Loading...
City Council Packet - 06/15/2004 ~J f VJd x ` Rt~~~'111~uL^~'r^J• r ~j~'k N^ ~ ! r'I 5a79y+a ~ t I 44R~~j~~~~WRN7'e, ~t'nryft / rJ ` S { c ~t~'gC~Njlly~a~~tlG~vk Ra ti 1 t t{ t C! ~ 7F ~{~"Ll~ytavltf+". h t . r'~y ! 1 s 1 ) k '1J.'yyY Jy '3tfL)~'t: yl- ~)f~{ f 4 t ..r Sl xls1 { 1r } 1 M _ 3 F TIGARD CITY®UNIL b WORKSHOP WIEETING June 15, 2004 COU I IL MEETING WILL NOT BE TELEVISED ra t } . f 1A oonna,,i c k@ . S ~ ~i t rt i~7 a r ? 4 t '~ri F~1 R6 X Y 1 ~ ~.-~?+.Y rry k~~A b ~ ^r4 {'{k`c} P"^ 4c3'YItt yj'! r R z , $r ~faCV ~3, .h~k 3cz'Y'~T ~,k•4El,Fp~.~3?~('~~R ! s'~ a ~ r _ ~x -SIKIVII 4it,t4 r. Item No. 3- I For Council Meeting of -1 (3 toy COUNCIL MINUTES TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING June 15, 2004 1. WORKSHOP MEETING 1.1 Mayor Dirksen called the meeting to order at 6:35 p.m. 1.2 Roll Call: Mayor Dirksen, Councilors Moore, Sherwood, Wilson, and Woodruff were present 1.3 Pledge of Allegiance 1.4 Council Communications 8t Liaison Reports: None. 1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items: City Manager Monahan indicated he would like to update the Council on the recruitment for a new Director of Public Works and Deputy City Recorder Gaston would like to make an introduction before agenda item no. 3. 2. INTRODUCE INDONESIAN DELEGATION City Manager Monahan provided a brief description of the International Resource Cities Program. He introduced the members of the delegation: Mrs. Hernawati, Mrs. Sri Purdhyaswati and Mrs. Darjati Husain from the cities of Samarinda and Balikpapan, Indonesia. He also introduced Mr. Kemal Taruc and Ms. Pauline, interpreters. Mr. Monahan described what the delegation had accomplished so far and what activities are scheduled for the remainder of their visit. The delegation's primary focus has been on environmental education. Mrs. Hermawati greeted the Council and audience and gave her regards from the Mayors of their cities. She detailed what the delegation had gleaned from their experiences, noting they have gained new ideas on how to get students, parents and communities to become involved in water conservation, sanitation and forest preservation. Mayor Dirksen and the delegates exchanged gifts and the Mayor presented the delegates with a certificate acknowledging their collaboration to strengthen educational programs in their communities. Note: Non-agenda introduction of lane McGarvin occurred before agenda item no. 3 Tigard City Council Minutes Page 1 Meeting of June 15, 2004 City Manager Monahan reminded the Council that City Recorder Wheatley had taken a leave of absence. Deputy City Recorder Gaston introduced ]ane McGarvin, Deputy City Recorder for Lake Oswego. Ms. Gaston stated although all the details had not been finalized, Ms. McGarvin may be serving as Tigard's interim City Recorder, beginning with the Council's July 13, 2004 meeting. Ms. McGarvin was in the audience and was recognized by the Council. Mr. Monahan explained the City of Lake Oswego will "lend" Ms. McGarvin to the City of Tigard. 3. BULL MOUNTAIN WHITE PAPERS Community Development Director Hendryx provided background information on the subcommittees and white papers. Mr. Hendryx stated the subcommittees were to explore the cost, transition of services and implementation surrounding annexation. Parks Subcommittee Member Switzer described the membership of the subcommittee. City of Tigard residents, Bull Mountain residents, and city and county staff were represented. A cting Public Works Director Koellermeier and Parks and Facilities Manager Plaza were also present. The subcommittee worked on a concept for parks on Bull Mountain. He stated decisions were reached by consensus. Mr. Switzer summarized the subcommittee's most important issues: 1. Washington County does not currently provide park and recreation services to unincorporated Bull Mountain, nor do they charge park system development charges (SDCs). 2. Availability of SDC funding during the first five years of annexation. 3. Can SDC revenues collected on Bull Mountain, after the first five years, be dedicated to securing parks only on Bull Mountain? 4. What financial alternatives exist for acquiring park space on Bull Mountain? 5. What impact does Metro's Goal 5 have on Bull Mountain parks? 6. Calling a moratorium, or perhaps public facilities strategy, to temporarily stop development until SDCs could be collected. 7. Identified Bull Mountain area park property owned by the city and potential park sites of one-acre or more that are currently available. 8. Can a viable parks concept plan be developed? Subcommittee Member Hanford summarized section two of the parks white paper noting the city plans to use SDCs collected from Bull Mountain for Bull Mountain. He explained the Bull Mountain Parks Concept Plan envisions 45 acres of parkland for the area. Tigard City Council Minutes Page 2 Meeting of June 15, 2004 Based upon section two, summary of benefits, Mr. Switzer provided the highlights of the Bull Mountain Parks Concept Plan detailing possible park sites and configurations. Mr. Switzer referred to area 63 or 64 on the Bull Mountain proposed Park Concept Plan map as a potential site for a large community park. Mr. Hanford read the subcommittee's recommendations detailed in the white paper. In response to a question from Councilor Woodruff, Mr. Hendryx explained SDC charges are calculated by a prescribed method based on a formula. The parks plan, cost of land and Improvements, park acres per population, future park needs, and park maintenance are all factors related to the calculation of SDCs. In response to a question from Councilor Wilson, Mr. Switzer commented on the subcommittee's emphasis on traditional parks versus the preservatign of green spaces. He stated the subcommittee identified every piece of potential park property over a certain size. He added of the property identified, nearly all had been "touched," leaving little opportunity for preservation efforts. Mayor Dirksen inquired whether enough land exists to create sufficient park space. Mr. Hanford said he did not believe sufficient land existed within the study area. He added sufficient property may be available when considering the expansion areas or when looking outside the urban growth boundary. Mr. Switzer agreed with Mr. Hanford and added although adequate land is not available, the subcommittee had developed very good solutions given the amount of land they had to work with. Mayor Dirksen commented the Bull Mountain area is the most underserved area with regard to. parks. He noted although an item for the Council to consider, it seemed logical to spend SDCs collected from the Bull Mountain area in the Bull Mountain area. Planning Subcommittee Members Buehner, Meads, Beilstein, Duling and Washington County Representative Rice were present for this white paper summary. Ms. Meads described the membership of the subcommittee. City of Tigard residents, Bull Mountain residents, and city and county staff were represented. Community Development Director Hendryx was also present. Ms. Meads reported the biggest issue identified by the subcommittee was the need to update the Tigard Comprehensive Plan as soon as possible. Ms. Meads read the subcommittee's summary of issues detailed the white paper. Tigard City Council Minutes Page 3 Meeting of June 15, 2004 Ms. Buehner commented if the city is unable to address the comprehensive plan update soon and, once initiated,the eupdating the comprehensive p an was not land will have been developed. She added in this year's plan with the current staff. In response to Councilor Sherwood, Mr. Hendryx explained with issues such as the downtown plan, Goal 5 and other planning efforts, the planning department was not able to take on another major project. Mr. Monahan added if the Council decides to proceed with annexaon and annexation is successful, the Council could then consider staffing opportunities up for the July 1, 2005 implementation. The comprehensive plan process could be reviewed at the same time. Mr. Monahan could and begin Mr. in the near said some preliminary future. work on the comprehensive plan update With regard to development and zoning, Ms. Rice described how the Bull Mountain ain the bout this rly 1980s. Councilor Wilson area had developed after a plan wa~sbln adopted confirmed there would have been public input plan. Councilor Wilson asked the subcommittee what it hoped to accomplish with an update the comprehensive plan. Ms. Buehner stated currently Bull Mountain is zoned evenly. She suggested a comprehensive plan update might allow for rezoning to accommodate a quasi-commercial area with denser development, which would allow zoned higher to overall density. some areas to be down zoned, while densities on Bull added areas 63 and 64 might also be Mountain Ms. Meads advised the subcommittee was interested in making the density transfer changes before the area was built out. Councilor Woodruff mentioned the similarity between the subcommittee's comments and the visioning committee's findings. The subcommittee reported there was no consensus among the group that annexation was the best way to address the concerns raised. Ms. Meads continued by saying consensus was reached, by residents of Tigard and Bull Mountain, that something needed to be done, as soon as possible, to protect both areas. Page 4 Tigard City Council Minutes Meeting of June 15, 2004 Police Services Subcommittee Member Edwards was present for this white paper summary. Mr. Edwards described the membership of the subcommittee. City of Tigard residents, Bull Mountain residents, and city and county staff were represented. Assistant Chief Orr was also present. Mr. Edwards commented through the subcommittee meetings, several hidden issues were resolved. Mr. Edwards described the subcommittee's summary of issues and findings and summary of cost comparisons contained in the white paper. It was noted both county and city police service providers deliver comparable service at comparable cost and under annexation, services to Bull Mountain would remain at least the same level as currently provided. Mr. Edwards reported there was a consensus of the subcommittee that there would be total cooperative effort between police agencies, Tigard citizens and residents of unincorporated Bull Mountain. Annexation would be quick, planned for, and established personnel would be brought in and trained. Mr. Edwards concluded by adding Bull Mountain residents could expect the same level of service currently provided, with no loss in transition. Mr. Monahan suggested excess funds, available as a result of annexation, could be borrowed against in order to have city police officers geared up and ready when annexation takes effect. Then, on July 1, 2005, annexation would have no impact on police services for existing city residents or for the Bull Mountain community. Councilor Wilson confirmed the county law enforcement budget does not clearly identify county wide services that are delivered to cities versus the unincorporated areas exclusively. He further confirmed that the Enhanced Sheriff's Patrol District was created to address the inequity of cities subsidizing unincorporated urban areas, and pointed out the county didn't follow through with this plan. Mr. Monahan added the County Sheriff was committed to conducting an analysis of this issue. Councilor Woodruff inquired about a satellite police office. Mr. Monahan mentioned outside the work of the subcommittee, there had been discussions with the school district about a potential satellite police report writing room at the Alberta Rider School or on other property. Tigard City Council Minutes Page 5 Meeting of June 15, 2004 Streets Subcommittee Member Giroux was present for this white paper summary. Mr. Giroux described the membership of the subcommittee. City of Tigard residents, Bull Mountain residents, and city and county staff were represented. City Engineer Duenas, A cting Assistant Public Works Director Rager, and Washington County Representative Saager were also present. Mr. Giroux read portions of the subcommittee's white paper. Mr. Giroux added since the subcommittee's report, he has learned Beef Bend Road will eventually be turned over to municipalities. He stated this would likely occur after annexation. Mr. Giroux relayed some streets would not automatically transfer to the city upon annexation. Transfer of these streets must be done by separate action and this process is estimated to take six months. The transfer process should be initiated well before annexation. Mayor Dirksen asked if the subcommittee had noted any streets that may be problematic, should no maintenance be performed for six months to a year. Mr. Giroux stated more research would need to be done to answer this question. Mr. Duenas added about half the streets would have to go through a separate action in order to be annexed. He explained it becomes difficult for public works employees to discriminate among such streets. Mr. Duenas said the streets could be transferred relatively easily within a few months. Mr. Hendryx concluded by saying the subcommittees had focused on a consensus building process. He advised Council they were scheduled to hear public comment on the all white papers at their June 22, 2004 meeting. Public comment may continue on June 23 and 24. Councilor Moore expressed his appreciation to the subcommittees. He said the white papers are very complete and the subcommittees accomplished a great deal in a short time period. Mayor Dirksen added next week the Council would consider accepting the white papers and would be listening to public comment. Meeting recessed at 8:12 p.m. Tigard City Council Minutes Page 6 Meeting of June IS, 2004 Meeting reconvened at 8:23 p.m. 4. REVIEW PARK AND RECREATION NEEDS ASSESSMENT SURVEY DRAFT #2 Parks and Facilities Manager Plaza updated the Council on this agenda item. He said, on Monday, the Park and Recreation Advisory Board will meet with the consultant before making a final recommendation. A final draft will come before the Council on July 20, 2004 and the survey is slated to be conducted in August. 5. UPDATE ON THE WEED HARVESTING AT SUMMER LAKE Parks and Facilities Manager Plaza introduced this item. City Manager Monahan explained several years ago some issues arose regarding the quality of the lake. Water sources, water temperature, algae growth and changes in regulations have impacted the lake and its management. Back when the quality issues came about, the Council consulted aquatic experts and staff and decided to harvest the weeds growing in the lake. This was a temporary way to address weed growth. To permanently correct the problem, physical changes would need to be made to the lake. Mr. Monahan told the Council Summer Lake weed harvesting had been deleted from the budget this year and a resident raised concerns. City Engineer Duenas stated there had been a task force formed to address the was the Summer Lake weed issue. He exprlained one of ommendat~ton waset stake the lake offlinetand weeds. The ultimate long-term create a natural stream alongside the lake. The estimated cost of this proposal was between $600,000 and $800,000. There was concern there may not be enough water flow to support the lake and a stream. problematic for two being typicallyThis to three weeks noted the weeds and unpleasant odor are a year. Mayor Dirksen added if the lake is taken offline, water quality is no longer an issue and the city would have greater flexibility in managing the lake. Councilor Wilson advised taking the lake offline would be controversial and could compromise the nature of the park. He added he would be very concerned about the ramifications of taking the lake offline. Mr. Duenas relayed Clean Water Services favors taking the lake offline, but the city had no plans to spend the money required Tigard City Council Minutes Meeting of June 15, 2004 Page 7 for such a project. Mr. Duenas remarked taking the lake offiine would not negate the need for weed harvesting. A short video depicting weed harvesting at Summer Lake was viewed. The video showed a floating harvester with reciprocating teeth. The teeth run along the bottom of the lake extracting the weeds and placing them on a conveyor belt. The harvester returned to shore where the weeds were offloaded. A backhoe is brought in to load the weeds onto a dump truck for disposal. It was noted that in the process of weed harvesting, the shoreline is damaged by the harvester and the other heavy equipment creates tracks to the lake. Mr. Plaza stated public opinion regarding weed harvesting varies widely. He indicated due to the cost and environmental damage, the city intended to postpone weed harvesting until 2005. Mr. Monahan asked about the current condition of the lake. Parks Supervisor Martin relayed there was some algae bloom, but few weed issues. As the weather gets warmer, greater algae bloom can be expected, but an increase in weeds is not anticipated. In response to a question from Councilor Wilson, Mr. Duenas said the lake would need to approach a depth of 20 feet in order to make conditions unfavorable for weed growth. He related the current depth is around five or six feet. 6. UPDATE ON THE PERMIT CENTER AND CITY HALL REMODEL City Manager Ntonahan introduced Risk Manager Mills. He told the Council Ms. Mills is responsible for the remodel. Ms. Mills distributed a handout (Agenda Item No. 6, Exhibit 1) entitled "Permit Center 8t City Hall Remodel Update." The handout is on file in the City Recorder's office. Ms. Mills noted the engineer's estimate for the cost of the project has increased due to the rising cost of steel, concrete and petroleum. Ms. Mills explained the DUST (Divvy Up Space and Technology) Committee was made up primarily of department heads and executive staff. The goal of the committee was to configure the remodel to meet the needs of customers. The old library is slated to become a permit center. Ms. Mills summarized the timeline on page one of the handout. Tigard City Council Minutes Page 8 Meeting of June 15, 2004 The permit center will contain community development, engineering, human resources and risk. Six conference rooms are planned for this facility. City Hall will house the City Manager and his immediate staff and finance. Ms. Mills discussed project costs. Pricing on steel, concrete and petroleum based products has been volatile and there has been an unprecedented increase in the cost of these items. The engineer's estimate for the remodel of the permit center and City Hall is $ 82.83 a square foot and $13.26 a square foot respectively. Ms. Mills described some of the project cost drivers listed on the handout. Mr. Monahan mentioned the library's lack of sufficient restrooms. Correcting this issue will contribute to the remodel cost. Ms. Mills commented that based on the engineer's estimate, the city has budgeted $1.1 million in the CIP facilities fund. She noted there is also a CIP facilities fund general contingency available in the event costs come in above the engineer's estimate. In response to a question from Councilor Woodruff, Ms. Mills relayed modular units will remain in place for now. She noted they may be used for records or evidence storage or may be used to accommodate growth should the Bull Mountain annexation take place. Record and evidence storage was discussed further, with Mr. Monahan relating the public works building may become a possible storage site when this department relocates to the water building. 7. REVIEW OF TUALATIN BASIN GOAL 5 MAP Community Development Director Hendryx and Associate Planner Hajduk presented this item. Two handouts, a "Summary of Existing Natural Resource Regulations" (Agenda Item No. 7, Exhibit 1) and a "Comparison Between Areas of Existing Regulation and Areas Discussed with Current Goal 5 Efforts" (Agenda Item No. 7, Exhibit 2), were distributed. Ms. Hajduk presented a Tigard area map depicting natural resources which are currently regulated. These resources include: steep slopes, floodplains, wetlands and stream and wetland buffers. Ms. Hajduk's first handout provided a brief overview of the current regulations as they apply to these resources. Ms. Hajduk presented a second Tigard area map depicting additional areas which would potentially be regulated by Goal 5. She distributed a second handout which compared land which falls under current regulations to land that would be regulated under Goal 5. She remarked areas identified on the proposed Goal 5 map Tigard City Council Minutes Meeting of June 15, 2004 Page 9 Will represented about 1,000 additional acres. About 450 acres of the additional land is considered buildable. Criteria for upland wildlife habitat were discussed briefly. Councilor Wilson expressed concern over habitat preservation and mitigation. He stated the Initial goal was to prevent any further loss of habitat and to actually Improve existing habitat. He indicated the proposed plan was not realistic. He feared the proposal would not only fail to address the goal, but would create cumbersome regulations. It was noted urban growth expansion areas 63 and 64 show large portions of land which fall under the "strictly limited" category. Ms. Hajduk responded this did not mean these areas could not be developed. If developed, however, developers may have to mitigate, minimize the impact of development, or pay a fee. Councilor Wilson pointed out the majority of the land affected by Goal 5 was residential. He asserted it would be preferable to preserve such land. He added it was ineffective to mitigate. Councilor Woodruff concurred by saying in the Bull Mountain white papers and the visioning process, the community communicated it wished to save as much land as possible. Councilor Sherwood inquired about the impact to property owners. Councilor Wilson responded he would like to see property owners offer to conserve their property in exchange for rights to move the urban growth boundary, in a sense trading urban reserve property for land contained within the boundary. He reiterated the proposed regulations seemed cumbersome and ineffective. Mayor Dirksen advocated for the involvement of environmental experts in the process. Ms. Hajduk stated once program specifics are identified, modeling would be employed to determine if environmental health would be improved. Mayor Dirksen expressed concern over the creation of burdensome regulations and restrictive policies. Ms. Hajduk advised recommendations had been received from local environmental groups. The recommendations included: ■ prohibiting development in all floodplains located in commercial and residential areas ■ classifying all Class 1 and 11 resource areas as strictly limited Tigard City Council Minutes Page 10 Meeting of June 15, 2004 ■ prohibit development in certain areas where species of concern have been identifled. The Tualatin Riverkeepers also recommended the following be classified as strictly limited: ■ all floodways, wetlands, wetland buffers and vegetated stream corridors ■ Class I and Class A resources in parks ■ Class I and Class A resources in industrial areas along Fanno Creek down stream of Highway 99W and on Red Rock Creek Ms. Hajduk Informed the Council they did not need to take any action on this issue. There will be additional opportunities to shape the program as it evolves. She reported some citizen groups were advocating for stricter regulations. Mr. Hendryx verified the calculations of buildable land included the Bull Mountain area, but not the urban reserve areas. Ms. Hajduk noted there was more buildable land on Bull Mountain than in the City of Tigard. Ms. Hajduk Informed the Council limits were determined based upon the resource and the zone. She added higher intensity uses received lower levels of limit because there is a greater economic need. Reserve areas were placed at a higher level, not because they have higher value, but because they are basically a clean slate and have more potential to be saved. Councilor Woodruff indicated he supported saving as much open space as possible without penalizing property owners. He noted this was a consistent message expressed by citizens. Councilor Wilson replied property owners would be impacted by such action. 8. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS: None. 9. NON-AGENDA ITEMS City Manager Monahan consulted the Council regarding the appointment of the new Director of Public Works. Councilor Sherwood announced a story about Bonita Villa and Bonita Park appeared recently in a national magazine. EXECUTIVE SESSION: No executive session was held. Tigard City Council Minutes Page 1 1 Meeting of June 15, 2004 The meeting adjourned at 9:42 p.m. Greer A. Gaston, Deputy City Recorder Attest: Mayor, City of Tigard , / Date: l.L~i l3, O L O? Page 12 AGENDA ITEM # 2 FOR AGENDA OF 6/15/04 . CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Introduction Indonesian Delegation from Samarinda & Balikpapan PREPARED BY: Loreen Mills DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK ~i ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Welcome the delegation from Samarinda and Balikpapan, Indonesia, hear a brief status of the partnership program and present Council certificates to the three members of the delegation. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Formally welcome the delegation and present Council certificates recognizing the efforts of the current delegates. INFORMATION SUMMARY The City of Tigard has been given a unique opportunity to work in partnership with the City of Samarinda, and City of Balikpapan, East Kalimantan, Indonesia. This is part of the International Resource Cities program which is funded by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and implemented by the International City/County Management Association (ICMA). This is the second 18-month program for Tigard. This is the first delegation to visit from Indonesia in the second 18-month portion of the program. The focus for this visit is education for elementary schools and more specifically, environmental education applications/practices for "lessons" for the City and training for teachers. A delegation of three representatives and two interpreters will visit Tigard the week of 6/12/04 through 6/19/04. The delegation is Mrs. Hemawati; Ms. Sri Purdhyaswati and Mrs. Darjati Husain with Mr. Kemal Taruc and Ms. Pauline serving as interpreters. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED N/A N/A N/A VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY ATTACHMENT LIST FISCAL NOTES The cost of this program is provided by USAID with the City providing some staff time to conduct training. Tigard City Council acknowledges Mrs. Hernawati for her collaboration with the City of Tigard to strengthen Samarinda's educational programs.in the community Tigard City Council acknowledges Mrs. Sri Purdhyaswati for her collaboration with the City of Tigard to strengthen Samarinda's educational programs in the community Tigard City Council acknowledges Mrs. Qarjati Husain for her collaboration with the City of Tigard to strengthen Samarinda's educational programs in the community 1 CITY OF TIGARD OREGON PUBLIC NOTICE: Assistive Listening Devices are available for persons with Impaired hearing and should be . (TDD meeting- scheduled for Council ext. noon on 2410 ~(voi e)da o Pn 503-684-2772 Council Please call 503-639-4171, Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf). Upon request, the City will also endeavor to arrange for the following services: O Qualified sign language interpreters for persons with speech or hearing impairments; and 0 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 by calling: 503-639-4171, ext. 2410 (voice) or 503-684-2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf). SEE ATTACHED AGENDA COUNCIL AGENDA - dune 15, 2004 page 1 AGENDA TIGARD CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP MEETING June 15, 2004 m. { 75 W J 6:30 PM 1. WORKSHOP MEETING . 1.1 Call to Order - City Council 1.2 Roll Call 1.3 Pledge of Allegiance 1.4 Council Communications 8t Liaison Reports 1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non Agenda Items 6:35 PM 2. INTRODUCE INDONESIAN DELEGATION Staff Report: Administration Staff 6:45 PM 3. BULL MOUNTAIN WHITE PAPERS Staff Report: Presentation By Subcommittee Members 8:45 PM 4. REVIEW PARK AND RECREATION NEEDS ASSESSMENT SURVEY DRAFT Staff Report: Public Works Staff 9:05 PM 5. UPDATE ON WEED HARVESTING AT SUMMER LAKE Staff Report: Public Works Staff 9:15 PM 6. UPDATE ON THE PERMIT CENTER AND CITY HALL REMODEL Staff Report: Administration Staff 9:30 PM 7. REVIEW Staff O Report: Community Development o Staff 9:55 PM g. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS 9. NON-AGENDA ITEMS COUNCIL AGENDA - June 15, 2004 page 2 10. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council may go Into Executive Session. If an Executive Session Is called to order, the appropriate ORS citation will be announced identifying the applicable statute. All discussions are confidential and those present may disclose nothing from the Session. Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend Executive Sessions, as provided by ORS 192.660(4), but must not disclose any information discussed. No Executive Session may be held for the purpose of taking any final action or making any final decision. Executive Sessions are closed to the public. 10:05 PM 11. ADJOURNMENT I: WDMNCATHY\CCA\2004\040615.DOC COUNCIL AGENDA - June 15, 2004 page 3 AGENDA ITEM # 3 FOR AGENDA OF !o -/5• D4' CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Bull Mountain White Papers PREPARED BY: Elizabeth Ann NewtoAX/DEPT HEAD OK ITY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Presentation to Council of the Bull Mountain Subcommittee White Papers STAFF RECOMMENDATION Receive the Bull Mountain Subcommittee White Papers and set June 22 as the date for public comment on the White Papers. INFORMATION SUMMARY On January 27, 2004, the Tigard City Council established the Parks, Police, Planning and Streets Bull Mountain Annexation Plan Subcommittees in response to citizen input at the Bull Mountain Annexation Plan public hearings in December 2003 and January 2004. The purpose of the Bull Mountain Subcommittees was to provide additional time for public discussion and review of key benefits of the Bull Mountain Annexation Plan. Each of the four subcommittees was comprised of Bull Mountain residents and City of Tigard residents. In addition, two City staff members and at least one Washington County staff member served on each subcommittee. Each one of the subcommittees met at least five times and the meetings were open to the public. The subcommittee's discussions focused on four areas: identification of issues, the key impacts of the annexation on Bull Mountain residents and Tigard residents including cost comparisons, transition of services, and the implementation of the annexation plan. Each white paper contains specific recommendations on how issues identified by the subcommittee members could be addressed upon annexation. Copies of the four Subcommittee White Papers are attached. At the June 15 City Council workshop meeting members of the four subcommittees and staff will present the White Papers to Council for discussion. At the June 22 Council meeting, public comments will be taken on the White Papers. On July 13, a resolution to accept the White Papers will be presented for Council consideration. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED N/A VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY N/A ATTACHMENT LIST 1) Bull Mountain Annexation White Paper on Parks and Open Spaces with attachments. 2) Bull Mountain Annexation White Paper on Planning with attachments. 3) Bull Mountain Annexation Police Services White Paper. 4) Bull Mountain Annexation Streets Subcommittee White Paper with attachments. FISCAL NOTES N/A MEMORANDUM Administration A ik CITY OF TIGARD Shaping A Better Community TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Liz Newton, Assistant to the City Manager DATE: June 4, 2004 SUBJECT: Bull Mountain Annexation Plan Subcommittee White Papers Overview Purpose and Objectives On January 27, 2004, the Tigard City Council established the Parks, Police, Planning and Streets Bull Mountain Annexation Plan Subcommittees in response to citizen input at the Bull Mountain Annexation Plan public hearings in December 2003 and January 2004. The purpose of the Bull Mountain Subcommittees was to provide additional time for public discussion and review of key benefits of the Bull Mountain Annexation Plan. The stated objectives of the Task Forces are: ♦ Develop an approach for transition of key urban services that occurs through annexation. ♦ Provide additional review for public involvement and discussion. ♦ Develop a strategy for implementation of the Annexation Plan, e.g. funding, planning, etc. Subcommittee Structure and Process Each of the four subcommittees was comprised of Bull Mountain residents and City of Tigard residents. In addition, two City staff members and at least one Washington County staff member served on each subcommittee. The Bull Mountain and City residents were appointed by the Mayor based on submittal of a Citizen Interest Application. A list of the membership of each subcommittee is on page one of each white paper. Each one of the subcommittees met at least five times and the meetings were open to the public. The meeting schedules were posted on the City's web site and also are listed on the first page of each white paper. The subcommittee's discussions focused on four areas: identification of issues, the key impacts of the annexation on Bull Mountain residents and Tigard residents including cost comparisons, transition of services, and the implementation of the annexation plan. Each white paper contains specific recommendations on how issues identified by the subcommittee members could be addressed upon annexation. The Parks Subcommittee recommendations address SDCs, a planning process for parks on Bull Mountain and a moratorium/public facilities strategy. The Planning Subcommittee recommendations address the Comprehensive Plan process, a public facility strategy/moratorium and planned development and design review. The Police Subcommittee recommendations address state law regarding Sheriff's Deputies transfers, and the timing of City police staffing increases. The Streets Subcommittee recommendations address funding, planning and timing for street maintenance and improvements. Copies of each of the white papers are attached. Next Steps At the June 15 City Council workshop meeting members of the four subcommittees and staff will present the white papers to Council for discussion. At the June 22 Council meeting, public comments will be taken on the white papers. On July 13, a resolution to accept the white papers will be presented for Council consideration. 1:1adnIdzVmnaslbuII mtnsub==v/hkspapen~.d= Bull Mountain Annexation White Paper on Parks and Open Spaces The purpose of Bull Mountain Subcommittees is to provide additional time for public discussion and review of key benefits of the Bull Mountain Annexation Plan. The objectives of the task forces are: Develop an approach for transition of key urban services that occurs through annexation Provide additional review for public involvement and discussion Develop a strategy for implementation of the Annexation Plan, e.g. funding, planning, etc. Section One - Summary of public involvement and discussion ■ Task Force membership: Carl Switzer, Jerry Hanford, Julie Russell, Mike Freudenthal, Kathy Najdek, & staff: Dennis Koellermeier - Acting Public Works Director, Dan Plaza - Parks Manager, and Chris Wayland - Washington County Support Services (could not attend meetings) ■ Meeting dates: March 1, March 10, March 19, April 14, April 28 ■ Summary of issues raised: 1. What financial alternatives are there to secure parks on Bull Mountain? (see attachment #1) 2. What is the availability of SDC funding during the first five-years after the date of annexation? (see attachment #1) 3. What impact does the Tualatin Basin's Goal 5 process have on Bull Mountain? 4. Can a viable Parks Concept Plan be developed after all the residential development that has taken place on Bull Mountain? (see attachment #1) 5. Can SDC revenue, generated on Bull Mountain during the first 5-years after annexation, be dedicated to securing parks on Bull Mountain? 6. Can a Moratorium, or Public Facilities Strategy to temporarily stop development until SDCs be imposed? (see attachment #5) 7. What park property does the City currently own on Bull Mountain? (see attachment #2) Are there potential park sites of one-acre or more on Bull Mountain or surrounding area (UGB area or beyond) available for neighborhood and/or community parks? (see attachment #3) Section Two - Summary of key impacts of annexation on Bull Mountain residents and Tigard residents: With or without annexation, the number of people using existing and proposed parks in the City of Tigard area will continue to grow. With annexation, and the implementation of the Bull Mountain Parks Concept Plan, 45-acres of park land could be developed. Without annexation, the need for park land will continue to grow and will only be able to be solved by current City of Tigard residents paying for growth related development. The City of Tigard's Park System Master Plan identifies a standard of 11-acres of park space per 1,000 residents. The City of Tigard currently has 7.8 acres of parks space per 1,000 residents. Bull Mountain currently has 1.8 acres per thousand residents. The ratio of park space acreage to residents will continue to decrease as the population increases and the amount of park space stays the same (see Table 2.1). To rectify this situation the Task Force has developed a Parks Concept Plan (see attachment #1) for the Bull Mountain area. Funding, planning, and timing are discussed in Section Four of this White Paper. If annexation does not occur, an estimated $2M in potential SDC fees would not be collected over the next 5-years which, if collected, would enable the City to begin implementation of the Parks Concept Plan. The Task Force recommends that SDCs collected on Bull Mountain be spent on Bull Mountain projects. It should be noted that the City has already promised, in the annexation handouts, to use Bull Mountain SDCs on Bull Mountain. The subsequent impact of earmarking SDCs generated on Bull Mountain to Bull Mountain projects could possibly be a slowdown in the completion of park projects scheduled to be constructed within the current City of Tigard (e.g., Jack Park, Northview Park, Summerlake Park). ■ Summary of costs: $9-11 M (see attachment #1) ■ Summary of benefits: The Bull Mountain Parks Concept Plan, if and when approved and carried out, will provide not only the current City of Tigard residents, but also the Bull MountAin area residents with the following: 1. 2+ miles of trails where possible and approved by BPA/PGE, with several "nodal" park sites (see attachments 8, 9, 10), not under BPA/PGE powerlines, but adjacent to the powerlines, totalling approximateiy 2.5-acres, possibly containing features such as playgrounds, picnic shelters, benches, basketball courts, exercise stations, drinking fountains, rock climbing equipment, wall ball structure, etc., 2. A trail system will be installed at the existing 12-acre Cach Creek Nature Park, 3. Possibly 2 to 3 neighborhood parks each totalling 2- to 3-acres (see attachment 7) 4. One 20+ acre community/regional park (possibly located in the UGB or beyond). TABLE 2.1 - NUMBER OF PARK ACRES TO 1,000 POPULATION Population Number of Acres Ratio of Acres to 1,000 Population Current City 45,130 351 7.8 City at build-out 54,850 400 7.3 Bull Mtn. current 7,622 14 1.4 Bull Mtn. at build-out 9,850 49 5.0 Section Three - Transition of services Options considered: N/A - Washington County does not provide park and recreation services to the unincorporated Bull Mountain area nor do they charge a parks SDC. It should be noted that since the City of Tigard and Washington County entered into an IGA to provide urban services in the Bull Mountain area, over $1,000,000 in potential park SDCs have been lost because the County does not charge a parks SDC. ■ Evaluation criteria: See Section 4 - Implementation of the Annexation Plan ■ Recommended approach: See Section 4 - Timing Section Four - Implementation of the Annexation Plan ■ Recommended strategy for implementation: The Task Force created the Bull Mountain Parks Concept Plan. Upon annexation the following updates should be completed: Bull Mountain Parks Concept Plan, and the Park System Master Plan, along with the City's Comprehensive Plan. o Funding: Current projected revenues to be collected on Bull Mountain, if annexed, over the next 5-years are approximately $2M (see attachment #1). The Bull Mountain Parks Concept Plan projects that land acquisition and park development costs range from $9M to $11 M. Obviously, projects exceed the amount of available revenue needed to secure adequate parks. One solution is for the City to seek grants to acquire and develop park property. Further, as with Cook Park, a State of Oregon loan can be sought to "jump start' land acquisition and park development on Bull Mountain. It should be noted however, that SDC revenues, along with grants and loans will not totally fund the Bull Mountain Parks Concept Plan. Additional revenues, derived from bond measures and/or tax levies, will need to be considered. If not, it may be necessary to delay and/or cut projects until adequate revenues are found. o Planning: The Task Force created the Bull Mountain Parks Concept Plan. Upon annexation, it is recommended that the Park System Master Plan should be updated within one-year (this would incorporate the Bull Mountain Parks Concept Plan into the Park System Master Plan). Subsequently, update the City's Comprehensive Plan. Julia Hajduk, an Associate Planner for the City of Tigard, discussed the Tualatin Basin's Goal 5 process with the Task Force. Currently, there are open space and natural area resources on Bull Mountain that are being recommended to be classified as strictly limited and/or moderately limited for development. In other words, there are open space and natural areas on Bull Mountain that can be the focus of protection efforts and may be able to be protected by the program that is developed to implement Goal 5. o Timing: Year One's Theme is, "Get Pertinent Plans In Order" 1. Update the following: SDC Methodology, Park System Master Plan, Bull Mountain Parks Concept Plan, City Comprehensive Plan; 2. Conduct neighborhood meetings to discuss and finalize plans; 3. Arrange for trail easements, where possible, with BPA/PGE; and, 4. Perhaps purchase property early-on to take advantage of availability and cost. RECOMMENDATIONS: 1) The City Council should accept and adopt this "white and Open Spaces Task Force. as developed by the Bull Mountain Parks 2) The Task Force recognizes that the park acres to population ratio in the Bull Mountain study area is substantially below the existing ratio in the City A- of Tigard. Because of that, the Task Force recommends that futue park SDCs, generated by construction in the Bull Mountain study area, be dedicated to the purchase and development of park lands locate in, or near, the study area. It should be noted that it may be wise to purchase property early-on, in years one, two or three, to take advantage of ~ availability and cost. The Task Force also recommends an encourages w the City to work closely with METRO to ensure that open spaces and park J land are acquired and developed on Bull Mountain. 3) Within one-year of annexation, the city should conduct a public process to review and update the attached Bull Mountain Parks Concept Plan and incorporate it into the Park System Master Plan. 4) Further explore the moratorium/Public Facilities Strategy methodologies. 5) The Task Force highly recommends that the County immediately begin collecting SDCs. BULL MOUNTAIN PARKS AND OPEN SPACE TASK FORCE zrvN) Attachments: 1. Bull Mountain Park Concept Plan & 5-year CIP Rev/Exp Projections 2. Publicly/Utility Owned Land on Bull Mountain 3. Privately Owned Land on Bull Mountain 4. Potential BPA Powerline Trail Segments 5. Public Facilities Strategy and Moratorium Memo dtd. 4/8/04 6. Bull Mountain Proposed Park Concept Plan Map 7. Landscape Architect Illustrative Park Plan for 2 or 3-Acre Site 8, 9, 10. Artist Sketches of "Nodal" Park Concepts 4,6,~, W", a , Dan Plaza DATE ATTACHMENT I Bull Mountain Parks Conceut Plan 5 -Year CIP Revenue/Expenditure Proiection Revenues FY 2004-'05 FY 2005-'06 FY 2006-'07 FY 2007-'08 FY 2008-'09 Total 303 42 1 Permits (SDCs) 270 750 Revenue $412 , 275 262 254 2 $420,643 $400,458 $388,166 $369,728 $1,991,745 , + grants (est.) 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 $945,000 $1,145,000 +or - + possible loans TOTAL $462,750 $470,643 $450,458 $438,166 $1,314,728 $3,136,745 +or - enditures Projects To Be Determined (TBD) During Update of Bull Mountain Parks Concept Plan and Ex p Park System Master Plan. When this plan is completed it will require an additional Parks Maintenance FTE. PARKS & FACILITIES CIP PROJECTS (prioritization TBD) 1) BPA Hard Surface Asphalt Trail (I OK feet/8' wide) $1,050,000 Beef Bend Road to Barrows Road. This project will be very chal- lenging as the terrain varies greatly and there are existing easements that would have to be dealt with. A possible $945K in MTIP funds may be available in FY `08209. $105K is SDCs for design and engineering. Construction estimate made by City of Tigard. 2) BPA Contiguous Small "Nodal" Parks (see attachment) - Acquisition 2.5 acres @ $300K per acre $750,000 - Development @ $150K per acre $375,000 3) Potential Playground at Alberta Rider School $60,000 4) Potential Menlor Water Reservoir Site - Acquisition 1.5 acres $450,000 - Development $225,000 5) Potential Property North of Alberta Rider School - Acquisition 2 acres (possibly 3) $600,000 - Development $300,000 6) Develop Cach Creek Nature Park (per PSMP) $640,000 7) Link up to THPRD Progress Ridize Park TBD ;~UIi-TO~i'AL $4,000,000 8) Property in UGB or Beyond - 20 acres - Acquisition @ $100,000 per acre $2,000,000* - Acquisition @ $200,000 per acre $4,000,000** Development $3,000,000 TnTAi %91000,000* to I 1.000,000-** ATTACHMENT 2 PUBLICLY/UTILITY OWNED LAND (estimated Organization Acres City of Tigard 13.90 (12-acre Nature Park & water reservoirs) TTSD 10.71 (building Alberta Rider School on this site) CWS/TWD 22.69 (13 sites under 1-acre) PGE 3.01 (linear under power lines) BPA 14 7 (linear under power lines) TOTAT 65.01 I& ATTACHMENT 3 + r ~ ~ t0 QD V Of O A W N ~ 0 r r Z N O tN0 oNO v CN77 . N1V NN NIV r r A W N O t0 o V O o A W N O N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N j N j N N c (n cn co fn fn N N (y N j to N N o O O O o O o O o O O O CD 10 o co O O o W O w p p o p o O p p p p A A A A A A A O R O O t0 t0 O t0 tD t0 tD g caW~ vvvv O O W n -w O c w 0 0 0 WW W W w w W m 0 m n n n n C7 n n n Oo 0 0 0 o O t7 n n C7 n n o 0 0 0 0 c° $i w N o 0 0 O o 0 0ppa w w v N NN N O A~~ O ° 0 0 O o Np p -:4, 9 v J v r to tin is W S ~o pp ~ v N N i p tA0 O O O O O O O O O O NO O O $ $ O $ O O C O O pp O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N O O O O K G O O O O O O O O 7 n fD ~ W 01 N C W O O O O O N O W N O W p ~ ~ p~ 0 0 0~ O m O O O O O O p Op~~ O W O p N QQ~~ ~p un 40 O ~1 N O A O CW7t t07~ A tp7~ tN0 tOD O~ O O O O O A p ~ p p p p 0 A CO oW OD W O W W t c 0 C O 7 z z z m z m z o m z 0 ° < < < z n 7 N m m m m m m m v m O o m m z T O 0 0 0 0 0 0 m m m m m m m m z ;o W ;u m m m n 29 O 0 ? A 'O - W W N A A A A? A AP A A A O W O pwp 0 0 tp (D m fD w ~ to L N A m p + ' p O O v v O o -4 a> o~ vi W rn w 0 ~ 0) m co m w m L" ° cn CO to ° O cn O O °o Ln o cn m O N to m W O N N L" W O U7 N f ° Z 2 Z Z Z Z Z W W ( cn W N ~ n n fn N W w fn (n fn X* N X X x r co N :E -4 ~ CO co ca -4 I - i i rl N{ D o + O D D 0 n !g D r r r O D m m m O r D ? = T w -I -1 - I -I -I -I -I -I -I r O 0 x x 2 x 2 2 x x x Z D a) °y m?= v O Z D z Z z Z z Z Z z Z Z < o C-1 Z o m m~ Smi~ m m m z <v < R'vv ch m m m z N N N N v O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 G -Too 0 D D 7C D 7 U) G) G) 0 m D D y ~ G7 D D D D G M M D D D D D D ;o -1 ;o; ;a X 'i m -i ;o O O v v O v a ;u 53 x m 30 rr r rr rr v v ; v v v v v v v v v v Z to U) N Z Z O v z Z D D D D Z Z Z Z Z z z 0 Z z O v O m m v m O O Z a O v O v v v v v v v G) G) G) O O O m t0 tD to O O O O W O p O O O p p O p O O O O N N N O O N N N O O N N N 'Q t0 N N N N N N W N W N W N N N N N N N N N N IV N ~j N ~j A A N A N N A p N O A O N N w co A W C4 W t0 to w N to A N W N co O O W w O? N N co w Ir N t.~ W N A W N co N W N N N N W A W .P A W A N N O O 6 N Cl) O N OBI 0) C) T 0) 0) O O O O ~ O 0 0 0 0 (D 0 0 W 0 0 W g J 0 D 0 0 f- W Y W Y J -1 ~ 0 (A -j g g m a a 3 a 0 0 w H - 1 C U 1 W a U a, m O O O O a Q p ¢ M 2 = m w w 4 D § U § 0 co v3j i vi a'i vii 0 .0 o O o o o ° Q 7 ~ r v v o v v cn r~ rn i rn 1~~ 7 0 ~ N I~ r N r M 0 fV O r r C N C) O O N L d' L U (0 C O y C O C O U N w w U N O C O L O C . LN W F- O Z ATTACHMENT 4 POTENTIAL BPA POWERLINE TRAIL SEGMENTS From North to South 1) Barrows to Birkshire = Go To Existing Northview Park 2) Mistletoe Dr. to Bull Mountain Road (#'s 6, 7, 8).5 acre 3) Bull Mountain Road to 144 Avenue (#'s 17-26) 1 acre 4) 144 Avenue to Woodhue (#'s 36,37).5 acre 5) Woodhue to Beef Bend Road (#'s 39, 41).5 acre TOTAL ACRES 2.5 ACRES ATTACHMENT 5 MEMORANDUM TO: Dennis Koellermeier FROM: Dan Plaza RE: "Public Facilities Strategy" & "Moratoriums" DATE: April 8, 2004 On March 10 the Bull Mountain Parks and Open Space Task Force raised a question as to "the City Council adopting a 'Public Facilities Strategy' (ala Wilsonville) that would freeze growth until the election could take place and SDC's would be collected". Staff was asked to research the matter and report back to the Task Force on April 14. The "Public Facilities Strategy" and "Moratorium" processes are lengthy and complex. It is anticipated that the Task Force will recommend to the Council via the "white paper" how to proceed. The following information was collected on this matter: The City of Wilsonville, Oregon, went through this process a few years ago and input was requested from them. The following was received on March 24. "if you are aware of Oregon's moratorium laws regarding limiting development due to the lack of infrastructure, the "Public Facility Strategy" is the vehicle by which the needed infrastructure can be provided while suspending additional demands on the system. This suspension has a limitation of (2) years. Take our situation here In Wilsonville a few years back with our water supply. We placed a temporary limit on new building permits until we had the ability to supply additional water through the construction of the new treatment plant. This particular strategy was in place for about (2) years. We have used a similar strategy in providing transportation improvements. In fact, we will be employing a new one for transportation in the next few months." Further information on this matter was requested from Barbara Shields, who commented as follows. "This is my response to your question. This is not a legal opinion, just a general description of the issues. Moratoriums are complex processes and are controlled by a specific set of state statutes that must be strictly followed, as required by ORS 197.520. If needed, we can consider a legal opinion from our city attorney to clarify some the recent moratorium cases before you get back to the subcommittee. "In general, the following factors need to be considered in the context of the Bull Mountain situation: 1. It has to be a sufficient reason for a moratorium. The involved local government must show "irrevocable public harm. "In Wilsonville's case, they could demonstrate this by showing that they were out of water. The "irrevocable public harm" criterion would have to be applied to the Bull Mountain situation. Also, as indicated in the statute, regardless the "irrevocable public harm" criterion, the local government would have to develop a number of other legal findings, which are very specific and try to strike a balance between the needed housing and capacity of existing facilities, and a moratorium as a means to accomplish this balance. 2. Timeline to process a moratorium. The process requires a 45-day notice to the Department of Land Conservation and Development. It can be appealed to LUBA (Land Use Board of Appeals), which would further impact the timeline. 3. Jurisdiction. The Board of Commissioners would have to act and follow the formalized state law process." This issue was discussed with the City Attorney, Gary Firestone, and he has concluded the following: "As far as moratoria are concerned, "public facilities" is defined as those public facilities for which a public facilities plan is requires by ORS 197.712, ORS 197.712 requires public facilities plans for sewer, water, and transportations, but not other services. Therefore, parks arenY "public facilities" for the purposes of the moratorium statute, and a moratorium cannot be declared because of an insufficiency of parks. It is less clear whether a park is a public facility for the purposes of the public facilitates statute. That statute (ORS 197.768) does not expressly state what constitutes a public facility. However, a public facilities strategy may justify a denial of permits for lack of public facilities under ORS 197.524. As used in ORS 197.524, "public facilities" is limited to streets, water, and sewer. It is possible that a court could conclude that a public facilities strategy cannot justify a denial unless the public facilities strategy is directed at water, sewer, or streets. It is also possible that LUBA or a court could find that a lack of parks is not a sufficient reason to deny or delay development." In my conversation with the City Attorney we did concluded that if this strategy were to be applied: the County should do it in the unincorporated area it is a multi-month process to implement, at best e we should anticipate considerable challenge to the approach, which would more than likely delay any implementation date to far past the proposed election date We have also requested information on this issue from the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC). When that material arrives, we will amend this memo if needed. Attachments: ORS 197.520 - Manner of Declaring Moratorium i ORS 197.768 - Public Facilities Strategy a i a 197.520 Manner of declaring moratorium MORATORIUM ON CONSTRUCTION OR LAND DEVELOPMENT 197.520 Manner of declaring moratorium. (1) No city, county or special district may adopt a moratorium on construction or land development unless it first: (a) Provides written notice to the Department of Land Conservation and Development at least 45 days prior to the final public hearing to be held to consider the adoption of the moratorium; (b) Makes written findings justifying the need for the moratorium in the manner provided for in this section; and (c) Holds a public hearing on the adoption of the moratorium and the findings which support the moratorium. (2) For urban or urbanizable land, a moratorium may be justified by demonstration of a need to prevent a shortage of public facilities which would otherwise occur during the effective period of the moratorium. Such a demonstration shall be based upon reasonably available information, and shall include, but need not be limited to, findings: (a) Showing the extent of need beyond the estimated capacity of existing public facilities expected to result from new land development, including identification of any public facilities currently operating beyond capacity, and the portion of such capacity already committed to development; (b) That the moratorium is reasonably limited to those areas of the city, county or special district where a shortage of key public facilities would otherwise occur; and (c) That the housing and economic development needs of the area affected have been accommodated as much as possible in any program for allocating any remaining public facility capacity. (3) A moratorium not based on a shortage of public facilities under subsection (2) of this section may be justified only by a demonstration of compelling need. Such a demonstration shall be based upon reasonably available information and shall include, but need not be limited to, findings: (a) For urban or urbanizable land: (A) That application of existing development ordinances or regulations and other applicable law is inadequate to prevent irrevocable public harm from development in affected geographical areas; (B) That the moratorium is sufficiently limited to ensure that a needed supply of affected housing types and the supply of commercial and industrial facilities within or in proximity to the city, county or special district are not unreasonably restricted by the adoption of the moratorium; (C) Stating the reasons alternative methods of achieving the oibjectives of the moratorium are unsatisfactory; (D) That the city, county or special district has determined that the public harm which would be caused by failure to impose a moratorium outweighs the adverse effects on other affected local governments, including shifts in demand for housing or economic development, public facilities and services and buildable lands, and the overall impact of the moratorium on population distribution; and ORS 197.520 (E) That the city, county or special district proposing the moratorium has determined that sufficient resources are available to complete the development of needed interim or permanent changes in plans, regulations or procedures within the period of effectiveness of the moratorium. (b) For rural land: (A) That application of existing development ordinances or regulations and other applicable law is inadequate to prevent irrevocable public harm from development in affected geographical areas; (B) Stating the reasons alternative methods of achieving the objectives of the moratorium are unsatisfactory; (C) That the moratorium is sufficiently limited to ensure that lots or parcels outside the affected geographical areas are not unreasonably restricted by the adoption of the moratorium; and (D) That the city, county or special district proposing the moratorium has developed a work plan and time schedule for achieving the objectives of the moratorium. (4) No moratorium adopted under subsection (3)(a) of this section shall be effective for a period longer than 120 days, but such a moratorium may be extended provided the city, county or special district adopting the moratorium holds a public hearing on the proposed extension and adopts written findings that: (a) Verify the problem giving rise to the need for a moratorium still exists; (b) Demonstrate that reasonable progress is being made to alleviate the problem giving rise to the moratorium; and (c) Set a specific duration for the renewal of the moratorium. No extension may be for a period longer than six months. (5) Any city, county or special district considering an extension of a moratorium shall give the department at least 14 days' notice of the time and date of the public hearing on the extension. [1980 c.2 §3; 1991 c.839 §3; 1995 c.463 §3] ORS 197.520 ORS 197.768 Public Facilities Strategy Relating to public facilities strategy; creating new provisions; and amending ORS 197.768, 221.035 and 454.655. Be It Enacted by the People of the State of Oregon: SECTION 1. ORS 197.768 is amended to read: 197.768. (1) As used in this section, "special district" has the meaning given that term in ORS 197.505. [(1)] (2)(a) A local government or special district may adopt a public facilities strategy [as described in subsection (2) of this section. A public facilities strategy may be implemented if it] if the public facilities strategy: [(a)(A)] (A)(i) Is acknowledged under ORS 197.251; or [(B)] (ii) Is approved by the Land Conservation and Development Commission under ORS 197.628 to 197.650; and [(b)] (B) Meets the requirements of [subsection (2) of] this section. (b) If a special district seeks to implement a public facilities strategy, that special district is considered a local government for the purposes of ORS 197.251 and 197.628 to 197.650. [(2)] (3) A local government or special district may adopt a public facilities strategy [adopted under subsection (1) of this section shall] only if the local government or special district: [(a) Include a statement of purpose that limits the public facilities strategy to situations in which clear and objective standards demonstrate that:] [(A) There is a rapid increase in land development in a specific geographical area; and] [(B) The total land development would exceed the planned or existing capacity of public facilities;] [(b) Include a detailed description of actions and practices a local government may engage in to control the time and sequence of development approvals in response to the identified deficiencies in public facilities; and] [(c) Set forth the procedures, notice and f ndings that allow the local government to proceed under this section.] (a) Makes written findings justifying the need for the public facilities strategy; (b) Holds a public hearing on the adoption of a public facilities strategy and the findings that support the adoption of the public facilities strategy; and ORS 197.768 (c) Provides written notice to the Department of Land Conservation and Development at least 45 days prior to the final public hearing that is held to consider the adoption of the public facilities strategy. (4) At a minimum, the findings under subsection (3) of this section must demonstrate that: (a) There is a rapid increase in the rate or intensity of land development in a specific geographic area that was unanticipated at the time the original planning for that area was adopted or there has been a natural disaster or other catastrophic event in a specific geographic area; (b) The total land development expected within the specific geographic area will exceed the planned or existing capacity of public facilities; and (c) The public facilities strategy is structured to ensure that the necessary supply of housing and commercial and industrial facilities that will be impacted within the relevant geographic area is not unreasonably restricted by the adoption of the public facilities strategy. (5) A public facilities strategy shall include a clear, objective and detailed description of actions and practices a local government or special district may engage in to control the time and sequence of development approvals in response to the identified deficiencies in public facilities. (6) A public facilities strategy shall be effective for no more than 24 months after the date on which it is adopted, but may be extended, subject to subsection (7) of this section, provided the local government or special district adopting the public facilities strategy holds a public hearing on the proposed extension and adopts written findings that: (a) Verify that the problem giving rise to the need for a public facilities strategy still exists; (b) Demonstrate that reasonable progress is being made to alleviate the problem giving rise to the need for a public facilities strategy; and (c) Set a specific duration for the extension of the public facilities strategy. (7)(a) A local government or special district considering an extension of a public facilities strategy shall give the department notice at least 14 days prior to the date of the public hearing on the extension. (b) A single extension may not exceed one year, and a public facilities strategy may not be extended more than three times. SECTION 2. The amendments to ORS 197.768 by section 1 of this 2001 Act apply to public facilities strategies adopted before, on or after the effective date of this 2001 Act. ORS 197.768 a << a m J f ATTACHMENT 7 i I ILLUSTRATIVE PLAN FOR 2-3 ACRE NEIGHBORHOOD PARK ,I BIKE PARKING PICNIC TABLES ~DRINKING'FOUNTAIN TRASH RECEPTACLE SHADE TREE CONCRETE ACCESSIBLE`PATH BENCH. BIKE PARKING PICNIC SHELTER IHANDICAP PARKING RESTR TRASH ACI, -ACCESS RAMP RESTROOMS' r ~r ~ ~l Mil 'DRINKING FOUNTAIN. + <K + . 1 w~~ '~JJ,I 4y rf'n4 r r= r~ ,e f Fr'Yr'r.al t _Ly tr ~ xn ✓.s E ltf~ i s ~ •k~ tt 1 ~ il ¢ r ~ 1 v :rte a /s VpT i rnY 1M+'¢'`'r,, y is h .,w`7, r• n 7.s. .k ~ ~ `r , hr r ,r:, t~+ s - I / 1I}I~ 1 ) x ~ ~`y z. 1 y. W t ff ~t~d ~ s ~ t</ ~ f[;wyy(,~~r ht ,~A/ i~,~ /n7 .¢t%~~~'rF' ~ ~~L k~%~~ 4.° .~'A ~ .r~~~.t 'p/~ ~/~~lYi rt~✓~/,~~~~~"'~ ~ r Y{ I,Y 1. ; yi,/~ •c f ' ~ r 6't r.Y f 1. r~ 'v~ r• e p' f f ATTACHMENT 8 ILLUSTRATIVE PLAN FOR "NODAL" PARK OPTION A ` 1 : x1+5'+• k ' ~.•~K F "'Y~~'~ .f 1 7 •i Al i Y ' 'Q4 I ~ f Ys • 1 ~y, 3 d ~ ' ~ r ~ ri ~ v . . : .r ® t r SFIELTEA BASKETBALL " r BENCH a LAWN 'A _ x ^w' is 3 - i - , - ~ _ e ms.:. 0. f' _m a w J P ,R OPTION A o 10' zo 40' SCALE 1" =:20'-0" IL a t7 tU J OPTION B 0 _110' 20' ~,40' Now- r--- 6mimmuffinum`9 ATTACHMENT 10 ILLUSTRATIVE PLAN FOR "NODAL" PARK OPTION C PICNIC TABLE r . r M p ti'r•1 r F PLAYAREA « µ . IYInn° VJ W d PARK - OPTI 1 " . 20'-0" C 0 10' 20' 40' Bull Mountain Annexation White Paper on Plannin The purpose of the Bull Mountain Subcommittees is to provide additional time for public discussion and review of key benefits of the Bull Mountain Annexation Plan. The objectives of the subcommittees are: ➢ Develop an approach for transition of key urban services that occurs through annexation ➢ Provide additional review for public involvement and discussion ➢ Develop a strategy for implementation of the Annexation Plan, e.g. funding, planning, etc. The Planning Subcommittee met 6 times in meetings that were open to the public. Notice was provided on the City web page indicating the time and location of the meetings. Meeting minutes were also posted on the web page. All meetings were held in the Ash Creek Conference Room at City Hall. The draft white paper was reviewed at the meeting on May 12, 2004. The revised draft was reviewed and finalized on May 26, 2004. Section One Summary of public involvement and discussion • Subcommittee membership: Gretchen Buchner, City of Tigard resident, Planning Commissioner Kathy Meads, City of Tigard resident, Planning Commissioner Rebecca Vonada, City of Tigard resident Ellen Beilstein, Unincorporated Washington County resident Stuart Byron, Unincorporated Washington County resident Teddi Duling, Unincorporated Washington County resident • Staff: Jim Hendryx, City of Tigard Director of Community Development Barbara Shields, City of Tigard Planning Manager Joanne Rice, Washington County DLUT Subcommittee members worked cooperatively in developing the White Paper. Recommendations were developed by consensus. Recommendations came from the citizens on the committee with input on wordage and process from the staff representatives. ■ Meeting dates: March 10; March s 1; April 21; April 28; May 12; May 26, 2004 Summary of issues raised: ■ The Washington County Bull Mountain Community Plan is out of date and needs to be updated. The County has no plans to update their Comprehensive Page 1 Revised 5/26/04 Plan, including the Bull Mountain Community Plan. The County will continue to make periodic changes to elements of the Comprehensive Plan to comply with mandatory Federal, State, and Regional requirements. ■ The City of Tigard's Comprehensive Plan is out of date and needs to be updated. The Planning Commission is currently working on a schedule for updating the City's Comprehensive Plan. Once begun, this process may take up to 3 years to complete. Recommend budgeting additional resources to expedite the process. ■ With annexation, Bull Mountain would be included with the update of the Tigard Comprehensive Plan. Areas 63 and 64 should be included with this process. ■ The Comprehensive Plan update, including Bull Mountain and areas 63 and 64, must be through an open and public process led by the City of Tigard. ■ The subcommittee recommends development and implementation of a design review process, possibly including design standards, to assure compatibility of new development with the unique characteristics of existing neighborhoods. Time is of the essence and the implementation of this process could be completed prior to, or in conjunction with, the Comprehensive Plan update. ■ The subcommittee recommends that Tigard pursue a public facility strategy/moratorium or other measures to slow or stop growth until the Comprehensive Plan is updated. ■ Prior to the Comprehensive Plan update, the subcommittee recommends that Tigard amend its development standards to prohibit density transfers for properties, including natural resources, as one way to address citizen concerns about density. Tigard has appointed a review committee to look at the Planned Development process which will consider density transfers. The committee is reviewing and will recommend changes to the Planned Development section of the Community Development Code to the Planning Commission and City Council. ■ The subcommittce recognizes that the issues facing Bull Mountain are similar i • to those facing the rest of the community. To that end, the subcommittee w developed a list of likes, dislikes, and the future that they would like to see i with development (Attachment A). This list further identifies issues raised by the subcommittee. t i Section Two Summary of key impacts of annexation on Bull Mountain residents and Tigard residents: Revised 5/26/04 Page 2 Subcommittee members recognize that some growth is inevitable and will continue throughout the community and in particular on Bull Mountain. Current growth is causing change in neighborhood character and the sense of community. Subcommittee members are concerned about the type of development that is occurring throughout the community, particularly dense, small lot, residential development that is not consistent with the character of existing neighborhoods. The Comprehensive Plans for Washington County and Tigard were completed in the mid-80's. The subcommittee is unanimous about the need to update the Comprehensive Plans for the City and Unincorporated Bull Mountain. While both plans meet State and regional planning requirements, they need to be updated to reflect current values and concerns of the community. Washington County does not have the resources to update the Bull Mountain Community Plan. Tigard recognizes that their Comprehensive Plan should be updated and has started discussions with the Planning Commission on a potential schedule. It is recognized that any update to Tigard's efforts should include the entire community, including all of Bull Mountain, if annexed. Consideration should also be given to include any areas included in the Urban Growth Boundary Expansion immediately adjacent to Bull Mountain (Areas 63 & 64). However, there is concern about the amount of time it will take to update the plan and the resulting growth that will occur before the update is complete. Subcommittee members expressed a need to slow development until the plan is updated or focus resources to shorten the amount of time it takes to complete the plan update. The subcommittee agreed to the following policy statements that will go forward in the White Paper: • The City of Tigard's Comprehensive Plan is out of date and needs to be updated. The Planning Commission is currently working on a schedule for updating the City's Comprehensive Plan. Once begun, this process may take up to 3 years to complete. Recommend budgeting additional resources to expedite the process. • The Washington County Bull Mountain Community Plan is also out of date and needs to be updated. The County has no plans to update the Comprehensive Plan, including the Bull Mountain Community Plan. • With annexation, Bull Mountain would be included with the update of the Tigard Comprehensive Plan. Areas 63 and 64 should be included with this process. • The subcommittee recommends that Tigard pursue a public facility strategy/moratorium or other measures to slow or stop growth until the Comprehensive Plan is updated. • The subcommittee recommends that Tigard adopt interim steps to not allow density transfers for properties, including natural resources. Tigard has appointed a review committee to look at the Planned Development process which will consider density transfers. The committee will review and recommend changes to the Planned Development section of the Community Development Code. Revised 5/26/04 Page 3 The subcommittee recognizes that the issues facing Bull Mountain are similar to those facing the rest of the community. To that end, the subcommittee developed a list of likes, dislikes, and the future that they would like to see with development (Attachment A). This list should be used as a starting point for updating the City's Comprehensive Plan and in engaging the entire community on how the community should continue to grow. Subcommittee members enjoy their community and feel connected with their neighbors. However, the pace and type of development, with higher densities and incompatible building design, is changing the character of established neighborhoods. The Comprehensive Plan update, if completed in a timely manner, provides an opportunity to shape a future for Bull Mountain and the rest of the communty that is different from what is developing under current land use standards. There is a need for an updated plan for Bull Mountain, regardless of whether annexation occurs. Annexation affords the opportunity to plan for the entire community. Without annexation, Tigard lacks the authority and need to plan for unincorporated Bull Mountain and/or the Urban Growth Boundary expansion areas (areas 63 & 64). Summary of costs: No effort has been made to establish what the additional costs will be to provide comprehenisve planning services to unincorporated Bull Mountain. The area totals 1400 - 1900 acres, depending on inclusion of the Urban Growth Boundary expansion areas (areas 63 & 64). This represents approximately 20% - 25% of the existing City limits. It would be reasonable to assume that costs associated with the Comprehensive Plan update would increase by a proportionate amount. When property is developed, within areas 63 and 64, the property owner/developer could be assessed a fee to offset the City's costs associated with developing a Comprehensive Plan for those areas because it directly benefits those areas. The City should be responsible for the cost to update the Comprehensive Plan for City properties and urban, unincorporated properties in Bull Mountain because these areas are mostly developed. Summary of benefits: Annexation provides the opportunity to include the Bull Mountain area with the update of the Tigard Comprehensive Plan; otherwise, it will not be done by the City and the County has no plans to do so. Including adiacent Urban Growth Boundary areas (areas 63 & 64) provides more opportunities to consider the needs of densities, housing, open spaces, etc., throughout the entire community. Section Three Transition of services Revised 5/26/04 Page 4 ■ Options considered: The City would assume long range planning responsibilities with annexation. Timing of the November election, budgeting decisions, and actual annexation occurring the following July, would allow consideration of the Bull Mountain area and areas 63 & 64 in the work program for the Comprehensive Plan update. Other options were not considered. The City lacks authority to provide for long range planning services to unincorporated Bull Mountain and/or areas 63 & 64. Annexation of portions of Bull Mountain to King City was not considered by this subcommittee. ■ Evaluation criteria: After receiving a detailed background on Oregon's Land Use Planning program and an overview of Washington County and Tigard's Comprehensive Plans, the subcommittee developed a list of their likes, dislikes, and the future development trends. From this list, the subcommittee evaluated what was the best approach to address this list of concerns and desires. Tigard has started discussions to update the Comprehensive Plan. Annexation provides the opportunity to address the planning needs for unincorporated Bull Mountain, areas 63 & 64, and the rest of the City. ■ Recommended approach: ■ With annexation, initiate the Comprehensive Plan update and include unincorporated Bull Mountain. ■ Finalize an Intergovernmental Agreement between Tigard and Washington County to transfer Comprehensive Plan authority for areas 63 & 64. Section Four Implementation of the Annexation Plan • Recommended strategy for implementation: The City of Tigard needs to commit to updating the Comprehensive Plan as soon as possible. Recommend Council approve a work program for updating the Comprehensive Plan by July 2005, including Bull Mountain and areas 63 & 64 to begin implementation in 2005-06. The Plan update should be through an open and public process. • Annexation of unincorporated Bull Mountain provides the opportunity to plan for the entire community with the update of Tigard's Comprehensive y Plan. Areas 63 & 64 should also be included in this effort. An IGA between Washington County and Tigard is necessary to transfer comprehensive planning authority. s Recommend Council pursue a public facility strategy/moratorium or other a measures to slow or stop growth until the Comprehensive Plan is updated. Tigard has appointed a review committee to look at the Planned Development process which will consider density transfers. Once the Planned Development Review Committee completes its review, recommend the Planning Commission and City Council adopt interim Revised 5/26/04 Page 5 steps to not allow density transfers for properties, including natural resources. The subcommittee recommends development and implementation of a design review process, possibly including design standards, to assure compatibility of new development with the unique characteristics of existing neighborhoods. Time is of the essence and the implementation of this process could be completed prior to, or in conjunction with, the Comprehensive Plan update. Consider the list of likes, dislikes, and the future that the committee would like to see with development (Attachment A). This should be considered in conjunction with the Comprehensive Plan update. • Funding: • Long range planning is funded through the general fund. City should pursue grant funding for this effort. Funding separately should also be considered for areas 63 & 64, including property owner participation. Planning: • The City of Tigard needs to commit to updating the Comprehensive Plan as soon as possible. Recommend Council approve a work program for updating the Comprehensive Plan by July 2005, including Bull Mountain and areas 63 & 64 to begin implementation in 2005-06. The Plan update should be through an open and public process. • When property is developed, within areas 63 and 64, the property owner/developer could be assessed a fee to offset the City's costs associated with developing a Comprehensive Plan for those areas because it directly benefits those areas. The City should be responsible for the cost to update the Comprehensive Plan for City properties and urban, unincorporated properties in Bull Mountain because these areas are mostly developed. Timing: • Council to approve a work program for updating the Comprehensive Plan by July 2005, including Bull Mountain and areas 63 & 64 to begin implementation in 2005-06. • Tigard City Council should pursue a public facility strategy/moratorium or other measures to slow or stop growth until the Comprehensive Plan is updated. • Tigard has appointed a review committee to look at the Planned Development process which will consider density transfers. The committee will review and recommend changes to the Planned Development section of the Community Development Code. Once the Planned Development Review Committer, completes its review, the Planning Commission and City Council should adopt interim steps to not allow density transfers for properties, including natural resources. Revised 5/26/04 Page 6 Signatures: YI Gretchen Buehner Kathy ds Rebecca Vonada 11en Beilstein Stuart Byron Teddi Duling NOTE: Mr. Byron attended one subcommittee meeting; he was excused from the other five meetings. He was out of town on June 1, 2004 and unable to sign the White Paper document. 0 O James N.P. He dryx A oil. Barbara Shields JPage 7 Bull Mountain Planning Subcommittee Attachment A Likes Under Likes, the main thrust is that the residents enjoy a high quality of life based on the services they receive and the overall feel of the area. As such, they desire to keep the status quo. Housing • Well maintained homes • Good property values • High percentage of owner occupants • Safe neighborhood • Aesthetically appealing, views, attractive physical setting • Various size properties • Good home stock • Views • Reasonably good mix of residents - young to old, family atmosphere Services • Good services: police, trash, water, sewer, fire • Good local grade school • Good quality of life • Low tax rate • Support of local service expansion (library) • Quiet • Low crime rate • No heavy industry or distasteful areas nearby • Trees • Dedicated greenways in neighborhoods built in city Miscellaneous • Active neighborhood watch and HOAs • Close to farm/agricultural area Centrally located to Beaverton, Tigard, Tualatin and Sherwood Planning White Paper Attachment A Page 1 of 6 Bull Mountain Planning Subcommittee Attachment A Dislikes As to Dislikes, it is apparent that the prospect of overdeveloping the Bull Mountain area goes against the above qualities that the current residents strongly support. A common thread under Dislikes seems to be the rising cost of land, housing and infrastructure (including roads, parks and sewers). What the City of Tigard must do is reassure the present homeowners that what the City can offer is substantially better that what the Bull Mountain residents have now or can anticipate receiving in the near future. Identity • No sense of neighborhood • Lack of master plan for development of area • Lacks community feel - "no center," no character or identity • Houses too close together • Lack of neighborhood feel • Lack of community planning • Planning/Development • Unsightly development • Development: Increased services • Development: Increasing prices • Developers building high density homes on too small lots • Some of the new developments are too homogenous - not enough design variety • Residents may feel left out of the development process on Bull Mountain • Lack of affordability in housing • Developers cutting down too many trees and not being required to leave green spaces or walking paths • Over-widening of streets • Do not stick to zoning - density transfer • Lack of infrastructure (sewer, storm, quality roads) • Lack of trees in new developments • Over-widening of streets Commercial • Lack of commercial area • Lack of commitment to area by County Government • Commercial development right up to streets (require landscape barriers) • No local conveniences - e.g., small market, bakery, coffee shop, small restaurant Planning White Paper Page 2 of 6 Attachment A Bull Mountain Planning Subcommittee Attachment A Parks • None to date • Price of land increasing • No money for maintenance • No close-in neighborhood amenities such as parks, walking paths, bike paths • Street "parks" that are unusable public space • Lack of parks and trails • Location of parks Traffic/Public Transit • Increasing • No connectivity • Have to travel on congested Hwy. 99 to get anywhere. No freeway close, poor commute to downtown Portland. • Speeding through residential neighborhoods • Lack of public transit • Beef Bend Road and Bull Mountain Road can be dangerous for walkers and bicyclists. Need more pedestrian-friendly areas. • Lack of connectivity • No nearby public transit • Lack of connected street grids to relieve traffic burden • Local roads becoming too crowded due to over-development Planning White Paper Page 3 of 6 Attachment A Bull Mountain Planning Subcommittee Attachment A Future Planning • Protection of existing views • Home delivery of mail (not centralized boxes in a development) • Underground utilities (esp. on Bull Mountain. Road) • Incentives and disincentives for maintaining property • Small commercial center on top of Bull Mountain • Incentives not to subdivide • Commercial area for local residences • Coordinated planning • Most undeveloped areas seem to have a limitless density potential. Can this be capped? • No multi-family units (except perhaps by proposed commercial center on top of Bull Mountain) • No "forced" affordable housing • A minimum of 20-foot setbacks between homes and lot lines (side of house) • More continuity in types of housing (more master planned, less piecemeal development) • Developers pay for the privilege to develop on Bull Mountain • Home styles that follow the land contours and setting • Increase setbacks from street to 30-40 feet • Don't accept "adequate" - set a higher standard • No lots in new developments less than 10,000 square feet • Strengthen and direct development to existing communities • Reduced density, especially on slopes • Citizen involvement and approval of planned developments • Preserve open space and critical environmental areas • Foster distinctive communities with a strong sense of place • More thoughtful development • Reduce density • MUA - Clusters of homes and shops • Adaptation of Bull Mountain Community Plan • Eliminate the one-size fits all approach to development - be responsive to existing community/neighborhood Greater variety in home styles in developments • Transition between urban and rural areas with less density • Mix of single and multi-story homes in a single development • The entire community needs to come to a consensus on the distribution of density including Areas 63 and 64. • Concerning the special character of Bull Mountain, recent and current developments in the BM area appear to ignore the basic characteristics of the established homes. More thought needs to be given to future developments to avoid continuing this trend away from the original openness of the mountain. Planning White Paper Page 4 of 6 Attachment A Bull Mountain Planning Subcommittee Attachment A • Prohibit density transfers. • Establish a Design Review Board for all development (residential, commercial, and industrial). • Have all developments be subject to the public hearing process • Concerning lack of commercial development - whereas there are no commercial facilities on Bull Mountain, area residents need to come to a consensus on how much land should be dedicated for the possible addition of any businesses in the future. • Concerning citizen awareness - to maintain the desirable character of the Bull Mountain area, significant involvement of the current residents is needed in future planning. Parks • Tree planting requirements • Stricter penalties for cutting trees. Make developers pay fines. • More off-road bicycle and pedestrian paths • Green space between dense housing areas • Low density housing • Protection of natural spaces and resources • Create walkable communities • Provide parks and trails • Require parks and walking pathways (away from streets). Traffic • Traffic calming structures • Make developers pay for more street improvements and provide green space and trees. • Provide traffic calming for existing streets • Narrower roads with planting strips (through residential neighborhoods) • No speed bumps • Privatize roads where possible (e.g. cul-de-sacs) • Less of a focus on connectivity of streets, especially in neighborhoods. • Increase in TIFs and SDCs to reflect actual cost to community • Green Streets (see Metro handbooks) applied to ail new developments and Bull Mountain and Beef Bend Roads • Give back street space to property owners with reduction in road width • Transportation facilities need to keep pace with development. Minimal service standards should be maintained. • Design roadways to meet needs and not be overly wide (keep the land in the property owner's yard). Miscellaneous • Encourage community and stakeholder collaboration • Push back on Metro Planning White Paper Attachment A Page 5 of 6 Bull Mountain Planning Subcommittee Attachment A • Regular five-year reviews of Bull Mountain comprehensive plan • Design review of developments • Police: County will lose four officers As population grows, more needed. Will City of Tigard get the ones laid off from Washington County? • Have residents (both Tigard and Bull Mountain) involved in the Comp Plan update. • Include the new areas inside the UGB (#63 and #64) in the Comp Plan update. • Have the Comp Plan recognize the unique quality of Bull Mountain (specifically the topography). Additional Comments • I don't think this pattern of soliciting information is very effective because it goes from "Areas of Concern" directly to "Solutions" without any intermediary provision for input toward the planning process. • I would find it helpful to have the subcommittee consider selecting one of the more pertinent "Likes" or "Dislikes" from the list and devoting one session to searching for a consensus which might indicate a possible productive outcome ("Solution"). Planning White Paper Page 6 of 6 Attachment A Bull Mountain Annexation Police Services Subcommittee White Paper Section 1- Summary of Public Involvement and Discussion The purpose of the Police Services Subcommittee is to provide additional time for public discussion and review of key benefits of the Bull Mountain Annexation Plan. The objectives of the task force are: • Develop an approach for transition of key urban services that occurs through annexation • Provide additional opportunity for public involvement and discussion • Develop a strategy for implementation of the Annexation Plan, e.g. funding, planning, etc. Subcommittee membership: • Jerry Edwards, Tigard Citizen • Steve Tuttle, Unincorporated Area Citizen . Wynne Wakkila, Unincorporated Area Citizen • Charlie Cameron, Washington County Administrator . Rob Gordon, Washington County Sheriff . Bill Monahan, Tigard City Manager • Bill Dickinson, Tigard Police Chief Meeting Dates: February 23, 2004 • March 15, 2004 • March 29, 2004 I . April 12, 2004 • May 10, 2004 Summary of issues and findings: Comparison of cost and services provided by the Washington County Sheriff s Office (WCSO) and the Tigard Police Department was done. WCSO is the larger provider of police services, providing the same patrol and emergency response services as Tigard. WCSO is the county-wide service provider and/or coordinator for joint task forces. In this respect, they have a greater number of officers and specialty teams, and are spread over a very large service area. The comparison showed that both agencies deliver comparable services at comparable costs. ■ Tigard participates in most of the county-wide teams that are managed by the Sheriffs Office, thereby enjoying a higher level of expertise available for Tigard citizens. N There are some services such as jail, prisoner transport, civil process, and forensic services which are unique to the Sheriff's Office and are provided to all citizens of Washington County regardless of incorporation status. Section 2 - Summary of Key Impacts of Annexation on Bull Mountain residents and Tigard Residents Summary of Cost comparisons: Budget personnel from the City and the County were consulted to identify cost The Sheriff s Office provides models and how they apply in this circumstance. three main areas of service to Washington County. ■ First are the county-wide services, which are paid for and enjoyed by all ton County residents, both in the cities and in the unincorporated hi W ng as area. Examples of such services include the jail, prisoner transport, forensics support, etc. ■ The second area of service provided by the Sheriff is law enforcement ' services that are provided mainly to unincorporated residents, with the termittent back-up services that are d i i n ts an exception of special un rovided on a county-wide basis. Examples of such services include p patrol and investigations. ■ The third area of service is known as the Enhanced Sheriff s Patrol District (ESPD), which is a special taxing district approved by voters in District provides an enhanced level Th e the urban unincorporated areas. of lave enforcement services that augments the traditional level of county services. The ESPD is an alternative that allows the District to receive municipal level of patrol service at a level that is closer to that provided by cities. The residents who receive ESPD services are taxed directly for this enhanced service level, making the service and tax revenue source very identifiable. Unincorporated Bull Mountain residents would cease paying I tax for the ESPD following incorporation. C The study of costs revealed that the Sheriff's budget identifies budgets for ESPD a and jail services; however, the budgets for law enforcement do not clearly -wide services that are delivered to cities versus the count th if y ose y identify/quant unincorporated areas exclusively. Planning efforts are now underway to address this issue. Because all County residents (city residents and unincorporated residents), ' s pay the same tax rate for Sheriff s services, it is the subcommittee recommendation that the county identify which county property tax funds are providing county-wide services versus those that provide services to the unincorporated area (see above plan for addressing this issue). By clarifying where funds are applied, the Sheriff would be able to appropriately budget for the three areas of service identified above. Finally, it was recognized that the Sheriffs Office must continue to receive those county-wide revenues in order to maintain the long established servic e levels agreed upon by the County and cities in a mid- 1980s urban servie astu approved by the Board of Commissioners in 198'7. 2000 Strategic plan pp ull Overall, it was the consensus ns~eaost the he same level as currently pro Bded. Mountain would remain Section 3 - Transition of Services it was determined that the transition would be a cooperative effort. • The Sheriff s Office will continue to provide the county-wide services they have to meet e level always provided. Tigard Police Co nhiri aanddd~oa~ ~e ~~ent service lev lcwould standards set by the Tigard City population. not be diluted by the expanded service area and pop accommodate • It is expected that Tigard would hire sufficient additional staff will enhance onal the annexation area's impact on the City so the addi enefit response and investigative capacity exifor sting city =esiden , as wellas the ~es dent of officers is equally shared by the g Bull Mountain• and training immediately • It was recommended that the City of Tigard begin hiring following an affirmative annexation vote. This would by 7ulthe Tigard Police to of 2005 be fully staffed and ready to assume all patrol Section 4 - Implementation of the Annexation Plan the City Council would need to authorize a • In order to implement this transition plan, and training to begin in advance supplemental budget which would allow the hiring of the transition date. While there is a provision in State Law which allows Sheriffs Deputies to • transfer to a new or annexing city, Sheriff Gordon has stated that this will not be necessary as growth in other parts of the County more than accommodates the area that would be annexed by Tigard. Police would need to ramp up its • Since lateral transfers are not likely, Tigard staffing level. It takes approximately 6 months from the time of hire, to the time that an Officer is fully trained and operational in the field. begin he Pimmedia part a uponnt maintains a current hiring list at all times, so hiring gaining the City Council's budget authorization- The planning for this concept has already been conducted by the Tigard Police Department, and can be implemented on demand. The timing is such that there is nearly 8 months from the time of the annexation vote, until the City would assume responsibility for delivering law enforcement responses. This is only marginally longer than the 6 months it takes to hire and train the new staff, so while it would require prompt action on the part of the City, there is adequate time to allow for a smooth and seamless transition. In the event of hiring delays, the Chief and the Sheriff will work cooperatively to assure the maintenance of police services. Bull Mountain Annexation Police Subcommittee: . / ~ir- teve Tuttle Mo t Area Citizen Charlie Cameron Washington County Representative Rob Gordon Washington County Sheriff Bill Dickinson Tigard Police Chief ~i Bill Monahan Tigard Representative os-14-04 Tigard Citizen Bull Mountain Annexation Streets Subcommittee White Paper Section 1 - Summary of Public Involvement and Discussion The Streets Subcommittee met five times in meetings open to the public. The members were presented with available information at the first meeting. Additional information was presented in subsequent meetings in response to questions from the members. The draft white paper was reviewed at the meeting on April 15, 2004. The revised draft paper was reviewed at the meeting on April 29, 2004. The final draft was reviewed on May 20, 2004 at which time the members signed off on the final version of the paper. Subcommittee membership: • Gus Ducnas: City Engineer • Brian Rager: Public Works Engineering Manager • Victoria Sanger: Washington County Representative • Joo Schweitz: Tigard Citizen Representative • Cam Gilmour: Tigard Citizen Representative • Paul Giroux: Bull Mountain Citizen Representative • Keshmira McVey: Bull Mountain Citizen Representative Meeting Dates: • March 3, 2004 • March 18, 2004 • April 15, 2004 • April 29, 2004 • May 20, 2004 Summary of issues raised and findings: Street Improvement Capital Project costs over the long term in the Annexation Area ■ Collector street improvements needed over the long term (6 to 20 years) in the Bull Mountain annexation area are estimated at $19,380,000. This represents about 6.4% of approximately $300 million in long-term capital project needs (during the next 20 or more years) in the City of Tigard. Some of the capital needs in the City are for high-cost overpasses and connectors that would eventually be constructed over the long term. The improvements needed in the annexation area are for widening of existing collectors, which most likely would be constructed earlier than those longer-term improvements. ■ Local streets and neighborhood routes could be improved to ultimate width with sidewalks, underground drainage, and street lights through formation of Local Bull Mountain Annexation Streets Subcommittee White Paper Page 1 of 10 Improvement Districts (LIDs). The cost of these improvements would be assessed to the benefited properties. The formation of these districts to perform these improvements would be subject to approval by the benefited property owners. Status of non-remonstrance agreements required of developers by Washington County ■ Non-remonstrance Agreements signed by residents in the annexation area are for the formation of Maintenance Local Improvement Districts (MLIDs). These MLIDs are not to be used for street improvements, but were implemented as a be discontinued. backup plan should Urban Road Maintenance District (URlvID) The City of Tigard does not use MLIDs, does not obtain them from developers, and has no use for these agreements after annexation. What revenue would be transferred to Tigard from the Urban Road Maintenance District (URMD) and Road Fund at the time of annexation? ■ No revenue would be transferred to Tigard from URMD funds or Road Fund at time of annexation. Collections from the residents in the annexed area for the URMD would cease upon annexation. What improvements are planned by Washington County prior to the effective date of annexation (July 1, 2005)? ■ None, except for maintenance work to bring the streets into compliance with the requirements established by the Urban Service Agreement (attached), which requires that all than 40, and that the average CI of all the streets is 75 or greater. of greater r th tha What improvements will the County make to roads after the effective date of annexation? ■ None What commitments will the County make regarding street improvements in the annexation area? ■ County staff cannot make any commitments regarding street improvements in the annexation area. Any commitments would have to be obtained from the County Board of Commissioners. The commitment from the Board to the effective intergovernmental Agreement and should e executed prior could resolution or date of annexation. ; is the Process sfer of streets • Transfer of streets upon haanne t on ' automatically? fWhtastreets need to beom the County to the tytransferred separately? Bull Mountain Annexation Streets Subcommittee White Paper Page 2 of 10 Except for Beef Bend Road and Barrows Road, all the streets in the annexation area will be transferred from County to City jurisdiction. This includes Bull Mountain Road, Roshak Road, and 150`x' Avenue. Beef Bend Road (County arterial) and Barrows Road will remain under County jurisdiction. Approximately half of the streets (local streets and neighborhood routes) in the annexation area would transfer automatically. The remainder, which include local streets, neighborhood routes and collectors, are identified by County Road Number and would have to be transferred by separate action. The process is for the City to request and the County Board of Commissioners to agree by formal action to the transfer of those County Roads. Washington County and the City already have an Urban Service Agreement dated November 26, 2002 that provides the basis for transfer of jurisdiction for streets. Washington County will ensure prior to transfer that all streets to be transferred have a Pavement Condition Index (PCI) of greater than 40, and that the average PCI of all the streets is 75 or greater. The current PCI average of all the streets in the annexation area is 81. The streets in the annexation area are generally in good to excellent condition. The transfer of the streets in the annexation area will be executed at no additional cost to the residents in the annexation area. Bull Mountain Road is a collector street that connects Highway 99W with Roy Rogers Road (a County arterial). 150'' Avenue is also a collector street that* provides a direct connection between Beef Bend Road (a County arterial) and Bull Mountain Road. Both these streets accommodate regional traffic and would most likely need to be widened during the next 5 to 10 years. A commitment from the County Board of Commissioners to recognize improvements to those streets as high priority would enhance the chances of those projects receiving strong consideration for funding in a future MSTIP or other funding opportunities. • What happens to maintenance on those streets that do not transfer immediately upon annexation? Would there be a period where no maintenance is performed until the streets are officially transferred? ■ The URND collections from the annexed area cease upon annexation. The County would not perform maintenance once the funding is no longer available. The City would not have jurisdiction over the streets until transfer occurs. Until the transfer occurs, there would most likely be a period during which no maintenance is performed on the streets. One way to avoid a period of no maintenance is to initiate transfer prior to the effective date of annexation and have the transfer effective on the annexation date. A 6 or 7-month period should be sufficient time to initiate and complete the process. Should the jurisdictional transfer process take much longer than expected, the City and County could execute an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) for the City to perform street maintenance on those streets from the effective date of annexation until jurisdictional transfer occurs. This assumes that Bull Mountain Annexation Streets Subcommittee White Paper Page 3 of 10 the streets are at the level of compliance indicated in the Urban Service Agreement. Section 2 - Summary of Key Impacts of Annexation on Bull Mountain residents and Tigard Residents Summary of Costs (street maintenance, street lights, and capital improvements): • The City funds street maintenance through gas tax revenue and through the newly established Street Maintenance Fee. The Street Maintenance Fee revenues would be used strictly for reconstruction, pavement overlays and slurry seals on existing streets. This fee is collected through the City's utility billing.The County funds street maintenance through URMD collections for all urban streets below major collector status. The URMD assessments appear on the property tax bill and are collected with the property taxes. Collector and arterial street maintenance are funded through the Road Fund, which is primarily the gas tax. • The City pays for street light energy and maintenance through the gas tax revenues. The County creates Street Light Districts and charges the residents in the district for the installation, maintenance and energy costs of the street lights in each district. Like:the URMD assessments, the street light charges appear on and are collected through'.tfie! property tax bills. • The City currently funds its major street improvement projects through the Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) revenues. The County also uses the TIF revenues, gas tax revenues and the Major Streets Transportation Improvement Program for street improvements. Annual Costs The cost comparisons are as follows: Street Maintenance ■ - City of Tigard Street Maintenance Fee: $2.18 per month per dwelling unit = $26.16 per year ■ Washington County UR V D charges: $61.40 per year (based on $0.25 per $1,000 of assessed value using a $250,000 house) Net reduction in cost upon annexation: $61.40 - $26.16 = $35.24 per dwelling unit per year Street Lights ■ City of Tigard Street Lights: Absorbed in the City's Operating Budget. City assumes responsibility for energy and maintenance costs and residents do not pay charges directly. Bull Mountain Annexation Streets Subcommittee White Paper Page 4 of 10 ■ Washington county forms Street Light Districts and assesses charges to cover the long-term maintenance and energy costs for the street lights: $35.00 per year average charge. ■ Street Light Districts in the annexed area would be terminated and the street lights would become part of the City's street light system. Net reduction in cost upon annexation: $35 per dwelling unit per year Capital Project Costs (Streets only) • Total Street Improvement Costs (based on improvements to County collectors that are not yet built to ultimate width): $19,380,000 ■ Bull Mountain Road Only: $8,050,000 ■ 150'h Avenue Only: $3,425,000 Analysis of Annexation Impacts (Pros and Cons): The following are the pros and cons of annexation from five different perspectives: Annexation Area Residents, City of Tigard Residents, City of Tigard, Washington County, Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT). Annexation.Area Residents Lower annual street maintenance costs: $35.24 Concern whether or not the monthly $2.18 less (see cost comparison above) Street Maintenance Fee is sufficient to provide a satisfactory level of maintenance, as compared to the level the County now achieves ; with the URMD funds. Elimination of street light maintenance and energy charges: $35 average charge per residence in a Street Light District Current road conditions preserved with routine street maintenance at City service level, which is performed at a frequency at least double that of the County Capital Improvements more likely with City support and emphasis. City would begin the process for planning the widening of Bull Mountain Road and 150'' Avenue soon after annexation. Bull Mountain Annexation Streets Subcommittee White Paper Page 5 of 10 of at the County ensuring that the streets are v at least good condition pri or to transfer, lower annual maintenance costs are anticipated for the next five ears Additional mileage added to the City's total mileage could improve bid prices through economies of scale (more lineal footage in the annual pavement overlay and slurry seal Increased gas tax and Street Maintenance Fee revenue Potential for higher priority through City support on improvements to Bull Mountain Road and 150 Avenue from future MSTIP or other funding opportunities Lower streets requirements for Control over the streets in the annexation area. Would allow City to perform traffic studies as needed, place appropriate traffic control devices, determine the appropriate level of The transition phase during the transfer of jurisdiction has the potential for reduced customer service initially as the City adjusts to the increased workload. of City would have to pay for street light energy and maintenance costs for that area in ,addition: to street maintenance as needed Except for the newer streets, streets are typically narrow, do not meet City standards, and do not have underground drainage. The city would be accepting a capital improvement liability because of major streets that need to be expanded to ultimate width at some point during the next 20 years. There are no guarantees that the future MST1Ps would include Bull Mountain Road and 150th Avenue. Increase in scope of work for maintenance of ditches and underground drainage systems. Additional personnel and equipment do need to be added to adequately maintain the drainage ditches and underground drainage systems in the annexation area. Potential for lag in customer service as the City adjusts to the increase in scope of work. Bull Mountain Annexation Streets Subcommittee White Paper Page 6of10 maintenance and apply the City standards for develonment of streets within that area. Would be a significant step towards reduction Loss of URMD revenue from area with low of urban services Countywide current maintenance requirements (many new Oregon Departmen t of Transportation s Muff. Acceleration of improvements to Bull Mountain Road could result in improvements to the signal system at the Highway 99W/Bull Mountain Road intersection. Improvements to Bull Mountain Road could result in increased traffic volumes entering Highway 99W. This could lead to increased congestion on Highway 99W from Durum Road to Hall Boulevard. Section 3 - Transition of Services Options Considered: Transfer of Streets: • Streets that automatically transfer would be transferred upon annexation under the conditions specified in the Urban Service Agreement dated November 26, 2002. ■ Accept street maintenance and street-related storm drainage on all streets trans' err ® Accept responsibility for traffic control and traffic calming on all streets transferred by annexation Streets that have to be transferred by separate action should go through the transfer process established by that same agreement. Begin the transfer process 6 or 7 months prior to the effective date and ensure the streets are officially transferred upon annexation. Accept street maintenance and street-related storm drainage on all streets transferred by jurisdictional transfer process • Accept responsibility for traffic control and traffic calming on all streets transferred by jurisdictional transfer process Bull Mountain Annexation Streets Subcommittee White Paper Page 7of10 Evaluation Criteria • Impact on the City's resources • Time needed to accommodate additional responsibility • City's ability to absorb additional scope and long-term street capital needs • County's responsibility for regional traffic Evaluation Automatically Transfer Transfer by Separate Action Criteria Street and YYa c Street and Traffic Capital Drainage control and Drainage control and Improvement Maintenance calming Maintenance calmin Needs Impact on Will need Will not Will need Will not Exceeds City's City's additional need additional need existing resources resources resources additional resources additional (labor and resources (labor and resources equipment) a ui ment Time needed Can be done Can be done Can be done Can be done Needs to lie:° prior to immediately prior to immediately planned and effective effective date implemented over date the long term (up to 20 ears City's ability Need labor, Can be Need labor, Can be Would be to absorb and accommo- and accommo- prioritized along scope and equipment dated with equipment dated with with other City capital needs and time to existing and time to existing projects et them resources et them resources County's N/A N/A N/A N/A Commitment responsibility needed from for regional County Board to traffic make Bull Mountain Road and 150th Avenue high priority for future funding Recommended Approach • Accept automatic street transfer with annexation in accordance with Urban Service Agreement Bull Mountain Annexation Streets Subcommittee White Paper Page 8 of 10 Execute street transfers for those streets that need separate action to allow an effective transfer date of July 1, 2005 Obtain a commitment from the Washington County Board that Bull Mountain Road and 150' Avenue would be considered as high priority projects for MSTIP 4, or other funding opportunities Ensure adequate time for the City to acquire necessary manpower and equipment to perform routine maintenance on transferred streets. The 6-month period January through June 2005 should be sufficient time for recruitment and equipment purchase. Section 4 - Implementation of the Annexation Plan The current plan for annexation calls for a vote in November (Citywide and Bull Mountain Annexation Area) of 2004. The effective date of annexation would be July 1, 2005. Streets that would transfer automatically upon annexation would become the City's responsibility on that date. Streets that need to be transferred by separate action should be transferred at the same time to avoid any lag in service. If the annexation vote succeeds, the seven-month time period from December 2004 through June 2005 will allow the City to mobilize whatever resources it needs to begin street maintenance in the annexation area on July 1, 2005. This time period should also be sufficient for the transfer process to occur with an effective transfer date of July 1, 2005.. Additional personnel will need to be hired (at least two utility workers) and one or possi&:ly two additional utility trucks would have to be purchased. The maintenance and control of traffic control devices could be assumed immediately upon annexation. Neighborhood traffic management would likewise be assumed upon annexation. Recommended Strategy for Implementation: Funding • Begin gas tax collection for the annexation area effective July 1, 2005 • Begin Street Maintenance Fee billing effective July 1, 2005 • Include as part of the Supplemental Budget (which would be necessary to address the annexation) funding to hire additional street maintenance personnel and equipment needed to provide routine maintenance on the streets transferred • Request and obtain commitment from Washington County Board of Commissioners to consider Bull Mountain Road and 150°i Avenue Improvements as high priority projects for incorporation in future MSTIP or other funding opportunities Planning Identify any streets that need preventative or corrective maintenance prior to transfer, ensure that they are included in the County 's list for resurfacing, and that they are brought up to standard prior to transfer to the City Mobilization during the seven-month period from December 2004 through June 2005 to have resources available by July 1, 2005. This includes approval of a Supplemental Budget to provide the funding necessary for these resources. Bull Mountain Annexation Streets Subcommittee White Paper Page 9 of 10 • Incorporate the streets transferred into the City's Capital Improvement Program formulation process for any future improvement needs • Provide notice well in advance of the effective date to all residents in the Annexation Area that the City is assuming responsibility for the streets and street maintenance • Prepare for the transition of services from Washington County to the City • Identify and prepare for the transfer of the street lights that need to be absorbed into the City's street light system liming • Accept the streets that automatically transfer on July 1, 2005 • Begin and complete the process of identifying and describing the streets for transfer by separate action at least 6 or 7 months prior to annexation. Have the approval process completed prior to annexation with an effective transfer date of July 1, 2005, same as the other streets. • Execute a Supplemental Budget to provide the resources for street maintenance no later than the end of March 2005 • Obtain a commitment in writing (possibly through resolution or Intergovernmental Agreement) from the County prior to the annexation date to elevate Bull Mountaiii.Road and 150th Avenue to high priority for future funding • Ensure all streets are brought up to the standards described in the Urban Service Agreement prior to transfer dates • Dispense with the Y1IDs executed in the annexation area upon annexation • Begin planning for improvements to Bull Mountain Road and 150 Avenue shortly after annexation to ensure that they would be in contention for any available funding through Federal, State, County or City sources Attachment: Urban Service Agreement dated November 26, 2002 s tv+aouw~smouti+Ana„~,menm..e,,,am,,.,irv'rwiep~per• Wgeb e.at.asoe Bull Mountain Annexation Streets Subcommittee White Paper R Submitted by: Joe Schweitz, City of Tigard itizen Representative A Cam Gilmour, ity of Tigard Citizen Representative P, 1 --4- Paul Giroux, Bull Moun Citizen Representative M0'a ~1'. L•w~- 3sv+~-~Y►ys cal o-F Y~ pe,r►d Keshmira McVey, Bull ountain Citizen Representative ictona Saag r ashington County Representative Bri. Rager, P.E., blic Work Engineering Manager, City of Tigard O'w'30 P. AgusU P. Duenas, P.E., City Engineer, City o Tigard 5 AIt2n t Date .6-b-0 /'0 q Date . s/Zola~ Date Date .-1-9 /o Date S 4 ~ - ate ~2o a Date VAVpMWA vw"" MUMMO W rWX a6mnmuednhb PVU Wes. PK'&d= • 'Jr ' '1 TIGARD URBAN SERVICE AGREEMENT November 26, 2002 This AGREBIENT is made and entered into by and between Washington County, a municipal Tigard, a municipal corporation of the State of Oregon; hereinafter "COUNTY,"the y o of Tigservice district of metropolitan corporation of the State of Oregon, hereinafter "CITY,,, Metro, a City hereinafter "METRO," and the following Special Districts of the State of the State of Oregon, Oregon, hereinafter "DISTRICT(S)," Clean Water Services; Tigard Water District; Tri--Met; Tualatin. Hills Park and Recreation District; Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue District; and Tualatin Valley Water District RECITALS WHEREAS, ORS 195.025(1) requires MMO, through its regional coordination responsibilities, to review urban service agreements affecting land use, including planning activities of the counties, cities, special districts, state agencies; and WHEREAS, ORS 195.020(4)(e) requires cooPerative agreements to specify the units of local government which shall be parties to an urban service agreement under ORS 195.065; and WHEREAS, ORS 195.065(1) requires units of local government that provide, an urban service within an urban growth boundary to enter into an urban service agreement that sservice pecifies the unit of government that will deliver the services, sets forth the functional role of each provider, d coordination of determines the firture service area, and assigns responsibilities for planning services; and WHEREAS, ORS 195.065(1) and (2) require that the COUNTY shall be responsible for. I . Convening representatives of all cities and special districts that provide or declare an interest in providing dig an urban service inside an urban growth boundary within the county that has a population greater than 2,500 persons for the purpose of negotiating an urban service agreement; 2. Consulting with recognized community planning organizations within the area affected by the urban service agreement; and 3. Notifying Metro in advance of meetings to negotiate an urban service agreement to enable Metro's review; and TigardUrban Service Ag=e=nt November 26, 2002 Page 1 WHEREAS, ORS 195.075(1) requires urban service agreements Provide for the continuation of an adequate level of urban services to the entire area that each provider serves and to specify if there is a significant reduction in the territory of a special service district; and WHEREAS, ORS 195.075(1) requires that if there is a significant reduction in territory, the agreement shall specify how the remaining portion of the district is to receive services in an affordable manner; and WHEREAS. ORS 195.205 TO 195.235 grant authority to cities and districts (an defined by ORS 198.010) to annex lands within an urban growth boundary, subject to voter approval, if the city or district enacts an annexation plan adopted pursuant to ORS 195.020, 195.060 to 195.085, 195.145 to 195.235,197.005,197.319,197.320,197.335, a223 nd 04, ~d~~° city or district has entered into urban service agreements with the county, provide urban services within the affected area; and WHEREAS, ORS 197.175 requires cities and counties to prepare, adopt; amend, and revise their comprehensive plans in compliance with statewide planning goals, and enact land use regulations to implement their comprehensive plans; and WHEREAS, Statewide Planning Goals 2, 11, and 14 require cities and counties to plan, in cooperation with all affected agencies and special districts, for the urbanization of lands within an urban growth boundary, and ensure the timely, orderly, and efficient extension of public facilities and urban services. NOW, THEREFORE, the premises being in general as stated in the foregoing recitals, it is agreed by and between the parties hereto as follows: Y. ROL s AND RESPONSIBILITIES A. Parties to this AGR.EEMI?N'1' shall provide land use planning notice to each other in developed per ORS accordance with the provision of the "Cooperative Agreements," 195.020(4)(e). B. The parties to this AGREEMEN'T' are designated as the appropriate provider of services to the citizens residing within their boundaries. as specified in this AGREEMENT- C. The CITY is designated as the appropriate provider of services to citizens residing within its boundaries and to adjacent unincorporated areas subject to this AGREEMENT as shown on Map A, except for those services that are to be provided by another party as specified in this AGREEMENT- D. The C11TY and COUNTY will be supportive of annexations to the CITY over time. The CTTy shall endeavor to annex the unincorporated areas shown on Map A, in keeping with the following schedule: 1. Near to mid-term (3 to 5 years): Bull Mountain area and unincorporated lands north of the Tualatin River and south of Durham Road and Tigard Urban Service Agreement November 26, 2002 Page 2 2. Far-erm (10 years or Iffier):1VTetzger I Pursuant to ORS 195.205, the CITY and DISTRICTS reserve the rightexationandplanmay,or plans in E' ent of this AGREEMENT, develop an ann subsequent to the enactment accordance with ORS 195.205 to 220. reliance upon this AGREEMENT' in r the COUNTY will focus F In keeping with the County 2000 Strategic Plan or its sucoesso , ition out of ices that provide county-wide benefit and trans its energies on those services -fit specific geographic areas or districts. The providing municipal services that may service COUN'T'Y recognizes c.. and special service districts as the ultimate municipal COUNTY also recognizes cities as the -Me as specified in this AGREEMENT. ultimate local governance provider to the urban area. T and prior of the effective date of this AGREEME to any G. Within twelve months annexations totaling twenty consolidation or transfer of duties or any single this multiple parties that win or may be acres, the parties shall identify any duties performed by the from one party to another party by annexation, consolidation or assumed or transferred identify how the duties will be transferred or 'ue affected parties shall the transfer of employees and equipment. The process to transfer assumed, including meat shall account for the cumulative effects of annexation,. duties, employees andP This process shall also address large scale consolidation and transfer by agreement- consolidation or agreement. In the annexations and the large scale transfer of duties bconsonsolili transfer duties, employees event the affected parties mot agree upon the processes shall be used to and equipment, the provisions of Section VII of this AGREEMENT resolve the dispute. shall have the responsibility for convening representatives for the purpose H. 'The COUNTY of amending this AGREEMEN'T'. Pursuant to 0" 195.065(2)(a). II. IGREEMENT COORDINATION A. B. C. intergovernmental agreements t~ are consistent with this AGREEMENT Existing shall control provisions of existing shall remain in force. This AGREEMENT the terms of this that are inconsistent with an This interg°v ent wide an interg°v AGREEMENT does not preclude any party from amending AGgREE~ over went or enteringinto anew inter-govemmeatal agreement with one or more parties for a service addressed in this AGREEMENT, provided such an agreement is consistent with the provisions of this AGREEMENT. have entered into an intergovernmental agreement for the The CITY and COUNTY Land development and specific road services on behalf of CITY provision of building, the COUNTY to the unincorporated lands in the Bull Mountain area. CITY and COUNTY shall endeavor to take all action necessary to cause their cmapreheusive plans to be amended to be consistent with this AGREEMENT within' . twelvemonths of execution of this AGREEMENT, but no later than sixteen months from the date of mcution. Tigard Urban Service Agreement November 26, 2002 Page 3 M. AREA AFFECTED BY AGREEMENT This AGREEIVE`1T applies to the Tigard Urban Service Area (TUSA) as shown on Map A and properties added to the Regional Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) that are to be annexed to the CTI'Y in the future as described below in Section VIII. TV. URBAN SERVICE PROVIDERS A. The service provisions of this AGREEMENT, as described in Exhibits A through G, establish the providers and elements of urban services for the geographic area covered -in this AGREEMENT; and B. Thee following urban services are addressed in this AGREENNIENNT: 1. . Fire protection and Emergency Services (Exhibit A); 2. Public Transit P1131bit B); 3. Law Enforcement Pdubit C); 4. Parks, Recreation, and Open Space (Exhibit D); 5. Roads and Streets (Exhibit E); 6. Sanitary Sewer and Storm Water (Exhibit F); and 7. Water Service (Exh ibit G). V, ASSIGNABILITY No assignment of any party's rights or obligations under this AGREEMENT to a different, new or consoli dated or merged entity shall be ef fective without the prior consent of the other parties affected thereby. Any party to this AGREEMENT who proposes a merger, consolidation, dissolu-ion, or other major boundary change shall notify formation, of the reports er studies required by Oregon State all other parties of the availability proposal. Statutes to be prepared as part of the prop VT, EFFECTIVE DATE OF AGREEMENT This AGREEMENT shall become effective upon full execution by all parties. VII. TERM OF THE AGREE W-NT 'This AGREEMENT shall continue to be in effect as long as required under state law. The COUNTY shau be responsible for convening the parties to this AGREEIvIENT for the review or modification of this AGREEMENT, pursuant to Section VIII. VIIL PROCESS FOR REVIEW AND MODIFICATION OF THE AGREEMENT A. Parries shall periodically review the provisions of this AGREEMENT in order to evaluate die effectiveness of the processes set forth herein and to propose any necessary or beneficial amendments to address considerations of ORS 195.070 and ORS 195.075. B. Any party may propose modifications to this agreement to address concerns or changes in circumstances. C. The body of this AGREEMENT (Recitals and Sections I through IX) may only be changed by written consent of all affected parties. Amendments to the exhibits of this AGREEMENT may be made upon written consent of the parties identified in each exhibit. D. line periodic review of this AGREEMENT and all proposed modifications to this AGREEMENT shall be coordinated by the COUNTY. All requests for the periodic review of this AGREEMENT and all proposed modifications shall be considered in a timely manner and all parties shall receive notice of any proposed amendment. Only those parties affected by an amendment shall sign the amended agreement. All amendments that include boundary changes shall comply with Chapter 3.09 of the, METRO Code or its successor. E. Lands added to the Regional Urban Growth Boundary that are determined to be am =.cd to the CTTy in the future by separate process, such an Urban Reserve Plan, shall be subject to this AGREEMENT. The appropriate service providers to new urban lands for the services addressed in this AGREEMENT shall be determined through through the provisions of this Section unless those determinations are maw the service the development of an Urban Reserve Plan and all affected parties agree determinations. This AGREEMENT shall be amended to address new urban lands and reflect the service provider determinations consistent with the provisions of this Section. W DISPUTE RESOLUTION If a dispute arises between or among the parties regarding breach of this AGREEMENT or interpretation of any term thereof; those parties shall first attempt to resolve the dispute by negotiation prior to any other contested case process. If negotiation fails to resolve the impute, the parties agree to submit the matter to non binding mediation. Only after these steps have been exhausted will the matter be submitted to arbitration. Step I - Negotiation. The managers or other persons designated by each of the disputing parties will negotiate on behalf of the entities they represent. The issues of the dispute shall be reduced to -.vntamg and each manager shall then meet and attempt to resolve the issue. If the dispute is resolved with this step, there shall be a' written determination of such resolution signed by each manager, which shall be binding upon the parties. Tigard Urban Service Agreement November 26, 2002 Page 5 Step 2 - Mediation. If the dispute cannot be resolved within 30 days of initiation of Step 1, a party shall request in writing that the matter be submitted to non binding mediation. The parties shall use good-faith efforts to agree on a mediator. If they cannot agree, the parties shall request a list of five mediators from an entity or firm providing mediation services. The parties will attempt to mutually agree on a mediator from the list provided, but if they cannot agree, each party shall select one name and the two mediators shall jointly select a third mediator. The dispute shall be heard by the third mediator and any common costs of mediation shall be bome equally by the parties, who shall each bear their ovvn costs and fees therefore. If the issue is resolved at this Step, then a written determination of such resolution shall be signed by each manager and shall be binding upon the parties. Step 3 - Arbitration. After exhaustion of Steps 1 and 2 above, the matter shall be settled by binding arbitration in Washington County, Oregon, in accordance with the Commercial Arbitration Rules of the American Arbitration Association, the rules of the Arbitration Service of Portland, or any other rules mutually agreed to, pursuant to ORS 190.710-790. The arbitration shall be before a single arbitrator, nothing shall prevent the parties from mutually selecting an arbitrator or panel thereof who is not part of the AAA panel and agreeing upon arbitration rules and procedures. The cost of arbitration shall be shared eq„ally. The arbitration shall be hold within 60 days of selection of the arbitrator unless otherwise agreed to by the parties. Ile decision shall be issued within 60 days of arbitration. X. SEVERABILITY CLAUSE If any portion of this AGREEMENT is declared invalid, or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct, and independent provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this AGREEMENT. XL SIGNATURES OF PARTIES TO AGREEMENT In witness whereof, this AGREEMENT is executed by the authorized representatives of the COUNTY, C1TY, DISTRICTS, and METRO. The parties, by their representative's signatures to this AGREEMENT, signify that each has read the AGREEMENT, understands its terms, and agrees to be bound thereby. TYgard Urban Service Agreement November 26, 2002 Page 6 CITY of TIGARD BY Date J E. d tForm: App;WA By.c. TUALATIN VALLBY FIRE AND RESCUE DISTRICT . L%'~arlf..i. ~ 12I17I0 a. ~ Chairman, Board of dors Date Approved as to Form: istrict Counsel ' Tigard E'Irban Service Agreement November 26, 2002 Page 8 TUALATIN EMLS PARK AND RECREATION DISTRICT r 'Fe~ru~aYy ZDD~. President. of Directors Date App to Form: ` B DistriAC TRI-ML''~ ~~'+A? By. Date (icnCCal Manager Approved as to Form: By: 4DicoOv64- CLEAN WATER SERVICES Tom Brian, Chair Board of Directors Approved as to Form: r 1• District Coumsel 1z -17 - 0,- Date AFF-4c,7D CLF. M W ATM SERVYC'I;S HCM OF DIMMOAS DATE Tigard UfiMn. Service A November 26. 2002 Page 11 Ti amm WATER DISTRICT By. Chairman, Board of "W-IMM C~►t*55b~J Approved as to Form: By District Counsel Date Tigard Uftm Service Ag=eement November 26, 2002 page 12 TUALATIN VALLEY WATER DxsTRICT Chairman, Board of Dbvt)cto Date . Richard P. Burke Approved as to Form: BY- District Counsel Clark Balfour WASHINGTON COUNTY By: Tom Brian, Chair Board of Commissioners Approved as/t'o~Fonrm: By. V' County Counsel 02_17- oz Date APPROVEr? WASHINGTON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MINUTE ORDER fl^^~~...Q / DATE cMX OT TH •OAAD Tigard Urban Service Agreement -1- 90; 2002 page 14 MEMO 3 Za~,r • By. Data Presiding cer Approved as to Form gal Counsel r EXHIBIT A COON PROVISIONS PiFI'SAGREEMENT pUBLIC EMERGENCY SERVICES AND TUALAT]N VALLEY FIRE AND MOUE DISTRICT, CM and COUNTY agree: TIN VALLEY FIRE AND RESCUE DISTRICT (TVFR) is and shall e Tigard Urban Service Area 1 That the TUALA continue to be the sole provider of fire protection services to th (TUSA) shown on Map A. . CITY and COUNTY are and shall continue to provide emergency management 2. That TVFR, response services to the TUSA 3 vices That ~gR is and shall continue to bethe sole provider of all other public emergency ser to the TUSA, excluding law enforcement services. IL ca m fp W J EXHIBITB PROVISIONS OF AGREEMENT FOR PUBLIC TRANSIT SERVICE TRI--MET, CITY, COUNTY and METRO agree. ORS Chapter 267, is currently the sole provider of public mass 1. That TRI-MET, Pursuant to Map A Future options for public transit to the Tigard Urban Service Area (TUSA) shown on provide, rail or mass transit services to the TUSA may include public/private partnerships to p other transit service, CITY operated transit service, and transit service by one or more public agency to all or part of the area. MET shall work with the COUNTY, CTTY, and METRO to provide efficient and 2' That - eve public mass transit services to the TUSA Tigard Urban service Agreement November 26, 2002 Page 17 Fu,IEMIT C PROVISIONS OF AGREEMENT FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT COUNTY and CITY agree: l That as annexations occur within the Tigard urban service Area shown on map A., the CITY will assume law enforcement services and the area will be withdrawn from the Enhanced Sheriff's Patrol District. The Sheriff's Office will continue to provide law enforcement services identified through the Cogan Law' Enforcement Project and those services mandated by state law. Eventually, the Enhanced Sheriff's Patrol District, consistent with its conditions of fonnation,•wi71 be eliminated when annexations on a countywide basis reach a point where the function of the District is no longer economically feasible. 2. That over time as annexations occur within the urban unincorporated area, the primary focus of the Sheriffs pffice will be to provide programs that are county-wide in nature or serve the rural areas of the COUNTY. The Sheriffs office wilt continue to maintain needed service levels and programs to msnre the proper fimctionmg of the justice system in the COUNTY. The Sheriffs Office will also continue to provide available aid to smaller cities .g.,, Ban and North Plains) for services specified in the COUNTY'S mutual aid agreement cities upon their request. The Sheriffs Office will also consider requests to provide law enforcement services to cities on a contractual basis consistent with the COUNTY's law enforcement contracting policy. 3. That the COUNTY and CITY and other Washington County cities, through the Cogan Law Enforcement Project, shall determine the ultimate functions of the Sheriff s Office that are not mandated by state law. 4. That the COUNTY and CITY shall utilize comparable measures of staffing that accurately depict the level of service being provided to residents of all local jurisdictions in the COUNTY. Tigard Urban Service Agreement November 26, 2002 Page 18 EXffiBIT D PROVISIONS OF AGREEMENT FOR PARKS, RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE CITY, TUALATIN HILLS PARK AND RECREATION DISTRICT MORD), COUNTY, and METRO agree: 1. That the CITY shall be the designated provider of park, recreation and open spaces services to the Tigard Urban Service Area (TUSA) shown on Map A. Actual provision of these services by the CITY to lands within the TUSA is dependent upon lands being annexed to the CITY. Within the Metzger Park Local Improvement District (LID), the CITY will be a joint provider of services. The CITY and TIIPRD, however, may also enter into inter-governmental agreements for the provision of park, recreation and open space services to residents within each other' boundaries, such as the joint use of facilities or programs. This provision does not preclude futwe amendments to this AGREEMENT concerning how park, recreation and open space services may be provided within the TUSA. 2. That the CITY and the COUNTY sbould further examine the feasibility of creating a park and ' recreation district for the TUSA. 3. That standards for park, recreation, 'and open space services within the TUSA will be as described in the CITY'S park master plan. d That the CITY and COUNTY are supportive of the concept of a parks systems development charge as a method for the future acquisition and development of parks lands in the TUSA that are outside of the CITY. The CITY and COUNTY agree to study the feasibility of adopting such a systems development charge for lands outside of the CITY. 5. That at the next update of its parks master plan, the CITY shall address all the lands within the TUSA 6 That the Metzger Park LID shall remain as a special purpose park provider for as long as a majority of property owners within the LID wish to continue to pay annual levies for the operation and maintenance of Metzger Park. The CITY and COUNTY also agree to the continuation of the Metzger Park Advisory Board. However, the COUNTY as administrator. of the LID, may consider contracting operation and maintenance services to another provider if that option proves to be more efficient and cost-effective. This option `'could be presented and discussed with the park Advisory Board before the COUNTY makes a decision. 7. That contmationn of the Metzger Park: LID shall not impede provision of parks, and eventually recreation services, to the Metzger Park neighborhood by the CITY. Continuation of the Metzger Park LID will be considered as providing an additional level of service to the neighborhood above and beyond that provided by the CITY. Tigard Urban Service Agreement November 26, 2002 Page 19 8. That the CITY and COUNTY will coordinate with Metro to investigate finding sources for acquisition and management of parks which serve a regional function: . 9. That Metro may own and be the provider of region wide parks, recreation and open space facilities within the TUSA Metro Greenspace and Parks facilities typically are to serve a broader population base than services provided to residents coordinate by ] TAY. Whhere applicable, the CITY, COUNTY, and METRO will asp management and services. EXMIT E PROVISIONS OF AGREEMENT FOR ROADS AND STREETS CITY and COUNTY agree: 1. Existing Conditions and Agreements A. The COUNTY shall continue to retain jurisdiction over the network of arterials and ed collectors within the Tigard Urban Service Area (TUSA) that are specifi on the COUNTY wide roadway *,&m in the Washington County' Transportation Plan: The COY sluall apt responsibility for public streets, local streets, neighborhood routes and collectors and other streets and roads that are not part of the COUNTY-wide road system within its boundaries upon annexation if the street or road meets the agreed upon standards described in Section 2.C.(2) below. B The COUNTY and CITY agree to continue sharing equipment and services with renewed . emphasis on tracking of traded services and sharing of equipment without resorting to a the COUNTY and billing system, and improved scheduling of services. Additionally, CITY shall work to improve coordination between the jurisdictions so that the sharing of equipment and services is not dependent on specific individuals within each jurisdiction. The COUNTY and CITY shall also work to establish a more wuifonn accounting system to track the sharing and provision of services. C. Upon annexation to the CITY, the annexed area shall be automatically withdrawn fr om the Urban Road Maiunance District (URMD). D. Upon annexation to the CITY, an annexed area that is part of the Washington County Service District For Street Lighting No. 1 shall be automatically withdrawn from the District. The CITY shall assume responsibility for street lighting on the effective date of annexation of public streets and COUNTY streets and roads that will be transferred to the CITY. The COUNTY "inform PGE when there is •a change in road jurisdiction or when annexation occurs and the annexed area is no longer a part of the street lighting district. 2. Road Transfers Transfer of jurisdiction may be initiated by a request from the CITY or the COUNTY. A. Roadt va sfers shall include the entire right-of--way (e.g., a boundary cannot beset down the middle of a road) and proceed in a logical manner that Prevents the creation of segments of COUNTY roads within the M Y'S boundaries. Tigard Ulban Service Agreement November 26, 2002 Page 21 13. Vrldlin thirty days of annexation, the CITY will initiate the process to transfer jurisdiction of COUNTY and public streets and roads within the annexed area, including local streets, neighborhood routes, collectors and other roads that are not of courty wide significance. The transfer of roads should take no more than one year from the effective date of annexation. C. The COUNTY: (1) To facilitate the road transfer process, the COUNTY will prepare the exhibits that document the location and condition of streets to be transferred upon receipt of a transfer request from the CITY. (2) Prior to final transfer, the COUNTY: (a) Shall complete any maintenance or improvement projects that have been planned for the current fiscal year or transfer funds for same to the My. (b) Shall provide the CITY with any information it may have about any neighborhood or other concerns about streets or other traffic issues within the annexed area. This may be done by providing copies of COUNTY project files or other documents or through joint meetings of CITY and COUNTY staff members. (c) Shall make needed roadway improvements so that all individual roads or streets within the area to be annexed have a pavement condition index (PCI) of more than 40 and so that the average PCI of streets and roads in the annexed COUNTY may higher. As an alternative to COUNTY made imProvements, pay the CM'S costs to make the necessary improvements. (d) Sball inform the CITY of existing maintenance agreements, Local Improvement Districts established for road maintenance purposes, and of plans for maintenance of transferred roads. The COUN'T'Y shall withdraw the affected territory from any road maintenance LIDS formed by the COUNTY. D. The CITY: (1) Agrees to accept all COUNTY roads and streets as defined by ORS 368.001(1) and all public roads within the annexed area that are not of county-wide . significance or are not identified in the COUNTY'S Transportation Plan as part of the county wide road system provided the average PCI Of all COUNTY and public rows and streets that the CITY is to accept in the annexed area is 75 or higher as defined by the COUNTY'S Pavement management system if any individual COUNTY or public street or road that the CITY is to accept wiflin the area has an average PCI of 40 or less at the time of annexation, the CITY shall assume jurisdiction of the road or street only after the COUNTY has comphed with Section 2.C.(2) of this exhibit. (2) Shall, in the event the transfer of roads does not occur soon after annexation, inform the newly annexed residents of this Pad and describe when and under what conditions Tigard Urban Service Agreement November 26, 2002 Page 22 the transfer will occur and how, maintenance.will be provided until the transfer is complete. E. The C1TY shall be responsible for the operation, maintenance and construction of roads and streets transferred to the CITY as well as public streets annexed into the CITY. CITY road standards shall be applicable to transferred and annexed streets. The CITY shall also be responsible for the issuance of access permits and other permits to work within the right-of--way of those streets. 3. Road Design Standards and Review Procedures and Storm Drainage The CITY and COUNTY shall agree on: A. The CITY and COUNTY urban road standards and Clean Water Service standards that will be applicable to the construction of new streets and roads and for iinprovements to existing streets and roads that eventually are to be transferred to the CITY, and-streets and roads to be transferred from the CITY to the COUNTY; B. The development review process public streets and roads and development r COUNTY 'streets COUNTY and the TUSA, including and roads and within public streets that will become CITY streets, and streets and roads that are or will become part of the COUNTY-wide road system; and onsibility for the storm drainage on COUNTY streets and roads within C. Maintenance ~P the TUSA in cooperation with Clean Water Services. 4. Review of Development Applications and Plan Amendments A. Ihe COUNTY and CITY, in conjunction with other Washington County cities and the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT), shall agree on a process(es) and review criteria (e.g., types and levels of analysis) to analyze and condition development applications and plan amendments for impacts to COUNTY and state roads. B. iteria, and criteria to condition development and plan review cr •The review process(es). Oregon Ai amendment applications shall be consistent withonhw Plflansan, and T the it Regional le 6 of Transportation Sjstem Plan, COUNTY and METRO'S Urban Growth Management FimctlonalPlan- 5. Maintenance Cooperation A. The COUNTY and CITY, in conjunction with ODOT, shall consider developing ban Road Maintenance Agreement within the TUSA area for the mainteaman cm, and state facilities, such as separately owned sections of arterial streets and to supplement the 1984 League of Oregon Cities policy regarding traffic lights. Tigard Urban Service Agreement November 26, 2002 Page 23 and CITY, in conjunction with other Washington County cities, shall A 'The COUNTY riice-of Way maintenance standards and levels of activity to be develop a set of minimum used in performance of services provided under the exchange of services agreement described above in S. a. C. -m COUNTY umy contract with the CITY for the-maintenance of COUNTY streets and roads within the TUSA utilizing an agreed upon billing system- D. The COUNTY, CITY and ODOT,'in conjunction with other Washington County cities, will study opportunities for co-locating maintenance facilities. 6. Xmplemeutation Within one year of the effective date of this AGREEMENT, the CITY and COUNTY agree to develop a schedule that describes whey the provisions of this exhibit shall be implemented. 'ngard Urban Service Agreement November 26, 2002 Page 24 EXffiBIT F PROVISIONS OF AGREEMENT FO:: SANITARY SEWER AND STORM WATER MANAGEME-NT CLEAN WATER SERVICES, (CWS), CITY and COUNTY agree: 1. As a county service district organized under ORS 451, CWS has the legal authority for the sanitary sewage and storm water (surface water) management within the CITY and the urban unincorporated area. CWS dovelops standards and work programs, is the permit holder, and operates the sanitary sewage treatment plants. 2. The CH Y performs a portion of the local sanitary sewer and storm water management programs as defined in the operating agreement between the CITY and CWS. This agreement shall be modified on an as-needed basis by entities to the agreem=L 3. At the time of this AGREEMENT, the following are specific issues that the parties have. addressed as part of this process and agree to resolve through changes to current intergovemmental agreements. A. Rehabilitation of Sewer Lines with Basins Identified with High Levels of Infiltration and Inflow (I & I). B. For lines that are cost-effective to do rehabilitation, CWS and the CTTY will consider cost- sharing regardless of line size under a formula and using fund sources to be agreed on. between CITY and CWS. The cost-share is to be determined through specific project intergovernmental agreements. Following the evaluation of program funding methods, CWS, in cooperation with the CITY, will. determine the long-term funding for I & I and other rehabilitation projects. C. CWS, with assistance from the CITY and other Washington County cities, shall undertake periodic rate studies of monthly service charges to determine whether they are adequate to cover costs, including costs of maintenance and rehabilitation of sewer lines. The rate study shall consider sewer line•deterioration and related maintenance and repair issues. 4. Master and Watershed Planning: A. Primary responsibility for master and watershed planning will remain with CWS, but the CITY wr71 be permitted to conduct such planning as long as these plans meet CWS standards. MS and the CITY shall use uniform standards, such as computer modeling, to conduct these studies. CWS and the CITY shall determine their respective cost-sharing responsibility for conducting these studies. Tigard Urban Semce Agreement November 26, 2002 Page 25 the B. CWS and the CITY, in conjunction with other Washington county cities using City/District Committee established by CWS, shall develop uniform procedures for the coordination and participation between CWS, the CITY and other cities when doing master and watershed planning. 5. Sanitary Sevier Systems Development Charges CWS and the CITY, in conjunction with other Washington County cities, shall use the results of the CWS Conveyance System Management Study, or updates, for options for collection and expenditure of SDC funds to address current disparities between where funds are collected and where needs are for projects based on an agreed upon CITY/CWS master plan. 6. Storm Water Management System Development Charges A. CWS and the CITY sball use the results of the CWS Surface Water Management Plan Update Project to address all aspects of storm water management and to provide more direction to. CWS and the CITY. J B. Watershed plans being prepared by CWS for storm water management shall address the major collection system as well as the open-channel system to identify projects for finding. 7. Maintenance CWS, in cooperation with the CITY and other Washington County cities, shall use the results of the, CWS Conveyance System Management Study for guidance to resolve issues related to roles of the DISTRICT and the cities in order to provide more cost effective maintenance of 'the collection systems. Tigard Urban Service Agreement November 26, 2002 Page 26 EXHIBIT G PROVISIONS OF AGREEMENT FOR WATER SERVICE TUALATIN VALLEY WATER DISTRICT (TVWD), TIGARD WATER DISTRICT (TWD), my and COUNTY agree. 1. Supply. A_ Supply generally will not impact service boundaries, given that a limited number of sources provide all the water in the study area and the number of interconnections between providers are increasing and are encouraged to continue in the future. B. Future supply and conservation issues may be addressed through the Regional Water Consortium to the extent reasonable and practicable for water providers in Washington County. Service providers in the TUSA shall continue to participate in the Consortium and use it as the forum for raising, discussing and addressing supply issues. C. The Consortium may also serve as a 'forum to discuss and resolve water political issues to the extent reasonable and practicable for water providers in Washington County. The Consortium is an appropriate forum to bring elected officials together and for promoting more efficient worldng relationships on water supply and conservation issues. D. Intergovernmental agreements shall address ownership of interconnections between my and Districts' sources, whether for the purpose of wholesale provision of water from one entity to the other or for emergency use, in the case of a boundary change that involves the site of the interconnection. 2: MaintenancelDistributiou: A. TVWD, TWD and the CITY do not anticipate any events in the-foreseeable future that would necessitate maintenance, rehabilitation or replacement beyond the financial reach of any of the water providers in the TUSA. Each Provider will continue to be responsible for providing the financial revenue stream through rates and charges and to accrue adequate reserves to meet foreseeable major maintenance needs- B. TVWD, TWD, CITY, and COUNTY agree to maintain and participate in the Cooperative Public Agencies of Washington County in order to efficiently share and exchange equipment and services. C. To the extent reasonable and practicable, TVWD, TWD and the CITY shall coordinate mandated (under Oregon law) underground utility locating services to efficiently provide service within the urban service areas. Tigard Urban Service Agreement November 26, 2002 Page 27 D. TVWD, TWD and CITY agree to provide to one another copies of as builts of existing and new facilities and other types of water system maps for the purposes of facilitating planning, engineering and design of other utilities or structures that may connect, intersect or be built in proximity to CITY facilities. The CITY agrees to incorporate such mapping into its GIS mapping system of utilities and other facilities. TVWD, TWD and CITY agree to develop and maintain a common, on-going, up to date GIS mapping system showing facilities of each water provider within the TUSA. 3. Customer ServimfWater Rates: A. Price of supply and bonded indebtedness will most likely have the greatest impact on rates. B. TVWD, TWD, and the CITY believe that rates are equitable within the TUSA. C. Given adequate water pressure, level and quality of service should not vary significantly among different water providers in the TUSA and does not appear to be an issue for most . customers. 4. Withdrawa1/Annexation1Mer9er•. A. Notwithstanding Section I of this AGREEMENT -Roles and Responsibilities, or existing agreements between the providers,,future armexations may lead to changes in service provision arrangements. 'Modifications to any service area boundary shall comply with METRO Code Chapter 3.09 and provisions identified under Section IV. If necessary, the Metro Boundary Appeals process shall be employed to resolve conflicts between parties as they arise. TVWD, TWD, and the CITY shall continue to work together to adjust boundaries as appropriate to improve the cost-effectiveness and efficiency of providing service. B. In the event that the entire service area of any DISTRICT is annexed in the future, that district shall be dissolved. No attempt shall be made to maintain the district by delaying annexation of a token portion of the district (e.g., the district. office). C. The area of TVWD known as the Metzger service area shall remain in TVWD, except those portions agreed to by both TVWD and CITY that may be withdrawn from TVWD upon annexation to the CITY. In exchange, TVWD will support the CITY joining as a partner of the Joint Water Commission. D. Providers that propose a merger, major annexation or dissolution shall give all providers in the study area an opporbmity to influence the decision as well as plan for the consequences. None of the parties waives its right to contest a major or minor boundary change by any of the other parties on the issue of the appropriate service provider for the area encompassed by the boundary change except when the party has expressly waived that night as to a described service area in an agreement executed subsequent to this agreement. wpsh-a%SblanrsuaUSA\y1+a1 Agremned IVU-02.dw Tigard Urban Service Agreement November 26, 2002 Page 28 Tigard Urban Service area bounuary November 2002 z x ~ m Tigard Urban Service Area Boundary City of Tigard 2000 0 2000 4000 Feet AGENDA ITEM # FOR AGENDA OF 6/15/04 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Review Park and Recreation Needs Assessment Surve Draft #2 PREPARED BY: 2 ! DEPT HEAD OK ~L-~4, CITY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Draft #2 of Park and Recreation Needs Assessment Survey STAFF RECOMMENDATION Council review new draft survey and give direction to staff to proceed with the interviews. INFORMATION SUMMARY In an effort to identify the park & recreational needs of Tigard residents, a park and recreation needs assessment survey has been formulated. Approximately 380 randomly selected Tigard residents will be asked to participate in a 10-12 minute phone survey. The survey is designed to ascertain Tigard residents' interest in, and willingness to pay for: recreation programs and facilities, e.g. skate park/community recreation center, create a city Recreation Division or create a Special Recreation District, similar to the Tualatin Hills Park and Recreation District in Beaverton, and purchase land for parks/sports fields, and for purchasing natural resources such as wetlands and green spaces. The survey will be conducted by Public Affairs Counsel (PAC). They use a methodology that provides scientifically valid data accurate to 5.0%. Phone surveys will be conducted during the evenings, weekdays, and weekends. The results of the survey will not only assist the City in identifying and pursuing conceptual ideas, but also to decide what should be done and when. The Council reviewed a first draft of the survey on May 25 and asked that a 2nd draft be prepared and presented at another council work shop. The Park and Recreation Advisory Board will have reviewed the second draft and will make their recommendation to Council via e-mail during the week of June 7. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED n/a VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY Council Goal 4 - Parks and Recreation Ci ViSionin Process -Recreation Goal #1 ATTACHMENT LIST n/a FISCAL NOTES n/a AGENDA ITEM FOR AGENDA OF CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY S June 15.20 04 ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Update PREPARED onPWeed Harvesting at Summer Lake. BY: Dan Plaza. 2590 ~ DEPT HEAD OK L~ CITY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Management issues at Summer Lake. STAFF RECOMMENDATION No action required. INFORMATION SUMMARY Management of Summer Lake has been a complicated issue. Weed harvesting has historically been done to control the growth of aquatic weeds in Summer Lake. There are several ways to control aquatic weeds, for example, chemical, biological, and mechanical. The city of Tigard has historically chosen to utilize the mechanical method of weed removal. Mechanical weed harvesting consists of a floating, cutting harvester that "mows" the lake in a back and forth pattern (much like mowing a lawn). The first recorded weed harvesting at Summer Lake was done in July, 1998 when two harvests were completed. In 1999, three harvests were done, and one harvest was done each year from 2000-2003. It became apparent that our schedule of weed harvesting could be less frequent and not have a negative effect on weed management. We also received complaints the mechanical harvest method was detrimental to wildlife in the lake. In current FY '03-'04 the annual weed harvest was removed from the budget as a cost saving measure. The harvest for this year would have taken place in June, 2004. Because of cost and environmental damage, it was decided by staff to postpone the next weed harvest until 2005. It should be noted that public opinion on weed harvesting ranges from, "do it often" to "don't do it at all". Due to the fact that the current Council has not been fully briefed on Summer Lake management issues, such as weed harvesting, staff has arranged a presentation on June 15. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED n/a VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY n/a ATTACHMENT LIST n/a FISCAL NOTES The last weed harvest, done in June 2003, cost $7,460 for the contractor and approximately $2,600 for staff time and equipment. AGENDA ITEM # FOR AGENDA OF 6/15/04 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE DUS" u ate - tcernuuo, yi i - en Mills DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK PREPARED BY: Lore ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL This item is an information update for Council. This presentation will give Council a preview of the project scope, action items that will be presented for Council or LCRB action during the next several months, and the tentative timeline. STAFF RECOMMENDATION No action necessary. This is an information update only. INFORMATION SUMMARY The City of Tigard built the current facility located at 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon in 1986, expecting it to accommodate the City's Library needs for 10 years. In the years since 1986, Tigard's population has increased over 80 percent, while the Library's circulation has increased well over 331 percent. Since expanding the present building wasn't feasible to meet the Library's needs for the next 20 years, the citizens of Tigard approved a bond measure to construct a new Library at another site. The new Library is planned to be open to the public by mid-August, 2004. This decision also provided critically needed additional space for City administrative services. As part of the bond measure process, the City assured citizens that the existing Library and City Hall buildings would be remodeled to accommodate the programming needs of the administrative departments of the City for the next 10 years. The City has developed a staff team, referred to as the `DUST Committee' to review efficient and cost effective space use options, coordinate the relocation of City staff into the remodeled buildings and provide recommendations regarding these activities to the City Manager. The City Manager has provided final approval and direction for space remodel based on the detailed space design and remodel construction plans by LRS Architects this year. The DUST Committee has based its recommendations on the following goals: .FJ Better serve our customers (internal and external); ,rJ Maximize space utilization; SJ Create efficient work environments; and SJ Provide appropriate customer confidentiality. Council will see information at the meeting which will better define the space use and remodel emphasis for the Permit Center (old Library) and City Hall. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Staff and program impacts were reviewed over the last year along with anticipated fiscal projections and increased service area impacts which include future annexations. With that information in place, there doesn't appear to be other viable alternatives at this time. VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY The vision identifies "adequate facilities are available for efficient delivery of life-long learning and programs and services for all ages." That goal identified by Tigard's citizens resulted in the construction of a new library. At the time the new library bond was passed by Tigard voters, the City made the commitment that the existing Library and City Hall buildings would be remodeled to accommodate the programming needs of the administrative departments of the City for the next 10 years. ATT LC ENT LIST N/A FISCAL NOTES Funds are budgeted in the 2004-05 FY budget. A breakdown of the expenditure plan will be distributed to the Council at the time of discussion on 6/15/04. Limited funding is available for building improvements thus options are cost effective with limited new walls in the buildings (though the existing Library will need more than City Hall in order for it to be usable as staff space rather than library space). The DUST Committee refers to the building improvements as being "bare bones improvements" while meeting the Committee's goals. Permit Center & City Hall Remodel Update 6/15/04 for City Council DUST Co rnvaittee - Divvy Uti SFace & Technology ® Administration & Risk: Loreen Mills ® Community Development: Jim Hendryx ® Engineering: Gus Duenas ® Finance: Nadine Robinson ® Human Resources: Sandy Zodrow ® Network Services: Gary Ehrenfeld ® Police: Al Orr ® Property Management: Arnie Manzano Entered into the Record on 1 4 By Loree~ /ni~~s Agenda Item # Exhibit # Late June Remodel Construction bid advertised 7/14/04 LCRB Mover bid award Mid July Library closes for the move 8/10/04 LCRB Remodel Construction bid award 8/04 - 12/04 Remodel CONMUMON SERVICES Sept & October Permit Center Renovation Mid-late Oct. Move staff to Permit Center (Community Development, Engineering, HR & Risk) October & Nov. City Hall Renovation Nov. or early Dec. Move staff to City Hall (City Manager's staff & Finance Dept.) Project Cost Drivers 0 Whole Project - cost of steel, concrete & petroleum-based products/services ® Permit Center - seismic, all new electrical service & HVACs Z City Hall - seismic, old elevator shaft area Loreert\Iy\DOCS\Space Review\6-15.04 DUST Notes for CounciLdoc Permit Center & City Hall Remodel Update (continued) 6/15/04 for City Council Budget - Expenditure Plan Permit Center = 12,822 sq. ft. Shell of building work $ 35,000 Interior construction/work 295,450 Plumbing systems 56,850 HVAC systems 284,400 Fire protection systems 9,350 Electrical systems 328,500 Demolition work 52,500 Permit Center Engineer's Estimate City Hall = 10,950 sq. ft. Shell of building work $ -0- Interior construction/work 107,800 Plumbing systems -0- HVAC systems -0- Fire protection systems 3,250 Electrical systems 8,950 Demolition work 25,230 City Hall Engineer's Estimate Total project Engineer's Estimate Budget - Funding Plan CIP Facilities Fund CIP Facilities Fund General Contingency is able to handle the increased cost if bids come in at or above Engineer's Estimate. Loreen\H:\DOCS\Space Review\6-15-04 DUST Notes for Council.doc $1,062,050 or $82.83/sq.ft. $145,230 or $13.26/sq.ft. $1,207,280 or $50.79/sq.ft. $1,100,000 AGENDA ITEM # 1 FOR AGENDA OF June15, 2004 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Re~vipewJGoal 5 Map p,~ PREPARED BY: Julia Haiduk(1Y ~7 DEPT HEAD OK V"'GITY MGR OK UAL= ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Review Goal 5 allow-limit-prohibit map and discuss/comment STAFF RECOMMENDATION Provide input on the Tualatin Basin Goal 5 map INFORMATION SUMMARY At the May 25, 2004 City Council meeting, the Council indicated they would like an opportunity to review the Tualatin Basin Goal 5 Allow-Limit-Prohibit (ALP) map. The ALP map, overlaid with the City's existing inventoried wetlands, floodplains and clean water services buffer areas has been placed on the City's website and a copy will be displayed at the June 15`h meeting. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED N/A VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY Growth and Growth Management Goal #1 "Growth is accommodated while protecting the character and livability of new and established areas while providing for natural environment and open space throughout the community. ATTACHMENT LIST N/A FISCAL NOTES N/A SUMMARY OF EXISTING NATUTAL RESOURCE REGULATIONS The City of Tigard and Clean Water Services (CWS) have existing regulations for natural resource areas. There are existing regulations for floodplain, wetlands, streams, wetland buffers and stream buffers. Below is a brief discussion of the existing regulations. In some instances, Tigard's standards are stricter, in other instances, the CWS standards are more stringent. The summary below provides the more restrictive standard to provide a quick look at what the regulations are for each resource category. Floodplains Limited development allowed in commercial and industrial zones with no net increase in flood level. Floor elevation must be 1' above the floodplain measured from the bottom of the floor beam. No development is allowed in residential zones. Wetlands No development is permitted in locally significant wetlands without an ESEE analysis and comprehensive plan amendment. Stream Buffers Tigard's standards are a 75' buffer from the Tualatin River, 50' along Fanno, Ball and o Ash Creeks and 25' along Summer, North Ash, Red Rock and Derry Dell Creeks. The -o CWS buffers vary from 50-200' for streams with year round flow depending on the slope o adjacent to the stream. The CWS standards also provide buffers of 15'-50' depending on the number of acres draining into the stream and the slope adjacent to the stream. Each site is evaluated and the stricter standards are applied. Within the buffer, no 0 structures, development, gardens or lawns are permitted, however, small scale averaging of the buffer is permitted. c Wetland Buffers W Minimum buffer of 25 feet from wetland edge unless all or part of the wetland is located within the stream corridor. In that case, the stream corridor width is measured from the wetland edge. CWS requires a 50' buffer for wetlands greater than .5 acres. CWS requires buffers from all existing and created wetlands, not just locally significant wetlands. Total Acres affected by existing natural resource regulations X_ X W ~I E m ~o a) a ~ m a Riparian Resources Commercial Industrial Residential Flood lain 100.81 128.20 376.39 Wetland 51.16 49.44 188.76 Wetland buffer 32.75 32.40 134.84 Stream buffer 43.37 42.98 265.96 Total resource area* 138.21 158.49 634.96 *Note that the total resource acreage is less than the sum due to overlap of the resource: Floodolain Wetland Stream Steep slopes In addition to the riparian resources described above, the sensitive lands review section of the development code regulates steep slopes. For the most part, development is not prohibited on steep slopes as long as a geotechnical engineer certifies that the land form alteration will not result in erosion, stream sedimentation, ground instability, or other adverse on-site or off-site effects or hazards to life or property. Steep slope areas are not included in the density calculations, however up to 25% of the density that would otherwise be permitted on the steep slopes may be transferred to the remaining buildable area. The following table shows the amount of land currently identified as having slopes 25% or greater: Acres affected Commercial 1.44 Residential 252.59 Industrial 0.49 COMPARISON BETWEEN AREAS OF EXISTING REGULATION AND AREAS DISCUSSED WITH CURRENT GOAL 5 EFFORTS How much MORE area is under consideration with the current Tualatin Basin Goal 5 efforts? Total existing regulation Total Goal 5 limit Difference (including steep slopes) commercial 139.65 243.83 104.18 Residential 887.55 1743.37 855.82 Industrial 158.98 217.81 58.83 Why the difference? • Larger buffers from streams and wetlands (impact areas) Upland and riparian wildlife habitat areas How much of the additional areas are considered buildable? The following table shows the amount of land in the ALP limit areas that is considered buildable based on the buildable lands inventory and the draft Tualatin Basin ALP map. -.~_a-._ .__-A ._.:&L:.. Raain Gnal 5 limit designated areas commercial Residential Industrial Total Lightly limit 34.97 109.83 34.75 179.55 Moderately limit 2.74 196.05 10.12 208.91 Strictly limit 0 61.72 0 172 + ~ Total 37.71 367.6 44.87 .18 45 • The buildable land identified in Tualatin Basin limit designated areas represents roughly half of the buildable land in Tigard and the Urban Services area. The majority of the buildable land is within upland wildlife habitat areas The land identified as buildable has already deducted areas of existing regulation so there is no overlap in this category between the existing and potentially regulated buildable land. Entered into the Record on a - 22 By Si J~ Agenda Item # Exhibit #