaster Plan * Consider Approval: Woodward P4k Mill ster:Plan Approval. * Discussion: Parks Systems Devel6&6nt' Charge TT9341 Publish February 25, AGENDA ITEM NO.- 2 -VISITOR'S AGENDA DATE : March 2, '1999 (Limited to 2 minutes or less, please) Please sign on the appropriate sheet for listed agenda items. The Council wishes to hear from you on other issues not on the agenda, but asks that you first try to resolve your concerns through staff. Please contact the City Manager prior to the start of the meeting. Thank you. STAFF CONTACTED NAME, ADDRESS & PHONE TOPIC 4~ 'A4 A V- V- e V- 3 Oct A -R- I c,E 0 %.2 S w LA ~ ~z a/ T[ co ` 1Z o tT rz jr- T> S `7 - 1' 3SCiS C e L ,'na I e- A'~) 3-7 AGENDA ITEM NO. - VISITOR'S AGENDA - PAGE - 2. DATE: march 2,1999 (Limited to 2 minutes or less, please) Please sign on the appropriate sheet for listed agenda items. The Council wishes to hear from you on other issues not on the agenda, but asks that you first try to resolve your concerns through staff. Please contact the City Manager prior to the start of the meeting. Thank you. STAFF CONTACTED NAME, ADDRESS & PHONE TOPIC I:Wmyess1cMv1sitsht.d0C r . AGENDA ITEM NO. PLEASE PRINT Proponent - (S kin In Favor) U vent - (S kin A ainst) Neeatral Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. 5'^' 136 'L4wip &ZO W3 Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. i i i i i Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. AGENDA ITEM NO. 3 DATE: March 2,19" PLEASE SIGN IN TO TESTIFY ON THE ATTACHED SHEETS PUBLIC HEARING - (LEGISLATIVE): TIGARD PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN RAMIE Agenda Rom No. CRFDl7 Meeting of 3jz lci~ CORRIGAN & BACHRACH LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1727 N.W. Hon Stred MEMORANDUM Portland, Oregon 97209 (503) 22213402 Fax: (503) 243-2944 TO: Tigard City Council FROM: Timothy V. Ramis, James M. Coleman, Gary Firestone of City Attorney's Office DATE: February 18, 1999 RE: Approvals, Denials, and Conditions of Approval I. INTRODUCTION In the years since Dolan v City of Tigard, 512 US 374 (1994) was decided, many of the questions concerning how that decision would be applied have been answered. Developers have used the Dolan case to challenge conditions of approval that they characterize as exactions. Although the U. S. Supreme Court has not expanded on Dolan, lower court and state court decisions have resulted in substantial clarification of the Dolan decision. The development of the post Dolan case law allows us to better understand Dolan and to predict how courts will react to certain factual situations. Dolan requires that every exaction imposed as a condition of a land approval be related to and roughly proportional to the impact of the development.' The government must demonstrate rough proportionality based on an individual assessment in each case. All provisions of the Community Development Code must be interpreted in light of the Dolan standard. The City may, however, deny applications based on a failure to meet established criteria, as long as the criteria do not require an exaction. The City can deny an application if required public services or improvements are not available but cannot deny an application because the applicant failed to provide the required public improvements when the burden of the exaction would significantly exceed the impact of the development.. 'The most common exactions are requirements to dedicate land for rights-of-way and requirements to provide on-site or off-site public improvements. 01 Memorandum re: Approvals, Denials, and Conditions of Approval February 18, 1999 Page 2 II. ANALYSIS A. Every Exaction Must Be Justified by a Rough Proportionality Analysis A requirement to dedicate right-of-way or to construct public improvements is an exaction. There must be an "essential nexus" between any exaction imposed as a condition of development and the impact of the development, Nollan v California Coastal Comm'n, 483 US 825 (1987).2 The exaction must be "roughly proportional" to the impact of the development. Dolan v City of Tigard, 512 US 374 (1994). Dolan requires "some sort of individualized determination that the required dedication is related both in nature and extent to the impact of the proposed development." Under Dolan, every exaction must be justified under the rough proportionality test, with the burden of proof being on the City. LUBA has taken the position that requiring additional right-of- way on a street bordering a development cannot be justified as a matter of course, but must meet the rough proportionality standard. Gensman v. City of Tigard, 29 Or LUBA 505 (1995). Therefore, even a condition that an applicant dedicate right-of-way for an adjoining street must meet the rough proportionality standard and be based on an individualized evaluation of the traffic impact created by the development. B. Local Goven rents May Deny an Application Based on Uniform StandaWs and Criteria that Do Not ReQ.uire_an Exaction As recognized by the U. S. Supreme Court in Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, 483 US 825 (1987), a local government may deny a request for a land use approval if objective standards regarding the property or the level of services available justify a denial. However, the holding in Dolan precludes a denial based on the failure to meet a code requirement if the code requirement requires an exaction and the exaction is disproportionate to the impact of the development. In other words, if the City could not require an exaction as a condition of approval under Dolan, it cannot deny the application on the basis that the exaction was not provided. However, if the code requires that certain public improvements or services be in place and meet certain standards, Dolan does not prevent a denial based on the lack of existing public improvements. In the case of rights-of-way and street improvements, a requirement that all developments 'The "essential nexus" requires a relationship between the type of impact and the type of exaction. This test is met if the impact is on the road transportation system and the exaction is a street dedication or improvement. The test is not met if the impact is on the sewer system but the exaction is a street dedication or improvement unrelated to any sewer line. Memorandum re: Approvals, Denials, and Conditions of Approval February 18, 1999 Page 3 must have direct access to a street that meets city standards would survive a Dolan challenge, a requirement that the applicant dedicate right-of-way and improve all adjacent streets so that they meet City standards would not satisfy Dolan unless the City could demonstrate that the dedication and improvement are roughly proportional to the traffic impact of the development. The Dolan standard applies in all situations involving exactions. It applies to local streets, to developments with more than one street frontage, to single family residences, and to redevelopment. In the case of redevelopment, the impacts that can be compensated for by an exaction are limited to the increase resulting from the redevelopment. In our presentation to Council, we will identify some of the specific factual situations where these issues arise. You will be able to see the kinds of judgments that the staff, and ultimately the Planning Commission and Council, will be called upon to make. III. SUMMARY In deciding land use applications in which dedications or improvements may be an issue, the City should apply the CDC in light of the Dolan requirements that all exactions must be related to and roughly proportional to the impact of the development and that the rough proportionality evaluation must be based on an individualized assessment. Failure to apply existing code provisions in light of Dolan could result in takings claims. CAVnNDOWS\TEtvfPMGCOU 1.WPD AGENDA ITEM # 3 FOR AGENDA OF 3/2/99 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Park System Master Plan PREPARED BY: Duane Roberts DEPT HEAD OK AQ?AIAA~TY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Should Council adopt by resolution the attached "Park System Master Plan" as recommended by the Planning Commission? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Adopt the attached resolution approving the master plan and the list of revisions put forward by the Planning Commission. INFORMATION SUMMARY The "Park System Master Plan" was developed over a period of more than one year and covers the city proper and the adjacent Urban Services Area. If approved by Council, it will replace the current master plan, which was adopted in 1988 and was intended to address city park needs over a ten-year period. As with the earlier plan, assuming it meets with Council approval, the new plan will be adopted by resolution as a document separate from the Comprehensive Plan to be used in conjunction with the Comprehensive Plan. This method of adoption will allow the Park System Plan to be updated without the necessity to go through the procedural hurdles of the comprehensive plan amendment process. The master plan public involvement process has been extensive and has consisted of Planning Commission oversight, an officially recognized committee broadly representative of geographic areas and park and recreation interests, a community-wide preference survey, stakeholder interviews, special public and CIT meetings, and Council presentations. The public involvement program has insured the opportunity for all citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning program On January 15, 1999, approximately twenty-five copies of the draft master plan with requests for comments were sent to a variety of organizations and agencies with a potential interest in parks planning. A list of these organizations, which are located inside and outside the community, is attached. In addition to these twenty- five, nine other groups, all Tigard-based sports and recreation organizations were contacted by phone and asked to provide mailing addresses should they wish to receive a copy of the plan. Each of these organizations either declined to receive a copy or did not respond to phone messages. Comments received consist of two letters, both of which are attached. On February 1, 1999, the Planning Commission conducted a hearing on the master plan. Copies of the hearing minutes are attached along with a list of additions and changes to the plan put forward by the Commission. . p v As reflected in the adoption resolution, staff recommends the Table 11 "Capital Improvement Plan" portion of the master plan not be adopted at this time. This is because, under a separate agenda item, revisions to the Park System Development Charge (SDC) will be considered at tonight's meeting. In order to comply with state system SDC statutes, projects funded by SDC revenues must be identified in an adopted master or capital improvement plan. After Council has considered and agreed upon changes to the SDC fee structure, if any, staff will return to Council at a subsequent meeting with a revised Table 11 that is consistent with the SDC option selected. This amended Table 11 will identify projects proposed to be funded by SDC revenues and those proposed to be funded by other funding sources. Likewise, for park SDC legal and consistency reasons staff recommends Council adopt the 11 acres per thousand population park standard as a goal or ideal standard and not as an existing or operational standard. The consultants who developed the plan will participate in the March 2"d meeting and will provide a presentation on the plan's final recommendations. Staff mailed copies of the park plan to Council members on February 5th. Please bring your copy to the March 2"d Council meeting. Contact Cathy Wheatly or Duane Roberts should you need additional copies. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED n/a VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY Elements of the "Park System Master Plan" relate to three Vision goals: The Community Aesthetics Goal (open space preservation), the Urban and Public Services Parks and Recreation Goal (recreation needs assessment), and the goal for Accommodating Growth While Protecting Livability (natural resource area protection). FISCAL NOTES The plan was developed at a cost of $60,000 for consultant services. The plan calls for capital improvements costing approximately $22 million in present dollars. If completed, these improvements would double the capacity of the existing park system. Implementation of the plan's recommendations depends on an adequate level of funding over the next ten years. i:\citywide\sum\park.masterplan.doc I 1 i f i Y Modifications Approved by Tigard Planning Commission to the January 1999 Draft of the Park Master System Master Plan p. 26 under RECOMMENDATIONS add the following: • Support the preliminary concept developed by the Washington Square Regional Center Task Force relative to utilizing wetlands and riparian buffers located within the regional center study area as open space to support high-density development. p. 43 at bottom of page add tht: following: The Capital Improvement Plan recognizes the need for flexibility in making modifications to the ten-year plan with regard to potential land acquisitions, as the need arises. Land acquisition opportunities may present themselves prior to their identification in the CIP. Flexibility is needed to ensure that if properties considered critical to the park system come on the market, the city has the ability to evaluate the situation and move in a timely manner, if appropriate. In order to maximize city park improvement dollars, the same flexibility is needed with regard to potential grant funding and partnership opportunities, which may not follow the timeline or be identified in the plan. p. 44, Table 11, replace with attached Table 11. p. 48, see revised Chapter 8 attached. i IArpln/duane/parkmasterplan.revisions t i f Chapter 8: Financing Sources Indications from citizens who participated in the master planning process are that Tigard residents would be willing to pay an additional $100 per year per household for park and recreation facilities and programs. Assuming a $150,000 home, the tax rate producing $100 of tax would be $.66/1000. Based on projections for numbers of households in Tigard over the next ten years, it appears that approximately $1.7 million could be realized during the year 2000, increasing to $2.1 million in 2008. The ten-year Capital Improvement Plan totaling $21.7 million was designed not to exceed the sum of anticipated revenues from System Development Charges plus the additional taxes citizens would likely be willing to pay for improvements to their park system. System Development Charges Under the parks SDC fee schedule now being considered, $540,000 in revenue is projected for the coming fiscal year. This includes $92,000 that the City of Tigard will collect from development in the Urban Services Area contingent upon adoption of an Intergovernmental Agreement with Washington County. The proposed SDC fee schedule, scheduled for adoption in 1999, includes an automatic escalator tied to changes in land values and the Oregon Department of Transportation construction cost index. It is anticipated that approximately $5.0 million will be raised through SDC fees to help fund the proposed Capital Improvement Plan. The proposed IGA with Washington County, which will allow the City of Tigard to levy a park SDC on new development in the Urban Services Area, will not affect other taxing structures. In other words, although the City of Tigard may develop parks in the Urban Services Area and collect SDC's to offset the cost of developing new parks, there will be no additional funds available to maintain those same parks. General Obligation Bonds General obligation bonds are debt instruments sold by the City to fund capital improvements. The bonds are repaid with property tax revenues. The use of General Obligation Bonds could support rapid and dramatic improvement of the park system. Funds could be available within the first year to begin acquiring land and building projects shown as years away on the proposed Capital Improvement Plan. Repayment would occur over time, so citizens would be taxed on the principal and interest over the life of the debt. A ten-year bond issue sufficient to fund $16.7 million of capital improvements cost taxpayers $30/1000 in the first year. MIG, Inc. Page I Draft Park System Master Plan City of Tigard Although General Obligation Bonds do not fall within the property tax limitations imposed by Measures 5 and 50, they must be approved by voters during a general election in an even- numbered year or by 50% of registered voters in any other election. Because of the "super majority" requirement for passing general obligation bond measures in odd-numbered year elections, the next viable opportunity to present this opportunity to voters will be in the general election in 2000. Local Option Levy Under a Local Option Levy, voters agree to pay additional property taxes over a specific time period to fund capital projects. Revenue generated each year is used to fund scheduled projects. The disadvantages of funding capital improvements through a local option levy include the potential for inflation, and the loss of efficiency and cost-effectiveness that could result from dividing capital projects into multiple phases. During the first year, the cost per thousand dollars for a ten-year levy of $1,670,000 would be $.55. This translates to a tax of $82.50 on a $150,000 home in the first year. Local option levies are also subject to the "super majority" requirement. General Fund Revenues General fund revenues are, for the most part, generated through property taxes. These funds have not traditionally been used for the acquisition of park land or development of parks. User Fees and Rents The fees charged by the City of Tigard for use of sports fields are low compared to those charged by cities of comparable size. The City could reasonably be charging up to $75 per day for use of the sports fields. It would also seem that Tigard-based non-profit youth athletic organizations should not be given preferential rates over other Tigard-based non- profit organizations. Group site rental rates are also on the low side. Cities of comparable size charge from $30 to $45 peg shelter during the week, and $38 to $115 per shelter Friday through Sunday. The City of Tigard could also reasonably raise its rates while maintaining the graduated fee schedule for number of participants. Other Funds raised through grants from government agencies or private foundations would make it possible to accelerate the schedule of capital improvements and include additional recommended projects. Page 2 MIG, Inc. ' Table 11 Capital Improvement Plan • Frlant8in -1'r,s{.~:F v rl' 'r 4 ~ ~ ~'1, r to ~,~.,~"atdl ~.i ~ .w r ~,t+" ~ ~w y r Y )~i x F "kt Jntrrr'' fa t ? ' r ttT t' 417400 }2OOlw 200Y20022~021:003 A sd a~ ~ , r~ v~ ah 's`~" f{ c A'yd h t xpq, r. FG i ,r ~R. Nl r.~x af, r. ,a p General Develop a site-specific ADA transition plan with cost estimates and $30,000 $30,000 phasing plan General Develop a fenced dog park on City-owned property $20,000 General Upgrade playgrounds to current safety standards $1,350,000 $50,000 $90,000 $185,000 $175,000 [W-31 ['Alberuon'i Park Improvements] [320,000] [20,000] [South] [Cook Park Expansion] [$400,000] 13e3triet i48~B86 6i£A 809 East Develop a master plan for Ash Creek Trail System $80,000 $80,000 Central Acquire land for Woodard Park/Walnut Street trail $92,500 $82,500 General improve the drainage and condition of sports fields $1,000,000 $250,000 $250,000 $500,000 South Implement the Cook Park Master Plan $1,710,000 $710,000 $1,000,000 South Build Tualatin River pedestrian bridge in partnership with City of $1,000,000 $500,000 Tualatin using grant funds, if awarded [S-2] [Develop a neighborhood park in cooperation with Tigard Water [$400,000]. [$400,000] District) [S•6) [Develop a neighborhood park on City property using grant funds, [$400,000] [5400,000) if awarded] 5ubtoid,000.2001. S2,SQ2,SOQ Construct Woodard Park/Johnson Street trail , boardwalk & bridge Central as part of Woodard Park Renovation $50,000 $50,000 General Provide 3 rollcrblade/skateboatd facilities $450,000 $150,000 Central Renovate Woodard Park $690,000 $690,000 S-5 Acquire land for a neighborhood park $975,000 $975,000 4'ubtotd13001201~2 ' , •'-i , 32x300,000, „r South Construct Cook Park/RR track trail $80,000 $80,000 C-2 Develop Pathfinder/Genesis trail segment from Fairhaven to $84,000 $84,000 Gaarde Street South Acquire land to expand Fanno Park $225,000 $223,000 S-6 Construct Hall Blvd/Bonita Road segment of Fanno Creek Trail $236,000 $236,000 (trail, boardwalks 8c bridges) n V ' Su6toAi120022003 'r y:, F :~,t' a -'Table 11 continued Capital Improvement Man ~.m I r$yC7fjr: glt?°rl'7"€' J4 4Y+, ..tai f -r+~ °st ,,i 4 rr p~ S t~~ 35 1K":' 1 ~ kir VEa'4,iT1 i4. ~ ~r f i Y T t 'rl~ a ~w~w~, ~ +t r p p( P 1 F7.t r"af ply {+"vu°° I`xl c is + xi VOW, t yOQF1006r '20062007 2007•Y008 20D8?009'. a°,..r:ra~' , , k4~ a tG w } r9~+ ;nfi PEh lea ~'r .t a tai d ~+41~,fb"v ~lYfOat O T.G`4>~a ~b~:k,''dr, afi a t~"xlW::a; t. .r~~w •G„a uv °~.I,WN wn1 Acquire land in cooperation with Tigard/Tualatin school district for a community park and community center $4,020,000 (2,010,000 r ~ ':'S%brote72003~200% ~ ~ ~ „ . '~tlT,O10,000 General Upgrade playgrounds to current safety standards $1,350,000 $90,000 $95,000 $50,000 Acquire land in cooperation with Tigard/Tualatin school district W-6 for a community park and community center E4,020,000 $2,010,000 S5 Construct Bonita Road/Durham segment of Fanno Creek Trail 5415,000 $415,000 (trail, boardwalk & bridges) v yr ~;usnbroulsp~ ops~ fb 3400000 3°400,000 [Central] [Renovate Jack Park] [$720,000] [$470,000] Central Acquire land to expand Jack Park $510,000 $510,000 C-4 Acquire land for a neighborhood park (Greenburg neighborhood) 51,500,000 $3,500,000 s~t~l'+...:k ~1a`~~~~20057006 ~i2,?42;000 W-6 Develop a community center in cooperation with the school distritt :2,500,000 $2,500,000 ° a' tcIT006TOOT' S2 500.000 E-1 Acquire land for Ash Creek Trail $45,000 $45,000 E-7 Acquire land for Ash Creek Trail $45,000 $45,000 Central Renovate Commercial Park $81,000 $81,000 South Construct Tualatin River/85th Avenue trail $120,000 $120,000 Central Acquire land to connect Englewood Park segments $202,500 $202,500 S-5 Develop a neighborhood park $520,000 $520,000 W-1 Develop nature park on donated land S640,000 $640,000 S-3 Acquire land for a neighborhood park $750,000 $750,000 d Subtot&1100Z•3 S•3 Develop a neighborhood park in cooperation with Twality junior $400,000 $400,000 High and Templeton Elementary Schools South Construct Cook Park/85th Avenue Trail $100,000 $100,000 E-1 Develop Ash Creek Trail from Hwy 217 to Fanno Creek Trail $182,000 $182,000 E-3 Acquire greenspace $1,350,000 $1,350,000 General R=oY*te f aek-Park- 672G'WG 3.420:000 [W-31 [Develop a neighborhood park) [$320,000) [$320,000] Si-btdtd 2008.2009 E2,I02;000 -kndca(as daWw / J lndcetes adciNcn Park and Open Space Master Plan Agency and Community Organization Mailing ]List State of Oregon Parks and Recreation Dept. 1115 Commercial St., N. E. Salem, OR 97310-1001 Tigard Area Chamber of Commerce (4 copies) 12420 SW Main St. Tigard, OR 97223 PacTrust Attn: Richard. P. Buono 15350 SW Sequoia Pkwy Suite 300 Portland, OR 97224 Lincoln Center Melvin Mark Properties 10220 SW Greenburg Rd. Suite 235 Tigard, OR 97223 Washington Square Management Offices 9585 SW Washington Square Road Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard Soccer Club PO 230169 Tigard, OR 97281 Tigard Little League Gary Stevens 9840 SW Kimberly Dr. Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard-Tualatin School District Attn: Ron Hudson 13137 SW Pacific Highway Tigard, OR 97223 , Metro Parks Dept. Attn: Heather Nelson Kent 600 NE Grand Ave. Portland, OR 97232-2736 Homebuilders Association of Metropolitan Portland Attn: Kevin Wing 15555 SW Bangy Lake Oswego, OR 97035 Fans of Fanno Creek Attn: Dave Drescher Metro Regional Center 600 NE Grand Ave. Portland, OR 97232-2736 Riverkeepers Attn: Brian Wegener 9830 SW Kimberly Dr. Tigard, OR 97224 THPRD Attn: Jim McElhinny 15707 SW Walker Road Beaverton, OR 97006-5941 City of Tualatin Parks and Recreation Attn: Paul Hennon PO Boc 369 Tualatin, OR 97062 Washington County Dept. of Land Use and Transportation Attn: John Rosenberger 1 150 N. First Avenue Hillsboro, OR 97124 i i Friends of Summer Creek Doug Gravett Fowler Middle School 10865 SW Walnut St. Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard Adult League Attn: Darrel Pizer Guardian Systems NW, Inc. 13500 SW Pacific Highway #245 Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard Youth Football Attn: John Weil Suite 1507 Standard Plaza 1100 SW 5th Ave. Portland, OR 97204 Howard Banta Friends of Summerlake Park 12580 SW Glacier Lily Circle Tigard, OR 97223 Cogan, Owens, Cogan Attn: Linda Davis 320 Woodlark Building 813 SW Alder Portland, OR 97205-3111 Cindi Christianson Homeowners of Castle Hill Association 14293 SW Windsong Ct. Tigard, Or 97223 Tig 104\USR\users\duane\pk.maillistdoc trail. He mentioned suggestions to use concrete instead of asphalt or building a wider shoulder. He pointed out that the regional and state standard for this class of trail was 10 feet wide but when they applied for permits to build 10 foot wide trails, the environmentalists objected because they wanted narrower shoulders for less impact on the environment. He said that they had a conflict between the consultant's recommendations and what the environmental groups and the Resource Agent wanted. Vice President Padgett closed the public hearing. COMMISSION DELIBERATIONS Vice President Padgett suggested including a recommendation to study putting in bike racks. He agreed that it would be a good idea to plant a tree buffer to maintain privacy. Commissioner Scholar commented that the trees needed to be able to handle a lot of water. Commissioner Olsen moved to recommend to the City Council to approve the Woodard Park Master Plan with the two recommendations. Commissioner Griffith seconded the motion. A voice vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously by a vote of 7-0. 5.2 PARKS MASTER PLAN Vice President Padgett opened the public hearing. STAFF REPORT Mr. Roberts explained that the master plan was a 50 to 60 page document that included a lot of tables with the most important part being the recommended capital improvements list. He suggested focusing primarily on the list, as the Commission discussed the planning process at previous meetings. He reviewed the master plan process that included over a year of public participation, including a community survey, a phone survey, in-depth interviews, public meetings, and a task force. Mr. Roberts said that they mailed out copies of the plan to 22 groups. He mentioned that they have received comments from citizens and other City departments. He explained that the consultants divided the city into the existing four CIT areas, and developed a needs list for each area. He said that the action plan was really the recommended funding list. Vice President Padgett directed staff to proceed with the capital improvements list, as the Commission reviewed the needs in priority order at the last two workshops. Mr. Roberts mentioned that they received comments from Christie Smith, Pat Whiting, and the Operations Department. He said that the Operations Department wanted more money allocated earlier for Cook Park, they did not think it was realistic to include a Bull Mountain Community Center, they supported a fenced dog park as long as the owners maintained the park but also TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION - FEBRUARY 1, 1999 - PAGE 4 felt that it was too expensive to extend water to the Cook Park dogpark site, and they would mow the dogpark lawn. Mr. Roberts mentioned that Operations felt that priority should be given to the existing parks, such as Cook Park, Woodard Park, and Jack Park, as opposed to developing new parks, primarily because they did not have sufficient staff to adequately maintain new parks. He said that they did not disfavor improvements to Englewood Linear Park but they did not see the existing facility used much and were not sure that there was a demand for Englewood Park improvements. He stated that Operations also requested deletion of the commercial park on the other side of the Hwy. 99W overpass, as it was a gathering place for transients. Mr. Roberts mentioned that the Finance Department thought that the finance section needed to be beefed up, so Wayne Lowrey was working with the consultants regarding the bonding structuring. Mr. Roberts emphasized that, beyond the first year, the capital improvements project list was tentative with unforeseen projects arising that required flexibility in making changes to the list. He mentioned unanticipated funding opportunities, such as the three grant applications they had in process to provide park improvements. One was for $1 million for the Tualatin River pedestrian bridge and two were community development block grants for a Bonita area park and a Greenburg area park. He commented that he needed to make sure that the Greenburg area project qualified in terms of a low income neighborhood. Mr. Roberts commented that buying land was difficult because the City traditionally pursued a willing seller policy, and therefore staff had to wait until the property came on the market. At that time, other parties were also interested in the buildable sites, and the City needed to be able to act quickly. He reiterated the importance of making clear that the list was tentative and subject to change due to unforeseen circumstances. Mr. Roberts directed attention to Table 11, the funding recommendations. He commented that after the first year, all the projects listed were conditional upon additional funding (a bond measure). He reviewed the projects listed for each of the ten years. Mr. Roberts mentioned the consultants' recommendation for developing a site specific ADA plan during the first year, as well as implementing the fenced dog park, upgrading playgrounds to current safety standards, and developing a neighborhood park at the Canterbury property in cooperation with the Tigard Water District. He said that the Operations Department recommended deferring the water property park development to the second year so that they could use $400,000 for the utility improvements, bioswales, eastside restroorr. facilities and park area improvements at Cook Park. He said that he supported the Operations Department's recommendation. He also recommended making adjustments to the Tualatin River project to put funding from that project into the Canterbury project. Commissioner D. Anderson asked if the Cook Park Master Plan already underway was being done according to ADA requirements. Mr. Roberts said yes. TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION - FEBRUARY 1, 1999 - PAGE 5 Mr. Roberts mentioned that the second year funding included anticipated bond measure revenue. He noted projects such as the Ash Creek Trail system master plan and engineering, land acquisition for the Woodard Park/Walnut Street trail, sports fields drainage improvements, and the Cook Park Master Plan implementation. He mentioned that the total cost for the Cook Park master plan was $2.4 million. Mr. Roberts said that they budgeted $1 million for the pedestrian bridge, even though the feasibility study showed that they could not cantilever a bridge off the existing railroad bridge. He explained that they had to meet the deadline for applying for a $1 million grant without knowing exactly how much a freestanding bridge would cost. If they got the grant, then they could reallocate that $1 million to other projects, such as implementing the Woodard Park plan and the Canterbury park. Mr. Roberts confirmed that all the second year projects were contingent on the bond. He said that they had Parks SDC funding available but three-quarters of the money had to be found from other sources. He reiterated that the first year was always the one that Council acted on with the rest tentative, and subject to changes during the annual revision of the CIP. Commissioner Griffith asked about the SDC funding. Mr. Roberts said that they have estimated $500,000 for the first year with $1 million on hand and already committed to a lot of unconstructed projects. He explained that the SDC revenues fluctuated every year because they were dependent on the amount of building activity. He said that they estimated how much SDC revenue they expected to get over time (based on population estimates) but it was never certain how much they would get. Mr. Roberts discussed the third year of the plan with a trail connecting the main trail stem to the end of Johnson Street, a rollerblade/skateboard facility, the Woodard Park improvements, and land acquisition in area S-5. He mentioned that the consultants identified a need for three rollerblade/skatepark facilities but only recommended funding for only one facility. He reported that the owner of pasture land along SW 74th intended to donate the six acres of floodplain to the City once he developed the 25 acre site. Therefore the amount estimated for park development in area S-5 could be cut in half. Mr. Roberts commented that the recommendation for a bond measure was based on the community survey in which people said they would be willing to pay $100 per year (which was less than the $1.40 per $1000 levied by Tualatin Hills Parks & Recreation District). He mentioned other third year projects including a trail from Cook Park to the proposed pedestrian bridge, a Pathf nder/Fairview/Gaarde trail segment, and land acquisition to expand Fanno Park. He reviewed his reasons why he thought that the consultants were high in their price for the expansion of Fanno Park, given the lack of useable land available. Mr. Roberts reviewed the multi-year funding project beginning in the fifth year, a community park and community center on Bull Mountain on land adjacent to the school property near SW 133" (developed in partnership with the school district). He noted the two potential sites, one - TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION - FEBRUARY 1, 1999 - PAGE 6 six acres of relatively flat land along the road frontage (held in a life estate by Oregon State University), and the other - 20 acres of rolling land along the southern edge of the school site. He commented that uplands property was expensive and about all that was left. Mr. Roberts said that in 2003/04, the plan recommended more playground safety improvements, additional funding for the Bull Mountain park, and the Bonita Road/Durham trail segment (expensive because it needed a boardwalk and bridge). He noted the seventh year recommendation for a neighborhood park on the City property along Bonita (eligible for a community block grant). Mr. Roberts said that the eighth year of the plan included more money for the Bull Mountain community center. In the ninth year, the recommendation was to acquire land for the Ash Street trail, to acquire land in the E-7 area, to renovate the commercial park (the one that the Operations Department recommended eliminating), to extend the trail from Cook Park to the end of SW 85h, to acquire the land to connect the two Englewood Park segments, to develop a neighborhood park in the S-5 area (the probable land donation along 74`h Avenue), and to acquire additional land for a neighborhood park in the S-3 area. He mentioned that the owners of the land identified in the S-3 area had not been interested in selling when contacted in the past. Mr. Roberts reviewed the recommendations in the final year, developing a neighborhood park in the southern part of the city, connecting the Ash Avenue trail from 217 to Fanno Creek, acquiring greenspace in the E-3 area (a 10 acre forest site with mature Western Red Ceder owned by Mrs. Seal), and renovating Jack Park. He pointed out that one trail segment was mentioned twice in the list. He commented that the Ash Avenue trail connection would be difficult because of the wetlands. PUBLIC TESTIMONY e Howard Banta, 12580 SW Glacier Lily Circle, stated that the master plan seemed to be pretty good. He noted that it showed that parks were underfunded to the extent of $430/acre a park and about $1 million below the plan recommendations. He said that the Friends of Summer Lake wanted to support any efforts to keep the public informed and involved in the development and stewardship of the park system. He doubted that the tree plantings on the Summer Lake shore would have occurred had the public been better informed. He held that keeping the public informed would result in more efficient use of resources, better support for park facilities, a feeling of community ownership and participation in planning, and enhanced public safety. Mr. Banta commented that Summer Lake Park, the other community park, was a poor sister to Cook Park (24 acres contrasted with 130 acres). He argued that Summer Lake Park had the potential for even more use by the public, citing the growth in use he has observed in the dozen years he has lived adjacent to the park. He mentioned a major problem of maintaining the water quality in the lake, particularly from June to October. He said that they would like TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION -FEBRUARY 1, 1999 -PAGE 7 to see the weed harvesting continued and any additional maintenance called for in the master plan. Mr. Banta suggested that the City be careful about planting trees around the perimeter of parks, as trees created a barrier to visibility for the police in monitoring activity in the park. Vice President Padgett commented that the intent of the recommendation in the Woodard Park plan was to plant trees only along property lines as a means of addressing the privacy concerns of the neighbors. • Christie Smith, 11320 SW Ambience Court, said that she and her husband have lived in the Genesis area for 20 years. She spoke in support of a fenced dogpark in Tigard. She presented evidence from her research into the dogparks at Wilsonville and Eugene, describing the amenities provided at the parks to meet the needs of the dogowners and their dogs, the acceptance of the dogparks by the neighbors, and the minimal maintenance necessary from the city staff. She recommended a big area, not a manicured area, where the dogs could really exercise. Vice President Padgett explained that this was not the appropriate forum for the information Ms. Smith was providing because the dogpark was already in the plan. He suggested that she provide staff with her research when they began planning the dogpark. Other forums mentioned included the Council and the CIP process. • Pat Whiting, 8122 SW Spruce, Vice Chair of the Metzger CPO 4M, stated that she was also representing the Tigard residents living north of 217 and the residents in the Metzger elementary school area. She expressed her enthusiastic support of the master plan. She suggested that the City look into acquiring the major wetland/floodplain on Ash Creek to the west of Hall Blvd., east of Greenburg, north of 217, and south of Oak Street, owned by Dr. Davis and a corporation. She mentioned the strong interest of the property owners in commercial development and the lack of a park east of 217. Ms. Whiting described the course of Ash Brook (not on the City's wetlands map) running from Hall Blvd. due east. She suggested the wetland at Spruce and 78`h as a natural trail park. Vice President Padgett asked if Ms. Whiting felt that the property owners wanted to sell the floodplain/wetlands property. Ms. Whiting said that she did not think so, although she did not know for certain. She pointed out that this was one of the last great stands of land within the target area, and it was a major floodplain/wetland, the Ash Creek tributary. She reiterated that i she did not want the City to forget about the residents to the east of 217. She argued that somehow Ash Creek should be utilized for the benefit of the neighborhoods and the residents. Vice President Padgett commented that the Davis property adjacent to 217 was under water so much that it might not even be viable as parkland. Ms. Whiting described Dr. Davis' efforts over the years to fill in the wetland and make the land higher. She said that it might be high enough TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION - FEBRUARY 1, 1999 - PAGE 8 now for a natural park and a buffer to the freeway system. Mr. Roberts commented that Dr. Davis has applied for and obtained a series of wetland fill permits over the years. Ms. Whiting commented that she knew this was a major request bw pointed out that it did fall within the purview of master planning. She spoke to the importance of the land because it was adjacent to the high density development proposed as part of the Washington Square Regional Center. She reiterated that it would make a good buffer to the highway for the new apartments. Vice President Padgett pointed out that there were a lot of people in this area who did not live within the city limits. He asked if Ms. Whiting thought they would be supportive of a park district extending beyond the city limits into their area. Ms. Whiting noted that the only LID park in Washington County was the Metzger seven acre park which was run by the community through a board and caretaker. She commented that City of Tigard residents in the area paid for both Tigard parks and the Metzger Park. Ms. Whiting mentioned that under SB 122, in the next couple of years, the County would be considering an IGA for land use planning in the Metzger area, similar to the existing arrangement for Bull Mountain. She said that a parks district was another area of cooperation. COMMISSION DELIBERATIONS Vice President Padgett asked if there was a study area. Mr. Roberts said that the subcommittee of the Task Force has identified the wetlands/floodplain area for high density development with a park provided by the developer. He agreed that the Commission could include a statement with their recommendation supporting that portion of the regional center development plan. Commissioner Griffith asked about the Oregon Education Association parcel in the Triangle. Mr. Roberts said that the OEA told the City during staff's greenspaces search that they were not interested in selling. Commissioner Griffith commented that there were a lot of potential open space areas not listed in the study. Mr. Roberts reiterated that they were running out of open space areas. Vice President Padgett noted the staff comments on minor tweaks and changes based on anticipated funding. He mentioned the strong testimony in support of a fenced dogpark, of the continuation of the maintenance portion of the master plan, and of a recommendation to show Commission support for the portion of the Washington Square Regional Center Plan that has identified a specific area as a potential park tied to the commercial development. Commissioner D. Anderson moved to recommend the Parks Master Plan with the recommendations from staff and incorporating the Commission's support for that portion of the Washington Square Regional Center that tied park development to commercial development in that area. Commissioner Olson seconded. A voice vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously with a vote of 7-0. 6. OTHER BUSINESS TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION - FEBRUARY 1, 1999 - PAGE 9 Jill ,A • Vice President Padgett welcomed the two new Planning Commissioners. • Jerree Gaynor, Planning Secretary, confirmed that the next Commission meeting was scheduled for March 1. • Mr. Roberts stated that the Parks Master Plan public hearing before Council was scheduled for March 2. He asked anyone who had written comments to submit get them to staff in advance so that staff could include them in their report. • Vice President Padgett reported on a transportation workshop he attended last Saturday. He said that there was some interesting information regarding ODOT's position on treating Region 1 differently than the other regions by recognizing the need for increased capacity. He said that ODOT was trying to get funding for increased capacity on state roads, especially Hwy. 99. He mentioned ODOT's desire to change the state law so that funding for local roads impacted by state road improvements could come from the state. He mentioned an upcoming move by Washington County (supported by many Washington County cities) to withdraw from the Tri-Met district and create its own transit district. 7. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:20 p.m. Jerree Gaynor, Planning Commission Secretary ATTEST: President Nick Wilson TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION - FEBRUARY 1, 1999 - PAGE 10 %,aECRrar,~o TUALATIN HILLS PARK & RECREATION DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIOrI OFFICE ~`04r«mnrr•. •es'`` 15707 S.W. Walker Road • Beaverton, Oregon 97006 • 645-6433 • Fax 690-9649 February 4, 1999 Mr. Duane Roberts City of Tigard Planning Department 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223 RE: Draft Tigard Park System Master Plan Dear Duane: The Tualatin Hills Park and Recreation District has had the opportunity to review the City of Tigard's Draft Tigard Park System Master Plan. Our review has resulted in our being very impressed by the amount of foresight and effort put into the Plan. We were particularly pleased by the attention paid to Trails, Natural Resource Preservation, Youth and Adult Recreation programming and future acquisition and development. We wish to congratulate the City of Tigard on a job very well done. n Sincerely, James McElhinny Superintendent of Na al Resource Services Date: February 1, 1999 From: Christie C. Smith, Tigard Resident To: City Planning Commission Re: Dog Parks Providing Dog Parks for the Residents of Tigard is a small investment with a big return. There are approximately 6,000 dogs in Tigard and in every neighborhood, on every street, families care for and love their dogs. We have Pet Stores, Veterinarians, Animal Schools, Animal Photo Studios, Pet Sitting Businesses.... all thriving in our community based on the large animal loving population. In years past there were open fields and quiet streets where residents could play with their dogs and allow them to run freely. With the growth in population, construction of new homes and traffic, these areas and safe havens have disappeared. A majority of the new construction is larger homes with smaller lots and less roam for families to exercise their dogs. Parks provide tennis courts, soccer fields and other areas enjoyed by Tigard residents. But look at the percentage of families owning pets to those playing tennis or soccer. I'd guess that one out of every five families in Tigard own a dog less than that play tennis or soccer. Advantages of Dog Parks in Tigard would be: 'Dog Park sites can be established on undeveloped terrain, often areas unsuitable for other activities 'People move into areas because of the existence of Dog Parks People derive enjoyment in sharing this activity with others 'Dog owners are extremely conscientious in cleaning up after their dogs *Because well exercised and less bored dogs bark less, it would cut down on the noise in neighborhoods where this facility is provided 'Because well exercised dogs are less destructive and better adjusted, it would lessen the number of dogs given up by their owners 'Animal Therapists/'T'rainers encourage the use of Dog Parks * Animal Control authorities in cities that have Dog Parks strongly support them. An ideal Dog Park would be approximately 2 or 3 acres entirely fenced. Fencing should be about 4 to 6 feet high with gates at points of entry. Garbage cans with plastic liners and scoops should be provided for clean up. Water close by should be available so that owners can fill water bowls. Sufficient parking fairly close by is necessary because, believe me, this park would be well used and loved by the citizens of Tigard. I have included pictures, newspaper articles and a letter from the Public Works, City of Eugene. On behalf of myself, my family which include our dogs Jamie and MacKenzie, my neighbors and friends...... Thank You for your consideration. Christie C. Smith 11320 S.W. Ambiance Court Tigard, Oregon 97223.3910 Telephone 503 639-8403 Fax 503 598 9387 e.mail DKETAgaol.com January 14, 1999 Mr. Duane Roberts, Associate Planner City of Tigard 13125 S.W. Hall Blvd. Tigard, Oregon 97223 Re: Dog Park Dear Duane: Thank you for meeting with me Monday. I was encouraged when I spoke with Jinx Nicoli and learned that Dog Parks were already an item of consideration on the Park Plans. You were very helpful and informative; especially in going over the map of Tigard and sharing the Park System Master Plan with me. I spoke with Jane Henderson of MIG, Inc. in Eugene. Jane was also very helpful and suggested I speak with John Etter, the landscape architect for the City. I have enclosed a letter John faxed me yesterday which I will include in a packet I am putting together to present to the Planning Commission on February 1st and the City Council on February 23rd. As a Tigard citizen and dog lover, I am excited about the possibility of Tigard providing/creating an environment for the enjoyment of its residents and their four legged family members. I would appreciate it if I could be placed on your Agenda and if there are any guidelines or stipulations I need to adhere to, please let me know. Sincerely, Christie C. Smith cc. Jim Nicoli, Mayor of Tigard Jane Henderson, MIC, Inc. Sill Monahan, City Manager John Etter, City of Eugene . Public Works Maintenance City of Eugene 1820 Roosevelt Boulevard Eugene, Oregon 97402 (541) 682-4800 Dear Parks and Recreation Planner: The City of Eugene now has six years of experience in providing dog off-leash areas in parks. This letter has been prepared as a response to increasing interest by other communities who have heard of our program and have inquired about its establishment and operation. A proposal to create a dog off-leash area was received from some Eugene citizens in the spring of 1991. The site proposed was in a six acre pasture at the Wayne Morse Ranch Park, a 26 acre ranch setting now surrounded by residential development. With the site mostly fenced, it was fairly easy for the City to allow this activity on a trial basis. The trial period was controversial as the activity rapidly became popular. There were complaints from some immediate neighbors about noise, parking impacts, surface water contamination and adverse environmental impacts. Support for the program initially outweighed detractors by a factor of about 5:1; we believe the support has strengthened since then. Within the trial period, and to reduce the impact on the single Morse Ranch site, four other areas were established around the city, two in undeveloped portions of community parks and two on undeveloped neighborhood park sites. This action dispersed the activity in a satisfactory manner to the point that the pasture is no longer overused. The trial period came to an end, and following public hearing, the decision was made to retain all five locations. (one has since been terminated as a result of a land exchange.) Testimonials include the fact that people have moved into a neighborhood because of their existence, and that people derive enjoyment in sharing this activity with others; it is as if these locations are community centers rcr people as well as canines. There have been no complaints from dog owners about people having failed to clean up after their dogs. (Immediate neighbors of Morse Ranch still complain on this.) Recent elimination of an off-leash site at a small undeveloped neighborhood park brought considerable outcry from those who wanted it replaced. , Moving from our experience to recommendations, I believe the following ideas and features are important for success: Location should be in a large, community or metropolitan scaled parks where between one and three acres are available. Size should be dependent on demand; too many dogs and people in too small of an area can result in very muddy winter conditions in rainy winter climates. Because people will come by car and bike, parking needs for both must be considered. Parking in front of adjacent residences will antagonize those neighbors. Fencing car, be agricultural types, about 4 feet high, with gates at logical points of entry. Areas near gates receive most wear, and need special treatment to keep from becoming winner mud holes; wood chips, gravel or even concrete may be needed. Cleaning up dog excrement is made possible by the presense of garbage cans with plastic bag liners and plastic scoops, which can be made from plastic gallon jugs. Scoop request signage and peer patrol serve to keep the fenced areas clean. Our par; services staff periodically collect the bags from the cans. Can lids keep out rain water, reducing weight. Dog owners have suggested a number of amenities, and volunteers may be able to help provide some as they have in Eugene. They include shade trees, a hose bib so owners can fill water dishes on hot days, improved trails, tables and benches. We relieve off-leash areas will remain a part of larger Eugene parks. They do not seem feasible in smaller neighborhood parks because of the relative size, parking impacts and closer proximity to adjacent residences. in addition to the broad public support, they also have the support of the local animal control authority. if your community has some undeveloped areas in larger parks, I feel quite certain, based on Eugene's experience, that your dog owning community would be very supportive of your efforts to accommodate this activity. Be sure that you have a good location, since any moves to reduce size or charge locations will r be cause for public protest. Recognize, also, that introducing a new activity to a park can bring out the kind of people you want in parks, which can help control some of the undesirable activity that may be taking place. Best wishes for your off-leash venture, ~fiew- John Etter, Parks Planning Public Works Maintenance Locations of Eugene's off-leash areas: Amazon Park, east of 29th and Amazon Parkway. (Parking areas at 29th and Amazon Park Way and west of 28th and Hilyard Streets) Alton Baker Park, south side of Day Island Road, .4 mile into park from Club Road. (Parking on north side of road. Morse Ranch, Crest Drive and Lincolr_.Street. (Park in main parking area at 595 Crest Drive, then take trail east.) CITY OF TIGARD Community Development Shaping A Better Community MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD TO: City Council FROM: Jim Hendryx DATE: February 5, 1999 SUBJECT: Park System Master Plan Copies of the "Park System Master Plan" are being distributed well in advance of the 3/2/99 meeting in order to provide Councilors ample time to review the report, which includes extensive tabular and other detailed information. A copy of the Table 11, "Capital Improvement Plan", revisions decided upon by Planning Commission are enclosed for your information. It is important to note that the CIP shows only new projects and does not show committed projects, such as the downtown trail project and several other projects that have not been completed as yet. The full minutes of the 2/1 Planning Commission public hearing on the master plan will be included in the regular packet for the 3/2 meeting. Copies of the technical reports referenced in the study are available by calling Cathy Wheatley, Jim Hendryx, or Duane Roberts ;.r Table II Capital Improvement Plan PJartaing " yEricmaoed? iQ~9,?Ot~O~ 200D200Y 20012002 .20022003 Area r Cosf t ti3','f r' ',r t~ ~G~fICn, + 1 ,r' -ll~.d. ,i~✓+r.. ti~~t.r ,h.. .a General Develop a site-specific ADA transition plan with cost estimates and $30,000 $30,000 phasing plan General Develop a fenced dog park on City-owned property $20,000 General Upgrade playgrounds to current safety standards $050,000 $50,000 $80,000 $185,000 $175,000 [W-3] ['Albertson's' Park Improvements] [320,000] [20,600] [South] [Cook Park Expansion] [$400,000] Deve d4B0~6B $490,099 Distliet Subtotdl!39992000z`'; SS20,000 East Develop a master plan for Ash Creek Trail System $80,000 $80,000 Central Acquire land for Woodard Park/Walnut Street trail $82,500 $82,500 General Improve the drainage and condition of sports fields $1,000,000 $250,000 $250,000 $500,000 South Implement the Cook Park Master Plan $1,710,000 $710,000 $1,000,000 South Build Tualatin River pedestrian bridge in partnership with City of $1,000,000 $500,000 Tualatin using grant funds, if awarded [S-2] [Develop a neighborhood park in cooperation with Tigard Water [$400,000] [$400,000] District] evelop a neighborhood park on City property using grant funds, [5400,000] [$400,000] awarded] Subtota12000.2001' 42;501;300 Central Construct Woodard Park/Johnson Street trail , boardwalk & bridge $50,000 $50,000 as part of Woodard Park Renovation General Provide 3 rollerblade/skateboard facilities $450,000 $150,000 Central Renovate Woodard Park $690,000 $690,000 S-5 Acquire land for a neighborhood park $975,000 $975,000 :$2,300;000 Snbtota12001-2002 South Construct Cook Park/RR track trail $80,000 $80,000 C-2 Develop Pathfinder/Genesis trail segment from Fairhaven to $84,000 $84,000 Gaarde Street South Acquire land to expand Fanno Park $225,000 $225'000 S-6 Construct Hall Blvd/Bonita Road segment of Fanno Creek Trail $236,000 $236,000 (trail, boardwalks & bridges) Stota120022003, 52300;000 Indicates addition [ ] indtioal6s deletion ,r Table 11 continued Capital Improvement Flan 4M15r s, tr 1 ~JMS~ aM a t ♦YI ~ r t i '1.x,,1 ~ Vel v~ ~ ~~..f~ It;~ I`u ~ tl'Y rh F.. ?S~~ d~ Mt "T N~ ' Gi p' I '~s- d r ~ 14t y dd f Sd L Y'~1. ~ t c - d~,~3 t r t 'S t ,r x'Y l5 t I'~ R l7r ~,yc~ 4 fw`.anr deal ~.tl ~I',lfO++tfBei r ypt' ,~t~p?^Yl1' r k~k"lyisl r~] a ~3+200400130a~OO7F 00720p8htl04: q4,,.,. .,7 i J L r iF H .N'k~ w'> i x~i Y v t ,t Y sli .1* ,6 r tx tlw Coif a+t r'7,,r,~o 1 ~i_ c ^f yur3?,.'1 i ix a,,i C:,.arA~;4 ~r...k:.:) ,r•._,;a.,al;kr.,.! eti . f,.v JS th W-6 Acquire land in cooperation with Tigard/Tualatin school district S4020,000 22,010,000 for a community park and community center Subtdai120031001 : ;$2.010;000 General Upgrade playgrounds to current safety standards $1,350,000 $90,000 $95,000 250,000 W-6 Acquire land in cooperation with Tigard/Tualatin school district $4,020,000 3210101000 for a community park and community center S-5 Construct Bonita Road/Durham segment of Fanno Creek Trail 5415,000 $415,000 (trail, boardwalk do bridges) Yw+bltirk12006 200E n, t 52;425,000 g{, 3468;888 68@,988 [Central] [Renovate Jack Park] [$720,000] [$420,000] Central Acquire land to expand Jack Park $510,000 $510,000 C-4 Acquire land for a neighborhood park (Greenberg neighborhood) 51,500,000 $1,500,000 : Srtbto~al100S700b ' W-6 Develop a community center in cooperation with the school district 32,500,000 52,500,000 stibtotar20062007 $2.W.ON E-1 Acquire land for Ash Creek Trail $45,000 $45,000 E-7 Acquire land for Ash Creek Trail 545,000 $45,000 Central Renovate Commercial Park 5811000 $81,000 South Construct Tualatin River/85th Avenue trail $120,000 $120,000 Central Acquire land to connect Englewood Park segments $202,500 $202,500 S5 Develop a neighborhood park $520,000 $520,000 W-1 Develop nature park on donated land $640,000 $640,000 S3 Acquire land for a neighborhood park $750,000 $750,000 "37,498,f00 "Surilole12007:2008 S3 Develop a neighborhood park in cooperation with Twality Junior 5400000 000 High and Templeton Elementary Schools South Construct Cook Park/85th Avenue Trail $100,000 $100,000 E-1 Develop Ash Creek Trail from Hwy 217 to Fannin Creek Trail $182,000 $182.000 E-3 Acquire greenspace $1,350,000 $1,350,000 General - atefaek-Park 672% 00 3428,,668 [W-31 [Develop a neighborhood park] [5320,0001 [$320,000] SM&OW M08.20d9 s' r , ` f2,002,000 - kx0cates deletion f 1 Indicates edd'ffon Gt ~vn~- i fin s', 2 CITY OF TIGARD Community Dew1opment ShapingA &Uer Community MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD TO: Planning Commission FROM: Duane Roberts DATE: 1/25/99 SUBJECT: Park System Master Plan Hearing Copies of the revised Tigard Park and Open Space Master Plan were mailed to Planning Commission members last week. As the Commission is well aware, the master plan was developed over a period of more than one year. The plan details the vision, goals, and implementation framework of a City-Urban Services Area park and open space system. It is an important step in addressing the current and projected park needs of the community. As with the 1988 parks master plan, the current master plan, if approved by Council, will be adopted by resolution as a document separate from the Comprehensive Plan to be used in conjunction with the Comprehensive Plan. This method of adoption will allow the Park System Plan to be updated without the necessity to go through the procedural hurdles of the comprehensive plan amendment process. The public involvement process has been extensive and has consisted of Planning Commission oversight, an officially recognized committee broadly representative of geographic areas and park and recreation interests, a community-wide preference survey, stakeholder interviews, special public and CIT meetings, and Council presentations. The public involvement program has insured the opportunity for all citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning program. Approximately twenty-five copies of the revised plan with requests for comments have been sent to a variety of organizations and agencies with a potential interest in parks planning. A list of these organizations, which are located inside and outside the community, is attached. Additionally, nine Tigard sports and recreation organizations not included on the list were contacted by phone and asked to provide mailing addresses should they wish to receive a copy of the plan, but none did so. The only comment received to date is from Christy Smith, who supports the addition of a dog park to the Tigard park system (letter attached). In regard to this idea, the park master plan identifies the need for two dog parks and the proposed capital improvement plan recommends the first park for 1999-2000 funding. The plan was developed at a cost of $65,000 for consultant services. For budgetary reasons, the consultants will attend the City Council hearing but not the Planning Commission hearing. Recommendation: Staff recommends the Planning Commission receive testimony from interested parties, make refinements or modifications to the plan as it sees fit, and forward a recommendation to City Council. In addition to any changes brought forward by citizens or commission members; staff recommends the commission consider the following: The addition of a general statement concerning land acquisitions. The plan identifies some ten land acquisitions with specific dates for the acquisition of each. Staff would like to see a statement inserted in the capital improvement section (CIP) concerning the need for flexibility in making modifications to the plan as the need arises. Land acquisitions opportunities may present themselves prior to their identification in the CIP. Flexibility is needed to ensure that if properties considered critical to the park system come on the market, the city has the ability to evaluate the situation and move in a timely manner, if appropriate. The same flexibility is needed with regard to potential grant and partnership opportunities, which may not follow the timeline in the plan. In order to comply with state system development charge statutes, projects funded by system development charges need to be identified in the capital improvement plan. This can be easily accomplished by means of a footnote, asterisk, or some other method for calling out these projects. Fiscal Impact: The ten-year list of improvement projects called for by the plan are estimated to cost a total of $21.7 million in current dollars, which far exceeds present and anticipated funding for parks. 4 A major implication of the recommendation to approve the plan as proposed is a commitment to support major new funding. The plan recommends the city pursue a year 2000 bond measure for a level of funding the majority of the Tigard public has indicated it is willing to pay for park and open space enhancements. 1AgAn1duane/padcplan.headn9 January 14, 1999 Mr. Duane Roberts, Associate Planner City of Tigard 13125 S.W. Fall Blvd. Tigard, Oregon 97223 Re: Dog Park Dear Duane: Thank you for meeting with me Monday. I was encouraged when I spoke with Jim Nicoli and learned that Dog Parks were already an item of consideration on the Park Plans. You were very helpful and informative; especially in going over the map of Tigard and sharing the Park System Master Plan with me. I spoke with Jane Henderson of MIG, Inc. in Eugene. Jane was also very helpful and suggested I speak with John Etter, the landscape architect for the City. I have enclosed a letter John faxed me yesterday which I will include in a packet I am putting together to present to the Planning Commission on February 1st and the City Council on February 23rd. As a Tigard citizen and dog lover, I am excited about the possibility of Tigard providing/creating an environment for the enjoyment of its residence and their four legged family members. I would appreciate it if I could be placed on your Agenda and if there are any guidelines or stipulations I need to adhere to, please let me know. Sin el y, J stie . Smith cc. Jim Nicoli, Mayor of Tigard Jane Henderson, MIC, Inc. Bill Monahan, City Manager John Etter, City of Eugene 11320 S.W. Ambiance Court • Tigard, Oregon 97223 U.S.A. (503) 639-8403 Fax (503) 598-9387 PazIK and Open Space Taster Plan Agency and Community Organization Failing List State of Oregon Parks and Recreation Dept. 1115 Commercial St., N.E. Salem, OR 97310-1001 Tigard Area Chamber of Commerce (4 copies) 12420 SW Main St. Tigard, OR 97223 PacTrust Attn: Richard. P. Buono 15350 SW Sequoia Pkwy Suite 300 Portland, OR 97224 Lincoln Center Melvin Mark Properties 10220 SW Greenburg Rd. Suite 235 Tigard, OR 97223 Washington Square Management Offices 9585 SW Washington Square Road Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard Soccer Club PO 230169 Tigard, OR 97281 Tigard Little League Gary Stevens 9840 SW Kimberly Dr. Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard-Tualatin School District Attn: Ron Hudson 13137 SW Pacific Highway Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard Adult League Attn: Darrel Pizer Guardian Systems NW, Inc. 13500 SW Pacific Highway #245 Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard Youth Football Attn: John Weil Suite 1507 Standard Plaza 1100 SW & Ave. Portland, OR 97204 Howar Banta Friends of Summerlake Park 12580 SW Glacier Lily Circle Tigard, OR 97223 Cogan, Owens, Cogan Attn: Linda Davis 320 Woodlark Building 813 SW Alder Portland, OR 97205-3111 Cindi Christianson Homeowners of Castle Hill Association 14293 SW Windsong Ct. Tigard, Or 97223 Ttg 104XUSRluserslduanelpk.maillistdoc ay s _ C I T Y O F T I G A R D Par 8 y )n .t r: ^%a n 'S:Y• : - F •,t , : A,W .how 'i IT •,:991; z;.,.. aP~. fftE'C~ 1 Subm , f n - G - ~enu - v StIi:A - r7 Ea 99. uiee 5 •5 . 740 9 ^7 - J 1 83= L~ City of Tigard Park System Master,Plan Submitted by: MIG, Inc. 199 East 5 h Avenue, Suite 33 Eugene, Oregon 97401 (541)683-3193 Sally McIntyre, Principal & Project Manager Jane Henderson, Assistant Project Manager Lary Wight, Senior Landscape Architect Carolyn Verheyen, Consulting Principal Holly Warren, Project Associate DRAFT' January 1999 Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PART I: COMMUNITY PROFILE Chapter One. Introduction ........................................................................................................................................1 Chapter Two: Trends and Facts Community Profile .........................................................................................................2 Demographic Profile ......................................................................................................3 Summary ........................................................................................................................4 Chapter Three: Existing Conditions Facilities Inventory ........................................................................................................5 • Table 1: Park System Definitions Evaluation of Existing Facilities ....................................................................................8 Park Facility Analysis ..................................................................................................12 • Table Z: Park Standards and Anticipated Need Table 3: Recreation Facility Standards and Anticipated Need Management, Maintenance, and Recreation Services Assessment .............................17 • Figure 1: City of Tigard Organizational Chart • Table 4: Current Maintenance Staffing Needs Current Funding ...........................................................................................................21 Chapter 4: Community Involvement Scoping Interviews .......................................................................................................22 Park, Recreation Facility & Open Space Needs Assessment Survey ..........................22 Youth Involvement ......................................................................................................23 Summary ......................................................................................................................23 PART II: THE PLAN Chapter S: A Vision Vision for a Future Park System ..................................................................................24 Chapter 6: Recommendations Park Facilities ...............................................................................................................25 • Figure 2: Underserved Areas • Table S: Park Facility Action Plan-Fast • Table 6: Park Facility Action Plan-South • Table 7. Park Facility Action Plan-Central • Table 8: Park Facility Action Plan-West • Table 9: Facility Action Plan - General Master Plan Map ..........................................................................................................36 • Figure 3: Master Plan Map Management .................................................................................................................39 Recreation Programs ....................................................................................................39 Maintenance .................................................................................................................40 • Table 10: Management Action Plan Maintenance Action Plan Recreation Services Action Plan Chapter 7: Ten-Year Capital Improvements Plan Parks Capital Improvements Plan ................................................................................43 • Table 11: Capital Improvements Plan Operations and Maintenance Funding Analysis ..........................................................45 • Table 12: Park Maintenance Funding Plan Chapter 8: Financing Sources ......................................................................................................................................48 BIBLIOGRAPHY APPENDIX A Parks, Open Spaces, and Recreation Facilities A-1: Park System Resources A-2: Greenspace/Greenways/Natural Areas A-3: School Facilities APPENDIX B Other Recommended Projects MEN PART I: COMMUNITY PROFILE Chapter 1: Introduction The Tigard Park System Master Plan, the City's first park master plan update in over a decade, is a comprehensive needs assessment and long range plan for meeting the community's parks and recreation needs. The plan examines the impacts of the community's growing demand for services, the effects of related planning efforts, the implications of demographic changes, and the contributions made by the park system in providing relief from high density urban development, The Park System Master outlines how the City of Tigard can deliver the benefits of parks and recreation that residents have said they value and desire most, including: ■ Fostering child and youth development; ® Providing parks and open space as relief from urban development; o Meeting the recreation needs of residents of all ages through accessible facilities and opportunities; ■ Providing access to the natural environment; and Building a sense of community identity. It describes a vision for building connections-between homes and parks, between neighborhoods and frequented destinations, between businesses and government, between Portland Metropolitan Area communities, and among Tigard residents. These connections will ensure access to recreational opportunities and the natural environment; will foster youth development; and will provide opportunities for healthy, active lifestyles for residents of all ages. The result will be a greater sense of identity for the Tigard community, a more livable community for all residents, and a healthy economy. Over 500 community members, including residents of all ages, community leaders, the Master Plan Task Force, City of Tigard staff, and the Tigard Planning Commission, have served as partners in the development of this Master Plan. It is our hope that those who participated in this planning process will find their vision for Tigard's future park system accurately described in the pages of this document. With continued community support, park resources will be protected and enhanced for the enjoyment of future generations. Park and recreation opportunities will continue to build community and help residents achieve an active, healthy lifestyle as Tigard grows and changes. MIG,Inc. Page I Draft Park System Master Plan City of Tigard Chapter 2: 'rends and Facts As the southwest gateway to the Portland metropolitan area, the City of Tigard straddles the boundary between rural and urban zones. It has the advantage of being near one of the country's most progressive large cities to the north, and it looks south to the predominantly rural Willamette Valley. Like other cities in the area, Tigard is facing increasing growth pressures as the region's population continues to expand. This chapter offers a profile of the Tigard community and the changes it is expected to face. This information is important in identifying trends that may impact future parks and recreation needs. Community Profile The City of Tigard was incorporated in 1961, just 37 years ago. However, the community of Tigard (formerly Tigardville) is now almost 150 years old. Settled in the 1850s, it is one of the oldest communities in the Northwest, but one of Oregon's youngest incorporated cities. Its significant geographic features include the Tualatin River, Fanno Creek, Summer Creek, Bull Mountain, and Little Bull Mountain. As part of the Portland metropolitan area, Tigard will share the region's future. Regional and local planning agencies have forecast that the City's population will continue to grow and increase in density over the next several decades. Currently, the population of Tigard is 37,000. That figure is predicted to increase to 47,000 by the year 2008. The Metro Council-- the area's regional planning authority, has designated Tigard's downtown a Town Center. The city's main commercial center, Washington Square, will serve as a Regional Center. These designations may result in even greater growth and development in the community. In 1995, voters in the metropolitan area approved an Openspace/Greenspaces Bond Measure. The goal of the measure is the acquisition and preservation of a significant number of the remaining openspace/greenspaces in the Portland region. The bond measure has also focused attention on the relationship between the area's growing population, the eventual need for additional park lands, and the need for comprehensive park planning at the regional and local level. In addition to providing park and recreation facilities for residents within its boundaries, the City of Tigard will begin providing these facilities and services for the 7500 residents who live within the Urban Services Area beginning in early 1999, through a proposed Intergovernmental Agreement with Washington County. By 2008, according to Metro Service Data Center estimates, the City of Tigard will provide park and recreation services for a total of 57,000 residents. Because the urban growth boundary will likely remain unchanged in the Tigard area, growth management policies in the region will continue to emphasize higher density, in-fill development. A sense of community and civic pride are demonstrated in Tigard's arts and festival offerings. The annual Tigard Festival of Balloons at Cook Park is a highlight of the Portland Rose Festival. Every mid-June, hot air balloons fill the skies over Tigard and attract people from the around the region. The Tigard Country Daze and Tigard Farmers Market are events that offer families and the entire community a taste of local food, music, and performance art. The Broadway Rose Theater offers classic Broadway shows as well as theater for children. In fact, many of its performances are done in collaboration with Tigard High School. Page 2 MIG, Inc. City of Tigard Draft Park System Master Plan The City's single largest employment sector is personal services, employing 31 % of the city's labor force. The next largest employers are retail trade (24%), finance/insurance/real estate (11%), manufacturing (10%), construction (10%), and wholesale trade (8%). Tigard is fairly well educated. Of residents over age 18, 90% have completed high school and, of these, 38% have earned an associates degree or higher. Although Tigard itself does not have a center for higher learning, it is within 18 miles of six colleges and/or universities. Demographic Profile Urban growth in Tigard is a relatively recent phenomenon. As recently as 1960, Tigard's population wasjust 347 people. Each decade since the 1960's has seen triple-digit growth or greater. In the period from 1960 to 1996, the City grew from 347 to 36,000. By the year 2008, Tigard's population is expected to grow to 47,000, an increase of almost 61% since 1990 alone. With the addition of residents in Tigard's Urban Services Area, the Tigard Park system will be serving approximately 57,000 residents in 2008. Tigard's population and the State of Oregon are as a whole is increasing in diversity. Asian and Pacific Islanders are the largest ethnic minority group (2.6%) in Tigard. Native Americans, Black Americans, and other minorities each comprised about I% of the population. For parks and recreation providers, the varied traditions and use patterns of these new user groups will need to be reflected in future park planning and design. To determine future community needs, anticipated trends among the City's population were studied. In the fall of 1996, the City of Tigard conducted a community survey for its Tigard Beyond Tomorrow program. The survey contacted 396 Tigard households by phone. The following are the most important facts and trends revealed in the survey results: ■ Tigard's population is young, 60% of its population is age 44 or younger. ■ Almost 6 out of 10 Tigard residents (59%) have lived in Tigard 5 years or less. ■ Almost 8 out of 10 Tigard residents (78%) have lived in the city 10 years or less. Building community identity will continue to be achallenge as the City adds more new residents. ■ The number of residents that own their own homes appears to have increased in recent years. Seventy-one (71 of survey respondents indicate they own their own homes. By comparison, in 1990, only 58% indicated as such. Household incomes continue to rise in Tigard. According to the 1996 survey, the median household income in Tigard was $55,000. In 1990, it was $45,379. Still, however, 29% of Tigard residents are considered to be of low to moderate income. Three out of four residents over 18 (74%) do not have children in any area schools. When asked to rate their community overall on a scale of 1-10, with 1 being poor and 10 being excellent, Tigard residents gave their city a rating of 6.9. When asked if--in the time they had lived in Tigard-- their community had become better, worse, or stayed the same, respondents said: • 49% Worse; • 28% Stayed the same; and • 23% Better. MIG, Inc. Page 3 Draft Park System Master Plan City of Tigard For those that answered worse, the top two reasons given were: • Traffic/roads have gotten worse; and • Too much growth/poorly planned growth. ■ For those that answered stayed the same, the top two reasons given were: See nothing that is improving/no one is working to change things; and Some things are better/some are worse. For those that answered better, the top two responses were: • Better places to shop; and • Road improvements/traffic flow. ■ Most residents thought that in the future, the livability of Tigard would decline. Sixty-eight (68%) said that livability would be worse, only 18% said it would be better, and 14% said it would stay the same. Summary As Tigard continues to grow and develop, park services will need to grow and change to meet the needs of the community. As the City adds residents to its population base that lack local historical ties, the City will be challenged to seek out and engage these community members as it attempts to understand and provide for their needs. While it appears that the City is becoming a place of relatively well educated, above average income people that tend to own rather than rent their home, research indicates that many residents feel that overall their community is moving in the wrong direction and could be a better place. As Tigard has grown and changed significantly in the past few decades, it has also retained some appealing natural features (Fanno Creek Greenway, Cook Park), it has established cultural attractions (Balloon Festival, Farmers Market), and it is only minutes away from one of America's great larger cities. These features, along with the park system, will be key factors in providing a livable community in spite of regional growth pressures. Page 4 MIG, Inc. City of Tigard Draft Park System Master Plan Chapter Three: Existing Conditions To determine future needs, it is important to understand the current park system. An evaluation of the current system was completed including: • Facilities Inventory. An inventory of existing parks, recreation facilities and open space; • Evaluation of Existing Facilities: An evaluation of the condition of existing City parks. • Park Facility Analysis: A comparison of numbers and types of recreation facilities in Tigard to local and national standards; • Management, Maintenance, and Recreation Services Assessment: An evaluation of organizational structure, maintenance standards, staffing and budget, and options for providing recreation programs and services; and • Planning Area Analysis: An inventory and evaluation of potential park sites. Facilities Inventory To guide the evaluation of park facilities, a hierarchy of facility types was established (see Table 1 Park System Definitions): • Pocket Parks; • Neighborhood Parks; • Community Parks; ■ Linear Parks/Trails; and ■ Greenspaces and Greenways. As of October 1998, the City of Tigard had 150 acres of park land including three pocket parks, two neighborhood parks, two community parks, and three linear parks. It owns 133 acres of undeveloped greenspace located primarily along waterways and within the 100-year flood plain. Local schools provide the community with 105 acres of public open space. Residents have access to facilities at five elementary schools, two middle schools, one high school, and three other school district sites. Recreation facilities provided at City parks and schools, such as sports facilities, group picnic areas, children's play areas, and swimming pools were inventoried to determine the number of recreation facilities available to residents. The inventory of parks and recreation facilities is provided in Appendix A. MIG, Inc. Page 5 C - _ n l t l:: - t, r - _ G'.• a P r Table t E.' Tigard Park System Definitions ystem afmtio Benefit Stu Includes you Not Include Criteria Maintenance Level and S Type ofPaellity; tlefilutinn Site'SelectionC Standard t :Pocket Park . Pocket parksProvide recreation opportunities for Providufarthe dzytoday reactiond• 2500 square feet Pocket parks may include passive or low intensity activitin,such Parka parks would grnenlly not include high intmsiry sports Pocket park sites ere genadlykvd, and the site should have Maintenance a.." " la will vatydepending on deign features. ~ residents in areas not adequately served by needs of residents; provides space for to3acres as children's play aas,pubwanmultipurposepaved areas, facilities, rertrooms,orof6nratparking. physical charuteriniathat are appropriate for its intended use, Pocket parks in urban arasshould be maintained at NRPA neighborhood parks, such utown centers or areas communityeventr, balances high density public an, small orate spans faaltia tearing, picnic tress, mchas well-drained was and dsrable topography. The parks Maintaance Mode B- very frequent maintenance. of high density development. development and communicates community gardens, multipurpose performance space, and should be accessible by sidewalks and/or interconnecting trails, and r neighborhood character. landscaping. bike fans or low traffic stress. Alsighborf'OOd N. igkb?irbood,paey'ld selhefoundwonafthe, l',sondes,accatobansvncationutivarcs,: 4tollaaa Neighborheodparksshould tududeboth putsveacdawcz; Neighborhood parks gencrall oauiodkkd:f~laiaforlirge Neighborhood parks should beloareduikhma1/2nukridiusof N:igkborkoodpukshould utilize NAPAMaioteoanccMode and E ea:hy oppose antes suhuckldrenspliyaran informal. cmupinickasopomtoumamenfs'.. it spadciuynl - radeocaahhvwaossiogamajoratr2a farasjprdeunut M paudaate magmenmcsroruanan the appearance and Puksesdrarnu+alyun;pr?!7dngeoam'ble, far rr7+dennofallig#;cnotnbatn reaa6oa - - - s: Padhunf these' aorna: P~ .1 kr<e < ~ rea`emocaa~waal amietton dt „ turf = rpukm 6icyde'.Neghbarhoodparkisitesuegeoa+Vylevd;aad fuocponilnseoffm'hk.isass rsuppoapublicralay. t 'hds ; areas, pcmaaseoc r?maom .::7 Park' ,w apponu IF neigh ood!dmwtY - ? hv' n,`publscan;opat akavanet renbm~dr?eldpaliumeanagfiboihood landsi7{ncywnimunulgaidw„aodpuhvaYc_3cgmtYLgla?i?g orquKnokse..Pu~gPeabkmsandµwgauanshouWnabe,. umankwnualunheticappeatuemdkaua6le. fotatiag 1 F '-reair~onba8s,ahooldtamaysmeq maybe-prathdtfebeddi..Y _ provided. aag66orhoodpaiks"ue~motkerpuksyranrnmpmeptS,surhas mgh5oikoodq~lca` bee .anInc eiseriuieanddcanbility. NaEhbo!koodparks - k i - > should betocmdadjxeatsoschan6md6ceaoaoawluaevc _ 1. poul Community parks provide a variety of active and Provides a variety ofaaes nble maemmn Greater than 15 In addition to%how amenities provided m neighborhood parks, Puilitia that do not meet recreation needs. The site should have physical chancterinia appropriate for both Communityparksshoukl utilize NRPA Maintenance Mode 11- Community Park passive reactional opportunities for all age opportunities for ell age groups; provides -a community parks may include spoor fas7ities for team play, active and passive recration, such as suitable soils, positivednin,ge, high level maintenance- in developed portions to maintain the I groups These parks arc generally larger in site environmental education oppaKUni.~a; group picnic areas, skateboard and rollerblade, facilities, natural varying topography, and a variety ofvegetation Anatunlly appearance sad functional use of facilities, and to support pub' t~. and serve a widrrbase of residents than saves reaction needs effamilia and areas, botanical gardens, amphitheaters, festival space, swimming attractive site charscter is highly desirable. if Land is within the safety. In natural arcs, NRPA Maintenance Made IV - l neighborhood parks Community parks often provides opportunities for community social pools, interpretive facilities and community centers. lfigher floodplain, facilities should be designed to withstand periodic moderately low maintenance -should he utilized t include developed fulties for organized group activities. quality chikdno's play areas may be provided to crate a family inundation. C ' activity a well as faahties for individual and play destination. r family activities. Pask ~Dlnemp:ektnuybedleveloped along built orPrums nanod seaourrnslprovides . ofadequati size fineir parks acinclu&pavedorsok•aurfiud raa0sso Reaadonfwlfia,iweodedforl-Vg oupr,pemm t Although naaunl corridors,suchucreekl and rtareprilaicd;-f+uearparkt should "erilize N_RPAMimenaoaModelll. naiunl iF#i toprovde oppcrtunmafor riad enevoomentdcdwaaaonoppornamnq i to peaces' aanmmoduc3aggmbbt'kmg,vnnwgA-boardiag, resaooms, "a af6aros pakmgasegenetany naptavidrd' pormoitia to ante bmlt cb:ri das shouMbi tceagly moderuelevdma nuaaou m .peel porti to saintain ';t };w orumed aasyttrasodnatumdnatedoutdaor; parnuirsoppontuutsafwtraSOnmted casual tesamca dageral'amy kaasebarkndu aaoanggta11ab1admH Anne. - eocouogcd:Biulkcartidats orecoo%,no ddurmgkvelop`exct err iheappkaaace andfuc_aionalnueddfaalnm,andio mppon,. . . ,...1 , , dpiovulaataatobase„ and':-' aodpaifi'veinxctioufinlaiassnyfnrludeimsllsalispom:, aerdapmegmchssrorssai'aeitidinr&i atialscbdivmou, puFlie'sifay Innmiraluas,rWAMainienaprcModeN: reamaon 1,waRpmkiuisyalsiapronderome''' xosnusau 4 nvisafiudamefiunta,h6aaloaedridroid.teeds,radwiyrightoE mndaiirt% lowmz%aiten'wte•shculdbeua7im3to rupportthe aztrveandpas rcc ainonfunaustomat rdaatronopportirvmaloraearbyi:esidents ircomaodue faalaej~pu•Sasbuksballkrops,c5ddren'aplagaparpmem,og• neigh borhood nmds,eapraally tiaras ate. IT of allageimenEonngeanactive, knhkq'., imeaded size..-lmtidodartas;aaumb P?6Gc mt,Puav:sildes, hgbtany _s _ °nys,boW-irdsiindityssght obwiyiard dkama6o-ways"Tice mtnnlc9unaaoftlu ~rra.toaninviaiunaooalusenf...- ra' 7plus finlitio, to pionde6ae indItnu itigaaiou,andto mppot -.i - adegnatelpam'edhyttaditioiad neighborhood';; 13eat}du :t camm~nitygasdeus;xnd:laudsvlaang. minimnot coiiidoiwidth should aaommoduea multi- tae ronna i _ Lnae ireadenca tO mat bnff# io50 fat ~w :I Iu s_i dparks erns ~ feet made. naB~ ) a aildopuaunybeukia2A0 public iafay 7,7777- nay e. , i Greenspace~ Agreaspace or greenway is as area of natural protects valuable natural resources; protects Site should be Developed features that support outdoor rceation and u-A- paalitie that do nor directly support outdoor rerndan and rne quality of the rewuroes the moo important determinant for NRPA Maintenance Made N•moderately lowmaintenance - quality that protects valuable natural resources and wildlife; contributes co the environmental adequate to oriented recreation may be provided, such astrads, picnic arcs, sraaTnriented reaenion should not be included, such as site wledon.In addition, sits that provide medium to high should be utilized to support the natural charutaofthe area, t Greenway wildlife habitat. It also provides health of the communes and provides otoathe benches, u and native lm Primes Y R P< _ ,gn; dsaPi¢g. Tnn•head ornamental plants, lawns. and active rectos facilities. potential for environmental education, aesthetics or buffering to maintain functional tau of (unities, co provide fur and opportunities for naturerelmed outdoor opportunities for outdoor recreation, resource. amenities, such as smart sale pukiry,portable reurooms, bike- qualities, and outdoor or tr2iloriented reaction are prdared.Tb hazard mitigation, and to support publicsafety. rc ion, nwh as viewing and studying nature environmental education, and trunoriemed racks and trash enclosures, may be included. recommended corridor width is approximately 200 fat; the and panicipuiagin trail activities, activities, minimum width is 5o feet. _ f t., Trails and Apublic scben route foitommutid5andowl- Pmvidaopportunuersfaftnlarimed 'r WdthoEtks:' Aranetyofpuhwa%types ~emM,odwaaommedeeamvitir A- ita~oa 6aloaandfcaiz'.thatdonaedrrcd Tma sysumi'almald of Ta 7r~t'w6aulduol'ueNRPAMaiotersnce Mode )Ii•niothe krrte' i• oneoiedicaa6oml • iodpda iedmta'sd and, tiv7aod ' cf sties do. seabang;scoutug.6 _&-Aogx,alocbioneei erg,. y Pedcvu° and b;4&' x that dxrdopedPor th' Is Connectors h eaygtoddurzm7iand connxu, tomniunayfaulma svet%kPend;ea duxe6oix~egirdbo_< • "vTimhan&knrcd.%bid uensaU<ooi a- puksyttimmidd>#tatcwnunaY,cap seems lutwonal,nsedtalrsataodsm wpnpanpub' tiqc ''b; dedw oaorazmenia3 IawsaivJamve Pcon And jmd- mmria4dnse puk4"i?tWnle rpuly yemaap,orbedenaaedasipia rtacninfr~7ioa, - Jadeauom..1'hennas%Must, shoo ldpradexxatfoepeoplewub aifep Iaouunluna,N[tPAMaimenudMakN• - i andloenica edtSe.G}Y,*adetans8ortrtauspsem.WsaraYaaa k'~ribslunmdaaoromudscedrvme>iaar»nalnsT~ul mddir'udylos~tmeaeoa-sAaaldbeeu7izedmaippatihe tmalfa4e(~lnasforfmssin6sr"`oaaa«ing.~FxLsypeofmal i .x devdapotentpgudedbyatecpponnsms.aodconstraints, such a nazwilnhaiactei earei,tomsntanfunnio, taw mmgatian, andto suplamt atuwfd6t&agaa3rosddyaaoamadaovwsaadmet Pedxunaaaosasdope,oauratmmorruvawsaoddrrwge ha7uui,,ropovdefnaudband p= Tar'gureAdeug°` wad+rds~ t , , 9 - : + pnbkcalcty Reference: Park Maintenance Standards, National Recreation andPark Association (IRPA). 1986. I j Draft Park System Master Plan City of Tigard Evaluation of f Existing Facilities MIG, Inc. and City Planning and Parks/Grounds Division staff conducted a park site and facility evaluation in November 1997. The purpose of this task was to evaluate the current condition of park facilities. Recommendations were made to improve the condition and increase the utilization of existing parks. Tigard's parks include a variety of facilities that support recreational needs. Thirteen types of facilities were rated. These included: ■ Structures (restrooms, picnic shelters, shade canopies); ■ Sports fields and facilities; ■ Play equipment; ■ Safety surfacing (for play equipment); ■ Site furnishings; ■ Exterior lighting; ■ Paths/paving/trails; • Signage; ■ Irrigation systems; ■ Drainage systems; ■ Vegetation; ■ Turf; and ■ Parking. Facility scores were based on two criteria. The physical condition of each facility was rated to determine the need for maintenance or replacement. In addition; the capacity and function of each facility was rated. This second rating measured its adequacy to meet user demand and support recreational use. Scores were based on the following:' 1 -Adequate: usable and functional/needs routine maintenance apd-repair; 2 - Substandard: needs renovation/doesn't meet standards, 3 -Major renovation or replacement required/facilitydoesn't ei i?~ expansion u Following is a general description of the findings x OVERALL CONDITION The City of Tigard's park system facilities range from high nay " ' Mtensive use areas to wetlands and habitat areas with trails for running" ~V a~ ~ R' are w~li maintained considering the resources that the City devoft" iG Ilia i~tost cases,"; maintenance issues seemed to be related to annua A0901 ; k. isiln or litter were evident. xYT r>~ NAX i `rv w W ' Pi Major problems found during the site evaluation inclttd: E3 < t~ ■ Flood damage to trails, including btpicd-~ s s Z. j4 Y yi ■ Drainage problems in sports fields °'~':r ■ Lack of accessibility for people wit~is~~i R with Disabilities Act (ADA); ■ Safety hazards in children's play'*'ea ,`jrant;E Page 8ti~ ar~ ~ 9t}Y2'f'4K 1 S ~'s' City of Tigard Draft Park System Master Plan ® Lack of access to parks by public transportation. Public parks are considered a public accommodation according to the ADA, and new or renovated facilities must be made accessible to people with disabilities. However, exact guidelines for accessibility are still under development. Park amenities that are currently described in the American's with Disabilities Act Guidelines (ADAAG), such as pathways, drinking fountains, and restrooms, must meet the requirements described. The proposed guidelines for play areas are currently being reviewed by the public, and could be finalized in the near future. Accessibility guidelines for other park elements are still under development by the U.S. Architectural and Transportation Compliance Board. An initial draft of recommendations for recreational facilities was first published in 1994, and refinement is currently underway. POCKET PARKS Pocket parks are small open spaces that are usually less than 1 acre in size. These parks are more costly to maintain than larger sites, and are of limited recreational use because of their smaller size. The primary benefit of pocket parks is their contribution to community character. Except for Liberty Park, these sites are not highly used. Liberty Park Liberty Park, located at the east end of Main Street, is a small open space with trees, shrubs, and benches. It was once garbage-strewn and inhabited by transients. However, since Parks/Grounds Division staff has limbed up trees and shrubbery to increase park surveillance, people cross the busy thoroughfare to eat their lunches in the park. Littering is no longer a major issue. Main Street Park This triangular piece of land is bordered on two sides by busy streets (Main Street and Pacific Highway) and on the third side by a sidewalk. It is, in fact, a piece of land that was left over from the Main Street/Johnson Street realignment and is within the Pacific Highway right-of- way- Ye Old Windmill Park At Katherine Street and 121 st Avenue, the City acquired a windmill for use as a historic site. The park is not highly used. NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS Residents of adjacent housing units primarily use Tigard's two neighborhood parks. If these sites were to be improved, existing neighborhood parks could make a greater contribution to fulfilling residents' recreational needs. As improvements are implemented, access to people with disabilities should be provided. MIG, Inc. Page 9 Draft Park System Master Plan City of Tigard Jack Park This 5.5-acre park is nestled away in its neighborhood. It is accessible from 127th Avenue and 128th Avenue only on foot through easements between residential lots. Parking is along the neighborhood streets. This hillside park is one of the few parks in Tigard that does not regularly experience flooding. Its basketball court is in good condition, and the t-ball/softball field is suitable for pick-up games. Picnic tables are worn and scattered throughout the site. A wooden play structure that does not meet current safety standards sits in the center of the park. With renovation, including improved park access and park facilities, Jack Park could provide expanded recreational opportunities to a greater number of households. Woodard Park Woodard Park is an older neighborhood park on Fanno Creek near Fowler Junior High School. An additional 7 acres has been put into public ownership through purchases made using Metro greenspace bond measure funds. As a part of this Park System Master Plan, a conceptual plan for the entire 10 acres has been developed (see Appendix B). The Oregon Department of Transportation plans to use a portion of the park for a wetland mitigation site. A segment of the Fanno Creek trail is proposed for the northern portion of the site. This segment will be part of the continuous greenway trail that will, according to project plans, extend from Scholls Ferry Road to Tigard City Hall by mid-1999. Currently, the park has picnic tables and a wooden play structure. Neighborhood children use the Metro property for horseback riding. Children going to and from school use an informal path through the Katherine Street right-of-way. COMMUNITY PARKS Most of the park use in Tigard is focused on the City's two community parks: Cook Park and Summerlake Park. Cook Park At 79 acres, Cook Park is the largest park in Tigard. It is heavily used to the point of overuse. -It is the center of community life, serving as the location for both sports activities and community events. At this point in its history, it needs renovation. Facilities for team sports include volleyball, soccer, softball, baseball, and basketball. The baseball and soccer fields are so heavily scheduled that one delay in league play causes delays throughout the entire day. Because organized sports are given preference, the fields usually are unavailable for informal use. The covered group picnic area is reserved at least one year in advance. The parking lot is in good condition but is not adequate to handle the crowds for major community events. A shuttle from the nearby Tigard High School parking lot is sometimes used to alleviate the problem. Recent improvements to the park include a new restroom, a children's play area, an accessible fishing dock, a boat dock and ramp, and additional parking near the Tualatin River Len the park. A covered bandstand is planned for construction this summer. are the primary use planned for 21 acres recently purchased by the City. tion along the eastern edge of the park has been designated as a picnic and MIG, Inc. City of Tigard Draft Park System Master Plan As is the case in most City parks, access for people with disabilities is limited. Although paved access is provided to the group picnic shelters, none of the individual picnic tables is accessible. Access to trails, sports facilities, spectator areas, and play areas is limited and inconsistent. Portions of Cook Park are closed during the winter to prevent damage to saturated fields, and to protect the public from weather-related hazards, such as flooding and fallen trees. It is still possible for people to hike the trails along the Tualatin River, and to use the children's play area. However, no restrooms are open. The City should consider keeping some restrooms open during the winter for these users. The Cook Park Master Plan proposed a multi-modal trail through Cook Park, connecting to the Fanno Creek Trail. This option should be pursued. Other pressing needs in Cook Park are to: ■ Improve the drainage and condition of the sports fields; Develop an ADA transition plan to provide access for people with disabilities; Upgrade play areas to meet current safety guidelines, provide accessibility, and provide play opportunities for children under 5 years; and ® Inform the public about maintenance levels required for the varied areas within the park. Summerlake Park This 24-acre park is built around Summerlake, which was created by damming Summer Creek. The overall impression is that the park is carefully groomed and maintained. The paved trails and play perimeters make the park usable throughout the year. Restroom facilities are also available year-round. Corners of this park function as neighborhood parks, and providing additional recreation facilities could expand this function. The most pressing needs in this park are to: ■ Provide accessible van parking; Provide age-appropriate play areas for children less than 5 years of age; Continue upgrading play areas to make them accessible to children with disabilities. LINEAR PARKS Tigard has two linear parks: Englewood Park and Fanno Creek Park. These parks are used primarily for trail-related recreation. Providing additional recreation facilities could expand their function. Commercial Park has been classified as a neighborhood park in the past, but it would function better as a linear park. i i Englewood Park 3 The 15-acre Englewood Park contains a little over one mile of paved pathways. The trail passes through neighborhoods, through wooded areas, and along a wetland. The right-of- way is minimally maintained. The Parks/Grounds Division has emphasized tree planting and maintaining a natural appearance. MIG, Inc. Page II Draft Park System Master Plan City of Tigard While the park is used primarily by people walking, bicycling and running, alcoves with play equipment and other recreation facilities could fill some of the need for neighborhood parks in the area. Currently, playground equipment is placed at three different locations. Renovation of the areas and modifications to the play equipment would enhance the attractiveness, safety, and usability of these spaces. Additional small-scale improvements may also increase the park's usability. Any improvements would need to be capable of withstanding periodic inundation, as much of the park is flooded each year. Fanno Creek Park Fanno Creek Park is 22 acres of open space with a paved, multi-use trail. Additional acreage is continuously being acquired to extend and connect trail segments. The right-of-way is minimally maintained in most places. The existing trail width does not meet ODOT guidelines for multi-use trails. There are two park benches just south of City Hall. Picnic tables have been placed at various points along the trail. Bridges across Fanno Creek have been constructed from flatbed railway cars. An interpretive structure, sited at a dead-end overlooking Fanno Creek, has been vandalized over the years and ail interpretive signage has been removed. It continues to provide shelter for transients. As in Englewood Park, opportunities exist for adding recreation facilities that would help fill the need for neighborhood park facilities. Hazards, such as the abandoned nature center, should be removed. Commercial Park Although this park has previously been classified as a pocket park, it appears to be used primarily as a pedestrian route between Commercial Street and Center Street. Its proximity to busy Highway 99W and the railroad tracks and its limited visibility makes it less than desirable as a play area. It may, however, fill a need for the residents of adjacent apartments. Currently, an old metal swing set is the only play equipment in the park. It has an inadequate use zone and should be relocated or removed. If play equipment is provided, equipment suitable for toddlers might be more appropriate, depending on the needs of the neighborhood. The trail through the park should be improved to make it more convenient, accessible, and safe to use. For complete results of this study, see the City of Tigard Park System Resource Inventory and Analysis, (MIG, Inc., 1998). Park Facility Analysis The availability of park and recreation facilities and their ability to meet the recreational needs of the community is usually measured by facility standards. These standards are expressed quantitatively by the number of facilities needed to serve a certain number of residents (example: 15 total acres of park land per 1000 population, 1 basketball court per 5000 population, etc.). This quantitative ratio is the level of service provided. In 1998, the City of Tigard provided 7.65 acres of park land for every 1000 residents. To determine future facility needs, the amount of park acreage and number of recreation facilities provided in Tigard was compared to standards recommended by the National Recreation and Park Association (NRPA). These standards were further refined to address Page 12 MIG, Inc. City of Tigard Draft Park System Master Plan regional recreation needs by comparing them with standards for comparable communities in Oregon, and by evaluating the geographic distribution of parks throughout the community. Based on this evaluation and the results of the community involvement process, recommendations for Master Plan park and recreation facility standards are proposed. These standards were used to calculate anticipated community needs for the year 2008. Tables 2 and 3 summarize recommended facility standards for each type of park and recreation facility for the years 1998-2008. Based on these recommended standards and the existing level of service, the anticipated community need is presented. It should be noted that the existing level of service for recreation facilities includes school facilities. The school district does not currently have adequate funds to maintain these fields for public use. In order for these facilities to help meet community need, joint use agreements between the City and the School District may be necessary. Projected community needs are based on an estimated service area population of 57,000 by the year 2008. I MIG, Inc. Page 13 dN~ed ~ 20t?8_ deed Nttl'A ofyn'i°e "Table 2 Antici ated SEati►~`~; 1.15ac; no standard - gtandaYds a" d :g'st"'g drst 0.50 3 parks ® X3,5 83.5 park 5adq 5tati 4.25- 0.03 acres/1000 0.06 acres/1040 ~ /1000 ; /1000 2 Parks @ 8 76ac, 2.5 a 96.5 03 acres/1000 acres 100.2, 2 p0.a24 acres/_l~ 26.5 _ Facili 135 acres/1 102.87 ac; 3,5 acres/1000 nts @ - pocketPar~ 2 acres/1ow acre s/4000 5 4. -8 acres/1040 2,78 acresll0~ - - - . dad acres/1040 37 52 `ac, no stan Neighborhood pares 2.5acresAwo 3 parks 152.0 yble 1.01 ac1100<?'' • 52.0 Community Parks as rLs 57 spaces @ 132.69 ac; 5.0 -acres/Iwo 5.02 Variable 3.59 acres/1000 162 0 382.0 11 acces11000 LinearParks ns acres/1000 15 -20 acresl1000 4.56 1.65 aeresl1404 Sete's 11000 1.65 ac Greenspace/GreenaaYs 5 acxesl1000 ~ Grove did not report greensaceJgreen'"•ay acceagES• 'fota1 '$eacreages. Albany andP°r Vest Linn+ andloboro. ecial of report linearlsp GcoveJualatm, lord innville, Albany+FOt~ ns~n°nui ve,andKillsbocodidn ardParkPlan• iAlbanY,FOrestGra unities: tJLcM are standardsc standartine 1997,110 dsfrom he foUo~ng comrn rcued need onrtined es. A standards, and exp are av persons ea eh faloc~al,sz d JJV facilities bey of Asul ~ erages of existian num of eldstinB, pjr; tin8 ddition co existing facilities 1jey;ce indicates erne bination ed now in a ng cares add tomf aeilities n by 2008 . addition to existi sting el of Serv lords are b&.1 es iuonal ddnional facilities need SAOn'tr'~ Nded ee Std y'urr indi~ u a AAnsiu p . d1`teed Table 3 Recreation Facility Standards and Anticipated Need Existing Facilities AnKeipated Need; . Existing NRPA Eriiiing Level Reeommea ` Facility Standards Standards Parks Schools '-of Service 'Standards 37000 ' -.5i d00 Baseball Fields ns 115000 3 18• 1/1743 1/1800 0 11 Basketball Courts ns 1/5000 3 0 1/12200 ::1/5000 4 8 Basketball Hoops ns ns 4 28 1/1144 1/1100 2 20 Boat Ramp and Dock ns ns 1 0 1!37000 no starxlatd 0 ` 0 Community Centers ns ns 0 0 0 1/37000 I I Dog Parks ns ns 0 0 0 1/18000,1_' 2 Fishing Area ns ns 1 0 1/37000 no standard 0 0 Football Fields ns 1/20,000 0 6 1/6100: 1/20,000 0 0 Group Picnic Areas ns ns 3 0 1/12200 1/6000 3 7 Horseshoe Courts ns ns 2 D 1/18300 no standard 0 - 0 Open Turf Area ns ns 3 9 1/3050 no standard 0 0 Outdoor Concert Area ns ns 1 0 1x36600 _ no standard _ 0 ' : 0 Outdoor Volleyball Court ns ns 2 0 1/18000 1/18000 0 1 ns ns. 9 S. 1/2571 Ix220D` 3 1 Play Equipment Rollerblade/Skateboard Facility ns ns 0 0 0 1/18000 2 3 Running Tracks ns 1/20,000 0 3 1/12200 ` 1120000 0> 0 Senior Center ns ns 1 0 1/37000 1/37600 0 0 8 - 21- Soccer Fields ns 1/10,000 3 14 1/2153 111500 Softball Fields ns 115000 1 5 1/6100 1/3000 6 13 Swimming Facilities ns 1/20,000 0 1 1/37000 7/18000,',, 1 2 Tennis Courts ns 1/20,000 2 12 1/2614 1/2500 1 9 *Includes eleven (11) Little League fields ns: no standard (there are no Existing Standards for Tigard) Insufficient response from cities of comparable size to establish Local Standards Existing Facilities includes all facilities in parks and public schools regardless of condition or public accessibility. Existing Level of Service indicates average number of persons each facility serves. Recommended Standards are based upon a combination of NRPA standards and expressed need. Anticipated Need - Current indicates additional facilities needed now in addition to existing facilities Anticipated Need - 2008 indicates additional facilities needed by 2008 in addition to existing facilities. Draft Park System Master Plan City of Tigard No standards are proposed for pocket parks, linear parks, or for specific miles of trails. The following is recommended: Pocket Parks Given the current density in Tigard, there may be underserved areas where pocket parks are needed to offset the effects of development and where sufficient land for a neighborhood park is unavailable. However, because of their high maintenance cost, pocket parks are not recommended where a larger neighborhood park could be provided. Meet the needs of underserved residential and non-residential areas. Add additional pocket parks to the system: (1) to increase access in locations where residents do not have a larger park, or land available for a larger park, within one- half mile radius of their homes; and (2) to enhance the character of high density commercial, industrial and business districts. ■ Involve residents in pocket park stewardship. Pocket parks should be designed to minimize maintenance and provide for public safety. Each neighborhood or district should be involved in the design and maintenance of its pocket park. Linear Parks/Trails A high demand for trails for walking, bicycling, and dog walking, was expressed through the public involvement process. This park Type, which requires a narrow right-of-way, may be easier to acquire than land for a neighborhood park in Tigard where the city is approaching build out. Pursue opportunities to provide linear parks in natural and built corridors to create a comprehensive multi-use trail system in Tigard v Protect natural corridors whenever possible to preserve the environment and provide residents with opportunities to enjoy and learn about Tigard's natural resources. ■ Meet the needs of underserved areas. Ideally, all residents should be provided convenient access to a neighborhood park. Where land acquisition opportunities are limited, linear parks may serve the neighborhood park needs of nearby residents. a Pursue joint use opportunities. Many opportunities exist to develop linear parks as part of development or redevelopment with both public and private agencies. Therefore, a wide range of joint use opportunities. may arise with developers, schools, hospitals, private industry, utilities, transportation providers, and other public agencies. There also exist opportunities to connect with the parks and ' trails of adjacent municipalities such as Beaverton, Tualatin, and Durham. Page 16 Rid, Inc. City of Tigard Draft Park System Master Plan Management, Maintenance and Recreation Services Assessment ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE Tigard has a Council/City Manager form of government. The five-member City Council is the policy making body of the city. A City Manager is appointed by the Council to perform the administrative duties of the City. The Mayor presides over City Council meetings, and represents the city at meetings and special events. Responsibilities for park and recreation facilities are divided among Community Development, Public Works, and Engineering (see Figure 1). Community Development is responsible for evaluating and recommending park land acquisition and park development. Engineering usually assumes responsibility for the design and construction of capital improvement projects, and the Parks/Grounds Division of the Public Works Department performs maintenance. The City of Tigard does not offer recreation programs and services. EVALUATION OF CURRENT OPERATIONS Overall, resources are being used well. Volunteers have been successfully utilized in the following ways: ■ Park Stewardship: The Parks/Grounds Division has been extremely successful in using volunteers to assist staff in maintenance operations. In 1997, volunteer hours totaled 2,345. At the end of the first quarter of 1998, the Parks/Grounds Division had recorded 1,280 volunteer hours toward their goal of 2000 to 3000 hours for the year. The recent addition of a Volunteer Coordinator in the Community Development Department could give an additional boost to the efforts of the Parks/Grounds Division staff. Tree 2000: Recently, the City of Tigard enacted &tree removal fee to supply funds for replacing trees removed to make way for new roadways, homes and businesses. As the next step, the City commissioned a plan for reforestation, called `Tigard 2000 Trees.' Following this plan the Parks/Grounds Division is utilizing volunteers to plant trees in many of the City's parks and greenspaces. ■ Citizen Patrol: The Police department has supported the successful organization of the Cook Park Citizen Patrol. Neighbors of Woodard Park and Summerlake Park provide surveillance of the parks and have been encouraged to organize formally. MIG, Inc. Page 17 Citizens Mayor & City Attorney City Council City Manager Public Works Library Community Engineering City Administrator Finance Police Development Building Sanitary Sewer Inspection Storm Sewer Water Current Planning Street Shop & Service Property Mgmt. Advance Planning Parks Maint. Development Services Figure 1; City of Tigard Organizational Chart City of Tigard Draft Park System Master Plan RECREATION PROGRAM S Residents of the City of Tigard and the surrounding Urban Services Area have limited opportunities to participate in recreation programs. The School District sponsors organized sports for school-age residents. Tigard Youth Association, a non-profit organization, sponsors youth programs including Drug Abuse Resistance Education (DARE) for 4d' and 5'h grade students, Gang Resistance Education and Training (GREAT) for 7`'' grade students, Peer Court, Kids Day/Bicycle Rodeo, and two- week summer camps. They also offer scholarships for youth participation in sports programs sponsored by the school district. Tigard residents are not included in the Tualatin Hills Park & Recreation District but may elect to pay out-of-district fees to participate in the programs and use its facilities. Atfalati, a non-profit group, has been organized to support team sports. ORGANIZATIONAL. STRUCTURE FOR PARKS AND RECREATION There are several options for providing park and recreation programs, facilities and services to Tigard residents in the future. ■ A new Parks and Recreation Department could be formed within the City of Tigard to manage park facilities and provide recreation programs and services. This organizational structure is the one most commonly used by municipalities, counties, and recreation districts. Maintenance functions could remain with the Public Works Department, or maintenance staff could be shifted to the Parks and Recreation Department. ■ A Recreation Division could be formed within an existing Department of the City of Tigard with responsibility for parks remaining shared among Community Development, Engineering, and Public Works. ■ The City of Tigard could contract with Tualatin Hills Park & Recreation District for recreation services only. The City of Tigard could request annexation to the Tualatin Hills Park & Recreation District for park and recreation facilities and programs. A new park and recreation district could be formed to provide parks and recreation facilities and programs. The new district could be one of two types, each having the ability to assess taxes, accept donations, and enter into intergovernmental agreements: A special district (such as Tualatin Hills Park & Recreation District) which has an elected board of directors; or • A county service district (such as North Clackamas Park and Recreation District) which has advisory board appointed by the County Board of Commissioners. During the public involvement process, several participants spoke in favor of joining THPRD because the district has extensive facilities, a proven track record, an established tax base, and experienced staff. Those who spoke against this alternative did so primarily due to cost. MIG, Inc. Page 19 Draft Park System Master Plan City of Tigard MAINTENANCE S'T'AFFING LEVELS Maintenance staffing levels in the Parks/Grounds Division have not increased to address the continued expansion of park lands and greenspaces. Each full-time employee (FTE) is currently responsible for over twice as many acres as ten years ago. The expenditure per acre has also failed to keep pace. The City of Tigard has a lower expenditure per acre than the cities of comparable size surveyed for this report. For complete results of this study, see City of Tigard Maintenance Assessment (MIG, Inc., 1998). Fable 4 CURRENT MAINTENANCE STAFFING NEEDS .,Reconunended ~ Facility Acres t Expenditure Oer Maime- Acre o"rM1dx'° Expense Pocket Parks 1.20 $3,000 $3,600 ! Neighborhood Packs 8.80 $3,000 $26,400 - Community Parks 103.00 $3,500 $360,500 J Linear Parks 37.50 $2,500 $93,750 - Greenways/GreenspacesMaturalAreas 132.70 $1,500 $199,050 Reservoirs 30.25 $2,000 $60,500 City Hall 4.00 $12,200 $48,800 `o 0 Total Acres 317.45 $2,497 $792,600 O i Total Trail Miles 8.00 $3,500 $28,000° w rn > TOTAL RECOMMENDED BUDGET $820,600 S { w FTE Need for Fiscal Year 1998-99 (=Total Need * .78 / 54,700) 2 11.70 i i Current FTE 8.50 i Additional Staff Needed 3.20 j n Recommended budget per acre or mile based on a survey of cities of similar size. Personal Services (staff salary, benefits, and other payroll expenses) are 78%ofthe total Parks/Grounds Division budget. 2 The Parks 1998-99 budget per FTE (including salary, benefits, and other payroll expenses) is $54,700. Page 20 MIG, inc. City of Tigard Draft Park System Master Plan CURRENT FUNDING Operations and Maintenance Activities General Fund Revenues The total budget for the Parks/Grounds Division in 1998-99 is $657,900. 'This figure includes Personal Services (employee wages and benefits), Materials & Services, and Capital Outlay for equipment. This budget is funded through general fund revenues, as is the .5 FTE planner assigned to parks. User Fees and Rents At present, the City of Tigard charges an hourly fee for the use of soccer and softball fields. Tigard-based residents and business are charged at the rate of $4.00 per hour, Tigard-based non-profit organizations at $2.00 per hour, and non-Tigard based users at $8.00 an hour. Tigard-based non-profit youth athletic organizations are not charged a fee for using athletic fields. Group site rentals depend upon the group size. All non-profit organizations are charged the lowest rates ranging from $3.00 an hour (for a group of 50 or less) up to $12.50 an hour (for a group of 201 to 250). Tigard residents and businesses are charged $6.00 to $25.00 an hour. Non-residents are charged $8.00 to $50.00 an hour. Capital Improvements System Development Charges System Development Charges (SDC's) are fees paid by new development to cover a portion of the costs of capital facilities needed to serve new development. The City collects parks SDC's for all new residential development and places these revenues in the Parks SDC fund. Current rates are: ■ $1050 per single-family unit; ■ $ 660 per multi-family unit; ■ $ 540 per apartment; and ■ $ 740 per mobile home. The City also imposes a non-residential SDC of $49 per employee. The City Council adopts by resolution the Systems Development Charge Funds Project Plan, which lists the capital improvements that may be funded with improvement fee revenues and lists the estimated cost and time of construction of each improvement. Other Funding While the City has been successful in securing small grants, these funds are generally sufficient only to augment other funding or to fund specific items within larger projects. M1G, brc. Page 21 Draft Park System Master Plan City of Tigard Chapter 4: Community Involvement MIG, Inc. facilitated a workshop in February 1998 to ask Tigard residents to express their ideas and opinions of the parks and recreation system in their community. Participants presented their views on the benefits of parks and recreation, needed improvements, recreation programs, and the future parks system. Over the following months, four more sessions were held to bring together the Master Plan Task Force, the City of Tigard Planning Commission, community members of all ages, and other interested parties to develop a true consensus document. Scoping interviews were conducted, surveys were developed and distributed, and Tigard's youth were consulted in an effort to gain a well-rounded perspective. Scoping Interviews Twelve Tigard residents and community leaders representing diverse community interests were interviewed between December 1997 and April 1998. Those interviewed were asked questions about the perceived needs of their community (and the surrounding urban service areas), what they thought could be accomplished through improvements to parks and recreation facilities, and what sorts of improvements were warranted toward that goal. Participating residents were also asked about the role of public involvement and participation. Almost all interviewed felt that issues related to rapid growth were of major importance--a sentiment frequently repeated throughout the public involvement process. Planning, maintaining, and expanding parks and recreation facilities were seen as a means of preserving and enhancing the quality of life in the face of rapid growth. Those interviewed also discussed specific needs relating to park and recreation facilities and services. Feedback provided in the Scoping interviews was an important part of the Master Plan development process. Responses to the questions as they were posed to interviewees are recorded in detail in the Issue Scoping Interview Report (MIG, Inc., 1998). Park, Recreation Facility & Open Space Needs Assessment Survey A survey developed by MIG Inc., in conjunction with the Tigard Planning Department and City Manager's office, was mailed to a random sample of 7,000 Tigard households as an insert to the Cit3!.scape Newsletter. The survey provided valuable community opinion data on many topics, including the level of use in individual parks, favorite park activities, and what improvements or additions the community would like to see in its park system. There are currently no recreation programs offered by the City of Tigard, and 75% of survey respondents indicated that they would like to see recreation programs implemented. The majority of survey respondents (60 to 80%) support funding a broad range of park improvements, recreation programs, and park maintenance through a property tax assessment. Additional key points raised by the survey findings include: ■ About 80% of Tigard residents use Cook Park either frequently or infrequently. • Summerlake Park is used by about 50% of residents. ■ Fanno Creek Park is used by about 30% of residents. • Jack Park is used by about 5% of residents. Page 22 MIG, Inc. City of Tigard Draft Park System Master Plan a Tigard residents who do not use their local parks cited time constraints and not knowing. the location of facilities (25-50%) as the main reasons for their lack of patronage. a 77% of respondents favored trail-related activities (hiking, walking). [Note: this finding is consistent with state-wide and national trends.] ■ 45% indicated that they used picnic/barbecue facilities. ■ There was a generally positive response to the level of safety and maintenance provided at City park facilities. ■ Desired facility improvements include: linked, continuous walking/running trails, ball fields, picnic areas, children's play areas, a swimming pool, and an off-leash dog area. a Top planning priorities for the next five years are neighborhood parks (260/o), indoor facilities (239/o), and the acquisition and protection of natural areas and stream corridors (18%). a Highest priority recreation facility improvements include: walking/running trails (230/6), children's play areas (180/6), and a swimming pool (16%). A fully detailed account of the survey results and copy of the survey instrument can be found in City of Tigard Park Recreation Facility & Open Space Needs Assessment (MIG, Inc., 1998). Youth Involvement The Youth Involvement piece of the Tigard Parks and Recreation Master Plan was developed with the goal of learning the views of Tigard's "next generation." Elementary school students, middle school students, high school students, and three teachers responded to questions, participated in discussions, drew pictures, and wrote comments. All groups of students said that they would like to have a recreation program that made sports activities available to them. Ball fields and courts, trails and paths, play areas, and natural features were all elements that participating youth value highly. Elementary students expressed a great deal of interest in swimming and other aquatic activities. There was also a significant amount of encouragement on the part of all age groups to improve trails and paths and to improve park maintenance and upkeep. For a complete review of the youth involvement process and detailed findings, please refer to City of Tigard Park System Master Plan Youth Involvement Summary (MIG, Inc., 1998). Summary The contributions made by residents were important in developing a vision for the future of the Tigard Park System, and in identifying future park and recreation needs and priority improvements. During this process, community members said they believe that parks and recreation should help foster child and youth development, provide relief from urban development, meet the needs of residents of all ages through accessible facilities and opportunities, provide access to the natural environment, and build a sense of community. They expressed an interest in increased community participation in park planning and design. MIG, Inc. Page 23 Draft Park System Master Plan City of Tigard PART II: THE PLAN Chapter 5: A Vision Parks, recreation facilities, trails and open space are essential elements in enhancing the quality of life in Tigard. They foster healthy, active lifestyles, strengthen a sense of community, prptect the environment, contribute to a healthy economy, and help mitigate the effects of growth. The City of Tigard will provide a park system that: Contributes to overall community livability and pride; ® Balances the impacts of growth and increasing density with parks and greenspaces; ® Reduces auto-dependency and enhances recreation opportunities by connecting recreation resources, community destinations, and neighborhoods with trails and greenways; Posters stewardship of natural resources, such as floodplains and waterways; Provides equitable distribution of parks and recreation opportunities throughout the City; ■ Builds and maintains partnerships with area schools and others to provide programs and facilities; Provides safe and well-maintained parks and recreation facilities; and Provides for effective and economically sound management ofpublic resources. Building Connections To address key issues facing the City of Tigard--the issues of dense development, decreasing availability of land, scarce financial resources, and increasing need for park and recreation facilities--a guiding vision is needed. The vision is one of building connections. In this vision, agreements are developed and strengthened between the school district and the City to provide recreational facilities that are available to students and the community at large. Connections are built between parks and neighborhoods, parks, and schools so that school children can walk or ride their bicycles safely from home to the park, and from the park to school. Coalitions are formed with neighboring cities to build a connected network of trails along rivers and streams so residents of all the cities may move through greenways and open spaces without impediment from political boundaries. Partnerships are formed between the business community and the City to support the development of new trails and parks. Page 24 MIG, Inc. Cityhy of Tigard Draft Park System Master Plan Chapter 6: Recommendations This portion of the Master Plan presents recommendations for implementing the vision for a future parks, recreation and open space system. Recommendations address the following areas: ■ Park Facilities; ® Management; ® Maintenance; and Recreation Programs. For each of these areas the following information is provided: An issue statement; ■ Primary benefits associated with providing the facility or service; m A brief description of the proposed recommendations; Suggested benchmarks by which to measure progress; and ® An action plan with recommended priority rankings. Detailed recommendations for park facilities, maintenance, management, and recreation programs, are included as tables in each section of this chapter. Park Facilities ISSUE STATEMENT Tigard is struggling to maintain its quality of life as the city and the area around it continues to become more densely populated. Vacant land is scarce, and the city is bisected in many places by heavily traveled four-lane roads. It will not be possible to meet the community's need for park facilities solely through land acquisition. Emphasis should be placed on alternate methods such as: developing joint use agreements to develop park facilities on existing publicly-owned land; developing safe and convenient on-street and off-street pedestrian/bicycle travel routes from neighborhoods and schools to parks; and cooperating with other Tualatin River communities to develop connections that expand the recreation opportunities for all area residents. Existing parks should be expanded and renovated and, where possible, land should be acquired and new parks developed. These recreation resources should be equitably distributed throughout the community to provide access to all residents. i i BENEFITS Parks, recreation facilities and open spaces provide many important benefits to a community. The benefits include: C Foster child and youth development; m Provide parks and open space as relief from urban development; 0 Meet the recreation needs of residents of all ages through accessible facilities and opportunities; MIG, Inc. Page 25 Draft Park System Master Plan City of Tigard Provide access to the natural environment; and Build a sense of community. RECOMMENDATIONS Renovate and expand existing parks to improve park condition, increase recreational opportunities, meet current safety requirements, and provide access for people with disabilities. ® Acquire and develop additional 96 acres of community parks to meet future population needs and ensure geographical accessibility to all residents; ■ Improve access to basic recreation opportunities for all Tigard residents by acquiring and developing additional 133 acres of neighborhood parks in underserved neighborhoods (areas that do not have a neighborhood or community park within %i-mile of residences or must cross heavily traveled streets to reach a park); Where adequate land is not available for a neighborhood park in underserved areas, develop pocket parks or linear parks. Continue the policy of acquiring land along stream corridors to protect the resource and for the purpose of developing multi-purpose trails. Provide public access to natural areas and trail-related recreation by developing trails through greenways and in natural areas. ■ Provide an interconnected pedestrian and bicycle system that links Tigard's parks, greenspaces, neighborhoods, work places, schools, and commercial centers. Mitigate the effects of development by providing pocket parks/urban plazas in commercial areas. o Pursue joint use agreements with the Tigard-Tualatin School District, Tigard Water District, and other partners to share the cost of land acquisition, facility development, and maintenance. BENCHMARKS ® Percent of residents who live within %i-mile radius of a neighborhood or community park; Number of total acres of park land per 1000 population; ■ Number of miles of multi-purpose trail; ■ Percent of residents who live within %i mile of a multi-purpose trail; ® Number of multi-purpose trail users, including pedestrians, bicyclists, and wheelchair users. PLANNING AREA ANALYSIS The findings of the Parks System Resource Inventory & Analysis combined with the results of the community involvement process indicate that new neighborhood and community parks, additional open space and trails, and new recreation facilities will be necessary to meet Tigard residents' needs as the population grows. To evaluate areas of greatest need, the city was divided into planning quadrants: Central, East, South and West. Planning area boundaries are illustrated on Figure 2. Page 26 MIG, Inc. 7 'ELL YAYLOWS I Rn .v. d~ G E O G R A P H I C INFORMATION 6Y S'r6M UNDESERVED NEIGHBORHOODS City of Tigard BEAVERTON A n~ ud,~~sr 1 Parks Master Plan - J,~ 2ti _ 2Fsdy~:: \1F~, t yKI -y„fa `r~ r rye ~ I rt ~M.d~naw~ Jr ENO= t ys ,fir 6 s l ,i I w Fm, r --T -4 :.y,~~Syrs ~+.w,~+--+nl - numrn f d, a~~r I ~'ts ~ F~~gt J wxa ~ I~r ~ 0.1 4yr~. 7k, ~ WM PFAFf(E x"'""~' 4fr!' ravawaNtvnoa f -4 t.'ir+_ w&s dfyl y t~, ~€d'`^2 '~I x f^tsd eq~k € f~~ k 1 H~~, ~ .l I, '~•N L-n k^k~~~ a .~~f,p ~~atr x~ `~r ~ f`!~-r s~,k~ ~c,i.. ir,n w.. -1 F C N ,morn ,I 1-r/. ~ ~ t. < gym` '""mom ~ 4 r ~ y 5~i'a~. - v!l+, r go . fi. ',iCOfs\~ ~ ~s ~ ;.°~a>i'. r.~ y4,' ~oh~° r.u.aivres ' e ' iH. I• I ~ ^:s, i ~ ~ - 'm+ J\ • Sm a, k!4w, ~,d~I a~,nn e.:muw i we-d Noig-nd. 1~L~1' t'~ --y. ~ ~ 7 '4 ~w`~ ~ ~ ~R~ T{ \ / . \ $ ~3'e,~~ r S-I _ 1 t ~ y `J z lZ h b Y p~ T p~ ;!cam ~f,'. ~ n I k• .y.~ ~3<d• r,l 1 F+ 7 1 Y yl \ `\S~J ra.~.~'• '1 E 2 R es hi4'i{t F` ~§NV,w .y Y f lm~f. ! h ff S ` / / 1..:1. E-5 i v;e t.c vj',,,"y II $~ffµf.:, ~a; ~ s"sa w s n ~ r ~ $ ~ ~ ~ F'.X "1 ~ ~ cr I ~I ~ i r O 12 a t ) e s 1 . 6 1 1/ 9 ,,a. f t,. s, ~ ire - t i ~1 : f f F ^~;y^•^wl ~a t , ~1 Q+Ib ~+~'.4vN' i aft` ~,,,4 i' ~ t q ss 1✓ yMRg"yr.~» 1y d*~+h.Fb„a I f„ ,'e % ` 4,`y L Rd Y f ~.,0rv I t i+ - x.e I L~--- .Y~ 7 J 1 t. 2 4;3 r J { r ( - c = _ i r . ~5ek .r 'r I( ~I 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 Feet I / r s r 1"=2300 feet City of Tigard r q f _ ' r'~' Information on this map is for general location only and i should be verified with the Development Services Division. 1 ( DURHAM -F 19125 9W! Hall Blvd Tigard, OR 97223 ' r. (503) 839.4171 http flwww.cLligard.or U6 I.%gisfprojectslparkplanfpoyf b.prt Plot date; Nov 5, 1998; L.IGISiPRWECTSIPARKPLANtPARKPLAN.APR community Devolopment t. t City of Tigard Draft Park System Master Plan Underserved neighborhoods have been identified in each of these districts. An underserved neighborhood is defined as: ■ A neighborhood in which residents are not within %z mile of either a neighborhood or a community park; or A neighborhood where residents are separated from park facilities by an arterial, a major collector, or railroad tracks. Twenty-four underserved neighborhoods throughout the four planning quadrants are identified. These areas are shown on Figure 2. Through a series of meetings with the Master Plan Task Force, Planning Commission, community members, and City of Tigard staff, facility improvements were recommended to address all underserved neighborhoods. In addition to developing new facilities, recommendations also include: Renovate and expand existing community and neighborhood parks to improve park condition, increase recreational opportunities, meet current safety requirements, and provide access for people with disabilities; Establish and implement a City beautification plan. Suggested improvements were identified for all planning areas, and priorities were established for suggested improvements. Using these priorities, a Park Facility Action Plan was developed for each planning area to address community needs to the year 2008 (Tables S through 9). The Action Plan includes a list of recommended improvements for: Pocket Parks; ■ Neighborhood Parks; ■ Community Parks; Linear Parks/Trails; Greenspace/Greenways; Recreation Centers and Facilities; City-wide improvements, such as an ADA transition plan and renovating children's play areas, are listed as General Improvements, and are identified in Table 10. The priority level (1 through 3, with 1 being the highest priority) of each recommended improvement is identified. MIG, Inc. Page 29 i Table 5 Facility Priorities Central by ~ T . E r T I y<•~OR U'M1S~ '7 iif?1V iFil d~') °9~'t~~~iYial 1Wa +1 G ] t ~4'' l Y 7 Tk gV 1 ~ ~ 'l t .r z i SC ~ t i X Complete Pathfinder/Genesis Trail System rFE-St' x y7 a t M r,Tr tt 5.. -Co ~ ~'R'itf' -annQtV ~C ~Ra11 N; as l5 ~t@,'~ r ty j M ;1 ic5`1't J~ u^N. 3^b:..fs-n.L.v.... • i _ t - x~~~ns, X Develop pedestrian/bicycle connections among parks and trail systems Y X. Acgture land and develop a fleighorhood;park x Acquire land and complete Englewood linear park t x Renovate Cozriniercid--.-Park X Expand and renovate Jack Park t, C 1 x ,Acqurie land rand de~elap a ineighborhood park x' Develop a neighborhood park in cooperation with Tigard Elementary C-2 School x Develop 4" ture park bn cooperation with Fowler Middle School S E VJ d Table 6 Facility Priorities East ~ fo ( 1 t r i r J" t ° 'n f N .r tip' y r Plannin area d& l t• 1.i ..z . ,r.. v~.r..1~J~.,~i:,~.~1 ,irtiS~"~4t ~Mi.e~~ 3 4 ~ yfi},`z 4 i , y +t ,y. v r K r , r, i A x L t, r,, 7 w _ SeeWSWe/ec~eral 1"iands to deve~ope pec~estr!/bacycle cross.ngV hw ii l t a of t t .xr Y t r 1 i JJ .1/E ~ t F Xti 4i ~ `i { A l Y f .~Jt l7 7~~ {fFU L x Develop Ash Creek Trail System F{r tr 7rlr - YfiN n. .au J~'t!.' 6 ,.`n.M+y~T1 y N',',~,yF rx ,r i - M " t i t $1 y f ZF R ~t~ r r 1 V7 tv79y' ;;"+r~^ i +44 an/ arks, and trail syste~s lonn g ec4ons; np t `Yti x Ievelpp,~edesrrihaeyc 6,, E-3 x Acquire greenspace for future neighborhood park ~C~nreenburg:. x A.cgtur6-land and developlnhber$oodbark E-1 x 00ghliorhooii), E-1 x Acquire greenspace E .2 x Develop a neighborhood park ii cpoperat on with Metzger Elementary E-4 x Acquire land and develop a pocket park x Acquire land "and develop; an east. side community park a i ai i Table 7 Facility Priorities - South ~~IFllll~i! r`~PBlC 'Ory r X zr ~b' ybtd"dd ~xR~~ k tt {y f e r r h; ~Vn r °s t f De +elop~oaptuse agse menf wadi gtut ? atft4, istnc to develo ` S, r . ! J'- rtY vn t$. = ; _ aaeaghliorhiod'park 4ter'b~ay aaexgt~rhocxa s f , ; L ..:..r.'E. a~ _.~_..x ....a. ..a...c:., u..r1.L+r~,.. x.i u-,.......,..,_ ,.u,.... y.+ra~r. .x u.a.s_4.'~..:.7;:?s __.~.,...~~5 S-5 x Acquire land and develop a neighborhood park ~aa % aL . 5~' i~ ass wr ~r ? r,77 R e v g ?F~ 'ter ~3 T z ?r ' j6~L3rr yk1~f r{£ f ' 1 t ' s1.1 s♦^7,rt~ °r/'+ j S k, ,•,.,i.~.." P' i r~f~ %v; ~i `i' :i.•tHr~ -1cW wi~`dIl p tti~ t ' 1 1 ~krr t r"~ ~ ss p e3Zt lt1Pi ~+ookt ar x r ? 4 $ L 162Ta ,ku,xt n Liu ._t r.. W .:~.sa .T.. ..:E4.:...u ..r ....t .,~~F x Expand and improve Fanno Park Co x nstrict trriiiils connecting Avenue w..._ , _ . Build Tualatin River pedestrian bridge in partnership with City of x Tualatin X Complete Fanno CvU Trail =i x Complete the Tigard segment of the Tualatin River Greenway Trail x Develop ,pedestrian/bicycle connections among parks and trail'systetns S-3 x Acquire land and develop a neighborhood park in cooperation with Twality Junior High and Templeton Elementary School S-6 x ' Develop a neighborhood Bark ori,City property I X, S-1 x Acquire land and develop a neighborhood park Table 8 Facility Priorities West t ~ k f ~ y "r ark' c - f 4,~ y, g,~ ~ I i r lr ~ r. -r ,~rJl~,;i' ~ r ~f .1,~.~W , ~ r' e y i ti3 x°',~~, 1i r1y~f S', r~ z_'~I~ a r~ ~r r~~f'~',~~x~~`` 7L"66s~~i~.~ r i~ r ~9 Sir}{any" '75 ^ds n. kl3'!tv'S T+"rL r r ae !L`r atw. r :xu- is 777 ' Tici. {n r r 9 4~ 1w t. ,S `F'rci2 .'T. r^(rJ~ c Asa a R evelop la~ wt; -side Comma."'ty ark ~ ~cuope ~dnf ~ ~y a ~R ,S'~`E t,.Y; *N y , t v?' d cp_{`,~'L.,,~3 r'J1,4 &1,,•, t~^ , p 1?1~ i Y(1 >y, p + i 4 ~t'4 - h ee r. r'`e f- ~ y~~'r,at? i.` "bC'ttalaflnCr~}ool ~bS4CS~+1. ~;.1'~hN iat'e-_~? k: x Develop pedestrian/bicycle connections among parks and trail systems 4 f. T ~ tl^F ' M H Gry .Y- ,.C, ^T• ?P " }tC'SM: ~'LF" F'^~C fi, ra+ +I M1-' .Fa+" b~r~,"• r.:.6r r ~m-f 7' r a 1 7' .d a ~~-T f r, i y { p y1'/~" ~~fh aacalai~ ant to+yeritly,~; "16 ! +"'al , Arid ~'1 (i9 M DVvePYp y~ pQ ~l1 ` 5~ y~ Cry 44 ✓i' f5 J ft".Y" 4 J 1 ° ~Ytl ~ acq x'f~+~,~ ~ ~ f } ~ y ~rkF ~Y.a{fi{J~M9~,r ~.3 ><r~yr h-+~;. >A~ss't+zr ~Develop pedestrian/bicycle connection from proposed neighborhood x parks to Washington Square ]Develop a neighborliaed park (Albertson`s donahou) . ; ` W_2 x Acquire land and develop a neighborhood park W 3 x Pursue pemiissaon to develop tvvr~:linear `parks within'BPA,easement W-4 x Accquire land and develop a neighborhood park W^5 x 'and deve_ d,parkAcquire.and op aIieighbohoo W_7 x Develop a pocket park in cooperation with Tigard Water District H a Table 9 Facility Priorities - General f', 7 Prroru3' Planning Area , chon x Ianprove the drainage and condition of sports fields , ;K i 7, Develop a site-specific ADA transition plan with cost estimates and a x phasing plan that addresses parking, pathways, and access to facilities. X: Upgrade existing,playareas to meet current safety guidelines x Provide rollerblade/skateboard facilities (1 per 18,000 population) x, Provide fenced dog parks (I`per 18,000 population) x Provide additional interpretive signage in natural areas -x Install drainage at the sand volleyball courts x Build an indoor recreation facility/community center a addittonal ' rouP}chic facilities; 1 r6 x : Provid g. P . pe ,00populat on) Provide additional play areas for children (1 per 2,200 population) x including facilities for children under 5 years of age x, Provide additional basketball lino s ` 1 er l 100 ulation x Build more basketball courts (1 per 5,000 population) x: Develop neighborhood recreation nodes or alcoves in linear parks ; Provide additional aquatic facilities in cooperation with Tigard-Tualatin + x School District (1 per 18,000 population) x Build additional soccer fields (I per 1500 population) s x Build additional softball fields (1 per 3000 population) x Provide additional baseball fields (1 per 1,800 population) x Provide an additional volleyball court (1 per 18,000 population) Draft Park System Master Plan City of Tigard Master Plan Map Figure 3 illustrates Tigard's existing parks and open space, and Master Plan recommendations for facility improvements. The map includes much of the same information shown on Figure 2, Underserved Neighborhoods, but also includes proposed parks. ■ Existing parks are shown with a solid black border. r Proposed parks that are included in the ten-year Capital Improvement Plan (Table 11) are shown with a dashed black border. Other recommended projects are listed in Appendix B and are shown with a dashed gray border. The different park types are indicated as follows: ■ Pocket Parks P 4 Neighborhood Parks N ■ Community Parks C o Linear Parks L ■ Greenspace/Greenways G Page 36 MIG, Inc. OEQORAPNIC INFORMATION SYSTEM w. ' t MASTER PLAIN ~ DRAFT BEAVERTON City of Tigard p o Parks 1 L Master Plan TAft :;j ' r« ?i:i`:i;::i; S: •C~{y y,~ oupPwxwnx F . COMM ~ avmra sp~t~~ $ ti .1 ~ 4J ~ 4'39.r cxM*M ~`-S f owo~ raanarwaa 00 nwdcn~ 4r , .a ~ ~ xC d N«Wxx„~„ 9L . r 4 ® m2ww.r ~ w«2xw+N `N L t a ® -9- ;f:::n=~~n G f 62 66 '4 .1. •~,If1L+ -12¢2 s S-S j . ~ ~ ~ r w ' ...t ~ ,"~~?~N ~ ~,~(e r ur gp ~ w3 f - _ - 'C ° "7 ; kY' S~'.`~1^ ' ~ 4 '2 y .J.2i~`~„~4~ yN-1.~., i .~.r,ni wr - ~ ~ ' M~ i.. r I ~ ~ i ~x err FSy~r. 'iii • I _ i A t - r+.+ T b a t g; j ~ _ r 'r, x r try ay ° 5 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 Feet . r r ~ 1'=2300 feet -t'i' - 6vi'ie i'•~ J lYr' YM y - dit if Tigard AMa~ar~a~ts ~ F information en this map is for general location only and E DURHAM shoublbe ver9iedwith the Development Services Division. i f ^ + 13125 SW Hall Blvd i Tigard, OR 97223 tgixlaojx7sbakplsMPW9b,pt - - - - (503) 639.0171 '..j COmmunityDavEbprne9t tr.r.-• - http/fxww.cibgardor.us r plot data Nov S, 1999' I •p_:9...0°r fECTSI ARkPr. A .oAR' PLA APR "i I 77 City of Tigard Draft Park System Master Plan Management ISSUE STATEMENT Developing a park system that meets the needs of Tigard and the Urban Services Area will depend, in large part, on creative and cooperative interagency and intergovernmental agreements for the joint use of public facilities. Because Tigard has grown so significantly, it is time to re-evaluate how park and recreation facilities and services should be managed. Efforts should be increased to keep the public informed and involved in the development and stewardship of their park system. BENEFITS ® Contributes to efficient use of resources (staff, land, and dollars); Builds support for park facilities; ■ Increases community ownership and participation; and o Enhances public safety. RECOMMENDATIONS Re-evaluate the organizational structure for providing park and recreation services and facilities in the future; Establish guidelines for developing joint use agreements and partnerships; o Improve dissemination of information about park facilities; ■ Promote Adopt-a-Park and Citizen Patrol programs; and ■ Involve volunteers in the establishment of a City beautification program. BENCHMARKS ■ Number of facilities addressed through joint use agreements; Number of hours of volunteer participation in park development and stewardship; and ■ Number of partnerships developed with businesses and civic organizations. Recreation Programs ISSUE STATEMENT Tigard area residents have limited opportunities to participate in recreation programs. Of those who participated in the public involvement program, most would like to have recreation programs and services more readily available to them. The City of Tigard should establish an organizational structure to deliver recreation programs and services to residents of Tigard and the Urban Services Area. BENEFITS Good recreation programs provide accessible, diverse activities-- both programmed and unprogrammed--for people of all ages and abilities. Benefits accrue to the both the individual and the entire community: ■ Provides positive activities for youth; Builds a sense of community; MIG, Inc. Page 39 Draft Park System Master Plan City of Tigard Enhances appreciation for the environment; Contributes to strong families; and Encourages tolerance and respect for people with different abilities and backgrounds. RECOMMENDATIONS ■ Develop an organizational structure to deliver recreation services to residents of Tigard and the Urban Services Area. Maintenance ISSUE STATEMENT As the parks, recreation and open space system expands, maintenance responsibilities increase. Maintenance staff does an excellent job of utilizing resources and volunteers. As new park facilities are developed, funding for maintenance must also be increased. Maintenance management systems should be implemented to improve efficiency in the 21 st century. BENEFITS ■ Contributes to efficient use of resources (staff, land, and dollars); ■ Builds support for park facilities; ■ Increases community ownership and participation; and ■ Enhances public safety. RECOMMENDATIONS ■ Develop a maintenance management plan for each park and green-way; ■ Increase maintenance staff as facility acreage increases; and Continue and expand upon the successful utilization of volunteer labor. BENCHMARKS ■ Number of maintenance management plans developed; ® Number of hours of volunteer participation in park maintenance activities; Number of maintenance staff/park land acre. Page 40 MIG, Inc. d Table 1® Management, Maintenance & Recreation Action Plans for r d 2 Action Management . x Establish guideluies for deve,lo "m o V g j int use'agreements and partnerships Pursue joint use agreements for the use of sports and recreation facilities owned by the x School District Pursue,loint P use oppoi~inuties or the develo went pf nei a boyhoo dan ccoriiYnuni P ty r n ,parks Pursue joint use opportunities for development of linear parks with developers, x schools, hospitals, private industry, utilities, transportation providers, and other public agencies x Improve dissemination of information about park facilities x Promote Adopt-a-Park and Citizen Patrol programs x Involve volunteers in establishing a, City beautification program., x Encourage business partnerships and sponsorships Seek State/Federal funding to provide safe pedestrian/bicycle crossings of Highway x 217 and Highway 99 to.improve access to parks and recreation facilities Determine the most efficient and cost effective method of managing parks and x recreation services over the next 10 years Develop system-wide design standards for site furnishings including park and. trail x lighting Develop standards for construction of new trails and other facilities that will reduce x long-term maintenance requirements x Develop programs and facilities which interpret Tigard's history Develop information program which educates the public about the maintenance level x for each facility type. Recreation Develop an organizational structure to, manage park facilities and deliver recreation x programs and services to residents of Tigard and the Urban Services Area in the future. Table 10 Management, Maintenance & Recreation Action Plans 1 2 3 cts~►n; n r, Maintenance Ir u RIII 'v"' p~ p Xniarease maintenance staf# as facility r e increases y f r ~'N`~A ' n. l { x Develop maintenance management plan for each park and greenway ' 5 Coritwue to exparid-Upori tfie siccessfvl use of volunteers j City of Tigard Draft Park System Master Plan Chapter 7: Ten-Year Capital Improvement Plan To successfully implement the Master Plan recommendations, and expand parks and recreation facilities, an adequate budget is needed. This chapter identifies capital improvement and maintenance funds needed to realize Tigard's vision for the future. To accommodate future growth, a Park Facility Funding Plan has been developed that addresses acquisition, development, and renovation of the following: ■ Pocket Parks; • Neighborhood Parks; ■ Community Parks; ■ Linear Parks/Trails; and • Greenspace/Greenways The funding plan addresses fiscal years 1999-2000 through 2008-2009. The funding plan for priority land acquisition and facility improvements is provided in Table 11. This table corresponds to the Park Facility Action Plan presented in Tables 5 through 9. Improvements are, organized into the following categories: • Parks; General. Table 11 includes: ■ Planning Area: This column indicates the planning area where each facility improvement is located. Improvements have been listed in the following order: Central, East, South, West, and General. Planning area boundaries are indicated on Figure 2. ■ Facility: This column lists Master Plan recommendations for facility improvements. • Total Estimated Cost: This column represents the total estimated cost for acquisition, development and/or renovation of each facility. • $15,000 per acre floodplain acquisition cost; $150,000 per acre buildable residential land acquisition cost; • $300,000 per acre buildable commercial land acquisition cost; • $80,000 per acre for park development or redevelopment cost • $350,000 per mile ($70 per lineal foot) for development of paved trail with landscaped corridor; • $100,000 per mile for development of open space soft surface trail; • $150,000 per playground renovation; • Proposed Ten-Year Capital Improvement Plan: Proposed budgets to implement the priority improvements are shown in the next ten columns. MIG, Inc. Page 43 Table 11 Ca ital Improvement Plan :aw> f ~ hh t 1 ~ ~ ~ i~'~~i'~ ~ -tit t i v~h6 ~r d;t k;s~ n ~~r 2i tr k r v i ZGiD12YJb2^ ~lsss,ao~o a~aaaons , Ja a~+'a'~ i b? ?OaY 4 f a '':081 1:. General Develop a site-specific ADA transition plat with cost estimates and $30,000 $30.000 phasing plat General Develop a fenced dog park on City-owned property $20,000 General Upgrade playgrounds to current safety standards $1,350,000 $50,000 $80,000 $185,000 $175,000 S-2 Develop a neighborhood park in cooperation with Tigard Water District $400,000 $400,000 ct w `9tr8roArl aESfAU East Develop a master plan for Ash Creek Trail System $80,000 $80,000 Central Acquire land for Woodard Park/Walnut Street trail $82,500 $82,500 General Improve the drainage and condition of sports fields $1,000,000 $250,000 $250,000 $500,000 South Implement the Cook Park Muter Plan $1,710,000 $710,000 $1,000,000 South Build Tualatin River pedestrian bridge in partnership with City of $1,000,000 $1,000,000 Tualat in SFbtota/Z101(1D;ZflD1 .,?dZr Central Construct Woodard Park/Johnson Street trail , boardwalk & bridge as $50,000 $50,000 part of Woodard Park Renovation General Provide 3 rollerblade/skateboard facilities $450,000 $150,000 Central Renovate Woodard Park $690,000 $690,000 S-5 Acquire land for a neighborhood park $975,000 $975,000 SubtotslZllD1 OZ i~, y00;OW South Construct Cook Park/RR tract: trail $80,000 $80,000 C-2 Develop Pathfinder/Genesis trail segment from Fairhaven to Gaarde $84000 $84000 Street South Acquire land to expand Fanno Park $2251000 $225,000 S-6 Construct Hall Blvd/Bonita Road segment of Fanno Creek Trail (trail, $236,000 $236,000 boardwalks & bridges) Table 11 continues) Capital Improvement Plan ToM/ f ' ~ f Sarfar rad MAXW: 204M = Aw zaao;a0ai ?,007,8008 aooa,", ~ ~ COIJ K ~ '.J 11,E Acquits land in cooperation with Tigatd/Tualatin school district for a community park and community center 6,020,000 12,090,000 ' Sebtot+l2g23,2G10~ ' ,07,0$0,,000 Genera! Upgrade playgrounds to current safety standards $050,000 $90,000 $95,000 $50,000 W-6 Acquire land in cooperation with Tig2rd/Tualatin school district for a $4,020,000 $2,010,000 community park and community center SS Construct Bonita Road/Dtdium segment of Fanno Creek Trail (trail, $415,000 $415,000 boardwalk & bridges) Sabtotsf2ptN 10ClS a?,42f,0Y0 S6 Develop a neighborhood park on city property $400,000 $400,000 Central Acquire land to expand Jack Park $3!0,000 $310,000 C-4 Acquire land for a neighborhood park (Greenbu neighborhood) $1,500,000 $1,500,000 75777-7777 j, W SrrbrotirfZ00S?A06 Fy¢00,000 W-6 Develop a community center in cooperation with the school district $2,500,000 $2,500,000 3?rSODi000 -Subto6al7 E-1 Acquire land for Ash Creek Trail 65,000 $45,000 E-7 Acquire land for Ash Creek Trail $43.000 $43,000 Central Renovate Commercial Park $81,000 $81,000 South Construct Tualatin River/85th Avenue trail $120,000 $120,000 Central Acquire land to connect F-ngte%nod Park segments $202,300 $202,500 S3 Develop a neighborhood park $520.000 $520,000 \t'-1 Desslop nature park on donated land $640.000 $640,000 S3 Acquire land for a neighborhood park $730,000 $750,000 Subrotd2M7-2408 S3 Dc%v)op a neighborhood park in cooperation with Twatity junior High $ and Templeton Elementary Schools $400,000 South Construct Cook Park/85th Avenue Trail $100,000 $100,000 E-1 Develop Ash Creek Trail from Hay 217 to Fanno Creek Tral $182,000 $182,000 E-3 Acquire greenspue $1,350,000 $1,330,000 Central Renovate jack Park $720,000 $420,000 Subrotz+f1g08,^..tl09 _ ,'~SO1,000 City of Tigard Draft Park System Master Plan OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE FUNDING ANALYSIS The Maintenance Funding Plan is illustrated in Table 12. Maintenance staff and material cots were calculated for the following areas: Pocket Parks; o Neighborhood Parks; Community Parks; Linear Parks; Trails; and ■ Greenspace/Greenways. The following maintenance costs per acre are based on average maintenance costs of cities of similar size in Oregon, and were used to project future maintenance costs: ■ $3,000 per acre for pocket parks and neighborhood parks; • $3,500 per acre for community parks; e $2,500 per acre for linear parks; ■ $3,500 per mile for trails; e $1,500 per acre for greenways/greenspaces; ■ $2,000 per acre for reservoirs; $12,200 per acre for City Hall Table 12 shows how maintenance costs can be expected to grow based upon the 10-year Capital Improvement Plan (Table 11). It also shows the impact of adding Tigard-Tualatin School District properties to the acreage maintained by the Parks/Grounds Division, a move that is being discussed by the City of Tigard and the Tigard-Tualatin School District. MIG, Inc. Page 45 ~ T.,- ---..W...,.~..~-..... .a. ,...~.n_~_....,..1~.~..._. .-.~.....c..,..1 .~~.«....Y`~~..~....._~i._~,~~t J ~~~.iu_.i......~,.~_..~.~~~...1:......._.....,.._:...i.w.,W..v.-s-v..~.l....:....r.._..-_.~~... u...._.....v_. ti:~ FF F. tI 6 : Fable 12 4 Y` Park Maintenance Funding Plan Esr witW tilaln 17 4 ftoacca is 3 t'":', a 'Rewmmoadcd . Ae<oGmtnded i hk 1 LSnrepf Arrea Fa `ndiforc dit ro r 200& 2067 .200& F~GIi 4 or - dK PK,;peo p: t999 2000 200t @02 2003 2004 2005- z ~h01a tiAcrr!&tile pKielRSi14 cam, 2000 2001 r,J'2003 , _ 2005 2006 i 2(3 ..,,2000 2009 i>" Fc Pocket Parks 1.20 $3,000 $3,600 $3,600 $3,600 $3,600 $3,600 $3,600 $3,600 $3,600 $3,600 $3,600 $3,600 77~~ j, .7777 Nei' borhoatrJ?arks, .F„ „ 8;80 $3,000 i $26,400 $41,400 $41,400, ,:$62-400 $41,400 62,400 577,400. $62,440 $77,400. $75,940.:$101>400 Commum Parks 103.00 $3,500 $360,500 $360,500 $360,500 $360,500 $360,500 $360,500 $360,500 $360,500 $360,500 $360,500 $360,504 I 77.77 A 7-7 7777 - 7. 77 :j liiieat,Parks „ :3750 $2504 $93,750 ,'$93,750. $93,750. ' `$93,150x ':°5131,250 '$93>750 ''$131,250 S131;250 $131250• ''$133,250 .:$131,25®° E Trails 8.00 $3,500 $28,000 $28,000 $28,000 $28,143 $33,339 $36,760 $36,760 $36,959 $36,459 $37158 $38,881 ~ - c Cs®tth' Greeds aaes%NaturalAteas 13270 '$1,500 .$!99050 $199,050 ..$207,3@0- $21703D $247,300, 3257,250 $229,650 $266;250 $269,850 $298,411 $284,85Q W~l Reservoirs 30.2 $2,000 $60,500 $60,500 $60,500 $60,500 $60,500 $60,500 $60,500 $60,500 $60,500 $60,500 $60,500 - l1ai1 4.00 $1 2204 $48,80@, $48,840 ;;,.$48,800: :.$18,800 548,800_..:$48,800 $48,800 .,$48,800448800 ,:$48,600, $48,800 Total Projected Maintenance Cost $820,600 $835,600 $843,850 $874,743 $886,689 $923,560 $948,460 $970,259 $988,559 $1,018,',19 3.1,02y,75- 1 Total Staffing (FPE) or Outsource Equivalent -1 11.70 11.92 12.03 12.47 12.64 13.17 13.52 _13.8411.10 14.52 14.68 Notes: Maintenance costs per acre are based on maintenance costs reported by cities of similar size ff . in Oregon. For the purpose of calculating maintenance costs, newly acquired acreage is considered - greenspace until it is developed. i All figures represent current 1998 dollars and do not account for inflation. F =~l If maintenance of Tigard-Tualatin School District properties were assumed by the City of Tigard T7!&_rdZ TualahnEleincn Schools 45:+10 $3000 $136200: Parks/Grounds Division, another 7.23 171713 would be needed. The recommended expenditure per acre compares to the recommended expenditure per acre for the Ti and Tualatin Meddle Schools 53.00 $3,000 $159,000 following park types: Tt aid-Tt~alaGtl Ht Schools X7.00 $3,500 „$94,SG0 elementary schools neighborhood parks r Tigard-Tualatin School District Undeveloped Land 78.00 $1,500 $117,000 middle schools neighborhood parks i Total Projected Maintenance Cost $506,700 high schools community parks Total Staffing (FTE) or R • Outsource Equivalent 7.23 undeveloped land greenspaces(greenways Draft Park System Master Plan City of Tigard Chapter 8: Financing Sources System Development Charges Under the SDC fee schedule now being considered, $540,000 in revenue is projected for the coming fiscal year. This includes $92,000 that the City of Tigard will collect from development in the Urban Services Area contingent upon adoption of an Intergovernmental Agreement with Washington County. The proposed SDC fee schedule, scheduled for adoption in 1999, includes an automatic escalator tied to changes in land values and the Oregon Department of Transportation construction cost index. The proposed IGA with Washington County, which will allow the City of Tigard to levy a park SDC on new development in the Urban Services Area, will not affect other taxing structures. In other words, although the City of Tigard may develop parks in the Urban Services Area and collect SDC's to offset the cost of developing new parks, there will be no additional funds available to maintain those same parks. General Obligation Bonds Indications from citizens who participated in the master planning process are that Tigard residents would be willing to pay an additional $100 per year per household for park and recreation facilities and programs. Based on projections for numbers of households in Tigard over the next ten years, it appears that approximately $1.7 million could be realized during the year 2000, increasing to $2.1 million in 2008. Because of the "super majority" requirement for passing general obligation bond measures in odd-numbered year elections, the next viable opportunity to present this opportunity to voters will be in the general election in 2000. General Fund Revenues General fund revenues are, for the most part, generated through property taxes. These funds have not traditionally been used for the acquisition of park land or development of parks. User Fees and Rents The fees charged by the City of Tigard for use of sports fields are low compared to those charged by cities of comparable size. The City could reasonably be charging up to $75 per day for use of the sports fields. It would also seem that Tigard-based non-profit youth athletic organizations should not be given preferential rates over other Tigard-based non- profit organizations. Group site rental rates are also on the low side. Cities of comparable size charge from $30 to $45 per shelter during the week, and $38 to $115 per shelter Friday through Sunday. The City of Tigard could also reasonably raise its rates while maintaining the graduated fee schedule for number of participants. Page 48 MIG, Inc. City of Tigard Draft Park System Master Plan Other The proposed Capital Improvement Plan is based on anticipated revenue collected from systems development charges and through the sale of general obligation bonds. Any funds raised through grants from government agencies or private foundations would make it possible to accelerate the schedule of capital improvements and include additional recommended projects. MIG, Inc. Page 49 BIBLIOGRAPHY Arboreal Enterprises (September 1995). Inventory and Assessment of Forested Natural Areas on Bull Mountain. Tigard, Or: City of Tigard. Cogan Owens Cogan (1997). Evaluation of Alternatives for Parr Recreation and Open Space Services, Beaverton-Tigard Study Area. David Evans and Associates, Inc.(1995). City of Tigard Multi-Modal Pathways. Tigard, Or: City of Tigard. Fish-nan Environmental Services (December 1994). Local Wetlands Inventory. Tigard, Or: City of Tigard Facility and Fields Advisory Council to the Tigard-Tualatin School District Board (1998). Annual Report. Tigard, OR: Tigard-Tualatin School District. Lancaster, Roger A., National Recreation and Park Association (1990). Recreation, Park and Open Space Standards and Guidelines. Alexandria, VA: National Recreation and Park Association. Mertes, James D. and James R. Hall (1995). Parr Recreation, Open Space and Greenway Guidelines. Alexandria, VA: National Recreation and Park Association. MIG, Inc. (1998). Community Survey: Parr Recreation Facility & Open Space Needs Assessment.. Tigard, OR: City of Tigard. (1998). Community Workshop #1 Report. Tigard, OR: City of Tigard. (1998). Issue Scoping Interview Report. Tigard, OR: City of Tigard. (1998). Master Plan Task Force/Planning Commission Workshop #1 Report. Tigard, OR: City of Tigard. (1998) Master Plan Task Force/Planning Commission Workshop #2 Report. Tigard, OR: City of Tigard. (1998) Staff Workshop Report. Tigard, OR: City of Tigard. (1993) Universal Access to Outdoor Recreation: a Design Guide. Berkeley, CA. Murase Associates. City of Tigard Parks Master Plans for Cook Parr Fanno Creek Parr Summerlake Park. Tigard, OR: City of Tigard National Recreation and Park Association (1986). Park Maintenance Standards. Alexandria, VA. Oregon Department of Parks and Recreation (1996). 1995 Oregon Recreation Trails Plan. Salem, OR. Oregon Department of Transportation (1995). Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. Salem, OR: Oregon Department of Transportation Bicycle and Pedestrian Program. Oregon Parks and Recreation Department (1991). Oregon Outdoor Recreation Plan 1994 - 1999. Salem, OR. Oregon Progress Board (1992). Oregon Benchmarks: Standards for Measuring Statewide Progress and Government Performance. Salem, OR. Metro Service Area Market Profile Tigard Chamber of Commerce (1998). Tigard.• Our Livable City. Tigard, OR. Tigard, City of (1987). Tigard Park Plan. Tigard, OR. Tigard, City of (1997). Tigard Beyond Tomorrow. Tigard, OR. Tigard, City of (1996). Tigard Database. Tigard, OR. Percival Associates (1998). Tigard 2000 Trees. Tigard, OR: City of Tigard. U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (1997). Handbookfor Public Playground Safety. i APPENDIX A Parks and Recreation Facilities f Table A-1 Facilities Invent® : Parks ` fp k''.. o aq,t r'.;.. s +°t 5 FaYy -e+ n o~ 44 y ! r^i- '-f ti' f e - s S F:,x u 9 WF x ,two 3s (i li: ;ate ati # 4+, .~:^'y:,£iJ0 .C hnN rL¢ „ Mfr, F r' 4's + k, y., t , a=t . ""k s ak tF ~kYa a s., + e y . r N : R~ t' r4 t. k p. r 1 1. ~4,, 1 _ '~,d a" 'k' 1" .4.. '4-' i' ,+~'s'd•: S±'k.~. ',k~Op 'v a^ ~ F .{„rb[t L ~ M >,,V ~ i~s t y, ' .ti - ~6', t L w yk :f :5,4 A- `~.A t•"., .{^~T : t + Van 4.7: ?,n _ „n..,~7 - e 1k 114 Ju r' s^a .ga?z t,:, m t ! ao4 ^e' . w~ ;4~ .!'C ] ,}}',,'o-"4,' .k ft;gg_. ss•K;tt s~ ea A,x4 t., ,S u., k t. +r' 4 ~ ,T.,: i'.x a u' ~ - w f .r:. 'fir x.; ~~pp r . ~ ,~y ;.rA ~ ~e*~ .,,e r ~ YP;' r •..r ~ }~c; :,±ti ~ t t . e' ~ ~a ;'t''h~ p;;x' iR `A, a~ t. %-n v"C •,t"' y .l,~.n n;'Cs- .tire dr, h`r 4 t .F rat ~.:h;, r, •.'a~i t ♦'at ?J. ZrS~541~_ ? i3wct"a+S .a av Pocket Parks ~wxn fix'.. •rs -v> corn-'"a-, q . t*d ; ~t':*'=;a ~'-r ~rz•, ~ _ ' 4s 's•' Y' o- _ - s aae;~y rL'. e,''ts "+r "m+ ° "w r€ro;^,:''~"~{.,`"wk+^ vF. „ay i r' .t•,~' mks F~ ,,"'M3g..: „ a a . :t y I g ,r t< ~r"N . y s~'t id"a r i ' .fix~8,}V.~-Rk ~.d: ' ,.rar"x, s'xrr }r- K' .t.~~..,.ura Man Street Park 0.25 t' "W Z'N .yi,~y iR 5 'aif, It~:EL Sa4A+ ~ j~`,4c _ k•.,V't 4: ~:rrz, Vii:} Subtotal 115 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3, tB. '1 V - w d `„5' .ate- ,:.t -t ,d?° ro x. :.k,a # t > 5 ..,r e l~ n y s,: ,w' yv, t ',tt:; :0 „~rr ~ t`4 M ~ F• ,P ri , w F 9 .4, ~t,- Y I ~ ~ N .f'. t= -r~ ^?.:3 ~ k..3 a - r-r+n;~Ziw , ~'r q . s~'~"" .M ; , .;Ent ~ w mss. r_ x~^~~ w~.<t .,;kv" '.z`~ ' :a"•F'- r~. a . S - s r^ s d:,'» ',r t~ ' ? x: ..A' id5t'`~:jwa 'x'~ "t :r:° x a ,•if.,~..,~ ,~;a~ir;a ` .~,.i: . a . w k';t rs- va` .~3 ! ?v~i:'.~`~.~ tt wt ~'~;.;~~„~,a,a ..k ,E. n ~~ii. rrf ~y a~ t ~ fi~,tb f r. s;'~'.~"~e w a;-, .b~.,, :~:r,y;~ .tv¢r~+•:a~E=-.-,~ „4~'r. : - ~'.':t,. ..~:a Jack Park 5.50 1 1 1 1 0.38 no 1 ~~:-~.,,.,.~,,:;a; n ~r 'r~i r 's,".P',,,:F, ..5,.,, a„' "P"~.'..~`,. :r>~; y' 1 r,.•x „r':''~:°,: pi°h•+~ t S -Y ;y`~ ""irv 3,, .,~'k ':['"v~S 4~' k,,F n" C.a~,p'1'Cd k aYl. dr' T. .7 '„}C ":,;4p hax t3•: f". i~' 'M-i t ire; ' >:~'r 5 , '.5 Y•. ,,P' .'rv~it "'.~s.: k_x, ;1 ~atk Subtotal 8.76 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0.49 0 2 0 0 0 0 I K11 „;v~ ' , - r ''w'-,•a-: 'a jh,r; z. ° s 'S+r'~ „rs;rx,.>.. - 't. ,.:"'a ? .'4:9" i- -,'-y. »'s}, _,r~'.' =d x. at , i t: r _...P l,...,s, a,; r f c s r ~,,t % sna r. .a e>.: Ms h Gommttady l'arta , d' A a . _ d:. a. wti, Cook Park* 79.05 2 3 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 area 12 yes 15 2 3 2 portable 1 yes , Bryn , .,;!`jr r -r y sci n ° .'t, `s I~r;J -,h`-a r,,v-a'^a xl i ,r 1~Jz^E3 .sa.,y,Y .s5ta;, .~,3 s r: 'vt~ ,k.1 ;'t " 's.::q-. ~k d°~' Subtotal 10e 87 0 3 3 2 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 4, 3 2,9 1 15 3 4 3 2 2 ry T ! S 5. '4:td. i Il M 1 b ~:r Y.s>ti. _ tsY. .tt-.r. y'S 4 ,k'?.7. r, 3,•Wi 5?'^..>,`~•w:rrr"R:~'yp., x-,^" C++ r"+ FU 'mr r-,,*,';''.k"=- q:€ 'fir r" -#~n + "r-_. a:--:r :~.a`'• :`i1`iaji,° a::. .ttw:,. e..... .,d3~;:: - ..1, ~•„e4.FaII,,,,.ys<..~;..+ , ' .:.ts..w,:t ,;?-#,:f,.1,. i,.~>r,:auzf.„ _.ar 1,wia.~ ,*?~aX'~ b'fii°L Commercial Park 0.75 1 0.07 no 0 x ;w.r ....•2 v' T, re aYzxsp:,...v-,';+~,~" i"sr -^s^a •zq a t~';""". : .4' rc~.F ^s e 7- ;ais 2..,n.,"r-'z'"`'h "•,k,k`t` a, i W°i: . zxi t,x id -k 9 y:- f, $.-:-)rp~:a' P+''I,t i at ,.cz eK` i- i - rA~,a-:-lktk -L`„,o .+'t§. J'; a.• ,~yr ~'f y~r d 1, - .-z - h a w n' .y~ ~3 A`s a a piw n"' y" ? . ~~~e:'"-~;~r.: r~.. " ~`4' , ~ ~4;~t~ir4'3~-s~•f. 3 '~.+-x~£; ':~4Ur ~'r. a.z.eV ~ nu,t. ~,:Su~ a' M~;: ;",5r3~-i`.u+`r+ ,~fia. ~ .w~;. sa ~ .r.u:,;,.F: .+1'y ~«'~~t'wie. < a&' _~r~rr:s, e.a. t~s-<: - _ Fanno Creek 2180 1 t . . d 3 t: ~ -4 - lr: - :.ra ti ~ ~ '7~ c... - r t,7 L : r', 5J.'.'=a~ ,:''to-tt. ,.d,ae - :~~`r'ta".1', 'x-„ -•xx',:. ,rk.., i. _ Tk""f ...`i" .r7 -'~ti,}5~, c - G±: ; +,„a },..,x,S ,a,,,3 ,a. ,i:fi ) ` -'x ;ti a' F ye , i ~,t S . '"s ,Y= f.~,;f n. 'c.,~`~' w ,,~a. . 7 "r > .FE^ _"r' }~.f~r 'fir rd•° r ? - „P s ri r + E :~0 Total 150.30 1 3 3 3 4 2 2 2 1 1 3 4 9 5.6 1 17 3 4 3 2 2 Note: The Tigard Park system includes no football fields, conning tracks, tennis practice walls, er multi-purpose paved areas. r *Cook Park acreage includes 21.13 acres known as Lamb/Gray property at the north edge of Cook Park and 6.86 acres at the east edge recently purchased from Unified Sewerage Agency. c is is a Y Table A-2 F: Y, Facilities Inventory: Greenspace/Greenways ~ Total Facility Trail v E , Facalt' Total Facility M a " i~ Paoli Acre hliles u 113di, Place 0.63 n # 5.01 r p(Metro) 6.80 135th Adenue 0.24 0.90 74th/76th Avenues 3.14 Main Street to Ash Street* Ash tldeny'konneciion* ' 0.09 eadowglade 4.10 Betkely Creek / Cooper Creek 1 & 2 6.39 Merestone 1.25 E Bla& B: a Park 290 ~ oMingstar -A Bonita Road & Industrial Park 7.31 North Dakota to Tigard Street* 0,11 { t Biookway. 2.30 Pathfnder 1.80. 0.67 Cache Creek Park 11.68 Pick's Landing 6.40 t . Capstone 2.13 Rebecca Park 0.88 Castle at Brittany 0.78 Renaissance Woods 2.74 Clydesdale 0.30 Riverview Estates 2 82 E Colony Creek Estates 3.08 0.32 Scheleka Park 1.40 0.11 y F Creeksside Park 1.00 hadq IaBe 1.96 Dover Landing and Coact 3.39 Summer Hills Park 4.01 i•i Durham Road _ 0.32 135th& Scholls Ferry 597 j Estate Drive 1.70 errace Trails 2.50 0.23 1 Fair3 ca St. SW 0.06 tedeman St to West edge of Woodard Park* 029 i Fanno Creek (N. Dakota property) 214 Tigard Street and Addition. 3.31 099 Fein Street at 138th 2.63 ippltt Place 0,70 . Finley Park 0.38 Tualatin Drive 0.42 Genesis # 28c3 5.07 uataGa Rtvei°(Countrq Cloli ftacts} 225: FI Gentiewoods 1.27 Tualatin River (Hickoa Property) 0.09 E 9 , Plombng* ' ' 0.92 ~lowhtook Fazm O.5 GianfAveaue,to Morland Greensburg Road 0.11 mdsor Place 2.63 Hollytiee 1.3G ntterLake Dride 3.03 Hunters Glenn (SW 114th Terrace) 1.65 Woodard Park to Grant .Avenue* 021 ack}?ark " 1.00 olo Estat 237 ohnsan Street 0.29 FI -To -6.00. rat 13269 234`; 0.00 f ' *Proposed FY 98/99 Greenway Additions : E. ' Table A-3 1 6 n` Facilities Inventory: Tigard-Tualatin School District Facilities 1 Soft k Total Basket- ' Basket- Tennis open, Multi- Play Paced Surface Group j Facility Softball Baseball Soccer Football Running ball ball Tennis Practice Twf Purpose Equip- Recreation Recreation Picnic Picnic Paved "a Wien Path/Trail Path/Trail Area "a other F Diamond Diamond Field Field Track . Court , ....Fi Court . Wall Areas: < Elementuy Schools ;1r" X2.00 0 3(1a) ' o 0 0 4 " q q i. 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 Metzger 6.00 0 2(LL) 1 1 0 0 4 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 Q Didrastt soo 0 1) : q® 0 0... 4 © p: 1_.: 1 1 0:, o 0 0 0. 0 00 0 3(LL) 1 0 0 0 4 0 1 ] ] 1 0 0 0 0 James Templeton a. . 0.': b.:.... ,.::1,. ~ :Q,•, r, 4 5 0 0 0 0 0 - ~ 1 _ 1 0 2 5 Subtotal 45.40 0 ]S 5 0 0 r 1_ Fowler 37.00 2 3 4 1 1 0 6 6 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 1 Q. ' `i s 5 3 2 0 10 8 0 4 Q 0 0 1 0 0 0 Subtotal 53.00 3 F High ` School 27.00 2 3 4 2 1 0 2 4 0 1 0 0 0 Q 0 0 0 , rrm-d 5ti$rotal';; ` 27.00 2 3. 2 1. tf 2 4. U 1' 0 .0 0. 0 0 0 Q t.= Undeveloped Property Fow3ei,Pxo t 47.00 Bull Mountain Roads 7.00 "j Potconal School. 2400 • 7J Subtotal 7800 otdl 14 6 2 ..+'10 _ Lai s i Notes: little League fields also serve as softball fields. tNorth of Fowler Middle SchooL Large wetlands area, . 2Steep twain. Elementary school site :I 3Site is in litigation. Slated for middle school or elementary and middle school, Groundbreaking 2003 or later. 'j l I.j t k APPENDDCB Other, Recommended Projects Appendix B Other Recommended Projects s prat Eatfmated Action - C-1 Develop a neighborhood park $800,000 C7.1', Acquire land'for a neighborhood;park $1,500,000 f C-1/W-5 Construct trail between Jack Park and Bull Mt Road $224,000 t, Develop pedestaan/bicycle connecaon from ro osed neip boyhood 000 C 2 park toPathfin'der/Genesistxa system y p •P $70 C-2 Develop Pathfinder/Genesis trail segment from 115th to 118th Ave $168,000 cooperation with Tigard Elementary $400,000 C 2 Develop a neighborhood,park in C-3 Develop a nature park in cooperation with Fowler Middle School $800,000 :C-4• Develop pedestrian/bi `cycle coanecaon#rom proposed neighborhood $98,000 park to Fanno~Cieek Trail C-4 Develop pedestrian/bicycle connection from proposed neighborhood $140,000 park to Ash Creek Trail C-4 Develop a neighborhood park (Greenburg neighborhood) .$8001000 Central Construct Woodard Park/Walnut Street Trail (trail, boardwalk & bridge) $105,000 Central Revise Fanno Creek Park Master Plan to "reflect current wetland $50,000 regulations Central Develop trail through new segment of Englewood Park $70,000 E-1 Develop a.neighborhood park $800,000 E-1 Acquire land for a neighborhood park $1,500,000 E-2 Develop Ash Creek Trail from Hall Blvd so Hwy 217 $182 000,E-2 Develop a neighborhood park in cooperation with Metzger Elementary $400,000 1 { E-3 Acquire land for Ash Creek Trail $45,000 E-3 Develop Ash Creek Trail from 75th Ave to 64th Ave $196,000 3 E-4 Develop a pocket park $80,000 E-4 Acquire land for a pocket park $300,000 E-7 Develop Ash Creek Trail from Hall Blvd to Metzger Park $168,000 Appendix B Other Recommended Projects t 'e r~ k k h~ 6olR1~8t~718tCd East Develop a community park $1,600,000 East Acquire land fora comrnuntty park j6;000,000 S-5 Construct Bonita/Durham neighborhood trails, boardwalk & bridge $125,000 Construct DeCAmn Court connection to Fanno ~ru1Ct Tw(H'all/BontGi a- $-6 neighborhood trail, boardwalk &.badge) ` r} 1 a X86 f}QO a ::s,..rvx. ~ x Construct Fanno Creek Drive connection to Fanno Creek Trail S-G (Hall/Bonita neighborhood trail, boardwalk & bridge) $121,000 W 2 Develop a neaghboihaod park t $80Q,OOQ W-2 Acquire land for a neighborhood park $1,500,000 W 3 , Develop a neighborhood pa&(Albertsph s donation) :4320,0M W-3 Develop linear parks (two) within utility easements $400,000 W 4 . Develop a neighborhood pack $800,000 W-4 Acquire land for a neighborhood park $1,500,000 .-W-5 Develop a_aeighborhdod twk in cooperation anth Tigard Water Distaict $400 000 W-6 Develop a community park in cooperation with Tigard/Tualatin school $2,144,000 district W Develop a pocket park with tennis facilities in cooperation with Tigard $188 OQO WaterDisiiict General Install drainage at the sand volleyball courts $10,000 General. Add monument typE entry signs at twoYcommI parks. $20,000 General Provide additional interpretive signage in natural areas $50,000 General Design and.construct_neighborhood recreation nodes or alcoves tn,, $ 4QC,WO lineat park s Unfunded $ 25,360,000.00 4~3 1q9 Date: March 2,1999 From: Christie C. Smith & Friends, Tigard Residents To: Tigard City Council Re: Dog Parks Providing Dog Parks for the Residents of Tigard is a small investment with a big return. There are approximately 6,000 dogs in Tigard and in every neighborhood, on every street, families care for and love their dogs. We have Pet Stores, Veterinarians, Animal Schools, Animal Photo Studios, Pet Sitting Businesses.... all thriving in our community based on the large animal loving population. In years past there were open fields and quiet streets where residents could play with their dogs and allow them to run freely. With the growth in population, construction of new homes and traffic, these areas and safe havens have disappeared. A majority of the new construction is larger homes with smaller lots and less room for families to exercise their dogs. Parks provide tennis courts, soccer fields and other areas enjoyed by Tigard residents. But look at the percentage of families owning pets to those playing tennis or soccer. -I'd guess that one out of every five families in Tigard own a dog less than that play tennis or soccer. Advantages of Dog Parks in Tigard would be: 'Dog Park sites can be established on undeveloped terrain, often areas unsuitable for other activities 'People move into areas because of the existence of Dog Parks 'People derive enjoyment in sharing this activity with others 'Dog owners are extremely conscientious in cleaning up after their dogs 'Because well exercised and less bored dogs buk less, it would cut down on the noise in neighborhoods where this ff ' ' is provided 'Because well exercised dogs are less destructive and better adjusted, it would lessen the number of dogs given up by their owners 'Animal Therapists/Trainers encourage the of Dog Parks * Animal Control authorities in cities that hne Dog Parks strongly support them. An ideal Dog Park would be approximately 2 or 3 acres entirely fenced. Fencing should be about 4 to 6 feet high with gates at points of entry. Garbage cans with plastic liners and scoops sold be provided for clean up. Water close by should be available so that owners can fall water bowls. Sufficient parking fairly close by is necessary because, believe me, this park would be well used and loved by the citizens of Tigard. I have included pictures, newspaper articles and a letter from the Public Works, City of Eugene. On behalf of myself, my family which include our dogs Jamie and MacKenzie, my neighbors and friends...... Thank You for your consideration. Christie C. Smith 11320 S.W. Ambiance Court Tigard, Oregon 97223-3910 Telephone 503 639-8403 i Fax 503 598 9387 i eanail DKETACaol.com 3 January 14, 1999 Mr. Duane Roberts, Associate Planner City of Tigard 13125 S.W. Hall Blvd. Tigard, Oregon 97223 Ike: Dog Park Dear Duane: Thank you for meeting with me Monday. I was encouraged when I spoke with Jim Nicoli and learned that Dog Parks were already an item of consideration on the Park Plans. You were very helpful and informative; especially in going over the map of Tigard and sharing the Park System Master Plan with me. I spoke with Jane Henderson of MIG, Inc. in Eugene. Jane was also very helpful and suggested I speak with John Etter, the landscape architect for the City. I have enclosed a letter John faxed me yesterday which I will include in a packet I am putting together to present to the Planning Commission on February 1st and the City Council on February 23rd. As a Tigard citizen and dog lover, I am excited about the possibility of Tigard providing/creating an environment for the enjoyment of its residents and their four legged family members. I would appreciate it if I could be placed on your Agenda and if-there are any*guidelines or stipulations I need to adhere to, please let me know. Sincerely, Christie C. Smith CC. Jim Nicoli, Mayor of Tigard Jane Henderson, MIC, Inc. Bill Monahan, City Manager John Etter, City of Eugene 60 Public Works Maintenance City of Eugene 1820 Roosevelt Boulevard Eugene, Oregon 97402 (541) 662-4800 Dear Parks and Recreation Planner: The City of Eugene now has six years of experience in providing dog of-f-leash areas in parks. This letter has been prepared as a response to increasing interest by other communities who have heard of our program and have inquired about its establishment and operation. A proposal to create a deg o£f-leash area was received from some Eugene citizens in the spring of 1991. The site proposed was in a six acre pasture at the Wayne Morse Ranch-Park, a 26 acre ranch setting now surrounded by residential development. With the site mostly fenced, it was fairly easy for the City to allow this activity on a trial basis. The trial period was contro%-ersial as the activity rapidly became popular. There were complaints from some immediate neighbors about noise, parking impacts, surface water contamination and adverse environmental impacts. Support for the program initially outweighed detractors by a factor of about 5:1; we believe the s,_ Lpport has strengthened since then. Within the trial period, and to reduce the impact on the single Morse Ranch site, four other areas were established around the city, two in undeveloped portions of community parks and two on undeveloped neighborhood park sites. This action dispersed the activity in a satisfactory manner to the point that the pasture is no longer overused. The trial period came to an end, and following public hearing, the decision was made to retain all five locations. (One has since been terminated as a result of a land exchange.) Testimonials include the fact that people have moved into a neighborhood because of their existence, and that people derive enjoyment in sharing this activity with others; it is as if these locations are community centers `_cr people as well as canines. There have been no complaints from dog owners about people having failed to clean up after their dogs. (Immediate neighbors of Morse Ranch still complain on this.) Recent elimination of an off-leash site at a small undeveloped neighborhood park brought considerable outcry from those who wanted it replaced. Moving from our experience to recommendations, I believe the following ideas and features are important for success: Location should be in a large, community or metropolitan scaled parks where between one and three acres are available. Size should be dependent on demand; too many dogs and people in too small of an area can result in very muddy winter conditions in rainy winter climates. Because people will come by car and bike, parking needs for both must be considered. Parking in front of adjacent residences will antagonize those neighbors. Fencing can be agricultural types, about 4 feet high, with gates at logical points of entry. Areas near gates receive most wear, and need special treatment to keep from becoming winter mud holes; wood chips, gravel or even concrete may be needed. Cleaning up dog excrement is made possible by the presence of garbage cans with plastic bag liners and plastic scoops, which can be made from plastic gallon jugs. Scoop request signage and peer patrol serve to keen the fenced areas clean. our park services staff periodically collect the bags from the cans. Can lids keep out rain water, reducing weight. Dog owners have suggested a numler of amenities, and volunteers may be able to help provide some as they have in Eugene. They include shade trees, a hose bib so owners can fill water dishes on hot days, improved trails, tables and benches. i We believe off-leash areas will remain a part of larger Eugene + parks. They do not seem feasible in smaller neighborhood parks because of the rela=ive size, parking impacts and closer proximity to adjacent residences. in addition to the broad ' public support, they also have the support of the local animal control authority. If your community has some undeveloped areas in larger parks, I feel quite certain, based on Eugene's experience, that your dog owning ccmmunity would be very supportive of your efforts to accommodate this activity. Be sure that you have a good location, since any moves to reduce size or change locations will be cause for public protest. Recognize, also, that introducing a new activity to a park can bring out the kind of people you want in parks, which can help control some of the undesirable activity that may be taking place. Best wishes for your off-leash venture, j,-OXQ ~ John Etter, Parks Planning Public Works Maintenance Locations of Eugene's off-leash areas: Amazon Park, east of 29th and Amazon Parkway. (Parking areas at 29th and Amazon Park Way and west of 25th and hilyard Streets) Alton Baker Park, south side of Day Island Road, .4 mile into park from Club Road. (Parking on north side of road. Morse Ranch, Crest Drive and Lincoln Street. (Park in main parking area at 595 Crest Drive, then take trail east.) r , Lti J r, i ~ + t ti c - , t J", tT t - f , {t ~ .S~ _ 1 r , r , n l , , o- ~ t I ~ } ! ji I r I •,•l 4' ,k r i r n`. " ~1 , r r , y S r I ,I I r k z < , k3 L la i? , . , k e , - I - ~ ~ .f i Y , L.,.,._,.~. !e,',%~~ , f e I f I t ! u , 1~ 1 , v 17 r .I a o l~y !f- T , , ( it i:, C i T , , M,4 , ;~J%~.", I - . . I . " I , , , , ~ , , ~ " , ~ , @@ i r -b. t 1 Ct~ i a 's I, 1V , -j t s," `t t 'F,Jt7", ~r~. r ti,..zi- 'i2( i(~ , a ,f ,k,I -R 1 fi~ `t r ~•t ,J.r(.' 1~J Ir•. l:y F> a '113, l r- C ~ i _ , t: 4 , i ~ -.i ' 1~ " rS ~ -C ti. f y a1} Y o . _ ti1'i ,l' F 7 h.. , d I'':`Z. rl c ~n..a t I a,~t.l -a i rt r ^ y.r , 5'. C ~ ~ '11 J. ~y~ 1- - -~1" `1 r1 3 ! i , Z ti r 'ti J 1-1 1 r 't , ~ _ s, .Y'" a r pc J... t J p.~ F t r L b , r t ri c fk (r „ k~..i; s...l,',r s _ 'A 1 ! - 1 5: 1~ti r., , , : i,;.; r f~ " ~i~ l r r . r ~,3 . N l, , t 7 r 1~.;~ r .;.c r~ 4!};, ~3 q r ' d 1 ti ,r-. r ( , . - F' 4 r'~~ h, { 1 { : t i-' 'A_ I ,l ;c 4 Ss l~~~ a ~4~~ t." P" 11 11 r ;.~7~ 'A ,ttitit F r ~y1. a f r;: cy 4 " - 1, I j'' i r7 ~r t•'ia r , r..i .~"~E, a r , ,~,i -;v .i, r ~;`1t 1 Y - Fit t ;IAf l r r•~-:f t, i1) "~arF,~,t i,; f :,i~.3 ' 9 t' _7; I} il+l. s'~l 1 ~ ,.,r']„ t~ .tl,.... i1 ~ F~Y .(f. k 1;; r, ~ t,;7 o~ ti S y`fr` , tit .n -A, - - _t. ~ ; ~htt:.~.-~~,~~ `Fki ,d 1P- c~! t: '..t ~C),?p t t t~ t 3 al ..;rt s... + ~ f i j' - ;:r". - 4?,i.:.Fr: Ise. j. t;i, , t"; s r fr ':.5 c. r, t h'1~ a ,T - t, L t1 y. ~,1 I' - J t f o a -r~ l..i n , r t. i i r 1x i` : i [.1 I 11 t. 1 t.:- Yti:. ,tip k la T a 3 r' f L L T ~r 'i 1, r7 t „"4 , t . S,'. 1-1 t Y r r r ~ - n f,. , , i'~ I 13 yf ,3 - ' A ~~I 1~ S~ J v r -i'.~ i» ,l ,,,,'r I_ K;:"'.~~4 =jar ~.y^ r F I n, , ,,,r ICI J' ~:1 a 14 I ,.i s'i/".ry( #~'.1 3.Y+ I JF ` a - h j4 r , ' ~r t,: fi f t Y .y 1 :eF "~#y.(r~r 'ham ,.y,~„ 5.,1 r~}•r..4`.', q .-~Y Y t, I f u , 1✓. 4 E .r rr-. i1.- Jf 't _ r T+ o.}r i. c,Y, '_L ° x t t-yv_X 7w i~ 4ir r~ ,,i~ e 1 a ~ .1 k .t r f 1 t '.tY' t j r1 ~'f 1 .I~ d ;t ' , K ,ril C r f ' , ~ ~lA14 F` , i'r h+-.~7 o t 6'. s r t 4, _ 1 c,t °Lk~ t ,5 1,1 ~tjf rr d Y i Y Y' - R , i, 1_ z F, ,.i ,.3.' aK "v l' Fl. - f T I t.'~ nj 4 .af y.J , t ,,^rl,. i,ttiycl'A, _ 11 i, , I I +l - 1 r 1 ,I i a. r a ] - ( K { l [bv: a- y I I S j f f ~ ~ J r ' - h _1, r °t - ~,?l;{, v{ & ` < t;`~cti-. 611 ~~ti"s4} .:'i`. w Carr. a` d 1 fr' r. It 7 _ , 1 la 1 ;.,1 ~1 •qF 'i - A,`3:}.i~i~t s ,rt7 '}C"` , v ti , , Grp e y a,'rt. - 3 S rr r e _ r- 11 Y ...r t5 ,Irk 1 i r _ } t9ft n~^. r. fi fX'.i 1a!ry5tf Si -fi wrIi t:- r Ir--,, a; L . 1_1 r•. f F ~i, 1 h. C , 1 1'tl.-. „ - ~ ,}ysI , r 'r<, s 7 p'I 'r r. - t ii r "vi I r S - o y `G~ , I 1 , } ,S ~ T r ,H,y i c x) r ,I, 1 .l:u vii s wil ~r~, fi ~ .i= F ,-Y, ,i r = h f x , $ . [ ,,4 I i% ~l t•. ° ~ I Cj F{r.'` .r~ l r y< t ~f t}1`~iiJ 4't p 1 '~rl G ~1 -t, S + ,T " I t ..r w ~t' A"7p Jr .i5 _ 7 ~r~i t it 1.t fit y~Ta' t ~S _ G 3 I - "q 1.. h1 uh'~, ~ ~ , r t 1 n- 1 1'.y q r"1~1 _.t~ S r:~~ i ,i ~~u ~''C t yr { ~y:_ 4, fr. (i:- 1 ~n - t ~I,i t liti k 1 1 ,1 , c ,I. o- t ..jj .,;/[E 4''" ~ ~y.. >I t 1 , _ ,ti 'I ~ , tH 1 f . , ' J, r- G ~c 1 1 l I F r 1. ~h. ..l ~J l may'{ t ~,r4 t ! r 1j t 1 ~1i r ~t i ~ f, ~ ? ti~ rit ~I; •1Z al t a 7 1 ykt C• ;i;t av 4 r- > lT )Q , <J rll.. 4 7. , / 'y 1 - 7t 7 f-g= -r y 1 ~S~ K i; ;I '1 r" .r ~s ? r ~ ~T 1- r it f r J ✓ E ' 1 1'e r t h l S. ~ 7,] ~ 1~ "L ' - , , , I : , ~ I , ~L 1 _ L'ul;s ut u Chet „ 1 y inn l n_t{ 1_(r ,y t 71ur_ q t1 , ; 1'+1 1 ..i;1',gg4e 1 ll t K, 3;> i1}L ;eCO~i]y ~ protn~ social cl. s'for'the cap_?ne crowd':' - !4a;> _ "Alt t t r~ 1~ A f I'~f ^ r~ f11~(( ft i ) I ..~jG ~1 1 . 1 13 ,KImlll I2 ~~IL;LIAhIS , ;t` x I ~ • 7) 1 c 1t , ~ < e~ 2 N ~ 1 r. i I lo,ros n) I 1 T i ,.fi. ri ° Y I Cllkls i'It'CSCH t 4~ i s , .,1 r~ ~ , ~ ~ I I I - l gutEr_Gua 3 ~~~~t, `i i1') _s i ~ '1 r " tv ~ 1 ' , 1 N , .J I i tzn> F i , rs, I y " p i, i t 3 ern f VVV C r} ~I -1 , - . Si' tar=yti ~ti e.r, r ! y r" rl t r 5 1- ~t 1 r 5.4 ~,1 11il,- ° ei y 1L 9 ~ • C ' - _ jc ?9, it e 3ry t{P t rjf r'-.1 [41,p' ' 131i`-~b> , k: y. F s 1 I r -,ti > r It • i r 3 my ,p (,'~-r i , t IE 11, t tip "'1, qqI ' I *~i a 4 t - i I" ' ytr _ -t l~ T~c f v Y r_ i i , t y11(„1. Y 1 ( i t w+ it .i 9~ 1l: ~1 7 kf.4 X t a < It 1 I ] p I r l r.. 4 - 1', e , " t j 11 p, I ~ I i I 1 . - ::-;t , >-.~l,.a ~11 ' -1r ~ r ~~l ~ ..1~ rat 1~ f'. 1 'ur ~,y' L" t r , 4 . +Y ~ $ii~ @l i i 1 ^y Rif ~gg o[[B p~F&r` 1'' ' , l t± °buck@t'llps'A ~yP ~ Ie 8n0 . j~1 A~,y r®t~?_ft~f t .d, P~t`.•~`✓o/ , r ! r troll.: Rightew11 t t r,r • . r' Scltierenteredogpark+, _ _ ~ttg~.0asICA~ ya~Ven~sY?al~ y~~~irKori L' ^y!'Y'4 Mt 3lt't;;t•~f'^.u' :J"'r \r.;~t 4'j,9%(,tE :ref 3.3I, .i.-.~ 'pt jr r•:,1slt;Lt,,'Sy;~- 1 } 1~; K"'°:"~ HE WORDS arrive longbetore the huge, tongue-lolling grins. Kelse's weakness for rubber balls and her that happens, "We wonder, and the dogs do , 1 face, warn( greetings sung through the You're starting to get the picture. serious reluctance to share them -facts too," Collins confides. 1 a cold morning fog. After a rocky beginning, Eugene's dog delivered to amused, confessional detail by Rule Three: Chances arc, you will learn thi i "[.ooogooopi! Is it Lupi? Hi, Hannah! flow parks have emerged as a lively auttculture all Roberta Collins herself. names of LupE, Hannah and Kelse long before ire you?" Roberta Collins croons. their own. A place where people have met and That's just how it goes. Call it the human you ever know the two-legged people who t The tone suggests a reunion of old friends. fallen in love, where first hand pet advice is equivalent of a good sniff. brought them. Accept this. It just happens. k )el "s parents tiro f+ping off wee charges at exchanged with the breathless intensity of One moll:ent, you're standing next to a Everyone says so. E a Lay care, coffee-cooler gussir. A de facto social club, ielat've sa-anger, the next you're discussing, "You know, it was two years before I knew tSttt the T,'olee en two legs is actually where friendships are struck and tended at.d oh, say something as personal as an your name," Linny Smith (the one with ui(Iressing friends with four on the floor, mingled and trended, embarrassing chewing problem, Or chronic Hannah) confesses to Bob Kundrot (the guy ;reetings that are part of a ritual played out Where the humans socialize as ]such as the drooling. Or fleas. with Bella and Wally). Both men nod and i 'n} day, every clay at the breed-apart Alton dogs. Rule One: At the dog park, you quickly laugh and study the ground. Yes, it's true. taker (log park; among a handful of off-leash learn, there are few strangers and fewer White hair spills from beneath the knit I ommurtities that have come to flourish sniff secrets. stocking cap Smith favors this morning, and f I )cally as their own hybrid social `scene, Oil this mid-week morning, Roberta Collins Collins (regulars call her "The Patron he sports an early morning "didn't-make-it- j Envision an outdoor mixer with dog tails, has arrived with Kelse - an affable, stocky Saint of the Dog Park") springs through the to-the razor yet" stubble. But dog park people a of cocktails. Imagine a playground where the boxer -mix who, you learn, has earned the gate this morning in warm-ups and sneakers. are forgiving. "You might be. a college ' umans collie to witness the happy eruption name "bucket lips" for the great flapping Rule Two: Don't dress up to go to the dog professor or a ditch digger, but we're all the 1 f canine chaos: Mix in the occasional doggie appendages that lend her a perpetual sexy park; it only attracts suspicion. What's the same when we conic through that gate," he I irthday°party(complete with paper Bats), pout. point? I tentycf dog hair and an abundance of those In a matter of minutes, you also discover It's like showing up without a dog. When Turn to DOGS, Page 2C t r+i-• r I r t `I . i~ -~-:~:---v---,-, ~~:~_7_-_~, r, -7~ - . 1, _ . r [ Y' ~i17 ndr,nusv~a I!ig' b uvckeie a~uP~.~'fSua'" 'Siti~4J~~~^~~:,;. r...~ ;',.,...cw*~ 1,;,•, ball: Right, Joslyn r,.! 5 t c ~Fy; f.,u ,'i "dC~t t i ftry, t 3 i, , . r the th1 . • N; ti j'3 at ] appens, We wonder, and doffs do Beefier enters dog Park + tt ENO, . Kelse's weakness for rubber balls'and her too;' Collins confides. wfll learn tuft huge, tongue•lolling grfns serious reluctance to share them - facts Rule Three: Chances are, ou HF WORDS arrive long before the Y, re starting to get the picture. delivered in amused, confessional detail by names of I,upi, llannali and Kelso long before ed face, warm greetings sung through the Roberta it them Accept thisglt jsteo le .,;ho Kapp cold morning fog. After a rocky beginning, Eugene's dog 1 ens. + How Larks have emerged as a lively subculture all That's just how it goes. Call it the swoon 1you °ougl y the u "1,00ooooo it l Collins herself. ins Ifi, Hannah . standing; next to a Everyone says so. their owl. A place where people have met and °You know, it was two years before I knew ,r.e yout Robe erta a Colllins croons' fallen in love, where first hand pct advice is cquiequivalent ofa urn;ent, good you' sren! !f . e The tone ts fists a reunion e old friends. exchanged with the breathless intee.sity of eelatone 've s:ratrger, the next you're discussing, your name;' Linny , it V Smith (the Otte with lay a parents dropping off wee charges at coffee.cooler kussil•. A de facto social club, oh, say something as personal as au fay care. s actually where friendships are struck and tended at•d eniUarraomet chewing problem. Or chronic wi h1 anBella ie confesses to and Wally)BBotK meta nod n(the d Y Irrt the Voice ('11 two fogs i mingled and mended. he drooling. Or fleas. ou 9trickly laugh and study the ground. Yes, it's true. 'treeessing friends with four oil the floor. morning, and ;noting that da at the br it ed aapartyAltont dogs. Where the humans socialize as much as t Rlearn,ule there One: are At the few dog park, strangers yand fewer White stocking cap stud Smith spills from favors this beneath tile knit acally as early morning "didn't•make-it- by day, every Y A go®d sniff secrets. Lark people Saint of the Dog Pascal springs through the totho rator yet" You stubUle. might But ut a dot, l college Envisiofaker dogn aparkn . among outdoor a nhandful of offs cash Roberta Collins Collins {regulars call her "The Patron he spodts an , Uut we're all the come their own hybrid social scene tails, has Ott this arrived midwithweek Kelse m- anorning, affable, stocky ate this morning in warm-ups andosneakers proforgiir o ra ditch digg the dog laygrout d there the boxer•niix who, you learn, has earned the g Rule Twro: Doti t dress up of onununittes cocktails. hthat ine have 01 pcome to (loon er name "bucket lips" for the great flapping mirk; it only attracts suspicion. What's the same when we come through that gate" ie t to g e ams to o wihies s the happy eruption r endages that lend her a perpetual sexy l` point? dog. When Turn to DOGS, Page 2G i ctaitie chaos. 6lix le the occasional doggie gout. ou also discover it's like showing up without a llenly y party (complete with paper' hats)' p In a matter of minutes, y eniY of dog hoer and an abundance of those r 4 Continued from Page 1C 77- "It's amazing who you'll see covered picnic table. A child's observes. 47 Besides, there are plenty of here," Blake says. "You bump into plastic wading pool. A fake lire `t whl keCi here. And It 1; only Itbont pcop yAA 5aa all avt r town, dust plug. Proximity to a running trail f l 38 degrees outside. Achill, dank 38 i j layt week the woman who runs a Laeh park IIaB 1!a own pocui~ar degrees. You can smell the mud. band I play in was out here." allure. Rule Four: Die-hard dog park Those connections have a way of. "We come here across town it r .l regulars leans to laugh at Oregon spilling over into your daily life. Ferry Street Bridge," Carol Siebs `i winters. ! ; ^ "I've been at birthday parties with says. Smith trudges in Just behind the dogs and their 'Parents,' where "We were bored walking arou effervescent, wirehaired Hannah. i s they've done stuff like bring Milk the neighborhood," she explains "A Greenhill Jumping Terrier," he t r + Bones for everybody," she recalls, nodding at the small, but very + "Sometimes, I'll get a couple peppy B.J. "We love it here. 'lt;ls says, lugging a wooden Wilson si 1, f} r tennis racket, an ample supply of other dogs to come. We'll do park has shade." t+r j r.• 1 sleepovers with neighbor's dogs. It's Siebs pauses, introducing he soggy green tennis balls and a yE + °i+ y 4' a real treat. to a dog owner she doesn't pocketful of treats. ~z rfi. re. "The cats; 'she adds, "of course, recognize as the after-work crow i It's part of their system, Smith"i~"e~ It ' i pig I hate it: explains. He whacks a hall, Hant±ah ; ~vl ! o K1Jl 1 ' begins to thicken. "Are you new I scrambles after it, jumping slap a f l ? ' "No, I'm here a~out Owee tine' t r,l One giant dog party a day," laughs Valerie Marshall 1 picnic table (it's clearly meant as a In some ways, the emergence of who stops in with Pogo and Fanc 1 canine jungle gym) to deposit the ;I return ball within easy reach. i CHRIS PIETSCH The Reglalcr-Guard dog parks on the urban landscape before AND after work - at leas was inevitable - particularly in Nearby, an owner commands "I can't bend down to get them Morse Ranch dogs greet Valerie Marshall and her Dalmatian, Pogo. Eugene, says Kimball Lewis, her dog, "Do Elvis, do Elvis." any more,' he shrugs, director of Greenhill Humane The dog curls back a lip to t Most people have some system "Whenever there's a problem here, emerged at these off leash refuges Society. amused shrieks of everyone. Dog here, some routine, and that's fine. it's usually the humans who are to besides another local resource, "We're a classic example," he humor. a Bob Kundrot, who works at blame." Call it an accidental home, slips over fo a midmorning . Slipping in a hand to break up a. camaraderie. ! j says. "The system mandated It" As the park pack grows to a f f For starters, the rnuniclpai cx,des i5 canines - a rolliclong exe , r break. Steve Sisson, who doesn't tussle, bringing food into the dog r "Mast yeah I would cgme. here in many'cities these y>j problbif in happy anarchy - the snip P~ have to be at work until noon,. also park. People should know better, around 5 or 6, It was Dog Rush dog ownerst iffi being' ai ost ; i human conversation fly as fast ` checks in about then. "The most egregious offense Hour," recalls Diane Rios, strolling urban settings with an'bif leash ' s the paws and tails. r ' "It's llke people who go to coffee here is if a human kicks at another the east pasture at the Wayne' dog. "Watch your kneeal" ! at the same time, same place every des - or their own dog," she said, Morse Ranch, one of three fencad,' "Your dog knows MY dogl' day" says Sisson, who admits he's shaking her }read. "There was that off leash parks the city maintains. "Oh, that's Jake's mother! Do ; j not exactly a regular. "Here, it's a guy who had stopped at McDonald's "I made good friends - people I "It's like people you know Ruby's mom?" little more haphazard about who one day. And, well.... a pause, a would probably see more often than who g® to coffee "I always consider it a giant r you'll bump into, but it's enough knowing smile. my best friends. at the ~8619e ti6it~~ party," Glenna Grey observes. that you recognize each other. It's "Hannah is a thief," Collins, "We'd be here every day, rain or Whenever I look at these dogs r r, definitely a community," finally blurts out. "Snagged that shine." carne place every play, I think of myself as a kid F McMufftn right out of his hand." Gazing out over the pastoral day. Here, it's a i Sisson laughs about the time he His response was to pick her u just total unbridled energy, pia showed up with a friend's dog. p serenity at the Wayne Morse dog little more haphazard dodge ball against the garage d R "Everyone knew who the dog was, and put her down. Smith came "a park, it's hard to envision these about who you'll Unfettered fun." ; not me," he said. "It was a big deal, little unglued," The offender started gentle, rolling fields as a bump Into, but It's Beneath it all, that's what it's an Unsolved Mystery, They were backpeddlfng. Smith calmed down. battleground. Dog owners who about. A place where dogs can J ° " Apologies were exchanged. anon h thatYou like, Who brought Fritz today.' report here daily don't.take any of and roust and utterly exhaust " So It is at the dog park, where "Wish I'd had the whole thing it for granted. Like Harriet Behm, 1`ecognize each other. themselves, picking up new tric i there thrives a sense of collective on videotape; she chuckles. who bought a home in the Ws definitely a and behaviors, good and bad. { responslbility. neighborhood in part because of community." "They learn things," one At Amazon dog park, when city The cats hate it dog park proximity. well-dressed patron confides, parks crews want to put down It wasn't always so agreeable, "We moved to Eugene 2% years STEVE SISSON lowering her voice to a whisper gravel or woad chips, they've been fife at the dog park. ago and were riding around looking Dog owner "They pass along secrets we don { able to set out a pile of material When the city of Eugene for houses. When we came by here understand." and a cart. "Dog owners wanted to considered a proposal belbk in 1881 I said, 'What's that?' I had never Like, perhaps, the secret of chip in and help spread them;' said to turn! a six-acre pasture at the heard of a dog park. I thought, "When I came to Eugene," Lewis serenity. The simple pleasures of a 'Only in Eugene...' But the more says, "one of the first things I being a dog. The fascinating John Etter, city parks planner. Wayne Morse Ranch into a we rode around the neighborhood, noticed about animal protection and "People appreciate and take can of designated off leash dog area; the freedom of unbounded play. The 9 these areas." fur quite literally flew, the more I thought how great it enforcement was that the system (at satisfaction of a good sniff. P looked, Behm says. that time) was in the market of And for owners, feeling, for a Maybe it's the built-in common Pet owners howled that It was Today she comes here penalizing pet owners as often as moment, that you're part of the denominator of dog ownership. long overdue. Critics growled their ! pack. "What's a better Introduction than bitter opposition, cit;ng concerns "repeatedly, but not religiously." possible for 'Inconsequential your dog?" Sisson points out. about noise, parking issues and Her dog, Rugger, gives her little infractions; " Lewis says. t Conversation is frolicking at even environmental impacts. choice. Today, Lewls praises animal I "We can't even let him out in control authorities for a more Features reporter Virnber your heels. And you've never seen After an admittedly rocky nt progressive approach. "I feel like Williams mo:e rabid peer pressure until beginning -including the requisite the fro yard, it's not even an B~3i be fr4 a and by a m~atf at you've witnessed self-appointed blustery public hearings - both option," Behm says, nodding. "He'll. were getting there,' he says. "I see , "popper snooper" police -fellow sides seem to have achieved a run straight to that north gate with officers who will contact people and kwilliams@guardnet.com. dog owners who hound you to pick peaceful, if not reluctant, truce. this look on his fate that says, 'You give them an opportunity to come 1 up the cut down plastic detergent City officials report few complaints KNOW where I want to be.' " into compliance with the law. I t to it if little Bosco these days, and are often consulted Nancy Blake, who works for the His only complaint about dog jugs and ge u leaves something that escapes your by other cities about establishing Oregon Bach Festival when she's parks? "There need to be at least ~ their own dog parks, which have not walking Sadie, the lab/springer two more in different demographic i notice. ! ' do the park, people are very exploded In popularity across the spaniel mix, marvels at how the dog areas" he says. "I'm a big sympathetic, very forgiving of dogs country. parks can serve as a powerful social . proponent. I think that it is an I a But over the years, something vortex. excellent opportunity to provide a being dogs." Collins explains. P ,v January 14, 1999 JAN l 5 N9 Mr. Duane Roberts, Associate Planner City of Tigard 13125 S.W. Fall Blvd. Tigard, Oregon 97223 Re: Dog Park Dear Duane: 'T'hank you for meeting with me Monday. I was encouraged when I spoke with Jim Nicoli and learned that Dog Parks were' already an item of consideration on the Park Plans. You were very helpful and informative; especially in going over the map of Tigard and sharing the Park Systcm Master Plan with me. I spoke with Jane Henderson of MIG, Inc. in Eugene. Jane was also very helpful and suggested I speak with John Etter, the landscape architect for the City. I have enclosed a letter John faxed me yesterday which I wili include in a packet I am putting together to present to the Planning Commission on February 1st and the City Council on February 23rd. As a Tigard citizen and dog lover, I am excited about the possibility of Tigard providing/creating an environment for the enjoyment of its residence and their four legged family members. I would appreciate it if I could be placed on your Agenda and if there are _ any guidelines or stipulations I need to adhere to, please let me know. Xereiy 'e . Smith cc. Jim Nicoli, Mayor of Tigard Jane Henderson, MIC, Inc. Bill Monahan, City Manager John Etter, City of Eugene 11320 S.W. Ambiance Court • Tigard, Oregon 97223 U.S.A. (503) 639-8403 Fax (503) 598-9387 Public Works Maintenance City of Eugene 1820 Roosevelt Boulevard Eugene, Oregon 87402 (541) 682-4800 Dear Parks and Recreation Planner: The City of Eugene now has six years of experience in providing dog off-leash areas in parks. This letter has'been prepared as a response to increasing interest by other communities who have heard of our program and have inquired about its establishment and operation. A proposal to create a dog off-leash area was received from some Eugene citizens in the spring of 1991. The site proposed was in a six acre pasture at the Wayne Morse Ranch Park, a 26 acre ranch setting now surrounded by residential development. With the site mostly fenced, it was fairly easy for the City to allow this activity on a trial basis. The trial period was controversial as the activity rapidly became popular. There were complaints from some immediate neighbors about noise, parking impacts, surface water contamination and adverse environmental impacts. Support for the program initially outweighed detractors by a factor of about 5:1; we believe the support has strengthened since then. Within the trial period, and to reduce the impact on the single Morse Ranch site, four other areas were established around the city, two in undeveloped portions of community parks and two on undeveloped neighborhood park sites. This action dispersed the activity in a satisfactory manner to the point that the pasture is no longer overused. The trial period came to an end, and following public hearing, the decision was made to retain all five locations. (one has since been terminated as a result of a land exchange.) Testimonials include the fact that people have moved into a. neighborhood because of their existence, and that-people derive enjoyment in sharing this activity with others; it is as if these locations are community centers for people as well as canines. There have been no.complaints from dog owners about people having failed to clean up after their dogs. (Immediate neighbors of Morse Ranch still complain on this.) Recent elimination of an off-leash site at a small undeveloped neighborhood park brought considerable outcry from those who wanted it replaced. mill Moving from our experience to recommendations, I believe the following ideas and features are important for success: Location should be in a large, community or metropolitan scaled parks where between one and three acres are available. Size should be dependent on demand; too many dogs and people in too small of an area can result in very muddy winter conditions in rainy winter climates. Because people will come by car and bike, parking needs for both must be considered. Parking in front of adjacent residences will antagonize those neighbors. Fencing can be agricultural types, about 4 feet high, with gates at logical points of entry. Areas near gates receive most wear, and need special treatment to keep from becoming winter mud holes; wood chips, gravel or even concrete may be needed. Cleaning up dog excrement is made possible by the presense of garbage cans with plastic bag liners and plastic scoops, which can be made from plastic gallon jugs. Scoop request signage and peer patrol serve to keep the fenced areas clean. Our park services staff periodically collect the bags from the cans. Can lids keep out rain water, reducing weight. Dog owners have suggested a number of amenities, and volunteers may be able to help provide some as they have in Eugene. They include shade trees, a hose bib so owners can fill water dishes on hot days, improved trails, tables and benches. We believe off-leash areas will remain a part of 'Larger Eugene parks. They do not seem feasible in smaller neighborhood parks because of the relative size, parking impacts and closer proximity to adjacent residences. In addition to the broad public support, they also have the support of the local animal control authority. If your community has some-undeveloped areas in larger parks, I feel quite certain, based on Eugene's experience, that your dog owning community would be very supportive of your efforts to accommodate this activity. Be sure that you have a good location, since any moves to reduce size or change locations will be cause for public protest. Recognize, also, that introducing a new activity to a park can bring out the kind of people you want in parks, which can help control some of the undesirable activity that may be taking place. Best wishes for your off -leash 'venture, John Etter, Parks Planning Public Works Maintenance Locations-of Eugene's off-leash areas: Amazon Park, east of 29th and Amazon Parkway. (Parking areas at 29th and Amazon Park Way and west of 28th and Hilyard Streets) Alton Baker Park, south side of Day Island Road, .4 mile into park from Club Road. (Parking on north side of road. Morse Ranch, Crest Drive and Lincoln Street. (Park in main parking area at 595 Crest Drive, then take trail east.) AGENDA ITEM # FOR AGENDA OF 3/2/99 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Woodard Park Master Plan PREPARED BY: Duane Roberts DEPT HEAD OK MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Should Council adopt by resolution the attached Woodard Park Concept Plan? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Council adopt the attached resolution approving the Woodard Park Concept Plan, as recommended by the Planning Commission. INFORMATION SUMMARY Approximately one year ago, the Metropolitan Service District (Metro) purchased Tigard tax lot 2S1 02BB 600 as part of its Fanno Creek Corridor acquisition program. This lot is located along the northern edge of the city's Woodard Park and formerly was used as a home site and horse pasture. Fanno Creek flows through the western portion of the tax lot and approximately three-fourths of the property is floodplain. In recent months, the city has developed a joint site plan for the Metro and the abutting park properties. Following formal City Council review and adoption, this plan will be submitted for approval to the Metro Council. Once Metro approval of the plan as it relates to its property is obtained, Metro will allow Tigard to manage and operate the site as part of the city park system. The concept plan was developed through a series of three community workshops. The first community workshop, held on March 7, defined goals and ideas for the existing three-acre park and the seven-acre addition. The second workshop held on May 7th, focused on alternative concept plans for Woodard Park and the expansion area. At the June 18th workshop, the consultant team presented a final concept plan that incorporates the comments and opinions expressed by the neighborhood and agency participants in the two previous workshops. Metro staff have reviewed the final plan and suggested minor revisions, which have been incorporated into the current plan. Copies of this plan and a hearing notice have been sent to all those participating in the three workshops and to surrounding property owners. Copies of two citizen a-mails commenting on the planning are attached. Along with a mix of recreational uses, the site plan includes a wetland enhancement in the area along Fanno Creek. The proposed enhancement will be undertaken by ODOT at its own expense and will cover an area of approximately one-acre. The project will fulfill ODOT's obligation to compensate for the fill of a small wetland located within boundaries of the proposed 217/I-5-interchange improvement. mill IN On February 1, 1999, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the plan. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Commission voted unanimously to forward a recommendation to Council for approval of the plan with two refinements. These refinements include the addition of bike racks to the proposed active use area and the placement of trees between properties along the northern edge of the Metro-own property in order to provide some measure of privacy for adjacent homeowners. O'I IIiR ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Q 1. Make refinements or modifications to the plan as Council sees fit. 2. Do not adopt a master plan covering the Metro-owner area and do not expand Woodard Park onto this area. VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY The Community Aesthetics Goal calls for the dedication or acquisition of open space. FISCAL NOTES The cost of fully implementing the concept plan is estimated at approximately $400,000. To date, funds have been allocated for the play structure and pathway improvements only. i:\citywide\sum\woodardpark.pian 1 H i 3 td/ j+ ~T MEADOW 52~ 'f 'P - i 0 7 oL~~ c ^ r~O Fps Q I ~ t t t a 1LNUT ST 17 -mom 13uane-R-oberts - oo ar a ago From: <Slug7n7@aol.com> To: <duane@ci.tigard.or.us> Date: Mon, Feb 1, 1999 8:46 PM Subject: Woodard Park Dear Mr. Roberts: I just wanted to send you a quick e-mail to let you know I think your plan is a good one, though you might not have gotten that impression from my comments. I hope I did not offend. I merely wanted to put forth some objections that would be explained or expanded upon to make it clearer to me and the commission and you did a great job of that. Thank you for listening. Sincerely, John Slagle 10305 SW Meadow st. Tigard, Oregon 97223 slug7n7@,AOL.com 115uane-TC5T)7e;rs a a as er an age . From: Dewey Hamilton <dhamilton@mail.imagina.com> To: <duane@ci.tigard.or.us> Date: Fri, Jan 29, 1999 6:48 PM Subject: Woodard Park Master Plan Duane Thank you for all your hard work on Woodard Paris. We believe tl : final changes are OK and will not be of any significant concern to the neighborhood. The key elements of the plan represent the w,-rtes of the people that took the time to get involved and actively support the work of the planning department and MIG lnc.The future of Woodard Park and the surrounding neighborhood has been improved by the vision and hard work of all involved. Dewey & Margi Hamilton TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Meeting Minutes February 1, 1999 1. CALL TO ORDER Vice-President Padgett called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. The meeting was held in the Tigard Civic Center, Town Hall, at 13125 SW Hall Blvd. 2. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Vice-President Padgett; Commissioners D. Anderson, Griffith, Incalcaterra, Mores, Olsen, and Scolar Commissioners Absent: President Wilson, Commissioner J. Anderson Staff Present: Duane Roberts, Associate Planner; Jerree Gaynor, Planning Commission Secretary 3. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS There were none. 4. APPROVE MEETING MINUTES Commissioner Olsen moved and Commissioner Incalcaterra seconded a motion to approve the November 16, 1998, meeting minutes as submitted. A voice vote was taken and the motion passed by a vote of 5-0. Commissioners D. Anderson and Mores abstained. 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS Vice President Padgett read the land use hearing criteria. 5.1 WOODARD PARK MASTER PLAN Vice President Padgett opened the public hearing. STAF'F REPORT Duane Roberts, Associate Planner, presented the staff report on behalf of the city. He submitted a letter received today from a citizen. He stated that the Woodard Park Master Plan included a seven acre site owned by Metro (purchased with greenspaces funds) adjacent to the park proper. He explained that Metro told the City that they would allow the City to include these seven acres in their park system, provided that the City developed a management plan acceptable io Metro. He said that this master plan was the result of a consensus of the ` neighborhoods and Metro. He mentioned the neighborhood's acceptance of an ODOT request to enhance wetlands in the park. TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION - FEBRUARY I, 1999 -PAGE 1 Mr. Roberts mentioned that, although the Metro bond measure called for strictly passive improvements, Metro agreed to allow active uses towards the upland northern end of the property because the southern flood plain portion flooded annually and damaged trails and equipment. He reviewed on a map the location of the various improvements, including a play area, a small picnic shelter, an open informal sports field, and a paved turn around at the end of Katherine Street. He noted that the Operations Department was interested in using the existing barn for storage or it could be converted to neighborhood uses. He stated that they have identified funding for the segment of the Fanno Creek Trail crossing the property and the younger children's play structure, and that ODOT was funding the wetlands enhancement. However they had no funding for the remainder of the improvements as yet. COMMISSION QUESTIONS OF STAFF Commissioner Olsen asked if the turn around on Katherine Street was located near the active use portion of the park. Mr. Roberts said yes. Commissioner Olson asked about parking. Mr. Roberts said that typically neighborhood parks did not include parking because not many users were expected from outside of the neighborhood. Vice President Padgett asked if bike racks would be installed near the turn around. Mr. Roberts said that that had not been discussed but he supported including it as a further recommendation. Vice President Padgett asked about the restrooms. Mr. Roberts said that there would be a portable restroom facility regularly maintained by the vendor under contract with the City. Commissioner Olson asked what the estimated cost was to implement all the improvements. Mr. Roberts said that they had $120,000 in committed funds, including $50,000 for the play structure and $30,000 from ODOT for the wetlands enhancement. He explained that typically neighborhood parks ran $400,000 for improvements but this park would cost less because both the neighborhood and Metro wanted to maintain a more natural environment. Commissioner Griffith asked about using greenspace money for improvements. Mr. Roberts said that the greenspaces money could be used only for land acquisition or passive related improvements. He confirmed that greenspaces money could be used for the Fanno Creek Trail and other trails but pointed out that the strong emphasis from the public and the Commission has been to acquire land. Vice President Padgett asked for a brief recap on the City's policy regarding pets in parks. Mr. Roberts said that he did not know if there was a formal policy, although there was a leash requirement at Cook Park. He assumed that it applied to all parks. Vice President Padgett mentioned the Washington County leash law. TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION - FEBRUARY 1, 1999 - PAGE 2 Vice President Padgett asked if any thought was given to putting a dogpark in this park. Mr. Roberts said no. He stated that Cook Park had a designated dogpark, although it was not well known. He mentioned that the Cook Park dogpark could be fenced, as preferred by dog owners. PUBLIC TESTIMONY ® John Slagle, 10305 SW Meadow Street, expressed concern regarding the horse path shown on the plan which the neighborhood received a week ago. He mentioned the mess compounded by flooding and the impact of heavy horses walking on the soft ground. He stated that parking and privacy were two concerns of the neighbors adjacent to the park. He described the extensive flooding that occurred every year, and questioned investing money in major improvements that could be wrecked by the flooding. Mr. Roberts stated that the horse trail was eliminated in the final plan. He noted that Metro had been opposed to this request of primarily one property owner for reasons similar to those mentioned by Mr. Slagle. Vice President Padgett asked if the City would own the seven acres. Mr. Roberts said no, Metro would retain ownership but it would be incorporated into Tigard's park system and the City would manage the land. He said that he was not sure how enforcement of the horse prohibition would occur. Vice President Padgett commented that he expected that Metro would turn over any complaints to the City to enforce. Mr. Slagle asked if the existing playground in Woodard Park would be moved to the north part. Mr. Roberts said that it would stay in its present location but a play structure for younger children would be installed at the north end of the park. Mr. Roberts mentioned the intense concern from the neighbors regarding traffic. He said that the consultant had explained at the workshops that the park should not attract a lot of people from outside of the neighborhood since they were not putting intensive uses on the site. Mr. Slagle commented that Woodard Park did not attract many people in any case. He questioned whether it would be cost effective to make these improvements. Mr. Roberts said that everyone recognized that Woodard Park was not used much at this time. Mr. Roberts suggested addressing the privacy concern by setting a dense planting of trees along the perimeter of the park between the neighbors and the park. He said that they have located the path as far as they could along the edge of the property but paths were typically built in floodplains because there was no other land available for them. He confirmed to Commissioner Scolar that the trail was asphalt. Commissioner Scolar asked how these trails stood up to flooding. Mr. Roberts said that the Parks Master Plan identified flooding of trails as a major maintenance problem. He stated that flooding deposited mud and silt on the trails and cracked the pavement, shortening the life of the TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION - FEBRUARY 1, 1999 - PAGE 3 trail. He mentioned suggestions to use concrete instead of asphalt or building a wider shoulder. He pointed out that the regional and state standard for this class of trail was 10 feet wide but when they applied for permits to build 10 foot wide trails, the environmentalists objected because they wanted narrower shoulders for less impact on the environment. He said that they had a conflict between the consultant's recommendations and what the environmental groups and the Resource Agent wanted. Vice President Padgett closed the public hearing. COMMISSION DELIBERATIONS Vice President Padgett suggested including a recommendation to study putting in bike racks. He agreed that it would be a good idea to plant a tree buffer to maintain privacy. Commissioner Scholar commented that the trees needed to be able to handle a lot of water. Commissioner Olsen moved to recommend to the City Council to approve the Woodard Park Master Plan with the two recommendations. Commissioner Griffith seconded the motion. A voice vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously by a vote of 7-0. 5.2 PARKS MASTER PLAN Vice President Padgett opened the public hearing. STAFF REPORT Mr. Roberts explained that the master plan was a 50 to 60 page document that included a lot of tables with the most important part being the recommended capital improvements list. He suggested focusing primarily on the list, as the Commission discussed the planning process at previous meetings. He reviewed the master plan process that included over a year of public participation, including a community survey, a phone survey, in-depth interviews, public meetings, and a task force. Mr. Roberts said that they mailed out copies of the plan to 22 groups. He mentioned that they have received comments from citizens and other City departments. He explained that the consultants divided the city into the existing four CIT areas, and developed a needs list for each area. He said that the action plan was really the recommended funding list. Vice President Padgett directed staff to proceed with the capital improvements list, as the Commission reviewed the needs in priority order at the last two workshops. Mr. Roberts mentioned that they received comments from Christie Smith, Pat Whiting, and the Operations Department. He said that the Operations Department wanted more money allocated earlier for Cook Park, they did not think it was realistic to include a Bull Mountain Community Center, they supported a fcaced dog park as long as the owners maintained the park but also TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION - FEBRUARY 1, 1999 - PAGE 4 CITY,OP TIGARD Community Development Shaping A Better Community MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD TO: Planning Commission FROM: Duane Roberts DATE: 1/25199 SUBJECT: Woodard Park Master Plan Request: Staff requests the Planning Commission recommend the City Council adopt the Woodard Park Master Plan. Background Approximately one year ago, the Metropolitan Service District (Metro) purchased Tigard tax lot 2S1 02BB 600 (see map attached) as part of its Fanno Creek Corridor acquisition program. This lot is located along the northern edge of the city's Woodard Park and formerly was used as a horse pasture. Fanno Creek flows through the western portion of the tax lot. Approximately three- fourths of the property is floodplain. In recent months, the city has developed a joint site plan for the Metro and the abutting park properties. Following formal City Council review and adoption, this plan will be submitted for approval to the Metro Council. Once Metro approval of the plan as it relates to its property is obtained, Metro will allow Tigard to manage and operate the site as part of the city park system. The site plan in question was developed with extensive neighborhood and inter-agency participation, and includes a wetland enhancement in the area along Fanno Creek and a mix of recreational uses. The proposed enhancement will be undertaken by ODOT at its own expense and will cover an area of approximately one-acre. The project evil( fulfill ODOTs obligation to compensate for the fill of a small wetland located within the proposed 217/1-5 interchange improvement. s The plan was developed through a series of three community workshops. The first community workshop, held on March 7, defined goals and ideas for the three-acre park and the seven-acre addition. The second workshop, held on May 7th, focused on alternative concept plans for Woodard Park and the expansion area. At the June 18th workshop, the consultant team presented a final concept plan that incorporates the comments and opinions expressed by the neighborhood and agency participants in the two previous workshops. Metro staff have reviewed saw the final plan and suggested minor revisions, which have been incorporated into the current plan. Copies of the plan have been sent to all those participating in the three workshops. A copy of a citizen letter dated October 6, 9998, commenting on the planning process is attached. Recommendation Staff recommends the Planning Commission receive testimony from interested parties, make. refinements or modifications to the plan as it sees fit, and forward a recommendation to City Council. MpWduane/woodard.hearing 10 175. SW (Catherine Tigard, Oregon 97223 October 6, 1998 City of Tigard Planning Department Dear Duane, Thank you for the inuitation to attend the City Council meeting on October 13 to support the park planning efforts of the city. 1 would gladly attend and support your efforts but 1 haue made a previous commitment to attend a meeting that same night with local school officials to help plan program reduction priorities for the Tigard- Tualatin School District. If it is possible 1 would appreciate it if you would read the following letter to the City Council on my behalf. Dear Council Members My wife and 1 haue Hued at our current address that is about 588 feet from the ICaro.l Court entrance to Woodard Park since 1963. We raised our sons here and the neighborhood is now on its third round of young children. Woodard Park has become uery important to these actiue growing children. We haue seen Woodard Park deuelop from the uery beginning. We are extremely pleased with the present plans for an expanded Woodard Park. When the community surrounding the present park learned that the seuen acres of the adjoining George Lowery property was for sale there was great concern about the i nature of any future deuelopment. Once the Lowery property was purchased bg Metro with green space funds our concerns shifted to how to protect the natural character of the property. When we learned from Duane Roberts that the city was planning to add that seuen acres to the three acres of the present park we began to realize the potential of an expanded park. That potential has.now.been fully realized bg the Woodard Park Master Plan. This plan was deueloped trough the cooperation of the City Planning and Parks Departments, MIG,Inc, Oregon Department of Transportation, The Tigard Police Department and the neighbors of Woodard Park. Starting last March Duane Roberts of the city planning department and Sally McIntyre, Larry Wight and Jane Henderson from MIG,Inc. assembled the neighbors of Woodard Park and the Lowery property in a series of site walk #hroughs and discussion meetings to work out a plan for the new-expanded Woodard Park. We were always asked "what do you want in the park?" They kept us informed about the legal, enuironmental and funding requirements of creating this "new" park. Ht no time did i they tell us to do it one way or another. H Tigard Police Officer Jim Wolf help us with safety and security 7 issues. Preliminary plannings for a citizen patrol, similar to the type used in Cook Park, have already been discussed. Jeff Monro from the city parks department also prouided valuable Input to guide our thinking and planning about what tgpe of trail surfaces and play equipment worked best in other parks. As•a result of the hard work and good aduice from the aboue mentioned people you not only haue 'an excellent park plan before you but you haue one that was designed by the neighbors and primary users of the park. We now haue a stake in the completion and upkeep of Woodard Park. It is no longer the citys' park it has become "our park." 1 belieue the process used in this project is an excellent example and model for any future planning done by the city. All those inualued in this project worked uerg hard to protect the remaining open space and future liuability of this community. Their efforts will pay diuidends well into the next century.. Yours truly Dewey R Hamilton AGENDA ITEM # FOR AGENDA OF 3/2/99 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Park SDC Study PREPARED BY: Duane Roberts DEPT HEAD OK t Y MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL (1) Should the city update its Park System Development Charge (SDC) fee structure to reflect increases in the cost of land and facilities since the structure's adoption in 1996? (2) Should the city adopt an automatic escalator to insure SDC fees keep pace with inflation and that park service standards are maintained over time? (3) Should the city seek to impose a park SDC on new development occurring inside the Urban Services Area? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends Council consider the attached consultant draft report outlining options for updating and extending the city's park SDC and provide direction to staff. INFORMATION SUMMARY The current park SDC was adopted in 1996 and applies to new development occurring within the city limits. The charges are somewhat low compared to other metro area cities. The data used in calculating the current fee levels was based upon 1994 data and costs. Current demographics, park inventory, and costing information was used to develop the proposed city park SDCs. The City's methodology used to calculate the current SDCs, only updates the numbers and, relative to the city's potential interest in expanding the SDC to the Urban Services Area, incorporates new numbers for the new area. Washington County does not impose a park SDC fee. As a result, development within the Urban Services Area does not pay a park SDC. Alternative standards for imposing an Urban Services Area SDC and the financial implications of adopting the various methods for calculating the standards have been considered. The authority to impose a park SDC in the unincorporated area must be provided by the county. County counsel has outlined two methods that will accomplish this task: either the county could impose the SDC on the city's behalf, or the county could grant the city the authority to impose an SDC. According to county staff, the county commissioners tentatively are scheduled to take up the question of a Tigard Urban Services Area park SDC in early 1999. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED This is an informational item only. VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY Revising and extending the park SDC would support the goal of accommodating growth, through the strategy of preserving open space and natural areas. FISCAL NOTES In fiscal year 97-98 the park SDC generated $268,400. In fiscal year 96-97, the first year of the current fee's adoption, the amount was $558,000. The annual amount generated by the SDC varies according to the fee structure and the level of building activity. i.\CitYMde MM\pat{ado.options.doo Y PARKS SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE COMPARISON FOR METRO AREA CITIES December 1998 Single Multi- c1tv Family/unit Family/unit Other West Linn $ 2,400 $ 1,698 none Lake Oswego 2,281 1,558 none THPRD 1,950 1,499 manufacture homes: $1,375 Wilsonville 1,943 1,477 nonresidential: $51/employee Hillsboro 1,499 1,499 non-residential: 1,125 in PUD $251/parking space for commercial & industrial; $187/parking space for commercial & industrial in PUD Tualatin 1,400 1,400 none Forest Grove 1,295 1,295 none *Tlaard (current) 1,050 detached 540 manufactured homes: 660 attached $740/unit in a park; $1,050/unit on a single tax lot non-residential: $49/employee Gresham 1,038 1,038 none Oregon City 955 630 none Milwaukie 950 620 manufactured homes: $600/unit in a park; $9501unit on a single tax lox Sherwood 841 841 none UtrpNduwWsdc.aur.doc i1111111 Milli CITY OF 71GARD July 31, 1998 OREGON John Rosenberger, Director Land Use and Transportation Public Services Building Suite 350 155 N. First Ave. Hillsboro, OR 97124 Dear John: This responds to your telephone call concerning Tigard's interest in levying a park SDC on new development within the Urban Services Area. In brief, we definitely are interested in imposing a park SDC in this area at the earliest feasible date. The Urban Services Area is developing at a rapid tempo, and we receive many calls from area residents complaining about the area's lack of parks and play areas. State statutes authorize local jurisdictions to establish park and other SDCs subject to two conditions: (1) the development of a methodology for determining the amount of the fees, and (2) the development of a master or capital improvement plan with cost estimates detailing how the fees will be expended. In 1997, Council adopted a SDC study that includes the unincorporated area. A City park master plan study that covers the City proper as well as the Urban Services Area is now in progress. Council adoption is scheduled for November. Thus, by the end of the calendar year, the City will be in compliance with the laws applicable to the imposition of a services area park SDC. In summary, the City does wish to be granted the authority to impose a park SDC within the Urban Services Area. 'We anticipate meeting state requirements for applying such an SDC within a few months. Assuming you already have worked out the details, please advise me of the steps we need to follow in order for the County to grant this authority to Tigard. Sincerely, •P ` . ames N. P. Hendryx Community Development Director i4 n/dr/sdc.usa 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772 WASHINGTON COUNTYRECEIVErp Inter-Department Correspondence 0 f T G 5 1993 AD>•AINISTRATIVc ~~NV ES DATE: October 5, 1998 IANDUSE8&TRANbPaRT IAN TO: John Rosenberger, Director LUT FROM: Alan A. Rappleyea, Sr. Assistant County Counsel SUBJECT: TIGARD PARK SDC REQUEST I received the attached letter addressed to you from Jim Hendryx of the City of Tigard inquiring about the County imposing a systems development charge (SDC) for City parks. The City wants authority to impose a SDC for parks outside of the City limits but within the Urban Services Boundary. Apparently, the City included the Urban Services Boundary (USB) in preparing their methodology for the SDC. The first question is whether the Board is interested in imposing this SDC. Assuming the County wants to impose this fee on its residents for the City of Tigard, the County has a couple of options: 1) the County can adopt an ordinance that accepts the City's methodology and capital improvement plan and imposes this SDC on the behalf of the City for the USB for parks under ORS 223.297 et seq.; or 2) the County could adopt an ordinance that grants the authority to the County to adopt by resolution and order any local government SDC that it chooses to apply in that governments USB. This would expedite the process for the next city of special district that requests the County to perform this service. There is some risk to both of these options. First, an analysis of the methodology will have to be made to make sure that it complies with state law. This can always be challenged on factual grounds. Second, a challenge may be made that this action is ultra vires or exceeds the scope of authority of the City or County. The County would be applying a SDC for the City outside of the City's boundaries presumably for City parks. As long as we limit the SDC to the USB and that area was included within the methodology, we would probably survive a challenge to the SDC on these grounds. Deschutes County currently is involved in litigation in circuit court over its SDC, which it collects for the Bend Metro Parks District, in Remarkable Properties v. Bend Metro Parks and Deschutes County. The County collects the SDC for development within the UGB but outside of the park district. There, the challenge is not to any ultra vires actions of the District or County but the fact that the methodology allegedly did not include any area outside of the District boundary. Other arguments may be raised in this case and it deserves watching. Upon direction from the Board, an ordinance can be prepared and filed. It would not be a land use ordinance under our charter, as the statutes specifically state that the adoption of a SDC is not a land use decision. ORS 223.314 Additionally, the charter excludes from the definition of "land use ordinance" ordinances on "fees." Charter, Chap 10,Sect. 100(d). AR/ W D/Uf PCN Vr1 GARDSDCM EMsh Attachment 2-22-1999 12:42PM, FROM CARL GOEBEL 5032251860 N,1 DRAFT PARK AND RECREATION FACILITIES SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGES CITY OF nGARD DRAFT Match 3,1999 ECONOMIC RESOURCE ASSOCIATES, INC. P.O. Box 9190 Portland, Oregon 97207 2•-22-1999 12:43PM FROM CARL GOEBEL 5032251860 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION I DEMOGRAPHICS 2 CITY 2 URBAN SERVICES AREA 3 ACQUISITION AND DEVELOPMENT COSTS 6 lo~ PARK LAND INVENTORY 6 PARK STANDARD CHOICE TMPLICATIONS 9 PARK, GREENWAY AND TRAIL NEEDS 11 UNIT COSTS 12 SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT CHARGES 13 ANNUAL ADJUSTMENT PROCEDURES 14 APPENDIX 16 i i i a~ i 7 2-22-1999 12:43PM FROM CARL GOEBEL 5032251860 P.3 EcONomic® RiEsOURCE _ ASSOCIATES, INC. TIGARD, OREGON PARK & RECREATioN FACILITIES SDCS Submitted: March 3, 1999 IluRODUMON The purpose of this report is to revise the City of Tigard's parks systems development charges. Parks systems development charges are assessed to new developments for the acquisition and development of parks, greonways and paved trails. They are based on the cost of providing these services to new City patrons. Besides the geographic area within the City boundaries, the report calculates systems development charges for the City's Urban Services Area (USA). The City's USA includes the unincorporated area within its urban growth boundary. The city currently has a systems development charge for parks facilities. The fee is $1,050 for single family development, $660 per unit for multi-family dwelling units, $540 per apartment and $740 per mobile home. Additionally, the City currently assessed a park's SDC of $4.90 per employee for new commercial or industrial development inside the City. These fees are based on a 1994 standard of 6.68 acres of park and greenway land per 1,000 residents and 1.092 of recreation land per 1,000 employees.' This report updates the financial, demographic and parks inventory information associated with the Tigard parks and recreation facilities SDCs. Further, it revises the City's Interest Area definition used in the 1994 report to incorporate only the City's adopted Urban Services Area. The methods used to derive SDCs in this report remain the same as those approved by the City in 1994. ' Parks and Recreation Facilities Systems Development Charges, City of Tigard, Economic Resource Associates, Inc. and IC Draggoo & Associates, November 18, 1994 ECONOWC RESOURCE Associates, Inc. tic kv, TA ~L ORS F N Q ( o : MEMO DRC RD Market Proffle Q ! OAK ST N PreFaredFor l Duane Roberts A W. y R~ Q ' D: Afl FA S:F• Ana Zgsls Area . N : ST m NOUN TA 1 N 7`A: RD Kin C i t : SA:r.L=;`R:. King y , ► :zE G RD ! (JRFIANI .,R : z. o ; • , Lxj BEND R _ Qfl~ 40ONB GraMAve s C N PbfWwd, OR 97232-2736 RD CM) 747-]142 Durh ~P TUALAT !N A METRO Plot date: Avgu*t 2a, 1998 r . OAK,, S AETRO IDRC N G~~ N s c~~'o Market- Profile u WAL NU uaaz►exnbe s v RD . om'. CD AwW; Area Tigard A AROE ST lac DOHA L O ST vsuotftmd co- r r4e rr: } p LLJ t O Q t SA T-TL 'ER S W DURHAM RD :Z cIScHE Q: Rp J T Ul~1 L A T nl 600 NE Gront(Ave Portland, OR 91731.2736 RD (5w) 797.m1 ' M6TR0 N Ul date: December 14.1949 Emil 2-22-1999 12:52PM FROM CARL GOEBEL 5032251860 N.1 City of Tigard Park and Recreation System Developmew Ciulrges Page 6 A.CQUISITXON AND DEVELOPMENT COSTS The 1994 Tigard Park and Recreation Facilities SDC report provided a detailed estimate of the acquisition and development costs for each of five park types. We have adjusted these costs for land value and construction price changes since 1994. The Washington County tax assessor tracks the average residential lot price for "improved home sites" for each urban area in the County. The Tigard land prices have increased from $39,000 in 1994 to $57,900 in 1998. The average annual rate of land price increases is 8.22 percent. The land component of the 1994 park acquisition expense has been increased by this factor. The most representative local pricing guide for Table 3 development costs is the Oregon Construction Cost L.stimated Park Costs Index as determined by the Oregon State 14ighway ark Type Land Development Department. The index monitors the bids offered e o Park 59, 85 $146,493 for excavation, crushed rock, mixed asphalt, Pommunity Park $59,395 $105,800 Pocket Par 59,385 $5 ,649 reinforcing steel, structural steel, and structural Linear s $29,692 $27,089 concrete. The Department also provides a reen7a s 29,692 $5,314 Al°'` composite index using all ofthese factors. Based on the composite index, the cost of park development has increased at an average annual rate of 4.12 percent. The 1998 estimated cost of acquiring and developing parks is shown in Table 3. The City's latest park acquisition partially confirms the accuracy of using this approach. Recently, the City and County jointly acquired the 11.68 acre Cache Creek park site on Bull Mountain. According to the City, the cost of buying the property was in the range of $700,000. Thus, the City paid approximately$60,000 pcr acre. We also confirm the accuracy of this approach by estimating total park acquisition and development costs to meet the Master Plan standards. The results of our computations compare favorably with the capital improvement and recommended project costs identified in the Master Plan. PARK LAND INVENTORY A generally accepted park planning practice is to categorize parks by type. The purpose is to assure that the appropriate facilities are located according to function, impact and need. The park types applicable to Tigard are defined in the Master Plan and are repeated for easy reference below. Neighborhood Parks: Neighborhood parks are the foundation ofthe parks and recreation system, providing accessible recreation and social opportunities: to nearby ECONOMIC R*SOURCE Alsioctates, Inc. 2-23-1999 11:41AM FROM CARL GOEBEL 5032261860 P.2 City of ngard Park and Recreation System Development Charges Page 1 residents. When developed to meet neighborhood recreation needs, school sites may serve as neighborhood parks. Community, Parks: Community parks provide a variety of active and passive recreational opportunities for all age groups. These parks are generally larger in size and serve a wider base of residents than neighborhood parks. Community parks often include developed facilities for organized group activity as well as facilities for individual and family activities. Socket Parks: Pocket parks provide recreation opportunities for residents in areas not adequately served by neighborhood parks, such as town centers or areas of high density development. Linear Parks: Linear parks may be developed along built or natural corridors to provide opportunities for trail oriented activities and nature-oriented outdoor recreation. Linear parks may also provide some active and passive recreation facilities to meet neighborhood needs, especially in areas not adequately served by traditional neighborhood parks. Linear parks connect residences to major community destinations. Greenways: A greenspace or greenway is an area of natural quality that protects valuable natural resources and provides wildlife habitat. It also provides opportunities for nature-related outdoor recreation, such as viewing and studying nature and participating in trail activities. Trails and Connectors: A public access route for commuting and trail oriented recreational activities, including sidewalks, bikeways, multi-use trails and paths. i Currently, the City of Tigard has 321 acres of park Table 4 i and greenway land (See Table 4). The basic Summary of Park Inventory information for each City park is listed in the Park Type Units Original Developed appendix of this report. In the greenways of the Neighborhood Acres 19.06 8.76 Community Acres 102.87 50.03 3 City, the City of Tigard currently has 1.91 miles of Pocket Parks Acres .15 1.15 paved trail. Also Listed in the appendix to this Linear cres 36.77 23.90 Greanways Acres 162-22 0.66 report is a breakdown of greenway corridors that 321.7 84.50 contain pathways and the approximate length of Tra is Miles 1.91 I each trail. ECONOMIC RESOURCE Associates, Inc. 1111a 1' 11 2°22-1999 12:55PM FROM CARL GOEBEL 5032251860 P.1 City of Tigard Park and Recreation System Development Charges Page 8 In addition to park land, existing city residents have contributed directly to park purchases through the existing parks systems development charge. Additionally, others have made contributions to build up the existing park inventory. Some monies contributed has not yet been spent. However, the funds must be used for the purchase and development of park lands. Thus, these funds, or the parks that could be purchased with them, is part of the City's existing park inventory. The City currently has $1,357,096 on hand. Assuming the same level of park development as Table 5 currently exists, the funds on hand are sufficient to Park Inventory with Spending of Current Balance buy 6.6 acres of park land and develop 21 acres of Pam TYPe Adjusted eve ope ezghborh 20.33 9.34 neighborhood, community, pocket parks linear parks Community I09.70 53.35 and greenways (See Table 5). Pocket Parks 0.16 1.23 znear 39.1 25.48 .99 According to the City, there are currently no parks t'ireenways 172 0.70 Total 342.38 90.10 or recreation facilities within the USA. STA"ARDS With the adoption of the 1994 SDCs, the City adopted a method for computing parks and recreation standards that recognizes that employees and residents both benefit from these facilities. The basic assumption of the City's method is that people (whether residents or employees) have similar propensities to recreate for each hour of available time. While the type of recreation might differ, the probability of recreating remains relatively constant. The City's approach is more conservative than that used by other jurisdictions. It uses a more detailed method of determining the available recreation time and specifically takes account ofdifferences in season, age of the population, and city residents working outside the city's boundaries. In addition, travel time for both resident and nonresident employees Table 5 from home to work is factored into the City Standard - Existing Servic v 1 computations. i opulatiO EM yee j Park Category Amo n Per Per 1,000 Neighborhood parks are built primarily for i Neighborhood 20. Q-5-St 0.000 the residents in close proximity of the park. Community 109.7 . 69 .231 j Pocket Parks 0.16 0.004, 0.000 Tbus, employees are unlikely to use 1 Linear 39.21 0.990 0.082 neighborhood parks. Community parks and 1 Total Parks 169.39 4.314 0.313 trails are used by employees. They play Greenways 172.99 2.965 11959 ball, use picnicking areas, walk the trails . . Total Parks and Greenways 342.38 7.279 2,272 Paved Trails 1.91 0.033 0.022 . etc. Greenways are a special category as these facilities generally do not provide ECONOMIC RESOURCE Associates, Inc. 2-22-1999 12:56PM FROM CARL GOEBEL. 5032251860 P.2 City of Tigard Park and Recreation System Development Sh-0 es Page 9 recreation opportunities to either residents or employees (other than the trails dealt with separately). Greenways enhance the general community by providing open space, wetlands, mitigation of flooding . etc. Thus, all, resident and business enjoy them alike. It is the residential and commercial property enhanced by the proper provision of greenway spaces. Using the City's previously adopted method, existing demographics and park inventory, the City has the park and recreation standards shown in Table S. Consequently, the City currently provides 7.3 acres ofparks and greenways for every 1,000 residents and 2.3 acres for every 1,000 employees. However, the City is planning for the Table 7 provision of park services to the USA. City and USA Stamdard - Existing Service Level 11cre are no parks and recreation facilities Population Employee currently in the USA. Thus, the USA adds JPark Category Amount Per 1,000 Per 1,000 borhood 20.3 0.458 0.000 population and employment to the City but mumty 109.70 2.331 0.187 does so at the cost of lowering the City's Pockct Parks 0.16 0.003 0.000 existing service level standards. The Linear 39.21 0.833 0.067 TiM FM 9.39 5.625 ---o--274 inclusion of the USA decreases the City's reenways 17.9 2.464 1.927 parks standard by more than an acre per Total and Greenways 342738 .089 2.181 Paved !tails 1.91 0.027 0.021 1,000 residents. An alternative method for developing City standards is detailed in the most recent Park System Master Plan. In that document, the recommended City standard is based on a combination of existing, local (neighboring jurisdictions) and National Recreation and Park Association standards. The Park System Master Plan sets standards of 2.5 neighborhood park acres, 3.5 community park acres and 5 acres of Smenspace/greenways for a total of I 1 acres per 1,000 residents. This is much more than Tigard's current service level. PAM STANOARA CHOICE IMPLICATIONS The city is free to adopt any park and recreation standard it chooses. The standard chosen has implications on the amount of the systems development charge for both residents and businesses. Generally, the higher the selected standard the more can be collected from new development. The recreation opportunities in the City can be expanded at a more rapid pace. However, choice of a standard exceeding the City's current service level also has implications for current residents. Principles of equal treatment require that existing and new customers bear comparable ECONOMIC RESOURCE Assmiates Inc. 2-22-1999 12:56PM FROM CARL GCEBEL 5032251869 P.3 City of 7Ygard Park and Recreation System Development Charges ~'ae YD Table 8 responsibility in meeting the City's,,park and Park Inventory Value recreation needs. As residents and employees, A ,lusted Developed ue whether cuurent or new, cannot be excluded from e' or oo .33 . 4 $2,575,132 parks and recreation facilities, both current and onusrtamty 109.70 53.3 12,35,i2 , nevi oa et atlcs .1 1.23 $72,838 customers must provide for these facilities in equal rnear. • 3921 25.48 ,8 , 82 proportion. Thus, the adoption of a standard eenways 172.99 0.70 $ ,14 ,130 ota 342.38 .10 $2 ,802, 4 exceeding current service levels in the creation of an SDC places a financial burden on existing businesses and residents. In Table 8 we first calculate the value of the existing park inventory (including cash balances) based on the park acquisition and development costs shown in Table 3 on page 6. The current value of thi City's park inventory is estimated to be just less than $22 million. We next calculate the park requirements ale 9 using the recommended standards of the Master Plan Standard - Existing City Park System Master Plan for the current Park Type Required Developed Cost Liability City population. The result is then valued eW-E 92.27 92.27 18,996,826 SI6,4 1,366 12.1 129.18 1,338,781 $9,179,649 fs°` in the same manner as the current City Pocket Parks 0.00 0.00 0 72,838) inventory. Based on these computations, Linear 0.00 0.00 s0 ($1,954,5825 Grtenways 221.45 0.90 $6,580 47 S1,440,117 the City needs an additional 100 acres of otal 442.1 22235 915,854 $25,113 12 • park lartd and more of the land needs to be developed (See Table 9). In total, the value of the park system at Master Plata standards would be worth $47 million. As the City invested $22 million and needed to invest $47 million to meet the needs of the current community, adoption of the park System Master Plan standards creates an unfunded liability of more than $25 million. This liability cannot be charged to the growth sector. Current businesses and residents must bear it. i Should the City wish to adopt an SDC based on the Master Plan standards, the current park liability must i be addressed simultaneously. While the City does not have an obligation to immediately bring the parks up i to the adopted standards, it must have a seasonable and implementable plan for doing so. Without such a plan, the SDCs could be challenged based on unequal treatment. s ECONOMIC RESOURCE Associates, Inc. 2-22-1999 12 : 57PM FROM CARL GOEBEL 50322S1860 P.4 City of ngrd Park and Recreation System Development Charges Page Il The liability ofthe City grows ifthe USA is a e 10 included in the analysis. As shown in Table Master Plan Standard o Existing City and USA 1 0 a n a d d i t i o n a l Type Required ve o ost x tl ty 46 acres of park land needs to be purchased a boz 111.03 111.03 S 858058 0,282,598 8 mmunity 5.44 -155.4412251,37W.01 $13,516,89 and developed to meet the Master plan oc et s 0.66 0.00 $0 72,838) standards for the current USA. This would Linear .00 0. 0 (-11,854,5-8-23 7,975 Greenways 122.061 0,9 98,105 $1,45 cost the City another $8 million. Again; Total 488.2 267.371$55,132,193 33,3 0,050 this amount could not be charged to new customers and a plan would need to be. developed to address the park deficiency. In the remainder of this report, we assume the City does not adopt the Park System Master Plan recommended standards at this time. Considerably more work needs to be done regarding the financing of deficiencies before SDCs could be calculated incorporating these standards. Such work is outside the scope of this report. PARK, GREENWAY AND I'RML NEEDS In the remainder of this report we assume the City will adopt an existing service level standard for parks that are based on either the current City population and employment or that of both the City and USA. As a result, we compute future park needs on these standards. However, in making value calculations we have used the costs shown in Table 3 on page 6. The per acre land costs are consistent with those paid by the City for its most recent park acquisition. The Master Plan computes the total park acquisition and development costs to meet the needs of the City and USA in the year 2008 (population 57,000). The total cost to bring the entire park system up to the Master Plan standard is just less than $50 million (includes CIP and Other Recommended Projects). Using the Master Plan standards, the Metro 2015 population of 66,500 for both the City and USA and the park and development costs shown in Table 3, we calculate the value of the fully developed park system to be $82.7 million. As shown previously, $21.8 million of s hai& already been invested. To meet the heeds of existing residents and businesses, another $33.3 million will need to be invested. Lastly, growth i will require additional investments of $27.6 million. In other words, based on these calculations, the City i ECONOMIC RESOURCE Associates, Inc. 2-22-1999 12:58PM FROM CARL GOEBEL 5032251860 P.5 City of Tigard Park and Recreation &aern Development Chars Pale 12 will need to invest another $60 million to serve the Table 1 I needs of the 2015 population. City Park Needs- Existing Service Level Park Type Acres Developed Cost The methods used for computing pars; and recreation Neighborhood 9.12 Community 48.03 23.36 4.19 15,.24155,,09739..9 8 costs in the 1994 SDC report (adjusted for inflation) Pocket P-aM .0 0.54 531,8 3.6 generates comparable financial results as those used Linear 17.17 11.16 x812,062.8 To arks 74.39 39.25 7,323,730.0 in the Master Flan. Thus, we continue to apply these reenways 67.51 0.27 S2,005,878.0 methods in the derivation of park needs based on Pave Trar 0. 5 0.7 83,041.9 existing service level standards. Utilizing the Total All City Recreation $9,412,649-91 current park service level standard for the City as applied fo the 2015 population and employment for the City, Table 11 identifies future park needs by type. The City needs to spend and estimated $9.5 million to meet the growth requirements of the City. Table 12 While the standards are lower when the USA is City and USA Park Needs- Existing Service Level included with the City, the City will earn additional Park Type Acres Developed Cost park funds by including the USA. The reason for Neighborhood 10.18 4.68 $1,289,382.8 this is that the USA is owin more ra idl than the 8 P y ornmun ty 5375 26.0 9 $5.946,587.4 Pocket Par • 07ff 0.60 $35,622.5 City. Table 12 shows the park needs that must be Linear 19.18 12.46 907,008 2 addressed by the year 2015 when both the City and o Par 83.08 43.8 $S.178.6-079: USA are being enwa s 73.53 0.30 08 304. g developed. Pav rails 0.81 0.81 3,054.5 Tota A 1 Ci and USA Recreation $10,409L960.11 UNIT COSTS The combination of park standards, per acre costs for land and development and the anticipated units served (resident or employee) form the basis for establishing the cost of providing parks for each unit of City growth. A weighted average bf the development and land costs was used to compute the total cost of meeting the City's parks standard. We estimate that on average, it will cost approximately $100,000 to buy and develop the land for an average City park, $30,000 per acre of greenway and $110,000 per mile of paved trail . The average City park cost is computed by weighting individual park costs. Besides buying and developing land for parks, greenways and trails, the City must periodically develop a plan for when to buy land, what types of parks are to be developed and the best location for the parks given anticipated development. In other words, a park master plan should be developed and approved by the City to provide operational guidance to the development of the Tigard park system. We estimate the cost of such a plan to be $54,000. As shown in Table 13, it costs the City approximately $525 to acquire and develop parks and recreational opportunities for the average new resident. Close to $100 is needed for each new employee. ECONOMIC RESOURCE Associate r, Inc. 01 Mimi 2-22-1999 12:58PM FROM CARL GOEBEL 5032251860 P-6 r City of 7Ygard Park acrd Recreation SLstem Dev!sioprrrent Charger Page 13 Table 3 Unit Costs City - Existing Service Level tan and Cost Per Capita Cost Per Employee p Type T s) Cap Employee ve op otal eve op Lan To 1 $226.7% Tota ecks -4.574 0.313 $198,615 25,405 $13,44 16,160 29,610 Greenways 2.963 1.959 $ 588,034 S88,099 2 S58,16 58,204 Paved Trails 0.033 0.022 3,647 0 $3,647 $2, 1 0 2710 Total A City Recreation S2 ,3 1 $314,830 51 , l 50 $15,901 74,322 0,223 Cost o Master Plannin9 S5,480 956 Cost Per Capita 523 Cost Pm to ee $91 We conducted the same analysis for the City and USA together. Because of the lowering of park and recreation standards, the per unlit costs are lower. Table 14 Unit Costs City and USA - Existing Service Level Standard Cost Per Capita Cost Per Employee Park Type Captta Employee Developed Lan Total Developed d Total Total Parks 3.62 0.254 ,779 190,551 357,330 $10,916 $13,117 524,033 reenways 2.464 1.927 S ,11 $73,163 574,275 $41 57,219 $57,260 Paved 17TVil; . 27 0302 0 0 $0 52,371 $0 ,371 otal All ty Recreation $167,891 9263,1141-93-1,6041 $13,328 70,33 $83 664 oat o Master annmg $4,574 $887 Cost Per Capita 36 Cost Per Em to ee $85 Symms DEVELOPMENT CHARGES Systems development charges are levied at the point of application for a building permit. If the building permit is for remodeling an existing business or dwelling, no systems development charge is assessed if the remodel is not an expansion of the existing living or work space. Otherwise, for all remodels and new developments, a systems development fee is assessed based on the number of people or employees who are expected to live or work in the space. For residential sector, we have established the Table 15 average number of people who will live in various Persons per Residential Unit types of dwellings. This information was obtained City of Tigard, 1998 Residential Unit Household Size from the 1990 U.S. Census of Population and Single Family 2.70 Housing. Multi-Family 1.70 Apartments 1.40 Mobile Homes 1.90 Apok ECONOMIC RESOURCE Asscciares, Inc. 2-22-1999 12 : 59PM FROM CARL, GOEBEL 58322518159 P.7 City of Tigard Park and Recreation System Development Charges Page 14 The number of persons working in a proposed commercial development varies greatly with the type of use. Thus, it is not possible to provide an average as a guideline in the same manner as for the residential sector. Consequently, each permit application for the expansion or new construction of business related space trust be evaluated separately for the number of employees who are expected to work within the space. The systems development charge is then based on the determination of the total number of employees who will conduct business within the proposed business space. The maximum systems development Table 16 charge that could be levied by the System Development Charges City of Tigard under the various Type of Development City City & SA Single Fancily Units $1,410 $1,180 alternatives discussed within this Multi-Family Units $890 $740 report are shown in Table 16. Apartments 730 $610 Because the City has not changed its Mobile Homes $990 $830 SDCs for Commercial - Per 10 lEm to ees 910 $850 five years and changes in the standards due to park purchases, the City SDCs need to be increased from their current level. The method for calculating the SDCs has not changed since 1994. However, all of the underlying information has been adjusted to bring it current. Depending on the boundary chosen for which the SDC is to be charged, it costs the City between $1,410 and $1,180 for each average single family unit to provide for parks and recreation. ANNUAL ADJUSTMENT PROCEDURES Land and development costs rise each year. The SDCs calculated in this report are based on 1994 prices inflated to 1998 costs by using price indices. We have demonstrated that the application of the indices can lead to realistic results. Consequently, we recommend that the City adjust the SDC fees annually. The new fee should be determined by multiplying the existing fee by the average of two indices, one reflecting change in development/construction and the other reflecting changes in land acquisition costs. The average of the two indices is a reasonable approach as the SDC fee is almost equally split between 1 1 land acquisition and development costs (the average Tigard park is 47 percent development and 53 percent land acquisitions). The index for the land acquisition component is the cost of residential tract land in Tigard as determined li by the Washington County Appraiser. The 1998 lot price used in this report is $57,900 and should be used as the "base" of the land acquisition index in the first annual adjustment to the SDCs proposed in this report. ECONOlv1IZC RESOURCE Associates, Inc. P. 8 2-22-1999 12:59PM FROM CARL GOEBEL 5032251860 • City of 7Ygard Po$a !S park grad Recreation Syatwn R elopmeW Charges - • The park development costs are adjusted by the Oregon Construction Cost Index that is available from the Oregon Department of Transportation. We used the most recut period composite index to calculate SDCs in this report (second period of 1998 - 131.3). Consequently, the index value for this most recent period becomes the "base" for the first annual SDC a4justmera. The City can use either quarterly or annual indices to make the adjustment. As can be seen from the entire series, quarterly values fluctuate more dramatically due to the mature of the bid process. ~.•,l_.Y'M Try j•'fi; ~ G. ~.i~!~r f n6... .:•u'-_z+:.:•..>c4i:•:•r::...{, y iF =sue • r.: . Where: ; r • S.13C: adJi~te~•.:. Base' -$$$x;81 . ACl = ' Aeae^ot mil'(YI:i'clcvcPmeric(C~gsstrdices 1U t . - 7.z . he- LCI L Cqs-'u#:rrslderitial:idt.p~ici~r S ` m tog ounttj+Tp i•Assessor DCl • ~_13eeTo)iit~t:Costlii C. Or gcali''? oiT~t iiatr~o~r Cost:~~►iCex peic:D~±pa t r+cait:.of'FPbrta. on . Ai--l ~►vct~lg~'o~.~e4an'd.0 CIS d: ievetgpirieri4,DCA):cos~ in ti; i i i i i 7 ECONOMIC RESOURCE Associates, Inc. I 2-22-1999 1:00PM FROM CARL GOEBEL 5082251860 P.9 City of ftard Park and Recreation System Deveiopmerrt CDwrges page !6 a 16 APPENDIX e° TICiARD PARK INVENTORY ECONOWC RESOURCE Assoctates, Inc. In Hill 111 11,01 11110,111 ~1110111111111111mlllmj 2-22-1999 1:00PM FROM CARL GOEBEL 5032251860 P.10 City of Tigard Park and Recreation System Development Charges 1>agge 17 Park and Greenway Inventory by Type City of Tigard, 1998 Percent Park Type Park Acres Type Totals Developed etghborhood Park lbertson s 10.09 sack Par .50 1067. Woodard Park 3. 001p° Lowery AMR= 6.80 Community Par Cook Park -79-45- 102.87 5% Summerlake Park 23. ` -907. Pocket Parks i rty P 0. 7 00% am Park 0. 100% Ye Old Windmill 0. 5 100% ontribute 1.00) Linear Parkes Englewood Par 14.97 36.77 90% Fanno Creek Par 1. 0 45% Commerce Park 0770% Contrlbu 0, ) Greenways 113th lace . 3 162.22 135th Avenue ,24 74 6th Avenues 3.14 Berkley Creek/Cooper Creek 1 & 2 6.39 lac Bull Park 2.00 Bonita Road & Industria ark 7.31 Brookway 2.30 Cache Creek 1 l . g apstona 2.1 Castle At Brittany 0.78 Clydesdale 0.36 Colony Cree Estates 0 1 V. ree ide ar 1.00 Dover Landing & Court 3.39 DO= Road 0.32 Estate Drive 1,70 Fairhaven St. SW 0.06 Fern Street 2.63 Finley Park 0.38 Genesis 2823 5.07 Gentlewoods 1.27 Green 5urg Roa 0.11 Hi lshire Woods 30.62 Holy-tree 1.30 ac Park 1.00 Johnson Street 0.29 ron 3 5.01 ea ow lade 4.1 ECONOMIC RESOURCE Associates, Inc. 2-22-1999 1:01PM FROM CARL GOEBEL 5032261860 P.11 City of Tigard Park and Recreation System Developmmi Charges Page 18 Park and Neenway Inventory y Type City of Tigard. 1995 ercent Park Type ark Acres Type Totals Developed Merestone 1.25 orningstar* North Dakota Pathf der Pick's Mding 6.43 Rebecca Park 6.88 5% Renaissance Waiid-s 2.74 vervtew Estates 2.82 e ec NO .4 Shay Lane 1.93 Summer Hills Park 4.01 5% W 135 th & Sc o s Ferry o errace !'rats -2.3U Tigard Street & A ition 3. Trlp--pitt Place 0.70 ua attn ountry u Tualatin- Drive OA2 5% Tua atin River is ox rt W low too arm 0.59 Wm sor ace . 3 Minter a Dflve Ye Old Wio&n-ill 7.36 Yolo tes rota Acres 3 .07 ECONOMIC RESOURCE Associates, Inc. f: ~ I AGENDA ITEM # For Agenda of =,Qi:. CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON SQ-6 vv Vx, to COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Add d 4(? ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Review of USA Conveyance System Ianagement Study PREPARED BY: Mike Miller, Utility Manager & Eric Hand WW/STM Supervisor DEPT HEAD OK~ CITY ADMIN OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Discuss the City of Tigard's involvement regarding the final recommendations of Conveyance System Management Study in part or whole? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Accept final recommendations of Conveyance System Management Study regarding: Water Quality Facilities Stabilized Maintenance Boundaries Regional Services Maintenance Program Performance Standards & Competitiveness Funding issues regarding Systems Development Charges & Maintenance Cost Reimbursement need further review by Finance Director, Public Works Director, and City Engineer. INFORMATION SUMMARY See attached summary of Conveyance System Management Study. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED FISCAL NOTES Wastewater Urban Service Area Budget: $366,508 Dollars include additional costs of administration, materials & services, 1.5 FTE's, vehicles and equipment. Storm Urban Service Area Budget: $418,608 Dollars include additional costs of administration, materials & services, 1.5 FTE's, vehicles an-2 equipment. Combined wastewater & Stc-m Urban Service Area Budget: $785,116 See attached budget estimate. Cost would be reimbursed to the City of Tigard by USA contract. CONVEYANCE SYSTEM MANAGEMENT STUDY NOVEMBER 1998 Prepared for. UNIFIED SEWERAGE AGENCY of Washington County 155 N. First Street, Suite 270 Hillsboro, Oregon 97124 Prepared by. Shaun Pigott Associates 1045 NW Bond Street, Suite 5 Bend, Oregon 97701 541.3831960 In Association With KCM, inc. Donovan Enterprises Grown & Caldwell URS Greiner/Woodward Clyde Section 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY BACKGROUND Since the Agency's formation in February of 1970, a comprehensive analysis and program for coordinated, on-going and efficient delivery of sanitary sewer and stormwater maintenance services has not been prepared for the entire service area. This Project was designed to identify opportunities to gain efficiencies in the provision of service to the public through benchmarking and assessment of the maintenance needs for these conveyance systems. This benchmarking includes collection of inventory data to better understand the amount of infrastructure needed to be maintained and proposes service levels and performance standards to optimize and standardize the maintenance programs of both systems. In addition, the Project produced an information database necessary to prepare annual maintenance work plans, and evaluate specific maintenance functions, their frequency and costs. This work program provides an estimate of the resources required to support these levels of maintenance activities and introduces approaches to maximize the cost-effectiveness of sanitary and stormwater maintenance services. The schematic on the following page provides an overview of the maintenance planning process used to develop the Conveyance System Management Study. The public stormwater system within the overall service area involves an estimated 26,500 catch basins (both sumped and flow through varieties); at least 42,000 lineal feet of drainage ditch; 4,740,000 lineal feet of stormwater pipe; 348 detention basins/water quality facilities and 7,665,000 lineal feet of sanitary sewer line. This infrastructure is distributed over a 123 square mile service area that includes 80% of Washington County's population. As part of this project, these conveyance system facilities have been reviewed with field operations personnel in terms of the following maintenance issues: • key activity descriptions • priorities • staffing ® timing factors i i equipment + • opportunities to contract out for services In addition to these recurring maintenance requirements, the cities and the Agency deal with a significant number of stormwater and sanitary sewer related complaints. The volume of these work requests has risen due to the initiation of a stormwater service charge and increased public awareness of the stormwater utility's responsibilities. The increasing awareness of water quality as it is related to stormwater runoff is also generating inquiries which must be addressed in a timely, accurate and consistent manner. Conveyance System Management Sthidy EM M~N~`~~~ENT CE S`lST CONNJI and F `na► Status Now project Scope of the sent system and execute annual r~yiend ance o inventory evetoped by the o Develop r plans een has been the A9 inventory is ANNUAL work plans betty INVENTORY Agency the storm MAINTENANCE each City. li incomplete within both CONTRACTS maintained & genera Y and the cities to be CONDITION the Agency the inventory equipment changes o Based on uenoies, taborand , VALUES and the freq s p o Field notes and uld be S8e approved standards}. P to inventory aster costs { uir ents are established. consolidated on ttlon map resource reA inventory COreview and for monthiY annual update EFFORT LEVEL RESOURCE WORK ESTIMATES NEEDS AND SCHEDULES WORK PROGRAM AL Revetwe OCAT ON ' Field g, BUDGET ° The Conveyance System rk Maintenance standards o An annual maintenanced woo the program will be develpe as eratoo s planning long term field op tool for the overall service area. PERFORMANCE STANDARD VALUES the Cities and Each year or biannuaoutsourcin9 CONTRACTING ° Agency will evaluate be used as OUT FOR . o The value contained in the MAINTENANCE oPPortunities ACTIVITIES adopted standards will work FUNCTIONS the basis for estimating reports from each COMPLETED schedules. o Quarterly summary planned vs actual jurisdiction will compare ESTIMATED field results and costs. r RESOURCE REQUIREMENTS t PERF©RMANCE & o Labor equipment and COST REPORTS ices WORK contracts be wised REVIEVN' S ARIES UMM } costs will EVALUATION S annually WORK CONTROL 7~T6Tri`~r Executive Summary TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE The Project Team's approach toward this analysis has been based on the principle that development of the Conveyance System Management Study be done in cooperation with the impacted cities. Accordingly, the process began by interviewing key persons involved with conveyance system maintenance and reviewing the objectives for this project and the key issues involved. These persons were also given an opportunity to comment on the major points developed during these meetings. Those specifically involved during this initial data collection phase and as members of the Technical Committee for the Project included: • Dan Boss & Ernie Rode; Tualatin • Lee Weislogel; Sherwood • Cal Bowersox; Forest Grove • Joe Thompson, George Kneese & Tom Arnold; Hillsboro • Rob Dixon and Mark Crowell; Cornelius • Steve Baker, Keith Stone & Len Apling; Beaverton • Ed Wegner and Eric Hand; Tigard • Chris Bowles, Steve Keenon, Dave Nutt, Ted Claussen & Mike Young; USA STUDY OBJECTIVES This study has a number of objectives designed to determine: 1. operational strengths and weaknesses of the current stormwater program, 2. standards for sanitary sewer and stormwater maintenance activities, including frequencies, production standards, staff requirements, work procedures, equipment and material requirements; 3. reconciling proposed field maintenance standards with the Agency's commitment to implementing "Best Management Practices" for sanitary sewer and stormwater programs; b 4. opportunities for consolidation or, outsourcing, and/or regionalizing specific functions and definition of these opportunities in terms of cost/benefit to the cities and Agency; N 5. procedure for the annual costing of specific maintenance activities with the objective of establishing a common budgeting database from which annual field maintenance work programs can be accurately forecast; 6. evaluation of co-location of maintenance hubs and equipment sharing, annexations and maintenance service area boundarv definitions. Conveyance System Management Study Executive Summary These topics provide the framework for the Conveyance System Management Study and have served as key issue points during individual and Technical Committee meetings. Inventory Data Overall, mapping of the sanitary sewer collection system is :aiuch more complete and accurate than inventory data for the stormwater system. This is true within the unincorporated area and the cities. The Agency began a GIS-based mapping process a number of years ago and has developed an in-house "GDS" system for most of the sanitary infrastructure and portions of the stormwater system. This GDS platform is now being converted to ARCWFO. On-going use of GIS in terms of maintenance scheduling or condition assessment is just being initiated. The cities are in large part reliant on hard copy maps for purposes of systems inventory and condition assessment. Maintenance schedules are typically reflected on wall maps or aerial photos with infrastructure overlays that are used to track completed maintenance and crewing. Maintenance Staffing Most cities do not employ dedicated crews for either sanitary sewer or stormwater system maintenance. The cities approach field maintenance through a pooling of personnel who can be assigned to water, sewer, stormwater or street maintenance operations. USA does assign personnel to specific stormwater or sanitary programs for ongoing system maintenance. Street sweeping, water quality facility maintenance, ditch cleaning, storm and sanitary line cleaning, TV inspection, and system repair are all performed by separate groups within USA's Field Operations. Overall, it is estimated that 46 FTE's are allocated to stormwater maintenance and 37 FTE's to sanitary (exclusive of Sherwood and Cornelius where specific FTE allocations are not used). Contract Services Various cities, over recent years, have expanded outsourcing for conveyance system maintenance including TV inspection, street sweeping, line cleaning and some catch basin/vactor services. The primary focus of these contracts has been in activity areas requiring specialty equipment not currently owned or soon to be retired by the city. In terms of stormwater system maintenance, the specialty equipment is a combination cleaner truck, regenerative air street sweepers, and TV inspection units. In all cases, these services appear to be cost-effective with the level of service provided consistent with the USA Guidelines. USA's outsourcing activities have focused on overload street sweeping functions typically involving sand removal. H Maintenance Programs and Performance Standards H H The current maintenance programs have evolved over time to their current levels. The Agency formally adopted the SWM maintenance program by Resolution and Order in 1994. The cities have generally followed the maintenance programs established by the Agency. In all cases, the cities use these standards as targets for conveyance system maintenance scheduling. Overall, most cities meet these targets with lapses occurring mainly in the stormwater maintenance areas. Conveyance System Management Study Executive Summary Budgeting/Time Reporting Existing time reporting and budgeting for conveyance system maintenance - labor and equipment are broadly defined under existing accounting structures which limits the ability of the cities and the Agency to relate specific resource requirements to units of production. Again, Forest Grove has implemented and uses a maintenance management system which does identify specific cost centers and relates these to reported maintenance production. Tigard also makes use of a maintenance management system for its sanitary sewer pipe cleaning activities. Because the integrity and use of any conveyance system maintenance program will be closely linked with each jurisdiction's ability to plan and track field activities, a credible activity reporting system is essential. Therefore, this project has proposed a simple and useable structure for reporting work activities in order to develop a "planned" versus "actual" comparison of work performed within the cities and USA service areas. MAINTENANCE ISSUE SUMMARY During discussions with city and USA maintenance personnel, a number of specific issues were identified as needing to be addressed through this project. These issues and a short summary of recommendations follow: • Detention Facility/Water Quality Facility Maintenance - The water quality facilities within the cities and USA service area are mandated under DEQ requirements. While required facilities, they need to consider maintenance in terms of both access and overall design. A differentiation between issues related to aesthetics versus function should be made when maintenance policies are established. In addition, there should be a coordinated policy among the jurisdictions as to water quality facility maintenance and when/if/under what conditions these facilities should be dedicated to a city or USA. Use of regional facilities - when and if they can be sited - should also be considered. An initial recommendation was made for USA to assume maintenance responsibilities for all of these facilities, but that recommendation was not supported. The recommendation was revised to have the Agency continue to work with the Cities to standardize design and maintenance practices, and to continue to pursue opportunities for regional facilities. • Optimize Maintenance Responsibilities - In the case of Beaverton, where service area expansion is occurring in a direction that further separates its Operations hub on the east end of town from growing service demand along its western boundary, some assessment of equipment location/ personnel staging areas needed to be considered. The same is true for USA where its Operations hub is a significant distance from urbanizing unincorporated areas such as the S.E. portion of the County and the Cedar Hills area. These types of equipment/ personnel location issues were evaluated in terms of possible co-location/joint city-USA facilities, and/or redefinition of maintenance responsibilities. The travel times and miles currently being experienced by some of the jurisdictions were reviewed as part of this assessment. The results of the evaluation is a recommendation to redefine areas of maintenance responsibility with each city and the Agency assuming responsibility for providing basic maintenance services in the proximity of their field yard and following drainage basin lines, regardless of city limits lines. A proposed map showing jurisdiction boundaries has been prepared. Conveyance System Management Study Executive Summary • Stabilized Maintenance Boundaries - The boundaries of cities within the USA service area are in a constant state of change due to annexation. In addition, some cities have annexed in a pattern that creates islands of unincorporated area. These conditions create uncertainty as to responsibility for specific areas of stormwater and sanitary sewer maintenance. In other instances, inefficiencies are created where maintenance equipment and crews service a checkerboard layout of infrastructure. The recommendation is to utilize the maintenance responsibilities and map defined above which optimizes efficiency, and stabilize this boundary such that it is independent of future annexations. • Systems Development Charges - While not a part of the review of the maintenance programs, the methodology for allocating both sanitary and SWM SDC's were evaluated. It was recommended that a new method for determining the amount of SWM SDC be developed. Regarding the allocation of SDC revenues between the Agency and city, it was determined that the current methods are outdated, and that new methods based on actual need be developed. • Regional Services - Certain work elements require specialized equipment and/or training. It is not cost-effective for all cities and the Agency to go to the expense of providing these specialized services. Individual work elements were evaluated, and a list of services which fall into this category was developed. The recommendation is that the Agency or a private contractor provide these services if it is not cost-effective for a city. • Maintenance Cost Reimbursement - Under the existing structure for the "in-city" stormwater service charge revenue allocation, 75% ($3/ESU/month) is retained by the city and 25% ($1/ESU/month) goes to USA. Under the existing structure for "in-city" sanitary sewer service charges, 30% is retained by the city and 70% transferred to USA (note that revenue bond payments "come off the top" for all service charge revenues). The 75% stormwater and 30% sanitary allocation for the cities is intended, for the most part, to support on-going operations and maintenance of these systems. The current methods of allocating the monthly service charge revenue was determined to be inadequate. It is recommended that a new method be developed to more accurately relate the costs of providing maintenance services with the allocation of service charge revenue. • Maintenance Program, Performance Standards, and Competitiveness - The existing maintenance programs were reviewed to assure they provide reasonable levels of service intended to ensure that the system operates to design capacity; protects the sanitary sewer treatment works and is consistent with regulatory/BMP requirements established through USA. The a work programs have been reviewed as part of this study to determine "how much is actually enough" and to better integrate the condition of the conveyance system with the i level of service. Performance standards were also reviewed to assure they meet industry i standards and that they are competitive with private industry. These "industry performance standards" will serve as a benchmark to assure that each city and the Agency are providing services in a cost-effective manner. If, through the annual review process, it is found that 3 performance standards are not being achieved, then that jurisdiction will have the option to bring their performance up to standard, contract with the Agency or a member city to do that work element, or utilize a private contractor. Conveyance System Management Study Executive Summary NEXT STEPS Each of the topics listed above was addressed through a series of "Issue Papers" developed through the course of the project. A later section of this report contains these documents. It is also important to highlight the fact that this phase of the Conveyance System Management Study was designed to prepare the technical basis for changes in providing and accounting for maintenance services. The next phase of this work program will be focused on implementing the standards, work planning and cost accounting systems identified in this report. Conveyance System Management Study r I 7 USA Conveyance System Study T'igard's Proposed Service Area Wastewater (2120): Tigard's currently maintains 123 miles of sanitary sewer line. The proposed service area adds an additional 452,000' or 85.6 miles of sewer line to our existing system for a total of 208.6 miles of storm line. This is a 70% increase in system size. Preliminary Pudket Impacts: Personnel: ® 0.5 additional FTE (Senior) $ 26,000 0 1 additional FTE (Utility II) $ 48,000 • .25 Supervisor $ 15,808 ( 2nd year out additional Supervisor will be added) Subtotal $ 89,808 Material & Services Includes items for maintenance of wastewater system including MH material, rock, pipe etc. Also includes personnel related costs such as training, clothing/boot allowances, personal protective equipment. Calculated at 70% of $64,570 (98/99 WW M&S). $ 45,200 Administration Calculated at 10% of above Personnel and Materials & Services dollars. (Includes Utility Manager, PW Director, Support Staff, etc) $ 13,500 Equipment: s Additional Combo Line Cleaning Truck split WW/STM. $ 125,000 ® Additional Video Truck split WW/STM. $ 75,000 e Additional 2yd dumptruck split WW/STM $ 18,000 (2nd year out, additional office for new supervisor, computer, furniture, etc) Subtotal $ 218,000 Wastewater Budget Total $ 366,508 Storm (2125): Tigard currently maintains 77 miles of storm line. The proposed new service area add an additional 280,000' or 53 miles of storm line to our existing system for a total of 130 miles of storm line. This is a 69% increase in system size. ' Water Qualft .Facilities: ~ Tigard currently maintains 22 WQF's. This number will increase to 30 by j the year 2000. The proposed new service area will add and additional 16 WQF's for a total of 46 WQF's to be maintained by the City of Tigard. Preliminary Budget Impacts: Personnel: • 0.5 additional FIE (Senior) $ 26,000 • 1 new FTE (Utility II) $ 48,000 • .25 Current Supervisor $ 15,808 ( 2nd year out additional Supervisor will be added) Subtotal $ 89,808 Material & Services Includes items for maintenance of wastewater system including MH material, rock, pipe etc. Also includes personnel related costs such as training, clothing/boot allowances, personal protective equipment. These dollars were calculated at 70% of $64,570 (98/99 STM M&S). $ 55,290 Administration Calculated at 10% of above Personnel and Materials & Services dollars. (Includes Utility Manager, PW Director, Support Staff, etc) $ 14,510 Equipment: • Additional Line Cleaning Truck split WW/STM. $ 125,000 • Additional Video Truck split WW/STM. $ 75,000 • Additional 3yd Flatbed Dumptruck $ 36,000 • Additional 2yd dumptruck split WW/STM $ 18,000 • Mowing trailer (transport of WQF mower) $ 5,000 Subtotal $ 259,000 Storm Budget Total $ 418,608 Combined Cost to Wastewater/Storm Sections Combined Budget $785,116 ®ptions to reduce initial cost: 1. Lease to own - large equipment 2. Phase in purchase of large equipment over 2 or 3 years. W' F 'Yff.:?: <4. ~ Fr • Y•.yii •v'Fn''4:iiv: ~<ti<4.iKL+C%J Zia um 0 CD a) C J~m CD rm' ®e som. CD 0 0 Imp, 0 (D mot .111" w CO) Cl) 0 ®o 7 i i i i { f FAIN :.h ;:;::::n..::::::: • ...,;:::::%+:'::'t:%::..s:::;iii;:::::.: h Determine operational strengths weaknesses of the current wastewater and storater programs. Develop standards for wastewater and stor water maintenance activities. o: Examine opportunities for consolidation, outsourcing, and regionalizing specific activities or work programs, Establish procedure for annual costing of maintenance activities from which maintenance programs can be more accurately compared and forecast. Evaluate opportunities for co-location o maintenance facilities, equipment sharing, and stabilized maintenance boundaries. • •'alEi;:i%i:::;i~•; • ~ flli.,✓,,•{.': ra. lr~ J. ,,pp...a: fi i®i i ~ i ®i ®i ~'S}i:;if,SS~:5Y~~£ f.'•S#::::f::::~:::: AMA& .ate ~ss f'i} i:~s r'~{.•`'fr,Eiti::i::: malk ORION OVA 33SS, r:{;::: CAR 0 imil Est sf `?<;<::'•>> CL CD CD PMP PEP Mimi Ps* P" MMM. CAR COD 02 CA fteftft Ls CD Ma NIMIN 10% CD Cl go }v`SJ dom PEW i >>F... ri;:JEE law CD am CD OEM use v •7i{ :`•#<t.E;~<i;f:Ef $s$f.f<ft. cl CD ''aEEEiSii;F.€4i>tit E's}•;t %%~Et %I ow ~;.:T N:%{,>.{;:^•}::;:$ is , J go OUR film h qbd ARM P" law Mob z WIN P u} ni.u .n. v 2i s •Yh,Y,:{J ljl,%Sf f%S;q}y I/:..:'~:~! ~ ...Y!:'vv'~: How- MOW ON as coo PEP am so po ease®e S~)i"•Sj.~f~' ~S 2tr';i~; Fr ti{(f S.Si ® a am mot P* in ta 22 ewe CD CD 10 imp fA 02 ®e In ra Ron ease e®e IM N 0~8 e® ee~e ewe ~ CD ^?:::>s3s f 40 NEW ewe %><i%... eeee~e eeer~e CD pmp one goo Bee~1 ee~e { we e®a~ m } CA mum one #r3`f s#zr#w }#Yitif~5;: coo PRO Fr ' C®O'sg PAD CD ~l PRO CD IMP F*A jfY{S. } Fee ®8 r'L Pm* #.<#t<}Fk t# z CID Poe a 40 z.Y #t} z ±yn:.oyi X'x ~ :.....:.i•.• .fin..... w:: wwnv L`v .,\v. w:. wv: .v. ::v: m: :::v: • :w.:: nv.:;.:;v:::w::: ::•v::niiii'4:4ii::{6:;tri ii . ...v nvn•. •r ,.:v::::::: w: ~v: v:: ~w:: w:::::.,ii:^:Miiiii ii:iiii: iiiiiiiiii::: i:t . 'i?i'<%a:i:`.c't't't't?:ii;'/,.::'t::'t:Gi'•:+::ij;;:YY;:::i:;:i:;;::;i:•~i;•i: ;•:;:.:;:c:::•:: i:: iii;l:i:n is •}<::?.;Yi:.:. ~::;n.: ii: ..,v n•i i "''v' .,:.i. ~:;4ii}i: ii.ii:':vii;4::4ii:;•:v:'.iii::.:4i?iiii iiii::j :;iiiiiiii:. :}1 ..v. ..«v.v. ..v$:.,. :.v,.. :.:::n:::••n::::::v: :ii•.i'r' :ii::: is i:'i:!; j:: ii}?v4 C:::iv::::v:v:: <N ;4; ::v ;:j<:: nhole ailie sealing [Specialize imentl Trunk line Maintenance [Historically USA] h Video inspection ® perler in inspections or review Video tapes. (To Remain W of Tigard) line Cleaning Debris Disposal (Requires Site for ST Disposal] x..®: loot Treatment [Specialized Equipment] Pump Station Maintenance (Historically USID line replacements [Engineering or USAPI Structural line Repairs (To De ain Ci of Tigard) Roadside Ditching [Ci of Tigard or USA] Leaf Pickup Program (Now Program to he Developed 6 Tigard or USA] MEN WON nw r } vow: nv.. . :..vv.':' .a-sly; v' : f x-~ xyt: r 0 A;~{R nwnv»::ty»n:w:.v. . wa:: • •.w:. :nv ~ . v, v aiC: v<:ii{`~vvit ~•;w:i . tu.:,`u, :yF; .n..nnv»nvw. nv.v n:{{vr :,y.. .GS::{?f.{~'::?;~ii~:::i'i~':.iC:.'~::£~::. ~i ii}...x,; ":~'°:N :~t~::w:y^.:'~:~!:v:i:.;{{::'.:.^.:~>L:•::::.::.:: ' Q k ti~•x 'v4 ~w iv . ~c a t ir..;:..:::::::. .:....:..:..::.c{-.:,--w;:•:-:-:.Y ;:.ter.:.;:;:;.;.,,::.~:.:~ to { v,~ n vw.,t nv. rnvv.-nom .,'{'•muw }vv:: w:.rY:4.... nv: m::::.wn}v.:....:.:':. - v:.v'. v..:.nu n ,..v,~rr n+n-.vm•.•::: :..w..nw:{.xY:^}}+ vvnv{nv„t r vr»n•.tt Yr..:...Z:.vtv:..v+........n.. rn.: .t.:r r vv. :e v a Buie attache a MEN m aste ater Collection System 1 Big pacts ® Current system -123 miles, USA Seaw ce Area - additional 86 Iles MAL for ater Collection System Impacts Current sste - w 17 m iles, S Service - 811111110118153 U Iles ater Quality Facilities ® urrently maintain 22 WftFs, U Service Area - additional 1 s Stu Recommendation - Adopt proposed service area. 7 HIM .r<.: ,4,:i i4:;E!%i ` :i' i:~lJ':r~r / .%~?fi'?nr.~: $t!f {yf r:i f E?EE£# FMP Co CD MR cob MEMO ti :sffff:;i i:;ffft :Ef;>; !«!<E:fY,•;<:;.}:s•: g~ >}£::.Ef'''EsEE>aE``'tEEi::#.## !to: PMP #ONE% CD wo <ss aim bums ~a y~tjii <f. ny}>: ML ?>r pop 40 Go 4al r s n ;EiEE. ~Y< } ~cF'f`f Nfi$`•f, $i / viC;.,:;.YF..?y~; tL..t'.•..: /.,f:,u,. :f„h, •t!l: •~:.:i 'ftfS~...:. ~`r`,••~~,•:5:~ `,+i . +.'t''Ff^#'.'': /.`:::>ti#•`'Y::: ::cfr:.f...; :•ri`j,•.•,7':': i:r:..}}:.}' ...`jft .fc: .}.•r.,::r ~°!'::'•:?:Fftt; %/r:?Fi~}f `its E ct>g amp {t hS}}}Y~ 2~ f f y'cT pl* Poe co CD so ME ® ?iif ?'?'?ir'Y{::f'L}.G:':,ftt`;'tES t`iYh<4.2<t:: = Po* COD CD Mom COD PRO alm TA 10 >x ri } 20 ® yi CD ®yy do PEP ,gip poop 'E??:EfE~^Ek tcETtss~>sc lab dt:. wahstewdmagohr 1st t ® lculateu at 1% above 98/99 Personnel a Material Services dollars, ® Includes Director, ties Manager, Support Staff, etC... Subtotal $13,500 10 TTIY T A T T TfTTTr/1 fTrT hA , 1}i+ii:::' :/y/:f ! Yf.:Ny ! rJff! H/~ -~'r• •V, ,y!'i~+l~:V V ///!1 Y%-•/-': ryY~:: !~-J. / r r~! ! d 'Wat'r aft 0 ® Equipment Additional Combination Cleaner Split /ST $125,000 Additional Video Truck split /STM $15,000 Additional 2yrd dump truck split /ST $18,000 12nd year out , additional truck, computer, etc for additional supervisor] Subtotal $2181000 11 Yr i zfi v v e®: watilowd 0 uld Personnel $89,808 trials Services S4288 Administration Equipment $2189000 Total $366P568 12 y~X r r } am rMW8 IL Val h r ~t • r \tti to i rl 0o 1 [till On ill $48POOD .u,25 FTE [S a !S r 2n rJ 1 Subtotal $890808 E~~ y 13 Kg Ing (i.:. u t :fir.:<,.. tormwatur r vicub material etc... MMN i c Clothing / 6001 allowance etc... 10% of 98/99 Subtotal S55298 vk4 vet\i~..... 14 T lH, ~ y N~~ l y/ f ~ Y~~~ J1' ~ ~~'!~':~'~'.''3iyfe h• ~YU r 7 Yyi/JOj i i T ti a i GIO,mw Ado] a un ® 1 t r Calculated at e 98199 r l and tell a Ices data. tai, n Orl Iuiu a hector, tali n , S OP t~97m6■ Subtotal $1016 z 15 I IN si- ..yp. rn r+ •,Y•`;G'%.... •/.yq/y%:%~ r~~~/,v/•~c+::;~••f,::f~ ~7,'•;,. . v.'a,: , - ^r;: / ii~; ~/r/.i./r.G•.: ryj >i-i 1Y~/:S OJprr. 1 174 MEESE= v dug ® i Equ P111511 '.k AddifI01181 Coln102110n Cleaner split /T $1259000 $15,000 Additional Video Truck split /T Additional 30 flatbed dump truck $36,000 Additional 20 dump truck split /ST 510,000 Mowing trailer (Transport Q older) 5 000 Subtotal $259.000 16 . ,T TU T Q x .T.TrTTCrT-r) Tri :sz i•S(r~.•~•r{fy,/y f. }•,r.:yf~ i~ y, rh,. ,r• ij ':iSk``•,•'.^,.`"s : ~Y.;;...f•..'% ei`:.,e.::,:: r: . rs n5 ri,:: %lj:k:f ;.n. ~,';~Sy;ffi~, .:fn:.; sr:•r:iS:.;?Si~. o®i cob pop no IBM ~e V® ®l FM Sam PRO ®o t -00 CO CD CD as 00 a y y'am` ti{{ ::t.,L : 333 rr • pop Balm a PZ* Zia , JaV .U,\ \Y..,\\\ 4\`~ rr} cr) ~~h'\ not USA CONVEYANCE SYSTEM MANAGEMENT S'TORMWAT'ER FIELD MAINTENANCE STANDARDS 11/10/98 INSPECT/CLEAN CATCH BASINS (Sumped & Unsumpe,d) DRAF.i. The removal of sediment, gravel, and other debris from within the inlet grate and the sump areas of the catch basin; includes flushingfjetting with water via machine or physically removing the material from the catch basin to restore full conveyance capacity. This requires the use of a vactor truck. ~.•.,,.(:,/p~~wTxy's 3! a rs ~'F"~+'.v+xM1L'n`53~~:.•r.r DOSE C►V~4lY I1C~aT. In order to operate at design capacity for purposes of both stormwater quantity and quality management, the grate and flow through portion of the catch basin must be clear of debris and sediments. The sump portion must be largely clear of sediment/gravel in order to capture additional material during a storm event. Material should not exceed 1/2 the depth from the bottom of the catch basin sump to the invert elevation of the outlet pipe. ,~MAtNTECE E;,REQUENC~', R IN1%EPrtOEYEFERI=NCE / ",i111~S" ;CODE';' Sumped See quarter Catch basins should be cleaned at least Catch Basins section map once annually; critical catch basins should (estimate for the USA reference be checked and cleaned after each major Public System) storm event. fCREVVrREQIIEMEI TSr.s y'EQtJIPI1AFNTREQIJtRE111lENTS`'= 1 Vactor Truck Driver 1 Vactor Truck 1 Laborer Operator Traffic Control <'~MATEWFiIALEdEQ~t#IlklEfNTS Vactor waste decant and disposal- PERIFORNAANCE STANDARD r -;a 35 catch basins per day - sumped araes 50 catch basins per day - unsumped areas FILENAME: sd-cbsmp.vsd ~ f f ' BANKS \ E 1 NO TH j - P NS L I ; l r r1 ? ~ ~ y e- ~ n^i-!'~ .,,~~'"'~'L51aT.a+t1• ~ • p 5~'~ ° ^-f' ~ ` `.7. ~ ~ Ep. TU I i i r Q~i to too It a4 1 r rya4' - G.A TPN F i z3 -ti c ; a Y¢ scxoL UTIM ca KI i , F. t 7' L . 7„ 4 n 1 o F 3u s T' ~'T^'-^T 1 'T'rniT.,.e r.^' 7777 4. 1 i ' S r March 2, 1999 / dq-:? WY OF 11GARD Mr. Tim Roth OREGON JT Roth Construction, Inc. 12600 SW 72"a Avenue, Suite 200 w Tigard, OR 97223 E 1 RE: SDR 98-0016, 12755 SW 69TH AVEi~1LTE a PUBLIC RAPROVEMENTS r Dear Tim: i I reviewed your letter to Gus Duenas, dated February 9, 1999, wherein you expressed concern about the public improvements associated with your proposal office building project. In the letter, it was stated that you have incurred approximately $ 2,000.00 in engineering i costs for design of the half street improvement on SW 69 Avenue adjacent to your site. . The plans that were prepared by Compass Corporation were submitted to our office on December 18, 1998. On January 12, 1999, I contacted Bruce Goldson with Compass Corporation via fax indicating that we needed copies of letters or transmittals indicating Compass has sent the plans to the various utility companies for their review and comment. We did indicate that we would begin the plan review. However, on that same day, January 12, 1999, I later called Bruce Goldson and we discussed the pending LID on SW 69th Avenue and the fact that your site would likely be included. I expressed to Bruce that I was concerned about spending our time and money, as well as your time and money in a plan review if your site would be included in the LID. That same week, a neighborhood meeting was held to discuss whether or not the City should continue to pursue the LID. I suggested to Bruce that we hold off on reviewing your plans until after the neighborhood meeting, hoping that we would have r = some indication as to whether or not there would be at least 50% of the affected property. owners in support of the LID. My thinking was that if the affected properties supported the LID, there would be a very good chance that the LID would be supported by the City Council. Bruce agreed with my reasoning and said that he would let me know if you had any concerns about taking this course or action. Until I saw the letter, dated February 1999, I did not know that you had the concerns you listed. ~Y As you are aware, there was general support for the LID from the affected property r; owners and the City has moved forward to recommend the formation of the LID to City ` Council. In talking with Gus today about the City Council meeting last night, it appears + there is a reasonable chance the LID will be formed. Therefore, I am reluctant to review F your plans, as it appears it would be wasted effort. 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772 f Mr. Tim Roth March 2, 1999 Page 2 You asked if your project will be held up because of the LID. This is a valid question. My recommendation would be that we handle your situation in like fashion to what we have done with the Specht Development approval (SDR 98-0014), wherein we included the following as a condition related to final building inspection: "Prior to a final building inspection, the LID improvements shall be substantially complete. For reference, "substantial completion" means that all of the underground utilities are installed and tested, street lights are installed and ready to be energized, and the paving for the streets is completed. In the event the LID improvements are delayed beyond the contract completion date, this condition will not prevent the issuance of temporary occupancy permits, provided the applicant has submitted a temporary access plan that is acceptable to the City Engineer and as long as other public facilities are functioning to serve the buildings." We would essentially extend the same option to you, in the event the LID improvements are delayed as mentioned in the above condition. I hope this letter clarifies our actions with regard to the public improvements adjacent to your site. If you have any questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Brian D. Rager, PE Development Review Engineer C: Gus Duenas, City Engineer Jim Hendryx, Community Development Director Bruce Goldson, Compass Corporation, VIA FAX: 653-9095 WIp3MUtsMeptsbn9%bdanAconwponddxeb2241999-tlnrolh-69ft&.bdr doc CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ( C Up4v-c~ RESOLUTION NO.99- A RESOLUTION OF THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING A PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN THAT DETAILS THE VISION, GOALS, AND IMPLEMENTATION FRAMEWORK OF A CITY AND URBAN SERVICES AREA PARK AND OPEN SPACE SYSTEM. WHEREAS, The Tigard Park Plan was adopted in November 1997 and was intended to address City park needs over a ten-year period; and WHEREAS, the City Council appropriated funds for the preparation of an updated parks master plan in February 1997; and WHEREAS, a consultant was hired in October 1997 to work with the Planning Commission and a citizen task force on the development of the plan; and WHEREAS, the master plan process has insured the opportunity for all citizens to be involved in all phases of the development of the new parks plan; and WHEREAS, the Tigard Planning Commission, following a public hearing held on February 1, 1999, endorsed the Park System Master Plan with the revisions contained in Exhibit "A"; and WHEREAS, the purpose of the Park System Master Plan is to detail the vision, goals, and implementation framework of a City-Urban Services Area park and open space system; and WHEREAS, it is intended that this Plan be used in conjunction with the Comprehensive Plan Policies and Implementation Strategies but not be adopted as part of that document, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that: SECTION 1: The Tigard City Council adopts the Park System Master Plan as revised by the Planning Commission and City Council and directs the City staff to use the p'an's goals and objectives when evaluating park and recreation needs and improvements. SECTION 2: The Table 11 "Capital Improvement Plan" contained in the Park System Master Plan is not adopted at this time, but instead will be adopted at a later time in conjunction with potential revisions to the City park system development charge fee structure. SECTION 3: The City park service level standard of 11.0 acres per thousand population proposed in the Park System Master Plan is adopted as a goal or ideal standard, and is not adopted as a existing or operational standard for park SDC fee calculation purposes. RESOLUTION NO.99-_ Page 1 SECTION 4: Any fiiture revisions, amendments, or modifications to the Park System Master Plan steal be by resolution of the Tigard City Council. PASSED: This day of 1999. Mayor - City of Tigard ATTEST: City Recorder - City of Tigard i:bitywide\pwksystempian.doc RESOLUTION NO.99 Page 2 RMIS CR13W CORRIGAN & BACHRACH LLP ATMRNEYS AT LAW 1727 N.W. Hoyt SWeet MEMORANDUM Portland, Omgon 97209 (503) 222-4402 Fax: (503) 243-2944 TO: Tigard City Council FROM: Timothy V. Ramis, James M. Coleman, Gary Firestone of City Attorney's Office DATE: February 26, 1999 RE: Approvals, Denials, and Conditions of Approval I. INTRODUCTION Since Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 US 374 (1994) was decided, planning staff and the City Attorney's Office have been working together dealing with the issues raised by Dolan and applying Dolan to land use applications. The City has developed appropriate responses to various Dolan challenges brought by developers. Although the U. S. Supreme Court has not expanded on Dolan, lower court and state court decisions have resulted in substantial clarification of the Dolan decision. The knowledge gained through the evaluation of the post Dolan court cases and the practical experience gained through the processing of applications in which Dolan issues are present allows us to reassess Dolan at this time. The reassessment is intended to provide guidance so that the City continues to respond to development applications in a manner that ensures compliance with Dolan while preserving the City's right to impose development standards and to exact appropriate dedications and public improvements. Dolan requires that every exaction imposed as a condition of a land approval be related to and roughly proportional to the impact of the development! The government must demonstrate rough proportionality based on an individual assessment in each case. All provisions of the Community Development Code must be interpreted in light of the Dolan standard. The City may, however, deny applications based on a failure to meet established criteria, as long as the criteria do not require an exaction. The City can deny an application if required public 'The most common exactions are requirements to dedicate land for rights-of-way and requirements to provide on-site or off-site public improvements. 1 Jr Memorandum re: Approvals, Denials, and Conditions of Approval February 26, 1999 Page 2 services or improvements are not available but cannot deny an application because the applicant failed to provide the required public improvements when the burden of the exaction would significantly exceed the impact of the development. II. ANALYSIS A. F,yely Exaction Must Be Justified by a Rough Proportionality Analysis A requirement to dedicate right-of-way or to construct public improvements is an exaction. There must be an "essential nexus" between any exaction imposed as a condition of development and the impact of the development, Nollan v California Coastal Comm'n, 483 US 825 (1987).2 The exaction must be "roughly proportional" to the impact of the development. Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 US 374 (1994). Dolan requires "some sort of individualized determination that the required dedication is related both in nature and extent to the impact of the proposed development." Under Dolan, every exaction must be justified under the rough proportionality test, with the burden of proof being on the City. LUBA has taken the position that requiring additional right-of- way on a street bordering a development cannot be justified as a matter of course, but must meet the rough proportionality standard. Gensman v. City of Tigard, 29 Or LUBA 505 (1995). Therefore, even a condition that an applicant dedicate right-of-way for an adjoining street must meet the rough proportionality standard and be based on an individualized evaluation of the traffic impact created by the development. B. Local Governments May Deny an Application Based on Uniform Standards and Criteria that Do Not Raquire an Exaction As recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court in Nollan v California Coastal Commission, 483 US 825 (1987), a local government may deny a request for a land use approval if objective standards regarding the property or the level of services available justify a denial. However, the holding in Dolan precludes a denial based on the failure to meet a code requirement if the code requirement requires an exaction and the exaction is disproportionate to the impact of the development. In other words, if the City could not require an exaction as a condition of approval under Dolan , it cannot deny the application on the basis that the exaction was not provided. However, if the code requires 'The "essential nexus" requires a relationship between the type of impact and the type of exaction. This test is met if the impact is on the road transportation system and the exaction is a street dedication or improvement. The test is not met if the impact is on the sewer system but the exaction is a street dedication or improvement unrelated to any sewer line. OW Or Memorandum re: Approvals, Denials, and Conditions of Approval February 26, 1999 Page 3 that certain public improvements or services be in place and meet certain standards, Dolan does not prevent a denial based on the lack of existing public improvements. In the case of rights-of-way and street improvements, a requirement that all developments must have direct access to a street that meets city standards would survive a Dolan challenge, a requirement that the applicant dedicate right-of-way and improve all adjacent streets so that they meet City tdaiu3 wouiu not mu y ivi uWeS' the C.% could de ona-&.ate th at the dedication and improvement are roughly proportional to the traffic impact of the development. . The Dolan standard applies in all situations involving exactions. It applies to local streets, to developments with more than one street frontage, to single family residences, and to redevelopment. In the case of redevelopment, the impacts that can be compensated for by an exaction are limited to the increase resulting from the redevelopment. In our presentation to Council, we will identify some of the specific factual situations where these issues arise. You will be able to see the kinds of judgments that the staff, and ultimately the Planning Commission and Council, will be called upon to make. III . SUMMARY In deciding land use applications in which dedications or improvements may be an issue, the City should apply the CDC in light of the Dolan requirements that all exactions must be related to and roughly proportional to the impact of the development and that the rough proportionality evaluation must be based on an individualized assessment. Failure to apply existing code provisions in light of Dolan could result in takings claims. a:~waona.~.wpa a . 1 0 Exaction Law Update m Review practical experience with DoZ= ® Development of case law m Short term and long team solutions 20 The Dolan Rules ® Context: conditions on development approvals ® Rough proportionality ® Individualized quantitrti a analysis ® Benefit to subject property m No "safe harbor" 3 O Available Responses m Denial ® Approve with timing condition ® Use LIDs and other tools to assure fair contributions 4 O Short-tern Suggestions ® Look for opportunities to use traditional tools o Use of director's interpretation ® Code amendments 5 tl Long-term Suggestions ® Comprehensive capital improvements planning ® SDC updating 1 ExaLtion Lave Update ■ Review practical experience with Dolan ■ Development of case law ■ Short term and long term solutions Thto Bolan -Rules ■ Context: conditions on development approvals ■ Rough proportionality ■ Individualized quantitative analysis ■ Benefit to subject property ■ No "safe harbor" Available Res o~ rases ■ Denial ■ Approve with timing condition ■ Use LIDs and other tools to assure fair contributions All Short-term Suggestioju.s ■ Look for opportunities to use traditional tools " ■ Use of director's interpretation ■ Code amendments Long-term Sugvesfions ■ Comprehensive capital improvements planning ■ SDC updating 40 IMF 1L4CCCMEMO Date: February 24, 1999 To: All MACC Jurisdictions From: Darryl Willis Re: Franchise Fee iNsbursement Schedule for FY1999-20 The enclosed schedule contains the estimated franchise fee disbursements for FY99-00, for use in preparing your budget. Per the terms of the franchise agreement MACC recently signed with TCI, franchise fees are received by MACC 45 days after the close of each calendar quarter. The fee revenue is distributed to each MACC Jurisdiction 30 days after that. For example: The fees paid to MACC on August 15, 1999 will be for the quarter ending June 30, 1999. MACC will distribute the jurisdictions' shares on September 15, 1999. M- . M 1 ?9 Until 6/30/99, MACC jurisdictions contribute 5% of franchise fees to support Tualatin Valley Community Access (TVCA). This 5% contribution expires at that time, unless the MACC jurisdictions act to continue it. Because the MACC Board is currently reviewing T VCA funding, and is considering whether to recommend a future TVCA contribution level, the enclosed report includes the 5% in the projections. Once the MACC Board and jurisdictions have determined a future level of TVCA support, if any, you will be notified. Please call me with any questions at 645-7365 x202. Encl.: spreadsheet (1 pg.) cc: MACC Commissioners Bruce Crest, MACC Administrator c:\My noa wowu~tAC~ccw~o~rooa~a too FMOJ LET o Ldw I • Projected Franchise Fee Disbursement Schedule FY1999-2000 5.0% 57.0% Revenue w/ Fee 5% Franchise Fee Jurisdictions Share The 5.0% cofrtrlbution to T9/Ce4, lahlch efrpltz~ Estimates for Jan-Dec 1999 $40,683,443 $ 2,034,172.15 $ 1,159,478.12 on WNW, will be considmd by the 1~ACc Estimates for Jan-Dec 2000 $43,175,941 $ 2,158,797.05 $ 1,230,514.32 Board fot' possible Increase or demaw. Modification factor-.> 3.00% 31115814.06 2099 3099 4Q99 1000 2000 Apr-Jun 99 Jul-Sep 99 Oct- Dec 99 Jan-Mar 00 2Q99, HQ", Apr-Jun 00 4098 25. 24.724 26.24 23.827% 4Q99, 1Q00 25.? 0 JURISDICTION %of Total BANKS 0.1918% $ 577.10 $ .566.20 $ 601.12 $ 579.09 $ 612.46 BEAVERTON 15.7983% $ 47,545.53 $ 46,647.45 $ 49,524.70 $ 47,709.25 $ 50,458.44 CORNELIUS 1.9961% $ - 6,007.29 $ 5,893.82 $ 6,257.36 $ 6,027.98 $ 6,375.33 DURHAM 0.2862% $ 861.28 $ 845.01 $ 897.13 $ 864.25 $ 914.05 FOREST GROVE 4.0872, $ 12,300.61 $ 12,068.26 $ 12,812.65 12,342.97 $ 13,054.21 GASTON 0.5137% $ 1,546.02 $ 1,516.81 $ 1,610.37 $ 1,551.34 $ 1,640.73 HILLSBORO 14.8822% $ 44,788.47 $ 43,942.47 46,652.88 $ 44,942.70 $ 47,532.47 KING CITY 1.1697% $ 3,520.39 $ 3,453.89 $ 3,666.93 $ 3,532.51 $ 3,736.07 LAKE•OSWEGO 13.0820% $ 39,370.95 $ 38,627.27 $ 41,009.84 $ 39,506.52 $ 41,783.03 NORTH PLAINS 0.3217% $ 96$.05 $ 949.76 $ 1,008.34 $ 971.38 $ 1,027.35 RIVERGROVE 0.0941% $ 283.10 $ 277.75 $ 294.89 . $ 284.08 $ 300.45 TIGARD 12.8245% $ 38,595.93 $ 37,866.90 $ 40,20256 $ 38,728.84 $ 40,960.54 TUALATIN 6.3695% $ 19,169.18 $ 18,807.09 $ 19,967.13 $ 19,235.19 $ 20,343.59 WASH CO 24.5754% $ 73,960.81 $ 72,563.78 $ 77,039.58 $ 74,215.50 $ 78,492.07 WILSONVILLE 3.8077% $ 11,459.44 $ 11,242.98 $ 11,936.46 $ 11,498.90 $ 12,161.51 TOTALS 100.0000, $ 300,954.14 $ 295,269.45 $ 313,481.95 $ 301,990.49 $ 319,392.30 Explanation: Estimated franchise fee revenue distributions are calculated at 57,0% of the estimated fmahclse fees to be paid to MACC for the period of April 99- June 99. The 57% assumes that the jurisdictions will continue to give 5% of the franchise fee to TVCA. This 5% expires on June 30, 1999. To be continued, It must be reinstated by the MACC Board. The Board may choose to continue it at 5% or at any other level, or they may choose to not continue it at all. Any reductiorl In the TVCA rate from 5% would be added to the 57% udsdiction share. Ex: TVCA rate Is 0%, jurisdiction rate would be 62%. REVESTFY0001 Sheets Elm 600 NORTHEAST GRAND AVENUE PO RTL AN O, OREGON 97237 2736 T E L 5 0 3 7 9 7 1 7 0 0 I F A X 5 0 3 7 9 7 1 7 9 7 r METRO February 24, 1999 Mayor Jim Nicoli City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 23 Dear Mayo CNic Enclosed is the Ilot for the Cities of Washington County JPACT member and alternate. P ase mark your ballot and return to Karen Thackston, Metro, Transport tion Department. The deadline for returning the ballot is March 12, 1999. Sin rel , ike Burton Executive Officer Enclosure cc: William A. Monahan, City Manager www.metro•region.org Recycled paper B-ALLOT BALLOT BALLOT BALLOT BALLOT ]PACT [VOTE FOR ONE] Member: Rob Drake, Mayor of Beaverton Alternate: Lou Ogden, Mayor of Tualatin Kay Walker, Council, Cornelius Please return your ballots. by March 12, 1999 to: Karen Thackston Metro Transportation Department 600 NE Grand Avenue Portland, OR 97232-2736 BALLOT BALLOT BALLOT BALLOT BALLOT