City Council Packet - 08/16/2005
Sw
;i
P
"i
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL'
VMEETING
August 16, 2005
COUNCIL MEETING WILL NOT BE
TELEVISED
1:\Ofs\Donna's\ccpkt2
Agenda Item No. 4, /
For Agenda ~of 9 - /3 ' D,5
COUNCIL MINUTES
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING
AUGUST 16, 2005 .
Mayor Dirksen called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m.
Council Present: Mayor Dirksen; Councilors Sherwood, Wilson, and Woodruff.
• EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council went into Executive Session
at 6:30 p.m. to consider employment of a public officer, employee, staff
member or individual agent under ORS 192.660(2)(a).
Executive Session concluded.at 6:45 p.m.
1. WORKSHOP MEETING
1.1 Mayor Dirksen called the City Council & Local Contract Review Board
meeting to order at 6:50 p.m.
1.2 Council Present: Mayor Dirksen; Councilors Sherwood, Wilson,
and Woodruff.
1.3 Pledge of Allegiance
1.4 Council Communications & Liaison Reports
Mayor Dirksen recently attended. the Oregon Mayors Association
(OMA) conference in Jacksonville, Oregon. He reviewed activities
and some of. the sessions he attended. He was particularly
impressed with a communications 'session, Taking the War out of
Words, which offered insights on how to keep dialogue open in
difficult circumstances. This session also included information about
working with the media: television', radio and print. He suggested the
City Council might want to consider such training.
Mayor Dirksen reviewed topics discussed during the OMA business
meeting, including:
0 telecommunication
0' prevailing wage
0 Oregon land use task force, (with.OMA recommending task force
membership provide for five locally elected officials)
0 urging that the Oregon Airbase remain open
1.5 Call'to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items: None
COUNCIL MINUTES-. AUGUST 16, 2005 page 1
2. UPDATE -WASHINGTON COUNTY 2010 STRATEGIC PLAN
Washington County•.Communications Officer Philip Bransford updated the
City Council on the County 2010 Strategic Plan. Background information
and a Plan discussion draft is on file in the City Recorder's office...
Discussion topics included the following:
Z A , review of the Strategic Plan timeline.
0 History of the Plan, which updates the County 2000 adopted in 1986 to
consider how to provide ,services to an increasing population base during
an unstable economy. _
0 County 2000 was revised in 1993.
Z A brief review of the Vision West process to address human services and
the subsequent creation-of the Vision Action Network (VAN).
0 Updated Strategic Plan is designed to... be user friendly. The Strategic
Plan is to be used as a guide to provide broad direction and description
of County services and priorities. Then, enabling plans will be developed
to define the: challenges, identify solutions, priorities and specific funding
strategies.
0 The County is now identifying the topics to be, addressed in an enabling
plan.
Z . Urban Services is one subject that will be addressed in an enabling plan.
O The Strategic*Plan identifies the following as underlying fundamentals:
o: Services that are only provided by the County
o Services provided through partnering with other agencies. -
o' Areas where the County is in a supporting role
0 A distinction is drawn between what are municipal services and what are
county-wide services..
0 Washington County is unique in the State of Oregon in that there. is. a
high percentage'of urban unincorporated residents.
0 County's governance structure was referenced.
Z In. response to a question from Mayor Dirksen, Mr. Bransford said the
new Strategic Plan does not.differ in .substance from the County 2000
Plan. The main change is in format.
O Councilor Wilson said several months ago -a question was asked`
regarding whether County residents in cities are subsidizing services to
county residents in unincorporated areas. Mr.. Bransford said this
question was researched. in the late '80's and it was confirmed that there
was. some subsidy. provided by residents of cities to residents in
unincorporated areas'. 'He said measures were. taken to address this
situation, including establishing service districts. The County Auditor -is
reviewing this issue and a report will be made available later this year.
0 Mayor Dirksen noted he understood the policy for service districts was
that these districts were to be temporary. He said he didn't see this
statement in -the Strategic Plan. Mr. Bransford said doors, are not being
COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 16,'2005 page 2
closed on any options and more in-depth study will be done regarding
urban services in the enabling plan.
Z Mayor Dirksen noted the demarcation of county and city services is less
than a sharp line. He would like to see the Plan be more forthcoming on
issues that need to be addressed, including funding reliability for public
safety.
9 Councilor Woodruff noted he worked: for the County when the County
2000 was created. He said he thinks the County sends mixed messages
regarding urban services and this creates an atmosphere of confusion:
He said he was hopeful this will become clearer. The County and City
should be working closely and the overall County goals should be
known.
0 Councilor Wilson referred to the cost of providing public safety for all
County residents. He said crime is mostly an urban problem (shopping
centers, major highways). To determine what is a fair share to pay for
this service by all residents in a county, he suggested public safety costs .
be calculated using the amount spent 'by cities and the .county, then
divide, this total amount by the.County population figure. This would
show how much it costs to provide this service to everyone.
X Councilor Woodruff acknowledged the pressure on the County Board
and noted his appreciation for the number of County-level services that'
are being done well. He urged the County to decide on its direction
regarding the services it is to provide.
O Councilor Sherwood commented she did not think the VAN has lived up
to its expectations to coordinate common human services goals. Mr.
Bransford noted the VAN Executive Director is'relatively new and he it
was hoped more progress would occur:
Mayor Dirksen suggested other:service areas could be addressed more
effectively'if the County's efforts weren't diluted with providing municipal
services.
9 In response to questions that did not appear to be- addressed, Mr.
Bransford advised effort would be made in the enabling strategies to pay
attention to areas that need more detail to communicate with partners.
0 Mayor Dirksen said some questions might not have answers, but an
effort should be made to address the issues.. He said the City of Tigard
would be.glad. to as County.
0 Mr. Bransford said the County Board still needs to determine the subjects
to be addressed in the enabling plans. 'Some plans are well underway.
More information will be developed on the urban services strategy. The
overarching strategy will be completed by the end of 2005.
0 Washington County Issue Papers were to have been discussed (Agenda
Item No.' 3) this evening; however, the County determined it was
premature. Councilor Woodruff. said that if the County discusses the
Issue Papers on September 27, he hopes the City of Tigard will have an
opportunity to review and provide comments beforehand. Mayor Dirksen
COUNCIL MINUTES AUGUST 16, 2005 page 3
I
noted he had . received assurances the city' would be given an
opportunity to give input.
This item pulled from the agenda;,it will be rescheduled..
~ J,ui-1rFIJ~T--, r- lil-v~ ::TIC -P-~r, S~i+Fi-rty-ION OF ISSUE PAPERS 0111 R 111 1
4. DISCUSS - CONSIDERATION OF AMENDING THE TIGARD MUNICIPAL
CODE (TMC) SECTION 3.24.090 JO CLARIFY WHEN SYSTEM
DEVELOPMENT CHARGES ARE ASSESSED
Community Development Director Hendryx introduced this agenda item. .
Building Official Lam pella presented the issues, which are outlined in the
staff report on file in the City Recorder's office. Staff members are
requesting Council direction on whether they should proceed with an
amendment to the Tigard Municipal Code (TMC) to require City System
Development Charges (SDC) to be assessed on the permit application date
rather than the issuance date.
Building Official Lampella reviewed a chart showing fees charged by other
cities, including how they are, assessed. Most cities assess their fees based
on application submittal date.
After discussion, City Council direction was that staff proceed with steps to
amend the TMC to require that City- SDC fees be assessed on the
application submittal date. Community Development Director Hendryx
advised staff would return to the City -Council with an ordinance for its
consideration.
5. UPDATE - NATIONAL INCIDENT' MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (NIMS) AND
OFFICE OF CONSOLIDATED EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT (OCEM)
City of Tigard Emergency Management Coordinator Lueck and Tualatin
Valley Fire & Rescue Assistant Chief Hale reviewed the background of
NIMS and OCEM. A resolution to formally adopt the NIMS operating
premise will be presented 'to. the City Council on September 13, 2005.
The following information was reviewed and distributed to the City Council:
D PowerPoint slide presentation
0 OCEM Strategic Plan
NIMS documents, entitled "Handouts"
COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 16, 2005 page 4
The Emergency Operating Center (EOC) for Tigard has, been updated.
Interim City Manager:Prosser noted the EOC has staff involved from every
City department.''
Council discussion followed ` about how; agencies coordinate and prioritize
emergency services through mutual assistance., The magnitude of an event
dictates whether local, state, or federal agencies take th'e' lead.
Council meeting recessed: 8:23 p.m.
Council meeting reconvened: 8:28.p.m.
6. UPDATE - FANNO CREEK MASTER: PLAN .
Public Works. Director Koellermeier presented the update. to the City Council
as outlined in the staff report.
The City applied for ,and received. a state grant to, construct an 1100 foot' .
Fanno Creek Trail segment from Hall Boulevard (starting at City Hall) to Wall
Street as Wall Street. extends to 'the east. The project includes a 60=foot
bridge that will' cross Fanno Creek just ;north: of the gazebo. Construction of
the trail is being funding the, State grant, Park SDC :funds, and insurance
money received after the "white .house" fire. ..To comply with the State grant.
and remain eligible for state . funding;` the ''trail must .be completed by
December 30, 2005.
The City. Council and 'Public Works Director Koellermeier discussed the
bridge, which- Public Works Director Koellermeier indicated would be'
engineered -and put in.place with in-house staff. 'Public Works Director :
Koellermeier reported 'he.was not sure if pedestrians would be-able to walk ,
underneath the bridge. The bridge will be'completed by. December 30, The
bridge will not impact stream flow. ;
There was discussion' of the future. trail connections 'includ'ing alternate
options if ODOT` does" not; allow' a crossing over Hall Boulevard'. - Also
discussed was how the trail might be constructed' pending the outcome of
the Wall. Street, project..
7. REVIEW INFORMATION ONTHE, 2005 LEAGUE OF OREGON CITIES
(LOC) AWARDS PROGRAM
Interim City -Manager Prosser reviewed the LOC awards program, Staff
suggested applications be submitted 'on one or more City programs, which
included the extensive programs for youth (Tigard Turns the Tide, Youth .
'Advisory, Peer Court,,'. DARE/GREAT, Camp), the- Downtown
Improvement Plan'Community Dialogues, and.the Public Works Customer
Satisfaction.. Survey,
COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 16,2005.," page 5,
After discussion, City Council consensus was for staff. to apply for awards for
the City of Tigard's youth programs and the Downtown Improvement Plan
Community Dialogues.
r
'8. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS
Councilor Wilson noted he would. like to participate on the Construction
Selection Committee.'
9. NON AGENDA ITEMS: None.
10. EXECUTIVE SESSION: Not held'
11. ADJOURNMENT:
Motion by Councilor Woodruff, seconded by Councilor Sherwood, to adjourn
'the meeting at 8:49 p.m.
The motion was approved by a unanimous-vote of Council present:
Mayor Dirksen:. Yes
Councilor Sherwood: Yes
Councilor Wilson: ' Yes
Councilor Woodruff: Yes
Cc !1 'V a
Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder
Attest:
Mayor,' ity of Tigard
Date:
i Aadm\Why\ccm12005W 50810.doc
COUNCIL MINUTES AUGUST 16, 2005 page 6
Revised. August' 10, 2005,
Revision was to reverse the order of Agenda Item Nos. 2 and 3 from the original
published agenda.
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL
MEETING
AUGUST 16, 2005 6:30 p.m. CITY OF TIGARD.
OREGON
TIGARD CITY HALL
1 3125 SW HALL BLVD
TIGARD, OR 97223
PUBLIC-NOTICE:
Anyone wishing to speak on an agenda item should sign' on the appropriate sign-up sheet(s).
If no sheet is available, ask -to be recognized by the Mayor at the beginning of that agenda
item: Citizen Communication items are asked,to be two minutes or less. Longer matters can
be set for a future Agenda by contacting either the Mayor or the City Manager.
Times noted. are estimated; it is recommended that'persons interested in. testifying be present
by 7:15 p.m. to sign in on the testimony"sign-in sheet. Business. agenda items can be heard
in any order after 7:30, p.m.
Assistive Listening Devices are available for. persons with, impaired hearing and should be
scheduled for Council meetings by. noon on the. Monday prior to the Council meeting:
Please call 503-639-4171, ext. .2410 (voice) or 503-684-2772 (TDD -
Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf)..
Upon request, the City-will also -endeavor to arrange for.the following services:
• Qualified-sign language. interpretees for persons with speech or hearing impairments;
and
• 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 by calling: 503-639-4171, ext. 2410 (voice) or 503-
684-2772 {TDD -.Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf).
SEE ATTACHED AGENDA .
COUNCIL: AGENDA.- AUGUST. 16, 2005 page 1
AG EN DA
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING
AUGUST 16, 2005.
6:30 PM
• EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City .Council will go into Executive Session to
consider employment of a public officer, employee;, staff member or individual agent
under ORS 192.660(2)(a).' AII'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.
6:50 PM
1. WORKSHOP MEETING
1.1 Call to Order - City Council 8T Local Contract Review Board
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
7:10 PM. "
2. UPDATE WASHINGTON COUNTY 201.0 STRATEGIC PLAN
• Staff Report: Community Development Department
Presentation: Washington County Communications Officer Philip Bransford
7:25 PM
3. WASHINGTON COUNTY'. PRESENTATION OF ISSUE PAPERS ON BULL
MOUNTAIN
• Staff Report: Community Development Department
• . Presentation: Senior Washington County Planner. Joanne Rice
8:10 PM'.
4. DISCUSS CONS IDERATION',..OF .OF, AMENDING THE TIGARD MUNICIPAL
CODE (TMC) SECTION 3.24.090 TO CLARIFY WHEN SYSTEM
DEVELOPMENT CHARGES ARE ASSESSED
• Staff Report: Community Development ,Department
8:40 PM
5. UPDATE - NATIONAL INCIDENT. MANAGEMENT SYSTEM AND OFFICE OF
CONSOLIDATED EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
• Staff Report: Public Works Department
COUNCIL AGENDA -'AUGUST 16, 2005 page 2
9:10 PM
6. UPDATE - FANNO CREEK MASTER PLAN
• Staff Report: 'Public Works Department
9:35 PM
7. REVIEW - INFORMATION ON. THE 2005 LEAGUE OF OREGON CITIES
AWARDS.PROGRAM
• Staff Report: Administration Department
8: COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS
9. NON AGENDA ITEMS
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.
9:50 PM
11. ADJOURNMENT
I1adm1calhY1CM Y0051050818.doc
1
COUNCIL•AGENDA.- AUGUST 16, 2005 page 3
AGENDA ITEM #
FOR AGENDA OF 8/16/05
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Washington Courtly Presentation of Issu er n ull Mountain
PREPARED BY: Duane Roberts DEPT HEAD OK ITY MGR OK
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
Joanne Rice, Senior County Planner, will make a presentation on the recently released.series of seven County Issue
Papers dealing with Bull Mountain park- and planning-related issues.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Receive information on the Bull Mountain IssueTapers, discuss, and provide comments and'feedback to
Washington County.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
Joanne Rice, Washington County Senior Planner, will give a presentation on the draft Bull Mountain Issue Papers.
These address a range of park- and planning-related issues, from density to park development to planning for the
Urban Growth Expansion Areas.
In total, seven Bull Mountain Issue Papers were prepared by County staff and presented to the Board of County
Commissioners at a .workshop. They. are scheduled to hear public comments and take action on the Issue Papers on
September 27, 2005.
Issue Paper #14 responds to a resolution adopted by CPO-4B requesting the County to implement a Public ,
Facilities Strategy (PFS) to address. growth in unincorporated Bull Mountain, as well as consideration of a
development moratorium. County staff has concluded that neither the PFS nor the moratorium would comply with
State statutes.
Issue Papers #15 and #16 address the issue of park planning and funding of the same for unincorporated Bull
Mountain. In Issue Paper #15, County staff is recommending that park planning continue to be conducted by the
City of Tigard. Issue Paper #16, while not making specific recommendations, identifies that a park local
improvement district is.an option for citizens to consider.
Issue Paper #17 evaluates decreasing development densities in unincorporated Bull Mountain. The paper
concludes that the County does not have an alternative to lower densities for the area by shifting the density to other
unincorporated'urbanized areas within the County. The best alternative to address this issue is for the planning of
unincorporated Bull Mountain and Urban Growth Boundary Expansion Areas 63 and 64 to be conducted by the
City of Tigard as part of the Comprehensive Plan Update. Densities could be considered as part of that process.
Issue Papers #18 and #24 address updating the Bull Mountain Community Plan and-the-planning for Areas 63 and
64. County staff is recommending, at the City's request, that unincorporated Bull Mountain and Areas 63 and 64
be included in the City's update of its Comprehensive Plan. County participation would occur throughout the
planning process.
Issue Paper #22 addresses the need to update the Washington Courity-Tigard Urban Service Agreement to assign
'Tigard planning responsibilities for unincorporated Bull Mountain and Areas 63 and 64. County staff is
recommending that an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) be executed assigning this responsibility.
Joanne Rice will give a presentation on the Issue Papers,and answer any questions Council may have.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
N/A
VISION. TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE. STRATEGY
N/A .
ATTACHMENT LIST.
Attachment 1: County Issue Papers
FISCAL NOTES.
N/A - This is an information only item..
WASHINGTON COUNTY
OREGON .
July 20, 2005 RECD. J U L 22
2005
To: Washington County Planning Commission, Land Use Ordinance Advisory.
Commission, Community Participation Organizations; and Committee for Citizen
Involvement; City of Tigard; City of King City; and other Interested Parties
From: Brent Curtis, Planning Manager
Subject: Revised Meeting Date to Consider the Draft Issue Papers about Planning and
Park Issues in the Bull ML Area
In response to a request by CPO 4B, the Washington'County Board of Commissioners (Board)
decided it will consider and take public comments about the draft Bull Mt. issue papers,on
September 27, 2005 rather than August 16th. The CPO asked for the extension to provide the
CPO with additional time to review and comment on the issue papers.
The meeting will beheld in the auditorium of the Public Services Building located at 155 N. 1st
Avenue, Hillsboro, Oregon. The meeting begins at 6:30 p.m.
Comments about the issue papers may be provided at the September 27th meeting'in writing or
'in person. Written comments received by the Planning Division on or before September 15,
2005 will be provided to the Board in advance of the meeting. Written comments must be mailed
or faxed to the Planning Division at the address or phone number shown below. At this time, we
are unable to accept e-mail comments.
The issue papers are also located on the Planning Division's web page under "2005 Work
Program." The web page address is:
,
\ http://www co w•ashington or.us/deptmts/luUplatinins?/docs/WorkPgm.htm
If you have any questions about the issue papers, or if you would like additional information,
please contact the following Planning Division staff:
• Issue Paper 14: Aisha Willits 503-846-3961 .
• Issue Papers 15 and 16: Suzanne Savin • 503-846-3966
• Issue Papers 17,'18, 21 and 22: Joanne Rice or Linda Schroeder 503-846-3965
c. Phil Decker
Lisa Hamilton-Treick
wpshare\2005ord\Work Program\lssue,Papers\Bull Mt\Public Transmittal itr 7.20.05.doc
Department of Land Use & Transportation • Planning Division
155 N. First Avenue, Suite 350-14, Hillsboro, OR 97124-3072
phone: (503) 846-3519 • fax:.(503) 846-4412
-._WASHINGTON COUNTY
OREGON
June 28, 2005
DRAFT: ,
PLANNING DIVISION
ISSUE PAPER NO. 14
Response to Citizen Participation Organization, 411's Resolution No. 04-05
Issue ;
On October 26, 2004, Citizen Pariicipation`Organization (CPO) 4B, provided the Board of.
County. Commissioners with Resolution 04-05- The resolution, adopted by CPO 40 on
September 2, 2004, urged the Board to-implement a Public:Facilities Strategy to address several
issues related to growth in the unincorporated urban area of Bull Mountain. This issue paper
addresses the concerns raised by CPO 4B as well as a discussion'ofdevelopment moratoria.
This issue paper also responds to questions regarding the creation of a refinement plan as .
proposed by Richard Franzke in his letters dated March 17 and April 7,• 2005.
County staff was asked to respond to the fundamental feasibility of using a Public Facilities
'Strategy;. a development moratorium; or..a refinement plan to address the GPO's, and citizen's
concerns in the Bull Mountain area. The intent of each tool is .described' below: A general
discussion of the statutory provisions. goveming Public Facilities Strategies, and development'.
moratoria is in a separate memorandum (incorporated as Attachment A) provided by County
'Counsel staff: Refinement plan provisions are addressed in Attachment B.
Issues related'to developing a park master plan, decreasing existing densities, planning for, new
urban growth boundary lands, and updating the Bull Mountain Community Plan are addressed in
additional issue papers. .
}
Recommendation
Based on the statutory provisions described in Attachments A.and B, relevant comprehensive
plans,.public facilities plans; and current available information, the Planning Division concludes
that a Public Facilities Strategy or a.development moratorium for the Bull Mountain area would
not,cornply with the statute. Therefore, staff recommends; that. no further,analyses•of those
requests occur. Staff also iecommends,that a refinement plan not be created for the Bull .
Mountain area, as•discusse"below in'the "Refinement Plan" section of this issue paper. The
Planning Division recommends continued discussions between Washington County and the City
;:of Tigard to address planning issues in the unincorporated urban'area of Bull Mountain.
Background
CPO 4B's request for a Public Facilities Strategy(PFS), moratorium or refinement plan relates to
six specific concerns:
1) high density housing construction'on Bull Mountain is contrary to the Bull Mountain
Community Plan;
' 2) inconsistencies between the Tigard Community Development Code (CDC) and the Bull
Mountain Community Plan;
DRAFT-ISSUE PAPER NO. 14
CPO 413 Resolution Response
June 28, 2005
Page 2
.3) transportation facilities in.the Tigard area are inadequate to support growth on bull
Mountain;
4) unresolved water supply issues;
5) inadequate park and open space planning; and
6) overcrowded schools.
Analysis
Implementing a Public Facilities Strategy
Oregon Revised Statute 197.768 describes the process for implementing a Public Facilities
Strategy (PFS). After providing 45-day notice to the Department of Land Conservation and
Development, the County would have to hold a hearing and make findings to justify the PFS.
The key findings that must be demonstrated are as follows:
ORS 197.768 (4)(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 (emphasis added), and
(4)(b) The total land deveiopment expected within the specific
geographic area will exceed the planned or existing capacity of public
facilities.
ORS 197.768(4)0
ORS 197.768(4)(b),. which refers to land development expected.to exceed the planned or. existing
capacity of public facilities is critical for justifying a PFS. The overall intent of a PFS is to slow
development in an area where public facilities are not sufficient to meet the demand for
development. As noted in the legal opinion provided in Attachment A to this issue paper, public
facilities include water, sewer, and transportation facilities.
The county's growth management, strategy requires that necessary public facilities and services
be required before development can occur. The strategy classifies services into, three categories:
critical, essential, and desirable. Water and sewer. are considered critical services and must be
available to serve the proposed development. Applicants for development approval are required
to submit service provider letters from water and sewer providers to indicate whether a subject
property can be sufficiently served by the respective provider. Parks are designated as a desirable
service. Consequently, they are not a required service that must be in place before development
can occur. This policy and its implementing requirements have been in place since'the time the
community plan was adopted.
Based.on the information above, and as described in more detail in subsequent sections of this
issue paper, transportation and water issues on Bull Mountain do not meet the criteria for the
institution of a PFS.
I I
DRAFT ISSUE PAPER NO. 14
'CPO 413 Resolution Response
June 28, 2005
Page 3
ORS 197.768(4)(a)
ORS 197.768(4)(a) would allow a PFS in areas where public facilities are not available to serve
an area that was being developed at a rate or intensity unanticipated at the time of original
planning. The intensity and rate of•development of land on Bull Mountain is specifically
discussed below. .
Intensity
The intensity of development on Bull Mountain was prescribed through the adoption of the
county's new Comprehensive Plan, which included the •1983 Bull Mountain, Community Plan.
The plan illustrated the level of development and the eventual density, of the area.expected by the
year 2000 through the eventual build-out of R-6 district lands (six units per acre). As described
in more detail in Issue Paper 17, development in the Bull Mountain area is reviewed by the City
of Tigard. Under Tigard's R-7 District, the actual density that has been approved since 2002 is .
4.8 dwellings per acre. The 4.8 dwellings per acre under Tigard's standards is slightly less than
the minimum number of dwellings required under the county's R-6 plan designation. The
intensity of development now occurring on Bull Mountain is similar to what was described in the .
Bull Mountain Community Plan, and therefore does not warrant a PFS.
Rate . o
The Bull Mountain Community Plan identified the pattern for growth in the Bull Mountain area.
The Bull Mountain area was added to the urban growth boundary to serve housing needs to the
year 2000. At the time, county planners anticipated that the land would be developed at a rate .
driven by market forces. The rate of development of.land on Bull Mountain was not ,
unanticipated at the time of original planning and therefore does not warrant a PFS.
Based on an analysis of-ORS 197.768(4)(a) and (b), the rate and intensity of development on
Bull Mountain was not unanticipated during the development of the long-range plans for the area
and sufficient water and sewer service is available to support new development. Therefore,
conditions in the Bull Mountain area do not meet the criteria for the institution-of a PFS. '
Described below are the CPO's specific concerns in the Bull Mountain area and how
each growth management tool relates to the specific issue.
High Density Construction on Bull Mountain
CPO 4B is concerned about the density of housing currently being built on Bull
Mountain. As mentioned above, "the intensity of development in the Bull Mountain area
was originally determined in the early 1980s through, the adoption of the. Bull Mountain
Community Plan. The Bull Mountain Community Plan. assumed the Bull Mountain area
would be built out by the year 2000 at the densities of the adopted land use districts,
primarily R-6 with a density of six units per acre. Therefore, the intensity of development
on Bull Mountain was not unanticipated at the time of planning, and does not warrant a
PFS. Additionally, the county's growth management strategy requires critical public
services and facilities to be provided before development can occur (sewer, water, f re '
and roads). This policy and its implementing requirements have been in place since the
time the plan was adopted. .
DRAFT ISSUE PAPER NO. 14
CPO 413 Resolution Response
June 28, 2005
Page 4
Potential Inconsistencies Between the Community Development Code and the Community Plan
CPO 4B identified inconsistencies between the community plan and Tigard's CDC with
regard to tree preservation and removal. The CPO pointed out that the community plan
considers mature trees to be all those over six inches in diameter. Within the Summit and
Slopes subarea; the plan directs that no more than 501/o.of the'mature trees may be
removed from a parcel at the time of development. The CPO states that the City of
Tigard's Community. Development Code identifies specific regulations for removal of
only those trees over 12 inches in diameter. Issue Paper. 18 includes a.description of the
current standards applicable for tree removal.in the.urban unincorporated Bull Mountain-
area, including areas designated as a Significant Natural Resource by the community
plan. Currently, the county is not aware of any development that does not•comply with
those standards: However, inconsistencies in the implementation of tree removal.
standards do not meet the criteria fora PFS. County staff and City of Tigard staff have
indicated a desire to resolve planning issues within the Bull Mountain area.'
Inconsistencies in applying the applicable development standards would be more
appropriately addressed during.those discussions.
Transportation
CPO 4B states that transportation planning on Bull Mountain is.inadequate and that new roads.
are constructed for the benefit of a particular development, rather than to serve, local connectivity
needs in the area. Local connectivity needs are.prescribed in the Bull Mountain Community Plan,
which identifies.areas on Bull Mountain where connections. will be required through the land
developmeni process. The community plan, adopted in 1983, outlined the. development pattern .
for Bull Mountain and was the product of intense public involvement: Transportation issues on
Bull Mountain were given additional scrutiny through the development of the 1988
Transportation Plan, and again in 2002 prior to the adoption of the 2020 Transportation Plan..
The Washington County.2020 Transportation Plan identifies proposed arterial and collector.
roadway's. New local road constru ction standards are -identified within the Washington'County
Uniform Road Improvement Design Standards.
An analysis of the most recent traffic counts for Bull Mountain and Beef Bend Roa& indicate
that both roads exhibit acceptable trip levels for their f inctional'classification. Daily trips on Bull
Mountain, a collector roadway, total approximately 4,600. Average daily trips on collectors
range between 2,000 and 10,000 trips. Beef Bend Road accommodates approximately 4,000
trips. As an arterial roadway, Beef Bend is intended to accommodate 10,000 to 40,000 trips per
day. Based on these numbers, the traffic-that is.occurring on Bull Mountain currently is well
within the expected trip rates for, arterial and collector roadways.
The Washington County 2020 Transportation Plan also identifies Highway 99W and the easterly
portion of the Bull Mountain area between Scholls Ferry Road and Highway 99W as•"deficiency .
areas". Deficiency areas are roadways or geographic areas that are expected to exceed acceptable _
performance measures by 2020 even with planned improvements. A summary of the deficiencies
and their applicability to a PFS are described below.
1. Walnut and Gaarde Streets, between Barrows Road and Highway 99W
DRAFT ISSUE PAPER NO. 14
CPO 413 Resolution Response
June 28, 2005
Page 5
An east/west capacity deficiency' has been identified for this area, which is mostly in the City
of Tigard. The deficiency is primarily along Walnut and Gaarde Streets. Due to existing
development along these roads and the lack of vacant land in the area to provide a new
east/west route, the Transportation Plan finds that there are no easy solutions to resolve this
problem. The urban unincorporated areas of Bull Mountain are largely located outside of this
deficiency area and Bull Mountain and Beef Bend Roads serve as the east/west circulation
routes for those areas. Consequently, the Planning Division concludes that a PFS for the
westerly and southerly portions of the Bull Mountain planning area is not an acceptable
method to resolve this particular deficiency.
2. Highway 99W, between I-5 and Durham Road
No solutions to the congestion along this section of the highway have been identified due to
development patterns in the area and the use of Highway 99W for trips to local businesses
and for through trips to areas beyond this section of the highway. This area, which has been.
studied extensively, is identified as an Area of Special Concern in Metro's Regional
Transportation Plan. Some minor improvements along the highway are likely to be made in
the future but there are no planned improvements that will solve the congestion on the
highway. Due to the lack of solutions to resolve the congestion, staff does not believe a PFS
can be used because there are no short term solutions. to resolve the problem. Staff notes that
any effort to establish a PFS for Highway 99W requires the cooperation and coordination of
the Oregon Department of Transportation,. which is responsible for this highway. Staff
believes the cities of Durham, King City, Sherwood, Tigard, and Tualatin would also have to
participate in a PFS due to businesses and residents in their jurisdictions using Highway
99W.
In its Cityscape Newsletter (March/April 2005 edition), the City of Tigard lists improvement of
Highway 99W as a City Council goal for 2005. Tigard-intends to identify projects'to relieve
congestion along Highway 99W, prioritize projects and funding, and to leverage additional
funding to meet this goal.
Given the fact that recent transportation planning efforts by Metro, the Oregon Department of
Transportation, Washington County and cities along Highway.99W have "identified and
acknowledged these deficiencies and that solutions are long-term in nature, staff believes it
would be difficult to justify a PFS based on transportation concerns.
Water Supply
The resolution forwarded by CPO 4B indicated'a concern about "viable, long-term and
affordable" water sources. Specifically, the concern about.a water source was related to the
increased growth in the Bull Mountain area, potentially worsening the water supply. County staff
spoke with Rich Sattler with the Tigard Water District regarding the water supply. issues
mentioned by CPO 4B and was assured that there is no current shortage, of water. Mr.. Sattler
indicated that though a lack of infrastructure in the Bull Mountain area could pose a challenge,
most of such infrastructure is constructed through the development process.
DRAFT ISSUE PAPER NO. 14
CPO 413 Resolution Response
June 28, 2005
- Page 6
In addition, state law does not allow the implementation of a public facilities plan for
issues such as water supply without, at a minimum, coordination with the water provider.
Given that the Tigard Water District has not identified a problem with their water supply,,
it is unlikely the agency would undertake a- PFS planning process.
Parks and Open Space Planning
In-their resolution, CPO 4B indicated that a lack of parks planning and increased development on
Bull Mountain is eliminating available land for parks and open space. Last year, county staff
began developing a system development charge (SDC) to provide funding for interim park and
recreation'capital improvements to serve the unincorporated properties on Bull Mountain. The
county SDC would serve as a funding bridge until the properties annexed to Tigard. The Tigard
Urban Service Agreement designated Tigard as'the long term park and recreation provider to. the
Bull Mountain area.
At their March 1 work session, the'Board of County Commissioners said it wanted to continue
the public hearing on the Bull Mountain SDC for 120 days to await the outcome of discussions
with the City of Tigard about planning issues in the Bull Mountain area. This discussion would
include both areas inside and outside of Tigard's city limits.
It appears that a PFS isn't allowed to be adopted for parks-planning.-Although the definition of
"public facilities" is not provided for under the provisions governing a PFS, the statutory
provisions relating to public facilities planning define this term as including only water, sewer
and transportation. Additionally, the county's growth management strategy identifies parks as a
desirable service, which are therefore not required as 'a condition of development. The county is
not a provider of park facilities or services, which is a municipal service more appropriately
offered by cities or special service districts.
School Overcrowding
CPO 4B's resolution stated that all of the schools that serve Bull Mountain are currently at or
above capacity. The resolution further states that construction of Alberta Rider Elementary has
been delayed due to land use disputes, which exacerbated the school capacity issues on Bull
Mountain. The CPO has requested that the City of Tigard and Washington County develop a
solution' for the.problem, as the continuing issuance of building permits is creating more .
overcrowding in.area schools. The county's response to the school capacity issue is limited by
Oregon Revised Statute 195.110(11), which states that school capacity shall not be the sole basis
of approval or denial of a residential development application. In addition, school capacity issues ' .
do not fall under the definition of public facilities, so a PFS cannot be justified on these grounds.
Development Moratorium.
Attachment A to this issue paper discusses two types of development moratoriums that may be
used to. halt or slow development: the public facilities moratorium and the compelling need.
moratorium. The public facilities moratorium may be applied in specific geographic areas where
public facilities are currently operating beyond capacity. The compelling need moratorium may
be utilized when existing standards and regulations'are inadequate to prevent irrevocable.public
harm in affected geographic areas. Both moratoria require public notice and a hearing. A public
DRAFT ISSUE PAPER NO. 14
CPO 4B Resolution Response
` June 28, 2005
Page .7
facilities moratorium must be followed up with a corrective action plan within 60 days of the
moratorium's adoption. A legal analysis of both.moratoria is provided in Attachment A to this '
issue paper.
High Density Construction on Bull Mountain .
As mentioned on page 3, the current rate and intensity of development on Bull Mountain is not
'inconsistent with the level of development intended for the area as shown in the Bull Mountain
Community Plan. The densities on Bull Mountain were intended to serve residential growth
through the year 2000 and assumed a build out to existing densities, typically six units per.acre in
the R-6 district which covers most of the Bull Mountain area. Services such as` water, sewer, and -
roads are intended to be provided through the development of.land in the area, in keeping with
the county's policy and strategies for growth management. Therefore, the planned development
of Bull Mountain does not warrant either a public facilities or compelling need moratorium.
Potential Inconsistencies Between the Community Development Code and the Communi Plan
. •w, Potential inconsistencies regarding the implementation of applicable tree removal standards are
not grounds for either type of development moratorium. Public facilities moratoriums are limited
to situations in which public facilities such as transportation; sewer, and water,, are operating
beyond capacity; or when existing regulations cannot prevent a public harm. Discussions
between county staff and City of Tigard staff provide a more appropriate option for resolving
any inconsistencies. :
Transportation
CPO 4B indicates-that roadways'within the Bull Mountain area are.currently operating beyond ;
capacity..The county, City of Tigard, and-the Oregon Department of Transportation agree that
Highway 99W is a deficiency area for which a solution has yet,to be determined. Either type of
moratorium would require that a corrective action plan be developed within 60 days following
the institution of a moratorium. T66 three agencies listed above have studied Highway 99W and
have been unable to develop plans or projects to mitigate the.area's congestion or circulation
problems
Metro's Regional Transportation Plan, the Washington County 2020 Transportation and recent
changes to the 1999 Oregon-Highway Plan all indicate that a solution has yet to be determined
for the Highway 99W corridor. The Oregon Highway Plan states that Highway 99W has-
"physical, environmental, or other constraints that limit the-range of acceptable transportation
solutions". According to county transportation planners, circulation on roads within the vicinity
of Highway 99W should be developed in addition to capacity improvements on the highway. If
the highway were to be improved to accommodate greater capacity, new highway lanes would .
fill up.if the adjacent street improvements were not also made:
Water Sunnly
Uncertainty regarding future water supplies may merit a public facilities moratorium. However;
the City of Tigard's water department does not indicate that Tigard's water source is threatened
or unable to serve current or.ftiture residents iri and around the City of Tigard. Therefore, it is
unlikely that a moratorium could-be instituted based on a lack of water supplies..
DRAFT ISSUE PAPER NO. 14
CPO 4B Resolution Response
' June 28, 2005
Page 8
Parks and Open Space Planning
As noted in the legal opinion provided by County Counsel staff, a public facilities moratorium
may not be granted for parks planning. A compelling need moratorium for parks could not be
instituted based on the county's current hierarchy of services. Oregon's Statewide Planning
Program does not require local governments'to have an adopted parks plan. Additionally;?the
county's growth management policy stratifies public facilities and'services into three categories:
critical, essential, and desirable. Parks are classified as a desirable service and,are therefore not
required to be provided through the land development process.
School Overcrowding
As discussed above under;the "Implementing a Public Facilities Strategy" section, the county's
response to the school capacity issue is limited by Oregon Revised Statute 195.110(11), which
states that school capacity shall not be the sole basis of approval or denial of a residential
development application. The'County Counsel opinion, (Attachment A to this issue paper) also
states that ORS 195.111(8)-(9) does not allow a local government to adopt a moratorium based
on deficiencies in the school system..
Refinement Plan
The process for adoption of a refinement plan is described in Oregon Revised Statute, Chapter
197.200. A refinement plan is more detailed than a community plan and is only applicable in the
urban area: A refinement plan establishes minimum and maximum density ranges, floor area
ratios, and includes land use regulations,to implement the plan. Within areas subject to'a
refinement plan, most development applications are required to use the procedures for.expedited
land divisions in ORS 197.360 to 197.380. Due to the detailed nature of a refinement plan, the
review procedures for new development limit citizen participation and require a decision to be
made within 63 days rather than 120 days.
A refinement plan is not a development moratorium; it is another planning tool available to
counties and cities to adopt land use regulations and an expedited review process for a defined
urban area. It is not similar to a PFS or a development moratorium, tools to be used to remedy a
very specific deficiency for transportation, sewer, or water service. Consequently, staff does not
believe a refinement plan-would suitably address the concerns of CPO 4B and Mr. Franzke. A
refinement plan's effects on each of the issues identified by the CPO and Mr. Franzke are
described below. '
High Density Construction on Bull Mountain
A refinement plan is not intended to slow or stop growth in the manner that a PublicFacilities
Strategy or moratorium would allow. Refinement plans are a comprehensive plan element.
similar to a community plan, but with far greater detail. Rather than. curb development within a
specific geographic area, a refinement plan allows for detailed planning at the beginning of a
project in exchange for an expedited land use review process. An expedited land use review
would require a much lower level of involvement from the community and is therefore•unlikely
to address the concerns voiced by the CPO and Mr. Franzke.
..'DRAFT ISSUE PAPER NO. 14
CPO 4B Resolution Response
June 28, 2005
Page 9
Potential Inconsistencies Between the Community Development 'Code and the .Community Plan
As mentioned in the discussion above in the' Implementing a Public Facilities Strategy" and
"Development Moratorium" sections, if there are inconsistencies regarding the implementation
of applicable tree removal standards,. they may be resolved through communication between the
two agencies. Both agencies have indicated an interest in resolving any inconsistencies in the'
interpretation and implementation of county and city standards. A refinement plan is intended to
provide a detailed plan for a specific area, and would not provide.the best approach for
addressing the various inconsistencies between the city's Code and the Bull Mountain
Community Plan.
Transportation
Transportation issues on arterials and collectors in the•Bull'Mountain area are unlikely to be
sufficiently addressed by a, refinement plan. A refinement plan relates to a specific area of
development.and defines the eventual density ranges, floor area ratios' and land use regulations
;applicable to the development: At most, a refinement plan may indicate the location of proposed
local roadways within a specific development.
Water Suypl v
Refinemenf plans do not apply to or address water supply issues, ;
Pdrks and Open Space Planning
Refinement plans may include areas intended-for pa&.or open'ace land in conjunction with the
development'of a specific-geographic area. A refinement plan would not institute a moratorium
on development,in order to, allow for the purchase of park land,, and therefore would not.address
the concerns regarding a dwindling land supply for parks as described by the CPO. -
School Overcrowding
Refinement plans do not' apply,.'to or address school 'overcrowding issues.
.
wpshare\2005ord\work programGssuepape rs\Bull MAID 14\IP14' Moratorium Final Draft
062805
.
` ATTACHMENT A
Wa§hitig ton
County
Inter-Department Correspondence .
`
DATE: March 1, 2005
TO: Chair Brian and Members`of the Board
FROM: .Chris Gilmore, Assistant County Counsel
SUBJECT: Bull Mountain Moratorium
In response to the request by CPO 4B the following memorandum is a general discussion
of the statutory provisions governing moratoria and a public facilities strategy.
SHORT ANSWER: There are three, mechanisms permittedby state law to halt or slow .
development that is otherwise permitted under the comprehensive. plan and development
code:- a "public facilities strategy", a public facilities moratorium or a compelling need
moratorium. They are limited to.issues involving transportation, sewer and water
facilities. (i.e. not schools, parks): 'Each requires specific findings,_including that the rate
or intensity was not anticipated at the time the original plan was adopted.- Finally, it ;
should be noted that it is likely that persons' owning property prior to :imposition of a -
moratorium would be eli gible to file Measure 37.claims:
A. BACKGROUND INFORMATION.
As you may recall CPO 4B submitted materials to,the Board discussing the adequacy of
public services in the Bull Mountain, area.'' See Letter from Julie Russell to the Board of
Commissioners dated October 26; 2004 with attachments. CPO 4B requests this Board
implement, a public facilities strategy or perhaps a moratorium, apparently to a reduce;,
slow or prohibit development for some period of time.:
Included with the proposed resolution Are a number of documents discussing the .
adequacy of public services: In addition to concems regarding the capacity of school
system and the availability of a long-term water source, the materials also raise concerns
regarding the adequacy of existing'transportation facili
ties; in particular the intersection
of Highway 99W and Beef Bend:Road as well as Highway.99W and Bull Mountain
Road. The resolution identifies a ,need for additional planning and identifying
inadequacies with regard to water, schools, parks and, transportation.
ISSUE PAPER NO. 14
ATTACHMENT A
Page 2
Nothing in the materials actually proposes a Public Facilities Strategy or addresses the
standards for adopting the same as provided under ORS 197.768.
B. APPLICABLE LAW.
There are three basic tools that empower local government to limit or stop the issuance of
development permits while catching up with development by enacting new regulations or .
construction new public. facilities: (1) public facilities strategy, (2) moratorium -based on
a shortage of public facilities, and (3)moratorium based on a compelling need.
1.' Public Facilities Strategy.
Implementing a public facilities strategy under ORS 197.768 to manage growth is a
relatively new concept. The legislature first adopted these statutory provisions in 1995.
A public facilities strategy is somewhat more flexible than a moratorium both in terms of
adopting and implementing an overall plan. There are no cases. to date concerning
adoption of a public facilities strategy.
Under ORS 1.97.768(4), in adopting a public facilities strategy the county must
demonstrate the following:
"(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."
These findings must be adopted at a public hearing after providing notice to. the state
consistent with ORS. 197.768(3).
If these findings are made, the Public Facilities Strategy must include a clear, objective
and detailed plan for controlling the timing and sequence of development approvals to
accommodate the identified capacity problems. ORS 197.768(5). This is effective for up
to 24 months,. but maybe extended, in one year increments up to three times.
Although there are no specific. requirements regarding the contents of an overall plan, the .
statutes contemplate that.a public facilities strategy, will resolve the existing capacity
problems within the two-year period. ORS 197.768(6).
ISSUE PAPER NO. 14
ATTACHMENT A
Page 3
In summary creating a Public Facilities: Strategy has at least three components: (1)
adoption of.a final order including findings-consistent with ORS 197.768(4)(a)-(c), (2)
adoption of a Public Facilities Strategy for•resolving identified deficiencies within"a two-
year time frame, and (3) a clear, objective, and detailed plan for issuing permits: -
2. Moratorium Based on Shortage of Public Facilities.
A moratorium based on a shortage;of public facilities is provided for.under ORS
197.520(2). This type of moratorium is.liin .4 to areas that are'within an urban growth
boundary.
To create' this type of moratorium the local, government must adopt findings addressing:
"(a) Showing the extent of need beyond'the estimated capacity of
existing public facilities, expected to result-froin 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 keypublic 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."
It may be adopted only after providing notice and conducting a public hearing as
provided under ORS 197:520(1).
Unlike a Public Facilities Strategy this type of moratorium-must also'adopt a
correction program within sixty (60) days from the date the'moratorium is
adopted. ORS 197.530. The correction program:must set out a'plan for resolving
the identified deficiencies within six (6) months. '
A local government may.not adopt a moratorium based.on deficiencies in, the
schoolsystem. ORS 195:110(8)-(9).
3.. Moratorium Based on a Compellin Need.
An urban compelling need moratorium must address the following:
"(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, to4he city, county'or special
ISSUE PAPER NO. 14
ATTACHMENT A .
Page 4
district are not unreasonably,restricted by. the adoption of the moratorium;
(C) Stating the'reasons alte, native:meth_ods of achieving the objectives
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
(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."
Notice and hearing are also required.. ORS, 197.520(1)'. The: time period.for a~compelling
need moratorium is limited to 120 days..
4. De Facto Moratorium.
ORS 197.524 essentially provides that the county may not engage in a pattern or practice
of denying or delaying permits that are consistent With-the acknowledged plan and land'
use regulations unless the county goes: through theIstatutory provisions discussed above. ,
This is sometimes referred to 'as. a de facto moratorium.
C. FEASBILITY OF_'ADOPTING A PUBLIC FACILITIES STRATEGY.
Although the request submitted by CPO 4B is.somewhat ambiguous, this memorandum
assumes the,request is focused on the provisions for a'Public Facilities Strategy provided .
for under ORS 197:768:
As.discussed above there are three primary components to adopting a Public Facilities
Strategy: (1) adopting findings consistent with ORS 197.768(4)(a)-(c), (2) implementing
an overall plan to address the identified deficiencies within a two-year period, and (3)
limiting the timing and sequencing of permits to accommodate the identified -capacity,
problems.
1. Adopting findings consistent with ORS 197.768(4)(a)-(c)..
(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..
ISSUE PAPER NO. 14
ATTACHMENT A
Page 5
This. provision requires findings demonstrating whether the rate or intensity of
development was anticipated at the time the original plan was adopted.
As an initial matter this standard requires consideration of the original plan adopted by
the county'governing development.' Although there are no specific dates provided, this
standard does contemplate at least some historical review of the underlying plan.
Absent a review of the issuance of development permits (both frequency and scope)
relative to the extent of development authorized under the plan (and possibly
consideration of the sequencing of public facilities improvements relative to development
intensity) there is no evidence presented to satisfy this requirement.
The few anecdotal comments in the submitted materials are not likely to provide .
substantial evidence that would support imposition of a Public Facilities Strategy.
The Planning Division is taking a closer look at the original plan to determine whether
the scope and timing of development in this area'was contemplated.'
(b) The total land,development expected within the specific geographic
area will exceed the planned or existing capacity of public
facilities.
While the first standard' considers impacts from existing.development, this
standard requires a prospective consideration of whether existing and future
development will exceed planned capacity.
There is no discussion in the materials regarding planned capacity based on the
county's acknowledged plan and land use regulations. The materials do raise
concerns regarding.the capacity of facilities but absent some discussion of these
concerns relative to planned capacity this standard cannot be satisfied.
(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.
The submitted materials do not address,the need to accommodate development. Until
such time as an overall Public Facilities Strategy is proposed (see below) and a plan is
provided that will ensure development is not unreasonably restricted the county is
foreclosed from pursuing this approach.
2. [malementinre an overall plan to address the identified deficiencies within a
two-year
The materials submitted do not include a Public. Facilities Strategy or any discussion of
what would be.included in the event the county chose to pursue the same.
ISSUE PAPER NO. 14
ATTACHMENT A
Page 6
While the statutes do not provide any guidance on what must be included-in a Public
Facilities Strategy there are significant jurisdictional issues to consider with regard to the
capacity issues raised in the submitted materials.
(a) School Capacity.
School facility capacity may not be the basis for imposing -a moratorium. ORS
195.110(9). In addition notwithstanding the provisions for a Public Facilities Strategy,
school capacity may not be the sole basis for denying residential development.
applications. Consequently there are some significant limitations in state law with regard
to whether the county can impose limitations on the issuance of permits based on a
school capacity problem at all.
In addition to these statutory limitations, clearly the county does not have the authority to
plan for school capacity. Consequently the county will need: to. coordinate with the
school district to determine whether a Public Facilities Strategy is feasible.
A good portion of the materials includes e-mail's and newspaper articles regarding school
capacity. However the School District Superintendent based on an e-mail dated
September 20, 2004 indicates that the District would not be in favor of a resolution
supporting limitations on growth. Without the supportof the District the county will be
unable to carry out a Public Facilities Strategy to address school capacity.
(b) Water Capacity. ;
Similar to school capacity problems, the materials include an article and e-mail regarding
capacity problems with regard to water service: As with the School District, the
correspondence.with indicates an overall concurrency policy with regard to the water
distribution system that assures new capacity is provided as development occurs.
In any event, absent a coordinated strategy with the jurisdiction responsible.for water in
this area, the county has not authority to'impose a Public Facilities Strategy.' There is
nothing in the record that clearly establishes an existing capacity problem or whether the
responsible jurisdiction is interested in participating in growth limitations to address.
those concerns.
(c) Transportation Capacity.
Transportation deficiencies are the only identified public facilities under the county's
authority.: However,, the capacity problems are in large measure intersections with
Highway 99W with Beef Bend Road and Bull Mountain Road. Without the participation
of the Oregon Department of Transportation the county is again foreclosed from pursuing
a Public Facilities Strategy.
ISSUE PAPER NO. 14
ATTACHMENT A
Page 7
Clearly identifying the overall'capacity.issues using objective planning data and
coordinating with the affected jurisdictions is a fundamental pre-requisite to moving
forward with a Public Facilities Strategy. "
From the materials submitted it is not clear that the necessary inter urisdictional
cooperation will be available for purposes of..pursuing a Public Facilities Strategy.
3.' Limiting the timing a_ nd sequencing of permits to accommodate the identified r
capacity problems.
The final piece in the overall public facilities strategy requires a. very specific plan with. .
regard. to the timing and sequence of development permits. There is no preliminary
proposal addressing this concern.
D. MEASURE 37
Measure 37 is implicated in at least two ways'. First, the"act.of limiting development
under a moratorium may be an adoption or enforcement of a land use regulation giving
rise to a claim. In other words, current owners of property may be entitled to
compensation or a "waiver" of the restriction'on development imposed by the
moratorium. Second, "down-zoning" or. additional restrictions on development
implemented to address the facilities issues also likely would give rise to claims.
Therefore, the effectiveness of the'se.statutes is called into question by adoption of
Measure 37.
E. CONCLUSION
Serious consideration of any form of moratorium or limit on development otherwise
provided for by, current ordinances would require substantial effort to address numerous
issues including:
1. Establishing substantial evidence in the record regarding an increase in
development beyond thatwhich is anticipated by the original plan;
' 2. Establishing substantial evidence in. the record regarding a capacity problem
relative to the facilities identified in the existing plan;
3: Assuming a capacity problem exists evaluating whether affected jurisdictions
are willing to'participate•in a Public Facilities Strategy;
4. Developing 'a plan to accommodate development; and
5. Determining the impact of Measure 37 on the proposed Public Facilities
Strategy:
Until such time as these issues are addressed adoption of a Public Facilities Strategy
would be premature.
•
ATTACHMENT B
WASHINGTONCOUNTY:
Inter-Department Correspondence
DATE: April 21, 2005
TO:- Aisha Willits, Associate Planner
FROM: Chris Gilmore, Assistant County. Counsel
SUBJECT: Bull Mountain Refinement Plan
Per your request this 'memorandum provides a brief summary of the statutory provisions
regarding refinement plans and some of thelegal issues that may arise in adopting the
same for purposes of addressing impacts from development on Bull Mountain.
ReCutement Plans
In addition to a public 'facilities strategy and moratoria discussed in my prior
memorandum dated March 1, 2005,. state law. also authorizes the county to adopt a
refinement plan.
1. Area Specific Plan for Density
,
A refinement planis provided for under ORS 197.200 and includes the authority to adopt
a density range for residential housing within a specific geographic area. While a
refinement plan is not necessarily limited to density issues, establishing a density range is
mandatory. The plan must be implemented by adopting land use regulations.
Because land use regulations. must be adopted imposing a density range, this approach
will likely create a right to compensation under Measure 37. for any regulations restricting
existing development rights.
2. Expedited Land Divisions
Once the plan is in place, state law requires any applications for the division of land to be
processed as an expedited land division.
(a) Limited Citizen Participation
An expedited,land division provides a truncated review.process that requires a final
decision in 63 days from the date it is complete rather than the typical 120 days.
Although there is a 14-day comment period. there is no hearing.on the application.
Consequently there is less citizen participation during the local review process.
ISSUE PAPER NO. 14
ATTACHMENT B
Page 2
(b) Limited Issues on Appeal
Appeals from decisions issued by the county are also limited. An appeal must be to a
referee designated by the county rather than to the Land Use Board of Appeals. The
decision of the referee is then appealable to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals
may overturn only if.. (1) the decision was not actually.an expedited land decision, (2)•
there was misconduct, corruption or the hearings officer exceeded his authority as
described in ORS 36.705 (1)(a) to (d) or (3) the decision was unconstitutional.
In summary although the refinement plan permits more detailed planning including a
specific density range, the ultimate decision* requires adoption of land use regulations
regarding density that will, likely fall within the scope of Measure 37. In addition once
the plan is in. place there is less citizen participation during the development review and a
very limited basis for overturning the final decision on appeal.
B. INTERJURISDICTIONAL COORDINATION AND THE IMPACTS OF MEASURE 37
1. Interjurisdictional Coordination
With regard to capacity issues for services not provided by the county it is clear any
action' must be coordinated with those entities including water, sewer, school facilities
and transportation issues relating to 99W.
To the extent a refinement planning process is .utilized, under ORS 197.015 the county is
'.required to accommodate the concerns of other affected jurisdictions "as much as
possible" in developing a comprehensive plan.
As provided in my prior memorandum•the county is expressly precluded under ORS
195.110(9) from imposing a moratorium based on school capacity. Any moratorium'
based on water, sewer or transportation issues relating to 99W must be coordinated with
the affected service providers to assure the county's basis for imposing the moratorium is
reasonable and to assure.the affected service provider is willing.to participate in long-
term planning solutions to the extent the, construction and financing of additional
facilities are necessary to mitigate impacts from development.
2. Limitations of Measure 37
Assuming the county and the affected services districts agree on the basis for imposing
interim development constraints property owners may have a claim under Measure 37ffor,
those temporary restrictions.
Section 1 of Measure 37 entitles an owner id~compensation for the enactment of any land
use regulation that both restricts the use of property and reduces its value. Under Section
8 local government'may decide to not apply (often referred.to •as a waiver) the regulation
in lieu of compensation.
k •
ISSUE PAPER NO. 14
ATTACHMENT B
Page 3
Measure 37 applies to both "statutes limiting the, use of land or any interest therein" as
well as "local government * * * zoning ordinances." Although the statutes governing
moratoria and public facilities strategies are not specifically listed there is at least a
reasonable argument that implementing a moratorium would fall within the scope of
Measure 37.
Ultimately if a lower density is adopted as part of a refinement plan (ORS 197.200) a
corrective action plan adopted under a moratorium (ORS 197.530) or a public facilities
strategy (ORS 197.768), property owners will likely be entitled to compensation under .
Measure 37. The county may of course pay compensation to assure enforcement of the
new regulations.
Ultimately.the decision of whether to impose limitations on and reduce the scope of
existing development rights to prevent further capacity problems rests with the Board.
This decision must of course consider the, limitations imposed by Measure 37, the
importance of coordinating with the responsible service providers, and the'pros and cons .
of the various, growth -managernenf tools available under state law.
. r t
WASHINGTON COUNTY'
OREGON
June 28, 2005
DRAFT
PLANNING DIVISION
ISSUE PAPER NO. 15
Park Planning for the Bull Mountain Area
Issue
Through the, Planning Division'.s 2005 work program, the Board of County Commissioners
(Board) directed staff to prepare seven issue papers about planning and park issues in the urban
unincorporated Bull Mountain area. This paper examines how to address park planning for the
urban unincorporated Bull Mountain area in conjunction with Tigard's update of its Park System
.Master Plan. ,
Recommendation
Staff recommends that park planning for the Bull Mountain area should continue to be conducted
by the City of Tigard through its update of the Tigard Park System Master Plan in 2006.
Background'
At the Board's request; the Planning Division has prepared seven issue papers that address
different planning and park issues associated with the urban unincorporated Bull Mountain area:
Five of the other issue papers address density, parks funding alternatives, updating the Bull
Mountain Community Plan, planning for the Bull Mountain UGB expansion areas, and
amendments to the Washington County / Tigard Urban Planning Area Agreement'.t The seventh
issue paper (EP 14) addresses CPO 413's request for a public facility strategy /development
moratorium for the Bull Mountain area.
In December 2004, the Board and the Tigard City Council held a joint meeting to discuss a
number of issues about the Bull Mountain area that had been raised by residents in,the area. The
Board and Council expressed a•desire to work together.to develop:a planning program that could
address residents' concerns, primarily through the upcoming planning efforts of the city. The
Board directed the county Planning Division to prepare Issue Papers 15, 16, 17, 18 and 21 in
consultation with Tigard. The Board asked staff to include in these issue "papers an assessment
about how to address identified issues in conjunction with Tigard's update of its Comprehensive
Plan and park master plan, and planning for the Bull Mountain UGB expansion areas.
The focus of this issue paper. is'park planning for the urban unincorporated Bull Mountain area.
The following paragraphs present .a chronology of events regarding park planning for the Bull
Mountain area.
IP 16 addresses park funding alternatives; IP 17 addresses decreasing densities; IP 18 addresses planning for the
UGB expansion areas; IP 21 addresses updating the Bull Mountain Community Plan; IP 22 addresses Tigard's
request to amend the UPAA for the UGB expansion areas.
Department of Land Use & Transportation Planning Division '
155 N First Avenue, Suite 350-14, Hillsboro, OR 97124-3072
Phone: (503) 846-3519 • Fax: (503) 846-4412 • www.co.washington.or.us
DRAFT ISSUE PAPER NO. 15
Park Planning-for. the Bull Mountain Area
June 28, 2005
Page 2
• In 1983, the Board adopted the Bull Mountain Community Plan (BMCP). Urban
unincorporated Bull Mountain, which is identified as the "Summit and Slopes Subarea" in
the BMCP, is identified as being park deficient.. At the time the BMCP Was adopted,
unincorporated Bull Mountain was not within `the jurisdictional boundaries of a parks
provider. However, General- Design Element 15. of the BMCP required the county to
coordinate with the City of Tigard for park planning and the provision of park and recreation.
services in urban unincorporated Bull Mountain.
Also in 1983, the first Washington County / Tigard Urban Planning Area Agreement
(UPAA) was adopted. Per the adopted UPAA; urban unincorporated Bull Mountain was
identified as an Area of Interest within the Tigard Urban Planning Area.
• In 1995, the county, along with Tualatin Hills Park and Recreation Department (THPRD) .
and the cities of Hillsboro and Tigard (the,park providers for the majority of the urban area),
began to study how best to provide park, recreation and open space services to urban
Washington County'through the work to implement the provisions of ORS 195, commonly
referred to as Senate Bill 122. That work designated which local governments would be the
long-term providers of park, recreation and open space services, and defined each provider's
long-term service boundary and park/recreation service principles. The designated park
'providers are THPRD and the cities of Hillsboro and Tigard. In 2002, through the Tigard
Urban Service.Agreement (TUSA), the City of Tigard was designated as the parks provider- '
for the area within the Tigard Urban Service Area (the same boundary as Tigard's Urban
Planning Area in,the UPAA), which includes urban unincorporated Bull.Mountain.
Elements of the countywide park strategy are:
1. Properties will be served by the designated service provider when they are located within
the jurisdictional boundary of Tigard,' H'illsb,oro,or THPRD.
2. In THPRD's long term service. area, properties subject to development are required to
annex to THPRD prior to final land use approval 'or'issuance of building permits
3. Washington County may serve as an interim provider of park land and recreation
facilities for.urban unincorporated properties when specific requirements are met. An
interim funding source for the county-to acquire park and open, space land could include'a
county park system development charge (SDC). The purpose of the county's interim role
is to serve as a bridge, so that immediate funding can be provided for needed park and
recreation facilities in areas under development, until the unincorporated properties are
annexed to the applicable park provider.
4. Before the'county could serve as an interim'provider to.unincorporated properties in the
Tigard and Hillsboro Urban Service Areas, te.following requirements must be met: 1).
there be a commitment by the city to serve its long term service area; 2) The city's Park
DRAFT ISSUE PAPER NO..15
Park Planning for the Bull Mountain Area
June 28, 2005
Page 3
Master Plan would address the unincorporated areas in its long-term service area; 3) The
standards for park, recreation and open space services to the unincorporated areas would
be those contained in the city's Park Master Plan; and 4) There be a commitment by the
city to place an annexation plan on the ballot.
• " In 1998, the Cache Creek Nature Park site,(located within the. urban unincorporated Bull
Mountain,area) was purchased by the city and county through their allocation of Metro's
Greenspaces funds. The site, under the city's ownership, will be developed in the future by
the city.
• In 1999, the City of Tigard updated its Park System Master Plan. The updated master plan
addressed the unincorporated Bull Mountain area and lands within Tigard's city limits.
• In 2000, the proposal for the Atfalati Recreation Partnership, District (Measure 34-23) was..
placed on the ballot. The measure proposed to providerecreation facilities and park
improvements in the Tigard and Tualatin areas, and to provide recreation programs. The
measure failed in the November 2000 election. The unincorporated Bull Mountain area,
which is comprised of three precincts, opposed the,measure by a range of 58% to 66% of the
voters.
• In 2002, the Tigard Urban Service Agreement (TUSA) was adopted and became effective. In .
this agreement, the unincorporated Bull Mountain area was identified as part of the City of
Tigard's urban service area, and the city was designated as the parks provider for the entire
Tigard urban service area. The agreement's park and recreation service principles include:
1) The standards for parks, open space and recreational facilities will be the standards in -
.Tigard's Park System Master Plan;
2) Updates to Tigard's Park System Master Plan shall address all properties inthe Tigard -
Urban Service Area.
• In November 2004, the City of Tigard placed a double majority annexation measure on the
ballot for the annexation of Bull Mountain. The Tigard City Council established the Bull
Mountain Annexation Parks and.Open.Space Task Force in January 2004; the purpose of the
Task.Force was to provide additional time for public.discussion and review of key benefits.of
annexation as it pertained to parks and open spaces. The Task Force developed a Bull
Mountain Parks Concept Plan, which, identified potential park sites on Bull Mountain and
provided cost estimates of acquiring and developing the sites. • The annexation measure failed
in the November 2004 election.
• In December 2004, the City of Tigard updated its parks SDC methodology and rate.. The
SDC update incorporated proposed parks identified in the Bull Mountain Parks Concept - . '
Plan. The city increased its park SDC for a single family dwelling from $1,580 to $3,753,
which is only applicable to new development in the city. The park SDC was increased
DRAFT ISSUE PAPER NO. 15
Park Planning for the Bull Mountain Area
June 28, 2005 ,
Page 4'
substantially in order to pay for the full expected cost'of providing parkland and recreational
facilities for new development in the city and urban unincorporated Bull Mountain. The
analysis for Issue Paper 16, which addresses park funding alternatives, indicates that the
majority (approximately 69%) of the park deficiency on Bull Mountain is due to existing .
residential development.
• . In 2004, the county began evaluating a proposal (Ordinance 632) that would allow the county
to become an interim provider of park land in unincorporated Bull Mountain. The next
scheduled hearing for Ordinance 632 is July 19, 2005.
• Iii 2005, the city funded an update of its Park System Master Plan and Capital Improvement.
Plan, which will address the entire Tigard Urban Service Area, including the unincorporated
Bull Mountain area.. The update will begin in 2006.
• In April 2005, the City of Tigard's Parks and Recreation Department issued a draft List of
Land Acquisition Projects for Fiscal Year 2005 - 2006. This draft list includes the
acquisition of neighborhood parks, an open space area, and pocket parks that would serve the
urban unincorporated Bull Mountain area.
Analysis
As noted at the beginning of the,Background section, the Board directed the, county Planning
Division to prepare this issue paper about park planning for the urban unincorporated Bull
Mountain area. The Board asked'staff to include in this issue paper an assessment about how to
address the park planning issue in conjunction with Tigard's update of its Park System Master .
Plan.
To address the above issue, staff examined. several factors. First, staff reviewed the
Comprehensive Framework Plan for the Urban Area and the TUSA, which identify the parks
provider for Bull Mountain: Second; staff compared the county and the city in terms of their
respective park planning expertise and availability of funding for park planning. Third, staff
examined the project scope. Fourth, staff examined the issues of efficiency and economies of
scale in conducting the park planning. Fifth, staff reviewed the park'planning efforts that the city
has already undertaken with respect to Bull Mountain. Based on these factors, described in more
detail below, staff concludes that the City of Tigard should continue to conduct the park planning
for the Bull Mountain area through its update of the Tigard Park System Master Plan in 2006.
I) Consistency with the Comprehensive Framework Plan and TUSA. Washington County's
Comprehensive Framework Plan for the Urban Area, and the adopted Tigard Urban Service
Agreement (TUSA), a binding agreement, both specify that the city is the parks provider for
Bull Mountain. In order for the county to conduct park planning for unincorporated Bull
Mountain, amendments to the TUSA and the Framework Plan, specifying the county as a
parks provider, would need to be approved by the City of Tigard and by the Board,
' respectively. .
,
= DRAFT ISSUE PAPERNO. 15'
Park Planning Tor. the Bull Mountain Area
June 28, 2005
Page 5
2) Expertise. The City of Tigard has a parks department;. and has a Park System Master•Plan
and Park Capital Improvement Plan.for its entire urban service area, which includes
unincorporated Bull'.Mountain. The county has•not historically been a parks provider and has
.
neither a parks department nor expertise. in parks planning and development.
3) . Fundin The.county does not have the revenue to undertake park planning.* Existing
homeowners and new development in unincorporated Bull Mountain don't provide funding
for park planning and park provision through'a parks SDC of property taxes as city residents
do. Conversely, the city has recently updated its'parks SDC methodology.and rate and has
funded a Parks System Master Plan update,, which is scheduled to begin in 2006. The Parks
System Master Plan update will include parks planning.for the Bull Mountain area. '
4) Project Scope: The park needs of the entire cornmunity in the Tigard Urban Service Area,
not just a part of it, need to be examined as pari,of the park planning -process for Bull
Mountain. This is particularly true.since some neighborhood and community. parks and.
recreational trails that will serve.unincorporated Bull. Mountain will be located in the City of "
Tigard'- and vice versa. For example; Tigard's Cache Creek Nature Park site,'which.is,
within urban unincorporated Bull Mountain, will be a park serving both Bull Mountain and
City,of Tigard residents. The city, which has already developed. a Park System Master Plan
for the Tigard- Urban Service Area as mentioned above, is the, logical entity to conduct park
planning at the level of the entire ,urban service area.
5) Efficiency. It is more efficient for the city to conduct the park planning for the Bull '
Mountain area as part of the Tigard Park-System Master-Plan update,.which has been
recently funded and is scheduled'to'move forwardin 2006. A proposal for.the county to
create a separate parks plan for unincorporated Bull,Mountain would constitute a duplication
of effort.` In addition, due to the-county's lack of expertise in park planning, if the county'
were to undertake park planning for Bull Mountain, the City of Tigard or. a consulting firm,
would need to provide assistance and guidance to the county. The county and.city's efforts
would also have to be coordinated because much of Bull Mountain is now within the, city.
6) Economies of scale: The greatest, cost savings is obtained'by updating the whole of the
existing master plan for the Tigard Urban, Service Area through one `process rather than two
separate processes, which would' have to be coordinated. ,
7) City's park planning efforts on behalf of Bull Mountain. The city has invested effort and
funds in parks planning, for Bull Mountain, as evidenced by:
• The city's I999:Park System Master Plan, which .includes-the Bull Mountain area; the'
city's 2004 park`SDC methodology, update,, which incorporates proposed parks identified
through the Bull Mountain'Parks Concept, Plan;
• .The city's. acquisition of the Cache Creek Nature Park site;
DRAFT ISSUE PAPER NO. 15
Park Planning for the Bull Mountain Area
June 28, 2005
Page 6
• The city will be starting work on an update. of its Park System Master Plan in 2006, the
scope of which will include unincorporated Bull Mountain;
• The city is currently working to acquire park land and open space in unincorporated Bull
Mountain, as indicated in the Tigard Parks and Recreation draft List of Land Acquisition
Projects for Fiscal Year 2005 - 2006.
Therefore, based on the above factors, staff concludes that it is appropriate for the City of Tigard,
rather than the county, to continue to conduct the park planning for Bull Mountain. Given the
city's past and ongoing planning activities on behalf of Bull Mountain, it is unlikely that the city
would wish to amend the park'provider provision of the.TUSA.
wpshare\2005ord\work program\issue papers\Bull MAP 151P 15 park planning final draft 6-28-04
WASHINGTON COUNTY
OREGON
June 28, 2005 '
DRAFT
PLANNING DIVISION
ISSUE PAPER NO. 16
: Potential Funding Alternatives to Provide Parks and
Open Space In the Bull Mountain'Area
Issue ;
Through the Planning Division's 2005 work program, the Board of County Commissioners
(Board) directed staff to prepare seven,issue papers about planning and park issues in the urban
unincorporated Bull Mountain area. Issue Paper 15 examined park planning for the Bull
Mountain area. While drafting that paper, staff realized that more.analysis was needed on the
• issue of providing parks., Issue Paper 16 provides an overview of different funding alternatives
for providing parks and open space in the-Bull Mountain~area.
Recommendation
The purpose of Issue Paper 16 is to provide information about potential funding alternatives to
provide parks and open space in the Bull Mountain area.. Consequently, this paper does not make
any recommendations'about the alternatives. However; staff does recommend that future
consideration of a park- LID, county park service district or a park and recreation special service
district be contingent upon the submission of a citizen petition requesting the formation,of one of
these alternatives.
Background
Urban unincorporated Bull Mountain-is identified as the "Summit and Slopes Subarea" in the
Bull Mountain Community Plan (BMCP). The BMCP identifies the subarea as being park
deficient. When-the BMCP was adopted in 1983, unincorporated Bull Mountain was not within
the jurisdictional boundaries, of a parks provider. However, General Design Element 15 of the
BMCP required the county to coordinate with the City of Tigard for park planning and the
provision of park and recreation services in urban" unincorporated Bull- Mountain. `
In 2002 and 2003, respectively, the Tigard Urban Service Agreement (TUSA) was adopted and
the Comprehensive Framework Plan for the Urban Area (Framework Plan) was amended, both
of which designated-the City, of Tigard as the parks provider for urban unincorporated Bull
Mountain. The background section of Issue Paper 15 (Park Planning for the Bull Mountain
Area) provides a chronology of events from 1983 to the present, regarding park planning for the
Bull Mountain area.
At the Board's request, the Planning Division has prepared seven" issue papers that address
different planning and park issues associated with the,urban unincorporated Bull Mountain area.
Five of the other issue papers address density, park planning, "updating the Bull Mountain
Department. of Land Use & Transportation • Planning Division
155 N First Avenue, Suite 956-14, Hillsboro, OR 97124-3072
Phone: (503)'846-3519 Fax: (503) 846-4412 wwx .xo.washington.or.us
DRAFT ISSUE PAPER NO. 16
Potential Park and Open Space Funding Alternatives
June 28, 2005
Page 2
Community•Plan, planning for the Bull Mountain UGB expansion areas, and amendments to the
Washington County / Tigard Urban Planning Area Agreement.' The seventh issue paper (IP 14)
addresses CPO 413's request for a public facility strategy / development moratorium for the Bull
Mountain area.
In December 2004, the Board and the Tigard City Council held a joint meeting to discuss a
number:of issues about.the Bull Mountain area that had been raised by residents in the'area. The ,
Board and Council expressed a desire to work together to develop a planning program that could
address residents' concerns, primarily through the upcoming planning efforts of the city. The
Board directed the county Planning Division to prepare Issue Papers 15, 16,.17, 18, 21 and 22 in
consultation with Tigard staff. The Board asked staff to include in these issue papers an
assessment about how to address identified issues in conjunction with Tigard's,update of its
Comprehensive Plan and park master plan, and planning for the Bull Mountain UGB expansion
areas.
Lack of parks on Bull Mountain was identified as a key citizen issue. In addition, Bull Mountain
residents raised the possibility of a local improvement.-di strict (LID) to provide parks. Staff
recognize's that at least.seven alternatives exist for funding parkland acquisition, development,
and/or operations and maintenance for the park-deficient Bull Mountain area.. These alternatives
are:
1) County park LID: A LID is a means of funding construction, operation and maintenance of a
public improvement..
2) County special service district (ORS Ch. 451): Acounty special service district (county
service.district) is a district established to provide service facilities in a county or counties.
Examples of county service districts in Washington County are the Enhanced Sheriff's Patrol
District (ESPD), the Urban Road Maintenance District (URMD),:the Service District for
Street Lighting (SDL), and Clean Water Services (CWS).
3) Park and recreation special service district (ORS Ch. 266): Park and recreation districts (park
and recreation districts) are municipal corporations formed by communities to provide park
and recreation facilities for the inhabitants. An example of a park district in Washington
County is the Tualatin Hills Park and Recreation District (THPRD).
4) County park system development charge (SDC): A system development charge (SDC) is a
method by which new development is charged to fund the capital improvements needed to
serve that development. In 2004, the county proposed an interim park and recreation SDC
for urban unincorporated Bull Mountain in conjunction with proposed Ordinance. 632.. The
next scheduled public hearing for Ordinance 632 is on July 19, 2005. The 2004 proposed
park SDC was rejected because it did not reflect the City of Tigard's.new park SDC
IP 15 addresses park planning issues; IP 17 addresses decreasing densities; IP 18 addresses planning for the UGB
expansion areas; IP 21 addresses updating the Bull Mountain Community Plan; IP 22 addresses Tigard's request to
amend the UPAA for the UGB. expansion areas.
DRAFT ISSUE PAPER NO. 16
Potential Park and Open SpaceTunding Alternatives
June 28, 2005
Page 3.
methodology report and rates for the Bull Mt. area. Please see pages 22 and 23 for more "
information about a county park SDC.
5) Park provision by the City of Tigard: Parkland, acquisition, development and maintenance
funded and conducted by the City of Tigard.
6) Joint park provision by the county and the City of Tigard: Parkland acquisition, development -
and maintenance jointly funded and conducted by the City of Tigard and Washington
County. ,
7) Private fundinPrivate funding mechanisms for parks could include the""formation of a non-
profit organization, private. corporation, or homeowners association for the purpose of raising
funds for parkland acquisition, development and maintenance.
Staff notes that all of the above park funding alternatives.would need to be consistent with local
planning related. requirements prior to implementation. In this case, the local planning related
requirements are the county's Comprehensive"Framework Plan for the Urban Area (Framework
Plan), the Bull Mountain Community Plan (BMCP), and the Tigard Urban Service Area
Agreement (TUSA). Only the private funding alternative was consistent with all three of the
local requirements. The remaining alternatives were inconsistent with one or more of the three
local requirements, and would require amendments to the Framework Plan, the TUSA, or both
prior to implementation. See Table A, Park Funding Options -Consistency with Planning
Related Requirements, for details about the consistency of each alternative with the planning
related requirements.
Alternatives #I through #4 (county park LID, county service district,` park and recreation special
service district, and county park SDC) involve park funding at the county level, and will be
examined in more detail in this issue paper. Park funding alternatives #5 and #6, which involve
park funding by the City of Tigard, were not further examined because staff is assuming that the
city would spend its revenue to serve areas within the city limits. Staff is unaware of any city or
park district that spends its revenue to construct facilities outside of its boundary to serve
residents and employees outside its boundary. Staff did not examine private funding alternatives
because they would not involve the county.
Analysis
PARK NEEDS.
Before comparing the four park funding alternatives, it is first necessary to present an assessment
of Bull Mountain's park needs, and the estimated costs associated with those needs. It is
important to point out that the park needs assessment in this issue paper is not an independent.
assessment. Because the county is not a parks provider. and does not have expertise in park
planning, staff has relied upon .the parks provider's plans, as we did in 2004 for THPRD's
ultimate service area.
DRAFT ISSUE PAPER NO. 16
Potential Park and Open Space Funding Alternatives
June 28, 2005
Page 4
Table A
Park Fundin Options -Consistenc with Planning Related'Re uirements
Alternatives Comp. Framework Plan Bull Mt. Community Plan TUSA
Tigard OK, OK.- county must coordinate with Tigard for NO - Service by
park planning and provisiomof facilities Tigard is limited
to its city limits
County park SDC- NOT CONSISTENT. OK - county must coordinate with Tigard for OK "
(SDCs may only provide county can't be a provider due to park planning and provision of facilities
capital improvements) lack of an annexation plane
County LID NOT.CONSISTENT OK - county must coordinate with Tigard for NOT
• county can't be a provider due park planning and provision of facilities CONSISTENT -
to lack of an annexation plane Tigard is the
• Plan only permits interim designated
capital improvements by provider, not the
count 3 county4
County 451 service NOT CONSISTENT ' OK - county must coordinate with Tigard for. Should, study
district • county can't be a provider due park planning and provision of facilities feasibility, must
(This option was. to lack of an annexation plane serve ebntire
•
previously rejected by Tigard .is the designated. TUSA
voters) provider
• Plan only permits interim
capital improvements by
count s
Park and NOT CONSISTENT OK - county must coordinate with Tigard for Should study
recreation service • Tigard is the designated park planning and provision of facilities feasibility, must
district provider? serve entire
TUSA g
Joint funding by NOT CONSISTENT OK NOT
county & Tigard • county can't be a provider due CONSISTENT -
the lack of an annexation plan Service by
• Plan only permits interim Tigard is limited
..capital improvements by to its city•limits .
count 9
2 If adopted, Ordinance 632 would"eliminate this issue.
3 Must amend the Comp Plan to,: a) designate the county as a service provider; b) allow the county to provide
maintenance and operation services; and c) allow the county to be along term service'provider or define an.LID as
an interim provision of service.
4 Must amend the Tigard Urban Service Agreement (TUSA) to make the county a designated service provider. •
s Must amend the Comp Plan to designate a county park service district as the long term service provider of all park,
and rec. services.,
6 Must amend the -TUSA to designate a county park service district-as the service provider.
7 Must amend the Comp Plan to designate'a park service district as the service provider. '
" Must amend the TUSA to designate a park service district as-the service provider.
9 Must amend the Comp Plan to designate the county as a service provider & allow the county to provide
maintenance and operation services.
DRAF ISSUE PAPER NO. 16
Potential Park and Open Space Funding Alternatives
June 28; 2005
Page 5
Because the City of Tigard is the designated parks provider for urban unincorporated Bull,
Mountain, staff has relied upon the park planning documents prepared by the city. These .
documents are discussed in more detail below.'
The park needs assessment below identifies the study area; the quantity, type, and size of needed
parks within the study area; and.potential park locations within the study area. The subsequent
section; "Park Costs", provides an estimate of the costs associated with the identified park needs.
Identification of the boundary of the Bull Mountain park study area.
The present limits of urban unincorporated Bull Mountain were the starting point for the
identification of the study area. However, urban unincorporated Bull Mountain is not an entirely
contiguous'area. A small number of urban unincorporated Bull Mountain properties are
"islands", surrounded, on all sides by properties within the City of Tigard. Two of these "island"
areas were excluded•from the proposed study area due to their significant spatial separation from
the proposed Bull Mountain parks locations, which are described-in more detail in the following
section. The excluded "island" properties are those urban unincorporated properties located east
of the BPA easement and abutting SW Fern Street,and those urban unincorporated properties _
located east of SW 133`d Avenue and north of, and abutting, SW Hood Vista Lane., The resulting
proposed study area is shown in Map" A, Bull Mountain Park Study Area:
Identification of the quantity; size and type of Bull Mountain parks to be funded... ,
In order to identify the appropriate quantity, size, and types of parks that should be funded, staff
has relied in large part.on park planning documents prepared by the City of Tigard and the city's
Bull Mountain Annexation Parks and Open Space Task Force: Tigard is the identified park'
provider to the area, and its Park System Master Plan and park SDC address the area: Therefore,
staff has relied upon the following documents: the 1999 Tigard Park System Master Plan.
(TPSMP), the 2004 Tigard Parks and Recreation System Development Charges Methodology
Update (SDC Methodology Update), the 2004 Bull Mountain Parks Concept Plan (BMPCP).
In addition, the county is aware that a parcel currently owned by the Trust for Public Lands
(TPL) exists within urban unincorporated Bull Mountain, located west of the Cache' Creek
Nature Park site. Staff is aware of the community's desire to preserve the"TPL site as a Bull
Mountain greenspace. Lastly, staff concluded that a park funding alternative should fund the
development of Tigard's Cache Creek Nature,Park site, which was acquired through the Metro
Greenspaces Program by,funds designated to Tigard and Washington County for the purchase of
greenspaces.
Identified Park and Recreation. Improvements
Based on the above information,-staff concluded that each of the four park funding alternatives
would need to fund the acquisition and development of the park and recreation improvements
described below. Approximately 77%•of the improvements are needed to serve existing
development in the area.
a) Four neighborhood parks, each approximately 2 - 3 acres- insize;
b) BPA powerline linear park trail, approximately 5.4 acres in total area;
0 Powerline pocket parks, totaling approximately 2.5 acres in size;
DRAFT ISSUE.PAPER NO. 16,
Potential Park and Open Space Funding Alternatives
June"28, 2005
Page 6
d) TPL greenspace, approximately 4 acres in size;
e) Development of the 12.15 acre Cache Creek Nature Park site: '
Figure 1•is the BMPCP, developed in 2004 by the city's Bull Mountain. Annexation Parks and.
Open Space Task Force. The BMPCP illustrates 'proposed locations for the four neighborhood
parks, the BPA powerline linear park trail, and the-powerline pocket parks, as well as the
existing location of the Cache Creek Nature Park Site.
Consistent with the Framework Plan and the TUSA,.the character and proposed improvements of
the above park facilities would be consistent with the Tigard Park System Master Plan (TPSMP).
For example, the TPSMP defines greenspaces as areas of natural quality that protect valuable
natural resources and provide wildlife habitat. Per the TPSMP, greenspace improvements would ,
be limited'to features such as trails, picnic areas, and interpretive signs. Similarly, although
nature parks are not listed as a separate category in the TPSMP, staff ha's assumed that the Cache
Creek Nature Park site would retain its wooded character, and would ultimately be improved
with trails and perhaps a small-scale interpretive- center.
On the other hand,, the TPSMP states that the purpose of neighborhood parks and pocket parks is
to provide recreation opportunities. Per the TPSMP and the BMPCP, these types of parks would
feature children's play areas, picnic areas, and sports facilities; that is, they would be developed
to a greater or lesser degree, rather than being retained in their current natural condition, as an
open space area would be retained. Figures 2,.3, 4,'and 5 are the BMPCP illustrative plans for
neighborhood and pocket parks, showing the more developed character of these parks containing
sports. courts. and playground areas.
Identification of potential Bull Mountain park sites.
The next step was determining potential locations for the above facilities. -The TPSMP and
BMPCP identified generalized neighborhood park locations in the north, ISouth, east and west
quadrants of unincorporated Bull Mountain; but did not identify specific•lots as park sites.
However, the city is currently in negotiations to acquire approximately 2 acres of a property
abutting the Cache Creek Nature Park to the north, for a north neighborhood park. The location
of the Cache Creek Nature Park and the potential north, neighborhood park site are shown on
Map B, Generalized. Potential Park Locations. The Generalized Potential Park Locations map
also shows ihe`generalized locations of the south, east, and west neighborhood parks, as per the
TPSMP and BMPCP; and the proposed powerline linear park, which will be coterminous with
the existing BPA easement. Lastly, the' map shows the TPL site, located west of the Cache
Creek Nature Park.
As noted above, specific park sites for the proposed south, east and west neighborhood parks
were not identified in the TPSMP.and BMPCP; those plans identified only generalized
neighborhood park locations. To determine whether potential park sites currently exist in the
generalized locations identified in those plans, staff compared the generalized park locations in
the TPSMP and BMPCP with a current map of vacant and redevelopable lands for the Bull
Mountain area, as well as aerial photos of the Bull Mountain area. Properties were identified as
potential neighborhood park sites if they met the following criteria:
' y y ~ _ cr EDGE
. A'rtN O N ewnAN
® Wl ME
sr ~
® AY I ® ® DR
S 1~ _
XY RD
FIT
Rr ~ J
" G
U I
77,
" NT
L >
p, t,, r l NER T u
u i 1~ ~7 E • ~
ST ~t j S
G S' o J
Z
dNr
f 0
tT
J
O PEACHY
Q \ 1~
h < aN
Dic
DEERGRDVE ROYAL
N ~I
i.n HER go RD
RI M FSCHEF
® RD
R I CT
w
J ~ o RD .
700 0 700 140 Feet
O
BE 9 T rrrT
w'' Tn°e m °a a
croednn. ° zoos.
O eba endure wa lekan /n ka
MAP A: Bull • Mt. Park Study Area
~u y7ryp.
wel2nNaNf.~~w.yiphficaWn
Study Area Bann waD tn" "I M f o& I
a:Iwp4unIP005wN 4ssueMBII5@JI W mes ofintenst.eN DM 6116V5
Unincorporated properties C t t
® excluded from the study area ,
May 9, 2005
1
FIGURE T
r r tool r ~ i
Bull Mountain
Pmposed Part. Concept Plan
- 0 ~ PARK ~ Wh E.FmuY, Sce. -
20.
PARK. .1R F:~s v.
_ PART! UCd n p•d.
" Y ^ _ CREEL
l:ATURC
ATTACHMENT 6
yFa'ji
r
it
PAR ~o
o _
C
A~
`t
_ r ~ ~ qE ST ~
a
. - • \ ; PARK
v .
~l 51.. ° CID
Yi- •
~ • ~ PARK O~UTH a f
:^S .f; 4.. -Hi PARK -e 15)
(G r
ITI En,
.sue 5C0 1?D 0 6,O,w, V (/Q
55 a
rfl
IJ
tJ K, O
°c <
00 t.A vi o~
i
'.DRAFT ISSUE PAPER NO. 16
Potential Park and Open Space Funding'Alternatives
June 28, 2005
Page 9
r ~ y
+ I~. Iii n~. ~1 ~ ~~1 ° • ~ 1! '
a
1 T ~R
1,, •J r;
DRAFT ISSUE PAPER NO. 16,
' Potential Park and Open Space Funding Alternatives
June 28, 2005
Page 10
~Y~. t ~ 'x- 1tiI ~7 5Jryn x}fir L~KI~♦ - ~i '1' .
. ~ ~~•4 - ~ .t•I i .jam • ~'l~~~y C l , .
~ g~• ~ a=rt ~ . at. -
~j pr ~ 7~~76Y Ir l s._+j~ h [ t't u x r _
~ H 7 a a cy~
Q•r~no;: ~ h~, z;~'~;~;; ;fit ; , . • .
r s!'~1~~ ' ~ ~ { yr J.~, ~A ~ r .
:fry
FIGURE 4
~ f~ rr~ rt y) L r t
. - - - • UST~A~TIVS;N•~R~"~QD►I~~ ~'A~
.
r•~~`~~ f .;2iI •Y F -5•V <<~ 2 C%`.. ~"°'L" M ~ I. f+~
' l " s ~~Y ~~lM 't ~"Lx ~N.•ylr,t .
' ~ ) t~ y r•c"'~3S 1•~" .-.3..fn-~~n.;C~~~Ca-(9• 'x ccsuf t _
M
i ' tip: . fi Yi~- ! r~• ~ "7 i" f\t~ y rt ~ S.t - . - _
1...,'' ~7C !"n Swa} - a•.+ •L -':Cf:.v-• i .
6T' L'
' ':•F uyL r~, _ x • _ ~r~?a'=-S`~~.s7.~j : ! ~~wr Z d• ~ I ' r t
j zr6vt n ~i~wis+~•.~ ~!j.yl~.'~.1sRe~- -fP~•/~'t,- yr( - 'TJ'
.a'3.' 1 ,fi ~ •-~-~1`,~{a+»s' ~T+ 3~ - ' r ! -mss
OND _ ( t y Y ,A ~l'~Y•4.~i T~ ~~~c'~RI.t .'s~ ' T~•~. s,.{~,~~• _
' 4 .1~"'~xr91'°"°•t~ Ys6. fi °.is"t-~ r r ,~~'7 t ~ 1 ;.1~. ~ r C.
Vp, .t - f.'tL y= 1 7 A =.T _ 1. 'O V
-4a. Y . i..2 • t
C
y
lit
00
CD <
DRAFT ISSUE PAPER NO. 16
Potential Park and Open Space Funding Alternatives
June 28, 2005
Page 12
.44
t. F-
i• t
3 %valt7;
}
' ~ ~j a'ppp~ r •,~+~a~a'~y''"~ t ~~raz`erh t. rA,S Ln k rte. : '
a i
arm,. , ~ 'i. 4 n' S. v+•F.,... r' ,
~ +5 t
Ar,
v W.1
I
r ~ r 'Y 'ryfe!?b ~jf c 1` jy t 4'r-r
} + }a t
t t ~t{ 1d t niy d;
• a}. i ri t i i~ }--mot
cr EDGE
oJP\~ T o
,rTM 6N1TM.'
® 4ll,Id! ME
sr 1 1 j
~r 1 1 ♦ ® ® OR ~
tt 1 IQ~
sr a
XYRD •
L
NORTH
Neighborhood Park
Cache Creek
Nature Park
c
L U i
ffj
~ T
L
G T u
r WEST H EW W
Neighborhood Park
® E
® E
N
G s
Z EAST
aNr Neighborhood Park
w
r
SOUTH
Neighborhood Park CT
Z E E
~ GEAOMV
PY
Q
a Q ,a
ti DIC ION
DEERGROVEL ROYAL
¢ RD
NI
J RI M ® F SCHEF
RD
~ ~ OT
ER
9 w
co a
J 0
700 0 700 140 Feet.
0
0
w T m T
MAP B: Generalized Potential Park Locations IN,&IPg eerewe,m~,no f .Idl ~M~9,
ewe,. aniss~Yav~,~~,Pr. 7
Study Area Potential Park/Open Space `Ps w.r
x.
s:~»T„n,~.~zooSndi rnVKupra~~iemTi isbw.~rul &...w DM memos
Future City of Tigard Potential Powerline Trail r 5
Nature Park
w/Pocket Parks
May 9, 2005.
DRAFT ISSUE PAPER NO. 16
Potential Park and Open Space Funding Alternatives
June.28, 2005
y Page 14
1) The properties were vacant per the Metro 2004 Vacant Lands Inventory;
2) The properties were at least 3 acres in size or, if less-than 3 acres in size, were part of a
cluster of vacant properties totaling at least 3 acres in size.
3)" For properties with at least 1/2 acre of vacant land, the existing improvements (dwellings and
other structures) were located on the parcel in a.manner that would allow retention of those
improvements if part of the land were partitioned to create a park. Properties in which the'
location of existing improvements precluded park.development (i.e., aerial photos indicated,
that the structures were in the center of the parcel) were eliminated from consideration. -
4) The properties were not-identified as being steeply.sloped on the City of Tigard's map for the
area. More level sites were deemed desirable for neighborhood parks, which would be
improved with playgrounds and/or ball fields.
5) The lands did not have pending development applications or pending annexations before the
City of Tigard
Vacant properties that were. identified as potential park sites are shown on Map C, Potential Park
and'Open Space Sites. Properties that are not completely vacant generally contain single-family
residences. They were designated as redevelopable due to their larger size and potential for '
further subdivision. However, staff recognizes that owners of the vacant lots identified on this
map may be unwilling to sell all or any of their property for park use. In addition, according to
Tigard's Community Development, staff; developers have requested pre-application meetings to
discuss the proposed development of several of.the sites identified on the Potential Park and
Open Space Sites map.• Therefore, the actual number of potential.park sites may be less than that
shown on the Potential Park and Open Space Sites map.`
Staff notes that there are a limited number of vacant sites suitable for neighborhood. parks, .
particularly in the southern quadrant of unincorporated Bull Mountain. In the southern quadrant,
only two partially vacant parcels were identified. The location of these parcels is less than' ideal .
from a neighborhood park site perspective because the parcels are located at a periphery of the
Bull Mountain urban unincorporated area, and are adjacent to the intersection of a collector and
an arterial (intersection of SW 150`• Avenue and SW Beef Bend Road). A park location more ,
central to the southern neighborhood'area and on a neighborhood'street would be preferable.
The number of vacant sites was also limited in the western and.eastem quadrants of
unincorporated Bull Mountain. The western quadrant (area.south of Bull Mountain Road and
..west of the BPA, easement) has approximately six wholly or partially vacant parcels of sufficient
size for neighborhood park sites. The vacant parcels are-located at the western edge of the urban
unincorporated area, abutting the new UGB expansion area'. The eastern quadrant (area south-of
Bull Mountain. Road and east of the BPA easement) has approximately eight wholly or partially
vacant parcels of sufficient size for neighborhood park sites. As noted above, steeply sloped
sites were excluded from consideration as potential park sites. However, even when steeply
sloped sites were excluded, most of the remaining vacant sites are sloping and therefore would
require a degree of grading to be appropriate•for locating a neighborhood park with sports fields.
rr y ~ ' , aT u.'
,;N
w,p
41
1.
a J r
u
1- ai ~i 'P7
t a Yq _Y
W lr .v . ill µ Y" s 1
MWI tY " t:
r'ia v t,
I
1 A" Yt I
t I - s la at t f -
A I'i
y
F' 1
GAARDI~
q~~ Bt3L', -
SYV 6J ( IVPA.d~31'aU°' - 6.v.J..~
t RD'
9
xu
,r
_,O l
\ r
SVIV
13EEF SEND: RD
ti _i
Cif
SS 1 C R
KK~ hi
J
r
Ili 1-flu, 7400 F1,.11
MAP C: Potential Park and Open Space Situ
DRAFT ISSUE PAPER NO. 16
Potential Park and Open Space Funding Alternatives
June 28, 2005
Page 16
PARK COSTS.
Given the park needs identified in the above section, an estimate of park costs is provided below.
Park costs have been divided into two parts: capital costs (acquisition and development) and
ongoing costs (operations, program administration.and maintenance).
Estimate of Capital Costs (Park Planning Acquisition; Development)
Table B depicts the land. acquisition cost and development cost for each proposed.park project.
The total project cost for all parks consisted of the sum of updating the existing park master plan
for the Bull Mt. area, the project cost (land acquisition cost:and development cost for each of the
listed projects), plus the'cost for designing of all projects, plus overhead costs10, which were ,
assumed to be fifteen percent of the total project cost'.'. In addition, the capital cost includes
finance costs, which were calculated by the County's Chief Financial Officer. As shown in
Table B, the estimated total capital cost is $10,581,869. .
Estimate of On-going Costs (Operations & Maintenance)
Currently, staff is developing estimated costs to maintain and,operate the proposed park and
recreation facilities and-open space area identified-on page 5. Since the county is not a park and
recreation provider, the county does not have an existing program from which to calculate these
costs. County staff is working with other area park and recreation providers to develop these
estimated costs. These costs-will be provided in the future through an update of this paper..
Measure 5/50 Issues
County Counsel has noted that Measure 5/50 has implications for how both capital improvement
costs and ongoing costs can be assessed via a county parks LID, county service district, or park
and recreation district. Measure 5150 capped total tax assessment for local government services
other than schools . Under Measure 5150, if capital improvements are assessed before their
completion, the assessment is treated as a property tax. However, if the capital improvements
assessment may be financed over at least 10 years and is assessed after the capital improvements
are completed, it is not treated as a property tax and is not subject to the Measure 5150 tax limits.
For purposes of this paper, staff is: assuming interim financing for two years would be needed to
come up with thecapital for land acquisition and construction of improvements. The cost of
interim financing would be exempt from the Measure 5/50 cap, per ORS 310.140(4), so long as
it is included in the-single post-completion assessment. The capital improvements would be
constructed during the two-year interim financing period. The cost of the capital improvements
would be assessed after.their-construction and may be financed over a 10-year period. These
assessments would be levied and collected outside the property tax system, and would not be
subject to'the limit on property taxes.
10 Overhead costs include management of construction and legal fees.
11 This rate is an estimate provided by the City of Tigard and THPRD. .
DRAFT ISSUE PAPER NO. 16
Potential Park and Open Space Funding Alternatives
June 28, 2005"
Page 17
Table B - Bull Mountain Park Costs
Land Total Land Total
Acquisition Acquisition . Development Development Total Project
Project Acres Cost / Acre Cost Cost / Acre Cost . Cost
North Neighborhood Park
(Water Reservoir site) 3 $95,000 $285,000 $160,000' $480,000 - $765,000
East Neighborhood Park 3 $320,000 $960,000 $160,000 $480,000 $1,440,000
West Neighborhood Park 3 $320,000 $960j000., $160,000 $480,000 $1,440,000
South Neighborhood Park 3 $320,000 $960,000 $160,000 $480,000'. $1,440,000
City of Tigard
Cache Creek Nature Park " 12.15 $0 ownership $52,675 $640,000 $640,000
Powerline Linear Park Trail " 5.36 $0 $1,050,000 $1,050,000
Powerline Pocket Parks 2.5 $300,000 $750,000 $150,000 $375,000 $1,125,000
Greenspace Areas 4 $320,000 $1,280,000 '$260 per l.f.. $1,625 $1,281,625
$9,181,625
Cost to update
Bull Mt. Park Plan $20,000
$9,201,625
Construction
Admin
Costs (15%) $1,380,244
TOTAL
CAPITAL COST $10,581,869
DRAF FISSUE PAPER NO. 16
Potential Park-and Open Space-Funding Alternatives .
June 28, 2005
Page IS
County Counsel has noted that if a Local. Improvement District assessment includes charges for
operations and maintenance (O & M); then those assessments would fall within the Measure 5/50
definition of a tax and would be subject to the constitutional limit of$10 per year per thousand
for local government services other than schools. The existing tax `rate for urban unincorporated
Bull Mountain is $5.97 per year per $1000 of assessed valuation. Therefore, in order for an. LID
assessment for park O & M to comply with the Measure 50 cap; it would be limited to a
maximum of $4.03 per year per thousand of assessed valuation.' A County Counsel memo
(Attachment A) discussing the legal issues associated with LIDS is included'as an attachment to
this issue paper.
COMPARISON OF FUNDING ALTERNATIVES.
Four park funding alternatives (County park LID, county service district, Park and recreation
special service district, and interim county park SDC) are outlined below. The capital and
maintenance cost estimates in Table B were applied to each funding, alternative to arrive at an
assessment estimate for the development of the parks and open space area described in the "Park
Needs" section of this paper., Annual maintenance and operation costs will be provided at a
future date.
County Park LID
A local improvement district (LID) is a means of funding construction, operation and
maintenance of a public improvement. Presently, only one park LID - the Metzger Park LID - .
exists in Washington County. The Metzger Park LID was.formed in the mid-1970s at the
request of the citizens of the Metzger area, to fund the maintenance of the then existing Metzger
Park. The 2004/2005 LID assessment.is $90,500. Fifty-five percent of the LID is funded by
residential development and the remaining 45 % is funded by commercial development (e.g.,
Washington Square).
Chapter 3.20 of the County Code sets forth the standards for LID formation. The County
Counsel memo (Attachment A) describes the process for initiating and approving a county LID.
As discussed in the County Counsel memo, a public hearing for the LID must be held; and
sufficient remonstrance (remonstrance by two-thirds of the•property.owners within the LID) can
halt an LID formation proposal.
An LID may only be used to fund public improvements. The expenses that, may be funded by a
parks LID include park planning, land acquisition, capital, improvements, operation and
maintenance of park facilities, and LID *administration (staff costs for processing assessments,
etc.). Per Chapter 3:20 of the County Code, expenses that cannot be funded by a county park
LID include recreation programs, park rangers for patrols, and privately owned .parks.
In County Counsel's opinion, if a county LID is used as'the funding approach for parks on Bull'
Mountain, the County Code would probably require two separate park LIDS: an LID for park
planning, land acquisition, and park development, and an LID for the• annual operations and
maintenance of the constructed parks.
DRAFT ISSUE PAPER NO. 16
Potential Park and Open Space Funding Alternatives
June 28; 2005
Page 19
For the purposes of this issue paper, staff has assumed that each of the total number of potential
future dwellings within the LID boundary would be assessed for capital.and maintenance costs.
The total number of potential future dwellings is defined as the number of existing dwellings,
plus the total number of parcels that could be created from the existing inventory of vacant land
at the minimum required density per acre. This assessment method is the typical method of
assessment that the County and CWS.have used for other LIDs, such as road and sewer LIDs.
This assessment method is based on benefit and.is assuming that future dwellings,.as well as
existing dwellings, will be obtaining benefit from the proposed local improvement. Map D, Bull
Mountain Vacant Lands, shows the current vacant lands within the Bull Mountain study area.
Under the assessment method described above, the owners of the vacant lands would be assessed
for the potential future dwellings that could.be.placed on the property if it was divided into the
number of parcels allowable under the minimum required density per acre.' For the purposes of
this paper, the assumed minimum density is five dwellings per vacant acre. Based on the park
cost estimates in the previous section, the County's Chief Financial Officer has calculated that
the LID capital cost per parcel would be $2,733, if the capital costs were levied equally to each
of the total potential future dwellings within the study area
County Counsel has noted that in order for an LID to be legally feasible, there must be
demonstrated benefi t to each-of the residents within the proposed LID boundary. For purposesi
of this issue paper, staff has assumed that there would be one LID for the capital improvements
to provide the parks and open space improvements identified on page 5. However, as discussed
in the "Park Needs" section of this paper, sites that are suitable for parks are limited in some
sections of the Bull Mountain study area. Therefore, if the development of parks is precluded in
some sections of the Bull Mountain study area, it may not be possible to demonstrate that
residents of those sections are benefited by the development of parks in other sections of the Bull
Mountain area. As a result, depending on what lands are available for park development, a series
of smaller LIDs may be needed for each of the proposed parks, rather than one LID for
development of all parks within the study area..
Count Special Service District
County special service districts (county service districts) are•regulated by the requirements of
' ORS 451. They are county service districts established to provide service facilities in a county
or counties. Formation•of a county service district is initiated by petition., County service
districts include Clean Water Services, ESPD, URMD, and SDL. The proposed Atfalati
Recreation District, which was not approved by the voters in•2000, was proposed as a county
service district. Unlike a park and recreation district, described below, a county service district
does not have 'a separate board; it, is governed by the elected board of the county that establishes
the county service district.
A county service district for parks can fund public parks and recreation facilities and recreation
programs, including land. acquisition, park and•recreation facility development, maintenance and
operation of facilities, and administration of a recreation services program. A County Counsel
memorandum which discusses legal issues. associated with the county formation of a county
service district for parks will be provided through an update of this paper.
tn--Vacant. Lands
..Map gull
- o ~ dune .27' 2005
• ~ ~ ~ aoo. .
Vacant L and* o 900 Feet
Study Area.
vento
Metro's 2004 Vacant Lands Inry
ttom~,•,
k~ ® *Vacant Lands of from
removed.
with the following ent.application
® - submitted developr tract]
common o ublic a~gencY or utility
_ owned by p
m
• EN. Hitj
EMB
9JEB
o o
RD"
DRAFTISSUE PAPER NO. 16
Potential Park and. Open Space Funding Alternatives
June 28, 2005
Page 21
A county service district has several potential means to raise funds, including selling bonds,
setting tax rates, forming LIDS, establishing SDCs, or using a combination of these.funding
approaches to achieve its funding. objectives. However, for the purposes of this issue paper, staff
has assumed the-following: a) that a county service district would achieve its funding objectives
by an initial sale of bonds and the setting of tax rates to pay off that debt; and b) that the-funding
objectives would be park acquisition and maintenance, and would not include recreation
programs. Based on these assumptions, and using the estimated capital improvement costs and
operations/maintenance costs described in the previous section, the County's Chief Financial
Officer calculated the tax rates that would have to be levied.on assessed value to cover the
annual debt service for both .a 10-year and a 20-year bond. For a 10-year bond, a tax rate of
$1.65 per year per $1000 per year would be, required to fund Bull Mountain's park needs; for a
20-year bond, a tax rate of $1.02 per year per $1000 would be required. Both) of the above tax
rate scenarios would be beneath the Measure 5/50 limit of $10 per year per $1000-of assessed
valuation when added to the existing tax rate of $5.97 per year-per $1000.
Staff compared the above tax rate with the proposed tax rate for the Atfalati Recreation District,
a county service district proposed in 2000 but not approved by voters. The Atfalati Recreation
District proposed the funding of park facility construction, maintenance, and recreational
programs in the Tigard and Tualatin area. The proposed tax rate was $0.75 per $1000 of,
assessed value. However, approximately 1/3 of.the Atfalati expenditures in the proposed budget
were to fund recreational programs. Correspondingly, reducing the tax rate by 1/3 to omit the
recreational program component would result in a proposed tax rate of $0.50 per $1000-of
assessed value.
ABull Mountain county service district for parks, if formed, would differ from the Atfalati •
Recreation District in a couple of respects. One key difference would be the size of the district
the Bull Mountain area is significantly smaller than the area that was covered under the Atfalati
Recreation District. The proposed Atfalati District also included commercial and industrial
development, similar to the Metzger Park LID. The other-key difference is that staff is assuming
that a Bull Mountain county service district for parks would fund park acquisition, development,
and maintenance only, and would not fund recreation programs.:
Park and Recreation.Special Service District
Park and recreation special•service districts (park districts) are regulated by the requirements of
ORS 266. Districts are municipal corporations formed by communities to provide park and.
recreation facilities for the inhabitants. Formation of a park district is initiated by petition. An
example of such a District is the Tualatin Hills Park and Recreation District.
While the Board of County Commissioners would be'the governing board for a county parks
LID or a county 451 service district, a park district would be governed by a separate board,
independent of the county, and would typically have its own director or general manager. A park
district can also fund park land acquisition, park development, park, operations and maintenance,
and recreation programs.
DRAFT ISSUE PAPER NO. 16
Potential Park and Open Space Funding Alternatives
June 28, 2005 ,
Page 22
Like a county service district, a 'park district has several potential means 'to raise Rinds, including
selling bonds, setting tax rates, forming LID'S, establishing SDCs; or using a combination of
these funding approaches. However, for the purposes of this issue paper, staff also has assumed
that a park district would achieve its funding objectives by an initial sale of bonds and the setting
of tax rates proposed for a county service district. In addition, staff has assumed that the funding
objectives would be park' acquisition and maintenance, and would not include recreation
programs. Based on these assumptions, and using the estimated capital improvement costs and
operations/maintenance costs described in the previous section, the County's Chief Financial
Officer calculated the tax rates that would have to be levied on assessed value.to cover the
annual debt service for both a 10-year and a 20-year bond. For a 10=year bond, a tax rate of .
$1.65 per year per $1000 per year would be required to fund Bull Mountain's park needs; for a
20-year bond, a tax rate of $1.02 per year per $1000 would be required. Both of.the above tax .
rate scenarios would•be beneath the Measure 5150 limit of $10 per year per $1000 of assessed .
valuation when added to the existing tax rate of $5.97 per year per $1000;
Interim County Park SDC
A park and recreation system development charge (SDC) is a method -by which new
development is charged a fee to fund the acquisition and.construction, of park and open space
land and recreational facilities needed to serve new development. A park SDC cannot pay for the
operation and maintenance of facilities, recreation programs and capital improvements to correct
existing deficiencies for existing development'.
In the spring of 2004, Washington County proposed an interim park. SDC for the urban
unincorporated Bull Mt. area. The park SDC was based upon the City of Tigard's Park Master
Plan and the city's park SDC methodology report and SDC rates..Tigard's Park Master Plan and
SDC report both addressed the Bull Mt. area..In March 2005; the Board-rejected the proposed
park SDC because it no longer, reflected Tigard's current park SDC methodology report and
rates. Tigard updated both in' December 2004 to address increased land acquisition and
construction costs.
The county also proposes to amend Policies 15 arid'33 of the Framework Plan to make it possible.
for the county to adopt an interim park SDC in the•Tigard and Hillsboro Urban Service Areas.
Policy 33.currently requires the designated park provider (Tigard in the. Bull Mt. area) to place
an annexation plan on the ballot before a county park SDC could be adopted. Ordinance 632
proposes to amend Policy 33 to allow the county to adopt an interim park SDC,for urban
unincorporated territory when the identified future park•provider has placed or committed to
place an annexation measure on the'ballot. The public hearing was continued to July 19, 2005
due to ongoing discussions. about the Bull Mt. area and pending legislation. If Ordinance 632 is
adopted by the Board, a new interim county park SDC, based upon Tigard's new park.SDC T
methodology repori,and SDC rates, could be considered •iri the future.
As.a practical matter, if an interim county park SDC is approved for the Bull Mountain area, the
county won't be able to immediately move forward on park land acquisition, planning or
development until such time as sufficient funds for the acquisition,. planning and development
are collected via the SDC. 4f a park SDC is, approved, it is not clear, how quickly funds would
DRAFT ISSUE PAPER NO. 16
Potential Park and Open Space Funding Alternatives
June 28, 2005
Page 23
accrue as this depends on the rate that development occurs. However, it should be noted that the
total potential revenue that could be collected from all new development from an interim county
SDC would be $3,753,000, based upon the use of Tigard's updated SDC methodology report and'
rates. This revenue would fund park improvements that are needed as a result of new
development.
Currently,, there are approximately 200 vacant acres in the proposed Bull Mt. park service
boundary. Assuming a minimum residential density of 5 units per acre 12, the total number of
additional future Bull Mountain dwellings would be 1,000., Using Tigard's existing single
family SDC rate for the area, $3,753 for each new residence, an interim county park SDC at this
point in time could potentially generate $3,753,000• over. time (assuming full build-out).
wpshare\2005ord\work program\issue papers Bull Mt\IP 16\IP 16-park funding_final draft 6-28-05
12 The average density of new development in the Bull Mt. area is 4.8 units/acre.
f
i ATTACHMENT' A ,
Coun
f W,ashffigton'
tY
Inter-Department Correspondence
DATE: J e 22, 2005
TO: VreftWa Ric , 'or Planner
FROM: Skur 1, Sr. Assistant County Counsel
SUBJECT: . PARK LID LEGAL QUESTIONS
This memo responds to legal questions posed in your memo of April 6, supplemented by, issues,
we have discussed since then. I understand you will use this as an attachment to your white
paper to the Board of County Commissioners on Bull Mountain park funding options. Please
note this is a general summary, based on current statutes and county code, but does not include
full legal discussion or complete citations to authority. I understand that you will address .
separately the estimated cost" of various options, and that Chris Gilmore will review limits to the
County's role'regarding parks as expressed in planning ordinances, policies, or other documents.
1. LEGAL REQUIREMENTS AND PERMISSIBLE SCOPE OF AN LID. Local Improvement
Districts ("LIDS") maybe formed under County Code chapter 3.20, for the construction, and
maintenance of public improvements. Under countycode, the LID mechanism is not available to
fund other costs that might be'necessaryor desirable to provide a complete program relating to
parks, such as recreation programs, and park staff other.than as needed for operation and
maintenance ("OW') of public improvements. LIDS may not be used to fund private parks, as
they are available only for public improvements.
LID Procedure. LIDS may be initiated upon the Board's own motion or by petition by
(51%) of property owners. Upon initiation, the Board directs staff to prepare and file a reporton
' the proposed public improvement,.including.a map, description of the improvement, costs,
benefited properties, and a proposed.method of assessment. Notice is then provided to all
affected property owners; and the. Board conducts a hearing and determines whether or not to
proceed with improvements. If remonstrances are received from two-thirds of the affected
properties, further proceedings must be suspended or terminated. Under.county code, an LID for
O&M probably would have to be separate from the capital improvement LID. Similar
procedures apply to formation of both types -of LIDS.
LID Assessments and Benefits. The legal basis for assessments is a determination of
benefit to private property, due to construction or.0&M of a local public improvement. In
general, all private property within the Bull Mountain area -.both. improved and unimproved -
could be determined to benefit from new park facilities. If facilities were built, and determined
to' benefit all properties in the area, it would be legally feasible to charge the entire cost to
Joanne Rice, Senior Planner
June 21, 2005
Page 2.
benefited properties. 'Depending on the circumstances, the Board could choose'to create
multiple LIDs and assess only`ihe property located close to a particular neighborhood park.
A System Development Charge ("SDC") funding method would have to operate differently, in
that it could not charge all benefited property. The SDCs discussed to date for the Bull
Mountain area are "improvement charges,.or charges for park facilities to be built.
Improvement SDCs maybe charged only for the."impact of growth," that is, charged to new
development following adoption of an SDC ordinance, not to existing development. The SDC
improvement charge, may not be used to fully remedy an existing deficiency in parks of the entire
area. In.contrast to LID funding, however, SDCs could be collected prior to acquisition or
construction of park improvements, and would not require interim financing.
2. LID FINANCING/ M5/50 ISSUES. The legislation implementing Measures 5 and 50
(section I 1 b, Article XI of the Oregon Constitution), affects LIDs as traditionally used -by
Washington County. A single assessment for a completed public improvement, which can be
repaid'over ten or more years, is exempt from the definition of a property tax and thereby exempt
from M5/50 tax limits. LID assessments for public park acquisition and improvements could be
levied outside the M5/50 limit. However, an.LID for purposes of maintaining the facilities (i.e.,
annual assessments) would not meet the above tests; and would be subject to the M5/50 limit on
taxes. To the extent a park LID assessment, plus non-school taxes exceeds $10.00 per thousand
assessed value, taxes in the area would be subject to compression. The County historically has
collected assessments for road maintenance LIDs.through the tax rolls. (Delinquent installment
payments also can be collected in this manner.) While additional legal and financial analysis
would be needed to determine the feasibility of an LID for.park O&M purposes, this funding
method probably is available to the extent it is;used solely for operation and maintenance of.the .
public improvement:
If an LID is formed for public park acquisition or capital improvement, I assume the Board '
would choose to structure the assessments to be within the M5/50 exemption from property "
taxes., To be exempt, the assessment must occur after the public improvement is completed.
This means that interim. financing would have to be secured for the cost of acquisition, design,
and construction, to be repaid by assessments upon completion of the work. While the cost of
interim financing can be recovered through assessments, an initial source of funds would have to
be identified. This could be through an internal county loan, or possibly market financing.
3. IMPACT OF ANNEXATION. Assuming that the Local Improvement District public
improvement project is complete- and assessed as of the.date of annexation, the assessments
would be liens on the property or assessment contracts in favor of the County. Either type of
obligation would be binding on the property owner and would survive annexation.' The answer is
less clear in the'case of an annual assessment for'maintenance.
The rationale for levying annual O&M assessments is that the County would maintain
responsibility for O&M of the park. Once an area is annexed to a city or district, responsibility
for local parks is generally understood to transfer to the city or district. County code contains no
. i
Joanne Rice, Senior Planner
June 21, 2005
Page 3.
provision to transfer assessments to a city upon annexation. The O&M funding decision could
be complex if part - but not all - of the affected' area is annexed, and the remaining area is not
sufficient to support the original level of O&M through assessments. If the County intends to
proceed with an LID for park maintenance, it is recommended that this issue be addressed with
the City. In the most analogous situation, in which the County maintains local roads through
MLIDs or the URMD, neither assessments nor property taxes for local roads have been'levied by
the County following annexation. Under current statutes and county code, maintenance
assessments would'not transfer from the County to the. City upon annexation. If the park itself
was transferred to the City, the County would be relieved of maintenance responsibility, and
would not continue annual assessments for-that purpose.
4. OTHER FUNDING MECHANISMS.. The City of Tigard,- an ORS Chapter 451 county
service district, and an ORS Chapter 266 park and recreation district, could provide funding for
park acquisition and operation under certain circumstances. The City does not include the entire
Bull. Mountain area within its territory. It. is beyond the scope of this analysis to detail the extent
and limits of the city's authority to act regarding parks outside its boundaries. If property is
annexed to the city, Tigard would have the full range. of funding options; including property tax,
SDC, LID, and user charges. A county service district and park and recreation district would
have similar authority, but no such district now exists in the Bull Mountain area.
c: Suzanne Savin
Chris Gilmore
05-1189
WASHINGTON COUNTY
OREGON
June 28, 2005
DRAFT
PLANNING DIVISION
ISSUE PAPER.NO. 17
Decreasing Residential: Densities in the
Urban Unincorporated Bull Mountain Area
Issue
Through the Planning Division's 2005 work program, the Board of County Commissioners
(Board) directed staff to prepare seven issue papers about planning and park issues in the urban
unincorporated Bull Mt. area.- Issue.Paper 17 examines the possibility of reducing the existing
planned density in the urban unincorporated Bull Mt. area. This issue paper also addresses recent
comments from Bull Mt. residents relating to density.
Recommendation
Use planning Alternative 4 to address Bull Mt. residents' request to reduce the current planned
densities in the Bull Mi. Community Plan (BMCP). Alternative-4 would update the community
plan in conjunction with Tigard's comprehensive plan update and Tigard 's planning~gf the. UGB
expansion areas..
Staff recommends Alternative 4 because it provides the greatest opportunity to reallocate density .
from the Bull Mt.. area.
Summary
This paper looks at a number of issues associated with density in order to examine how.density, .
from urban-unincorporated Bull Mt. might be reallocated to, another urban area. The areas this
paper consider to be potentially available.to transfer density to are the City of Tigard and the
Bull Mt. UGB Expansion Areas 63 and 64. Tigard said it would consider the possibility of
reallocating density to its downtown area by updating the Bull Mt. Community Plan in
conjunction with its update of its comprehensive plan..'
a .
A review of Washington County's Comprehensive Plan, including the Bull Mt. Community
Plan, shows the urban unincorporated area north of Beef Bend Road this is now zoned R-7, was
explicitly designated and intended to develop to R-6 densities, five to six units an acre. A review '
of subdivision applications in the area shows that the average density of these developments to
be 4.8 units an acre:
Staff identified four possible alternatives to reduce the existing planned density in the Bull Mt.
area. The only county led planning process, Alternative 3, that could potentially lead to reduced
densities includes the planning of Areas 63 and 64 where density from Bull Mt. is proposed to be
reallocated. However, staff found that if the Bull Mt. area was rezoned to the county's least
dense single family land use district, the R-5 District, there could only be a slight reduction in
density compared to what is currently permitted under Tigard's R-7 District.'
Department of Land Use & Transportation Planning Division
155 N First Avenue; Suite 350-14,. Hillsboro, OR 97124-3072
Phone: (503 ,-846-3519 • Fax: (503) 846-4412 • wwwxo.washington.or:us
DRAFT ISSUE PAPER NO. 17
Bull Mountain Density
June 28; 2005
Page 2
The two city led planning processes, Alternatives 2 and 4, provide the opportunity to transfer
density from the Bull Mt. area. Alternative 2 provides the potential to transfer density to Tigard
through .a combined planning program to update the Bull Mt. Community Plan with the city's.
update of its comprehensive plan. Alternative 4, which also includes the city planning Areas 63
and 64, provides the best opportunity to transfer density from Bull Mt. because there are two
potential areas to reallocate density to, with Areas 63 and 64 likely being able to accept more =
density than areas in the existing city limits. Each alternative requires the. replacement of
Tigard's R-7 District with one or more of Tigard's four low density single family districts, the R-
1, R-2, R-3.5 and R-4.5 Districts. The density requirements of each of the districts is less than the
R-7 District and the county's single family districts, the R-6 and R-5 Districts.
Through staff's analysis of the city and county's density requirements, staff found that the key
factor that would determine how much density could be transferred from Bull Mt: is the land use
districts that would take.the place of Tigard's current R-7 District. The city and county-use
different methods to calculate density, Tigard's method, which is based upon net buildable area,
allows less density than-the county's comparable land use districts allow. Consequently, the use
of the county's R-6 District would not reduce density and the use of the county's R-5 District
would only slightly lower the density.
Another important factor that must be considered is Measure 37. M-37 requires compensation for
land use regulations that reduce the value of property when the land use regulation was adopted
after the current property. owner or family mcmber acquired the property. In lieu of
compensation, the government agency that adopted the regulation may waive the regulation and
permit development under the prior land use requirement:
Due to M-37, there.is no certainty that all properties will develop according to existing or future
planed densities. For example, if the density of some parcels in Bull Muare reduced through
one of the alternatives .identified in this paper, the current property owners may have the right to
file a M-37 claim under the, prior R-7 designation. Citizen desires for lower density might
conflict with some property owners desires-to maximize their property value. Any planning,
process to reduce current planned densities should carefully address this issue and involve
owners of vacant property early in the process. M-37 makes the density issues on Bull Mt. much
more complicated. -
Background
At the Board's request, the Planning Division has prepared seven issue papers that address
planning and park issues associated with the urban unincorporated Bull Mt. area, Five issue
papers address density, parks, planning the Bull Mt. UGB expansion areas, and amendments to
the Washington County / Tigard Urban Planning Area Agreement. The seventh issue paper (IP
14) addresses CPO 4B's request for a public facility strategy / development moratorium for the
Bull Mt. area.
In December 2004, the Board and the Tigard City Council (Council) held a joint meeting to
discuss a number of issues about the Bull Mt. area that had been raised by area. residents. The
i
L
DRAFT ISSUE PAPER NO. 17
Bull Mountain Density
June 28, 2005
Page 3
Board and the Council expressed a desire to work together to develop a planning program:that
could address residents' concerns, primarily through the upcoming planning efforts of the city.
The Council indicated the city would in,the near future begin the following planning activities:
1) update the comprehensive plan, for its downtown area [underway], 2) update-its park master
plan, and 3) update its comprehensive plan. At that time the Council also said it may be
interested in examining if Bull Mt. density could be transferred to the city through its
comprehensive plan update.
At the conclusion of the meeting, the Board directed the county Planning Division to prepare, in
consultation with Tigard, issue papers on park planning and funding (Issue Papers I5.and 16), the
potential to decrease density in the Bull Mt. area (Issue Paper 17), updating the Bull Mt.
• Community Plan (Issue Paper 18) and planning the Bull Mt. UGB expansion areas (Issue"Paper
21). The Board also asked staff to include an•assessment. about how to address these issues in
conjunction with Tigard's update of its comprehensive plan and park master plan, and planning .
the Bull Mt. UGB expansion Areas 63 and 64.
Jim Hendryx, Tigard's Community Development Director, said recently that the Council is
interested in doing the comprehensive planning for the UGB expansion areas as well as updating
the Bull Mt. Community, Plan. This work would include an examination of transferring density
N
from Bull Mt. to the city andAhe UGB expansion areas. If approved, the city would do this work
in conjunction with the city's. upcoming update of.its comprehensive plan.
'The request by many Bull Mt. residents' to reduce planned density in the Bull Mt. area is
different than the request by Washington County's Committee for Citizen Involvement (CCI) to
allow Washington County's review authority to restrict the density of proposed development
between the minimum and maximum allowed densities. For a number of reasons, staff
recommended to the Board in Issue Paper 4 that such a restriction should not be incorporated in
the Community Development Code (CDC).' The Board concur•red.with staff's recommendation
and consequently the proposed change is not considered at this time. Please see Issue Paper 4 for
further information about this particular CCI request.
Planning History
The first zoning, for the Bull Mt. area was adopted by Washington County in 1959 (northern
area) and 1961 (southern area). These areas included what is now the city of Tigard. The first,
Beginning in 2003, the CCI identified a number of proposed amendments to the Community Development Code
through the Community Participation Organizations (CPO). In early 2005, staff prepared 10 issue papers that
addressed the top priorities of the CPOs identified in the"CCI's Code Task Report.
Z The CDC contains Washington County's development..standards and review procedures for new development.
DRAFT ISSUE PAPER NO. 17
Bull Mountain Density
June 28, 2005
Page 4
land use districts in the area were F-1 (Agricultural), R-30 (Residential with a minimum lot size
of 30,000 square feet) and R-20 (Residential with a minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet). In
1973, Washington County adopted its first comprehensive plan. The comprehensive plan
designation for the Bull Mt. area was Urban Intermediate3.-The accompanying zoning.. designation was RS-1 -suburban residential. The minimum lot size of the RS-1 District was
40,000 square feet. However, 20,000 square lots could be created when public water was
available with sewer or an approved septic system. In 1983, Washington County adopted a new
comprehensive plan, which applied the first urban comprehensive plan and land use designations
to the Bull Mt. area. The county's current land use designations, community plans and the CDC
were adopted through the 1983 Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan).
Washington County Comprehensive Plan
M 1983, the county adopted a new comprehensive plan in order to comply with the Statewide
Planning Goals and their implementing administrative rules (OARS): Washington County's
Comprehensive Plan was acknowledged by the Oregon Land Conservation and Development
Commission (LCDC) to be in compliance with the Statewide Planning Goals and OARs on
October 7, 1983. LCDC also found the Comp-Plan to be in compliance with these requirements
when LCDC's completed its periodic review of it in the early 1990s. The.Comp Plan continues
to apply today to unincorporated Washington County, except in the Bull Mt. area where
Washington County adopted Tigard's comprehensive plan.
The Comp Plan addresses all of unincorporated Washington County, including the'rural and.
urban unincorporated areas. The Comp Plan includes eleven community plans, including the
BMCP, covering urban unincorporated Washington County. For many areas of the county,
including the Bull Mt. area, the Comp. Plan applied the first urban land use designations to those
areas.'
Key elements of the Comp Plan are:
• Comprehensive Framework Plan for the Urban Afea.(Fraunework Plan)
Community Plans
• Rural/Natural Resource-Plan
• Community Development Code (CDC)
• Transportation Plan
The Framework Plan addresses the present and future needs of urban unincorporated Washington
County. It established the countywide policies and strategies that are the. framework of the
county's urban land use program. The community plans carry out the Framework Plan's
countywide policies and strategies to specific geographic areas. The CDC implements the
Framework Plan, the. Transportation Plan and certain community plan requirements through the
creation•of development standards and review procedures that are designed. to apply countywide.
3 The Urban Intermediate Comprehensive Plan designation was applied to areas of the county designated to be
developed to urban densities over a 20 to 40 year time frame.
DRAFT ISSUE PAPER NO. 17,
Bull Mountain Density
June 28,.2005
Page 5
Bull Mountain Community Plan'
The BMCP: plan addresses the uiban'unincorporated areas between Barrows Road and the
Tualatin River. Although the title of the community plan is Bull Mt.; it also: addresses the
unincorporated area south of Beef Bend Road more commonly referred to as the King City area.
The estimated 1980 population of the plan area was 2,158 and the original community plan
boundary contained 2,047 acres. More than half.of the area was determined to be buildable
1,290 acres4.
At the time the BMCP was adopted, the Bull Mt. Community Planning, Area-was considered to .
be largely undeveloped. The BMCP characterized the area as:
"The Bull Mountain Community Planning Area is -largely undeveloped at .,this this time. Some'
large lot, residential subdivisions are, scattered along the crest of the mountain off Bull'
Mountain, Road; a few more'exist along SW 150th Avenue and at the foot of the north slope
around Fern Street. Mobile 'homes and multi family dwellings are located south of Fischer
Road The only commercial activity in the Planning Area is .located along Pacific Highway
southeast of King City. There is no industrial activity. Most of the. area - almost 90 percent of
the buildable land - consists of farms, forests, vacant land and rural homes,.
The urban unincorporated Bull Mt. area is identified by.the" BMCP as the Summit and Slopes
Subarea. Most of.the area north of Beef Bend Road was.designated R-6. However,-higher
' . . " densities were placed along the arterial corridors in-.the area to; take advantage of these roads and
possibly future bus service. The corridor south of Barrows Road was designated R-24; R-15 and
R-9 and a small area on the north side of Beef Bend. Road was designated R-15.. The Summit and
Slopes. states: "the land form between SW Beef Bend Road and Scholls Ferry Road is designated '
primarily for low density residential use at a maximum -of 6 units per acre..". The land use.
designations in the area south of Beef Bend Road, identified as°the Southern Lowlands Subarea,.
were all higher residential districts - R-9, R-15,.R-245..
.Table A (page, 6) shows the distribution of the land use designations in , e I riginal community
plan boundary. A copy of the original community plan map is shown. on-page 7.
Since 1983, the land use designation of only.one property-in the ,original BMCP boundary has
been changed. The Neighborhood Commercial site at the southeast corner of the Beef
Bend/0 1st intersection was changed to R-15:~Since 1983, a significant number of properties .
have annexed to Tigard and:King•City: Beginning in 1986,'589. acres north of Beef Bend Road
have annexed to Tigard and 364 acres south of Beef Bend Road have 'artnexed to King City:
Since 1983, the BMCP was amended to incorporate land that Metro added to the Urban Growth
Boundary (UGB). Currently, in the area north of Beef Bend Road there are approximately only
200 vacant acres 6, compared to more than 1000 acres, in •1986. '
_ ° Excluded power line easements, drainage areas and steep slopes.
5 The 1983 Comp Plan•created, four multi-family land use districts.:The density requirements of each district are: R-9
~7 - 9 units/acre); R-15•(12 - 15 units/acre); R-24 (19 - 24 units/acre); R725 (20 100 units/acre
Properties with an approved or pending,development application were not considered to be vacant. ,
DRAFT ISSUE PAPER NO. 17
Bull Mountain Density
June 28, 2005•
Page 6
Table A
Distribution ,of Land Use Designations
in the 1983. Bull Mt Community Plan
OR =H I -do
N Bu(r t s~e lam' 18.3 18.3
• e^'Aar '-tt -
1 _ 1426.7 1426.7
257.8 165.8 92.0
`i 194.8 130.6 . 64.3
118.1'' 84.1 34.0
e[ 7.9 7.9
18.5
~j ffiy 4.9 2.5 2.5
Total Acres 2047.0 1827.9 217.1
•
Bull Mt. Community. Plan
1983 Land Use Designations
BULL MOUNTAIN..
COMMUNITY PLAN
MST. a
Asa S .
r .ilr 8 -L -
f Jt S- T- ` ` t I^ - - '4 r-- ti
r , I .h
' SIN
5C ALE
RA\194- AREA OOtl.LARV
a1Y LP(T ~r sa. s .
TRM6VORTAT" CLASSMATION
LAND USE DISTRICTS E. _
R-s
_ - tl[Mp[M~YI .11~T1 IO ACt r .gl/t1l.1pt41 - S~- - .
DRAFT ISSUE PAPER NO. 17 .
Bull Mountain Density
June 28, 2005
Page'8
Twice land was .added"west.of 131st Avenue and south of Beef Bend Road. The majority, of this
area has since annexed to King City. Most recently, in 2002, Metro added 484 acres west of the
original boundary of the BMCP, between Scholls Ferry and Beef Bend Roads. This area is
currently designated FD-20 - Future Development 20 acres. The future planning of this area is
discussed in Issue Paper 18. A map of the current status of the BMCP is on the following page.
State acid, Regional Planning Requirements
The comprehensive plans of all of Oregon's counties and cities must comply with the Statewide
Planning Goals, including Goal 10 - Housing and Goal 14 - Urbanization. They require
constrained urban growth boundaries, more efficient use of urban land in order to protect farm
and forest land, and more cost effective and efficient use of public facilities and services. The
result includes smaller lots, more attached dwellings and more compact development.
In the-Portland Metro Area, counties and cities must also comply with the Metropolitan Housing'
Rule and Metro's Urban Growth Management Functional Plan: (Functional Plan). The Metro
Housing Rule, contains specific. Goal 10 implementation requirements for the Portland Metro .
area. Title 1 of the Functional Plan includes housing requirements'for the accommodation of
future housing until 2017. Key requirements of the Metro. Housing Rule and Title. I are described
below.
Metropolitan'Housing Rule
Key requirements for Washington County and cities with a population of 2;500 or more persons:
• Washington County and its cities must provide the'opportimity for at least'50% of new
residential dwellings to be attached single family (town house), or multi-family housing
(apartments). This requirement will be referred to the "50:50 split" in this paper.
• The overall minimum density requirements for vacant land that Washington County and. its
cities must provide for: „
- Tigard, Hillsboro and. Beaverton - ten dwellings units per net buildable acre
- Urban unincorporated Washington County'-.eight dwellings units per net buildable acre
- Forest Grove, Tualatin and Wilsonville - eight dwellings units per net acre _
- Cornelius, Durham and. Sherwood - six dwellings units per net acre
The geographic areas within which the county and each city had to meet.the rule's required
overall minimum density requirements were defined in 1980' The rule requires that as properties.
are annexed to a city over time,'the county's minimum density requirement for those properties
must be maintained by the city. The rule does not require Beaverton, Hillsboro and Tigard to add
two additional dwelling units per acre of annexed'property. Conversely, as properties annex. to a
city with adensity requirement less than eight units/acre, such as King City, the city must
maintain the county's minimum density so that there will not bean overall loss of planned
density in the county.
Oregon Administrative Rule 660-007
rr,unity Plan
Dorn "Deis9natians' .
gull t
9 Land Use
Ex►s
' ru r~ if "
_ ®~$y~y,~(~~,~{~~~,f..j~~fff{{{~~{fff~{fQ~~~,f{}fjffII® ~~,s• a~~~~4.t-,d,y b ~ g I
YaY
C kr, g 1 ~ ,iy ,
1 :.'Ft6 D
91~N
440 ro"t ro d #p.N 611ppi
.
yam, C; .
700 FD20.
R24
• ~ RyFtA.S ~ CBD Ccrdes Boundary
A+'n'unrtY Man
h R61R7 1NS1
R91R12
R15tR25
DRAFT ISSUE PAPER NO. 17
Bull Mountain Density
June 28, 2005
Page 10
The 1983 Comp Plan was developed to comply with the Metro Housing Rule. To provide an
average density of eight dwelling units per net vacant acre, the overall planned density of urban
unincorporated Washington County had to be increased. To do this' the county increased the. „
overall density of its single family land use districts and increased the density of many areas of
the unincorporated area.
Comp Plan Growth Allocations
Based upon the requirements of the Metro Housing Rule and future needs for commercial and
industrial uses, the county developed' a countywide growth allocation for residential, commercial
and industrial uses based upon the, initiafplanning analysis.prepared.by staff and then approved
by the Board of County Commissioners. The allocations we're applied to the various
communities in the urban unincorporated area, now known as community planning areas. The
county used a deliberate and comprehensive public process to develop the growth allocation and
then again when it was carried out through the development of individual community plans. The
analysis to develop the growth allocation considered a number of factors, including the amount
and location of existing vacant land, the general natural character of areas (topography, flood
plain,,drainage hazard areas), transportation accessibility', and the prevailing character of each
area and surrounding communities.
The'community planning areas that were allocated the most density were areas: .
• with large amounts of vacant land
• located within close proximity to-
- major transportation corridors (e.g., Hwy. 26, TV Hwy., 185th Ave., Scholls Ferry Road)
- corridors with the best opportunity for transit service (bus and light rail)
- employment and shopping areas
• with limited constrained lands (flood plain, drainage hazard areas, slopes of 25% or more) .
• areas generally with flat or moderate slopes.
The community planning areas with the most,vacant land were Aloha-Reedville-Cooper Mt. with
3,012 acres, Sunset West with 4,238 acres and Cedar Hills-Cedar Mill with 2,055 acres. They
were also the planning areas that were allocated the most residential dwellings units' Sunset
West with 20,634 units, Aloha-Reedville-Cooper Mt. with 19,648 units, and Cedar Hills-Cedar
Mill with 12,711 units.
The community planning areas with the highest multi-family dwelling unit allocation were the .
Sunset West, Aloha-Reedville-Cooper Mt., and Cedar Hills-Cedar Mill planning areas. They
accounted for 80%u of the total multi-family units in the urban unincorporated area and 42% of
all dwellings units in the urban unincorporated area. .
Although the Bull Mt. planning area had a significant amount of vacant land, its overall
allocation was relatively small due to the steep slopes north of Beef Bend Road. With a total of
1,285 vacant acres of residential land, the final allocation to this planning area was 10,652
dwelling units. The density. distribution *in the Bull Mt. planning area placed the majority of the
dwellings in the two arterial corridors in the. area, Barrows and Beef Bend Road, and in the flat
DRAFT ISSUE PAPER NO. 17
Bull Mountain Density
June 28, 2005
Page 11
lands south, of Beef Bend Road. through the designation of multi-family units. in these less steep
areas. The steepest areas in the planning area were designated low density residential with
development at no more than 6 units per acre. The residential allocation to the planning area is:
Area North of Beef Bend Road
• Low density residential (R-6) 708 vacant acres 2,658 dwelling units
• Multi-family residential 381 vacant acres 5,334 dwelling units
(R-9; R-15, R-24)
Subtotals 1,089 vacant acres 7,992 dwelling units .
Area South of Beef Bend Road
• Low density residential 0 vacant acres 0 dwelling units
Multi-family residential 190 vacant acres 2,660 dwelling units
(R-9, R-15, R-24)
Subtotals 190 vacant acres 2,660 dwelling units
TOTALS 1,279 vacant acres 10,652 dwelling units
The allocation breakdown in the Bull Mt. planning area is:
North area
Low density residential: 33% of units in the. north area, 25% of total units in planning area
• .Medium density 67% of units in the north area, 50% of total units in planning area
South area
• L'ow`density residential: no allocation
• 'Medium density, 100%0 of units in the,south area; 25% of total units in planning area
The land use designations north of Beef Bend Road resulted in an overall planned density of
vacant lands in the area at approximately six units/acre. These designations also did not provide
the opportunity for 50% of new dwellings in the to be town houses; condominium or multi-
family dwellings. The higher densities on vacant land south of Beef Bend Road resulted in an
overall density of approximately 12, units/acre in the area and provided the opportunity for all
new dwellings to be attached units .
1983 Comp Plan Residential Land Use Designations
The Comp Plan'created six urban residential land use districts to take the place of its previous 12
residential districts. The districts created by the Framework Plan,' which are applicable today,,
are:
• R-5 - residential with no more,than five dwellings per acre
• R-6 - residential with no more than six dwellings per acre
• R-9 - residential with no more than nine dwellings per acre
R-15.- residential with no more than 15 dwellings per acre
R-24.- residential with.no more than 24 dwellings per acre -
R-25+ - residential with no more than 100 dwellings per acre
DRAFT ISSUE PAPER NO. 17
Bull Mountain Density
June 28, 2005
Page 12
The R-5 and R-6 Districts are commonly referred to as single family districts and the four other
districts were referred to as multi-family districts until the advent of "small lot" single family
dwellings. Today, the. R-9' and R-15 Districts include a large number of this housing type.
The R=5 District was created to apply to existing single family neighborhoods that were selected
for low residential densities and were previously zoned RU72, RU-4 or P-R8. These
neighborhoods are located'predominantly.in Cedar Hills, Cedar Mill, Raleigh Hills, Garden.. ,
Houle; Metzger, Rock Creek and parts'of'Aloha and Reedville. One existing subdivision in the
original boundary of the BMCP was designated R-5.9 The maximum density in the R-5 District
is five dwellings per acre. Its `minimum lot size was 7,000 square feet prior to the establishment
of minimum densities. The R-5 District's current minimum lot size is 5,500 square feet.
The R-6 District was created to be. applied to,areas selected for the lowest residential densities
that were not previously zoned RU-2, RU-3, RU-4 or P-R and that had been designated Urban
Intermediate by the 1973, Comprehensive Plan. The Framework Plan characterizes the purpose of
the R-6 District as providing new residential density at "relatively low densities in developing
residential areas in which no predominant urban character has been developed. Residences in
this district shall occur at a density. offive to six units per acre. "
References to "low density residential". in the Framework Plan and the community plans are
made in the context of the six residential districts created in 1983, with low residential density
meaning densities at five and six units per acre. In the community plans; the R-5 and R-6'.
Districts are both referred'to as "low density residential."
As noted above, the majority of the increase in density in unincorporated Washington County
came about through the designation of large areas of the county as R-9, R-15; R-24 and R-25+.
In some areas, such as parts of Aloha, Reedville,_Cedar Mill and Cedar Hills, the county
increased the residential density.of previous residential areas to provide for more housing .
(increased to R=9, R-15,. R-24 and R-25+). In other areas of the county that had not been
previously designated as urban due to, the lack of sewer and water, the R-9, R-15, R-24 and R-
25+ Districts were applied. These designations were generally located along existing andfuture
transit routes, including. the first proposed light rail corridor, and along collectors and arterials. .
'These areas are located primarily in Bethany, Bull Mt., King City, East Hillsboro and Sunset
West. Areas that were designated with higher densities included areas with steeper slopes. For
example, imthe Cedar Hills-Cedar Mill Community Plan, the area east of Leahy Road, between
Highway 26 and the county boundary; was designated R-9,' R-15 and R-24.
Areas of the county that were planned as new single family neighborhoods were designated
-primarily as R-6. These areas are located in the Bethany, Bull Mt.,'and Sunset West Community
Plans. New R-6 areas included areas with steeper slopes - Bull Mt., Cooper Mt. and the north
s RU-2 = Urban Residential District _ low density,- minimum lot size of 15,000 sq. ft.; RU-3 = Urban Residential
District - medium - low density, minimum lot size of 10,000 sq. ft.; RUA -'Urban Residential District - high-low
density, minimum lot size of 7,000 sq. ft.; P-R =Planned Residential
9 Located along SW Hawk Ridge Road; east of SW 150th Avenue
DRAFT ISSUE PAPER NO. 17
Bull Mountain Density
June 28, 2005
-Page 13
east corner of the CH-CM community plan. Slopes in Cooper Mt. and the CH-CM community
plan are similar to or steeper than the slopes in the Bull Mt. area.
Table B on page 14 summarizes the land,use designations of the original community plan
boundaries with residential designations.
The Statewide Planning Goals and the Metro Housing Rule. continue to apply today. When the
county or a city considers an amendment to their'comprehensive plan that affects residential -
densities, each must make findings that the proposed change is consistent with the housing rule.
Metro's Urban Growth Management Functional Plan '
Title 1 of the Functional Plan assigned a future housing target to each.county and city in the .
Portland area. Title 1 required Washington County to provide for 54,999 dwelling units in the
urban unincorporated area. That assignment required the county to provide for an additional
11,000 dwelling units. The housing target of each local government was based upon the 1996
jurisdictional boundaries and populations..As properties are annexed to a city, the county's
housing assignment for that area follows it into the city, the same procedure used by the Metro
Housing Rule. Another Functional Plan requirement was the establishment of minimum densities
in residential districts at no less than 80% of each maximum density.
In 2000, Metro found that the county "substantially complied" with the Title 1 requirements
through the amendments the county made to the 1983 Comprehensive Plan. The amendments
resulted in the provision of 51,751 future dwellings. Listed below is a description of the changes
the county made t6 the Comp Plan to accommodate those dwellings.
• October 1997 - adopted plans for Light Rail Station Areas and the Cedar Mill Town Center,
which resulted in higher densities. New residential transit oriented districts (TO Districts)
were created with a range of densities between 9 to 120 units pef acre. These areas are
located in Aloha, Cedar Hills; Cedar Mill, East Hillsboro and Sunset West.
• October 1998 - established rmnimum densities in the R-9; R-15, R-24 and R-25+ Districts'
• September 2000 - established minimum densities in the R-5 and R-6 Districts 10
• May 2003 - applied the county's.most comparable TO,Districts in the Metzger Community
.
Plan to implement the Washington Square Regional Center Plan.
10 Tigard's minimum density requirements for its residential districts became effective on November 26, 1998.
DRAFT ISSUE PAPER NO. 17
Bull Mountain Density
- June 28, 2005
Page 14
Table B
Distribution of Land Use Designations
in the 1983 Washington County Community Plans
~ r 7
o. a a" t to aV'v o o a ge~~ al ghjShwoodSun
set
t.~a111~} 1'F 1 .f t s y lnu x P • x . y y C 7r drCFr : r . ,;5,st . c . rF+~; . ° 5 ` N't =
Use D-strict _ _
0 Residentiat,5: ;f,:, -3434.0 80.4 18.3 18.3 2670.5 72.6 642.0 1846.6 1336.8
ftesidentiaf:6.- r; ; ; .1677.6 1014.7 1426.7. 1426.7 917.0 404.5 1550:8
Resideritial9=.. 998.0 445.9 257.8 165.8 92.0 526.1 2054.9 64.5 106.4 372.7 278.1
- Residential..15
684.8 237.8 194.8 130.6 64,3 349.4 304.5 39.4 70.8 138.3 597.5
ResidehtiaL24 390.7 129.8 118.1 84.1 34.0 117.7 103.5 33.2 101.0 42.5 78.2
Residential. 25+ 61.3 225.9 9.2 4.2 17.0
Office.Commercial . 71:2 17.7 65.1 29.7 234.1
Neighborhood Commercial 55.0- 2.0 7.9 7.9 136.8 18.9 8.2 1.0 22.3
Cohimunit ,Business:District . 76.3 15.0 18.5 18.5 21.4 48.2 145.1 83.4 21.2 87.6 .
G6664`.Commercial,:;- 21.8 189.6 5.1 44.0 40.9 8.3
Industrial . 179.0 352.9 1225.4 178.9 1343.5
Institutional 300.3 10.1 4.9 2.5 2.5 465.1 169.4 123.8 . 410.1 19.3 839.8
Total.Acres .7950.0 1935.7 '2047.0 1827.9 219.1 5990.1 3997.4 -1135.6 2697.2 1218.3 6394.0
DRAFT ISSUE PAPER NO. 17
Bull Mountain Density
June 28, 2005
Page 15
Two. unincorporated areas where the county did not increase residential densities as it originally
planned to do were the Bull Mt. and Metzger, areas. At Tigard's request, the county did not change the,
existing land use designations of vacant properties in the Bull Mt. area to a district with a higher
density (R-9,,R- 1.5) to, provide the 302 additional dwellings units that had been proposed to be
provided in the area. In.the Metzger area, Tigard assumed responsibility for 668 additional dwellings
that had been assigned to be provided,in the Washington Square Regional Center Plan through the
upzoning of R-5 land."
Metro's Functional Plan requirements also continue to apply today. Amendments to the county's or a
city's comprehensive plan must be shown to comply with the Functional Plan, including Title 1.
Count
In 1986, after the adoption of its. 1983 Comprehensive Plan, Washington County adopted the County.
.
2000 Strategic Plan I County 2000 directs how, the county will provide services, including planning
and land development. County 2000 changed our focus. Rather than providing both localized and
countywide services, County 2000 calls for the county to provide countywide services (e.g., health,
aging, and veteran services; maintain and operate a countywide road system) and move away from
municipal types services (e.g., maintaining the local street system, neighborhood level planning).
Consequently, the county's long term policy for the urban unincorporated areas calls for these areas to,
be eventually served-by a city so the county can focus its limited resources to provide. countywide
services.
County 2000.changed the focus of the county's long range planning services from neighborhood level
planning (e.g., updating community plans) to participating in-countywide, regional and state planning
activities. Updating community plans is a municipal level service and under County 2000 as a matter
of course, the county does not update community plans. Consequently, the county has not updated any.
community plan since their adoption. Instead, the county has made limited.amendments to the
community plans over'the years to comply with regional and state planning requirements - Metro's
Functional Plan (Light Rail Station communities, regional and town centers), the Regional
Transportation Plan and the State Transportation Planning,Rule. A county planning process to update a'
community plan would -not be consistent with County 2000. ,
Washington County Transfers Land Development and Building Services to Tigard
Consistent with County 2000 and the Washington. County / Tigard Urban Planning Area Agreement
(UPAA)13, the county transferred responsibility . for land development, building and code enforcement
services for the urban unincorporated Bull Mt. area to the city of Tigard on May 12, 1997.14
.Washington.County maintained responsibility for comprehensive planning and transportation planning
in the area.
The regional center is comprised of properties in Tigard and Beaverton and unincorporated properties. Tigard was
designated as the lead planning agency for this planning effort.
IZ County 2000 was updated in 1990 and 1996. A third update of County 2000 is currently underway.
13 The UPAA included a requirement that the county and Tigard.study the feasibility and cost effectiveness of assigning
land use planning and building services to the city.
14 Implemented by the Urban Services Intergovernmental Agreement between City of Tigard and Washington County
(Service IGA). It was renewed September 3, 2062.
i
DRAFT ISSUE PAPER NO. 17
Bull Mountain.Density
June 28, 2005
Page 16
The county adopted Ordinance No. 487, in October 1996 to facilitate this transfer. By Ordinance No.
487, the county replaced the land use designations. in the BMCP with Tigard's comparable
comprehensive plan and zoning designations. For example, the.county's R-6.District was changed to
Tigard's R-7 District and the R-5 District was changed to Tigard's R-4.5 District. Ordinance 487 also"
adopted Tigard's comprehensive plan and development code in place of the county's Framework Plan'
and the CDC. The text and other map designations in the community plan, such as the Significant
Natural Resource designations, were not changed and they continue to apply today. Ordinance 487,
however, did not amend the county's regulations for Goal 5 resources. The county's Goal 5
designations and implementing development standards in the CDC continue.to apply.
Through the adoption of Ordinance 487 the county determined that, although there might be slight
variations in densities permitted under Tigard's zoning districts and development. standards, the city
and county's comprehensive plan, land use designations and development regulations were functionally
equivalent. Therefore, development under Tigard's R-7 District is lawful..
County and CityyDensity Requirements
Washington County and Tigard use different methods to calculate minimum and maximum required
densities. The required minimum and maximum densities forTigard's residential districts, including
the R-7 District, are based upon net acreage. Tigard requires several types of land area to be excluded
when calculating net acreage, including Sensitive Lands (100 year flood plain,"slopes greater than
25%, wetlands, drainage ways), private streets, and public rights of way (e.g., power line easements,
20% of gross acreage for streets). Tigard's development code allows up to 25% of the density from'
these unbuildable or constrained areas to be transferred to a site's buildable area provided the density
of that area is not increased more than 25%.
The county calculates its minimum and maximum residential densities based upon the gross acreage of
a site. The county's CDC allows all of the density from constrained areas to be transferred provided the
transferred density does not more than double the density allowed on the buildable portion of the site.
For example, the maximum density of one residual net acre of developable R-6 land can be increased
to 12 dwelling units through the transfer of density,from constrained areas. Due to the different
methods the county and Tigard use to calculate density there is no simple, direct way to compare
permitted densities under the city county standards, particularly since the county allows more density
to be transferred from constrained areas:
The county's R-6 District and Tigard's R4 District's standards for minimum lot aiea and attached
single family dwellings are also different. The R-6 District allows attached dwellings as a permitted
use. The R-7 District only allows up to five attached dwellings per building as a permitted use;, six or,
more units per building must be approved as a conditional use (public hearing required). In the R-6
District, the minimum lot area for a detached single family dwelling is 4,000 square feet compared to
5,000 square feet in the R-7 District. The minimum lot area for attached single family dwellings in the
R-6 District is 3,500 square feet compared to 5,000 square feet in the city's R-7 District. The county's
smaller lot sizes and allowance of all attached single family dwelling units as permitted uses makes it
easier to achieve the R-6 District's maximum density of six units per acre, particularly on sites with ,
steep terrain and/or drainage hazards areas.
DRAFT ISSUE PAPER NO. 17
Bull Mountain Density,
June 28, 2005
Page 17
Concerns have been expressed by citizens that some new development in the Bull Mt. area is being
built at a density of sevenunits per acre, more than permitted by the'original R-6 District. In order to
compare permitted densities under the R-7 and R-6 Districts, staff reviewed the 17 subdivision
applications for detached single family dwellings submitted to the city since 2002. Twelve applications
have been approved and five are-currently under review. All of the approved or proposed number of
dwellings for each subdivision are consistent with the minimum and maximum densities requirements
of the R-6 District. The total average density. of the 17 subdivisions is 4:8 units/acre, which is
consistent'with the R-6 District considering the drainage hazard areas and steep slopes that traverse
part of the area., Seven subdivisions were required to have fewer dwellings than would have been
permitted under county standards. Three subdivision's were permitted to have one or two additional
dwellings under the city's standards compared to what would have been allowed by the county's
standards. They are: Summit Ridge Phase 4, Valley View and Trevor. Ridge. Each development site
did not have steep slopes or drainage areas. Under the R-7 District, the maximum permitted densities
on the Valley View and Trevor Ridge sites are less than seven units per acre., The maximum permitted
density of the Summit Ridge Phase 4 is eight units per acre. The density of Phase 4 is higher because it
is a continuation of Phases 1, 2 and 3, a very unique situation that rarely occurs. In all three instances,
the developers chose not to build the maximum permitted number of dwellings.
Due to the presence of drainage hazard areas and some steep slopes in the other four subdivisions, the
county's and city's standards cannot be directly compared. as the others are in the preceding paragraph.
Under the county's standards, the applicants' could have transferred all of the density from the
constrained areas to the buildable area of each sites. Consequently; the permitted minimum. and
maximum densities for these sites under the R-6 District are higher than under the city's R-7 District.
However, the county's standards allow an applicant to chose to build fewer units based upon these
constrained areas.
A comparison of the city and county's density requirements for each development is shown in Table C
on page 20.
'Staff also compared the density requirements of county's other single family district, the R-5 District.
Its minimum required density is four units an acre and its maximum density is five units per acre. As
shown below, the total number of approved dwellings is less than the maximum number of dwellings
that would be permitted by the R-5 District.
Tigard's. R-7 District:
• Density/acre of approved/pending developments 4.8 dwellings/acre (591 total dwellings)
• Required minimum density 4.4 dwellings/acre (535 total dwellings)
• Maximum permitted density 5.5 dwellings/acre (672 total dwellings)
Washington County's R-6 District:
• Required minimum density 5 dwellings/acre (611. total dwellings)
0 Maximum permitted density 6 dwellings/acre (733 total dwellings)
DRAFT ISSUE PAPER NO. 17
Bull Mountain Density
June 28, 2005
Page 18
Washington County's R-5 District: ,
• Required minimum density 4 dwellings/acre (488 total.dwellings)
• Maximum permitted density . 5 dwellings/acre (611 total dwellings)
Expansions to the Urban Growth Boundary '
In 2002, Metro made a major expansion to the UGB: Title 11 of the Functional Plan requires that the
future comprehensive plan designations for these areas result in an average minimum net density of ten
dwelling units per acre. Some of the area that that was added to the UGB has areas with slopes similar
to those in Bull Mt, See Issue Paper 21 for information about the Bull Mt. UGB expansion areas.
Measure 37
Measure 37 (M-37) was approved by Oregon voters in November 2004. M-37 requires compensation
-for land use regulations that reduce the value of property when the land use regulation was adopted
after the current property owner or family member acquired the property. In lieu of compensation, the
"government agency that adopted the regulation may waive the regulation and permit development
under the prior land use requirement.
In order to determine how current property owners,in.Bull Mt. might respond to changes that would
reduce the current permitted residential densities of their properties, staff examined the following
indicators: M-37 election -results from the area, current land values, recent development activity, and
current M-37 claims..
Precinct Election Results ,
Voters in the three precincts that cover the Bull Mt. area supported M-37 (see map on page 21). The
election results are provided below. The average voter turn out in the precincts was 84% of registered
,voters. A map of the precincts is provided on page 20. M-37 had,the.highest approval rate in Precinct
414,'which has the most vacant land.
Precinct 397 Precinct 410 Precinct 414
Yes 1421 62% Yes 929 61'1/o Yes 708 65%
'No 862 38%. No 591,39% No 381 39%
Current Land Values
Land values .in the Bull Mt. area have increased over the past several years as they have all over the
Portland Metro area. According to the Appraisal Division of the Washington County -Department of
Assessment and Taxation, the average. value of vacant land in the Bull Mt. area has increased from-
$175,000 an acre in January2002 to $300,000 /320,000 an,acre in June 2006, a 71% to. 83% increase.~s
Staff from the Appraisal Division said that due to today's market conditions, land values are changing
generally every six months. They also said the densities permitted by the applicable land use districts
affect the value of vacant land with more density resulting, in higher values..
15 January 2003 average value: $229,000/acre, January 2005 average value: $282,000
DRAFT ISSUETAPER NO. 17
Bull Mountain Density
June 28, 2005
Page 19
Recent Development Activity.
Since 2002, 17 subdivision applications have been submitted for development in the urban
unincorporated Bull Mt. area north of Beef Bend Road. ,Five applications were submitted in 2002 and
2003. Eight applications were submitted in 2004 and four applications have been submitted so far in
2005. These applications accounted for 122 acres. In addition, Tigard has held four recent pre'-
application conferences with property owners or prospective applicants for another 36 acres.
Since 1983, when the community plan was adopted; more than 80% of the vacant land north of Beef
Bend Road has developed. Today there are approximately 200 acres of vacant land in this area16. If the
total vacant acres were adjusted based.upon recent, pre-application conferences, there would be
approximately 164 vacant acres available for development.
M-37 Claims
Washington County has received more than 250 M-37 claims through June 17, 2005. One claim was
filed to allow additional dwelling units on a property designated R-5. The. remaining claims are almost
entirely for rural properties and are mostly for the construction of additional dwellings that were.
purported to be permitted by the prior land use designation in effect when the property owners
purchased the property. The City of Portland has received several claims for the purported loss of
residential dwelling units due primarily to the city's environmental overlay regulations (e.g., tree and
habitat protection). The.absence of claims in urban unincorporated Washington County seems to
indicate that property owners do not view minimum density requirements as reducing the value of their
property.
Due to M-37, there is no certainty that all properties will develop according to existing or future
planned densities. For example, if the density of some parcels in Bull Mt. are reduced through one of
the alternatives identified in this paper, the current property owners may have the right to file a M-37
claim under the prior R-7 designation or even under-the, earlier-R-6 designation.
The four indicators.that were examined show there'may be a high propensity for existing owners of
vacant property to desire to develop or sell :their property at existing densities: A possible M-37
scenario that could result through. the reallocation of Bull Mt. density to another area is the filing of M-
37 claims by Bull Mt. property owners who had the density of their properties reduced and'thus lost
value. If this were to occur, more density might be provided in the community than existed before the
changes. Therefore, any study to reduce the planned density,in the Bull Mt: area'should include an
analysis of ownership and land use regulations to determine potential impacts from M-37. In order to
reduce potential future M-37 claims, owners of vacant properties and properties with the potential to
redevelop should be involved very early in any planning process to determine if they desire the density' of their property to be reduced,.particularly in light of the indicators discussed above.
16 Based upon Metro's 2004 Vacant Lands Inventory
DRAFT ISSUE PAPER NO. 17
Bull Mountain Density
June 28, 2005
Page 20
Table C - Density Comparison _
COUNTY R-6 DISTRICT -
No: of Lots Minimum No. of Maximum No. of Lots
approved/proposed Required Lots Permitted
Tigard Dev. through Tigard's (5 units per (6 units per
PROJECT NAME Development File No. File Status Acres R-7 District gross acre) . gross acre)
Tuscany 2002-00001 Approved 15.16 89 76 91crY~~`aw
Bella Vista 2002-00007 Approved 9.29 , 45 46 56~~-
= Ironwood Subdivision 2002-00008 Approved 1.22 6 6. 7 :
T 2003-00009 (Phase ) • - m+raxLas-tx~as rat. 1z si
I&2
Summit Ridge Phases 1-3 2004-00003 (Phase 3) -Approved 27.46 130 137 ~ 165
Meyers Farm II 2003-00014 Approved 8.16 44 .41 49 .
e
Valley View 2004-00001 - Approved ' ' 4.91 25 25 29 . ,'L
mammas=
French Prairie Vineyards 2004-00004 Approved 5.7 30 29 34
: 2004-00008 ,mom n
Arbor Summit 1 & 2 2004-00013 A roved 8.83 42 44 53
ros
Mountain View Estates 2004-00021 Approved 6.94 19 35 42
Trevor Ridge 2004-00022. Approved 1.34 8 7 8
Alpine View 2004-00064 Pending 8.69 46 43 2....5 x : ' r.> ;t35..x~rs+a:sMtr•.h _ .,y -...a,.,,,,.........,,..,.,®e~ ;a_r.....u.~-x-vexaw,...m~'~"""-`°r--; - m!:i4'sI~!s: Y'O~'•~:Ci..~:,..1.:
ane.~ _eunn~emewarianr:.wwtr.-a,....~rw...e~vrn.w=r,sx.uar-,-•-~.•;~.~w±r+. ;+tnna
Summit'Ridge Phase 4 2005-00002 Pending. 0.75 5 4 5
x •~.*~~~;~~,,~~tta,Srir+~:z:-~i~t•r~=~~.~.~:a:~:.. -
Wilson Ridge 2005-00003 Pending 2.68 14- 13 16' v
Arlington Heights 3 2005-00007 Pending 16.82 64 84 101
-Sierra Park; 2005-00008 Pending . 4.19. 24 21 25 .
TOTAL 122.14 591 611 733
..s
{ j
r
PRECINCT #414 1
To w ea 6 Nov Z00! 109 ~
Voter bon otd 83%
3
rton
•i _ IM r _
~ •,r it ~ -
PRECINCT #410 i } s r `
Tote) Registered Voters 1773.
Total votes in Nov 2004 1520 y[ A
Voter tum out 85%' .
.t -
x PREC#4CT #J97
2 & Total Rog damd Voters: 2712
- Total rotes in Nov 2004 2283
Voter tom oot 84%
Sw .
3
a
I?-k-b-ft- Mgyn...d~ m,
bbnM6,
Bull Mt. Voting; Precincts
SSW
Voter Precinct --~w ov
• .GiS
m1#397., 'M#410.' M#414,!-
.
DRAFT- ISSUE PAPER NO. 17
Bull Mountain Density
June 28, 2005
Page 22 . .
One effect of M-37 is the reluctance of local governments to enact new land use regulations
because they may incite M-37 claims. For example, when properties annex to the City of
Beaverton, Beaverton is now maintaining the, county's land use designations and development
standards in order to avoid a potential M-37 from the adoption of the city's most comparable,,,
land use districts and application of its development.standards. Beaverton will only. adopt its land
use designations and requirements if the property owner requests it.
Please note that citizen desires for lower density might conflict with some property owners
desires to maximize their property value.. M-37 makes the density issues on,Bull Mt. -much more .
complicated.
Possible Alternatives to Reduce Density in the Urban Unincorporated Bull ML Area
Any changes to density in the Bull Mt. area cannot result in an overall loss of planned density
due to the requirements of the Metro Housing Rule and Metro's Functional Plan. Consequently,
only two possible solutions are available to address density in the Bull Mt. area. They are: 1).
reallocate the density within the area, and/or 2) find another urban area with the potential to
accept density from Bull Mt.
Currently, there are no other areas in urban unincorporated Washington County that desire more
residential density. Therefore, staff will not consider other urban unincorporated areas as
potential areas to, assign Bull Mt. density. The city of Tigard, however, has stated it is interested
in examining this issue through the update of its comprehensive plan, an update of the -Bull Mt.
Community Plan and planning for the UGB expansion areas. Based upon these parameters and
the two solutions described in the preceding paragraph, staff has identified four possible .
alternatives to examine a reduction of density in the Bull Mt. area. They are:
1. Reallocate the existing overall density of-the unincorporated Bull Mt. area within its current
boundary, whereby the density of some properties.would be reduced and the density of other-
properties would be increased to offset the density reduction.
2.. Update the BMCP in conjunction with Tigard's update of its comprehensive plan. A
combined comprehensive plan and community update would.determine if Tigard has
additional capacity to accept density from the Bull Mt. Area. .
3. Through the'planning of the Bull Mt. UGB expansion areas, study the possibility of assigning
a portion of Bull Mt.'s existing density to the expansion areas. The planning of these areas
would need to determine'if.they are'capable of.accommodating more than Metro's minimum
requirement of 10 dwelling units per net acre. "
4. Update the BMCP in conjunction with Tigard's update of its comprehensive plan and also
the planning of the Bull Mt. UGB expansion areas. This alternative combines Altetnatives'2
and 3 and provides two potential. areas to which density could be transferred.
DRAFT ISSUE PAPER NO. 17
Bull Mountain Density
June 28, 2005
Page 23.
Provided below is an analysis of the four alternatives. Each alternative would be carried out
through a public planning process that would involve Bull Mt. residents and property owners and'
CPO 4B. Each alternative includes a generalized scope of work an&describes:
• ' Potential effectiveness to reduce density in unincorporated Bull Mt. .
• Consistency with County 2000
• Potential impacts from M-37
Alternative 1- Reallocate the Existine Density of Unincorporated Bull Mt. within this Area
The goal of this alternative is to find vacant unincorporated properties in the'Bull Mt. area that
could be upzoned from R-7 to allow the density of other R-7 properties to be reduced. The areas
that should be considered for an increase in density are along the collectors and arterial in the
area in order to accommodate the-increase in traffic from denser housing. Those roads are Bull
Mt. and Beef Bend Roads and 150th Avenue. The availability.of vacant land along these
corridors would determine how many additional dwellings units' could be located in these
corridors. That in turn would determine how many other,vacant properties could have their land
use designations down zoned.
This alternative may not be satisfactory to all Bull Mt. residents because it does not reduce the
'overall density of the entire area and it results in higher densities along major road corridors.
However, by increasing,the.density along part of the collector and arterial. system, it would allow
the areas away from the area's. major road system to have reduced densities.
Washington County is currently responsible for comprehensive planning for the Bull Mt. area. In
order to carry out this alternative, the county.would have to update the BMCP. However,
updating the community plan is a municipal level service. As noted in the earlier discussion
about County" 2000, a county update of the community plan would be contrary to County 2000.
Tigard has said it would update the BMCP in conjunction with its update of its comprehensive
plan. Therefore, Alternative 1 could be included as part of Alternatives 2 'and 4.
Notwithstanding County 2000, if the county were to-implement this alternative, it could result in
potential M-37 claims from property owners who believe the value of their property.has been
diminished due to new land use designations.
Alternative 2 - Update the BMCP In Coniunction with Tigard's Comprehensive Plan .
Update
Tigard recently said it would consider accepting density from the Bull Mt. area if the city has the
capacityto do so. Iii order to carryout this alternative, the city would have to update the BMCP
,in conjunction with the update of its comprehensive plan. A combined update of Tigard's
comprehensive plan and the BMCP. would determine if Tigard has additional capacity to accept- .
density from•the Bull Mt. area. In conjunction with Alternative 2, the proposed reallocation of.'
dwellings discussed under Alternative 1 could also be considered. .
As part of its comprehensive plan update, Tigard will prepare an inventoryand analysis of
several factors within the city, including vacant land, residential development (existing densities,
DRAFT ISSUE PAPER NO. 17
Bull Mountain Density
June 28, 2005
1 Page 24
redevelopable land), park and open space needs, and significant, natural resources, including
associated development constraints. These analyses are critical to determining the city's capacity
for additional dwellings. Similar analyses of the Bull Mt. area are also needed and could readily
.be done with the city's work. If the city determines it has the capacity to accept density from
Bull Mt., needed ordinances to amend the land use designations in the city and the
unincorporated Bull Mt. area would have to be considered. Because the county must be the final
decision maker in the unincorporated area for comprehensive plan related decisions, the county
would have to act upon its changes to the BMCP once Tigard has changed its comprehensive
plan. The land use designations in the Bull Mt. area cannot be changed until the city amends its
plan to accept any density from the Bull Mt. area.
Another advantage of Alternative 2 is the availability of Tigard's existing low density single
family land use districts (shown below) as. tools to reduce density in Bull Mt. area. The density
requirements of the R-1, R-2, R-3.5 and R-4.5 are lower than the R-7 District. The density
requirements of these districts are also lower, than the county's two single family districts, the R-
5 and R-6 Districts: As shown under the analysis of densities permitted by county and city
standards, the county's R-6 District often result in more dwellings than permitted by the R-7
District and the R-5 District would likely only slightly reduce the permitted densities under the
R=7 District. Without the use of one or more of Tigard's low' density single family districts there
would be little opportunity to transfer density from Bull Mt.
Tigard's current single family districts: .
• R-1: Low Density . Residential District; minimum lot size of 30,000 square feet
• R-2: Low Density Residential District; minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet
• R-3.5: Low,Density Residential District; minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet
• R-4.5: Low Density Residential District; minimum lot size of 7,500 square feet
• R-7: Medium Density Residential District; minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet
Under this alternative, the county would participate in a limited capacity due to its role as the
final decision maker for comprehensive plan related decisions, which would be consistent with
County 2000. This alternative is .consistent with County 2000 because Tigard would update the
community plan as the}municipal service provider and the county would conform the community
plan to Tigard's plan.
-Notwithstanding County 2000; if the county were to. implement this alternative, it could result in
potential M-37 claims from.property owners who believe the value of their property has been .
diminished due to new land use designations.
Alternative 3 - Washington County Addresses the Density Issue in Coniunction with
Planning the UGB Expansion Areas
Metro added Areas 63 and 64 to the UGB in 2002. Together; they total 483 acres. Title 11 of the
Functional Plan requires all UGB expansion areas to be planned for a minimum density of 10 '
dwelling units per net acre. Development of these areascan not occur until the planning for these
areas is completed. Given the topography of parts of Areas 63 and 64 and stream corridors in the
DRAFT ISSUE PAPER NO. 17
Bull Mountain Density
June 28, 2005
Page 25
areas, there will be limitations to the development capacity of these areas. Currently, no planning
analysis of these areas has occurred. Issue Paper 18 addresses the planning of these areas.
Consistent with County 2000, the county desires the planning of the UGB expansion areas to be
done by cities. Currently, the county has only committed to plan one expansion area, North
Bethany, due to its unique circumstances. No decisions have been made yet about which local
government will do the planning for the Bull Mt,, Cooper Mt. and 209th Avenue UGB expansion .
areas. All of the other areas are being planned•b'y cities.
If it is determined that the county is the appropriate jurisdiction to plan Areas 63 and 64, the
county would limit its work to the expansion areas due to County" 2000: As previously discussed
in this paper, it would be necessaryto update the BMCP'in order to reduce the existing density in
Bull Mt., a task the county no longer performs. Therefore, this alternative would not address
citizen concerns about reducing density in the Bull Mt. area. However, if this alternative were
available, applying the county's R-6 District to the Bull Mt. aredwould not result in fewer,
dwelling units than currently permitted by the city's R-7 District. Applying the county's R-5
District to the Bull Mt: area would only result.in a slight decrease of in density-compared to the
R-7 District.
'There are no potential M-37 claims under this alternative because the county would not update
the BMCP in conjunction with planning. Areas 63 and 64.
Alternative 4 - Tigard Addresses Bull Mt. Density in Conjunction with Planning the UGB
Expansion Areas and Updating the BMCP .
Tigard said it also is interested in planning these areas in conjunction with its comprehensive
plan update and update of the BMCP so that all of Bull Mt. can be planned for through an
integrated planning process. Therefore this alternative would include an update to'the. BMCP and
Tigard's comprehensive plan.
Alternative 4 provides the best, opportunity to find density capacity to assign density from the
Bull Mt. area because there would be two potential areas to transfer density to - the city of
Tigard and the UGB expansion areas. This alternative would result in a comprehensive,
integrated replanning of the entire Bull Mt. community that would also consider all of the
residents' concerns and not just density,'as discussed in,Issue Paper 18.
As was the case with Alternative 2, an advantage of Alternative 4 is the availability of Tigard's
existing lower density single family land use districts, the R-1, R-2, R-3.5 and R-4.5 Districts, to
reduce density in Bull Mt. area.
Under Alternative 4, the county would participate in a limited capacity due to. its role as the final
decision,maker for comprehensive plan related decisions, which would be consistent with.
County 2000.
- , ERNO 1'1 ,
DR pFT ISSN p ain Density
gull 1A0 I ne 29, 2t}05 .
' ,.page 26
,
. rov d d t zone .
nanO becau e $e p°~t p
der this sce tenu ally
eatest un t area, and theTfoT
is the gr M
3~ claims om the Bull ' .
The potential f t Mansfer density. fr.
potential areas ft-2g.o5.dOc'..
ertles:. ' ate T~ Final dra.
P
' ' more prop
work PfO~m~~Ue am . . ' . . ;
wP~re\2005ord~ .
r
{
WASHINGTON COUNTY
OREGON.
June 28, 2005
DRAFT
PLANNING DIVISION
ISSUE PAPER NO. 18
Updating the Bull Mountain Community Plan
-Issue
Through the Planning Division's 2005 work program, the Board of County Commissioners (Board) .
directed staff to prepare six issue papers about planning and park issues in the urban. unincorporated
Bull Mt. area. Issue Paper 18 examines how the Bull Mt-Community Plan could,be updated. This
paper also addresses recent. comments-from the City of Tigard and key concerns of residents from
the Bull Mt, area.- The City of Tigard is interested in updating•the Bull Mt' Community Plan and
planning the Bull Mt. UGB expansion areas in.conjunction with the city's upcoming update of its' %
Comprehensive Plan.
Recommendation
Update the Bull Mt. Community Plan through an integrated, 'comprehensive community-wide -
planning process in conjunction with?..
1. The City of Tigard's update of the city's comprehensive plan. (Alternative 4), or
2. The City of Tigard's update of itsycomprehensive plan and planning the Bull Mt. UGB expansion. areas (Alternative 4A).
.'Summary
Staff analyzed eight alternatives to update the Bull Mt. •Community'Plan (BMCP). Six alternatives
would be conducted by Washington County'and would make varying degrees of changes to the
county's Comprehensive Plan, include the BMCP and applicable development regulations. Two
altematives would be conducted by Tigard in conjunction with its update of the city's
comprehensive plan. Four alternatives* address the-Bull MC UGB expansion Areas '63 and 64 in
conjunction with updating the BMCP and four, alternatives do not address these areas.
The factors staff used to analyze the alternatives are:
• How key citizen issues are addressed,
• Cost effectiveness of each alternative. to address key citizen issues -
• Generalized costs
• Potential Measure 37'impacts
• Consistency with. County 2000
Issue Paper (IP) 22 addresses Mr..Hendryx's letter in greater detail.
Department of Land Use 8s Transportation • Planning Division
155 N First Avenue, Suite 350-14, Hillsboro, OR 97124-3072
Phone: (503) 846-3519 • Fax:,(503) 846-4412 • www.co.washington.or.us
DRAFT ISSUE PAPER NO. 18
Bull Mt. Community Plan Update
June 28, 2005
Page 2
Only three alternatives, Alternatives 4, 3A and 4A, have the potential to reduce planned densities in
the Bull Mt. area., Alternative 4A has the greatest potential to reduce density. because,' l) there are two
potential areas to reallocate density, the City of Tigard and Bull Mt. UGB expansion Areas 63 and
64; and 2) the use of Tigard's existing single family residential districts that are less dense than the ,
county's R-6 District. Alternative 3A provides the next best opportunity to reduce density through
the planning of Areas 63 and 64 by the county. However, the county would have to create-a new
single family residential district with density lower than the, count y's R-5 District in order to achieve
a meaningful reduction in density. Alternative 3A also requires the county to update its
Comprehensive Plan in order to address other key citizen issues, a task that would be a massive
undertaking. Consequently, Alternative 3A.is the most costly and least cost effective alternative.
As discussed in Issue Paper 17, development under Tigard's R-7 District is less dense th an what
Would be required under the county's R-6 District. This is due to'the different methods the city and.
county use to calculate density. Consequently, reinstituting the R-6 District will not reduce current
built densities.. Using the county's R-5. District could result in densities slightly lower than the R-7
District. However, Tigard's other single family residential districts, the R-4.5, R-3, R-2 and R-1
Districts, are all less dense than the county's R-5 District. Using one or more of these districts in the
Bull Mt. area provides the opportunity to reduce density in Bulb Mt.
Another important factor that must be considered by all of the alternatives is Measure 37. It makes
the density issues on Bull Mt. much more complicated: M-37 requires compensation for land use
regulations that reduce the value of property when the land use regulation was adopted after the
current property owner or family member acquired the property. In lieu of compensation, the
government agency that adopted the regulation may waive the regulation and permit development
under the prior land use requirement. Due to M-37, there is no certainty. that all of the properties in
the Bull Mt. area will develop at existing or future planned densities. Consequently, citizen desires
for lower density might conflict with some property. owners,desires to maximize their property
value. .
Background
At the Board's request; the Planning Division has prepared seven issue papers that address different
planning and park issues associated with the. urban unincorporated Bull'Mt. area. Five of the other
issue papers address density, parks, planning the Bull Mt. UGB expansion areas, and amendments to
the Washington County / Tigard Urban Planning Area Agreement. The seventh issue paper. (IP 14)
addresses CPO 413's request for a public-facility strategy / development moratorium for the Bull Mt.
area.
In December 2004, the Board and the Tigard Council held a joint meeting to discuss a number of
issues about the Bull Mt. area that had been raised by residents in the area. The Board and the
Council expressed a desire to work together to develop a planning program that could address
residents' concerns, primarily through the- upcoming planning efforts of the city. The Board directed... .
the county Planning Division to prepare in consultation with, Tigard, issue papers on park planning,
and funding (Issue.Papers15 and 16), the potential to decrease density in the Bull Mt. area (Issue
Paper 17), updating the Bull Mt. Community Plan (Issue Paper 18) and planning the Bull Mt. UGB •
expansion areas (Issue Paper 21). The Board asked staff to include in these issue papers an ;
DRAFT ISSUE PAPER NO. 18
Bull Mt. Community Plan Update
June 28, 2005
Page 3
assessment about how to address'identified issues in conjunction with'Tigard's update of its. ; .
Comprehensive Plan and park master plan, and planning for the.Bull Mt..UGB expansion areas.
• Analysis c. • . `
The Bull Mt. Community Plan (BMCP) and-several other comrnunityplans were adopted in. 1983 as
part of the county's new Comprehensive Plan.-The BMCP applied•the •first urban land use
designations to the,Bull,Mt. area. Most of the area north of Beef,Bend Road was designated R-6 and
the remaining'.area R-15 or R-24: The area south of. Beef Bend Road was designated R-9, R-15 and:.
R-24"(between 9 and 24 dwellings-per acre). Since4983, significant areasin the original community
plan boundary have been annexed to Tigard and King City".,,-_."
After the adoption of its 1983 Comprehensive Plan, Washington'County adopted the County 2000,
StrategicPlan. in_ 1986 .2 County. 2000 dictates how the county will provide services;' including
planning,and land 'development services. County" 2000 changed the focus "of the services the county
should provide. Rather than providing both localized and countywide services, County 2000 calls for
the county, to provide"countywide services in the future. (e.g., health, aging and veteran services;
maintain'and operate a countywide road system) and nove4wayfrom the provision of localized
municipal types services (e.g., local street. system; neighborhood level planning). Consequently, the
county's long"term policy for the urban unincorporated areas envisions.that they will eventually be
served by a city so the county can focus its resources to provide countywide services.
County 2000 changed the focus of the county 's long range planning:services from: neighborhood
level planning(e.g., updating community plans) to participating in countywide, regional and state
planning activities. Consequently; the'county has not update-d-any community plan since their
adoption.. Instead, the county has.made litnited,amendinents io-the community plans over the years
to comply..with regional-and state:planning requirements -.Metro's 2040 Plan, the Regional
Transportation Plan and the State Transportation Planning, Rule., A county planning process to ;
update a community plan currently is not consistent with.Cou'nty2000: r
Consistent with County 2000 and the Washington County / Tigard Urban Planning Area Agreement'
(UPAA), the county assigned responsibility. for land development; building and code enforcement
services for the uiban,unincorporated Bull Mt: area to the city of Tigard on May 12, 1997:3,
Washington County retained responsibility for comprehensive planning and transportation planning
in the area.
•To facilitate the transfer of services to Tigard, the county adopted Ordinance N, 0.
487. adopted Tigard's Comprehensive Plan and-development•code in place of the county's Urban
Comprehensive Framework-Plan for the Urban Area (Framework Plan) and the Community ,
'Development Code (CDC). Ordinance'No. 487 "replaced the land use designations in the Bull Mt. '
Community-Plan with Tigard's comparable comprehensive, plan and zoning designations. The
remaining provisions of the BMCP (e.g., text, Significant Natural.Resource Designations) continue
to apply today-. Table •1 provides a comparison of the county and city's land use designations that are
used in areas outside of Light Rail Station Areas and Regional and Town Centers.
2 County 2000 was updated in 1990 and 1996. A third update of County 2000 is currently underway.
s Implemented by the Urban.Services Intergovernmentat Agreement between City of Tigard and Washington County
(Service lGA)At was renewed September3, 2002. .
DRAFT ISSUE PAPER NO. 18
Bull Mt. Community Plan Update
June 28, 2005
Page 4
In 2004, Tigard's Bull Mt. Annexation Planning Subcommittee. identified a number of planning
related issues it said should be addressed in the Bull Mt. area and in the city of Tigard. These issues
are identified in the subcommittee's attached May 2004 Bull Mt. White Paper on Planning. The
subcommittee found the BMCP and,the Tigard Comprehensive Plan to be out of date and
recommended that both plans be updated as soon as possible.
Through the Tigard Urban Service Agreement, the UPAA and the'Service IGA, Tigard currently
provides many services to urban unincorporated Bull Mt. The city is the current service provider to
this area for water,_the operation and maintenance of sewer and storm water facilities, and land.
development and building services. Tigard's Park Master:Plan,,Park Capital Improvement Plan, and
park system development charge and methodology report also address the area. Currently, Tigard is
investigating the acquisition of additional park land in the'area.5 Tigard is designated as the long
term service provider to the area for parks, recreation, open space, law enforcement, the
transportation system, and long. range planning. Tigard will provide the last three services upon
annexation because city property;taxes and development fees fund these services (e.g., the city's
park and recreation system development charge [SDC]). Proposed amendments to the BMCP would
have to be consistent with the city's service master plans and other applicable service providers"
plans.
State and Metro standards require with which an update of the BMCP must comply are the state's -
Metropolitan Housing Rule (implements Goal 10 - Housing - in the Portland area) and Title 1 of
Metro's Urban Growth Management -Functional Plan. Key requirements of those regulations for
urban unincorporated Washington County cities with a population of 2,500 or more persons are:
Metropolitan Housing Rule
• Washington County and its cities must provide the opportunity for at least*50% of new "
residential dwellings to be attached single family (town house) or multi-family housing
(apartments)
• The minimum. density' requirements that Washington County and its cities must provide are:
- The cities of Tigard, Hillsboro and Beaverton - ten dwellings units per net buildable acre
- Urban unincorporated Washington County - eight dwellings units per net buildable acre
- The cities of Forest Grove, Tualatin and Wilsonville - eight dwellings units per net acre
- The cities of Cornelius,. Durham and Sherwood -"six dwellings units per net acre
" The Subcommittee was made up of three Bull Mt. residents; three city residents, and Tigard and county planning staff.
Recommendations were made by citizen committee members, staff provided technical assistance.
5 Tigard owns a 12 acre wooded parcel outside of the city that will be developed in the future by the city as Cache Creek
Nature Park. See Issue Paper 15 for additional information.
DRAFT ISSUE PAPER NO. 18
Bull Mt. Community Plan Update
June 28, 2005 ; .
Page 5
Table 1
COMPARISON OF LAND USE DISTRICTS
Single Family Land Use Districts. , .
Coun Distracts. CiDistracts
R-5 . Maximum Density: 5 units/gross acre • Maximum Density: 1 unit/net acre.• R-1 '
Minimum Lot Area 5,500 s q. ft. Minimum Lot Area: 30,000 s .'ft. -
R-6 • Maximum Density: 6 units/gross acre Maximum Density: 2 units/net. R-2,
Minimum Lot Area for detached single Minimum Lot Area: 20,000 s q. ft.
family dwellings: 4,000sq. ft. _ Maximum Density: 3 units/net acre R_3
Minimum Lot Area for attached'single Minimum Lot Area: 10,000 sq. ft.
family dwellings: 3,500 s : ft.
Maximum Density: 4.5 units/net acre R-
4.5,
Minimum Lot Area: 7,500 s q. ft.
Maximum Density: 7 units/net acre R-7
Minimum Lot'Area (detached and attached
dwellin s : 5;000 s q. ft.
-,'Multi-Family Land Use Districts
R-9 Maximum Density:.9 units/gross acre Maximum Density: 12.units/net.
'acre
Minimum Lot Area for a detached
single family home: 2,800 sq. ft. Minimum Lot Area for attached and
detached single family homes:
3,050 s q. ft.
R-15 Maximum Density: 15 units/ oss Maximum Density: 25{units/net R-25
acre acre
Minimum Lot Area for a detached Minimum Lot Area, for attached
single family home: 2,100 s q. ft. dwellings: 1,480 s4. It.
R-24 Maximum Density- 14 units/gross Maximum- Density:. none R=40
acre
Minimum Lot Area: none,
Minimum Lot Area for a detached
single family home: 2,100,s : ft.
R-25+ Maximum Density: 25 to 120.
units/gross acre
Minimum Lot Area for a detacfied .
sin le family home: 2,100 s .'ft:
6 Tigard's maximum densities shown in Table 1 are based upon the assumption that the city's density calculation
standards and each district's dimensional standards will not result in densities greater than those shown in this table.
DRAFT ISSUE PAPER NO. 18
Bull Mt. Community Plan Update
June 28, 2005
Page 6
Title I of Metro's Urban Growth Management Functional Plan
• Assigned urban unincorporated Washington County a future housing target of 54,999 dwelling
units, which required the county to provide for an additional 11,000 dwelling units 7.
• Established minimum densities in residential districts at no less than 80%-of each -maximum
density.
This paper is premised upon the assumption that there will be continued compliance, with these
mandatory requirements. Therefore, the potential planning alternatives examined in this paper
assume consistency with state and Metro requirements. Consequently, in order to reduce density in
the Bull Mt. area, that densityhas to be reallocated to another urban area.
Significant Natural Resources"
Concerns have been expressed by citizens that some new development in the Bull Mt. area does not
comply with the requirements ofthe BMCP for the removal of trees and' vegetation. The purpose of
this paper is to examine how issues could be addressed through different planning alternatives to
update the BMCP. Therefore, this paper examines this particular issue from the perspective of how
the alternatives could or could not consider changes to the current regulations rather than how, those
regulations are currently implemented. The following discussion describes the current requirements
that are applicable to the Bull Mt. area and the work currently underway to address these resources
through the countywide Goal 5 and Healthy Streams' Program.
The county is not aware of any development that might not comply with current regulations.
Consequently, the. county does. not know if those concerns are about properties with or without a
Significant Natural Resource designation."
Current Requirements. in the Bull Mt. Area
Through Ordinance 487, the county's requirements that were applicable to Significant Natural
Resources in the BMCP were maintained and.are in effect today. Those requirements are:
• The Significant Natural Resource designations in the BMCP
• General Design Elements in the BMCP related to these resources
e Design Elements of the Summit and Slopes Subarea of the BMCP applicable to. these areas
• The applicable requirements of the CDC for Significant Natural Resources, primarily Section
422 (Significant Natural Resources) and Subsection 407-3 (Tree Preservation and Removal).
Ordinance 487 specifies that these requirements are applicable to development applications reviewed
by the city. The ordinance also specifies that these standards will be implemented using Tigard's
procedures that are applicable to areas of the city designated as-Sensitive Lands. The procedures for
Sensitive Lands are in Chapter 18,775 (Sensitive Lands) in Tigard's development code. Examples of
applicable city procedures include application submission requirements and review procedures
Two unincorporated areas where the county'did not increase residential densities as it originally proposed to do were
the Bull Mt. and Metzger areas. At Tigard's request, the county did not increase the density in the Bull Mt. area to -
accommodate 302 additional dwellings units. In the Metzger area, Tigard assumed responsibility for 668 additional
dwellings that had been proposed to be provided in the Washington Square Regional Center Plan through the upzoning
of R-5 land.
DRAFT ISSUE PAPER N6.18
Bull Mt: Community Plan Update
June 28, 2005
Page 7'
(Type II or Type III) to use to process an application. The Type II procedure is an administrative
review process with public notice; Type III uses a public hearing. '
Because the county's Significant Natural Resource requirements for the Bull Mt.. area are
maintained, there is no difference between the standards the city.is currently required to use and
those that were applicable when Washington County was responsible for reviewing development
applications in the area between 1983 and May 1997..
Finally, it should be noted that the requirements'described above are only applicable to vegetation
that is designated as a Significant Natural Resource. These standards do not apply to areas that are
not identified by the BMCP as a Significant Natural Resource. Ordinance 487'makes the city's . .
standards .applicable to vegetated areas that are'not a Significant Natural.Resource.. The county's
requirements do allow the removal of trees and vegetation from areas that are not identified as a
Significant Natural Resource.
Countywide Goal S and Healthy Streams Program
Washington County, its cities and Clean Water Services are in the process of updating the county
and cities' comprehensive plans.to comply with regional requirements for addressing Statewide
Planning Goal 58 for significant natural resources. The countywide program, to be implemented in
2005 and, 2006, relies upon uniform development standards for water.and riparian related resources
through existing regulations applicable to water quality sensitive areas and vegetated corridors. Due
to the uniformity of these standards, there should be no -difference between county and city
standards. This program also 'eliminates the need to address,these resources-through an update of the
BMCP.
Areas of the county that were previously designated as significant upland habitat will. continue to be
regulated by each jurisdiction's requirements for those areas because they are not addressed by the
vegetated corridor standards. Although Washington County and its cities each have different
program development standards that address•upland habitat areas, they have all been acknowledged
by the State Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) to be in compliance with the
Goal 5. Since the current regulations of the county and the cities are all different there will not be
uniform.countywide standards for upland. habitat.
In the unincorporated area, significant upland-habitat areas are designated by the county 'as Wildlife
Habitat. The county's existing requirements in the community plans and the CDC will continue to be
applicable to development in the unincorporated area, including Bull Mt. If the BMCP is updated,
that planning process should compare the county and Tigard's standards and consider, whether or not
it would be beneficial to continue to use the county standards for properties in the Bull Mt. that
annex to Tigard.
2020 Transportation Plan
In October 2002, Washington County adopted a new transportation plan; the Washington County
2020 Transportation Plan, (Transportation Plan). The transportation plan comprehensively addresses
all of the requirements of the State Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) and the Regional
$ Goal 5 - Natural Resources, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Open Spaces
DRAFT ISSUE PAPER NO. 18
Bull Mt. Community Plan Update
June 28, 2005
Page 8
Transportation Plan (RTP). Key provisions of the Transportation Plan that are applicable to the Bull
Mt. area are:
1. Roy Rogers Road is the only road that is designated as part of the countywide road system
(Figure 10, Transportation Plan). Other roads inthe area'are'oi will become the responsibility of
Tigard as roadway jurisdiction is transferred from the county to the city.
2. Beef Bend Road,.between Hwy. 99 and 150th Avenue, is the only road in the area that has an
RTP street design overlay designation. Figure 3.(Regional Street Design Overlay Map) in the
Transportation Plan designates this section of the road with the RTP's "'Street Design'
Consideration." Consistent with the RTP, the Transportation Plan requires the following design
elements to.be considered as part-of future improvements to this, section of road. 9 These design
considerations are not mandatory:.
• wide sidewalks separated from the_.roadway with a landscape planter strip where possible
• landscaped center median when a center turn lane is not needed
• marked pedestrian crossings at intersections; special crossing improvements may be made at
major intersections.
3. Improvements to other roads in the area will be designed to be consistent with the provisions of
the, Washington County Uniform Road Improvement Design Standards.
Since the adoption of the Transportation Plan, the county has begun implementing. the policies and .
strategies of the Plan. An early task, which county staff have. initiated, is to develop a countywide
funding plan that will.define how to fund improvements identified in the plan. A comprehensive
public involvement will accompany development of the funding plan for the next few years.
Transportation Funding and Improvements
Improvements to the major transportation system in Washington County are mostly financed by the
Major Streets Transportation. Improvement Program (MSTIP) and the Traffic Impact Fee (TIF)
Program. The MSTIP and TIF programs, and their funding levels, were developed through a public . .
process in the mid-1980's. Based on`past trends, it is 'estimated'that the two programs, are capable of
funding approximately half of the improvements identified in the Transportation Plan. Additionally,''.,
limited funding'from state and federal grants has also been used for some projects.
Voters approved MSTIP in 1986,:1989 and 1995. MSTIP is a joint effort of Washington County and
the cities of Washington County. Approximately $350 million in transportation improvements have
been funded through MSTIP over the past 20 years. The MSTIP.;program was designed to, fund a
basic level of streetscape improvements in conjunction with road improvements. For example,
MSTIP does not fund the placement of overhead utilities (power lines) underground or provide
"boulevard" type landscaping. Funding to pay for adding these features to MSTIP projects in the
past has come from other city or county,funds.
Locally, more than $65 million dollars in MSTIP improvements have been made or are committed to
future improvements that serve the Bull Mt. area. For example, more than $17 million was spent to
9 See also pg. 9 of the Transportation Plan and the street design cross sections in'Appendix B-8 of Transportation Plan
Technical Appendix ;
DRAFT ISSUE PAPER NO. 18
Bull Mt. Community Plan Update
' June 28, 2005
Page 9
improve Beef Bend/Elsner/Roy Rogers Road and $8 million was "spent to improve Tualatin-
Sherwood Road.. The upcoming realignment of 175th Avenue north of Scholls.Ferry, at its
intersection with Roy Rogers Road, will improve this north-south route for traffic in the area. Also,
the upcoming extension of Murray Blvd. between Scholls Ferry and Barrows Roads_ will improve
north-south connections in the area.
The Traffic Impact Fee is a transportation tax that all new development in Washington County pays.
TIF revenue is used to fund capacity improvements to the ma'or.road system in Washington County.
Certain•county•and city collectors and arterials are eligible to be improved with TIF revenue. TIF
revenue cannot be used to improve state highways. Due to the high cost of road improvements, the
county and cities generally use TIF revenue to fund smaller improvement projects, such as
intersection improvements, or to augment MSTIP funding of larger projects. For example, in the
Bull Mt. area MSTIP'and TIF funding was used to construct. 121st Avenue and. Gaarde Street.
Combined.funding will also be used to construct the Murray Blvd. extension. Due to high
construction costs, the county and cities also need to accumulate TIF revenue over time in order to
fund projects.
In 1990, voters approved changes to the original TIF program that was approved in 1986 to make it
applicable to all development in Washington County.10 TIF rates are based upon the rates voters
approved in 1990. If new development is required to make safetyor capacity improvements to an
eligible collector or arterial, a portion of the cost maybe eligible to be used asa credit against a
development's required TIF payment. Credits for improvements in 2004 equaled about 30% of the
total TIF income.
In 1997, Washington County and the City of Tigard agreed that the city would assume
responsibilities for land development andbuilding services in the urban unincorporated Bull Mt.
area. The Service IGA between the county and city made Tigard responsible for collecting the TIF,
which it places in a special account. Tigard is responsible for identifying and making improvements
to collectors and arterials that will benefit the Bull Mt. area. TIP revenue from urban unincorporated
Bull Mt. may be used to improve roads in the area, including city roads, provided they benefit the
urban unincorporated area. For example, improvements to the sections of Gaarde and Walnut Streets
and 121st Avenue that were previously located in the unincorporated "Walnut Island area" were
partially funded from TIF revenue generated in the urban unincorporated Bull Mt. area. The .
Beaverton and Tigard Urban Planning Area Agreements with the county each required Gaarde
Street, between 121 st Avenue and Hwy. 99, to be improved before or coincident with the connection
of Murray Blvd. from Walnut/135th Avenue to Gaarde Street. An upcoming project by Tigard will
improve the Bull Mt./Roshak Rd. intersection, through TIF, revenue from urban unincorporated Bull '
Mt. Table 2 shows the break down of TIF revenue from the city and urban unincorporated Bull Mt. "
• used to improve these roads.
1.0 The initial TIP program applied only to unincorporated Washington County. -.It was approved`, by voters in the
unincorporated'area in 1986.
DRAFT ISSUE PAPER NO. 18.
Bull Mt. Community Plan Update
June 28, 2005
Page 10 .
Table 2
Urban`:Unincor• posted. Bull
Im rove'ment'Pro'ecf Ci TIF Funds Mt. TIF Funds
Gaarde St. - Phase 2 (construct 3
lane section with bike lanes and $1,800,000 $500,000
sidewalks, between Hwy. 99 and
121st Ave.; install traffic signal
at 121st/Gaarde intersection
121st Ave. (design & ROW $300,000 $100,000
acquisition
Walnut St. (design & ROW $300,000 $100,000
acquisition)
.
Bull Mt./Roshak Rd. intersection $150,000
- add turn lanes on Bull Mt. at
the intersection
Totals $2,400,000 $850,000
The Service IGA also requires Washington County and the Washington County Coordinating.
Committee (WCCC) to approve improvements proposed by the city. All of the improvements-that
have been made or are funded to date have been approved by the county and the WCCC.
To date, approximately $10 million in TIF improvements have been made or are committed to future
improvements in the Bull Mt. area. The TIF cash balance TIF for urban unincorporated Bull Mt. as
of May 31, 2205 is $663,850.
The map on the following page shows the transportation improvements that have been made or are
funded through the MSTIP and TIF programs to serve the Bull Mt. Area.
Through the development•of the county's funding plan for the county's Transportation Plan,'the
countywide community will decide how many of the improvements identified in the Transportation
Plan it wants to fund and how to go about it. A comprehensive public involvement program will
accompany development of the funding plan.
Key Citizen Planning Issues
Issue Paper 18 considered the key citizen'issues that aie.described below. Staff identified those
issues to be of greatest concerti based upon.staff's review of the information sources noted below.
Citizen issues addressed by, Issue Paper 18:
1: Reducing the density in unincorporated Bull Mt. '
2: Compliance with the BMCP:
• Density should not exceed the maximum permitted'density of the. R-6 District
• The removal of trees and vegetation should not exceed the requirements of the BMCP
4. New development is not'in. character, with existing development
5... Improve the transportation system
I / I~ T_r
fn rd ,
WE f RD 0
J '
CJ) <
ti
P
Q9 ~ f,~a ~ 1 3°
I
sw PI
'4b
3
N
i
MI.
4
XLSNE
RD -1~0"
Road Projects in the Bull Mt. Area
ar.e.a.s w,e un .aa d..•i N m crwrbn
MSTIp
v ($65,623,631 TOTAL) Y~b~~yn
H' W9~i 5~~~Su~e. ~fl~wiseP4 ➢)rl.
p T1F expended, thru 2004' and
upoommg projects approved by WCCC NOTE; G I s
{$9474,914 TOTAL) Commuter Rail is partially funded by MSTIP and TIF
*Pn#ocrs ef4tWe for nF credits are not shown. and is not shown on this map u::
DRAFT ISSUE•PAPER NO. 18
Bull Mt. Community Plan Update
June 28, 2005
Page 12
In order to identify and evaluate key citizen concerns, staff considered the' following information:
• May 2004 White Paper on Planning prepared by Tigard's Bull Mt. Annexation Planning
Subcommittee
CPO 4B'Resolution and Order No. 04-05
• The chief planning concerns CPO 4B identified in the Washington County Committee for.
Citizen Involvement's (CCI) report recommending changes to the county's development
regulations.
Key concerns identified by Bull Mt. residents, in'recent correspondence to Chairman Brian
• Public comments at the June 2, 2005 CPO 4B meeting.
The comments below describe how the following citizen issues will be considered by the planning
alternatives to update the community plan.
Compliance with the BMCP
1. Density
As noted earlier in this paper, development that is consistent with the density requirements of
Tigard's.R-7 District is consistent with the BMCP. Issue Paper. 17 examined 17 subdivision
applications that were submitted in the Bull Area since 2002. That analysis found the average
density of those subdivisions to be 4.8 units per acre. It also found that none of the subdivisions
had more density than permitted-by the R-6 District. A comparison of the permitted densities
under the county and the city's standards for these subdivisions is shown in Table 3 of this paper:
Due to citizens' desire to replace the R-7 District with the R-6 District or-another single family
residential district, this paper examines whether or not the planning alternatives could replace the
R-7 District. The planning alternatives described below consider the reinstitution of the R-6
District and the use of Tigard's low density single family districts.
2. The removal of trees and vegetation
As noted earlier, current development in Bull Mt. must.comply with the provisions.of the BMCP
and the county's CDC standards for areas in the community plan that are designated as ' a
Significant Natural Resource. This issue is beyond the scope of this paper. The planning
alternatives examined below consider how each alternative could or could not consider changes
to the current regulations and whether or not the current requirements would continue to apply.
Transportation Improvements
The planning alternatives will consider whether or not each, alternative could examine the provisions
of the county's Transportation Plan related to the future design of roads, including Regional Street
Design Overlay Map and the street design cross sections in Appendix B-8 of Transportation Plan
Technical Appendix. Citizens'-desires for more improvements to roads that serve the Bull Mt. area
will not be addressed in this paper because the appropriate venue to address those concerns is
through the development of the funding plan.
.DRAFT ISSUE PAPER NO. 18
Bull Mt. Community Plan Update
June 28, 2005
Page 13
Table 3 - Density Comparison
COUNTY R-6 DISTRICT
No. of Lots Minimum No. of Maximum No. of Lots
approved/proposed Required Lots Permitted
Tigard Dev. through Tigard's (5 units per (6 units per
PROJECT NAME Development File No. File Status Acres R-7 District gross acre) gross acre)
Tuscany 2002-00001 Approved 15.16 89 76 91
Bella.Vista 2002-00007 Approved 9.29 45 46 56
Ironwood Subdivision 2002-00008 Approved 1.22 6 6 7
nf~
-..naxca'rT.rfi;esrca=:r:=•ry
2003-00009 (Phase I & 2)
Summit Ridge Phases 1-3 2004-00003 (Phase 3) Approved 27.46 130 137 165 -
Meyers Farm II 2003-00014 Approved 8.16 .44 41 49
Valley View 2004-00001 Approved 4.91 25 25 -rye 29
French Prairie Vineyards' 2004-00004 Approved 5.7 30. 29, 34
2004-00008
Arbor Summit 1 & 2 2004-00013 A -roved .8.83 42 44 53
Mountain View Estates ' 2004-00021 Approved 6.94 19 35 42
Trevor Ridge 2004-00022 Approved 1.34 8 7 8a•~.,
Alpine View 2004-00064 Pending 8.69 46 43 52
_ t
Summit Ridge Phase 4 2005-00002 Pending 0.75 5' 4' 5
Wilson Ridge 2005-00003 Pending 2.68 14 13 16
Arlington Heights 3 2005-00007 Pending. 16.82 64 84 101
.s;._.yr Nut ;.Sierra Park 2005-00008 Pending 4.19 24 21 25
TOTAL 122.14 591 611 733
DRAFT ISSUE PAPER NO. 18
Bull Mt. Community. Plan Update
June. 28, 2005
"Page 14 '
Future funding sources "for transportation -impro'veme'nts will be identified through the
development of the funding plan for the county's. Transportation Plan; Theeefore, funding-issues =
will not be addressed in this paper.
Measure 37
As discussed in some detail in Issue Paper 17, M-37 could impact an update ofthe Bull Mt:
Community Plan, particularlythe potential to down zone. properties to reduce existing planned,
densities in the Bull Mt. area. The four indicators that staff examined in Issue ,Paper 17 to assess
how owners of vacant land might respond to changes-to down zone their property showed there
may be a high likelihood that property; owners would see the value of their property diminished:
Consequently, citizen desires for lower density may. conflict. with some property, owners"desires
to maximize their property, value.'
Due to M-37, there is no longer any certainty that all properties in the-Bull Mt. area will develop
at existing orfuture densities.:For example, if densities-are reduced through an update of the
BMCP, current property owners could have the potential to file"a M47 claim to. develop at the
previous higher density in place when they owned the property Consequently; there isno
:
guarantee that, if the existing planned density:can be reassigned from the Bull Mt: area to the City .
of Tigard or the' UGB expansion areas-the`down zoned properties will develop at the new,
lower densities •As noted in Issue, Paper 17, this scenario, could lead"to higheroverall densities
for the larger community through development "on Bull Mt. at current densities and denser
development in Tigard and/or the'UGB areas'th[ough the transfer of density from. Bult Mt.
Alternatives to Update the Bull Mt. Community Plan'
Staff identified eight alternatives that could he used to update the BMCP based upon the current.
i•equirements'and conditions described above. Altematives'1• through .4 do not`include the
planning of the Bull Mt..UGB expansions.areas -Alternative's IA*through 4A"_include.the -
planning of the UGB areas in conjunction with the sanie"scope of work of the first four
alternatives.,,
"
Each alternative includes a generalized scope of work and describes how the following criteria
are or are not addressed. - =
' • How key citizen concerns, could be addressed .
• Consistency with County 2000 " .
Potential impacts from Measure 37 (M=37) ,
Generalized cost information,-.
• Cost effectiveness to address key' "citizen issues ;
Staff ranked the ;eight planning alternatives using the criteria'described above. Charts A" and'B
show the ranking of the alternatives based upon cost, greatest potential-to address citizen
concerns, and greatest potential to amend the BMCP. The cost/benefit to update the BMCP and
:the cost/benefit to address citizen'issues'is•shown in Chart C, The charts are provided. at the,end
ofthe, paper.
1
DRAFT ISSUE PAPER NO. 18
Bull Mt. Community Plan Update
June 28, 2005
Page 15
In order to understand some of the differences between some of the alternatives, the, following
background information is provided.
1. Key citizen issues: Staff ranked the key citizen planning issues that will be considered by
each alternative. The issues are ranked from highest to lowest concern, with 5 as the most'
important and 1 as the least important. The ranking is:
5. Reduce-the planned density of future development in.unincorporated Bull Mt..
4. Density should not exceed the maximum pennitted.density of the R-6 District
3. The removal of trees and vegetation should not exceed the requirements of the BMCP
2.- Make additional improvements to the area's transportation system, including Hwy. 99
1. New development is not in character with existing development
2. The roles of the county's Framework Plan, community plans and development standards
The Framework Plan established the countywide policies and strategies that are the
framework of the county's urban-land use program. The policies and strategies apply to all of
urban unincorporated Washington County. The Framework Plan lays out the tools that are
used to implement the Framework Plan. The community plans carry out the Framework
Plan's countywide policies and straiegies•to specific geographic areas. The development
standards in the CDC implement the Framework Plan, the Transportation Plan and certain
community plan requirements. The standards and review procedures in the CDC are also
designed to apply on a countywide basis. .
Consequently, the most effective way to address citizen concerns through an update of the
BMCP requires the capability to review and amend the underlying policies and strategies of
the applicable comprehensive plan and the development standards and review procedures
that implement that comprehensive plan. Because each of the eight alternatives address the
underlying plan policies and implementing land use regulations in varying degrees, each
alternative will describe how well they address this factor.
Alternative 1 - County Updates BMCP Using Current Applicable County and City'Requiiements
Scope of Work: Alternative 1 uses Tigard's existing comprehensive plan, including land use
designations, and development regulations. This alternative is limited to only amending the
community plan because Tigard's comprehensive plan and development standards apply.
Alternative 1 would not address the city's development regulations because it would not be
practical for.the county to lead a planning process to consider amendments to the city's
regulations, .particularly- since the city. is going to update those regulations shortly.
Key Citizen Issues: They.would not be effectively addressed as described below.
DRAFT ISSUETAPER NO. 18' ,
Bull'Mt. Community Plan Update
June 29, 2005
Page 16
1. Reduce the overall planned density of the BMCP: ;
• . The overall planned density of the area could not be reduced because there would; be no
other area to reassign the density to. As rioted previously in.this paper, Tigard's R-7
density requirements are less dense than the county's R-6 District.
• Density could be reallocated within the area provided there was no overall loss of
density. Properties that are currently zoned R-7 could be "down zoned'.' to one of
Tigard 's other less dense single family zoning districts..(K4, R-2, R-3.5, R-4.5). To offset
the density decrease, the zoning, of other vacant,properties would have,to be increased . ,
from R-7 to one_of Tigard's three multi-family districts. (R- 12, 12 units'per acre;-R-25, 25
units per acre; R-40, 40.or more units per acre). '
2. The..density of new development should not exceed the maximum density of the R-6 District
• This alternative would not change the applicability.of Tigard's current land use districts
to the BMCP.. This concern could be addressed as described in the previous bulleted
statement.
3.' Standards for the removal. of trees and vegetation
• The_county's existing regulations that are applicable fo areas designated by the BMCP as
a Significant Natural Resource would not be changed. The implementation of those
requirements by either the city'or the county should be the same.
• Through the upcoming implementation of the countywide. Goal 5 and Healthy Streams
Program, uniform development requirements forwater` and riparian related resources-Will
be developed' and used by the county, and the cities. Consequently, there should be no
difference between the city and county's- standards for these, resources:
The,city's'standards for, the removal of trees and vegetation in areas that are not
designated by,the.BMCP as a-Significant Natural Resource would not be addressed
because the county would not amend the city's development standards.
4. Development is not in character with, existing surrounding development _ . 4
• This concern would be addressed iti a very limited manner because the county would not
amend the city's land use regulations:.
.5. Improvements to the transportation system
• This, alternative would not consider amendments 'to the county's transportation plan and
road standards: Therefore, future improvements to the collectors and the arterial in the.'.
area would be designed to be consistent with. current requirements..
C6unty"2000: This alternative is not consistent with County 2000.
Potential Measure 37 Impacts:
This alternative would have, the fewest potential M,-,'37,. impacts because it would result in the
'least changes to existing land use designations and regulations.
Expense ranking to update the community plan: 1st
Least expensive alternative because it has-the most limited scope of work..
DRAFT ISSUE PAPER-NO. 18
Bull Mt. Community Plan Update
June 28, 2005
Page 17
Ranking of potential amendments to the community plan: 1st
Alternative 1 makes the fewest changes to the BMCP.
Ranking of potential to address citizen concerns: - last
Alternative 1 addresses the fewest citizen concerns.
Cost effectiveness ranking to address citizen concerns: last
It addresses the fewest citizen concerns.
Alternative 2 - County Updates the BMCP by Limited Amendments to its Comprehensive Plan
.Scope of Work: The county would repeal Tigard's zoning districts, Comprehensive Plan and
r development standards: In their,place, the county would apply its current land use designations
(R-5, R-6, R-9, etc.) in a manner that would not reduce the overall planned density of the area
and make the Framework Plan and the CDC applicable to the area again. Amendments to the
Framework Plan and the CDC would be considered provided their scope is limited to the Bull
Mt. area.- r
Key Citizen Issues: There is limited potential to consider some of the key issues.'
L. Reduce the overall planned density of the BMCP ,
• The overall planned density of the area could not be reduced because there would be no
other area to transfer the density to.
• Density could be reallocated within the area provided there was no overall loss of
planned density as described under Alternative 1.
2. The density of new development should not exceed the maximum density of the R-6 District
• This alternative could reinstitute the county's R-6 District. However, the county's R-6
District allows denser development than Tigard's-R-7 District. The county's only existing
single family district that is less dense than Tigard's R-7 District is the county's k-5
District.
3. Standards for the removal of trees and vegetation
• . The county's existing regulations that are applicable to areas designated by the BMCP as
a Significant Natural Resource would not change. The implementation of those
requirements by either the city or the county should be the same.
• Through the upcoming implementation of the countywide Goal 5 and Healthy Streams_
Program, uniform development requirements for water and riparian related resources will-
be developed and used by the county and the cities. Consequently, there should be no
difference between the city and county's- standards for these resources.
• The city's standards for the removal of trees and vegetation in areas that are not
designated by the BMCP as a Significant Natural Resource would be replaced by the
county's standards. Changes to the county's, standards would. not,be considered through
this alternative because they apply on a countywide basis.
DRAFT ISSUE PAPER NO. 18
Bull Mt. Community Plan Update
June 28, 2005
Page 18
4. Development is not in character with existing surrounding development.
• This concern could only be considered in a limited manner because the type of changes
that could be made to the Framework Plan and the CDC would be limited to the Bull Mt.
area. These documents, however, are designed to be applied countywide. Limited
changes to these regulations would make it difficult to address neighborhood
compatibility and design and architectural concerns.
5. Improvements to the transportation systein
• This alternative would not consider amendments to the county's transportation plan and
road standards. Therefore, future improvements to the collectors and the arterial in the
area would be designed to be consistent with current requirements.
County 2000:
• This alternative is not consistent, with County. 2000. .
Potential Measure 37 Impacts:.
This alternative would have more potential M-37 impacts than Alternative 1 because it could
also result in changes to the Framework Plan and the CDC.
Expense ranking to update the communityplan: 3rd
Ranking of potential amendments to the community plan: 3rd
Ranking of potential to address citizens 'concerns: 2nd
Ranking of cost effectiveness to address citizens' concerns: 2nd
Alternative 3 - County Updates the BMCP Through an Update of its Comprehensive Plan
Scope of Work The county would repeal Tigard's comprehensive plan and development
standards. In their place; the county could adopt county land use designations different from
those in the BMCP and an amended Framework Plan and CDC. Consideration of amendments
to other elements of the county's. Comp Plan, such as the transportation element, could also
occur under this alternative.
Updating the.BMCP under Alternative 3 would be a massive undertaking for the county because
'it would basically bean update of the county's Comp Plan for the urban area. The Framework
Plan, the CDC, the other community plans, and other elements of the Comprehensive Plan that
are applicable to urban unincorporated Washington County would all have to be addressed. An
update of the Comp Plan would require the participation of all residents; property owners and
businesses in the urban unincorporated areas and urban CPOs. This alternative would consider
countywide issues and opinions and the changes to the Comprehensive Plan would be applicable
countywide:
Key Citizen Issues: There is.the potential to consider some key issues:
DRAFT ISSUE PAPER NO. 18
Bull Mt. Community Plan Update
June 28, 2005
Page 19
1. Reduce the overall planned density of the BMCP
• The overall planed density of the area could not be reduced because there would be no
other area to transfer the density to.
• . As with Alternatives 1 and 2, density could be reallocated within the area provided there
was no overall loss of planned density in order to maintain compliance with the
Metropolitan Housing Rule and Title 1. Again, any change in density that is less than the
R-6 District's density would have to be reassigned to other vacant properties in the Bull
Mt. area.
2. The density of new development should not exceed the maximum density of the R-6 District
• Tigard's land use districts would be replaced by the county's land use districts in this
alternative. However, as previously discussed, the density of Tigard's R-7 District is
lower than the county's R-6 District.
3. Standards for the removal 'of trees and vegetation
• The county's existing regulations that are applicable to areas designated by the BMCP as
a Significant Natural Resource would not change with the exception of water and riparian
related resources. The standards for those resources will be developed through the
countywide Goal 5 and Healthy Streams Program.
• • . The city's standards for the removal of trees and vegetation in.areas that are not
designated by the BMCP as a Significant Natural Resource would be replaced by the .
county's standards. Changes to the county's existing standards could be considered'
provided they are•applicable on a countywide basis.
4. Development is not in character with existing surrounding development:
• Alternative 3 would allow neighborhood compatibility and design and architectural
concerns to be considered. However, in'order to address the type and level of
compatibility and design and architectural considerations identified in the Tigard
Planning White.Paper, the county would have to changea fundamental underlying policy,
of its Comp Plan. This policy, which the Framework Plan, the community plans and the
CDC are based upon is:
The county will not address aesthetics and architectural design unless it is required to do
so by state or regional requirements. Instead, the county will limit its regulations to basic
zoning issues and rely upon the. market to address aesthetics and architectural design.
If this fundamental policy is not changed, many of the citizen's concerns about. compatibility.:
and design would not be addressed. For example, staff determined that the proposed CDC
changes recommended by the CCI Code Report to address residential compatibility issues
were not consistent with this fundamental policy Consequently, these changes were not
approved as part of the Planning Division's work program.
See Issue Paper 8
DRAFT ISSUE PAPER NO. 18
Bull Mt. Community Plan Update
June 28, 2005
Page 20
• A countywide update of the urban,compouent of the county's Comp Plan may or may not
result in changes that are consistent with the desires of Bull Mt. residents because the
Comp Plan is applicable countywide.
5. Improvements to the transportation system
• This. alternative provides the potential to consider amendments, to the county's
transportation plan and the county's road standards. Therefore, it could be possible to
consider the use of enhanced streetscapes and "green streets".
• This alternative provides the potential to. provide a venue to examine how to improve
Hwy. 99. However, this study could not occur without ODOT leading the study.
County 2000: This alternative is not consistent with County 2000.
Potential Measure 37 Impacts:
This alternative would have far more potential M-37 impacts than Alternatives 1 and 2 because it
could result in changes to the land use designations in the community plans, the Framework Plan
and the CDC that would be applicable to all of urban unincorporated Washington County.
Expense ranking to update the community plan: 7th
It is the most expensive alternative.
Ranking of potential amendments to, the community plan: ' 4th
Ranking ofpotential to address citizens' concerns: 4th
Ranking of cost effectiveness to address citizens' concerns: 3rd
Alternative-4 - Tigard Updates the BMCP in Conjunction with its Comprehensive Plan Update
Scope of Work: Tigard would update the BMCP in conjunction with its upcoming update of its
comprehensive plan. Tigard said its plan update.will be a comprehensive update of its.plan,
including a review of its land use designations,. development regulations, and procedures and .
public facility plan. The city will develop a public involvement program.for public outreach'and
participation with the help of community members. Washington County would provide, limited,-.
to the city since the county must adopt its own land use ordinances to implement the
city's final plan for the unincorporated area.
Key Citizen Issues: All key issues could be considered.
This alternative provides the opportunity to consider all citizen concerns because: 1) the
community plan and the underlying plan policies and development'regulations could be .
amended through the city's update process; 2) the potential to.reassign planned density'to
the city of Tigard is provided; 3) Bull Mt. and Tigard residents share similar concerns about .
planning issues as described in the, discussion about the city's White Paper on Planning, and
3) key concerns the Tigard Council identified to be addressed this year address some-of the
citizens' issues. They include making improvements to Hwy. 9,9 to make it work better and
DRAFT ISSUE PAPER NO. 18
Bull Mt. Community Plan Update
June 28, 2005
Page 21
look better, amending the city's development standards for planned developments, and''
acquiring park and open space land in the Bull Mt. area.
1. Reduce the overall planned density of the BMCP
• Alternative 4 provides the opportunity to consider reassigning density from the Bull Mt. "
area into the city.
• There is the opportunity to consider using one or more of Tigard's lower density
residential districts in the area as discussed earlier in this paper. The density of Tigard's
R-4.5, R-3, R-2 and R-1 are all lower than the county's k-5 District. One or more of
these districts could be used to reduce density in Bull Mt.
2: The density of new'development should not ekceed the maximum,density of the R-6 District
• As noted previously,. Tigard's single family residential districts are less dense than
Washington County's R-6 District:
3. Standards for the' removal ofarees and vegetation
• Through the upcoming implementation of the countywide Goal 5 and Healthy Streams
Program, unifoim`development requirements for water and riparian related resources will
be, developed and used by the county and the cities. Consequently, there should be no.
difference between the city and county's standards for these resources.'
• This alternative could examine the continued use of the county's requirements for areas
of unincorporated Bull Mt: that are designated as Wildlife Habitat.,
• Amendments to the city's standards for the removal of trees:and vegetation in areas that
are not designated by the BMCP as a Significant Natural Resource could be considered.
4. Development is not in character with, existing surrounding development:
Alternative 4 provides a muchbetter opportunity than Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 to address this
concern. Alternative 4 would allow neighborhood compatibility.and design and architectural
concerns to be considered because the underlying plan policies'and development regulations
could be changed. And as noted previously, concerns of city residents are similar to those of
Bull Mt. area residents.. For example, the city is currently examining proposed amendments
to its standards for Planned Developments, which would address some of the issues identified
in the White Paper on Planning.
5. Improvements to the transportation system
• . This alternative provides the potential to consider amendments to'the county's
transportation plan and the county's road standards. Therefore, .it could be possible to
consider the use of "green streets" designs or enhanced streetscapes.
• This alternative provides the opportunity to examine how to improve Hwy. 99. A key
goal of Tigard's Council is improving the highway from, an operational and aesthetics,
point of view.12 The city can more effectively address•these concerns because the
adjacent properties are in the city. Consequently, the city has the opportunity.to work
with ODOT to study needed improvements, such as access •management, enhanced
streetscape standards and improvements to parking and'buildings fronting the highway.
12 Cityscape Newsletter (March/April 2005'edition)
DRAFT ISSUE PAPER NO. 18.
Bull Mt. Community Plan Update
June 28, 2005
Page 22
However, as noted in Alternative 2,, issues related to improvements to the highway could
not occur without ODOT leading the study.
County 2000: This alternative, is consistent with County 2000.
Potential Measure 37 Impacts:
Alternative 4 would have the potential for'more M-37 impacts in the. Bull Mt. area than the fiist
three alternatives because Alternative 4 could allow the planned.density of the area to be
reduced. Alternative 4 would have the potential for fewer total M-37 impacts than Alternative 3
because Alternative 3 deals with a much.smaller geographic area.
Expense ranking to update the community plan: 5th
Ranking of potential amendments to the. community plan: 7th
Ranking of potential to address citizens', concerns: 7th
Ranking of cost effectiveness to address citizens' concerns: 7th;
Alternatives IA 2A 3A and 4A - Update the BMCP in Con*unctioriwith the Bull Mt. UGB
Expansion Areas:
Scope of Work: Alternatives-1A through 4A use the same scope of work as the first four
alternatives but also include the planning of Areas 63 and 64. The following analysis describes
how'Alternativ.es 1 through 4, carried out in conjunction with planning Areas 63 and 64, address
each factor. The combined alternatives, which are identified as Alternatives IA, 2A, 3A, and 4A,
correspond to the first four alternatives in the following manner:
• Alternative I A = Alternative 1 + the planning of Areas 63 and 64.
• Alternative 2A = Alternative. 2 + the planning of Areas 63 and 64.
• Alternative 3A = Alternative 3 + the planning of Areas 63 and 64.
Alternative 4A = Alternative 4 + the planning of Areas 63 and 64.
Currently, the county has committed to plan the North Bethany UGB expansion area due to a
unique set of circumstances applicable to that area. No decisions have been made yet about
which local government will do the planning for.the'Bull Mt., Cooper Mt. and 209th Avenue
UGB expansion areas.
The county 'does not plan to update its Comprehensive Plan in order to do the planning for the
North Bethany area. The county plans to use the existing Framework Plan and land use
designations (R-5, R-6, etc.) to do that work. Therefore, Alternatives IA and 2A are based upon
the county using the existing Framework Plan and its existing land use districts to do the
planning for the Bull Mt. expansion areas. Alternatives 3A and 4A are also based upon the
premise that the county or Tigard could use its existing land use districts or develop new or
DRAFT ISSUE PAPER-NO. 18
Bull Mt. Community Plan Update
June 28, 2005
Page 23
modified land use districts through an'update of their respective comprehensive plans as
described in Alternatives 3 and 4.
Key Citizen Issues. .
1. Reduce the overall planned density of the BMCP
• Alternatives IA, 2A and 3A: updating the BMCP in conjunction with planning Areas, 63 .
and 64 provides the opportunity to reallocate planned density from Bull Mt. to these
areas. Using the county's R-5 District would provide limited potential to reduce the
density because its density' is slightly lower than the density of Tigard's R-7 District.
Alternative •3A provides the opportunity to create a new county single. family district with
a lower density requirement through an update of the county's Comprehensive Plan.
• Alternative 4A: This alternative provides the greatest opportunity to reduce the density
in the Bull Mt. area because there would be two potential areas to assign density to.
• " Due to the topography and natural resources in Areas 63 and 64, the potential to accept
density from the Bull Mt. area may be limited.
2. The density of new development should not exceed the maximum density of the R-6 District
• The use of the county or city's existing land use designations would not be different than
described under Alternatives 1,_ 2, 3 and 4. The R-5 District could result in slightly lower
densities. Tigard's R-4.5, R-3, R-2 and R-1 would result in densities lower than the .
county's R-5 and R-6 Districts.
3. Standards for the removal of trees and vegetation
• There would be no change to the provisions for tree and vegetation removal described
under Alternatives 1, 2, 3 and 4.
4. Development is not in character with existing surrounding development
• All alternatives - updating the BMCP in conjunction with planning Areas 63 and 64 .
would not change how this factor would be addressed.
5. Improvements to the transportation system
• All alternatives - updating the BMCP in conjunction with planning Areas 63 and 64 .
would not change how this factor would be addressed.
County 2000:
All alternatives: updating the BMCP in conjunction with planning Areas 63 and 64 would not
change each alternative's consistency with County 2000.
Potential Measure 37lmpacts:
• Alternatives IA, 2A and 3A:.,the potential for M-37 impacts is greater than Alternatives 1, 2
and 3 due to the potential to move,density from the Bull Mt. area, which could result in the
down zoning of vacant properties.
• Alternative 4A: - the potential for M-37 impacts is greater than Alternative 4 due to the
increased potential to move density from the Bull Mt. area, which could result in more vacant
properties being down zoned.
DRAFT. ISSUE PAPER NO. 18,
Bull ML Community Plan Update
June 28, 2005
Page.24 j
• Alternative 3A: Alternative 3A has the potential to have greatest M-37 impacts amongst all .
eight alternatives because it has the largest impact area.
Expense:
Alternatives 1 A, 2A, 3A, and 4A: Each alternative has the added expense of planning Areas 63
and 64 in,comparison to Alternatives 1,.2, 3, and 4, which do not include this planning.
However, the added cost to plan Areas 63 and 64 would not be the same for Altematives:lA,'2A,
3A, and_4A due to their different scopes of work.
• Alternatives IA, 2A and 3A would have the highest unit cost and the lowest cost
effectiveness because Alternative 1 would not update the BMCP and Alternative 2 would
only make limited amendments to-it. Consequently, planning Areas 63 and 64 require the
BMCP to be updated in order to consider reallocating Bull Mt. density. ,
• Alternative 3A would be the most expensive because it implicates the planning of the North
Bethany UGB'expansion area. Alternative 5.4 has the least added cost because Alternative 4
would update the BMCP and consider moving density from Bull Mt. to the city. These
factors also make this alternative the most cost effective
The ranking of Alternatives 1A, 2A and 3A are shown in the charts below. Chart A shows the
ranking of the eight alternatives in order of cost from least expensive (1) to most expensive (8).
Chart B shows the ranking. of the alternatiyes for their potential to make the most amendments to
the BMCP and, address the most citizen concems. The alternatives are ranked from highest (8) to
lowest (1). The ranking of the alternatives' cost/benefit to update the BMCP~and the cost/benefit
to address citizen issues.are shown in Chart C.
{
DRAFT ISSUE PAPER NO. 18
Bull Mt. Community Plan Update
June 28, 2005
Chart A Page 25
Ranking of Planning Alternatives based on Cost
9-
8 -
7
6 =
5
Y 4 - - -
3' - - - - -
2 = - -
1 - -
1 2 3 4 1A 2A 3A 4A
,Alternatives Expense
Chart B
Ranking of Planning Alternatives based on the level of Potential
Amendments to Update the. Bull Mt. Community Plan (BMCP) and
Address Citizen's Issues
8 -
7
6 -
5
4
3
2
0
1 2 3 4. 1A 2A'' 3A' 4A,
Alternatives Address Citizen Issues
Update the BMCP
- DRAFT ISSUE PAPER NO. 18
Bull Mt. Community Plan Update
June 28, 2005
Page 26,
,Chart C
Cost/Benefit to Update the Bull 'Mt. Community plan (BMCP)
and Address Citizenissues
-
8
6 _
5 - _
4 - - - - -
2
0`
1 2 3 4 5.1 5.3 5.4
Alternatives.:
CosUBonefif to.Address
Citizen Issues
Cost/Benefit to Update the BMCP . .
S:\Ping\WPSHARE\2005ord\Work Program\lssue Papers\Bull Mt Papers\11?18\ni 18 update'com plan final draft 6-28-05.doc
WASHINGTON COUNTY
OREGON
June 28, 2005
DRAFT
PLANNING DIVISION
ISSUE PAPER NO. 21
Planning Bull Mt. UGB Expansion Areas 63 and 64
Issue
Through the Planning Division's 2005 work program, the Board of County Commissioners
(Board) directed staff to prepare seven issue papers about planning and park issues in the urban ,
unincorporated Bull Mt. area. Issue Paper 21 discusses issues associated with planning the
expansion of the urban growth boundary (UGB) in the Bull'Mt. area, commonly referred to as
Areas 63 and 64.
Recommendation
Based upon the analyses in this Issue Paper and Issue Papers 1 S, .16, 17 and 18, staff
recommends that the City of Tigard do the planning of Areas 63-and 64. Washington County -
would participate in the transportation planning to assess impacts to existing county facilities.
Background
At the Board's request, the Planning Division, has prepared seven issue papers that-address
planning and park issues associated with the urban unincorporated Bull Mt. area. Five issue
papers address density, parks, updating the Bull Mt. Community Plan, and amendments to the
Washington County / Tigard, Urban Planning Area Agreement: The seventh issue paper (IP 14)
addresses CPO 4B's request fora public facility strategy I development moratorium for the Bull
Mt. area.
In December 2004, the Board and the Tigard City Council (Council) held a joint meeting to
discuss a number of issues about the Bull Mt. area that had been raised by area residents. The
Board and the Council expressed a desire to work together to develop a planning program that
could address residents' concerns, primarily through the upcoming planning efforts of the city. `
The Council indicated the city, would soon begin the following planning activities: 1) update the
comprehensive plan for its downtown area [underway], 2) update its park master plan, and 3)
update its comprehensive plan. At that time the Council also said it may be interested in
examining if Bull Mt. density could be transferred to the city through its comprehensive plan
update.
At the conclusion of the meeting, the Board directed the county Planning Division to prepare, in
consultation with Tigard, issue papers on park planning (Issue Papers l5 ,and 16), the potential to
decrease density in the Bull Mt. area.(Issue Paper 17updating the Bull Mt. Community Plan
(Issue Paper 18) and planning the Bull Mt. UGB expansion areas (Issue Paper 21). The Board .
also asked staff to include an assessment about how to address these issues in conjunction with
Department of Land.Use 8s Transportation • Planning Division
155 N First Avenue, Suite 350-14, Hillsboro, OR 97124-3072
Phone: (503) 846-3519 • Fax: (503) 846-4412 • www.co.washington.or.us
DRAFT ISSUE PAPER NO. 21
Planning Areas 63 and.64
June 28, 2005
Page 2
Tigard's update of its comprehensive plan and park master plan, and, planning UGB expansion
Areas 63 and 64.
Jim Hendryx, Tigard's Community Development Director, said the Council is interested in doing
the comprehensive planning for Areas 63 and 64 as well as updating the Bull Mt. Community
Plan. This. work would include an examination of transferring density from Bull Mt. to the city
and Areas 63 and. 64. If the city does this work, it would be done in conjunction.with the city's
upcoming update of its comprehensive plan.
Analysis
In 2002, Metro made a major expansion to the UGB. In the Bull Mt. area, Areas 63 and 64 were
added to the UGB. Together, they.total 483 acres. In response-to requirements of Title 11 in
Metro's Urban Growth Management Functional Plan (Functional Plan), Washington County
designated these areas as FD-20 in 2004 by Ordinance 515 (map attached). The FD-20 District
provides interim protection to the UGB expansion areas from new development that could
interfere with future urban uses. The FD-20 designation will be maintained until the required
planning of the UGB expansion areas has been completed and adopted. Ordinance 615 added'
Areas 63 and.64 to the Bull Mt. Community Plan, with the exception of the area north of Scholls
Ferry Road. That area was added to the Aloha-Reedville-Cooper Mt. Community Plan. The Bull
Mt. Community Plan identifies these areas as the Western Slopes Subarea.
y
Metro Planning Requirements
Title 11 of the Functional Plan requires the local comprehensive plan provisions for UGB
expansion-areas to include at a minimum "an urban growth plan diagram and policies that .
demonstrate compliance with the RUGGO2, including the Metro Council adopted 2040 Growth
Concept design types." This plan is commonly referred to as a "concept plan." Development of
the,UGB expansion areas to urban uses cannot occur until this planning is completed. Currently, .
-no planning analysis of Areas 63 and 64 has been done.
Specific minimum requirements that all concept plans must address are:
• provision,for annexation to appropriate service provider districts for required urban services
• average residential densities of at least ten units per net acre (or as appropriate for assigned
2040 Growth Concept design type)
• a diversity of housing stock, including affordable housing
• sufficient commercial and industrial development for the area's, needs
• a conceptual transportation plan that addresses future transportation needs
• a conceptual public facilities and services plan for sewer, water, storm drainage,
transportation, parks, and police and fire protection
• a conceptual school plan that provides for the amount of land improvement needed for school
facilities-to serve the expansion area
• programs for the protection of water quality, natural hazard. and. natural resource areas;
Future Development 20 Acres
2. Metro's Regional Urban Growth Goals and Objectives
DRAFT ISSUE PAPER NO. 21
.
Planning Areas 63 and 64
June 28, 2005
Page 3
• concept maps addressing all of the above and showing general locations for mixed use and
commercial areas
The minimum requirements that a concept plan must include are:..
• general locations for single and multi-family housing, mixed use areas, and commercial and -
industrial lands ;
• general locations for public open space, plazas and neighborhood centers
• general locations or alternative locations for needed school, park or fire station sites
• general locations of arterial, collector and essential local streets and street connections
• general locations of public facilities such as sewer and water to demonstrate the area can be
served
• locations of steep slopes and other constrained'lands'such as wetland, flood plain and. riparian
areas
The key provision of the Metropolitan Housing Rule3 that is applicable to the UGB expansion
areas.-is providing the opportunity for at least 50% of new residential dwellings to be attached
single family (town house) or multi-family housing (apartments)..Compliance with the
Functional Plan's density standards of an average density of 10 dwelling units per acre will
satisfy the Metro Housing Rule's density requirement for urban unincorporated Washington
County of eight dwellings per net acre.
County 2000
County 2000 is Washington County's strategic plan which guides how the county provides
services. County 2000 changed the focus of county service provision. It calls for the county to
provide countywide services'(e.g., health, aging and veteran services; maintain and operate a
countywide road system) and move, away from municipal types services (e.g., maintaining the
local street system, neighborhood level planning). Fundamental changes were made to the
county's long range planning program through County 2000. Rather than performing
neighborhood level planning services, the county now focuses on participating in countywide,
regional and state planning activities rather than updating its community plans. Consequently,
the county's long term policy for the urban' unincorporated areas calls for these areas to be
eventually served by a 'city.
Consistent with County 2000, the county desires the planning of the UGB expansion areas to be
done by cities. Currently, the county has only committed to plan one expansion area,'North .
Bethany, due to its unique circumstances. No decisions have been made yet about which local
government will do the planning for the Bull Mt., Cooper Mt. and 209th Avenue UGB expansion
areas. However, when the UGB was expanded, it was anticipated by Washington County that
Tigard would do the planning of Areas 63 and 4 All of the other expansion areas in
Washington County are being planned by cities.
3 Oregon Administrative Rule 660-007
DRAFT ISSUE PAPER.NO. 21
Planning Areas 63 and'64
June 28, 2005
Page 4
Alternatives to Plan Areas 63 and 64
At a minimum, Title 11 requires the adoption of a concept plan for Areas 63. and 64. A concept
plan may. be a generalized plan indicating the type and general location of land uses and
infrastructure or it may be a more specific plan similar to the county's community plans. A
concept plan could also be as detailed as the plans adopted for the Light Rail Station Area
communities and Tigard's Washington Square Regional Center Plan. The following discussion
provides a generalized description of two alternative approaches to planning Areas 63 and 64.
Each alternative assumes the county and city's transportation plans will be updated as part of the
planning of Areas 63 and 64. Impacts to Hwy. 99 would also be considered by the Oregon,
Department of Transportation (ODOT).
Alternative 1 - Prepare a new Community-Plan
Alternative 1 would create a plan.that is similar in detail to the county's current community
plans. It would include:
specific land use designations for all properties
• the location of Significant Natural Resources and other constrained areas
• general and specific design elements which address generalized and specific planning issues
• the general location of the transportation system (e.g., new arterials or collectors)
• an analysis of impacts to the transportation system from development of Areas 63 and 64.
Planning Areas 63 and 64 would be based upon the provisions of Washington County's:.
• Comprehensive Framework Plan for the Urban Area (Framework, Plan), including the.
county's existing land use designations
• 2020 Transportation Plan
• The development standards and procedures of the county's Community Development Code .
(CDC). .
Alternative 2 - Prepare a more detailed Community Plan ,
This alternative would create a plan that is similar in detail to the county's plans "for Light Rail
Station Area communities and Tigard's Washington Square Regional Center Plan. In addition to
including the elements of Alternative 1, Alternative 2 Would include more detailed planning to
address specific development issues and, design concerns, such as the design of a Main Street.
Work Tasks
Staff believes the following tasks should be part of any alternative-to plan Areas 63 and 64:.
1. Develop and implement a public involvement program. Property owners, nearby residents
and Citizen Participation Organizations (CPOs) and city planning organizations should be,
asked to participate.
2. Coordinate the planning with the countywide Agricultural Economy / Urban Reserve Area.
Study. This study; which will determine the need for long-term protection of certain specific
agricultural lands and the identification of land to accommodate future urban•growth, will
identify potential future urban reserve areas in this part of the county: This information will
DRAFT ISSUE PAPER NO. 21
Planning Areas 63 and 64
June 28, 2005
Page 5
help shape the future development of Areas 63 and 64 and the potential location and size of
public facilities to serve the area.
3. Coordination with service providers, school districts, ODOT, along with other nearby local
governments that will not serve the area directly, such as King City, Tualatin and Sherwood.
4. Develop a park and recreation master plan for the area that also considers the needs of the
existing urban areas of Bull Mt. A funding plan, Capital Improvement Plan, and a program to
maintain and operate parks should also be developed.
Comparison of Planning by Washington County and Tigard Planning Programs .
Using each jurisdiction's existing comprehensive plans; including land use districts and
development standards, and upcoming planning initiatives, staff has prepared the following
generalized description of key planning parameters and how the county and city would likely
address the concerns of Bull Mt. residents that were identified in Issue Papers 17 aind,18. .
Washington County
1. Washington County would plan Areas. 63 and 64 using the policies and strategies of its
existing Framework Plan, including its existing land use districts, and the county's
Transportation Plan, and the existing development standards and review procedures in the
county's Community Development Code (CDC).
2. The county may or may not consider assigning density from existing Bull Mt. to Areas 63,
and 64. This task would require the county to update the Bull ML Community Plan. As
discussed in Issue -Papers 1.7 and 18, the county 'no longer performs updates to its communiy
plans due to the requirements of County 2000.
However, as noted in issue Papers 17 and -18, using the county's R-6 District will not lower.-
existing densities in the Bull Mt. area because it is denser than Tigard's R=7 District. Using
the county's R-5 District, the county's lowest density residential district, could have the
potential to slightly decrease the density of the area. In order to effectively lower densities, a
new, less dense single family district would have to be created, which would be inconsistent
with the Framework Plan. Also; the creation of new land use districts and developments does
not fit the general planning parameters described in No..I above.
3. The county would not be able to address other key citizen concerns about neighborhood
compatibility, architectural and streetscape design. As described in Issue Paper 18, the
existing policies in the'Framework Plan and the. existing CDC standards do not address these
issues in the manner suggested by Bull Mt. residents. citizen concerns about neighborhood
compatibility, architectural and streetscape design.4
4.. The county would.continue to apply its existing regulations for Significant Natural Resources
to existing Bull Mt. and Areas 63 and-64.
4 Also see Issue Paper 8.
DRAFT ISSUE PAPER NO. j2 l
Planning Areas 63 and 64
June 28, 2005
Page 6
5.. Washington County would have to develop a program to fund, construct, maintain and
operate parks since the county is not a parks provider. Currently, the county does not have a
dedicated funding source to develop or maintain parks.
6. Tigard and the Oregon Department of Transportation. (ODOT) would participate in the
transportation planning to assess impacts to their existing facilities.
T. Timing of planning- due to a number of large multi=year planning programs the county has
underway, the earliest the county could begin to plan Areas 63.'and 64 is 2007. The county
planning programs currently underway include:
• the countywide Goal 5 and Healthy Streams Program, to be completed in 2006
• the.countywide Agricultural Economy / Urban Reserve Area Study, which'will begin
later in 2005
• planning the North Bethany UGB Expansion area, which will begin later'in 2005
• developing a Funding Plan for the county's new,transportation plan
• continued preparation of urban service agreements for areas outside of the Tigard and
Hillsboro Urban Service Areas
City of Tigard
1. Tigard would plan Areas. 63. and 64 in conjunction with the update of its comprehensive plan
in 2006. The city has offered to carry out a comprehensive, integrated community wide
planning program to plan all of Bull Mt. The city would update the Bull Mt. Community Plan
and develop the plan for Areas 63 and 64 in conjunction with- the update of its comprehensive
plan. Since 1986; about one third (589 acres) of the community plan north of Beef Bend
Road has have annexed to the City of Tigard. The city's proposed comprehensive update to
all of Bull Mt., incorporated and unincorporated urban areas and Areas 63 and 64, would
allow the entire Bull Mt. community to be examined.
2. Tigard said it would examine the assignment of density from existing Bull Mt. to Areas 63
and 64 if it plans those areas. The density requirements of the city's existing single family
residential land use districts; the R-7, R-4.5,A-3, R-2'and R-I Districts„are lower than the
county's R-6 District. The density requirements of the city's RA5, R-3, R-2 and R-1
Districts are also lower than the county's R-5 Districts. Using the city's lower residential
districts in the existing Bull Mt. area provides greater opportunity to transfer density from
Bull Mt. to Areas 63 and 64 than is permissible under county requirements.,
3. Tigard Is update to its comprehensive plan and land use regulations provide the city the
opportunity to .develop new land use districts, policies and development standards to plan
Areas 63 and 64 and address issues in existing Bull Mt. Consequently, there is the
opportunity address other key citizen concerns about neighborhood compatibility,
architectural' and streetscape design.
• 4. Through its, comprehensive plan, update, the city. could continue to apply.the county's. current
standards for Significant Natural Resources to Areas 63 and 64, and existing Bull Mt.
DRAFT ISSUE PAPER NO. 21
Planning Areas 63 and 64
June 28, 2005
Page 7
5. The city will update its Park Master Plan and Capital Improvement Plan in 2006. The city
could readily address Areas 63 and 64 through this update. It could also readily update its
park system development charge to address these areas. When Tigard updated its park SDC
methodology report and SDC rates in late 2004, it identified the need for a, large.community_
park in Areas 63 and 64, which would also serve existing Bull Mt.
6. The city could begin to plan Areas 63 and 64 and update the community plan in early 2006
when it begins to update its comprehensive plan.
7. Washington County and ODOT would participate in the transportation planning to assess
impacts to their existing facilities.
Measure 37 -
Measure 37 (M-37) was approved by Oregon voters in November 2004. M-37 requires
compensation for land use regulations that reduce the value of property when the land use
regulation was adopted after the current property owner or family member acquired the property.
In lieu of compensation, the governmental agency that adopted the regulation may waive the
regulation and permit development under the prior land use requirement.
The effect of M-37 on properties recently added to the UGB will generally be different.than the +
measure's effect on existing urban properties. The existing land use designations for properties
added to the UGB are rural and do not allow development of urban uses. Consequently,- the
adoption of a'comprehensive plan for these areas will increase the value of the properties
because it will allow increased development. However, there may be particular conditions or
circumstances that could implicate M-37. In order to reduce potential future M-37 claims,
property owners in Areas 63 and 64 should be involved -very early in any planning process.
Summary and Conclusion
If Washington County is designated to plan Areas 63 and 64; the county would use its existing .
Framework Plan, land use districts and development standards. The county's existing land use
districts will not provide much opportunity to transfer density from existing Bull Mt. to Areas63
and 64 because of their density requirements. The county's policies and development standards
will not address residents concerns about with neighborhood compatibility and architectural
design to the extent desired by residents in the Bull Mt. area.
Tigard's proposal to plan all of the Bull Mt. area in conjunction with the update of the city's
comprehensive plan provides the opportunity to transfer ,much more density from existing Bull
Mt. to Areas 63 and 64 because its single family residential districts are less dense than. the
county's R-5 and R-6 Districts. An update of the city's comprehensive plan also provides the
opportunity to address residents concerns about neighborhood compatibility and architectural
design to the extent desired by residents in the Bull Mt. area through the creation of new or
modification to existing policies and development standards.
DRAFT ISSUE PAPER NO.21
Planning Areas 63 and 64
June 28, 2005
Page 8
If Tigard plans Areas 63 and 64, work could begin in early 2006 whereas the earliest the county
could begin the work is in 2007.
Planning for and providing parks in the Bull Mt. area can be accomplished more readily by
Tigard because it is a park provider and the elements of its park program already address the Bull
Mt. area. On the other hand, Washington County is not a parks provider and it has no funding or
programs in place to provide these services. The creation of a county park program to address the
Bull Mt. area.would not be consistent with County 2000.
Finally, assigning planning responsibility for Areas 63 and 64 to Tigard would be consistent with .
County 2000. The county's role would be to participate in the transportation planning and -
implement the final plan developed through the city, tasks that are consistent with County 2000.
wpshare\2005ord\work.program\issue papersTull MAID 21 Planning Areas 63 and 64 6naldraft 6-28-05
Val
" p '
~
• :.60
•d
Pin
a
s
D1
1~>
MpW ~~LJ
@ of '
3
VA)
® o
. a
0
a
Cl
f -
in
1
$W
700 . 0 700 1
Urban-Growth Boundary. (UGB)
Expansion Areas_
UGB Expansion Areas 63 & 64 I+.•+w a I „'S°" oAbtl9f;N
YRifly ~ A/A06
C 1 S
Bull Mt. Community Plan Boundary
WASHINGTON, COUNTY
OREGON
June 28, 2005
DRAFT
PLANNING DIVISION
ISSUE PAPER NO: 22
Amendments to the Washington County / Tigard
Urban Planning Area Agreement
Issue
On March 15, 2005, the Washington County Board of Commissioners (Board) directed staff to
prepare an issue paper to address the City of Tigard's request to amend the Washington County. / .
Tigard Urban Planning Area Agreement (UPAA). The proposed amendments, would allow the
City of Tigard to develop the comprehensive plan: for the Bull Mt. UGB.expansion areas and
update the Bull Mt. and Metzger Community Plans.
Recommendation
Authorize staff tofile an ordinance to amend the County I .Tigard UPAA to assign responsibility
to the City of Tigard for comprehensive planning in urban. unincorporated Bull Mt. and UGB
expansion Areas 63 and 64. The transfer of responsibilities would be.executed through an.
intergovernmentalagreement behveen Washington County and the City of Tigard. -
Background.
As noted in the attached March 14, 2005 letter from Jim Hendryx, the Tigard CityCouncil
(Council) said it is interested in doing the planning of Areas 63 and 64 and updating the Bull Mt.
and Metzger Community Plans. The Council indicated the city could do this work in conjunction
with the city's upcoming comprehensive plan update. '
This paper addresses changes to the UPAA related to updating the Bull. Mt.. Community Plan and
planning Areas, 63 and 64. It does not consider amendments related to updating the Metzger
Community Plan. Staff believes an update of the Metzger Plan should not be considered at this
time. Please see Issue Paper 18 for information about how the Bull Mt. Community Plan could
be updated. Issue Paper 21 examines the planning of Areas 63 and 64.
Analysis
The County / Tigard UPPA defines the areas of the Tigard Urban Service Area for which the
county, and Tigard are responsible for providing development review and comprehensive
planning services. As part of its new 1983 Comprehensive Plan, the county and each city were
required to enter into an urban planning area agreement. The UPAAs define. the urban areas each
city has an interest in planning... .
Department of Land Use 86 Transportation • Planning Division
155 N First Avenue, Suite 350-14, Hillsboro, OR 97124-3072
Phone: (503) 846-3519 • Fax: (503) 846-4412 • www.co.washington.or.us
:DRAFT ISSUE PAPER NO.22
County / Tigard UPAA
June 28, 2005
Page 2
The County / Tigard UPAA defines the responsibilities-of the county; and City of Tigard,
including the geographic areas they are responsible for. The current UPAA boundary does not
include Areas 63 and 64. Maps of the current UPAA boundary and Areas 63 and 64 are attached.
The UPAA defines two planning areas, Tigard's Active Planning Area and Tigard's Area of
Interest (map attached). The UPAA defines the city's Active Planning Area as the incorporated
and unincorporated areas where the city has responsibility for comprehensive planning and
.
desires to regulate development to the greatest extent possible. The UPAA defines Tigard's Area
of Interest as the unincorporated areas where.the city does not have comprehensive planning
responsibilities but maintains an interest_in planning and development.. Currently, most of
Tigard's Active Planning Area is in the city due to annexations over the past two decades. On
May 12,.1997, the county assigned to Tigard the responsibility for land development, building
and code enforcement services in the urban unincorporated Bull Mt..area, The county-maintained
responsibility for comprehensive land use and transportation planning in this area. The UPAA
currently assigns the following responsibilities to the county and city:
Ci of Tigard is responsible for:
• Development review: in the Active Planning Area and in the urban unincorporated .areas of
Bull Mt. located in Tigard's Area of Interest. -
• Comprehensive land use and transportation planning: in the Active Planning Area.
Washington Coun is responsible for:
• Development review: the Metzger area, which is located in Tigard's Area of Interest.
• Comprehensive land use and transportation planning: In the Area of Interest, the Metzger-
and Bull Mt. areas. The analysis and recommendations about park and planning issues in Issue Papers, 15; 16, 17, 18.
and 21, all indicate that Tigard is best suited to do the planning to update the Bull Mt.
Community Plan and plan Areas 63 and 64. Consequently, staff recommends that the UPAA be
amended to assign comprehensive planning responsibility to Tigard for the Bull Mt. area and
Areas 63 and 64. Washington County would participate in the transportation planning to assess
impacts'to existing county facilities. The county would also retain comprehensive planning
responsibility for the Metzger area. Staff believes the UPAA should be amended this year so that
Tigard can plan Areas 63 and 64 and update the community plan in conjunction with the update
of the city's comprehensive plan, which will begin in early 2006. The transfer of, responsibilities
would be executed through an intergovernmental agreement between Washington County and
the City of Tigard:
Through Metro's process to expand the UGB in 2002, the county anticipated, that cities would do
the planning of the UGB expansion areas in Washington. County. For Areas 63 and 64, the
county anticipated that Tigard'would planthese areas. As discussed in Issue Papers 17 and 18,
the county desires the"cities to plan the expansion areas because County 2000 limits the type of
neighborhood level planning services the county provides. Currently, the county has only-
committed to do the planning of the North Bethany expansion area due to its unique
circumstances.
DRAFT ISSUE.PAPER N0.22
County / Tigard UPAA
June 28, 2005
Page 3'
By law, the Board is the final' "decision maker for changes to the county's Comprehensive Plan,
including the community plans. However, the county can assign to Tigard the responsibility to
do the planning of the UGB expansion areas and update the Bull Mt. Community Plan. The
Board would then adopt a land use ' ordinance to implement the provisions applicable to
unincorporated Washington County. This process was used to develop the Washington Square
Regional Center Plan where Tigard was the lead planning agency. (The regional center plan is
made up of properties in the cities of Tigard and Beaverton and unincorporated Metzger.) This
process was also used to develop some of the Light Rail Station Area plans and do the planning
for past UGB expansions. In each instance, a city was the lead planning agency.
Assigning, comprehensive planning responsibility to Tigard for the Areas 63 and.64 and the Bull
Mt. area would be consistent with the planning model described in the previous paragraph. It
would also be consistent with County 2000. Tigard would be the lead planning agency and thus
be the municipal service provider as contemplated by County 2000. The county would
participate in a limited manner in order to carry out its role as the final decision maker for
unincorporated properties, a role that is consistent with County 2000.
wpshare\2005ord\work program\issue papers\Bull Mt\IP 22\[P 22 Tigard UPAA final draft 628-05.doc
- t
DRAFT ISSUE PAPER NO.22
County I Tigard UP AA
June 28, 2005
Page 4
RECEIVED
MAR 14 UO
March 14, 2005 PLANNING DIVISION
Land Use & Transportation 0W OF IGAR
Charles D. Cameron, County Administrator
Washington county OREGON
Public Services Building
155 N. Fast Avenue .
11[illsboro, OR 07124
RE: 2005 Draft Planning Divisiop and i,aed Use Ordma ace and work ]Program
Dear Mr. Cameros
The Tigard Council has esbNisbed'three goals for 2005.. • One of these is. updating the
City Comprehensive Plan. In recognition of this, the City of Tigard has reviewed the
2003- Dh0 Plmm ng Dp*wn and Land We U *wnce and Work Program and wishes .
to submit the following c ommentL We recommend the addition of; as a high priority
task wodc on amending the Tigard/County Ucbaa Planning Area Ag6ement (UPAA).
This issue is highly important to the City, became it relates to Couac0's goal to update
the Tigard Comprehensive Plan, Defining fie scope or goograpldcal reach of this effort is
the necessary first step in the planning process.
Ia addition to the'incorporated city, the areas that potentially could be included in the
comprehensive plan work scope are: the Bull Mountain unincorporated area, Urban
Growth Boundary Areas 63 and 64, and unincorporated Metzger. Together, the
incogmded City and these four distinct areas make up a plausible planting area.
Under the Washington County-Tigard Urban Planning Area Agreement, "Ate County
shall be responsible for comprehensive planning within the Area of Interest.-.
.
Although. Tigard is recognized as the "uh mete governance provider' to all the territory
in the Urban Services Area and, under the 1997 Urban Services IGA, currently manages
development unincorporqW. $uII Mountain, Washington County continues to .
have jurisdiction over comprehensive planning within all the unincorporated' areas. As
lands outside the site-specific Area of Interest, the U0BB Amu are not subject to the
UPAA agreement In addition, Metro Ordneance No. 02-969B, Urban Growth Bowdvy,
states that "Washington County or, upon annexation of the am. the city shall
complete Titre 11 planning..." for expansion areas 63 and 64. Until the area is annexed
or, the UPAA is amended, the' County is responsible for the plaguing.
. Tigard intends to undertake an update of its twenty-two year-old comprehensive plan
Council has considered this issue in a series of meetings and has indicated an interest in
including its entire area of interest, including the UGB areas, in abroader comprehensive
plan work effort Council's view is that in order to plan for a complete community, the
comprehensive planning work scope should include all the eventual annexation areas.
13125 SW lea Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (51)3) 6394171. TDB (503) 684-27,72
A
. ~ o ,
6 , ~ J•~
~ ~ .fig 1~ E
s . . ~
~ ~
4
WW i• / ~ Rj
b ~ p ~ ~'o N
a
{ a
w
1
l
at 0 a
a
a ' w
' ` ~I a ' lp a t
.
t
a
a
Ti rd T
a a
S
♦ j Q9
sw
DUF MGM I ♦ J
Durham
• _ ~ `'iii t <
. t
N
2000 0 2000 4000 Feet
Tigard Urban Planning Areas w..:.
Active Planning Area
. ' 'tom-`x :Area of interest o .uaoe .
cis
Tigard UPAA
Tig Boundary
. y
a
1
L a
a
^ 3 i
Lt
1121
1
j~
s
e 8
d
t
I
f ,
d
in
a 9
Sw
mo 0 700 1 Fe 4-k
Sw HO
o
Urban Growth Boundary (UGB)
~
r
Expansion Areas ]FROM
~y ~ t E+~l~W~ Oit /71N
UGB Expansion Areas 63 & 64 w nu wee os
GIs
wt mt. Community Plan Boundary
WASHINGTON COUNTY,
OREGON
June 28, 2005
DRAFT
PLANNING DIVISION .
ISSUE PAPER NO.16 ' . '
Potential Funding Alternatives to'Provide Parks and
Open Space Iii the Bull Mountain Area
Issue
Through the, Planning Division's-2005 work program, the.Board of County Commissioners
(Board) directed staff to prepare seven issue papers about planning and park issues in the urban
.unincorporated Bull Mountain area.,Issue Paper 15 examined park planning for the Bull
Mountain area. While drafting that paper, staff realized that more analysis was needed on the
issue of providing parks. Issue Paper 16 provides an overview of different funding alternatives
for providing parks and open space in the Bull Mountain area..
Recommendation
The purpose of Issue Paper 16 is to provide information about potential funding alternatives to
provide parks,and open space in the Bull Mountain area. Consequently, this paper does not make
any recommendations about the alternatives. However, staff does recommend that future
consideration of a park LID, county park service district or a park and recreation special service
district be contingent upon the submission of a citizen petition requesting the formation of one of
these alternatives.. r' .
Background
Urban unincorporated Bull Mountain is identified as the "Summit and Slopes Subarea" in the
Bull Mountain Community Plan (BMCP). The BMCP identifies the subarea as being park -
deficient.,. When the BMCP was adopted in 1983, unincorporated`Bull. Mountain was not'withm.
the jurisdictional boundaries of a parks provider. .However, General Design Element 15 of the
BMCP required the county.to coordinate with the City of Tigard for park.-planning and•the'
provision of park and recreation services in urban unincorporated Bull Mountain.
In 2002 and 2003, respectively; the Tigard Urban Service'Agreement (TUSA) was adopted and
the Comprehensive Framework Plan• for'the Urban Area (Framework Plan) was amended', both
of which designated the City of Tigard as the parks provider for' urban unincorporated Bull
Mountain.' The background section of Issue Paper 15 (Park,Planning for the Bull Mountain
Area) provides a'chronology.of events from 1983 to the present, regarding park planning for, the
Bull Mountain area.
At the Board's request, the Planning Division has prepared seven issue papers that address
different planning and park issues associated with the urban•unincorporated Bull Mountain area.
Five of the. other issue papers address density, park planning; updating the Bull Mountain
Department of Land Use & Transportation • Planning.Division
155 N First Avenue, Suite 350-14, Hillsboro, OR 97124-3072
Phone: (503) 846-3519 --Fax: (503) 846-4412 • www.co.washington.or.us
DRAFT ISSUE PAPER NO. 16. .
Potential Park and Open Space Funding Alternatives
June 28, 2005
Page 2
Community Plan, planning for the Bull Mountain UGB, expansion areas, and amendments to the
Washington County / Tigard Urban Planning Area, Agreement.t The seventh issue paper (IP 14)
addresses CPO4B's request for a public facility strategy'/ development moratorium for theBull
Mountain area.
In December. 2004, the Board and the Tigard City Council held a joint meeting to, discuss a,'
number of issues about the Bull Mountain area that had been raised by residents in the area. The
Board and Council.expressed a desire to work together to develop a planning program that could
address residents' concerns, primarily.through the upcoming planning efforts of the city. The
Board directed the county Planning Division to prepare Issue Papers 15, 16, 1.7; 18, 21 and 22 in ;
consultation with Tigard staff. The Board. asked staff to include' in these issue papers an
assessment about how to address identified issues in conjunction with Tigard's update of its
Comprehensive,Plan and park master plan, and planning for the Bull Mountain UGB expansion,
areas. .
Lack of parks on Bull Mountain was identified as a key citizen issue: In addition, Bull Mountain
residents raised the possibility of 'a local improvement district (LID) to provide parks. Staff
recognizes that at least seven alternatives exist for funding parkland acquisition; development,
and/or operations and maintenance for the park-deficient Bull Mountain area. These •alternatives
are:
1) County park LID: A.LID is a means of funding construction, operation and.maintenance of a
public improvement.
2) County special service district (ORS, Ch. 451A,county special service district (county'
service district) is a district established to'provi&service,facilities in a 'county or counties.
Examples of county service districts in Washington County are'the Enhanced Sheriff's Patrol
District (ESPD), the Urban Road'Maintenance District (URMD), the Service District for
Street Lighting (SDL); and Clean Water Services (CWS).
3) Park and recreation special service district "(ORS Ch. 266Park and recreation districts (park.
and recreation districts) are municipal corporations formed by communities to provide'park
and recreation facilities for the inhabitants. An example of a park district in. Washington
County is the Tualatin Hills Park and Recreation District (THPRD).
4) County park system development chatge(SDC): A system development charge (SDC) is a
method by which new development is charged to fund the capital improvements needed to
serve that development. In 2004, the county proposed an interim park,and-recreatiowSDC
for urban unincorporated Bull Mountain in conjunction,with proposed. Ordinance. 632. The. .
next scheduled public hearing for 6rdiliance,632 is on July19, 2005. The 2004'proposed
park SDC was rejected because'it did not reflect the City of Tigard's new park SDC
1P 15 addresses park planning issues; IP 17 addresses decreasing densities; IP 18 addresses planning`for the UGB
expansion areas; IP 21 addressesmpdating the Bull Mountain Community Plan; IP 22 addresses.Tigard's request.to
amend the UPAA for the UGB expansion areas. ;
DRAFT ISSUE PAPER NO. 16
Potential Park and Open Space Funding Alternatives
June 28, 2005
Page 3
methodology report and rates for the Bull Mt. area. Please see pages 22 and 23 for more
information about a county park SDC. V
5) Park provision by the City of Tigard: Parkland acquisition, development and maintenance
funded and conducted•by the•City of Tigard.
6) Joint park provision by the. county and the City of Tigard: Parkland acquisition; development
and maintenance jointly funded and conducted by•the City of Tigard and Washington
County.
7) Private fundin: Private funding mechanisms for parks could include the formation of a non-
profit organization, private corporation, or homeowners association for the purpose of raising
funds for parkland acquisition, development and maintenance.
Staff notes that all of the above park funding alternatives would need to be-consistent with local
planning related:requirements prior to implementation. In this case; the local planning related
requirements are the county's, Comprehensive Framework Plan for the Urban Area (Framework
Plan), the Bull Mountain Community Plan (BMCP), and the Tigard Urban Service Area
Agreement (TUSA). Only the private funding alternative was consistent with all three of the
local requirements.. The remaining alternatives were inconsistent with one or-more of the three
local requirements, and would require amendments to the Framework Plan, the TUSA, or both
prior to implementation.: See Table A, Park Funding Options _Consistency with Planning
Related Requirements, for details about the consistency of each alternative with the planning
related requirements.
Alternatives #I ' through #4.(county park'LID, county service district, park and recreation special
service district,:and county park.SDC) involve park funding at the county level, and will be
examined in more detail in this issue paper. Park funding alternatives #5 and #6, which involve
park funding by the City of Tigard, were not further examined because staff is assuming that the
city would spend its revenue to serve areas within the city limits.. Staff is unaware of any city or
park' district that spends its revenue to construct facilities outside of its bouridaryyto serve
residents and employees outside its boundary. ,Staff did not examine private funding alternatives.
because they would not involve the county.
Analysis : r
PARK NEEDS.
Before comparing the four park funding alternatives; it is first necessary to present an assessment-
of Bull Mountain's park, needs, and the estimated'costs associated with those needs. It is
important to point out that the park needs assessment in this issue paper is not an independent
assessment: Because the county is not a parks provider and does not have expertise in park `
planning, staff has relied upon the parks provider's plans, as we did• in 2004 for THPRD's
ultimate service'area.
DRAFT ISSUE PAPER NO. 16
Potential Park and Open Space Funding Alternatives
June 28, 2005 ,
Page 4
Table.A
Park Fundin Options -Consistenc with Planning Related Require 'ents
Alternatives Comp. Framework. Plan . Bull,Mt. Community Plan ` .TUSA
Tigard OK OK - county must coordinate with Tigard for NO- Service by : -
park planning and provision of facilities Tigard is limited
to its city limits
County park SRC NOT CONSISTENT, OK - county. 'must coordinate with Tigard for OK
(SDCs may only provide. county can't be a provider due to park planning_and provision of facilities
capital improvements) lack of an annexation plane
-County LID NOT.CONSISTENT OK - county must coordinate with Tigard for. NOT
• county.can't be a provider due park planning and provision of facilities CONSISTENT -
to lack of an annexation plane Tigard is the
• Plan only permits interim designated
capital improvements by. provider, not the
county 3 county 4
County, service NOT CONSISTENT., OK - court must coordinate with ,Tigard and for Should stud
ty.. y'
district • county can't be a provider due . park planning and provision of facilities feasibility, must
(This option was to lack of an annexation plant serve entire '
previously rejected by • Tigard is the-designated TUSA6
voters) provider.
• Plan only permits interim `
capital improvements by.
coun s
Park and NOT CONSISTENT OK - county,must coordinate with Tigard for Should study
recreation service • Tigard is the designated park planning and provision of facilities feasibility, must
district' provider serve entire
TUSAs
Joint funding by . NOT CONSISTENT OK _ NOT
county &.Tigard • county can't be.a provider due .CONSISTENT -
the lack of an annexation plan t Service by
Plan only permits interim Tigard is.limited
capital improvements by to its city'limits,
court v
2 If adopted, Ordinance 632 would eliminate this issue..
.3 Must amend the Comp Plan to: a) designate the county as a service provider;. b) allow the county to provide
maintenance and operation services; and c) allow the countyto be' a long term service provider or define an1lb as
an interim provision of service.
° Must amend the Tigard Urban Service Agreement'(TUSA) to'make the county a designated service provider. '
s Must amend the Comp Plan to designate a county park'service district as the long term service provider of all park
and rec. services.
6 Must amend the TUSA to designate a county park service district as the service provider. "
Must amend the Comp Plan to designate a park service district as the service provider.
a Must amend the TUSA to designate a park service district as the service provider.
9 Must amend the Comp Plan to designate the couny as a service provider & allow the county'to provide
maintenance and operation services.
DRAFT ISSUE PAPER NO. 16
Potential Park and Open Space Funding-Altematives
June. 28; 2005
Page 5
Because the City of Tigard is the designated parks provider, for urban.unincorporated Bull.'
Mountain, staff has relied upon the park planning documents prepared by the city. ,.These
documents are discussed in more detail below.
The park needs assessment below identifies the study area; the quantity, type, and size.of needed
parks within the study area; and potential park- locations,within the study area. The subsequent
section, "Park Costs", provides an' estimate of the costs associated with the identified park needs. .
Identification of the boundary of the Bull Mountain park study area.
The present limits of urban. unincorporated Bull Mountain were the starting point.for the
identification,of the study area. However, urban unincorporated Bull Mountain is:not an entirely
contiguous area. A small number of urban unincorporated Bull Mountain properties are
"islands", surrounded on all sides by properties within.the,City of Tigard. Two of these "island"
areas were excluded from the proposed study area due to their: significant spatial separation from
the proposed Bull Mountain parks locations, which are described in more detail in the following
section. The excluded "island" properties are those urban unincorporated properties located east
of the BPA easement and abutting SW Fern Street, and those urban unincorporated properties
located east of SW 133`.4 Avenue and north of, and abutting, SW Hood Vista Lane. ' The resulting
proposed study area is shown in Map A; Bull Mountain, Park Study Area.
Identification of the quantity, size and type of Bull Mountain parks to be funded.
In order to identify the, appropriate. quantity, size; and types of parks that should be funded, staff
has relied in large;part on park planning,documents prepared' by the City of Tigard and the-city's,.
Bull Mountain Annexation Parks and Open Space Task Force. Tigard is the identified park
provider to the area, and its Park System Master Plan and park SDC address the area. Therefore,
staff has relied upon the following documents: the 1999 Tigard Park System Master Plan -
(TPSMP), the 2004 Tigard Parks 'and. Recreation System Development Charges Methodology
Update (SDC Methodology Update); the 2004 Bull Mountain-Parks Concept Plan (BMPCP).,
In addition, the county is aware that.a parcel currently owned.by,the Trust for Public Lands
(TPL) exists within urban unincorporated Bull Mountain, located west of the.Cache Creek
Nature Park site.. Staff is aware of the community's desire to preserve the,TPL site as a Bull.
Mountain greenspace. Lastly, staff coricluded•that a park funding alternative should. fund the
development of Tigard's Cache,Creek Nature Park site, which was acquired through the Metro
Greenspaces Program by funds designated to Tigard and Washington County for the purchase of
greenspaces.
Identified Park and Recreation Improvements
Based on the above information, staff,concluded that each of the four park. funding alternatives -
would need to fund the acquisition and development of the park and recreation improvements
described below. 'Approximately 77% of the improvements are needed to serve existing
development in the area.
a) Four neighborhood parks, each approximately 2 - Y acres in size;
b) BPA powerline linear park trail, approximately 5A acres in total area;
c) ' Powerline pocket parks, totaling approximately 2.5 acres in size;
i' DRAFT ISSUE PAPER NO. 16
,Potential Park and Open Space Funding Alternatives
June 28;1005,
Page 6
d) TPL greenspace, approximately 4 acres in size;
e). Development of the 12.15 acre Cache Creek Nature Park site. .
Figure 1 is the BMPCP, developed in 2004 by the city's Bu11.Mountain'Annexation Parks and
1 Open Space Task Force. The.BMPCP illustrates proposed locations for the four neighborhood
parks, the BPA powerline linear park trail, and the.powerline pocket parks, as well 'as.the
existing location of the Cache Creek Nature Park site.
Consistent with the Framework Plan. and the TUSA,.the character- and proposed improvements of
the above park facilities would be consistent with the Tigard Park System Master Plan. (TPSMP).
For example, the TPSMP defines greenspaces as areas of natural'quality that protect valuable
natural resources and provide wildlife habitat. Per the TPSMP, greenspace improvements would
be limited to features such as trails, picnic areas, and interpretive signs.' Similarly, although ;
nature parks are not listed asa separate. category in the'TPSMP, staff has assumed that the Cache
Creek Nature Park site would retain its wooded character, and would ultimately be improved
with trails and perhaps a small-scale interpretive center.
On the'other hand, the TPSMP states that the purpose of neighborhood parks and pocket parks is
to provide recreation opportunities. Per the TPSMP and the BMPCP, these types of parks would
feature children's play areas, picnic areas, and sports facilities; that is, they would be developed
to, a greater.or lesser degree, rather than being retained in their current natural condition, as an
open space-area would be retained. Figures 2, 3, 4, and 5 are the BMPCP illustrative plans for
neighborhood and pocket parks, showing the more developed character of these parks- containing
sports courts and playground areas.
Identification of potential'Bull'Mountain park sites.
The next step was determining potential locations for the above facilities. The-TPSMP and .
BMPCP identified generalized neighborhood park locations in the north, south, ea'stand west
quadrants of unincorporated Bull Mountain, but did not identify specific lots as park sites. `
However, the city is currently in negotiations to acquire approximately 2 acres of a'property•
abutting the Cache Creek Nature Park, to the north,. for a north neighborhood park. The location
of the Cache Creek Nature Park and the potential north neighborhood park site are shown on,
Map B, Generalized Potential Park Locations. The Generalized Potential Park Locations map
also shows the generalized locations of the south; east, and-west neighborhood parks, as per the
TPSMP and-BMPCP; and the proposed powerline linear park, which will be coterminous with ,
the existing BPA easement. Lastly, the map shows the_TPL site, located west 'of the Cache
Creek Nature Park.
As noted. above, specific park sites for the proposed south, east and west neighborhood parks
were not identified in the TPSMP and BMPCP; those plans- identified only generalized
neighborhood park locations. To determine'whether potential park sites currently exist in the
generalized locations identified in those plans,. staff compared the, generalized park locations in
the TPSMP and BMPCP with a 'current map of vacant and redevelopable lands for the Bull .
Mountain area, as well as aerial photos of the Bull Mountain area. Properties were identified as
potential neighborhood park sites if they met the following criteria:
EDGE~
a ~
C,
BMIM
r • 1 ~7TN ~ a
> 2 I .I I . ' ® ® R ~ '
® II , ~
® ® i d1
XY RD
OWN
a •
f
0.
Z
ROYAL
EE, N DEEMaOW
~n
Ftr
J M
~ o.
700 0 700 14 Feet g
w,
o -T---I N'T
MAP A: 'Bull Mt. Park Stud:Area
d~i IbA~
KIN
' .d. • ! PW+~Op(,.5~W~~E~y .rNA. a ffi.~a1aI nn.1~9lmy Gnru., .u
.zooso~av. Ir wwns..r DU QI6W5
Study Area Nd•
e~ Unincorporated properties 4 ; G t
i~/ ,excluded from the study area May 9, 2005
yj main
. - - NYC.
- 1. ,(~I~~ .'i _ ~i'}.li ikt f L•V~~I~,. I..r i:r' + 1
IT 6
. vim ~ - - r •
- J H`Nt'
CS"
PIS.
-
.
-
e or [r1
~fd ~ Oo
Oro N Q<~ O
: . d (V p,
r 06
i
DRAFT ISSUE PAPER NO. 16
Potential Park and Open Space Funding Altematives
June 28; 2005
Page 9
.,"r f
r
0-4
b~ ~
FIGU 8 P
.
,i r.4 w. r
~pAPER~o' 16 ,
• DRp~ ISS pltematives
Space Funding 005
open Sp dune L
Pad and gel I
potential .
.T A \
A x bM Y~b. t,~~ .
• i" t~+r+7 . i.. i t ~ t
' ♦ r ray... . ~ ~ t t;4' '1 ' • . :
' tL71 y i - + S ~L~ 3.
4 F
Y>
a
Vii, ee S ..it
r
E16
DRAFT ISSjEP ltecnatives
L: en Space Funding 2005
and Up June page l2
potential Pack
l+ r!
of
M -X
s yr" r )
17
it
O~L BWRU1 `
.TTN La
® (aLW ME
SY I ~.I
E13 1
Sf
V
riV RD
L ,
NORTH
Neighborhood Park
Cache Creek
Nature Park
• 7
WEST
Neighborhood Park < W ,
® R V
' a
s EAST
Neighborhood Park
t SOUTH
. Neighborhood Park ,
o I DIC
I I 3I < >
'oEEracnoVE ~ @J
~
aorni
in
m M F SCHEr
' R RD
ER _ c.
X 9
J I• o
700 0 700 140 Feet \ 4 .
8 ,
\ I i ffE W 1rrr(f
MAP B:. Generalized Potential Park Locations
Study Area Potential Park/Open Space `rs~ pv~
P -vp OOV-- 1 ft-Al f1 gllb
SD]EM15/➢ Ema!
Future C' of Tigard ef°ws
dY Potential Powerline Trail r•
Nature Park , w/Pocket Parks
May 9, 2005 .
1)II.A T ISSUE. PAPER NO, 16
-Potential Park, and Open Space Funding Altemathv6 '
June 28, 266
Page 14
l) The properties were. vacant per the•Metro'2004• Vacant Lands Inventory;' .
2) The properties were at least 3 acres in size or, if less than •3 acres in size, were part of a
cluster of vacant properties totaling at least 3 acres in'size.'
3). For properties with at least 1/2 acre-of vacant land; the existing improvements (dwellings`and
other structures) were located on the parcel in, a manner.that would allow'retention of those
improvements if part of the.land were partitioned to create a park. Properties in which the.
location of existing improvements precluded park development (i.e:,`aerial photos indicated'
that the structures,were in the center of the parcel) were eliminated-from consideration..
4) The properties were not iden6fied'as being steeply sloped on the City of Tigard's map for the
area. More level sites were deemed desirable for neighborhood.parks, which.would be.,
improved with playgrounds and/or ball fields.
5), The lands did'not have pending development applications or pending•annexations before,the
City of Tigard.
Vacant properties that were' identified as potential park'sites are shown on Map C, Potential.Park
and Open Space, Sites. Properties that are not completely vacant generally contain single-family
residences. They were designated as redevelopable due to their larger size and potential for
further subdivision. However, staff recognizes'that owners of the vacant lots identified on this
map may be unwilling to sell all or any of their property: for park use'. In•addition, according to
Tigard's Community Development staff,. developers have requested.pre-application meetings to
discuss the proposed development of several of the sites identified on the Potenti'Park and
Open'Space Sites map. Therefore, the actual number of potential park sites may be less than that
shown on the. Potential Park and Open Space Sites map.
Staff notes that there are a limited number-of vacant'sites.suitable for neighborhood parks,
particularly in the southern quadrant of unincorporated Bull Mountain. In the southern quadrant,,
only two partially vacant parcels were identified. The'location of these parcels is less than ideal
from a neighborhood park site perspective because the parcels are located at a periphery, of the
Bull Mountain urban unincorporated area, and are adjacent to the intersection of a collector and
an arterial (intersection of SW 150`h 'Avenue and, SW Beef Bend Road).. A park location more
central to the southern neighborhood area and on a neighborhood street would be.preferable.
The number of vacant sites was also limited in the western and eastern quadrants of "
unincorporated Bull Mountain. The western quadrant (area south'of Bull Mountain Road and
west of the BPA easement) has approximately six wholly or.partially vacant parcels of sufficient
size for neighborhood park sites The vacant parcels are located"at the western edge.of the urban
unincorporated area, abutting•the new UGB expansion area. The eastern quadrant (area south of
Bull. Mountain Road and east of the BPA easement)" has approximately'eight wholly or partially .
vacant parcels of sufficient size.for neighborhood park sites. As noted above, steeply sloped
sites were excluded from consideration as potential park-sites. However, even when steeply
sloped sites were excluded, most of the remaining vacant sites. are. sloping and therefore would
require a degree of grading to be appropriaie,fo'r locating 4 neighborhood park with sports fields.
Coo
♦1TN d^T~µ
d
A+ ♦ ® ® Cr
I NDLY RD
t 4 i
• ® R E >
i
~ sr a •
Z
W.
o
> do
Q
w oEENCRD i e y Kp ROYAL
in maw RD
R M SCHE
/ RD
n
ER -
:y w
J1 o m
o
< ~-LLLL1
• eE W
700 0 1400 Feet
D:. inepu ♦.tY4 np..M.~+d mw„92W&
m..ramenomms m.pwarw.errona.war .
ex+e.s♦a.~a sa•...em
MAP •C: -Potential Park and Open Space Sites ..a , =77a :-7
Study Area - ~ra% s ~i FinaNa.m~a~«.v 9i~z♦
61tWW
VaCafl~ L~ s~'tlMaLpgrNSUe 9su¢arw prttiYapr DY
RedevelopeW Land
May 9. 2005
DRAF71 ISSUE PAPER NO. 16
Potential Park and Open Space Funding Alternatives'
June 28, 2005
Page16
PARK COSTS.
Given'the.park needs identified in'the-above section; aaestirrtafe of park costs'is`provided below.
Park costs have been divided into two parts: capital costs (acquisition and development) and
ongoing costs (operations, program administration and maintenance):
Estimate of Capital Costs (Park Planning Acquisition Deyelopinent)
Table B depicts the land acquisition cost and.development cost,.for each proposed park project.
The total project cost for all parks consisted of the sum of updating the, existing park master plan
for'the Bull Mt. area, the project cost (land acquisition cost and development'cost for•each of the
listed projects), plus the cost for -designin ' of all projects, plus'bverhead cos' 10, wliich.were
assumed to be fifteen percent of the total project costly. In.addition, the capital` cost includes
finance costs, which were calculated by the County's Chief Financial Officer. As shown in
Table'B, the estimated total capital cost is $10,581,869.
Estimate of On-going Costs (Operations & Maintenance).'
'
Currently, staff is developing estimated costs to maintain and operate the, proposed park and
recreation facilities and open space area identified on page 5'.' Since the county is not a park and
recreation provider, .the county does not have an-existing-program from' hielf to calculate These
costs. County staff is working with other area park and recreation providers to, develop these-
costs. These costs will be provided in the future through an update .of. this paper.
Measure 5/50 Issues
County Counsel has noted that Measure 5/50 has implications for how both capital improvement
costs and ongoing costs can be assessed via a county parks LID,' county. service district, or park
and recreation district. Measure-5/50 capped total tax assessment for local government services
other than schools,. Under Measure 5/50, if capital improvements.are assessed before their
-,completion, the assessment is treated as•a property tax..However,' if the capital improvements
assessment may be financed over, at least 10 years and is assessed after the capital improvements
are completed, it is not treated as a property tax and is not subject to'the Measure 5/50 tax limits.
For purposes-of this paper, staff is assuming interim financing for two years would.be needed to.
come up with the capital for land acquisition and construction of improvements. The cost of
interim financing would be exempt from the Measure 5/50 cap, per ORS 3101140(4), so long as
it is included in the single post-completion assessment. The'capitatimprovements would be
constructed during the two-year interim financing period: The cost of the capital improvements
would be assessed after their construction and may be financed over a 10-year period:. These
assessments'would be levied andcolle'cted outside the property tax system,:and would not be
subject to the limit-on property taxes.
' d ,
100'
erhead costs include management of construction and legal fees. .
This rate is an estimate provided by the City of Tigard and THPRD.
DRAFT ISSUE PAPER NO 16
Potential Park and Open Space Funding Alternatives
June 28,'2005
Page 17
Table B' Bull Mountain Park Costs
Land Total Land Total
Acquisition Acquisition Development Development Total Project
Project Acres Cost / Acre Cost Cost/ Acre - "Cost Cost
North Neighborhood Park
(Water Reservoir site) 3 $95,000 $285,000. $160,000 $480,000 $765,000
East Neighborhood Park •3 $320,000 $960;000 $160,000 $480;000 $11440,000
West Neighborhood Park 3 $320,000 $960,000 $160,000 $480,000- $1,440,000 -
South Neighborhood Park 3 $320,000 $960,000 $160,000 $480,000 $1,440,000
City of Tigard
Cache Creek Nature Park. 12.15 .$0 ownershi $52,675. $640,000 $640,000 -
Powerline Linear Park Trail 5.36 $0 = $1,050,000 $1,0501,000
Pow' dine Pocket Parks 2.5 $300,000 $750,000 $150,000 $375,000 $1,125,000-
Greens ace Areas .4 $320,000 - -•.$1,280,000 $260 per I.f. • $1,625 $1,281,625_
_ $9,181,625
r
Cost to update
Bulb Mt. Park Plan $20,000
$9,201,625
Construction
_ Admin
Costs (15%) .$1,380,244•
• - TOTAL
CAPITAL COST . •$10,581,869
DRAFT ISSUE PAPER NO. 16
Potential Park and Open Space Funding Alternatives
June 28, 2005
Page 18
County Counsel has noted that if a Local Improvement District assessment includes charges for
operations and maintenance'(O & M), then those. assessments would fall. within the Measure 5/50
definition of a tax and would be subject to the constitutional limit of•$10 per year per thousand
for local government services other than schools. The existing tax rate, for, urban unincorporated
Bull Mountain is $5.97 per year per $1000 of assessed valuation. Therefore, in order for an LID.
assessment for park 0:'& M to comply Iwith the Measure 50.cap, it would be limited to a
maximum of $4.03 per year per thousand of assessed valuation.: A County Counsel memo
(Attachment A) discussing the legal issues associated with LIDs is included as an, attachment to
this issue paper.
COMPARISON OF FUNDING ALTERNATIVES:
Four park funding alternatives (County park LID, county service district, Park and recreation .
special service district, and interim county park SDC) are outlined below., The capital and
maintenance cost estimates in Table 13 were applied to each funding-alternative to arrive at an
assessment estimate for the development of the parks and open space area•desciibed in the"Park
Needs" section of this paper. Annual maintenance and operation costs will be provided 'at a
future date.
County Park LID
A local improvement district (LID) is a,means of funding construction, operation and
maintenance of a public improvement. Presently, only one park .LID '-,the Metzger Park LID - .
exists in Washington County. The Metzger Park LID was formed in the mid-1970s at the
request of the citizens of the Metzger area, to,fund the maintenance of the then existing Metzger
Park. The 2004/2005 LID assessment is $90,500. Fifty-five percent of the'LID is funded by
residential development and the remaining 45 % is funded-by-cominercial development (e.g.,
Washington Square).
Chapter 3.20 of the .County Code sets forth the standards for LID formation. 'The County
Counsel memo (Attachment A) describes the process for initiating and approving a county LID.
As discussed in the County Counsel memo, a•public hearing for the LID must be held, and,,
sufficient remonstrance (remonstrance by two-thirds of the property owners within the LID) can
halt an LID formation propomf.
An LID may only be used to fund public, improvements. The expenses that may, be funded by a
parks LID include park planning;'Iand acquisition, capital improvements,'operation and
maintenance of park%;facilities, and LID administration (staff costs. for processing assessments,
etc.). Per Chapter 3.20 of the County Code, expenses that cannot be funded by a county park
LID include recreation programs,, park rangers for patrols, and privately, owned parks.
In County Counsel's opinion, if a county LID is used as the funding approach for parks on Bull ,
Mountain, the County Code would probably require two, separate park LIDs: an LID for park.
planning, land' acquisition, and park development; and'an LID for the annual *operations and
maintenance of the constructed parks. -
DRAFT ISSUE PAPER NO. 16
Potential Park and Open Space Funding Alternatives
June 28, 2005
Page 19
For the purposes. of this issue paper, staff has assumed that.each of the total number of potential
future•dwellings within the LID' boundary would be assessed for capital and maintenance costs.
The total number of potential future dwellings is defned,as the number of existing dwellings,
plus the total number of parcels'that could be created from the. existing inventory of vacant land
at the minimum required density per, aacre. .This assessment method is the typical method of
assessment that the County and'CWS have used for other LIDS, such as road and. sewer LIDS.
This assessment method is based on benefit. and is assuming that future dwellings,'. as well as
existing dwellings,-will be obtaining benefit from the proposed local improvement. Map D, Bull
Mountain Vacant Lands; shows the current vacant lands within the Bull Mountain study area.
Under the assessment method described'above, the owners of the vacant lands would be assessed
for the potential future dwellings that could be placed on the property if.'it was divided into the
number of parcels allowable under the minimum required .density, per' acre. 'For the purposes of
this paper; the assumed minimum density is five dwellings per vacant, acre. Based'on the,park
cost estimates in the previous section, the County's Chief Financial Officer has-calculated that
the. LID capital cost per parcel would be $2,733; if.the capital costs were levied equally to each
of the'total potential future dwellings within the study'area
-,County Counsel has noted that in order for an LID to'be legally,feasible, there,must'be
demonstrated benefit to,each of the residents within the proposed LID.boundary. For purposes
of this-issue paper, staff has-assumed that there would be one LID for the capital improvements
to provide the parks and open space improvements identified on page 5. However, as discussed
in the ."Park Needs" section of this' paper, sites that are suitable, for parks are limited in some .
sections of the Bull Mountain study area: Therefore, if the development of packs is precluded in .
some sections of the Bu" 11 Mountain study area,. it may not be possible to demonstrate'that
residents of those sections • are.benefitedby the development. of parks in, other sections of the Bull "
Mountain area. Asa result, depending on what lands are. available for park development, a series
of smaller LIDS maybe needed for each of the proposed parks, rather than one LID-for -
development of all parks within the study area.
County Special Service District
County special service districts (county service districts), are regulated by the'requirements,of
ORS 451. They are 'county service, districts established to provide service facilities.in a county
or counties. Formation of a county service district is initiated,by petition. County service
districts include Clean Water Services; ESPD, URMD,' and SDL: The proposed Atfalati
Recreation, District, which was not approved by the voters in 2000, was proposed as a ,county
,
service district. Unlike a park and recreation district; described below, a county-service district
does not have'a separate board; it is'ggyemed by,the.elected board of the county'that establishes
the county service district.
A county.service district for parks,can fund public parks and recreation,facilities and recreation
programs, including land acquisition, park and recreation facility development,, maintenance and
operation of facilities, and administration of a recreation services program. - A" County Counsel .
memorandum which discusses legal•issues'associated with the county: formation of a county;,
service district, for parks will be provided,through an update of this paper.
ant Lands
gu11 WL" Vap5.
Map D ° dune 27 ~ 2a
Land*. 990 }'8 Feet
ant
Vac _
Study Area lnventorY
ds are from metro's 2004 Vacant Lands
*V removed -
Lan a s
acant folio fog are licatton
® ® With the elopment ctl
ratj
cy- or utility
.s ommo¢ oWners public h~p Lt a9e!'
92 owned by ' .
c
rT3
. r
z.
-
DRAFT ISSUE PAPER.NO. 16
Potential Park and Open.Space Funding Alternatives
June 28; 2005
Page-21
Acounty service•district has several potential means to raise funds; including selling bonds,
setting tax rates, forming LIDS, establishing SDCs, or using a. combination of these funding .
approaches to.achieve its funding.objectives: However,•for the purposes of this issue paper, staff
has assumed the following: a) that a county service district would~achieve its funding objectives
by an initial sale-of bonds and the setting of tax rates to pay off that debt; and b) that the funding
objectives.would be park acquisition. and maintenance,:and would not include recreation.
programs. Based.on these assumptions, and using the estimated capital improvement costs and,
operations/maintenance costs described in the previous section, the County's Chief Financial
Officer calculated the.tax rates that would have to be levied on assessed value to cover the
annual debt service for both a 10-year and a 20-year bond. For a 10-year bond, a tax rate of,.
$1.65 per year per $1000 per year would be required`to fund Bull Mountain's.park needs; for a
2.0-year bond, a tax rate of $1.02 per year per $1000:would be required. Both of the above tax
rate scenarios would be beneath the Measure 5/50 limit, of $10 per year per $1000 of assessed
valuation when added to the existing tax rate of $5.97 per year per $1000.
Staff compared the above tax rate with the proposed tax rate for the Atfalati Recreation District,
a county service district proposed in 2000 but not approved.by.voters. The Atfalati Recreation
District proposed the funding of park, facility construction,'maintenance, and recreational
programs in the Tigard and Tualatin area.. The proposed tax rate. was $0.75 per $1000 of
assessed value. However, approximately 1/3 of the Atfalati expenditures in the proposed budget •
were•to fund recreational programs. Correspondingly, reducing•the.tax rate by 1/31to omit the
recreational program component would result in a proposed tax rate of $0.50 per $100.0 of..
assessed value.
A Bull Mountain county, service district for parks,.if formed; would,differ from the Atfalati
Recreation District in a couple of respects. One key difference would be the size of the district -
the Bull Mountain area is significantly smaller than the area that was covered under the Atfalati
Recreation District. The proposed Atfalati District also included commercial and industrial
..'development, similar to the Metzger, Park LID. The other key difference is that staff is assuming
that a Bull Mountain county service district for parks would fund park acquisition, development, .
and maintenance only, and would not; fund recreation programs.
Park and Recreation Special Service'District
Park and 'recreation special service districts (park districts) are regulated by the requirements of "
ORS 266. Districts are municipal corporations formed by communities to provide park and '
recreation facilities.for the inhabitants.., Formation of a park district is initiated by petition. An
example of such a District-is the.Tualatin Hills Park and Recreation District.
While the Board of County Commissioners would be the governing board for a county:parks
LID; or a county 451 service district, a park district would be governed by a separate'board,
independent of the county, and would. typically have'its own director or general manager. A. park'
` district.can also fund park land acquisition,.park development, park. operations and maintenance,
and'recreation programs;
.DRAFT ISSUE PAPER NO. 16
Potential Park and Open Space Funding Alternatives
June'28, 2005
Page 22
Like a county service district, a park, district has 'several potential means to raise funds, including
selling bonds, setting tax rates, forming.LID,'s, establishing SDCs, or using a combination of
these funding. approaches.. However;. for the purposes of this issue paper,'staff also has assumed
that a park district would achieve its funding objectives by an. initial sale of bonds and.the setting
of tax rates proposed fora county service district. Iii, addition,, staff has assumed that the funding'
objectives would be park acquisition and maintenance, and would not include`recreatioli
programs. Based on.these assumptions, and using the estimated', capital improvement costs and
operations/maintenance. costs described in the previous section, the' County's Chief Financial
Off cer calculated the tax rates that would have, to be levied on assessed value to cover the "
annual debt service for both:a 10-year and a 20-year bond. Fora 10-year bond,'a tax rate of
$1.65 per year per $1,000 per year would be required to fund Bull Mountain's park needs; for a
20-year bond, a tax. rate of $1.02 per year per $-l 000 would be required: Both of the above tax .
rate scenarios would be beneath the Measure •5/50. limit of $10 per year per $1000 of assessed '
valuation when added to the existing tax rate of $5.97 per year -per $1000.
Interim County Park SDC
'A park and recreation system development charge (SDC) is a method by which new
development is charged a fee to fund the acquisition and construction of park and open space .
land and recreational facilities needed to serve new development. A park SDC cannot pay for the
operation and maintenance of facilities, recreation programs and capital improvements to correct
existing deficiencies for existing &Vel6pment.
In the spring of 2004, Washington County proposed an interim park SDC for the urban
unincorporated Bull Mt. area. The park SDC was based_upon the City of Tigard's Park Master
Plan and the city's park'SDC methodology report and SDC rates. Tigard's Park Master Plan and .
SDC report both addressed the Bu11,Mt. area. In March N05, the Board rejected the proposed
park SDC because, it no longer reflected Tigard's' current park SDC methodology report and
rates: Tigard updated.both in December-2004 to address increased land acquisition and
construction costs. 4
The county also proposes to.amend Policies 15 and 33 of the Framework Plan to make it possible
for the county to adopt an interim park SDC in, the Tigard and Hillsboro Urban Service Areas. '
Policy 33 currently requires the designated park provider (Tigard 'in the Bull Mt. area) to place
an annexation plan, on the ballot before a county park SDC could.be adopted. Ordinance-632
proposes to amend Policy 33 to a, low:tlie county to adopt an interim park SDC for urban
unincorporated territory when the identified future park provider has placed or committed to
place an,annexation measure, on •the ballot. The public hearing was'continued to July '19, 2005
due to ongoing discussions about the Bull Mt. area and pending legislation. If Ordinance 632,is`
Adopted by the Board,, a new interim county park SDC, based upon Tigard's new park SDC
methodology report and SDC rates, could'be.considered in the future. ` .
As a practical matter,-.if an,interim'county,park SDC' is approved for the Bull Mountain area, `the
county won't be. able to immediately move' forwaid.on park land' acquisition, planning or
development until such time'as sufficient funds for the acquisition,, planning and development'
are collected via the SDC. If a park SDC is approved, it is not•clear how quickly funds would
DRAFT ISSUE PAPER NO. 16
Potential Park and Open Space Funding Alternatives
June 28; 2005'
.
Page 23 ' .
accrue as this depends on the rate`that development occurs. However, it should be noted that the
total potential revenue that could be collected from all new development, from an interim county
SDC would be $3,753,000, based:iipon the. use of Tigard's updated SDC methodology report and
rates. This revenue would fund park improvements that are needed as a result of new
development.
Currently, there are approximately 200 vacant acres in the proposed Bull'Mt. park service
boundary. Assuming a minimum. residential density of .5 units per acre12, the total number of
additional future Bull Mountain dwellings would be 1,000. Using Tigard's existing single ;
family SDC rate.for the area, $3,753 for each new residence, an interim county park SDC at this
point'in time could potentially- generate. $3,7 53,006 over time (assuming full build-out).
wpshare\2005ord\work program\issue papersTull MAID 16\1P.16_park funding_final'draft 6-28-05
iz The average density of new development in the, Bull.Mt. area is 4.8 units/acre.
ATTACHMENT. A
gt ty.
Washln o oun
Inter-Department Correspondence
DATE: June 22, 2005,
TO:' o Rnior Planner
FROM: Z re, Sr. Assistant County. Counsel
SUBJECT: . PARK LID LEGAL QUESTIONS
This memo responds to legal questions posed in your memo of April 6, supplemented by issues
we have discussed.since then. I understand you will use:this as an attachment to your white '
paper to the Board of County Commissioners on Bull Mountain park funding options. Please
note this is a general summary, based on current statutes and county c'ode,-bui does not include
full legal discussion or complete citations to authority. I understand that you will address
separately the estimated cost of various options, and'that Chris Gilmore will review limits to the
County's role regarding parks as expressed in planning ordinances, policies, or other documents.
1. LEGAL REQUIREMENTS AND PERMISSIBLE SCOPE OF AN LID. Local Improvement
Districts.("LIDS") maybe formed under County Code chapter 3.20, for the construction, and
maintenance of public improvements.. Under county.code, the LID ,mechanism is not available to
fund other costs that might be necessary or desirable to provide a complete program relating to
parks, such as recreation programs, and park staff other than as needed for operation and
maintenance ("O&W) of public, improvements. LIDs may not be used to fimd private.parks,' as .
they are available only for public improvements.
LID Procedure. LIDs may be initiated upon th'Board's own motion or by petition by
(51%) of property . owners. Upon initiation, the Board directs staff to,prepare and file a report on
the proposed public improvement, including a map, description of the improvement, costs,
benefited properties, and a proposed method of assessment. Notice is then provided to all
affected property owners, and the. Board conducts a hearing and'determines whether or not to
proceed with improvements. If remonstrances are received fromrtwo-thirds•of the affected '
properties, further proceedings must be suspended or terminated. Under county code, an LID for '
O&M probably would have to be separate from the capital improvement LID.. Similar
procedures apply to formation of both types of LIDs:
LID Assessments and Benefits. The legal basis for assessments is a determination of
benefit to private property, due to construction or-O&M of a local public improvement. In
general, all private property within the Bull Mountain area - both improved and unimproved -
could be determined to benefit from new park facilities: If facilities were built, and determined
to.benefit all properties in the area, it would beIegally feasible to. charge ,the entire cost to',
Joanne Rice, Senior Planner
June 21, 2005
Page 2.
benefited properties.;' Depending on the circumstances, the Board-could choose to create .
Multiple LIDS and assess only the property located close to a particular neighborhood park:
` A System Development Charge ("SDC') funding method would have to',operate differently; in
that it could not charge all benefited property. The SDCs discussed. to date for the Bull
Mountain. area are. "improvement" charges, or charges, for park facilities to be built.
Improvement SDCS may be charged only for the "impact of growth," that is; charged to new'
development -following adoption of an SDC ordinance, not to existing development. 'The' SDC'
improvement charge may not be used to fully remedy an' existing deficiency in parks of the entire
area. In contrast to LID.funding, however, SDCs could be collected prior to acquisition or
construction of park improvements, and would not require'interiin financing. '
2. LID FINANCING/'MS/50 ISSUES. The legislation implementing Measures 5 and 50 "
(section 1..1 b, Article XI of the Oregon Constitution), affects LIDs.as traditionally used by'
Wash ingtomCounty., A single assessment.for'a completed,public improvement,, which can be
repaid over ten or more years, is exempt from the definition of a property tax and thereby exempt
from M5/50 tax limits. 'LID assessments •for public'park'acquisition and improvements could be
levied outside 'the. M5/50 limit., However,•an LID for purposes of•maintaining the facilities (i.e.,
annual assessments) would not meet the above tests, and would be subject to the M5/50'limit on.
taxes. •To the extenf a park LID assessment, plus non=school taxes exceeds $10.00 per thousand
assessed. value; taxes in the area would be subject to compression. The County historically has
collected assessments. for road maintenance LIDs through, the tax''rolls. (Delinquent installment . '
payments also can be collected in this manner.) While 'addiiional legal and financial analysis '
would be needed to determine the feasibility of an LID for park O&M purposes, this funding•
method probably is, available to the extent it is used solely for operation and maintenance of the
public improvement.
If an LID is formed for public park acquisition or capital improvement, I assume the Board.
would choose.to structure the assessments to be within the M5/50 exemption from property
taxes. To be'exempt, the assessment must occur after the public improvement is completed.
This means that interim financing would have to be secured for the cost of acquisition, design,
and-construction; to be repaid by assessments uponJcompletion of the work. While the cost of
interim financing can be 'recovered through assessments, an'initial source of funds would have to
be identified. This could be through an internal county.loan; or possibly market financing.
K. IMPACT OF ANNEXATION:. Assuming that the Local Improvement. District public
improvement project-is complete-and assessed as.of the date of annexation, the assessments
would be liens on the property or assessment contracts in favor of the County. Either type of
obligation would be binding on the property owner'and would survive annexation. The answer is
less clear in'the case of an annual assessment for maintenance.
The.rationale for levying annual O&M assessments is that the County would maintain
responsibility for O&M of the-park. Once an area is annexed to a city or district, responsibility
for local parks is generally understood to transfer to, the.city or district. County code contains no
Joanne Rice, Senior Planner
June 21, 2005 "
Page 3.
provision to transfer assessments to a, city upon annexation. The O&M funding decision could
be complex if part - but not allof the. affected area is annexed, and the remaining area is not
sufficient. to support the original level of O&M-through assessments. If the County intends to
proceed with an'LID for park maintenance, it is recommended that this issue be addressed with
the-City. In the,most analogous situation', in which the County maintains local roads through
MLIDs or the URMD, neither assessments nor property taxes -for local roads have been levied by
the County following annexation. Under current statutes and county code, maintenance
assessments would not, transfer from the County to the City upon annexation: If the park itself .
Was. transferred to the City, the County would.be relieved of maintenance responsibility,,and
'would not continue annual assessments for that purpose. ;
4t OTHER FUNDING MECHANISMS: The City of Tigard; an ORS Chapter 451 county
service district, and an.ORS Chapter 266 park and recreation district, could provide funding for
park acquisition and operation under certain circumstances. The City does not include the entire
Bull Mountain area within,its territory.. It is beyond-the scope of this analysis; to detail the extent
and limits of the, city's authority to act regarding parks outside its:boundaries.. If property is
annexed to the city, Tigard would have the full range bf funding options,including property tax, '
SDC, LID, andvser charges. A county service district and park and, recreation district would. -
have similar authority, but no such district now exists in the Bull Mountain area.
c: Suzanne Savin
r Chris Gilmore
os-1189
Washington County Administrative Offices Page 1 of 2 .
Washington, County, Oregon. T
County Administrative Office
last updated: June 10, 2005
County 2010 Strategic Plan
Washington County invites your comments and feedback regarding.the draft County 2010 Strategic
Plan. This draft reinforces the principles and tenets of the original document and our current
commitment to the type of collaboration and partnerships that will directly influence the long-term
health and vibrancy of our community.,
Please peruse the introduction below for more information about how this draft relates to County
2000 and the recent VisionWest,process.
Introduction'
In 1983, the Board of Commissioners recognized that Washington' County government was facing a
serious challenge. That challenge was to preserve and build upon the County's' quality of life while
responding to phenomenal population growth and increasing demand for County services.
Rapid population growth led to an accelerated demand for County
services at 'a level that would be
more typically provided by and expected from established cities-not a "traditional" county
government. At the same time, due to the'limits placed on traditional county funding sources" i.t.was'.
evident that limited resources would be available to meet this increased demand. Further, as the
demand for city-type services in the, unincorporated area increased, County government was facing
the prospect of requiring city taxpayers to subsidize the provision of those-services. .
County 2000 t
In response to these challenges, the Board adopted the County 2000 Plan in -1986. The original Plan
identified the County's fundamental approaches to its service deliveryroles, principles and
priorities, and was designed'to be a blueprint for the development and implementation of County
policies, programs, and operations. The Plan was updated in 1990 and 1993. These updates
substantively reinforced the original document with refinements based on emerging issues and
service priorities:
VisionWest
As part of the "next generation" of County 2000 updates, the Board of Commissioners in 2000 set in
motion.a series of conversations about what makes this a great place to live, work and do business,
and posed the question, "What will it take to assure we sustain and enhance the valued aspects of
our communities?" The project, termed. VisionWest, included unprecedented community.
involvement, eight active issue-teams, and the development of informative,. defining and creative.
issue papers. VisionWest was intended to take a broad and engaging: look at the community through
the unique perspectives of public, private, nonprofit, and faith-based stakeholders. .
http-Hwww.co.washingt6n.or.us/deptffits/cao/co2Ol.O/co2OlO.htm 6/21/2005.
Washington County Administrative Offices Page 2 of 2
Along the- 'way, connections were strengthened among many different: sectors and organizations and
a strong desire was expressed to worktogether more consistently and effectively. This effort led.to .
the incorporation'of the nonproPvorgariization, Vision Action Network, that,works across
organizations and sectors'to identify; plan, and mobilize diverse resources around critical
community concerns. Its creation is based on the premise that addressing community needs requires
the pooling of resources and passions-across organizations and.sdctor§-to coordinate. good works
and do what otherwise would not get done.
County 2010. ;
With the broad community engagement; process, completed and organizations and sectors
collaborating in new and exciting ways, the Board of Commissioners began the process of updating
the County 2000 Strategic Plan and its policy direction specifically provided to the Couny
organization. This updated document, County 2010; reinforces the principles and tenants of the
original document and our current commitment to the type of collaboration a_nd partnerships that
will directly influence the long-term health and', vibrancy of our community.
The County 2010 Plan distills the County's general principles and" priorities and is augmented by a
number of "enabling plans" that operationalize the Strategic Plan and are approved by the Board of
Commissioners. The development of each enabling plan relies:on citizen and.stakeholder input and
collectively reflects the values, goals, objectives', and policies of Washington County government.
The enabling plans will be accessible via the Washington County website at
.www.co.washington.or.us'.-
Washington County., Phone: 503-846-8685 -
Administrative Office Fax: 5,03-846-4545.',
155,N. First Avenue, Suite 300 "E-Mail to: caona,co.washington.or.us
Hillsboro,•OR 97124. : -
A" 1Q.12
• . of
Home Departmental Subject page
Index - Index
http://www.co.washington.or.us/deptmis cao/co2010/co2010.htm " 6/21%2005
ON
et' .c
4
ORE",GO
20-10
coljNTY.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
.
Introduction ~
ty _
Washington County the.Communt Our Vision 13
Washington County the Organization Our Mission ..:.....:.........4
Guiding. Principles ..................:......................:...............................................................4
Washington County Fundamentals .............................................5
s of Service Delivery..'
Method
Countywide vs. Municipal Services., 7.
fi -
Service Strategies Overview ............................:.................:.........8
Introduction
In 1983, the Board of Commissioners recognized that Washington County government
was facing a serious challenge. The challenge was to preserve 'and build the rewards of `
living in Washington County while absorbing phenomenal population growth and
increasing,demands on County services.
Rapid population growth, both in cities and .in the urban unincorporated area,, had led to
an accelerated demand for County- services. At the same time,'it was evident that limited
resources would be available to local governments to meet this increased demand.
Further, as the•demand for city-type services in the.substantial unincorporated area
increased, County government was facing the prospect of requiring city taxpayers to
subsidize the provision of those.services.
In response to the challenges, the Board adopted the County 2000 Plan in 1986. The
original Plan identified the County's fundamental principles and priorities for service
delivery, and was designed to be a blueprint for the development and implementation of
County policies; programs and operations. The plan•was updated in 199o and 1993.
These updates substantively reinforced the original document with refinements based on
emerging issues and service priorities.
In 2000,-the Board of Commissioners set in motiori~ a series of conversations about what .
makes this a great place to live, work and do-business, and what it will take to make sure
we sustain and enhance the aspects of our communities that we,value. "The project
termed VisionWest, included unprecedented community involvement,. eight active issue
teams and the development of informative and creative issue papers. VisionWest was
intended to, take a broad and engaging look at the community through the unique '
perspectives of public, private,.non-profit and faith-based stakeholders.
Along the way connections were strengthened among many different sectors and
organizations, and a strong desire was expressed to work together more consistently and
effectively. This sentiment lead to -the incorporation of the nonprofit organization--
Vision Action Network-that works across organizations and sectors to identify, plan and
mobilize diverse resources around critical community concerns: Its creation is based on -
the premise that addressing community needs requires the alignment of resources and
passions-across'organizations'and sectors=to coordinate good works and do what"
otherwise would not get done..
With the broad community, engagement process completed and organizations and
sectors collaborating'in new and exciting ways, the Board of Commissioners, began the
process to update County 200o and the strategic direction it gives specifically to the
county organization.; This document, County--201o, reinforces-the.principles and tenants
of the original document - and.our commitment to the type of collaboration and. .
partnerships that will directly influence the-long-term'health and vibrancy of our `
community:.
The County 2010 Plan distills the County's general principles and priorities. This Plan~is
augmented by a'number of "enabling strategies" that operationalize the'strategic plan
and are approved bythe Board of Commissioners. The development of each enabling
strategy relies on citizen and stakeholders input and collectively reflect the values; goals;
objectives and policies of Washington County government. The enabling strategies can
be accessed via the Washington County website at www.wdshington.o*r.us.
2 `
WASHINGTON COUNTY THE COMMUNITY - OUR VISION
"For the Generations"
Our vision, is to be a model community for 21St Century America, reflecting the
best of our community's resources, achievements, diversity, values and.
pioneering spirit.
Washington County is a special community that deserves the best of our individual and
collective efforts. Maintaining the quality of life in this community will require the
rumination, creativity and action of all-across sectors and across organizations: The
fulfillment of our community vision will require-governments, business, non-profits,
religious.and civic organizations to align passion and resources to serve our community
and citizens. The challenge is two-fold: 1) maintain the quality and effectiveness of
existing mission driven organizations and institutions; and 2) align these vast resources
to serve, protect and reinforce the attributes of a safe, healthy and vibrant community. .
For our part, we envision a "collaborative community". that recognizes the role,
contribution, responsibility and interdependence, of citizens and institutions. A
community in which-
+ The diversity of our residents is. celebrated.
i Our housing'is safe, comfortable and diverse, spanning the spectrum of affordability,
effectively exploiting the benefits of proximity to work, school, services and
transportation:
♦ Our educational system provides a'consistent level" of excellence from preschool -
through graduate level higher.education, and residents have life long access to a
variety"of informal educational opportunities.
♦ Our non=profit institutions are known for their strength, and dedication to the. needs
of their constituents, working in concert with government, business and religious
partners.
♦ Our residents and visitors are safe and our justice system is coordinated,-balanced,
efficient and responsive.
♦ Our abundant natural-resources are nurtured for their inherent beauty, and their
contribution to the health and well being of our residents now, and for generations to-
come.
♦ Our environment and neighborhood, livability is maintained', enhanced and balanced "
with our community's growth -and development.
3
Our community •recognizes the social, economic and environmental factors that
contribute to the health and well being of citizens'and works together to prevent
illness, disease and injury.
♦ Our economy is known for its` diversity, future orientation, vitality and commitment
to the•local community. `
♦ Our private and public_institutions work together to identify and problem solve
critical community issues.
WASHINGTON COUNTY THE ORGANIZATION' OUR MISSION
Fu fill our commitment to the public by providing quality and relevant services
within available resources and in a professional, efficient and collaborative
:manner.
As d, public service-organization, we recognize that our principles, policies; programs and
practices must reflect the Constitution of.the United States and the-tenets of democracy.
We recognize our responsibility>to halance the rights of the majority~with the rights of
individuals. '
Washington.County is guided by the following principles: -
Guiding Principles '
♦ Honesty, flexibility and fairness. We respect the rights and responsibilities of our
fellow residents and the role and contributions of each member of our organization.
♦ We recognize the limits of our resources and promote sound business practices in
meeting the priority needs of the community.
We commit ourselves to=program/policy'planning processes:that respect citizen
involvement, best practices and tfie effective and efficient application of public `
resources.
We value"innovation and the use of technology to.improveahe quality and efficiency
of our services.
♦ We commit ourselves.to working with public, nonprofit, government and faith
partners in addressing challenges of mutual.iriterest and concern:
s Faithful stewardship over the public trust and the community°s assets.
♦ We honor and value public service as a calling. We commit ourselves to the highest '
standards of ethical conduct and we accept'full responsibility for our actions.
♦ • We commit ourselves to employee development, performance management and
accountability.
♦ 'We believe community building is a partnership of individuals; governments,
community organizations and businesses, working together to realize the community
vision.
WASHINGTON COUNTY FUNDAMENTALS
In 1970, Washington County had approximately 10,ooo-residehts. In..2oo0,'that
number grew to nearly 450,000.. By the year 2010, Washington County is projected to .
be the.home of nearly 540,000 people.
Rapid population growth, both in. cities and in the urban unincorporated area has led to
an increase in demand for all County services and no change in this trend is in sight.
Herein lies the County organization's greatest challenge: to meet the
growing demand for services from a burgeoning population within the
County's limited resources, while maintaining the ideals inherent in our.
vision for the future, of the Washington Countycommunity, and while
fulfilling our mission to provide.County-services in a professional-and
efficient manner. - }
In the' face of this challenge, the County has continued to evolve its strategies and
philosophies based on community priorities,, changing demographics, available
resources, service needs and partnership opportunities. These strategies were
introduced in the County.2ooo Strategic Plan, various enabling strategies.and policies
and,most recently in the community planning process termed Vision-West.
Through it all, the County has reinforced a; number of fundamentals that guide our work. .
i Washington County is a mission-driven organization. We are committed to relevant
and quality services; but recognize we cannot "be all things to all people." The',
. County cannot be a government of last resort that, in addition to providing the
traditional array of County services, attempts to; provide all the services that Ino one
else can'or will provide. The County will actively collaborate, support and partner'
with others to address a wide range of community concerns - assuming'as
appropriate, the role of provider, partner or supporter.
♦ The County recognizes-its role 'as a countywide service provider, as opposed to
providing services that only benefit specific geographic areas or districts.
5
♦ ; Although the-County plays a-significant role in the spectrumy of federal, state and
local government services' it must "rely on .the participation of other government
organizations, as well as,rionprofit, business; civic and religious. organizations, and -
.families, to provide the range of services required in a healthy community.
♦ The County-prioritizes services according to the Finance. Plan....; -
%
Methods of Service Deliveru .
Based on the underlying philosophy that the County cannot "be°all ihings to all people"
and*recognizing that the County cannot go it alone in *Serving the public and in fulfilling
our vision, Washington County has established three methods of service delivery. These
methods essentially.represent the degree to which the County will be involved - as a
community partner-in attempting to meet the, wide range of community needs. These -
methods are described below.
♦ Direct Service -Certain countywide programs and services are determined to be
most appropriately provided by the County-or by contractors who provide those
services via standards established by the Board of Commissioners. Program
Evaluation Criteria are used to,deierrimine whether the'service is best provided by the
:'County and' who within, the County organization will provide the service.
An example of a direct service provided by the County is the'Environmental
Health program that performs restaurant, pool, water system-and other
inspections using County staff. Adirect service provided by contract providers
includes' the. County's mental health'seri ices. In this case the County, determined
that contracting with, community based service providers was a more effective
and.efficient model than relying on County staff for the provision of services. In- -
this example, mental health contracts are let based on a competitive ,
procurement process.,
♦ ' Partnerships-Certain keyfunctions; while not found to:be a central core function of
the organization, may by virtue of their -proximity to the mission of the organization
be performed in -partnership with other organizations. Washington County's
collaborative role, would be performed via financial support, technical :assistance,
coordination, or the creation of anew organization. Two criteria-that would be
applied in the decision to provide support are: i) the'effort would complement the
" County's mission; and 2) there.would be a significant rate of returm on the
investment to the target group'
An example of such a partnership is the. Vision Action Network, which is
composed of key business, government, non profit and faith partners who -
collaborate in addressing community issues of mutual interest. In this case the,
6
County incorporated the non profit;brganization, provides support as one of
many partners 'and assists with ongoing technical assistance.
♦ Supporting the Agenda - Absent the assumption of either a direct service or
partnership role, a major function that the County can.perform is that of supporting' .
activities consistent with the development of the County's vision and mission
statements. As the Board of Commissioners is the only general-purpose political
body with geographic perspective over the entire County, it has addressed, and wily .
continue to elevate, critical issues that require resolution before the County's vision
can be achieved. This role does not assume the County has the final word in setting a
community-wide agenda. However, the organization, via broad perspective, does
have the capacity to assist in that effort.
Examples include working. with others to highlight support, of elementary, .
secondary, or higher education needs, and volunteering in support of cultural
activities, religious, charitable or family activities.
Countywide vs. Municipal Services
As the County has recognized its financial limits, the Strategic Plan makes a distinction
regarding the financing of traditional services that ar'elof countywide,benefit versus
municipal-type services that benefit specific geographic areas.
♦ Countywide services are.defined as services.that are .of countywide.benefit, i.e., those
services that are utilized by the. broad spectrum,of County. residents: These services.
are typically funded by countywide property taxes, other general-purpose revenues;
or other special revenues dedicated to those services.
Examples include the County's appraisal, elections, public health, animal
control services, juvenile services, jail and base level Sheriff's Patrol, etc.
♦ Municipal services benefit specific sub-areas and groups within the County. Cities,
geographically defined special" districts, or user fees typically fund these services. .
An example of municipal-type services is the Enhanced Sheriff Patrol District
(ESPD), which serves and is funded by the urban unincorporated areas of
Washington County.,
The Strategic Plan dictates that countywide property tax dollars will be expended. on
those services that are, of countywide benefit and; furthermore, that those services'are to
be provided on a prioritized,bass, according to the priorities of the community.
In cases,where municipal services are desired,•the Strategic Plan dictates that the level of
service maybe adjusted and funded at local option.'. Financial support for such programs
.7
might include incorporation into cities (annexation); special local assessments, service,
districts or specific user"fees.
SERVICE STRATEGIES OVERVIEW
The following service strategies are not intended to provide a comprehensive picture of
all County services and responsibilities. They are, instead, designed to emphasize
specific strategies that pertain'to the philosophies, principles and'prioriti' s set forth in
this Plan. For detailed information on department responsibilities or specific programs
and services, please. refer to the Enabling St'rategie's or the annual Washington County
Budget document... _
In this section, you will find' service strategies for the primary areas of government
administeredbyWashington County. r:
General Government
General Government will conduct itself in a manner that honors and builds the public
trust in democracy through effective financial administration, fair and accurate
assessment and taxation, and the conduct of elections. It will also provide political,
.legal and administrative leadership:
♦ Evaluate and employ„technologies to. improve effectiveness. and efficiency of service -
delivery and:access to information.
♦ Staff internal. support functions proportional to.the size of the organization and
accountability requirements-.': Commit to an effective citizen participation and communication program..
Commit to prudent financial practices, taxation and accountability mechanisms that
will ensure' operation within existing resources..
Maintain accurate and uniform property. assessments in compliance with Oregon,
laws:
4 Maintain-a secure and.fair election. system.
Public Salty & Justice
'Public Safety & Justice will 'operate in 'a swift and'efficient manner. It will be
predictable enough to deter, crime;strong enough to punish, adequate enough to
incarcerate, and sensitive*enoiigh, to recognize'those who can be changed and assist
them in.that change. It will,respect the rights of victims and provide services to
address their unique needs..'.
Support a base level of countywide public safety and criminal justice services. '
♦ Fund geographic specific services (i.e., urban unincorporated area) by other
mechanisms, not by a uniform countywide property tax.
♦ Invest in the imbalances in. services that impact the'public's safety and-welfare, and
the justice system's ability. to respond at the necessary level. "Imbalances" refer to
the inability for any of the areas of the system - including law enforcement, district
attorney, juvenile, courts, corrections, jail 'to function at the necessary level due:to
the lack of capability from another area.
♦ Continue to plan and implement a coordinated and balanced approach to criminal
justice 'Service delivery..
♦ Where cost-effective, develop and use'a continuum of community sanctions and
services, to supervise juvenile and adult offenders.
♦ Promote and, support the development and implementation of a broad range of crime
prevention measures. ;
♦ Provide services in a collaborative and cooperative.manner with other County
departments, andmith other criminal justice and community service agencies.
Land Use
Land Use-will strive to balance the rights of the individual to control his or her land
with the broader interests'of the community in order'to•attain a high level of
community livability.
♦ Provide land use planning in the unincorporated area of Washington County. , ;
♦ Support the urban growth boundary as a means to provide public services such as
roads;-sewer and,water• systems-in and efficient and'economical manner, and to•
preserve existing farm and forestland,for future generations.
r
♦ Require development within the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) to include a full- i
range of urban-level services. The development must provide.for design and
environmental standards that enhance the quality of the development.
♦ Commit to balancing individual property rights,with neighborhood livability and the
needs of the community as a whole.
♦ Perform a.Construction Review program that assures all'structures are safe from
collapse, fire and other peril, and guarantees a'standard of quality for the consumer.
♦ Maintain self-sufficiency (through fees) of current planning and land development .
and building programs. Direct limited countywide resources toward code
enforcement and public assistance services.
i 9,
Redirect long-term land use planning efforts from performing regular updates of -
community. plans toward maintaining and participating in various' regional and state
planning efforts and rules to manage growth and maintain 'community livability. .
♦ Assume a leadership role for land use and-transportation planning to assure the.'
-
various federal, state, regional and local mandates are met and coordinate with other
jurisdictionsao assure continuity of planning.
Housing
The County and its partners. will work to. p'rouide adequate shelter for those who would
not otherwise'be,able to attain it,~and to provide for the transition into independence. ' .
for those who can achieve that.goal in regard'to their'own housing. `
♦ Develop innovative partnerships with community groups as well as the., private and
;public sectors.. Program.financing will derive primarily from the' creative packaging
of federal, state, andlocal non-General Fund sources.
♦ Recognize'the relationship between housing and economic development and
providing housing options for people who work"in our communities. Supportmodestly priced rentals and first-time ownership housing opportunities through
partnerships with cities,- and the private and nonprofit sectors.
. • ♦ Evaluate-surplus property for the development.of affordable housing. -
♦ Recognize the housing needs of the elderly and disabled and advance persons to
greater self-sufficiency whenever possible: Support equal access to.affordable:
housing for' a1T households in Washington County.
♦ Evaluate opportunities-and partnerships to reduce costs,'obstacles and regulatory-
barriers to'the development of affordable housing.
Transportation - Capital ProiectManagement,Transportation = Capital Projects. will build a coordinated, balanced system that
develops alternatives 'to`automobile use,. includi7ig'ma' transit, carpooling, bicycling
and walkin9•. We will also develop a safe and affective system, of roads boulevards,..
local streets,' bike paths and.pedestrian walkways
Transportation; services will be focused on countywide transportation issues and
4
projects, including: ,
♦ . Improving the adopted countywide road system.
♦ Analyzing north-south traffic problems and implementing solutions asfinances.
allow:
♦ Promoting and developing increased intra-county transit service. y
~ to .
♦ Fostering alternative modes of transportation, including: mass transit, carpooling,
bicycling and walking.
♦ Increasing funding is necessary if the major multi-modal regional,and county
projects are to be met.
♦ Regularly updating County, Transportation Plan.,
♦ Maintaining Major Streets Transportation Improvement Program (MSTIP).
Transportation -Road Maintenance .
The Operations Division will maintain and operate a safe and efficient County
transportation system comprised of roads, bridges, drainage systems and bike paths in a'.
cost effective and environmentally sound manner.
4 Road maintenance funding will be used for the following priorities: i) emergency
repair hazard elimination and mandated roadwork; 2) general. maintenance on
County major road systems, including rural resource roads; and 3) reconstruction
and local roads. .
♦ Address "enhanced service levels via alternate forms of funding.
♦ Evaluate privatization and perform "least-cost" analysis on an,on going basis to
assure the public that the County' is managing it's funding properly. ,
Health and Human Services ;
Health and Human Services will develop a system that emphasizes prevention and
works in concert with others to ensure the conditions in which all people can be
healthy. We will also provide a foundation of healthy community living through disease
prevention and control.
♦ Emphasize prevention and education.
♦ Encourage visibility and understanding of health and human service issues,
including services within and beyond the scope of our service continuum.
Invest in the imbalances in-services that impact the public's safety and welfare, and
Health and Human Services' ability to respond at the necessary level.
♦ Continue the role of assessing, -prioritizing, and addressing the health and human
service needs of our community.
♦ Focus on collaborative opportunities with public, private and non-profit partners.
♦ ` Purchase services that can be effectively provided by'the private or non-profit sector.
♦ Emphasize user fees, that support the level of service provided.
♦ Advocate for stabilityn the continuum of federal and'state resources.
♦ Coordinate and facilitate public health emergency response activities with county
and state emergency management.
♦ Partner with others to reduce, reuse and recycle valuable'resources to`reduce the
need for solid waste disposal'facilities.. Assure waste is disposed of in'a manner that
protects the health of current and future generations,and preserves our nation's
resources and our community's environment.
Culture. Education &.Recreation.
Culture; Education& Recreation will, support current. and future programs to serve the.
varied interests of our community.
Partner with others to plan for and address the growing demand for natural and open
spaces and recreational facilities. 'The Couiity'sfinancial participation will be funded
by dedicated sources other than general fund discretionary revenues.
♦ Consistent with the desire to protect and/or acquire natural areas and future park.
sites, the County's- inventory of land will be reviewed for potential greenways and
park sites. a
♦ ' Maintain County-owned'tiinber property as a means to contribute financially to
opportunities for natural and: open space, recreational facilities and improvements"at
Hagg Lake/Scoggins Valley Park. Any improvements at Hagg Lake/Scoggins Valley
Park will strike a balance between making this.treasure more accessible to patrons
while remaining sensitive to environmental concerns. .
Cooperative Library Services will support public library service delivery by providing .
funding to service providers to ensure public access to, library services. Alternate
funding should cover future expansion of services or address increased service ' .
'demands beyond the capacity of existing resources. .
♦ Cooperative LibraryServices will .provide. support services to local libraries to
promote efficient service delivery and take advantage of economies of scale anddirect -
service to special populations such as°the.homebound; non-English speaking
residents, children in care, jail inmates, and residents with low literacy levels..
♦ Culture, education and recreation endeavors will emphasize coordination of efforts,
with cities, non-profit organizations,, special districts'and/or Metro to ensure that
collective community goals'are met.
• ♦ Support the development of the Fairplex as, a multipurpose, year-round event and
conference facility. Fair; event-revenues and grants will finance operations and
future development plans.,,
_i2
♦ In a limited capacity, support the development of the arts, history and heritage as
components of the cultural fabric of our community.
♦ 'Maximize the application of limited resources by promoting:the continued vitality of
the Washington County agricultural. community through Oregon -State University
Extension Services.
Washington County is committed to relevant and,'' ' ality services within the framework'
of County 201o. Through citizen and stakeholder involvement this plan will be
operationalized through 'Enabling'Strategies
We look forward-to our work together.
AGENDA ITEM
FOR AGENDA OF 8/16/05
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE U date of Coun 2010 Strategic Plan.
PREPARED BY: Duane Roberts DEPT HEAD OK, //ham „ CITY MGR OK
ISSUE BEFORE THE C UNCIL
Philip Bransford, Washington County Communications Officer, will update Council on the County 2010 Strategic
Plan, now nearing final draft form. .
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Receive information on the County 2010 Strategic Plan; discuss, and provide comments and feedback to
Washington County.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
First adopted in 1986 and revised in 1990 and 1993, County 2000 is Washington County's "strategic plan that
guides how, the County provides services." Its adoption marked a major change in the focus of County service
provision. County 2000 called for. the County to :"provide countywide services, such as- health and road
maintenance, and to phase out-.of providing municipal-type services; such as neighborhood level planning and local
street maintenance. .
The. Plan was last revisited in 2000through".the VisionWest project,. which-included extensive public involvement
and the creation of eight issue teams, each of which focused on a specific county-wide issue, such as housing and
public safety. The County Commission is now scheduled to review and take public testimony on the final draft of
the now renamed County 2010 Strategic Plan in late summer.
Mr. Bransford will give a presentation on the salient features of the County.2010 Strategic Plan and answer any
questions Council may have.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
N/A
y
VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY
N/A
ATTACHMENT LIST.
."Attachment #1: Washington. County Strategic Plan: County 2010`- Discussion Draft'
FISCAL NOTES.': .
N/A This'is an information only item.
i/citywide/sumkounty2000 ,
I
STRATEGIC
PLAN.
- 1 OREGON -
COU'N'TY 2010
Board of Commissioners
Tom Brian, Chair
Dick Schouten, District 1
John Leeper, District 2
Roy Rogers, District 3
Andy Duyck, District.4
County Administrator
Charles Cameron
DISCUSSION DRAFT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1
Introduction
The Washington County Community - Our Vision ....................................3
Washington County the Organization - Our Mission 4
Guiding Principles
Washington County Four Fundamentals 6
Role as Service Provider, Partner or Supporter... 6
We Primarily Provide Services of Countywide Benefit 7
We Need Everyone to Do Their Part 8
f a
We Provide and Fund Services in Accordance with County 201o'and the Finance Plan; 8.
Service Goals and Strategies Overview 8
General Government Goal 8
Public Safety & Justice Goal..... 9
Land Use Goal.....:...... io
Transportation - Capital Project Management Goal 11
• ~ 12
Transportation Road Maintenance Goal .
Housing Goal 12
Health and Human Services Goal 13
Culture, Education, &Recreation Goal .....................:..................:.........................................a3
Enabling Plans 14
Select Priorities FY 06 -.FY io ..................4.......15
Introduction
In 1983, the Board of Commissioners recognized that Washington County government
was facing a serious challenge. That challenge was to preserve and build upon the
County's quality, of life white responding to phenomenal population growth and
increasing demand for County'services.
Rapid population growth led to an accelerated demand for County services at a level that
would be more typically provided by and expected from established cities-not a
"traditional" county government. `At the same time, due to the limits placed on
traditional county funding sources, it was evident that limited resources would be
available to meet this increased demand.. Further, as the demand for city-type services in
the unincorporated area increased, County government was facing the prospect of.
requiring city taxpayers to subsidize the provision of those services.
In response to these challenges, the Board adopted the County 2000 Plan in 1986. The
original Plan identified the County's fundamental approaches to its service delivery roles,
principles and priorities, and was designed,to be a blueprint for the development and
implementation of County policies, programs, and operations. The Plan was updated in
19go and 1993• •These updates substantively reinforced the original document with
refinements based on emerging issues and service priorities.
As part of the "next generation" of County 2o0o updates, the Board of Commissioners in
2000 set in motion a series of conversations about what makes this a great place to live,
work and do business, and posed the question, "What will it take to assure we sustain
and enhance the valued aspects of our communities?" . The project, termed VisionWest,
included unprecedented community involvement, eight active issue teams, .and the
development of informative, defining and creative issue papers. VisionWest was .
intended to take a broad and engaging look at the community through the unique
perspectives of public, private, nonprofit; and faith-based stakeholders.
Along the way, connections were strengthened among many different sectors and
organizations and a strong desire was expressed to work together more consistently and
effectively. This effort ledto the incorporation of the nonprofit organization Vision
Action Network=that works across organizations and sectors to identify, plan, and
mobilize diverse resources around"critical community concerns.. Its creation is based on
the premise that addressing community needs requires the pooling of resources and
passions-across organizations and sectors-to coordinate good works and do what
otherwise would not get done.
i
With the broad community.engagement process completed and organizations and
sectors collaborating in new and exciting ways, the Board of Commissioners began the
process of updating the County 2000 Strategic Plan and its policy direction specifically
provided to the County organization. This updated document, County 201o, reinforces
the principles and tenants of the original document and our current commitment to the
type of collaboration and partnerships that will directly influence the long-term health
and vibrancy of our community.
The County 2010-Plan distills the County's general principles and priorities and is
augmented by a number of "enabling plans" that operationalize the Strategic Plan and
are approved by the Board of Commissioners. The development of each enabling plan
relies on citizen and stakeholder input and collectively reflects the values, goals,
objectives, and policies of Washington County government.
The enabling plans can be accessed via the Washington County website at
www.co.washington.or.us.
•
2'
The Washington County Community - Our Vision .
"For the Generations".
Our vision is to be a model community for 21st Century America, reflecting the
best of our community's resources, achievements, diversity, values, and
pioneering spirit.
Washington County is a special community that deserves the best of our individual and
collective efforts. Maintaining the quality of life in this community will require the
planning, creativity, and action of all-across the divide of sectors and organizations.
The fulfillment of our community vision will'require governments, business, nonprofits,
religious, and civic organizations to align passion and resources to serve our community
and citizens. The challenge is two-fold: 1) maintain the quality and effectiveness of
existing mission-driven organizations and institutions; and 2) link together these vast
resources to serve, protect, and reinforce the attributes of a safe, healthy, and vibrant
community.
For our part, we envision a "collaborative community" that recognizes the role,
contribution, responsibility and interdependence of citizens and institutions. A
community in which:
. ♦ The diversity of our residents is celebrated:
♦ Our housing is safe,. comfortable and diverse, spanning the spectrum of affordability;
effectively exploiting the benefits of proximity to work, school, services, and
transportation.
♦ , Our educational system provides a consistent level of excellence from preschool
through graduate-level higher education, and residents have life-long'access to a
variety of informal educational opportunities.
Our nonprofit institutions are known for their strength and dedication to the needs
of their constituents, working in concert with government, business, and religious
partners.
♦ Our residents and'visitors are safe and our justice system is coordinated, balanced, '
efficient, and responsive.-,
♦ Our abundant natural resources are nurtured for their inherent beauty, and their
contribution to the health and well being of our residents now, and for generations to
come.
3
♦ Our environment and neighborhood livability is maintained, enhanced, and balanced
with our community's growth and development..
♦ Our community recognizes the social, economic, and environmental factors that
contribute to the health and well being of citizens, and works together to prevent
illness, disease; 'and injury.
♦ Our economy is known for its diversity, future, orientation, vitality, and commitment .
to the,local community.
♦ Our private' and public institutions work together'to identify and problem solve
critical community issues.
Washington County the Organization - Our Mission
Our mission is to provide excellent and cost effective services that support healthy,
safe and sustainable communities; and encourage meaningful participation in
community activities and County governance.
As a public service organization, we recognize that our principles, policies, programs and
practices must reflect the Constitution of the United States and the tenets of democracy.
We recognize our responsibility to balance the rights of the majority with the rights of
individuals.
Washington County is guided by the following principles:
GUIDING PRINCIPLES
Mission Driven
We commit ourselves to relevant and quality services, but recognize we cannot "be all
things to all people." The County will not be the government of last resort that attempts
to provide all the services that no one else can or will provide. The County will, however,.
actively, engage others to address a wide range of community, concerns fulfilling the
varied roles of direct service provider, partner or supporter.
Accessibility
Citizens and employees, regardless of abilities, will have ready access to our services and
facilities. Our processes will be open and fair to all.
4
Accountability
We will ensure public funds provide priority service. We will strive to get the most
benefit from available resources through sound business practices. We will act in
accordance with the law, with integrity and in the public interest.
Citizens
We•will be citizen-driven, both internally and externally. We will treat others with
courtesy and respect and provide quality service and customer satisfaction.
Diversity
We will treat all people with dignity, honesty and respect. We will demonstrate through
our actions an understanding and appreciation for cultural diversity and individual
differences. We will not tolerate harassment or discrimination.
Valued Employees
We will enable employees and teams to manage their work and expect them to be
accountable for their decisions and actions. We will provide a quality work environment
and the tools necessary to perform their work safely and efficiently. We commit
ourselves to.employee development and active performance management.
Pursuit of Excellence
We commit ourselves to quality and excellence. Innovation and calculated risk-taking
are essential. We are committed to continuous improvement and creativity. We will
look ahead and not default to the status quo.
Integrity, Loyalty and Trust
We believe ethical conduct is paramount and it will be a trademark of our organization.
We will strive to create and maintain an environment of trust, loyalty, and civility which.
comes from open, honest, and direct interactions with each other and•our residents.
Stewardship
We commit ourselves to the efficient use of public resources. We will invest in our
people, systems and facilities. .
Teamwork
We will enhance and support teamwork and team building in our diverse organization.
We will strive for a professional and cooperative working relationship with citizens and
citizen groups.
5
Washington County Four Fundamentals
Washington County continues to evolve its strategies and philosophies based on
community priorities, changing demographics, available resources, service needs, and
partnership opportunities. Overtime we have developed a number of fundamentals that
guide our work and approach to community problem solving. Although consistent with
the guiding principles, these four fundamentals further detail the County's role and
approach.to services. .
FUNDAMENTAL 1: ROLE AS SERVICE PROVIDER, PARTNER OR SUPPORTER
In recognizing we cannot "be all things to all people;" the County will assume, as
appropriate, the role of provider, partner, or supporter.
♦ Provider - Certain countywide programs and services are determined to be most
appropriately provided by the County or by contractors who provide those services
via decisions made by the Board of Commissioners.
An example of a direct service provided by the County is the Environmental Health
program that performs restaurant, pool, water system and other inspections using
County staff. Direct service provided by contractors includes the County's Mental
Health Program. In this case the County determined that contracting with
community-based service providers was a more effective and efficient model than
relying on County staff for the provision of services. In this example, mental health
contracts are let based on a competitive procurement process.
4 Partner - Certain key functions, while not found to be a core function of the
organization, may by virtue of their proximity to the mission of the organization, be
performed.in partnership with other organizations. Washington County's
collaborative role would be performed via financial support, technical assistance,
coordination, or the creation of a new organization. Two criteria that would be
applied in the decision to provide support are: 1) the effort would complement the
County's mission; and 2) there would be a significant. rate of return on the
investment to the target group.
An example of such a partnership is the Vision Action Network, which is composed
of key business, government, nonprofit and faith'partners who collaborate in
addressing community issues of mutual interest. In this case, the County
incorporated the nonprofit organization, provides support as one of many partners
and assists with ongoing technical support.
♦ Supporter - Absent the assumption of either a direct service or partnership role, a
major function the County can perform is that of supporting activities consistent with
6
the development of the County's vision and mission statements. As the Board of
Commissioners is the only general-purpose political body with geographic
perspective over the entire County, it has addressed, and will continue to elevate,
critical issues that require resolution before the County's vision can be achieved.
This role does not assume the County has the final word in setting a community-wide
agenda. However, the'organizatioh, via broad perspective; does have the capacity to
assist in that effort.
Examples include working with others to highlight support of elementary,
secondary, or higher education needs; and volunteering in support of cultural
activities, religious, charitable or family activities. This would include the County's
annual charitable campaign to benefit local nonprofit organizations.
FUNDAMENTAL 2:' WE PRIMARILY PROVIDE SERVICES OF COUNTYWIDE BENEFrr
The County recognizes its primary role as a countywide service provider, as opposed to
providing services that only benefit specific geographic areas or districts.
As the County has recognized its financial limits, the County 2010 Plan.makes a
distinction regarding the financing of traditional services that are of countywide benefit
versus municipal-type services that benefit specific geographic areas.
♦ •CounWy jde services are defined as services that are of countywide benefit, i.e., those
services that are utilized'by the broad spectrum of County residents. These services
are typically funded by countywide property taxes, other general-purpose revenues,
or other special revenues dedicated to those services.
Examples include assessment and taxation, elections, public health, human services,
housing services, emergency medical services, major transportation systems,
building services, animal services, juvenile, community corrections, district
attorney, jail and base level Sheriffs Patrol.
♦ Municipal services benefit specific sub-areas and groups within the County. Cities,
geographically defined special districts, or user fees typically fund these services.
An example of municipal-type services is the Enhanced Sheriff Patrol District
(ESPD), which serves and is funded by the urban unincorporated residents of
Washington County.
The Strategic Plan dictates that countywide, property tax dollars will be expended on
those services that are of countywide benefit`and, furthermore, that those services
are to be provided on a prioritized basis, according to the priorities of the
community.
In cases where municipal services are desired, the Strategic Plan dictates that the
level of service may be adjusted and funded at local option. Financial support for
such programs might include incorporation into cities (annexation), special local
assessments, service districts, or specific user fees.
FUNDAMENTAL 3:.WE NEED EVERYONE TO DO THEIR PART
Although the County plays a significant role in the spectrum of federal, state, and local
government services, it must rely on the participation of other government
organizations, as well as nonprofit, business, civic and religious organizations,
individuals and families to provide the range of services required in a healthy
community.
FUNDAMENTAL 4: WE PROVIDE AND FUND SERVICES IN ACCORDANCE WITH
COUNTY 2010 AND THE FINANCE PLAN
The key policies and values of the County 2010 Plan will continue to be reflected in the .
prioritization of services according to the companion County 201o Finance Plan.
Service Goals and Strategies Overview
The following service goals and strategies provide a broad overview of County services
and responsibilities. For additional information on department, responsibilities or
specific programs and services, please refer to the Enabling Plans or the annual
Washington County Budget document.
In this section, you.will find service goals and strategies for the primary areas of
government administered by Washington County.
GENERAL GOVERNMENT GOAL
General Government will conduct itself in a manner that honors and builds the public
.trust in democracy through effective financial administration, fair and accurate
assessment and taxation, and the conduct of elections. It will also provide political, legal
and administrative leadership.
Core Strategies
♦ Maintain a 'secure and'fair election system.
♦ Commit to an effective citizen participation and communication program.
♦ Commit to prudent financial practices, taxation, and accountability mechanisms that
will ensure operation within existing resources.
8
♦ Maintain accurate and uniform property assessments in compliance with Oregon
laws.
♦ Collaborate with citizens and stakeholders to evaluate provision of urban services in
the urban unincorporated areas.
♦ Evaluate and employ technologies to improve effectiveness and efficiency of service
delivery and access to information.
♦ Evaluate and maintain efforts to foster employee development, including training
programs and a commitment to active performance management.
♦ Provide efficient and effective internal support functions that are sized to meet
fiduciary, other accountability requirements and customer service needs.
♦ Commit to access to services and facilities for all.
PUBLIC SAFETY & JUSTICE GOAL
Public Safety & Justice will operate in a highly professional, respectful and coordinated
manner. It will be predictable enough to deter crime, strong enough to react forcefully to
escalating situations, adequate enough to incarcerate, and sensitive enough to recognize
those who can be changed and assist them in that change. It will respect the rights of
victims and provide services to address their unique needs.
Core Strategies
♦ Provide a balanced "traditional" base level of countywide public safety and criminal
justice services. A balanced approach means paying attention to the inter-related
components of the justice system and how changes among components, associated
policy decisions and funding allocation levels can have an impact on each other.
Traditional countywide services include:
- A 582-bed jail (administered by the Sheriffs Office)
- A'215-bed Community Corrections Center (Community Corrections)
- Court facilities/services (State Courts and the Sheriffs Office)
- Criminal prosecution (District Attorney)
- Probation and post-prison supervision of offenders (Community Corrections)
- Juvenile court services--including incarceration (Juvenile Department)
- Emergency management (911 Center, Emergency Medical Services and
Sheriffs Office)
Civil enforcement (Sheriffs Office)
- Child support enforcement (District Attorney),
- Victim assistance programs (all departments), and a myriad of prevention
services provided across a wide spectrum of programs
♦ Consider less-expensive, early-intervention approaches that can impact the need for
the more expensive services at the system's later stages.
♦ Provide a long-standing traditional county standard of approximately .50 officers per
1,ooo residents to: provide patrol services in the unincorporated areas and provide
supportive investigative, mutual aid and special team services (major crimes, drug
enforcement, gang teams) and other law enforcement services for both cities and the
unincorporated areas.
♦ Fund geographic specific services (i.e. urban-level unincorporated area patrol and
investigations) by other funding mechanisms, not by a uniform countywide property
tax:
♦ Develop and use a continuum of cost-effective community sanctions and services to
supervise juvenile and adult offenders.
♦ Promote and support the development and implementation of a broad range of crime
prevention measures.
♦ Provide services in a collaborative and cooperative manner with other County
departments (e.g. Health and Human Services), and with other criminal justice and
community service agencies: To this end, update the County's long-range Corrections
Master Plan identifying how all agencies in the justice system will be efficiently.
coordinated including an update of the long-range incarceration space requirement
forecast.
Based upon the update of the Corrections Master Plan and incarceration space
requirement forecast, an expansion planning process for current incarceration needs
may be initiated.
LAND USE GOAL
Land Use will strive to balance the rights of the individual to control his or her land with
the broader interests of the community in. order to attain a high level of community
livability.
Core Strategies
♦ Provide land use planning in the unincorporated area of Washington County.
♦ Support the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) as a means to provide public services
such as roads, sewer, and water systems in an efficient and economical manner, and
to control consumption of farm and forestland.
10
♦ Require development within the UGB to include a full-range of urban-level services.
The development must provide for design and environmental standards that enhance
the quality of the development.
♦ Commit to balancing individual property rights with neighborhood livability and the
needs of the community as a whole.
♦ Perform a•Construction Review program that assures all structures are safe from
collapse, fire and other peril, and guarantees a-standard of quality for the consumer.
♦ Maintain self-sufficiency (through fees) of current planning and land development
and building programs. Direct countywide resources toward code enforcement and
public assistance services.
♦ Redirect long-term land use planning efforts from performing regular updates of
community plans toward maintaining and participating in various regional and state
planning efforts and rules to manage growth and maintain community livability.
♦ Assume a leadership role for land use and transportation planning to assure the
various federal, state, regional and local mandates are met and coordinate with other
jurisdictions to assure continuity of planning.
TRANSPORTATION - CAPITAL PROJECT MANAGEMENT GOAL
Transportation - Capital Projects will build a coordinated, balanced system that
develops alternatives to automobile use, including mass transit, carpooling, bicycling,
and,walking. We will also develop a safe and effective system of roads, boulevards, local
streets, bike paths, and pedestrian walkways.
1 ,
Core Strategies
Transportation services will be',focused on countywide transportation issues and
projects.
♦ Improve the adopted countywide road system.
♦ Analyze north-south traffic problems and implement solutions as finances allow.
♦ Promote and develop increased intra-county transit service.
♦ Foster alternative modes of transportation, including mass transit, carpooling,
bicycling, and walking.
♦ Pursue additional dedicated funding to meet major multi-modal regional and county
projects.
♦ Regularly update the County Transportation Plan.
♦ Maintain the Major Streets Transportation Improvement Program (MSTIP).
1~
TRANSPORTATION - ROAD MAINTENANCE GOAL
The Operations Division will maintain and operate a safe and efficient County
transportation system comprised of roads, bridges, drainage systems, and bike paths
in a cost-effective and environmentally sound manner.
Core Strategies
♦ Road maintenance funding will be used for the following priorities: 1) emergency
repair hazard elimination and mandated road work; 2) general maintenance on
County major road systems, including rural resource roads; and-3) reconstruction
and local roads.
♦ Address enhanced service levels via alternate forms of funding.
♦ Evaluate privatization and perform "least-cost" analysis on an ongoing basis to
assure the public that the County is managing its funding properly.
HOUSING GOAL
The County and its partners will work to provide adequate shelter for those who would
not otherwise be able to attain it, and to provide for the transition into independence for
those who can achieve that goal in regard to their own housing.,
Core Strategies
♦ Develop innovative partnerships with community groups, as well as the private and
public sectors. Program financing will derive primarily from the creative packaging
of federal; state, and local non-General Fund sources.
♦ Recognize the relationship between housing and economic development and
providing housing options for people who work in our communities. Support
modestly priced rentals and first-time ownership housing opportunities through
partnerships with cities, and the private and nonprofit sectors.
♦ Evaluate surplus property for the development of affordable housing.
♦ Recognize the housing needs of the elderly and disabled and advance persons to
greater self-sufficiency whenever possible. Support equal access to affordable
housing for all households in Washington County.
♦ Evaluate opportunities and partnerships to reduce costs; obstacles, and regulatory
barriers to the development of affordable housing.
12
HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES GOAL
Health and Human Services will.develop a system that emphasizes prevention and works
in concert with others to ensure conditions in which all people can be'healthy. Provide a'
foundation of healthy community living through. disease prevention and control.
Core Strate~ ices
' ♦ Emphasize prevention and education in Public Health programs, while providing,-'
select direct services including (among others) immunizations, family'planning, field
team nurses and communicable disease control. Emphasize user fees to support'
services as appropriate. .
♦ Enforce public health regulations and provide environmental surveillance to prevent,
the spread of communicable diseases and protect the environment.
♦ Promote and support community assessments and service planning for children and
families through the Commission on Children andFamilies and the Children's.
mental health program.
♦ Promote and support a balanced'human services system; including aging and
veterans, mental health, alcohol and.drug treatment and developmental disabilities.
Invest in the imbalances in the human services system that impact the public's safety
and welfare.
♦ Promote and support integrated services to maintain, and enhance the quality of life
for vulnerable citizens.
♦ Promote and encourage visibility and understanding of health and human service
issues, including services within and beyond the scope of our service continuum.
♦ Focus on collaborative opportunities with public, private,' and nonprofit partners to
address issues of mutual interest.
♦ Advocate for stability in the continuum of federal and state resources.
♦ Coordinate and facilitate public health emergency response activities with county
and state emergency management.
Partner with others to. reduce; reuse and recycle valuable resources. Assure waste is
disposed of in a manner that protects the health of current and future generations
and preserves our nation's resources and our community's environment.
CULTURE, EDUCATION, & RECREATION GOAL
Culture, Education, & Recreation will support programs that serve the varied interests of
our community,:
13.
Core Strategies
♦ Partner with others to plan for and address the growing demand for natural and open
spaces and recreational facilities. The County's financial participation will be funded
by dedicated sources'other ihan'General Fund discretionary revenues.
♦ Consistent with the desire to protect and/or acquire natural areas and future park
sites, the County's inventory of land will be reviewed for potential greenways and `
park sites.
♦ Maintain County-owned timber property as a. means to contribute financially to
opportunities for natural and'open space, recreational facilities, and improvements
at Hagg Lake/Scoggins Valley Park. Any improvements at Hagg Lake/Scoggins
Valley Park will strike a balance between,making this treasure more accessible to
patrons while remaining sensitive to environmental concerns.
♦ Support public library service delivery by allocating funding to service providers to
ensure public access to library services. Alternate funding should cover future
expansion of services or address increased service demands beyond the capacity of
existing resources.
♦ Cooperative, Library Services will provide support services to local libraries to
promote efficient service delivery and take advantage of economies of scale and
direct service to special populations such as the homebound, non-English speaking
residents, children in care, jail inmates, and residents with low literacy levels.
♦ Culture, education, and recreation endeavors will emphasize coordination of efforts
with cities,. nonprofit organizations,, special districts and/.or Metro to ensure that
collective community goals are met.,
♦ Support the development of the Fair Coxnplex'a§ a multipurpose, year-round event
and conference facility. Fair, event revenues, and grants will finance operations and
future development plans.
♦ In a limited capacity, support the development'of the arts, history, and heritage as
components of the cultural fabric of our community. '
Maximize the application of limited resources by promoting the continued vitality of
the Washington County agricultural community through Oregon State University
Extension Services. .
Enabling Plans
While the 2010 Plan provides broad direction and description of County services and
priorities, it is the "enabling plans" that define the challenge, identify solutions, priorities
14
and specific funding strategies. These plans rely on comprehensive citizen and
stakeholder involvement and are approved by the Board of Commissioners. Some plans
are updated on a regular basis as dictated by code or statute (e.g. Affordable Housing,
Community Corrections, etc.), while others are scheduled at the discretion of the County.
The "enabling plans" are the heart of the strategic plan and provide the opportunity for
precise and effective citizen involvement and creative problem solving. The following
table summarizes the enabling plans by functional area.
Functional Area Enabling Plan
General Government ❑ Finance Plan
❑ Citizen Involvement Plan
❑ Urban Services Plan
❑ Economic Development Plan
❑ Information Technology Plan
❑ 'Employee Development Plan
❑ Affirmative Action/EEO Plan
o ADA Plan
Public Safety and Justice ❑ Corrections Master Plan
❑ Public Safety/Human Services Plan
❑ Community Corrections Plan
❑ Juvenile Services Plan
Land Use, Transportation & ❑ Comprehensive Plan
Housing ❑ Transportation Plan
❑ Affordable Housing Plan
Health & Human Services a Human Services Plan
o Public Health Plan
❑ Children and Family Services Plan
❑ Disability, Aging & Veteran Services Plan
Culture, Education & Recreation ❑ Public Lands Plan (parks, forest & open space)
Select Priorities FY 66 - FY io
In looking forward, Washington County has a number of priorities that stand out in
terms of potential impact on our community and county organization. The select
priorities noted below require a high level of citizen and stakeholder involvement and
deliberation leading towards the development of thoughtful and effective plans of action.
The County will provide process and political leadership as well as ongoing technical
support.
✓ Public Safety, Justice and Human Services Plan
15
Develop an integrated plan to address balance issues within the Public_
Safety and' Justice system including services such as mental health, '
alcohol and drug treatment and housing.
✓ Urban Unincorporated Services Plan
Work with citizens, partners and stakeholders to review all options and
develop an integrated plan to address municipal type services to the urban
unincorporated areas.
✓ . Update Citizen Involvement/Communication Plan.
Update and consolidate the numerous plans 'and policies related to Citizen .
.Involvement and Citizen Communications.
✓ Public Financing Issues
❑ Public Safety Local Option Levy,(Proposed November.2066
Election)
❑ Washington County Cooperative Library Services (WCCLS) '
❑ Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol Renewal
❑ JailExpansion-Capital Construction
❑ Jail Expansion-Operations
❑ , Adequate State funding for Human Services and Community .
Corrections programs
❑ Transportation Funding to meet infrastructure development needs
We look forward to working together.
16
AGENDA ITEM .4
FOR AGENDA OF August 16, 2005
CITY OF TIGARD., OREGON.
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE A Discussion on Consideration of Amending Tigard Municipal Code (TMC) .
3.24.090 to Clarify When System Development Charges are Assessed
PREPARED Gary Lampella DEPT HEAD OK i9 CITY MGR OK
ISSUE BEFORE THE ci6UNCIL
Should Section 3.24.090 of the Tigard Municipal Code (TMC) be changed to' require City System Development
Charges (SDC) to be assessed based on the permit application submittal date or issuance date?
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the TMC be changed to require City SDC fees be assessed based on application submittal date'.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
The City's Parks System Development Charge (SDC) was increased effective January 1, 2005. On January 11,
2005, staff attended'the City Council Executive 'Session seeking direction on when the new SDC should be
assessed. A question arose 'when applicants for building permits were told that the increased Parks SDC fee would
be assessed based on the issuance date of the permit rather .than the application submittal date. The Community
Development Department received numerous complaints and two letters in opposition to this practice.
Section 3.24.090 of the TMC states that SDCs are payable -upon issuance of a permit, however, past practice has
varied over the years as to when fees were: assessed. Some fees were assessed based on,the permit issuance date
and some fees were assessed based on the application submittal date. Other City charges; such, as building and
planning fees and Traffic Impact Fees (TIF), are assessed based on the date of application. 'With a few exceptions,
other surrounding jurisdictions base their assessment rates on the date of application submittal rather than the
issuance. date.
4
At the January 11`" meeting, staff was given direction to assess the Parks SDC fee based on application submittal
date for all current permit applications. Applications. received after the date of the SDC increase would have the
new rate applied. Staff was then to return with an amendment to the TMC that clearly indicates the fee will be
assessed based on the fee in effect at the time of permit issuance.
Since that time, staff has contacted neighboring jurisdictions and has reviewed .other City fees and how they are
being assessed. Of the 13 jurisdictions contacted, 10 assess their fees based on application submittal date. The
remaining 3 jurisdictions assess their fees at permit issuance, however, they all stated-. that the process was
complicated, hard to manage, and required an excessive amount of staff time.
tion submittal helps to .
ents " at apphca
fee assessor Attachment l~
bas"'g (see
urisdictionsl custourers
with other
consi J ice for our
rovide better serv
being , aad p IVES CONSIDE R
,ddt permit process amline . the OTKEg'p;yTE9-N)
based 011 See type'
olicy decision TEGy
,[ivlC and make.a p MITTEE.STRA
language in the ~ ACTION COM
.eeP the current N T ASK F C~RCE 'G(j P•l~ A
VISIO . •
' - - ENT LIST, , :
NSA ~ .
C
Coll, ode" '
City cil Municipal .
memo to the Tigard . Association
1 M ter 3 24 of the Home Builders
Attac hrn
ent 2 Chap .from
Attac t 3 Letters. FISCAL
Attachmen .
~ for.thls issue• -
as reQuired
,['here are no budgetary fun
MEMORANDUM
TO: Honorable Mayor & City Council
FROM:. Jim Hendryx,, Director of Community Development'
RE: City Fee Assessment
DATE: August 2, 2005
The City's Parks System Development Fee (SDC) fee was increased effective January 1,
2005. On January 11, 2005, staff attended the City Council Executive Session seeking
direction on when the new SDC should be assessed. A question arose.when applicants ,
for building. permits were told that the increased Parks SDC fee would be assessed based
on the issuance date of the permit rather than the. application submittal date. The
Community Development Department.received numerous complaints and two letters in
opposition to this practice:
Section 3.24.090 of the Tigard Municipal Code (TMC) statesthat SDCs.are payable upon
issuance of a permit, however, past practice has varied over the years as to when fees
were assessed. Some fees have been assessed based 'on the permit issuance date and
some fees have been assessed based on the application, submittal date.
At the January 11th meeting, staff was given direction to assess the Parks SDC fee based
on application submittal date for all current permit applications. - Applications received' after
the date of the SDC increase would have the new rate applied. Staff was then given
direction to'return with an amendment to the TMC that would clarify that all City fees
would be collected. based on the fee in. effect at the time of permit issuance..
There are some negative impacts associated with. the change of the 'TM,C that Council
should be made aware of. Other City charges; such as Building permit fees;, Planning
fees and Traffic Impact Fees,(TIF) are assessed based on the date of application
submittal. Also, several surrounding jurisdictions base their assessment rates on the
date of application submittal rather than.the issuance date (see chart on page 3). Clean,
Water Services recently. changed their'-policy from permit issuance to application
submittal date as their assessment date.
Recent past practice has been to assess fees based on application date for various
reasons. One is obviously to.maintain'consistency with neighboring jurisdictions, but
more1mportantly, it provides a more customer oriented process. Typically, plans may
be, submitted months in advance of actual permit. issuance because other City
departments (Planning, Engineering and Public Works) have not fully released a project
for permits. „
:,Often.the Building Division has upwards of 100. permits that•are waiting for applicant&-to
pick up. 'Although''the plans have been reviewed.:and the permits are 'ready to be. ;
issued,. it is possible that a; new fee increase could, be proposed to Council before they
are issued. In that case, there is, no way of knowing in advance what the, new fee will
.be. } ;
When permits are ready to•issue',customers are.contacted:and given the rates in effect : .
,at that time. If new fees come into effect between application submittal and permit
issuance; applicants have to.be contacted again and-informed .of. the new rate. If they.
don't pick up their permits prior to the effective date of the fee -increase; they must pay
the new rate. Staff `then has to pull all, the non-issued permits from,the file and manually
change the fee amounts in the computer system. .,.,This takes an excessive amount of
staff time: Many: applicants have to go through' a corporate office to receive funds in
order to pay for permits. If the fees change,-they, must contact their corporate office to
have another check cut. This causes additional lag.time between City contact and
actual permit issuance.
Another.issue•,is-that applicants-continually call us-to approve.their plans before an
increase goes into effect.. We may notalways be'able to accomplish their request. In
one letter we received, there was an accusation that we could. purposely hold up-the
approval of permits in order to collect a higher rate.
Staff has been criticized in-the-past for-the appearance-of changing the rules'and fee
rates during'the,process. As evident in'the letters received,from.the Portland
Metropolitan Homebuilders'Association, they feel this is an; unfair practice.
These problems.couid be alleviated simply by crafting the•language_in the TMC to state .
that the fees in,effect-at the'date.of application submittal will,be the fees thatw'ill be
assessed. 'Of course, we would get a flood of applications prior to a :fee* increase date.
1h that case, our biggest problem is applicants who submit incomplete' information in
order to get in under the old,fee. -To alleviate this problem, the Building Division checks
applications for completeness at the permit counter and the applicant is sent away if the
plans are incomplete.
Community Development's recommendation would be to. pursue the application
submittal -date as opposed-to the permit issuance date for assessing fees:
2
SDC Fees
Application Date Issuance Date
Jurisdiction
Portland X
Miwaukie X
Forest Grove X w
West Linn, X*
'Gresh'arn' X
Beaverton X*..
Clackamas Count X
Cornelius X .
Oregon City X
Washington Count X
Tualatin X*
Wilsonville- X'.
Troutdale X . '
*..These jurisdictions reported that the process, was complicated, hard. to manage,
and required an inordinate amount'of staff time.
3
TIGARD MUNICIPAL; CODE
Chapter 3.24 SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT any applicable -tax, • assessment, charge, or fee
CHARGES., otherwise provided by law. or- 'imposed: as a
condition of development. , (Ord. 93-33).
Sections:
3.24:030 ' Definitions.
3.24.010 Purpose.
3:24.020 Scope. As used in this chapter: "Capital Improvements"
3.24.030 Definitions. means facilities or assets used for:
3.24.0401 System Development Charge
Imposed;'Method For (1) Water supply,. treatment and
' Establishment Created. , distribution;
3.24.050 Methodology.
3.24.060 Authorized Expenditures. (2) -Sewage and wastewater - collection,
3.24.070. Expenditure Restrictions. transmission, treatment and disposal;
3.24.080 Project Plan.
3.24.090 Collection Of Charge. (3) Drainage and flood control;
3.24.100 Installment -Payment.
3.24.110 Exemptions. (4) Transportation; or
3.24.120. Credits:'
3.24.130 Notice. (5) Parks and recreation. (Ord. 95-28; Ord:
3.24.140 Segregation'And Use' Of 93-33).
Revenue:
3.24.150 Appeal Procedure. 3.24.040 System Development Charge
3.24.160 Prohibited Connection. % Imposed; Method For
3.24.170 Penalty. Establishment Created.
..3.2.4.180 'Construction: '
( (1) Unless otherwise exempted by, the
3.24:010 Purpose. provisions of this Chapter or other. local or state
law,' a :systems development charge is imposed
This - 'Chapter , is intended, to . provide upon. all development within the 'City, upon the
authorization' for system development charges for act of making a connection to the City water or.
capital improvements pursuant to ORS Revised: sewer system: within the . City,, upon' all
Statutes 223.297. through 223.314, for the purpose development outside the boundary of the City that
of creating : a source. of funds to pay for the connects to', or otherwise uses the sewer' or water
'installation, construction,. And extension of capital facilities of the City, and whenever the City
improvements. These charges shall be collected. Council has authorized an intergovernmental
at the time of the development of properties which agreement which' permits the City to impose a
increase . the use. of capital improvements and parks system development charge outside the City
generate a need for those facilities. .(Ord.. 95-28; limits. ' (Ord: 95-28-,-Ord. 93-33).
Ord. 93-33).
3:24.050 Methodology.
3:24.020 Scope.
(1) The methodology used to establish, the.
The system development charges imposed by reimbursement- fee shall consider the cost of the
this Chapter are separate from and in addition to then-existing facilities, prior contributions ..by
3-24-,1 Code Update: 12103
TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE
then-existing system users, 'the, value of 'unused Plan adopted, by the City 'pursuant to Section
capacity; rate-making principles employed: to 070 of this Chapter.
f inance publicly owned capital improvements, and =
other relevant factors identified by the; Council.. (3): Notwithstanding subsections (1) and (2)
The methodology shall promote the objective-that . of this Section, system development charge.
future, systems users shall contribute no more than revenues may be expended on the direct costs of
an equitable -share of the cost of then-existing complying with the provisions of this Chapter,
facilities. - including the costs of developing' system
development charge. methodologies and providing
(2) The methodology used to establish the" an annual =accounting 'of system development
'improvement fee shall consider the cost of charge funds. (Ord..93-33).
projected capital improvements needed to increase'
the :capacity of the systems to which the fee is`: 3.24.070 Expenditure Restrictions.
related and other relevant factors identified by the w
Council. (1) System development charges shall not
be - expended for costs`': associated with the '
(3) The` methodology used. to establish the construction of administrative office facilities that
improvement fee or the reimbursement fee, 'or ' a're' more than an incidental part of other capital
both, shall be adopted by resolution.(Ord: 93 improvements.
33):.
" (2) System development 'charges shall not
3.24.060 Authorized Expenditures. be expended for costs of the operation 'or routine
maintenance of:capital improvements. - (Ord: 93=
(1) Reimbursement, fees shall b,e'.a plied' 33).
only to capital improvements associated with`the =
systems for'which.the fees are,.assessed, including., 3.24.0810''' Project Plan.
expenditures relating to .repayment •of ;
indebtedness. ; The Council shall- adopt by resolution the
Systems-Development Charge Funds Project Plan.'
(2) ..(a) Improvement fees shall, be spent This Plan: '
only on"capacity, incresirig.capital improvements; .
including expenditures.. relating. to repayment of, (1) Lists the capital improvements that may
debt- for such improvements. An increase in be. funded with- improvement fee revenues; and
system capacity occurs if .a capital improvement
increases the lever 'of performance. or service (2)" Lists the estimated cost and time,of '
provided by existing ,facilities.. or provides new' construction of each improvement: 11
facilities.: -The portion of the improvements
funded by, improvement',fees`must be related'to In adopting this plan the :City Council may
demands, created by " current or projected 'incorporate by reference all or a portion of any
development. ..public facilities plan, master `plan; capital
improvements, plan or similar plan that contains
(2) (b)7.,A - capital improvement beinf , the information required by this Section. The City.
funded, wholly or, in- part from revenues .derived may modify this project plan at any time through. '
from•the improvement fee.shall'be included-in the . the.:adoptioin of an appropriate resolution. There
' Systems Development' Charge. Funding: Project. maybe a separate, plan for,each system, or the
3=24=2= Code Update: 12103
-TIGARD .MUNICIPAL CODE
plan may include improvements from more than. secured by a lien on the property upon which the
one system. (Ord. 93733). development is to. occur or to which the utility
connection is to. be made, to include interest on
3.24.090 Collection of Charge. the unpaid balance, if that -payment option is
required to be made available to the permittee by
(1)• The systems development charge .•is ORS 223.207.
payable upon issuance.of. '
(2), The City Manager or' designee shall
(a) A building permit; provide application . forms. for installment
payments, which shall, include a waiver of all
(b) A 'development permit for rights to contest the validity of the lien, except for
development not, requiring the 'issuance. of a the correction of computational errors.
building permit;
(3) A permittee requesting installment
(c) A permit to. connect to the water payments shall have 'the burden of demonstrating
system; or the pernittee's authority to - assent to -the
imposition of a lien on the property, and that the
(d) A permit to connect to the sewer interest of the permittee is adequate to secure
system. payment of the lien.
(2) If development is com'menced' or (4) The. City ' Manager or. designee shall
connection is made to the water system, sewer docket the lien in 'the lien docket.. From that time;
'
system or . storm sewer system without an the City shall have a lien upon the described
appropriate permit, the, system development parcel for the amount of the system'development'
charge '.is immediately payable upon the earliest charge,together with interest on the unpaid
date that a permit was required., balance at the rate established by the Council.,.
The lien shall be enforceable in, the manner,
(3) The City Manager or the designee shall provided. in ORS Chapter 223, and shall be
collect- the applicable system development charge superior to all other liens pursuant to ORS.
from the permittee. 223.230. (Ord. 03'-08, Ord. 93-33).
(4) The City Manager or the designee shall 3.24A 10 Exemptions.
not issue such permit or allow connection until the
charge has'been paid in full, unless provision for . (1) Structures and uses established and .
installment payments has 'been made pursuant to existing on or before the effective date of the
Section 3.24.100 of this Chapter, or unless an resolution, which sets the amount -of the system
exemption is granted pursuant to Section 3'.24.110. development charge are exempt from the charge, .
of this Chapter. (Ord. 03-08, Ord. 95-28;'Ord.-937 except water and sewer charges, to the extent of
33). the structure or use.existing on that date and to the
extent of the parcel of land as it is constituted on
3.24.100 Installment Payment. that date.. Structures and uses affected by,this
subsection shall pay: the water or sewer. charges
(1) When a system development charge. is pursuant, to the terms of. this Chapter upon the
due. and.. payable, the pen~nittee may apply for receipt of a permit to connect to the water or
payment•.in twenty, (20) semi-annual installments, sewer system.
3-24-3 Code Update: 12103
:TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE .
qualifies for credit under this subsection. The
(2) Additions to single-family dwelling's request for credit shall be filed in writing no later
that do not constitute the addition of a dwelling than 60 days after acceptance of the improvement
unit, as defined by the Building Code adopted by the City.
pursuant to § 14.04 of this Code, are exempt from .
all portions of the system development charge. (3) When establishing a methodology for a
system development charge, the City may provide
(3) 'An alteration,' addition, replacement or for 'a credit 'against the improvement fee, the
change in use that does not increase the parcel's .or , reimbursement fee, or _ both, for capital
structure's use . of a' capital improvement are, improvements constructed as part of the
exempt from all portions of ,the system development which reduce the development's
development charge. (Ord. 93-33). demand upon existing capital improvements
and/or the need for future capital improvements,
3.24.120 Credits. or a credit based upon any other rationale the
Council finds reasonable.
(1) When development occurs that is ;
subject to a system development. charge, the (4) ` When' the 'construction of a qualified
system development charge for. the existing use, if public improvement gives rise to a credit amount
applicable, shall be calculated and if it is less-than- . ' greater than the improvement fee that would
the-system development charge for the use that otherwise be levied against the project receiving
will result from the.. development, the difference' development approval, the excess credit may be
between the system development charge for the. applied against improvement fees that accrue in
existing use and the system development charge' "subsequent -phases of the original development
for the proposed use shall be the system ' project. Credit shall not be transferable from one
development charge. If the change in .the use'- development to.another.
results in the system development charge for the
proposed use beirig less than the system (5) Credits shall 'not be. transferable. from
development' charge for. the existing use, no. one type of system. - development charge to
system development charge shall be required, ` . another.
however, no refund or credit shall be given unless'
provided for by another subsection of this' Section. (6) Credits . shall be • used within 10 years
from'the.date the credit is given. (Ord. 93-33)..
(2) -A credit shall be given to the permittee . ;
for the cost of a qualified public improvement 3.24.130 Notice.
upon acceptance by the City of the improvement. ,
The credit provided for in this subsection shall be The City shall maintain •a list of persons who
only for the improvement fee charged for the type - have made a written request for notification prior,
.
of improvement being constructed; and credit for to, adoption or amendment of a methodology for
qualified public improvements may, be granted any system development charge. Written notice
only for. the cost of 'that . portion of such'' shall be mailed to persons; on the list" at least 45.
improvement. that exceeds the City's minimum. days prior to the first hearing to adopt or amend a
standard facility size or capacity needed to serve system development, charge, and the methodology
the particular development project or property: supporting the adoption or amendment shall be ,
The applicant . shall ,,have . the burden 'of available at least 30 days prior to the firsthearing
demonstrating -that a, particular improvement to, adopt of amend. The failure of a person on the
3-24-4 Code Update: 12103
TIGA'RD MUNICIPAL; CODE
list.to receive' a notice that was mailed shall' not. decision must -be filed within, thirty(30)-'days of
invalidate the action of the City:. The: City- may 'the date of theidecision.
periodically delete names from the list, but at least:.,
30 days. prior to removing ,a name from the list (3) The Council shall'determine whether'the
must"' notify , the persons ' whose name' is. to be City,- Manager's decision, or_ the expenditure. is in-
Adeleted that a new written request- for, notification' accordance . with '.this Chapter,and , the provisions,
is required if the person wishes to remain on the ''.,of ORS 223.297-.314 and may affirm, modify' or
notification list. (Ord. 93-33). overrule the decisions. of the Council determines
' that.tliere has 'been. 'an improper expenditure, of
3:24.140 Segregation and Use of system.developmem-charge revenues, the Council
Revenue. shall' direct thaf:a sum, equal to` the misspent
' amount .shall be deposited within one year of t'he
(1) . All funds derived from a particular type • date of. that determination "to the credit o f 'the
of 'system '.development charge are. to be account or fund from -which it was spent. The
segregated by accounting practices from all other decision of the: Council shall be reviewed only as
funds by the City. That portion of the- system provided in ORS 34.010 to .'34.100 and not
development charge calculated and collected on otherwise.'
:account of a specific facility. system shall be used,
for no .purpose other.' than those' set forth in this (4) 'A legal action challenging the
Chapter.. methodology adopted by the Council pursuant to.
Sections 3.24.040 and .3.24.050' of this Chapter
"(2) . The City . Manager. shall, provide an shall. not .be . filed later than sixty'(60) days after
annual accounting, based on the City's fiscal year, 'the-, -adoption. A person shall contest the
of system, development charges showing' the. total`, methodology ..used for calculating a''• system .
amount of system development charge revenues`. development charge `only as provided .in ORS
collected for each type.of charge._and.'the projects 34.010 to,34.100, and not otherwise. (Ord. 03-08,
funded, from 'each account. (Ord:°03-08; .Ord..93- Ord. 93-33).
33);
3.24.160 Prohibited Connection.
3.24.-150 Appeal, Procedure:
No,person may connect to the water'or'sewer
(1) A person .aggrieved by, a' decision systems of the City'unlessjhe appropriate system
required or permitted to ' be ;madet'by the, City development charge has been paid. (Ord. 93,33).
Manager under this 'Chapter or a ' person
challenging the' propriety ' of an expenditure. of 3.24:170. , Penalty.
system development charge' revenues may. appeal ;
the decision or the expenditure`to the City Council -Violation' of this Chapter is a Class A
by. filing a written request. with the City: Manager " infraction ,.punishable' by a. fine not to exceed
. describing with -particularity the, decision-;of the $500. (Ord. 93-33).
City Manager 'or- the expenditure from, which the
person appeals.
. (2) An, appeal -of an expenditure must be
filed within'two'.years of the date 'of the alleged
improper expenditure.. ,,_A'ppeals , bf any', other
3-24-5 Code Update,, 12103
TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE
3.24.180 Construction.
The rules of statutory construction contained
in ORS Chapter 174 are adopted -and by this ;
reference; made a part of this Chapter.. (Ord. 93-
33).0
,
3-24-6: Code Update: 12103
.
Home Builders Association
of Metropolitan Portland
December 30, 2004.
Jim Hendryx r
City of Tigard
City Hall
Tigard, OR 97223..,
RE: Parks System Development Charges ,
Dear'Jim:
As you know, I became aware, yesterday that, the City.•of Tigard has interpreted Section
3.24.090(l•). of their Municipal: Code to the effect that "payable" also means ."calculated".
This has the effect of reversing existing city policy by which the SDC's were`calculated
at the time of submittal of an application for a building permit, and then,collected at the
time-of issuance of the permit.
The plain and simple definition of "payable" certainly does not include "calculated or
assessed".
ORS 221299(4)(a) defnes an.SDC as a fee that is""assessed or collected at the time of
increased usage.'.' The TMC 'addresses only, the, collection time of the SDC and. is silent
on the assessment or calculation time: Furthermore, Sec. 3.24.010 of the TMC. makes'it
clear that this is what the. city, is doing,' talking about the time the SDC is "collected."
The TMC does not address the date when the SDC:is assessed at all, and it is a very
reasonable reading to say that a tax or fee is assessed on one date and becomes payable
- on,another date. Property taxes are done this way.: There has been a sign on the building,
,
department counter announcing:that it'would be done.this way. Clearly by the city'spas_t
interpretation of the TMC it was done this way- and- should be a guide as'to future -
interpretation of this. section of the code.
Therefore, on behalf of the'.HBAMP, I am, requesting that you rescind,this most recent
interpretation of the code,.and'revert to the previous,practices of accepting the application
;date as the operative point in time for'the assessment. of the_SDC's. A separate letter is
being sent to the Mayor, City Councilors and the City Manager.
Sin Ulatt
Y .
i
Director of Local. Govbmment. Affairs
{ 1'5555,SW Bangy Road Suite. 301 Lake Oswego, Oregon 97035
Phone: 50.3:684.1 8804',Fax: 503.684.0588 ♦ wwini.homebuildersportland.org
:Striving for Affordobilit . Balance and Choice_
Home Builders Association
of Metropolitan Portland
January 26, 2005
Mr. James N:P`'Hendryx
Director of•Community Development
City of Tigard
113125 SW Hall Blvd.
Tigard, .OR. 97223 `
Dear Jim:
Thank you very much for your letter of January'13`s explaining the issues leading to the City 's initial : .
rationale for assessing the SDC based on issuance date, and the Council'-s subsequent decision 'to reverse
such an approach.„ We appreciate the swift-response provided by you and.the elected leadership:
I want to clarify, that the phrase in my original letter of December 30, concerning "processing delays that
Tigard staff may cause" was not intended to reflect any, past problems.with`members of your department
or elsewhere in the City, offices. Indeed, both Ernie 'Platt and Kelly Ross. here at HBA Have nothing but
compliments about•their inany'years of interaction 'with you and others at,Tigard. -Rather,, this comment
was meant to convey..one of the issues, that could occur if a longenreview process resulted in additional
revenue to the City (or by any city that might look at using this, approach in calculating SDC fees).
I trust neither this nor other statements caused any offense, Jim. We had received a number of heated'
phone calls from affected builders and certainly had an initial perception that this was a last minute
change,that went against m6nths of productive conversations~between the City and HBA on the new Park,
SDC fees and implementation: ; Given the fact this all happened on, the last business daof the y year right
before the New Year holiday, we felt.we. needed to respond quickly.
This .episode has-served to highlight'for me the need for us to establish a closer relationship with Tigard's
new Mayor; Council,, and senior staff, .a§ more development will now be occurring in areas within your
:uiisdictiorl. it ,voaid be nice ~G ha -e lunch sG,11et SG.7^ Mayor Dir. seny i.c * e:lor W71Svn ^c nd
1i.~ u. o, .
you to discuss possible partnership opportunities and to establish relationships that can help us anticipate
future challenges and address them together. ;
Again, your courteous letter was very much appreciated andThope`to have the pleasure of talking to you
in person in. the near"future..
Sincerely; ; . .
Dave Nielsen
Chief Executive Officer;
cc: The: Honorable Mayor Dirksen.
Councilor Nick Wilson
15555 SW1Bangy Road ♦ Suite 301 Lake Oswego,'Oregon 970.35
Phone: 503.684'.1 1880 *Fax:, 503.684.0588 www,.homebuil'ders'po,rtland.org.
Striving for Affordobiliry,.Balance and Choice
Copies to:
Mayor/Council _k - ke'r:
City Manager
Council File
Home-Builders Association
of Metropolitan Portland - RECEIVED. C.Q.T '
t
91: A 2004
December 30, 2004 dministr~fio
The Hon. Craig Dirksen ,
City of Tigard
13125 SW Hall Blvd. ;
Tigard, OR 97223
RE: 'Parks System 'Development Charges and Annexation Issues:
Dear Mayor Dirksen and' Councilors:
As is 14BA's custom, our, staff and interested builders made a good faith effort during the last
three months ,to work with Tigard's staff and consultant to ensure that a significantly higher park
system.development charge (SDC) proposal was fair and accurate. Though not all of our
recommendations for possible reductions or changes. were accepted by the'Council, we were
ls`
assured on a, number of occasions that building permit applications filed priouto the.-'January
effective date would, stilfbe charged the previously existing fee: This was extremely important,
as HBA already, felt that Tigard was pushing,the envelope by implementing such a large fee
increase so.quickly with•no, tiered phase=in approach, as we had.sought.
Despite such collaborative efforts, however, we were,alarnied to learn yesterday that :thercity .has
arbitrarily chosen, without any public comment or notice,,to change..its longstanding policy of
charging the .fees in effect when a building'permit application is submitted (a policy, to our
knowledge, that has: been honored by every other local government in the region) to whatever is
in effect.when the'permit is actually issued. This occurred despite repeated assurances to us and
builders=-indeed even'posted on an'informational sign,in the building department office for the
past several weeks=that fees would be. calculated at the time, of application submittal.
The obvious intent of such a "bait and switch" move is to snag as many new home permits as
possible with the 103% park system.deye'lopment charge increase that becomes effective at.
midnight tomorrow. I must say, this' action represents. an extremely unfair abuse of government
authority and one that will have huge. impacts on building companies doing business iri Tigard
and the relationship between Tigard and the HBA.
Beyond the consequences of the current park SDC:increase, a "when issued" rather'than a "when'
applied'for" general policy will send a strong message to potential developers and businesses that
all future projects will be at the mercy of both any processing delays that Tigard staff may cause
and any revenue holes that the Council may need to.plug.
15555•SW Barigy Road Suite 301:♦ Lake Oswego,.Oregon 97035
Phone: 503.684:18180 Fax: 503.684.0588 *.www.homebuildersportland.org
Striving for Affordability, Balance and Choice
41-
The. only possible good that will come from such an,unprofessional and unfair approach will be
to serve as a vivid example during the 2005. Legislative Session of why reform of the SDC'
statutes is so necessary to curb these types.of abusive practices. HBA, along with the Oregon
Home Builders Association, intends to'make this our highest priority when the session'convenes
next week. ;
We are, also very concerned with the city's :abrupt move to make its most recent Bull Mountain
annexation effective immediately.through use of an emergency clause.rather than the'normal 30-
day period. Eliminating the 30-day effective period is short-sighted, as the city is allowing_the '
allure of more park SDC dollars to hurt the very companies than are providing jobs and housing
for its citizens, as well as further damaging its reputation- for fairness and integrity in. dealings
with business. HBA intends to strongly oppose any legislation pursued by Tigard to change the
double-majority requirement'for future annexations, as it is obvious the City cannot be counted
onto act responsibly or in good faith on these kinds of issues.
We urge you in the strongest terms-possible to reconsider-both of these decisions, as they will . , "
otherwise seriously erode the good working relationship that HBA has had in the past with'
Tigard and its building and planning staff, immediately change our approach to working with the
City, and damage your city's credibility with the broader business community and general
public.
Respectfully,
Dave Nielsen
Chief Executive' Officer
cc: The Hon. Tom. Brian'
Jon Chandler, Oregon Home Builders Association
Jane Leo, Portland Metropolitan Association of Realtors
Cindy Catto, Associated General Contractors
Jonathan Schlueter, Westside Economic Alliance
'Regional News Media
:Regional Legislators
AGENDA ITEM #
FOR AGENDA OF 8/16/05
CITY OF TIGARD., OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Review of National Incident Management System (NIMS) and Office of
Consolidated Emergency Management (OCEM) Update
PREPARED BY: Mike Lueck DEPT HEAD OK~ CITY MGR OK '
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
Listen to a review of NIMS from the emergency management coordinator. The review will provide the background
required to approve a city resolution during the September 13th Council Meeting formally adopting the NIMS
operating premise. Quick update on the OCEM partnership will also be presented.
STAFF. RECOMMENDATION
No action required; Informational only.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
The City of Tigard, specifically Police and Public Works department receive "federal grant money for public
safety and emergency management training and equipment. The federal government recently has mandated
compliance measures required to continue to receive those monies. The Office of Consolidated Emergency
Management (OCEM) has been providing guidance through several forums to assist the local jurisdictions in
their effort to meet the compliance benchmarks as well as the first of a number of deadlines. Tigard has only a
couple of compliance measures to complete prior to the October 2005 deadline and the NIMS awareness
presentation will expedite those efforts.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
None
VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY
Goal: Public Safety: The program through initial and enhancement training will maximize the volunteer's
effectiveness in emergency and non-emergency events, developing a strong partnership in emergency preparedness
and community caring. The equipment purchase will help supplement the stable funds required to provide
uninterrupted public safety and emergency services. The community residents, business owners, and service
providers will understand their roles through effective communication to successfully enhance those, services
ATTACHMENT LIST
1. Draft Resolution to adopt the NIMS Operating System '
2. Copy of PowerPoint slide presentation.
FISCAL NOTES
The City of Tigard's Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) program is federally funded through a
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) Grant.
Police programs are also funded through federal Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention and Urban Area
Security Initiative grants where they have purchased equipment and provided training back-fill. The Grants are
overseen by Oregon Department of State Police and Oregon Emergency Management (OEM) and managed by
the City's CERT Coordinator and Police Training Officer. The City is currently drafting another application for
Federal grant money to support this program through 2007.
iAadm\packet'05\050816\nims 081605 ais rev-doc
4
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
RESOLUTION NO. 05-
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE NATIONAL INCIDENT MANAGER 1 I-' RTT SYSTEM (NIMS) AS
THE FOUNDATION FOR INCIDENT. COMMAND, COORDINATIO-N ~N 1) S UPPORT ACTIVITIES
AND ESTABLISHING POLICY THAT THE CITY OF TIGARD. `I'II- L PROVIDE APPROPRIATE
NIMS TRAINING FOR RESPONSIBLE CITY PERSONNEL
WHEREAS, response to and recovery from major emcrgcncics and 'disasters requires integrated
professional management and coordination; and
WHEREAS, the President directed the Secretary of the Department of, Homeland Security to develop.
and administer a National Incident Management System (N1 NJ S) to standardize and enhance incident
management procedures nationwide; and
WHEREAS, the National Incident Management System hroVides'a structure and process to effectively
coordinate responders from multiple disciplines ail(] Icy cls ol'-o~ ernimmt and to integrate them with
resources from the private sector and non-govcrnnirntal or wiizations and
WHEREAS, use ofthe National Inci~lcnt ~Ian~i~cmcnl System, titihich has as a~key component the
Incident Command Syst':m (ICS). will inlhro\e the City of Tigard's ability to manage major
emergencies and disasicrs; aril
WHEREAS, failure to adopt and use the National Incident Management System may preclude Tigard
from receivinc- fed&al preparedness ~-,r~uits oi:,., reimbursement for costs expended during major
emerge CV and (]ISaster rCspNrisc land rCcoveryqp.crations.
NOW, THERLTORE, B>✓,I I' RF:SOL\'-Lll"by the Tigard City Council that:
i
SECTION 1:`Elie National Incident Management System is hereby adopted as the? foundation for
'ncidcnt Command, coordination and support activities for the City of Tigard.;.
SECTION 2: It shall be the policy of the City.of Tigard to provide appropriate training on the
National Incident Management System and its core components to personnel
responsible for managing and/or supporting major emergency and disaster operations.
RESOLUTION NO. 05 -
..Page 1
• I
SECTION 3: This resolution is effective immediately upon passage.
PASSED: This day of 2005.
Mayor - C'ih 011 IL, I
ATTEST:
City Recorder - City of Tigard
L%admlpacket 1051050816Wmft nims msotution.doc
`L
i
RESOLUTION NO. 05 -
Page 2
it W °rk Sess1On
City C°unc 811612()05
:i
,
i
.tia em
. chael IL.Ueck, menu C00r61nat r
G . Mi Manage
eMergeney and
City of -T-1g
4,r
F-I
OVERVIEW
TPicture -Where it began
Homeland Security Presidential
Directives (HSPD.),
HSPD 5-and 8
NIMS.'-Summary
What is NIMS?
Major Components of NIMSBenefits of N I MS
is NIMS important?
. Cont►nued
OVERVIEW " be
11.0ce Activities to
State,
N~MS C. puring FY 205 l
ATribal Jurisd~etntss)
focal, and uirem
-V e
FY2006 and 2 07 Local Rea
n
Incident Definition
Incident: Any event that results in a spill or
release of hazardous material. Action by
emergency service personnel that would
be required to prevent or minimize loss of
life or damage to property and/or natural
resources caused by manor nature.
(as defined in the Emergency Operations Plan for the City
of Tigard -Section 7, Page 3)
1 ~
I
picture
The Big
come
To d"d
Alk
THE BIG'.-PICTURE
HSPD-1 Organization and Operation of the-Homeland Security Council 29 Oct 01
HSPD-2 Combating Terrorism Through Immigration Policies 29 Oct 01
HSPD-3 Homeland Security Advisory System 11 March 02 - •
[National Strategy to. Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction]
HSPD-4 (unclassified version) 11 December 02
Management of Domestic Incidents
HSPD-5 28 February 03
.[Initial National Response Plan, 30 September 03]
HSPD-6 Integration and Use of Screening Information 16.Septembe.r 03 .
HSPD-7 Critical Infrastructure Identification, Prioritization, and Protection 17 December 03
HSPD-8 National Preparedness 17 December
03
HSPD-9 Defense of United States Agriculture and Food 30 January 04
HSPD-10 Biodefense for the 21st Century 28 April 04
T HSPD-11 Comprehensive Terrorist-Related Screening Procedures 27 August 04
Policy for a Common Identification Standard for Federal= Employees
HSPD-12 and Contractors 27 August 04
Table from "NIMSOnline.com"
F1
THSPD #5 -Management of Domestic
Inciden#s
To enhance the ability of`the=United States to
.11
-manage domestic- inciden*ts'by-e.stabli.sh-ing a
single, comprehensive;nafiional incident
management system:
National Incident Management System (NIMS)
National Response Plan. (NRR)
THE BIG PICTURE
HSPD #8.- National Preparedness
Calls for an all-hazards National Preparedness Goal that
establishes measurable priorities, targets, and a common.
approach to developing needed capabilities:
National Planning Scenarios
Universal Task List
Target Capabilities List
TPICTURE.
-Relationship.-between HSPD=5 & HS*PD=8
HS.PD,.8. is. considered a companion to H.SPD 5H
" HSPD 5 identifies steps for improved coordination in
response to incidents.
HSPD 8 describes the way Federal departments and
agencies will prepare for such a: response; including
prevention activities during the early stages of a
terrorism incidenf:
m~Dorpa~ of hWh drSCUWSSo
VISION ACTION NETWORK ws FIRST YEAR REPORT Y
s ~
The Vision Action Network's first year of operation was a great success. Q
To lay the groundwork for further collaborative action, a strong and diverse Board of Directors was selected.:
These individuals have ties to area businesses, local governments, non-profits and faith communities. For '
convenience, VAN's office.and meeting space was centrally located in the Beaverton area. W
In its first year, VAN worked to develop the civic infrastructure necessary for addressing community needs z
identified through the VisionWest process:
• VAN facilitated development of the now independent Community Housing Fund. The fund received z
a $310,000 challenge grant from Washington County in,September 2003, and its non-profit board is
at work attracting further investment in this sustainable affordable housing initiative.
• VAN fostered development of the Inter-religious Action Network. Through active participation of ~
diverse local faith groups, IAN sponsors monthly meetings and the annual Community Faith Forum U
to raise awareness and initiate collective action on.community issues. Q
• VAN, along with the Commission on Children and Families; has convened a work group to develop
a Volunteer Center for Washington County:. The Center aims to increase volunteering and expects. Z
to open by Fall 2004. O
YOU CAN PARTICIPATE!. Visit our webslte to find out more about our activities. Participate in an issue
group. Become a supporting member through a tax-deductible contribution. N.
HELP SET. A DIRECTION... MAKE A COMMITMENT.
VISION ACTION NETWORK N
3700 SW Murray Blvd, Room 190, Beaverton OR 97005,
503-846-5790 www.visionactionnetwor.k.org w E
~ 1111 • • • • • ~ ~
• 11 • X11• • • • • • • •
~ _ - i~ 7r" -1ii- ii~l i
•
. .tea • ~ • • •
• 11
• 11
-~T-+-
111 • ~i • • • • • • •
• 111 • -
i . . °~,~1., t:~-• Wes' 'V"~ 7~1
.
3
summar)f
t4im
A
fall.
Gt ed to ,
,i t
f:
1 _
n
• s NII~S ' oach to
What ~
S~Ve national appona~ ;ncident
Comprehe ~ ,multi:-jurisdic
MOWj.-aget
agem onacross
Van all- jurisd andsabje to dines-YO. all-haZ mand
P`pp ~ discip
diona
f the incident C.0m
0
Mandates use
stern ~~CS
Sy
C n
orients
IMs ma or Com
N
and ManagernenCommand.
Preparedness
Resource Manaci%.7ement ement
Communications & Information Manag
S upporting Technologies
ment & MaintenaOngoing
Manage
F JA
:Command and Management-....
NIMS. standard incide.nt'Management
structures are based on three key
organizational systems:
The Incident Command System (ICS)
Multkagency.Coordination'. Systems
Public Information Systems _
n
Preparedness.
Effective incident management begins'with a
host-Of preparedness- activities. These activities
are conducted well in advance of any potenti:_l
incident -and involve-
s a'" combination of:
Planning, training, and exercises. -
Personnel qualification.and certification standards.-
Equipment acquisition-and certification standards.
Publication management processes and activities.
Mutual aid agreements, and Emergency Management
Assistance Compacts
- n
.r ement
urge manag O e-&s N~MS will define.
implemented, s and establish
fury a
aardiZed Mech
Abinc, '►nVento~i
scan for des
requirementsing, tracking e yule of
m obilizing dl'patPh urce s over the cif
Vering reSO -
reCo
dent
•
an
munications and in formation
C-rn
M anagement
S identifies the- requirements for a
NVM , -
andardized framework for communicatinns,
st
nformation manage i ment, and in formatio
sharing support at all levels of incident
management.
C ~F
Supporting Technologies
Technology. and tec
.*hnological systems provide
supporting capabilities essential t
o implementing
and refining N I M S. Examples include:
- Voice and data communication systems.
Information management systems, such. as
recordkeeping and resource tracking..
Data display systems.
Supportin'g,techno'lo*gies also include specialized
technol0gies that facilitateo,ngoing operations
and incident management activities i n* situations
that call for unique tech nology-based-
capabilities..
~ ent an-d'.
oing ManageM,.
Ong
.ce Integation
Mai
hed the N1MS ~c direCtUOn
; pHs establis to provide strate9 review
Centerc )
nt of both the
versght SuPO
and o the long
continual refine orients over
and pomp
System and its
` term
n
Why is. N I:M S important to* us?
Adoption of NIMS will be a condition for the receipt
of federal preparedness. funds, including grants,
contracts, and other activities.
In order to receive FY2006 Preparedness funding,-
the minimum FY20.05, compliance requirements
must be. met.
--fl o th&.
Appkants WN bel'requ~red to certff as"part
FY2006 g.rant a' 'Hcat~ons -that they'have met the
TY20.05 NUS Reqw'e.ments.
NIMS Compliance Activities
to be Accomplished During
FY 2005
..State,. Territorial, Local, and
Tribal duri8dictions
r7~
_LL
cties
~.IIMS Compliance A this
There are five b asic. divities
yeaf.fisC mplet the NIMS Awareness
Course, a s[eIMSAn
ManagemeSS 700).
Introduct ion
recognize N~MS and adopt.
Z Formall ~inc~ples & policies
~•IIMS P
fp
es
~ .
lianCe A
cNIMS
dete'r_mining
ablish line by meet.
a NI MS bse
3. esta requ'►rements you already
which N-I-MS
strategy & timeline for full
~ DevelOP
ntOQn. cident
implemeof N~MS f the In
all response
5. A nstitutionalize the u IC by
CommandSYstem
agencies. _
eAwareness
0ete plth
Course (IS .700)-
H.aveexecu ti ve, manageriaand .respoca er
nn l responsible for interfacing o
perso efforts
emergency response and recovery
With state and/or federaleme rgenc y
wonders take the course.
resp and will be a
Training is currently underway
continuing process.
e on-line
d in takng th
interes
. te
Co,Pcil. members-
U.
course can. find it at
//trainin jetna: ovIEMIWEBiISLs700:as
. htt .
lj'
['r MS. and
n~Ze
es
For mally re0o9
•
& po
adop lici
Ms ry p station'ties should establish Ie
9~
Local enti orders, resolutionsor
executive adopt the NIMS'
Ordinances. to formally' NIMS prin6lples and
An ordinance adopting mer9envy
S E
Itof.the C
olicies as pa
p schedled for afManagement Code Co ncil meecity.,
n
CMS baselIne
b1iSVi N Estaa in9the standard)
never mind that they are still develop
om fiance with NIMS.''
s the. CAY's.c othe NIMS
sses
e N-IMCA-S-Tr the POrtl'and
Ath
utilizing ed by
compliance tool develonc Management
Tonal E►~erge y
area Reg Gro
up ent is about 75% complete.
(REMG)., -The assessm
[.gin
Develop strategy,& timeline for full
implementation of. NUtilize the: results of the agency NIMS
compliance assessment and the. plan
template. developed by. the Portland area
Regional Emergency. Management Group..
(REMG) to prepare an agency-specific
NIMS implementation plan
Pending- 6omplelib'n-of the assessment.
EPA
Institutionalize the..use-.of'.the..
1'n'ci-de'.nt__.Co:mmand System (ICS)..
To "institutionalize the use of ICS" means that
government officials, incident: managers, and emergency
response organizations at all jurisdictional levels adopt,.
the Incident Command System and' launch activities [in,-,.
FY 2005] -that will result in the use of the Incident
Comm' and System for all incident- response operations.
Actions to institutionalize the use of ICS take place at
two levels polcy_and organizational/operational.
the
.,r the use. JOS~
Ize
System, ~
ins Command the ICS..
kncldent 11z~ng
level,-institutions
p t the !Policy order
h: eXecutive s official
eans' ACS throug the Jurisdiction
e
r(t
Adopt throu9hohleg's lation and -
proclamat►o stem, once
onse sy and .resP and
incident resp agers exercise,
rain,
t in~iaent man
pire~t tha their j sriso Sei°operations• _
organizations in ear re .p
use the ICS in th
1
71
It-he use. of -the
t C mand System (ICS)
Atthb organizational/operational level, evidence
that incident managers antl emergency
response >organizations are institutio-nalizing the
ICS would include the following:
ICS is being integrated into functional and system-
wide emergency operations policies, plans, and
procedures;
ICS training is planned or under way for responders,
supervisors and command level officers; ,
Responders at all levels are participating in and%or
" coordinating ICS oriented exercises that involve
responders from. multi-disciplines and jurisdictions.
FY*-0&.an-,d:.07 NIMS -
Locaf.R'equirements
The timeline for full compliance is currently
set for 9/30/2006 but the specifics of those
requirements are still pending:
Several components of NIMS are.-still
f < under developmen#. Two that are likely tQ
-have-significant impacts:
Qualifications and Certifications
T~n .
~I~
~;:-r,
~
a -Y%
~ ~
y
s
~ ~ ,
' , .
~ ~ ~ 1
' ~ ~ nv
4 , 1
P ON Strategic Plan
Consolldated Office of Consolidated Emergency Management
Emergency '
Management
for Washington County
(Revised April 3, 2003)
Mission Statement (adopted in 1996)
The Office of Consolidated Emergency Management for Washington County is.
committed to the development and maintenance of a countywide, integrated system to
prepare for, respond to, recover from, and mitigate against disasters.
Purpose Statement (from OCEM IGA)
OCEM's purpose is to improve the level of disaster and emergency coordination and
preparedness within the boundaries of the participating jurisdictions. Improved
preparedness will be achieved through increased coordination among the participating
jurisdictions and among the various emergency service functions provided within those
jurisdictions.
Core Values: OCEM embraces and is guided by the following core values:
• Leadership
• Professional Expertise
Accountability
• Innovation
• Cooperation
• Flexibility
Performance Standards (from OCEM IGA)
• Develop and maintain a functional Emergency Operations Center (EOC) in each
participating jurisdiction. A'functional EOC includes written position descriptions,
trained emergency management staff, displays, communications equipment, etc.
• Prepare and maintain an Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) in' a multi-hazard format
that is compatible with the state plan.-
0 Conduct sufficient EOC staff training sessions to assure a combination of training and
exercises at least twice a year.
• Maintain an exercise program that tests all elements of the emergency operations plan
at all levels of the jurisdiction.
• Develop and deliver a public education program that provides information and
programs on disaster preparedness for individuals, families, businesses, and industry.
Strategic Goals
1. Develop and maintain functional primary and alternate Emergency Operations
Centers (EOC, DOC, FOC) in each OCEM jurisdiction
2. Prepare and maintain comprehensive emergency management plans and procedures
3. Identify and assign staff to major emergency/disaster duties and train and exercise
them in their assigned responsibilities
4. Firmly establish OCEM as the Emergency Management Program leader in
Washington County
.5. Implement and maintain an organizational structure that is responsive to program and
jurisdictional needs
6. Advocate for effective, integrated emergency management programs at the regional,
state, and national levels
7. Develop and deliver a public education program that provides information and
programs on disaster preparedness for individuals, families, business, and industry
8. Coordinate emergency management program implementation with local jurisdictions,
special districts including schools, non-profit organizations, and businesses in
Washington County
Record of Changes: r
Initial Adoption April 4, 2002
Revised April 3, 2003
COT Council Business Meeting
8/16/2005
Hand.outs
National Incident
Management System
G. Michael Lueck
Emergency Management Coordinator
City Tigard
HEAD-TO-HEAD COMPARISON
NIIMS vs NIMS
8/16/2005
The old The new
National Interagency Incident Management National Incident Management System
System (NIIMS) (NIMS)
Main CORI >onents Main Compo_uents
■ Incident Management ■ Command & Management
• Incident Command System* • Incident Command System*
• Unified Command (includes Unified Command)
• Multiagency Coordination • Multiagency Coordination
System System
■ Training • Public Information Systems
■ Qualifications and Certifications
■ Publication Management ■ Preparedness
■ Support Technology • Training
• Qualifications and
*Note: ICS is only a part of the overall NIIMS Certifications
incident management system. • Publications Management
■ Resource Management
■ Ongoing Management &
Maintenance
■ Communications and Information
Management
■ Supporting Technologies
*Note: ICS is only a part of the overall NIMS
incident management system.
- - - "ICS ICS ~
8 Components of NIIMS ICS 14 ICS management characteristics taught
by DHS in its ICS training programs:
• Common terminology
• Modular organization • Common Terminology .
• Integrated communications • Modular Organization
• Unified Command • Management by Objectives
• Consolidated Action Plans • Reliance on an Incident Action Plan
• Manageable span of control • Manageable Span of Control
• Pre-designated incident facilities • Pre-designated Incident Mobilization
• Comprehensive resource management Center Locations & Facilities
• Comprehensive Resource Management
• Integrated Communications
• Establishment and Transfer of Command
• Chain of Command and Unity of
Command
• Unified Command
' 1
• Accountability of Resources and
Personnel
• Deployment
• Information and Intelligence
Management
Functional Areas Functional Areas
❑ Command ❑ Command
❑ Operations ❑ Operations
❑ Planning ❑ Planning
❑ Logistics ❑ 'Logistics
❑ Finance ❑ Finance
❑ Intel/Information ("In the NIMS ICS, a
potential sixth functional area to cover
intelligence function can be established for
gathering and sharing incident related
information and intelligence."")
Intelligence and Information Intelligence and information
"Traditionally, information and intelligence "Under the NIMS ICS, the intelligence and
functions are located in the Planning Section. 2,, information function may be assigned in one of
the following ways:
• Within the Command Staff,
r • As a unit within the Planning Section;
• As a branch within the Operations Section;
or
• As a separate General Staff Section. 3"
NIMS ICS Position Paper Release
by the NIMS Integration Center
2 Same
3 Same
2
NIMS INFORMATION AND RESOURCES
Documents:
• The NIMS document (5.2 Megs)
http://www.fema.gov/pdf/nims/nims. full.pdf
• Federal Agencies' NIMS Implementation Plan
http://www.fema.gov/doc/nims/nims implementation plan template.d
oc
Web Resources: ,
J
• NIMS Online at http://www.nimsonline.com/
• Includes a document download center:
http://www.nimsonIine.com/download center/index.htm
• NIMS Integration Center at http://www.fema.gov/nims/nims.shtm
• NIMS Capability Assessment Support Tool NIMSCAST
http://www.fema.gov/nimcast/index.isp
• National Mutual Aid and Resource Management Initiative
http://www.fema.gov/nims/mutual aid.shtm
My Contact Information:
G. Michael Lueck
13125 SW Hall Blvd.
Tigard, OR 97233 "
Email - mikelLckijg
rd.or.us
Phone - (503) 718-2593
Cell - (503) 784-7789
3
Ca hyµ.Whea4ley w Plnning ,ees doc
Building Fees Application Date Issuance Date
r X ~J IISL!/ul~f/~J
Plannin .Fees
Type of fees
Accessory Residential Units X
Annexation ' X
Appeal X
Director's Decision to Hearings Officer X
Expedited Review X
Hearings Referee X
Planning CommissiorvHearing's Officer to City X .
Council
Approval Extension Upon e quest
Blasting Permit X
Conditional Use X
Initial X '
Major Modification X
Minor Modification X
Design Evaluation Team X
Recommendation
Development Code Provision Review X
Single-Family Building Plan X -
CommerciaUlndusMaUlnstitution X .
Expedited Review X
Land Partition X
Subdivision X
Subdivision w/ Planned Development X
Hearin Postponement
X
Historic Overlay/Review District X
Historic Overlay Designation X
Removal Historic Overt
ay Designation X
Exterior Alteration in Historic Overlay Dist X
New Construction in Historic Overlay Dist. X
Demolition in Histonc Overlay District X .
Home Occupation Permit X
Type/ _ X
Type 11 X
Interpretation of the Community X
Development Code
Joint Application Planning Fee X
Land Partition X
Residential and Non-Residential Lots (3 Lots)" X
Residential and Non-Residential Lots (2 Lots) . X
Expedited X
Final Plat X
Lot Line Adjustment X
Minor Modification to an Approved Plan X
Non-Conforming Use Confirmation Upon e quest
Oversize Load Permit X
Planned Development X
Conceptual Plan Review X - ,
Detailed Plan Review X
Plat Name Change X .
Pre-Application Conference X
Sensitive Lands Review X
With/ Excessive SlopesrWithin Drainage X
Wa s/Within Wetlands (Type 11
With/ Excessive SlopeslWithin Drainage X ;
Wa srWithin Wetlands (Type 111
Within the 100 Year Floodplain (Type 111) X '
Sign Permit X
Existing and modification to an existing sign (No X
Size Differential
Temporary Sign (Per Sign) X
Site Development Review & Major X
Modification
• Under 100,000.00 X
1 Million/Over X - -
- Minor Modification - X -
Subdivision X
'Preliminary Plat w/o Planned Development - X -
Preliminary Plat w/ Planned Development X -
Final Plat - X
Temporary Use X
Cathy Wheatley - PlnningFees dock are
2
Directors Decision x
Special Exemption/Non-Profit X*.
Tree Removal X -
Vacation Streets and Public Access X
Variance/Adjustment X
Administrative x
Development Adjustment x . ( ;
Special Adjustments x
Parking Adjustments x
Sign Code Adjustment x
Street Improvement Adjustment x - - '
Tree Removal Adjustment X
Wireless Communication Facility
x
Zoning Ma !Text Amendment x
Legislative-Comprehensive Plan x
Legislative-Community Development Code x
Quasi-Judicial x
Zoning Analysis Detailed x
Zoning Inquiry Letter (Simple) x
Other Fees
Traffic Impact Fees x r
Parks SDC Fees T T
AGENDA ITEM # (0
FOR AGENDA OF August 16, 2005
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Fanno Creek Park Master Plan Update
K
PREPARED BY: Dennis Koellermeier DEPT HEAD OK~ b14 > - CITY MGR OK
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
Fanno Creek Park Master Plan Update
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Receive information about the Fanno Creek Park Master Plan.
INFORMATION SUMMARY-
In May 2002 the City of Tigard voters approved a $13 million bond measure to be used for the construction of a
new library. Based upon this action, the City purchased the 14.7 acre site where the Library was built. Council also
sought proposals from landscape architect/park planning firms for the development of a Park Master Plan for the
Fanno Creek Park extension.. The City retained Murase Associates to do the Fanno Creek Park Extension Master
Plan. The new Library and auxiliary features sit on five acres. The remaining 9.7 acres are being developed as an
extension of Fanno Creek Park, which is a linear park dedicated to the passive use of greenway and trails. A
citywide community meeting was held on March 5,'2002, to ascertain public input on how they would like to see
this site developed and landscaped. In addition to the March.5 meeting, two other public meetings were conducted
on February 26 and April 3. The Master Plan is a direct result of public input garnered at the public meetings.
Public input focused on trail options, bridge locations, special gathering areas, storm water gardens, stream
enhancement opportunities, flora and fauna, and educational and recreational opportunities. Important
recommendations were made pertaining to less development in the northern portion (north of Fanno Creek) of the
property and fewer secondary, soft trails. It was also recommended that there should only be a few picnic tables at
the site. The Planning Commission voted unanimously on April 21 to support the plan and they recommended that
Council approve and adopt the plan as presented. Council approved the Master Plan on May 27, 2003.
Based on public input, the Master Plan project consisted of, but was not. limited to:
■ Development of natural areas
■ Planting/restoration/preservation/enhancement
■ Exterior landscaping
■ Outdoor community gathering places
■ Trails - both hard and soft surface
■ Trail. alignment to Fanno Creek Trail - on/off-site
■ Vista areas to include benches/tables
■ Signing/labeling flora and fauna
■ Designing for wildlife habitat corridors and endangered species, if any
■ Blending/connecting to Fanno Creek Park behind City Hall
On July 20, 2004, the Council selected'and approved'a location for the. installation of a gazebo and small parking
lot. Subsequently, on June 28, 2005, the Council cancelled the parking lot installation project: The purpose of the
gazebo is to provide a space for picnicking and.. to also provide interpretive and educational opportunities.
Additionally, a soft trail path will be installed that will connect the Library to the gazebo. A viewing platform was
installed to accommodate viewing. of the sensitive riparian area east of the Library. Further, the City applied for
and received a State grant to construct an 1,100-foot Fanno Creek Trail segment, from Hall Boulevard (from
approximately City Hall) to Wall Street as Wall Street extends to the east. The project includes a 60-foot bridge
that will cross Fanno Creek just north of the gazebo. Construction of the trail is being funded by a State of Oregon
grant, Park SDC funds; and insurance money received after the "white house" fire. To comply with the State grant
and remain eligible for State funding, the trail must be completed by December 30, 2005.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
n/a , .
VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY
Tigard Beyond Tomorrow - Urban and Public Services #l, "....providing opportunities for the. Tigard. .
Community.".
ATTACHMENT LIST
Entire Fanno Creek Park Extension Master Plan (Page 19 - Final Master Plan Concept)
FISCAL NOTES
Fanno Creek Trail Construction (Hall Boulevard to Wall Street)
State Grant $ 51,486
Parks SDC $ 67,324
Insurance from "White House" fire $ 30,000
Total $148,810 (Engineering Projection)
J
FANNO CREEK PARK MASTER PLAN SUMMARY
In I • • •
The Fanno Creek Park Master Plan is an analysis of one section of the
Fanno Creek Greenway Trail system just east of Hall Boulevard and directly - ' - -
abutting property to the south planned for.the development of a new. Library
for the City of Tigard. The site is 9.7 acres of gently, sloping land with a
mix of open pasture,'scrub/shrub and large trees. Fanno Creek divides the
site into three distinct sections:, a northern portion with a backwater slough.
from Fanno Creek; an eastern section of predominantly wet, forested areas; meadow near future library
and a southern portion of large trees and open space directly adjacent to the
proposed Library site.
The Fanno Creek Greenway Trail,-itself, has been in planning and imple-
mentation for years and extends in sections over 15 miles from the Tualatin
River to Willamette Park in Portland. Over half of the trail has been com-
pleted, utilizing a mixture of on-street and off-street routing. The Fanno
Creek Park Master Plan helps fill in a missing link in this geenway trail,
extending the park beyond Hall Boulevard toward its destination at the northern meadow
Tualatin.
Through a joint effort of the team of Murase Associates, KPFF Consulting
b -
Engineers, PBS Environmental Engineers; City staff; and interested citizens,
this Master Plan has been developed to guide the long term development and
protection that will occur in this area. Facilities'andimprovements identified '
in the Master Plan will help integrate the park into the larger Fanno Creek
trail system as well as serve to connect this valuable green space,wiih
adjacent public facilities and adjacent properties.
A Master Plan also serves as a means to better understand the complexities
of this unique place and to guide future decision-making. It prioritizes .
development opportunities and protected areas within the study area.' The
resultant recommendations contained in-this report will significantly expand
the variety and quality of recreational opportunities :within the Tigard t
community as well as protect valuable land for people and wildlife. These ' Fahnocreek
enhancements will improve the livability of the community and attractive-'
ness to the area's residents. This Master Plan report describes the public - - `
and planning process that was undertaken by the design team and results in
recommendations for future work on the site.i r
backwater pond .
FANNO CREEK PARK MASTER PLAN SUMMARY..
• - •
`t R( 44d
Prior to the development of a master plan team for the Fanno Creek Park
property, two public meetings were held to-establish some initial goals and
program elements for the proposed Library and adjacent park property. • The
two public meetings'were on March 5, 2002 and October 16, 2002. The
meetings resulted in a number of suggestions about the type and quality of
spaces and elements on the site, including:
meadow
Provide signs for the park
Provide access to trail from library parking lot
Keep open space as large as possible
Provide a big buffer along Fanno Creek
Purchase more land east of the site for open space
Provide a series of pathways developed for education/recreation
Have family-oriented use in open space
Provide environmental education for professionals
Natural environment is special
Porid
Maintain wildlife habitat corridors
Look at endangered species concerns
Provide outdoor auditorium band shell
Provide benches and picnic tables
Provide meditation maze
Look at existing house as cultural center
These ideas were the basis of further discussions with the City of Tigard
and interested citizens during the first and second public meetings and
resulted in it series of goals for the park.-, The goals serve as a benchmark pond
and reminder of priorities as the master plan process moves forward.
The goals are:
Develop a trail system to link the community and connect to Fanno '
Creek that provides accessibility for all people of all ages and
physical abilities.
Provide a variety of educational opportunities about the natural
environment and local history.
Preserve, enhance and restore the natural resources to promote
wildlife habitat and improve water quality.
Create uses and activities to strengthen the sense of community and
compliment the library
?
Design a safe and secure park
2
~4
M+
' ixv3# r. AA'i '~F:Sfxk: L4'.~~x
IN.
p
n
•.r
x v
a.
gfija
a
4
va ~
>m ~ ''i ty n ~"iv<
FANNO CREEK PARK MASTER PLAN SUMMARY
Sil.e Analysis • - •
o'
The site is divided into three distinct areas with Hall Boulevard creating an
edge to the west of the property:
The northern portion of the site contains a backwater slough that extends . r:
from Fanno Creek to the north and continues under Hall Boulevard to create
a pond near City Hall and the existing Library. There is a small pond , }d
surrounded by a,mature -stand of native oaks in the center of this northern
area. To the west of the pond is an open meadow of mixed grasses that
appears managed by recent grazing or mowing. The remaining area is a a
mixture of trees and scrub/shrub. The property to'the east. of this area is in c
private ownership and remains undeveloped. The adjacent site to the north'
is leased by the school district as a parking lot for school buses and has a
significant visual impact on the site. The existing Fanno Creek Trail ends wetland
on the west side of Hall Boulevard, presenting a formidable barrier for the
continuation- of the trail. With an average of 16,000 vehicles per day on this-
roadway, the design of this crossing is vital to creating a safe connection
across the roadway.
The eastern portion.of the site is primarily a mixture of mature deciduous
and evergreen trees. Although no wetlands have been delineated in this area,
the ground surface is heavily inundated with water from Fanno; Creek's
consistent flooding. This area is separated from the western side of the site "
by Fanno Creek and is not readily accessible from the Hall Boulevard side of existing greenway trail
the park.
The southwest comer of the site sits adjacent to the site of.the proposed .
new library building and is dominated by.a large bowl-shaped meadow.. A
mixture of scrub/shrub exists along the river and a small wetland has been
delineated to the south.
Clean Water Services (CWS) has established a 507-foot setback around
Fanno Creek and the adjacent wetland. Except for,creek crossings and
small trails, development within this zone is prohibited. Trails and crossings.
that impact this area will be subject to planting mitigation on a 1:1 basis in °
addition to the 50-foot buffer. Buffer plantings will be a mixture of native
vegetation, subject to CWS guidelines. Under a separate agreement with the
City, a condition of approval for the new library will require planting within .
this buffer along the library side of the creek.
The one hundred-year floodplain occupies a significant portion of the study
area, with the new library planned right to its edge on the southern side.
The presence of the floodplain will limit the amount of development that can
occur on the site. Earthwork activity within the•floodplain will need to be
permitted to ensure that a decrease in the, available flood area for the creek .r
does not occur.
FANNO CREEK PARK MASTER PLAN SUMMARY
d.
d
The site's natural areas offer significant habitat opportunities. for this quickly. .
urbanizing area. The following table provides an initial look at some
general, guidelines that helped guide conversations about the restoration
work during the public process. This chart illustrates the general site areas,
actions that could be taken to improve habitat, and the environmental
benefits that can be expected from those actions:
Area Action Environmental Benefit
Stream Streambankrestoration-
Reduces peak flows; reduces erosion; slows water, creating
habitat for sonic fish, amphibians, and reptiles; increases m-
(Ir•ade bank to shallower slope. streamhabitat diversity
Plant with native riparian plants such as willows, red-osier
dogwood, alder, and cottonwood. hcreases habitat diversity; shades stream banks.
Creates space for native plants, which serve as betterhabitat
Control Hirmlayan blackberry for wildlife.
Increases habitat diversity and shade, reduces human
disturbance to wildlife; creates travel corridor, serves as cover
Widen vegetated zone adjacent to streamin some areas. and sheher for wildlife; increases bank stability.
Creates habitat and forage for waterfowl; increases habitat
Increase emergent vegetation within stream diversity for aquatic invertebrates; Traps sediments.
Creates reproductive sites for cavity-nesting birds such as
wood ducks, hooded mergansers, buffiehead, and wood
Install nest bores in tree's adjacent to stream peckers.
Creates space for native plants, which serve as better habitat
Shrub/scrub area Control If nalayan blackberry. for wildlife.
Creates habitat for amphibians, reptiles, and small mammals;
shelters developing plants; serves as a source of soil
Add large woody debris nutrients; traps sediments.
Creates habitiat for bats and binds, especially cavity-nesters
Preserve snags' and large binds of prey.
hrcreases plant diversity; creates habitat fora variety of
Field Plant native trees, shrubs, and herbs wildlife including songbirds, deer, and small nsm<mis.
Creates space fornative plants, which serve as betterhabitat
Remove and control non-native pasture grasses. for wildlife; increases habitat diversity.
Arrange plantings in churped distribution with high vertical Increases structural habitat diversity; creates a variety of
diversity. breedurg sites, covertypes, and nacroclimates
Reduces physical disturbance to wildlife; increases plant and
Link mowing to distinct areas wildlife habitat diversity.
Creates space for native plants, which serve as betterhabitat
Remove Scots broom for wildlife; increases habitat diversity.
Creates space fornative plants, which serve as betterhabitat
Wetland Remove purple loosestrife forwildlife; avoids widespread invasion.
Increases habitat diversity; creates coverand sheherfromthe
Shade banks by planting native trees or shrubs elements.
Add herbaceous vegetation in irudflats along water foe Increases habitat diversity; reduces erosion.
Creates habitat and forage for waterfowl; increases habitat
Increase emrremgent vegetation within pond divers' for uatic invertebrates; traps sedanents.
e Creates space for native plants, which serve as betterhabitat
Forest Remove Hirnal yan blackberry for wildlife; avoids widespread invasion.
Creates habitat for bats and birds, especially cavity-nesters
Preserve snags and large woody debris and large birds of prey.
5
a
its
I I 9k,
M<' WN4 .
a
y
P to hi. 4i,
y k SSS
-1 1 41, '4
i +G
~yy, # v ul t 'Y( ~p
vr, F
"v 3
. rt v r e p"
~a~CUmtlaup^0neu-Nkar ~ aWnwnaan eu~' ` Y -
aw Mmmmrv...
))'t. ir9: 'p a R a'Q
' k f t -E.
Y d
„ E
s. S V~.1
UPA~ St.
w. k.»
~k.
, t
. YY
P
,
#'ts: .'Yr:: c•€t+'t#-=t#rr, i'rt)"
7
FANNO'CREEK PARK MASTER PLAN SUMMARY
WiIdU6/Habifa-
• contin e•
We have completed an assessment of sensitive areas at the Tigard Library
" Master Plan site. The assessment included (1) talking with Sue Bielke and
other local biologists; (2) reviewing existing information on threatened, en- '
dangered, and sensitive species; and (3) visiting the site to determine the po-
tential presence of listed or sensitive species or habitats. Setbacks and recom-
mendations were based on the results of the assessment. This summarizes the
species-specific recommendations provided on the following tables-and only
presents those relating to the trail location, buffers, or preserving specific habi
tats.
Setbacks/Buffers •
From a. regulatory standpoint, there is no requirement for buffers other than small animal trail at pond
the 50-foot buffer required by Clean Water Services, however, fish and wild-
life species that would benefit from buffers currently inhabit or could poten-
tially inhabit the Fanno Creek Park site. Some examples include the pond and
painted turtles. Turtles, for example, can be easily frightened by human activ-
ity causing them to avoid using certain areas. Other species may or may not
change their behavior due to human activity. Some species will clearly avoid
areas just because certain habitat requirements are-not met, which might be
related to the presence of buffers. The greater the human presence and activity
in an area, the fewer wildlife species will be found in that area.
r'
Buffers can provide important benefits to species and habitats at the site, in-
cluding reducing invasion by non-native plant species, reducing disturbance
by human activity, and providing shade and large woody debris to the creek.
The buffer requirements of Clean Water Services, should be viewed as the
minimally acceptable buffers along streams and wetlands:. Larger buffers in ;
these areas would enhance these habitats. To prevent possible adverse effects
to habitat for steelhead - federally listed as threatened - existing trees within.
100 feet of the creek should not be removed.
Recommendations
Although buffers are, not required to protect certain species or habitats, the
city may want to protect or buffer some areas to enhance fish an d wildlife. The
following recommendations provide optional measures the city could imple-
ment to enhance fish and wildlife habitat..
Preserve the forested area east of creek and scrub-shrub area north of the
open water area
Preserve the wetland,-open water; and backwater pond
Keep trail away from basking areas (areas of large woody debris in the
stream) and use plantings to screen basking areas from people ,
Preserve field habitat for turtle nesting. The northern, field provides the
most suitable locations for turtle nesting based on connections with the
backwater pond and open water area.
.8
FANNO CREEK PARK MASTER PLAN SUMMARY
Wildlife/Habilat Analysis continued
List of "sensitive species" that may be found on the site
"Sensitive species" are defined as any'plant or animal appearing in Rare
Threatened and Endangered Plants and Animals of Oregon (ONHP 2001).
This list includes species classified as follows: "
Federally threatened, endangered, proposed threatened or endan-
gered, candidates for listing as threatened or endangered, or species
of concern.
On the Oregon Natural Heritage Program lists, and
Listed critical, vulnerable, or peripheral or naturally rare under the .
ODFW threatened and. endangered species program.
No recommendations have been provided for sensitive plant species,
because no sensitive plants species have been confirmed to be present on the '
master plan site. The following table describes potential animal species that
may be present within the project site, their habitat, and recommended
action:
Animals
SdeatltlcNatm CmmnaName Scotus flabitat type Habitat Present In Project Arm Recommended Action
Aagthiblaar
Bufo horealir Watcnttoad SV Marsha, small takes, dry forests, o Welland o'.ptostavc the forest area cast ofcneck and
shrub thicirets; strranx 0 'Smuh/shmb areas screb~shmb area north ofopen water area
o Fanno'Creck
Run. u.roru Rod legged flog SOC Wooded areas nearshcarns Forest o Preserve the forest arcacest ofereckand
.vror. scrub~shreb area north of open water area
.o Wetland o Add emxgmt vegetation to shoreline of
0 Slough
o Beckweterpond
01 . Fenno Crock
R.nu panics. Oregon spotted frog FC Perennial ponds and slow-roving O Welland o Preserve wetland; open water, and
streams, usually herbaceous plant backwater pond
comronitios. o Slough - - o Plant emergent vegetation along margins '
ofthese water bodies
• o Backwatcrpond
ReptBes
Chrysemys pieta Pabricd mnlo SC Marche, slow"M, ponds, and o- Fenno Ctcdc o Keep trail away from identified insticarn
lakcs. - basking areas .
Basking habitat include logs, o Wetland o Buffer basting areas with shrubs orother
• branches, and emergent •douse growth
vegetation.
o Slough O Add basking structures to open water
areas
o Backwater pond O .Plant emergent vegetation in wetland and
backwater pond
o Install fencing along road to prevent road
kills on Hall Blvd '
o Ocatc migration (trend under Fall Blvd. -
Em}nmurmorrd. Western pond turtle SOC,SC o Fenno Crock o Keep trail away fromidcntiliedmstream '
marmoryd. basking areas
o Wctand o Buffer basking areas with shrubs or other
dense growth
O Fanno Creek side channel o Preserve field habitat as nesting area
• - o' Fields o hrgrovc field by planting native grasser
" and shrubs '
• O Add basking structures .
o Plant cwMent vegetation in wetland
. o Acquire adjacent fields (taxlota ,
' 2SI010001200 an l 2SIOZDA00500) and -
preserve as basking areas
Ca011. tenuid Sharptail snake SV Molest coniferous ordmiduous o Forest edger - • O Preserve forest and provide buffer area
. forest, grassy areas at (test cdgo, =and forest '
for '
underrocks and LWD
Peak activityMar - June
9,
FANNO CREEK PARK MASTER PLAN SUMMARY
Wildlife/Habiial Analysis confinu6d
Birds
Aicspmsa Wood duck- None Wooded areas nea to water o Fanno Crccic o Preserve woody vegetation along creek .
• o Backwaterslough O Place nest boos on trees overhanging
crock and backwaterpond
Chordedes minor Cornum nighthawk SC Forage everywhere
Empidom trailhi Iifflc willow SOG SU Willows at stnesrnedges. Thickets o Very bmitod areas along Fanno o Plant willows along edges ofwctland '
hrewsteet flycatcher at forest clearings, tall bushy Crock
vegetation near water o Sighted on property to south '
adjacent to wetland ,
Emnophila Sucakcd homed lock FC, SC Areas of little to no vegetation o - Field o Preserve field habitat
ulpestrLv (agricultural laod,pastures,
grasslands) .
Melanerpec Acorn woodpecker SOC Ietge oaks, othabroadlests nay .'o None o Noire.
onnicivomf be pmsmt '
Progne.mhEv - Purple martin SOC, SC Owitim adjacent to open mess o . Forest contains unity cavities,. 'o Preserve forest '
crevices, snags, and bmkcn top trees
fornesting '
o - Fields forfaaghtg G Phtcc nest be=. in forest
Sialiv mrxicroro Westernblucbud SV Cleamuls with snags, firma, o Forest contains nany cavities„ o Place nest boxes in forest and on posts in
riparian woodland; need cavities crevices, snags, and broken top trees fields
fornesting .
. o Fields forforaging
' Stwnellu negleeia Wcsternmcadowlark SC (Iwo lands, pastures, msdows, o Field o Proem field habitat
adapted to agriculture.
MaawaLc
Lavionycter& Sihrcr-haired bat SOC; SU Forested areas, hollow tines, bark o In hollow trees and under bark oPreservcfeesl
noctivagans in forest
MyotLvihyranoides Fringed myotis SOC,SV Conifas,caves,emvices, o in crevices, forested wetland o Presemcforevt
buildings, forested riparian areas .
7honmmya Camas pocket gopher SOC Csaaay areas, pastures,roadsides, o Field _ o Pruscwc field habitat
hulhivnrus agricultural lands
RA
Oncorhynehus Steelhead FT o Stream o Pmtcci existing trcra.within 100 feet of
mykLa- creek
o Plant shrubs and tones where to expand
' - the vegetated buffer along the crock
Sources:
Csuti,B., and coauthors. 1997. The Atlas of Oregon Wildlife. Oregon State University Press,
Corvallis, Oregon.
Leonard, W. P., H.A. Brown, L.L.C. Jones, K. R' McAllister, and R: M. Storm. 1993; Amphibians
of Washington and Oregon. Seattle Audubon Society, Seattle, Washington. "
Maser, C. 1998: Mammals of the Pacific Northwest.from the coast to the High Cascades. Oregon
State University Press, Corvallis, Oregon. .
NatureServe. 2002. An.on-line encyclopedia of life. http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/.-Ac-
cessed March 21, 2003.
ORNHP (Oregon Natural Heritage Program). 2001. Rare threatened and endangered plants and
animals of Oregon.'Oregon Natural Heritage Program; Portland, Oregon..
Storm, R.- M., and W. P. Leonard. 1995. Reptiles of Washington and Oregon. Seattle Audubon
Society, Seattle, Washington.
*Documented by ORNHP as being present near the study area. .
C: Candidate for listing under ODA (Oregon Department ofAgriculture)
FC: Federal candidate for listing .
FT: Federally listed as threatened
ONHP List 1: threatened with extinction or presumed to be extinct throughout their entire range
ONHP List 2: threatened with extirpation or presumed to be extirpated from Oregon ,
ONHP List 3: may be threatened or endangered in Oregon or throughout their range, but more data are
needed
;SOC: Federal species of concern
SC: State candidate
SU: State rank unknown
SV: State vulnerable species
10
FANNO CREEK PARK MASTER, PLAN SUMMARY
-Wild I if • • e•
Plants
ScientirleName Common Name Status Habitat Type Know in Kama in Washington Habitat Present in
Willametteyauey7-r County? I Project Area
Astercurtir Whitc-topped aster SOC Grassland lowlands Yes No Fields
Carex comnsa Bristly sedge ONHP Ii st Marshes; lakcshoros, Yes No Wetland, wet pockets
2 wet meadows in field .
Castilleja levisecta Gold en paintbrush LT Open grasslands . Yes No Field
below 300 feet
Onzicifuga elata Tall bugbanc ONHP List Mature, ttcsic Ycs No Forest
l conil'crousor ndxod
• forests
Delphinium Whitc rock larkspur SOC Open ground, rnoist Yes Yes Field, especially wet
levcnphaeum low meadows, pockets
fcnccrows and ditches. ,
125-250ft
Erigeron decumbem Willamette daisy LE (kasslands Yes No Fields
var. decumbens
Korkelia congesta Shaggy horkelia SOC Open sandy or rocky Yes Yes Fields, forest
flats to open woods
Lofnatium bradrhawii Bradshaw's lonatium LE Seasonally wet prairie Yes No Wet pockets in field ,
and grassland
Montia howel ii Howell's nlontia C Moist lowlands Yes No Wetland, wet pockets
in field,
Pnhgonuw Watersmartweed ONHPList Moist places Yes No Wetland, stream
unctatum - 3 slough '
Pvnnenma racemora liawmoxc pyrroc orre ONHP Isar Meadows, open Yes No ' . Field
var. mcemosa 2 plai cs; W rllarruttc
vary
Rorippa t»lumhige Cblumb® 4. Margins efbodics of Yes No Stream, wetland,
water inundated slough '
during the growing
season '
Sida(cea campestrLr Meadow sidaleca -Dry fields, fcnecrows, Yes Yes Fields
roadsides
Sidalcea nelsoniana Nelson's sidaleca LT Open areas such as Yes Yes Wetland, wet pockets
r streams, roadsides, in field, stream .
and meadows.
Seasonal inundated.
Verbena hastata Blue verbena Moist low places, Yes No Wetland, stream,
ditches slough
t Wnlffra borealis Dotted water-cal Danis ground swarrps Yes No Wctland, wet pockets
within fields . 11 Rn/ffia c»(umbiana Colotrrbia watco-mcal Frosh water Yes No. Wctland
Note: The species Quercus garryana (Oregon white oak) has no status, but as a 'plant community it is
quite rare. The individuals on the Tigard Library site are especially large and should be preserved
because of their uniqueness. PBS recommends that oak trees be protected to prevent further damage by:
wildlife.
Sources:
WNHP (Washington Natural Heritage Program). 2003. Field guide to selected rare plants of
Washington.' - wow.wa,gov/dnri htdoes/fr/nhn/refdesk/ pzide/htm/femain.htm. Accessed
March 21, 2003.
Hitchcock, C. L.;,and A. Cronquist.' 1976. Flora of the Pacific Northwest. Tenth Edition. University
of Washington Press, Seattle, Washington.
Pojar, J., and coauthors. 1994. Plants of the Pacific Northwest coast; Washington, Oregon, British
Columbia and Alaska. Lone Pine Publishing, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. :
NatureServe. 2002. An on-line encyclopedia of life. http://viww.natureserve.org/explorer/. Ac-
cessed March 21, 2003.
' According to Oregon Natural Heritage Program, 2001. _
FANNO CREEK PARK MASTER FLAN SUMMARY
First Public Meeting First Public Meeting public
attendance:
On February 26, 2003 at 7:30 pm, the first of two public meetings was held
at the Tigard City Hall. The team presented drawings showing existing site Drake Dunning
'
conditions and habitat types as well as a list of goals developed from the 12745 SW 121 "Ave.
previous October 16, 2002 Library Site Public Meeting. The purpose of this • . Tigard, OR 97223
initial public meeting was to solicit additional thoughts about program,
concerns about site development, or other ideas that could affect the direc- Ronald Leistra
tion of the Master'Planning effort. Although public turnout at this initial 9815 SW Kimberly
meeting was low, many constructive comments and suggestions resulted Tigard, OR 97223
from this meeting. (503).639-6306,
Public comments and questions: Sue Beilke
Problem with trail connections across Hall Blvd. It cuts access to 11755 SW 114`h Pl. ,
site Tigard; OR 97223'
Lots of existing native vegetation (trees and shrubs) on site which (503) 639-3519
should be preserved.
Nesting area in the floodplain:should be preserved Steve Andrews
There was some confusion as to the total size of the site, whether or •12064. SW I I Th pl.
not the library site itself is included in the acreage for the park, and Tigard, OR 97223
whether or not the forest is included in the site. (503) 635-7536
If the streambank is regraded, will existing trees, and shrubs be
removed? Regrading should be done with as little impact on Ralph Anzelloni
existing trees and shrubs as possible. 11842 SW 11Th Pl.'
Species of significance: frog, turtle may use site Tigard, OR 97223
Was there American Indian usage of the site? (503)635-7536
Some areas should have no public .use, just habitat; especially
where sensitive species are concerned.' Martha Bishop
Keep trails away from ponds as much as possible. 40590 SW Cook Ln.
More signage: unique habitats, preservation, no disturbance: Could Tigard, OR 97223,
utilize children's art. (503) 639-1052
Education opportunities, links to livability.
Volunteers, slide shows, tours on site, bird walks.
Existing house could be used as a staging point to speak to areas on
the north side of the site, the ponds and backwaters
Connections need to be made to the library. itself
Do we have f inding-for trails?
Mix of hard surfacing and soft surfacing \
50' setback from creeks'.
t Don't overdevelop trails; too much access means degradation of
habitat.
Trails with buffers, to avoid sensitive areas
Would be nice to be able to see the creek from trails; bridges might
be nice..
Signage along trails, possibly designed in cooperation with
schoolkids
Improve the crossing at hall, possibly beneath the street -
Maybe run the paved trail on the east side of the creek rather than. -
through the site itself, save the site for lower-impact trails and
interpretive.
Minimize paved trail by utilizing the parking lot.
Trails with buffers -,need to identify where the sensitive areas exist .
Be conservative in solutions
Trails could go beneath street
12
FANNO CREEK PARK MASTER PLAN SUMMARY
SecondPublt Meeting
On April 2003 at
7:30 pm, the second
public meeting was
held at the Tigard
T - City Hall. The
la purpose of this
meeting was to
present three
alternative design
concepts based on
input from'the
previous Public
Meeting as well as
to solicit comments
about those options
or other ideas that
may need to be considered. The design team presented three distinct
schemes showing the location of the primary connecting trail, secondary
` trails, and boardwalks. In addition, a number of locations were discussed 1
regarding interpretive area locations and small group gathering areas.
Redd~ramrromseoondpubuc
Additional buffer areas were shown; however detailed planting or stream meetirig
bank improvements were not analyzed in detail. A brief summary of the 7 ,
options follows:}
Scheme A
This scheme showed the primary trail very close to the library and a central Ka
gathering space at the base of the bowl area. Pathways in the northern
portion of the site were minimized, but included a small boardwalk. A series
of native plant gardens that integrate storm water from Hall Boulevard were
integrated into the plan as well as an overlook on the east edge of the site.
Scheme C 9 area
Scheme B
This scheme showed the primary trail crossing Fanno, Creek toward the east
end of the site. Secondary trails create a series of arc-shaped paths that
terminate 'm various overlook conditions near water. The northern section of
the site includes a longer boardwalk. The storm water runoff firom* Hall
Boulevard is treated in a more structured series of channels. The larger
gathering/interpretive space is located to the east of the open meadow " .
"bowl'."
Scheme C
This scheme'showed the primary trail crossing the creek immediately, from
the north and maintaining a close proximity to the proposed library. An
optional future path was shown branching off the main path toward the
eastern forest area in anticipation of an alternate path connection that was
under consideration further to the south. To the north, a gathering space was
developed that integrates a water garden that is connected to the backwater
slough (see illustration). In addition, secondary pathways venture further to
the east in the northern section.
13
t PARK MAStER PV'`,'N SUMMARY
• FANNY REEK
1J 4 ~
J4
Scheme A .
r
` EEKPARKMASTER PLAN SUMMARY
i 1 `may 4 ,
~ Is t~~t rr~ ~ ,
r a .
r. ty
rt-
'
j
~ Y 1 N a Jam'>.f
15
Scheme 8
FANNO CREEK PARK MASTER PLAN SUMMARY
'Second,Public • confinued
rte;
14
' 4 r
c•.r tam A.r 4 ,ys1W 5n rs'; ~ 7`' . _ .
Scheme C
16
FANNO•CREEK PAWMASTER FLAN SUMMARY
e e • Second Public Meeting public
attendance:
Public comments and questions:
Mary Loofbourow
Some picnicking is desirable. promoting positive activity in the
park reduces elicit behavior. 13850 SW Fanno Creek Drive
Hardscape path alignment should be further from Library (Scheme Tigard, OR 97223
Bpreferred). (503) 684-1048
Changes to Hall Street biofilttation swale should not include'
moving within future building pad. Ronald Leistra
Team should evaluate potential runoff problems from adjacent bus. 9815 SW Kimberly
parking area to the north of project area. Tigard, OR 97223
Creek crossing should occur as close to Hall Blvd-as possible (503) 639-6306
(Schemes A & C,preferred) `
Look at crossing Fanno Creek along Hali Blvd to prevent, distur- Sue Beilke
bane of turtle habitat on northern section of site. 11755 SW 114th Pl:
Some don't prefer introducing bike traffic along Hall Blvd for,. Tigard, OR 97223
safety'reasons. May require short term improvements to bridge for (503) 639-3519
access and ADA improvements. _
Minimize extent of soft trails, especially on Schemes B & C. Find John Frewing
essential trail movement - don't try to do too much on suchWa small . '7110 SW Lola Lane
site. Tigard, OR 97223 .
Prefer gathering on library site on Scheme B. (503) 245-5.760
Some preferred gathering space on Scheme A.
Soft paths don't need to be looped. • Sue Kasson
Like boardwalks to keep people from moving into sensitive areas. 16570'SW 931 Avenue
Some people like loops for safety and visual interest -more variety: Tigard, OR 97223,
Could introduce fence to prevent dogs and people from entering (503) 620-9771
' turtle habitat.
It is important to give people. educational opportunities near pond. Mike Davidson
Need connection from hardscape bail to Hall Blvd on Library side 8370 SW Arthur Ct.
of creek to allow connection to front area. bicycle parking: Tigard, -OR 97223
(503) 639-7092 `
A quick sketch was developed to illustrate a"fourth option for the primary
trail alignment (see page.13). This allowed the trail crossing of Fanno Mark Mahon
Creek to occur toward the western edge 6f..the site away from sensitive. '11310 SW 91st Ct.
habitat and also allowed the trail to stay as far.from the library; as possible to`, ' Tigard, OR 97223
preserve the bowl-shaped meadow: (503) 684-6102
17
FANNO CREEK PARK MASTER PLAN SUMMARY
• • ep
As a result of the two public meetings a final Master Plan drawing was
completed. The plan is a culmination of planning efforts by the Master Plan
consultant team members and input from interested citizens and City staff.
The plan strikes a balance between the programmatic needs of the park as a
linear greenway system and the protection of the natural resources found on
the site. It incorporates the sketch"generated at, the end of the last meeting
and reduces the number of secondary pathways while still maintaining
access to some habitat areas for educational and. interpretive programs.
Prim= Trails
A primary paved trail connects the site from north to south to the existing
Fanno Creek Greenway Trail system as it winds down from the north near
:the existing City Hall Building and existing Library. The trail crosses Hall.
Boulevard to the north and immediately crosses Fanno Creek to avoid
potential sensitive turtle habitat near the northern pond. The trail wraps
around the edge of the natural bowl area below the proposed library and
directly adjacent to the edge of the.50' river setback. The trail then heads to
.the south and crosses the wetland with a boardwalk before connecting with
the adjacent property to the south, The decision to keep the primary trail on
the west side of Fanno Creek was made to avoid.the sensitive habitat areas
of the forest on the east'.
The trail will need to accommodate, two-way pedestrian and bicycle traffic. ;
The minimum acceptable width for a: small multi-modal path is 10-feet and
is consistent with.the existing greenway trail.; The surfacing should be
asphalt to match the existing greenway trail, but could be designed using
permeable asphalt to allow water' infiltration.
Secon Sy Trails
One important function of the greenway trail is its connectivity to adjacent
land uses: Access between the proposed library andthe greenway trail
provides opportunities for library programs to expand into the habitat areas
of the park. A 5-foot asphalt trail will provide a connection on the north
side of the library to the sidewalk on the Hall Boulevard right-of-way to,
allow bicycle access to the parking areas on the south side of the building.
Soft Trails
A third level of trail development allows access, to informal areas such as
gathering spaces, interpretive areas or special garden areas. These paths are
4-feet wide and are made of (fully accessible) fine crushed gravel. i
Trail Crossing at Hall
Funding is currently being secured for a signalized trail crossing at Hall
Boulevard.. Trail crossings should visually indicate the presence of pedes-
trian activity and could include bollards or stone pillars to mark their
presence along the roadway, and prevent vehicular access. An 8-foot wide
refuge island is under consideration at the centerline of Hall Boulevard and 4 .
could serve as a visual indicator of pedestrian movement. Details of
standard marking elements are available through the Metro Regional Parks
and Greenspaces program:
• 18
' CREEK PARKMASSERP~`N'SUMMARY
FANNa '
•
Y
x
N n',~• .Zr iy ..r\ '
a`v
' 4 fw6 4•~F 9"{ 'dill l
-
s A K~^ '
~,~a3" grSrr P we 1p
°m~' ,'far ~ ~ ' 3'ryK~"" t / r7,G) a• Mt, s
+'s3"4 3,-j .syi2^6'er F r $'i r s.4~ 2t! „ sY' , ,
ii
' ~ ~ ~~~:.r+3..~.~.'.;i ~ Fx~ ~h '~2• ~ ~1 i +d j3~~ _ . sky
F
' s ,..r+rr ~T{JR 'Y s k"'~~,,}..~~~..•~.t r~~ '-t`'-;fin,
r 2ao~
n 21 sG 19
G aft asd
FANNO CREEK PARK MASTER PLAN SUMMARY
Bnees
The single bridge crossing on the north end of the site provides opportuni-
ties for directly viewing the river. The actual span needed to cross the river
with abridge will need to be determined with additional survey work, but
appears to be approximately 50-feet in'length. From a design standpoint,
the bridge is a wonderful opportunity for a unique expression of materials or
some of the unique qualities of the site.
Boardwalks
A boardwalk is indicated on the north side of the site providing a connection
from the primary trail to the backwater pond. Because this is an area of
potential turtle-nesting habitat, a boardwalk is used to encourage visitors to
stay out of the meadow and habitat areas. The boardwalk terminates of the
pond and could provide seating areas beneath the large existing oak trees as
well as opportunities for interpretive signs that describe the local history and
ecology. The boardwalks should be 5-feet in width and made of wood.
The boardwalk providing access over the wetland area could also be
incorporated with interpretive signs or searing. This boardwalk should be.
10-feet wide to match the primary trail width.
Intei_pretive and Gathering Areas
Both the boardwalk at the pond and a unique area to the northeast of the
proposed library site provide interesting opportunities. for interpretive and
gathering. The larger gathering space could be an area of crushed stone
paving and a series of stone walls that provide both group and individual
seating areas. The walls provide a physical barrier to prevent disturbance of
naturalized areas, but provide a sense of permanence and durability to the .
space.. Additional opportunities exist in these areas for interpretive signage
or art display, for example birdhouses made by local school or community
organizations.
Bowl
The open, meadow area just north of the proposed library will be left as
open space with a small'space• at the center of its bowl-shaped topography.
This small-spice could be defined by a low stone wall and could serve as a
focal point for group gatherings.,or perhaps just a place to pull off the
primary trail during a bike ride.
20
FANNO CREEK.PARK MASTER FLAN SUMMARY
• • ' •
Stream Restoration and Buffer Planting
Restoration opportunities in and, around Fanno Creek could offer long term
water quality improvement, improved in-water habitat, and improved"plant
and animal habitat along its edges. Currently Fanno Creek is severely
undercutting its banks. Its, steep sides lack'opportunitics for all but minimal
vegetation to take hold. This channeling effect of the stream and lack of in-
water vegetation to slow down stream flows has compounded erosion
problems'and has created a lack of space•for water during flood events.
Regrading the stream bank to flatten the stream profile would help slow
water flows, provide more flood storage capacity, and provide areas for
planting improvements. Stabilization of the creek channel may need to be
considered along the entire creek, especially where stream currents tend to
erode banks. Because there are some existing trees along the bank, an
effort should be made to incorporate those plantings into'the grading,
concepts. Smaller trees could be temporarily removed and replanted.
Redeveloping the creak channel will also provide opportunities .to remove
invasive plant species.
Regardless of the extent of work within Fanno. Creek itself, Clean Water
Services will likely require additional planting within the 50 foot buffer. As a
condition of approval for the new library project, the south side of the'
Creek will be replanted using a mixture of native plant species. This work „
is being conducted independently of this Master Plan effort. Improved
native planting efforts should also be considered around the backwater
pond. Other planting restoration'efforts or plans to remove invasive plant
species could be coordinated through cooperation between the City and
private organizations, such as Fans of Fanno Creek.
Visual Mitigation should be provided on'the north end of the site to screen
the existing bus parking area. Native evergreen trees that grow in excess of
3,0-feet will need to be planted along the north end of the site on either side.'
of the backwater slough. Additional buffer planting of both native trees and
shrubs could be provided along Hall Boulevard to provide spatial definition "
of the meadow area and..visual and noise protection between the trail and
street. Visual access at the trail crossing on Hall Boulevard will need to be
considered when providing this additional buffer planting.
Sienaee ; .
Wayfinding along the trail should be coordinated with efforts along the
entire length of the Fanno Creek Greenway. A January 2003 report entitled
"Fanno Creek Greenway Trail Action Plan" available through Metro Re-
gional Parks and Greenspaces contains invaluable information regarding trail
signage templates. (http://www.metro-region.orvAiboly_docs/parks een/
fann2plan.11
d
Additional signage should be considered, giving directions to the library from
the primary trail as well as, interpretive signs, in various locations in the park.
Signs indicating the possible presence of nesting turtles should be imple-
mented when the primary trail is constructed.
On April 23, 2003 the Tigard Planning Commission voted to recommend to,
City Council approval of the Master Plan
21
FANNO CREEK PARK MASTER PLAN SUMMARY
Fina • • -s Contacts#
Planning Commission Meeting, Division of State Lands
On April 23, •2003 the design team presented the final Master Plan to the Collin MacL,aren ,
'Tigard Planning Commission.'The Tigard Planning, Commission voted to (503) 378-3805
recommend to City. Council approval of the Master Plan. One question was
raised regarding'the ability for police monitoring of the park from Hall U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Boulevard. A subsequent meeting withahe Police Department resulted-in Cathy•Harris
approval of the plan without changes. (503) 808-4387
Overseeing Agencies for work in Fanno Creek Clean Water Services
The approval process; for work along Fanno Creek or adjacent wetlands will \ Phone: (503) 846-3553
depend upon the extent of work proposed for each phase of development.
Grading in excess of 50 cubic yards'within the zone of ordinary high water
typically triggers a joint application process through the Army Corps of
Engineers and the Division of State Lands. The application process can
take as little as 45-60 days under the Nationwide Permitting Process or 120
days under Individual Review, depending upon the extent 'of work. Both
agencies review the application materials individually and look at the location
andaype of.impacts that will occur (e.g. removal of vegetation or impact on .
river flow or flooding) and what mitigation may be required. Often, the
land owner will be required to monitor mitigation efforts for five years'after
.:completion of work.
Oregon' Division of Fish and Wildlife will review impacts on riparian .
vegetation and habitat under the DSL review process. The presence of
endangered species will require review by NOAA Fisheries under the Army
Corps of Engineer review process. "
Documents required for these reviews will include earthwork design and
cut/fill calculations, a site plan showing extent of proposed improvements,
determination of "mean high water" and "ordinary high water",'cross'
sectional views, planting plans, details; and other information deemed
necessary to effectively evaluate the potential impacts and mitigation,
measures of the project. 'Because,project review through both the Corps of
Engineers and DSL are analyzed on a case-by-case basis, additional infor-
mation may be requested depending upon the level of environmental impact.
The proposed improvements illustrated within this Master Plan will likely
trigger this approval process, but are likely to benefit water quality and
habitat along Fanno Creek. We anticipate likely approval of these improve-
ments assuming a complete submittal package.
Clean Water Services will review all work within the 100-year flood plain
and specifically within the 50-foot buffer along Fanno Creek and the
wetlands.
FANNO CREEK PARK MASTER PLAN SUMMARY
• • continued
Library Project Conditional Use Permit
The conditions of approval required after an April 7, 2003 public hearing
before the City of Tigard Land Use Hearings Officer requires construction
of the Fanno Creek Greenway Trail. The following language is an edited
summary of those portions which directly relate to the Fanno Creek Park
Master Plan"
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO IS-
SUANCE OF THE SITE AND/OR BUILDING PERMITS:
Submit to the Planning Department (Brad Kilby, 639-4171, ext. 388) for re-
view and approval:
a letter from a registered professional engineer that indicates'that .
any encroachments made by this proposal will not increase
the flood levels during the-base flood discharge.
10. Prior to the issuance of building permits for the building,
the applicant shall show that it is making a continuing,
diligent, good faith effort to identify an alignment for a
pWestrian/bicycle path along Fanno Creek that will not be
below the'elevation of an average annual flood.
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO FI-
NAL BUILDING INSPECTION: '
Submit to the Planning Department (Brad Kilby, 639-4171, ext. 388) for re-
view and approval:.'
21. Prior to the issuance of a final occupancy permit, the applicant shall
provide adequate financial assurances, in the form of a cash deposit, a bond ,
or inclusion of the project on a city 5-year capital improvements project list,
to ensure construction of that portion of the Fanno Creek Greenway Trail
that crosses the property. No portion of the trail shall be below the eleva-
tion of an average annual flood.
23
FANNO, CREEK PARK MASTER PLAN SUMMARY
• • -
ORDER OF-MAGNITUDEtOST I•NFORMATION
Unit Unit Cost Ran
u
-MENNEM
Streambank Restoration (including regrading If of
bank, stabilization, bank $100-$200
erosion control, revegetation, habitat
Buffer Planting'(excluding streambank planting) sf $1.00-$2:00
Meadow Restoration sf $0.15-$0.25
Special Garden Planting sf $3.00-$4.00
Trees ea -$200-$300
PrimaryPath (10' wide AC) If $15-$20
Secondary Path (5' wide bark or gravel If $7.50-$10
8_foot-wide Wood Boardwalk/Overlook If $1.75-$225
Pedestrian. Bridge (10' wide wood and steel) Is $60,000-$85,000
Stone Walls at Gathering Areas If $130-$160
Fencing If. $30-$60
Interpretive Signs ea $100-$2,000
Benches ea, ' $1,000-$1,200
Picnic Tables ea $1,00041,200
.24
AGENDA ITEM #
FOR AGENDA OF August 16, 2005
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON '
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE 2005 League of Oregon Cities Awards Program .
PREPARED BY: Joanne Bengtson. DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
The League of Oregon Cities has sent a call for entries for its annual awards program.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Review.the attached criterion of 4 individual and 3 city awards available for presentation at the 80'' Annual LOC
Conference in Eugene, November 10-12, 2005. Review staff. s suggestions and propose nominees where ,
appropriate. Direct staff on how to proceed.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
The program recognizes cities and public officials for recently-completed. betterment projects and exemplary
service and contributions to municipal government. Additionally,. the program demonstrates that those involved
with local government are progressive, caring and committed to their communities.
In 2002 the City of Tigard was awarded the` Good Governance Award for our program reconnecting citizens 'to
their community, and in 2004 was awarded the Employee Safety Award because of low accident frequency rates.
Staff suggestions include the city's extensive 'programs for youth (Tigard Turns the Tide, Youth Advisory Council,
Peer Court, DARE/GREAT Camp), the Downtown Improvement Plan community dialogues, and the Public Works
Customer Satisfaction Survey.
The deadline for submitting nominations and entries is September 16, 2005.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Do not submit any nominations.
VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY '
N/A
ATTACHMENT LIST
Award Descriptions
FISCAL NOTES
There is no cost associated with this. action..
i:tadmklty counciltcouncil agenda item summades@005ta1s for loc awards program050818.doc
OF O
J ~~F\
111 )z
•
. • 1' •
20,05 AWARDS PROGRAM
Call, or Entries
as your, city developed a new and innovative project or program that you're
Hproudof? Do you know someone who is'an outstanding leader.in municipal
government?.
Then consider„recognizing these efforts'by naminatiing that city projector. municipal
official for-an award from the,L'eague of'Oregon'Cities. There are several options
• Awards presented to individuals. Awards recognizing cities:
: Jarrres C. Mc ar ' ds`Memorial Award Award for Excellence given to cities
recognizes an individual(eiccte'd.or 'for their innovative approaches to city
appointed) who has shown.exceptional , operations and provision of services, to .
contributions to and support of League their. citizens: •
programs in intergovernmental relations a1 :
the local, state and.fedeml levels: Good Governance Award ..:honors city
programs that specifically'encourage
Herman Kehrli Award granted to,a "reconnecting" citizens to'their con-imu-
" city employee whose exceptional contribui' pity and encouraging citiien involve
t .
tions to city government in Oregon have' ment.
provided lasting benefits to the community.' • .
• - d..
' . Mark Hatfield Statesmanship Award n the coming weeks, your city's " •
presented to an individual (from the'puhlic In,
and city manager/administra=
or private sector) who has demonstrated for or recorder will receive a detailed '
statesmanship and exemplary service which nomination guide for these awards.
has positively affected Oregonians.
Consider recogniiing outstanding •
• Civic Education Award recognizes individuals or city projects from your
b
educators who have promoted local home town!
government education in Oregon school's The deadline for nominations for all
and'who are committed to nurturing civic awards is, September; l6, 2005.
• responsibility in ouryouth. •
.
Pres'eiited during LOC's QOt}i` :
ANNUAL CONFERENCE
• NOVEMBER 10-12,2005'
•
- • Hino' EI GENE Sl CONFERENCE CENTER .
• "Leaders Live 'Here" '
i~
James C. Richards
Memorial .Award T ,q2~-2005
he James. C. Richards Award was created by the LOC Board of Directors in
1980 in memory of a former city councilor in Bay City and administrative
officer for Tillamook County. The award recognizes exceptional contributions {
by city officials at the local, state and. federal levels in support of League
intergovernmental relations programs., .
y
Who is Eligible?°
Any city official (elected or appointed) is eligible, for this award. ,
How to Submit an Entry James Richards.
'Nominatioris may be submitted by anyone, regardless of their involvement'in city
government. The nomination should include a comprehensive description of the
nominee's, activities and reasons why they qualify for this award.
Review/Selection Process
A• subcommittee of the LOC Board of Directors reviews the nominations and_
presents their recommendations to the full board for final selection: ' Recipients
are given a framed certificate, and their name is added to a wall plaque displayed
at the League office. Recent Award
Recipients
Background 2004 Nancy Nathanson
In addition to his local responsibilities, Jim Richards served on the LOC Board Counilor, Eugene
of, Directors and Legislative Committee, chaired the Local Officials Advisory 2003 Lou Ogden
Committee `to LCDC, and served on the. Local Government Advisory Committee Mayor, Tualatin '
to the Building Codes Division. 2002 Chris Lassen
Richards contributed his time selflessly to the cause of cities around the state. Councilor, Gresham
He often traveled to Salem- to represent cities and the League before legislative 2000 Gwen VanDenBosch
committees. Richards would even camp out in the League office for 2-3 days to Mayor, Dallas
personally call other city officials and urge them to attend legislative. hearings. -1999 Michael Jordan
City Manager, Canby
1998 Bill Morrisette
Mayor, Springfield
Nancy Nathanson, the
2004 winner of the James C. ;
Richards Memorial Award f _
Herman Kehrli Award; i _9C
Tbenefits he Herman Kehrli Award is granteto a.city employee who has provided lastinto, their community through exceptional contributions to city.
government. It recognizes the outstanding public service-career of Herman Kehrli,,
who was executive secretary of the League of Oregon-Cities and director of the
' University of Oregon's. Bureau of Governmental Research and Service (BGRS)
from 1,933 to 1966. He received the first award in 1988.'•
. : Who is Eligibles j
Any individual who is currently or formerly employed' or appointed by a city
'How to Submit an Entry n Kehrli
Hernia
Nominations may be submitted by any'one, regardless of their. involvement in city,
government. The, nomination should include; a comprehensive description of the'
nominee's,'activities and reasons why they qualify Tor this award.' Recent Award '
'Recipients
Review/Selection Process 2004 Jo Anne Sutherland,
A subcommittee of the LOC Board of,Directors reviews the_noininatioris and presents Retired City Manager,
their recommendations-to'the full board for final selection. Recipients, are given a Redmond
framed certificate; and their,name is added to a wall plaque displayed at the 2004 Dick Townsend,
League office..' ' l OCCMA Range Rider
'former LOC Director
Background 2003. Steve Bryant, City
A 1931 resolution ci-eated'a.Bureau of Municipal Research and Service at the Manager, Albany
University of Oregon. In 1933, the Oregon Board 'of;Higher' Education,established 2003 Tim Erwe'rt, City,
the Bureau", and the' League located its headquarters in- the-same, office. Manager, Hillsboro
2002 ' Larry Lehman, City
Under Herman Kehrli's leadership, the joint program immediately put in place Manager, Pendleton
an ambitious agenda of research, consultation and training; in citygovernment affairs. 2002 Jon Nelson, CityThe quality of Oregon city government today is. due in large part to this program_ and Manager, Corvallis
the high standards of its founders.
A native Oregonian; Kehrli was a high school' teachei and. served as executive".
secretary of. the City Club of Portland. He. held a deep conviction that public -
.,service is a calling of great digniry`and profound-significance to community, r c
state and national life: s .
Kehrli's.impressive .contributions to state and local government includes:
the Bureau's model city, charters, which•gave substance and form to
municipal home rule. in Oregon;.. ,
4
Promotion of the counciUmanager form of city government;
. • chief.designer of Oregon's Public Employees Retirement
System; and
leadership that established the state civil service system. The 2004.QUinners of the Herman
and r'eorgani e.d state government after World War II'. Kehrli Award: (left) Jo Anne
Sutherland; pictured with her'husband,
• and (lower right) Dick Townsend
LOC 02005 AWARDS • Z011, • CONFERENCE
Mark O. Hatfield
.'Statesmanship Award ,q25_=00 3
A statesman is defined as'one who is.versed 'in the art of government. The
'
Mark O. Hatfield Statesmanship Award is presented to individuals who have
demonstrated similar statesmanship and exemplary service that has positively A,
affected the citizens of .Oregon. It. was established' in' 1996 inappreciation of retiring.
U.S. Senator "Mark, Hatfield'for his career in public service.
Wh6.-is Eligible?
The Hatfield Award is:,presented to deserving ".statesmen" from.the public or private
sector ,who have provided lasting benefits to the quality of life for Oregon
citizens. The applicant. must also be held in high -esteem by, the public from unselfi'sh'
devotion to the call, of public service. -A deserving candidate does not waver, from Mark Hatfield .
personal convictions and observes the highest moral standards.
A recipient will have demonstrated a high, regard for human life through an
,awareness of human needs and compassionate service to their fellow man. They 1
should exemplify civility at all times, demonstrating personal respect for each
individual's potential,and'rights.'..The recipient must be a consensus builder and
listener, with a firm belief that patience and negotiation can4 resolve conflicts and
that America must bea model for peace.
-'How to Submit an Entry
Nominations may be submitted by anyone, regardless of their involvement in city
government. Nominations should contam.a comprehensive description of the
-nominee's activities and'reasons why they qualify for this award. -
Review/Selection Process` ,
A subcommittee of the LOC Board of Directors reviews the nominations and Recent Award
presents their`recommendations to the, full board' for firial.selection. Recipients are Recipients
given a framed certificate,' and their-name is added. to a wall plaque displayed at the 2001 Cliff Trow,
'
League office-,
Oregon Senator.
Background 1997 Neil-Goldschmidt, .
Mark Hatfield"has been a,student, teacher and.practitioner of American politics former Oregon governor
for nearly his entire life. While teaching political science and serving as dean of,. 1996 Mark Hatfield;
students at his alma mater, Willamette University in Salem, Hatfield began his. " U.S. Senator
political career in the Oregon Legislature in 1950. After two terrris in the House' of
Representatives and two years in the Senate' he became, the. youngest secretary of .
state in Oregon history in 1956 at the age of 34.. He was elected governor in 1958.
and was re-elected in 1962. ;
In 1966, Hatfield was elected to the U.S. Senate as an outspoken critic-of the war
-in Vietnam:-'In 1993, he became the longest-serving Senator from Oregon. At.his
retirement in 1997, he was the second-ranked Republican and seventh in seniority
out of 100 in the full Senate. Hatfield never lost an election, and-wa's known as-,an
.
independent legislator who voted his conscienc' e,-for which'he' earned bipartisan
respect from his colleagues:
Civic Education Award D 2005 T he Civic Education Award seeks individuals who have demonstrated their
ongoing commitment to nurturing civic responsibility in youth. It was
created in 1998 by the LOC Board 'of Directors to recognize educators who have
promoted local government -education in Oregon schools.
Who is Eligible? '
Nominations will be accepted for persons currently or recently involved.in civic
education endeavors.
Review/Selection Process ;
A committee of past presidents of the League will judge the entries.
Preparing the Entry Recent Award
Please include the following in your nomination: Recipients
Nominee's name-and phone number; 2003 Raphael ("Stubby")
• Name and phone number of the person making the nomination; Lyons, Seaside City
Councilor and retired
• A comprehensive summary of the nominee's civic education. activities; school teacher
and 2002 John Gaskill, Ontario
• Any supporting materials (e.g., sample of curriculum, photos, news City Councilor and
clippings, letters of support, etc.). school teacher
1999 Mike Crocker,
Philomath City
Councilor and high'
school teacher
2003 Winner . . . 1999 Deborah Howe and
Terri Cook, elemen-
tary school teachers
he most recent winner of the Civic Education Award was from Iv(ilwaukie
TSeaside City Councilor Raphael "Stubby" Lyons.
Lyons retired in 1999 as a popular high school social 'studies,
teacher and head football coach. He continued. to substitute
teach',-lead discussions on local government issues, and
provide behind-the-wheel driver education training to t
local high schoolers.
Councilor Lyons had been involved in student'ac'tivities for
over 40 years in four states, the last 23 in Oregon.. He won
eight state championships in three states and received coach Stubby Lyons
of the year honors on multiple occasions. Lyons is a.former
Marine who served in Korea from 1953-56.
LOC-2005AWARDS PROGRAM..*— 801h ANNUALLOC CONFERENCE
Award for Excellence r
192°-200.5
The League's Award for Excellence recognizes cities that have taken
innovative approaches to city operations and providing services.
Who is Eligible?
Cities of all sizes are encouraged to participate. Entries must include programs or
activities successfully operating for the past year or that have culminated in.the past
year. A city may submit only one entry; but may re-submit past entries that were not
chosen for an award.
Those cities that enter this competition will be invited to "show off" their program or
project with a table-top display during the annual conference.
Review/Selection Process
Each year a selection committee of elected city officials, city staff, state legislators, Recent Award
Recipients
media representatives and others are appointed to judge the entries. In evaluating the
entries, judges consider whether the program: 2004 Aumsville -
1) reduces the cost of government; Cascade Community
Family and Child
2) improves the community's quality of life; or Development Center
3) enhances municipal services. (see opposite page)
Often the judges will choose winners for both "Large City" and "Small City" 2003 La Grande -
categories. Ladd Marsh Waste-
water Treatment
Preparing the Entry Facility
Please follow these procedures when submitting an entry: 2003 Sisters -
• The description of the project or program should not exceed three Harold & Dorothy
double-spaced pages. Barclay Park and
• A cover page should indicate the name of the project, city, name and Public Restroom
daytime phone number of a contact person, and bear the signature of 2002 Harrisburg -
the mayor. Municipal Center for
• An appendix including photographs, line art, newspaper clippings, etc. Tomorrow Project
may be included with the entry.
• Submit FOUR copies of the entire entry, and include a copy of the
descriptive text on CD or floppy disk, or e-mail to Kim Bentley at
kbentley@orcities.org.
2004 Recipient
19...,•.^? ~ 2 fir..
City of Aumsville
Cascade Community Family and Child Development Center
The city of Aumsville partnered with the Cascade School District to bring These services provide
about a much-needed centrally-located facility now known as the Cascade
Community Family and Child Development Center. The center houses a teen a vital link between
parent program, low-income preschool and day care, early intervention program, families living in
special education program for 0-5 year-olds, and Parent Connection workshops
and support groups. These services provide a vital link between families living in a rural area and
a rural area and various-agencies. various agencies.
The Aumsville City Council and staff worked with the school district to obtain a
grant for the project. The Oregon Economic Development Department awarded
a $600,000 Community Development Block Grant to '
the city. The school district paid the balance of the
$1,320,296 in project costs from state lottery money, and ~~a
they donated approximately three acres of land to = Children gather every
day for music and
construct the center adjacent to the Aumsville Elemen- sing-alongs.
tary campus. The city owns the center as the fiscal agent
for the project until August 2007, when the property will
be under the sole ownership of Cascade School District. -x,
A j
The center, opened in January of 2002, includes a `
community multi-purpose room, a computer lab, five
classrooms, offices for staff and a fenced 12,000 square
foot outdoor playground.
The majority of
I'
d b the participants in center the
are s Four and five year-olds
P Y r ~I work on their daily
below poverty level. The center is
within walking distance of low-income art projects.
housing and the school district
provides all necessary transportation.
With a permanent larger facility, the Cascade Community
programs are able to offer low-income - - 1 ,k ~ kids enjoy their
families a stable environment in which - playground.
to learn and grow. n
i -
..r
III
i
V ,
1-LEADERS LIVE HERE"
WWWORCITIES.ORG
Good Governance. Award
JW_
The Good Governance Award was initiated by the League's Past
Presidents Council to highlight city programs that encourage
reconnecting citizens to their community.
Who is Eligible? .
Cities of all siies are encouraged to participate. The quality of citizen
involvement, not the size or publicity of the event or program, will determine
recognition.
j
(
Review/Selection Process
judges will consider if the event or program: 1
• Successfully engages citizens in local government processes; . Recent Award
-
• Enhances the citizens' awareness-of local government decision-makin Recipients
g;
and 2004 Corvallis -
Financial Outreach
• Fosters local leadership through education, planning efforts or 1 Project
volunteerism.
(see opposite page)
.2003 Salem - i
Preparing the Entry Information Access
Please follow these procedures when submitting an entry: Project
• The description of, the program, event, project, training or process 2002 North'Plains - ' f
should not exceed three'double-spaced pages. Citiien Partnership
• A cover page should indicate the name of the project, city, name and. Program .
daytime phone number of a contact person, and bear the signature of 2002 Tigard - !
the mayor. Reconnecting }
An appendix including photographs, line art, newspaper clippings, etc. Citizens to their
• 1
may, be included with the entry. Community Program i
• Submit FOUR copies of.the entire entry and include a copy of the
descriptive text on CD or floppy disk, or a-mail to Kim Bentley at
'kbentley@orcities.org.
r
LOC2005.AWARDS'PROGRAM,,, 801h
CIS Safe Wellness Awards
X92' :-cos
City County Insurance Services (CIS) and. the League. team up annually
to sponsor the annual Employee Safety and Wellness. Awards Program for Watch for your city's
Oregon cities. This program was initiated 32 years ago to stimulate cities' interest application in the mail
and participation in loss prevention programs by providing recognition to cities this summer. Awards
with low accident frequency.rates. City applicants are divided into categories. are presented during the
according to the number of regular employees and full-time equivalent of League's annual
volunteer hours. conference.'
Here are last year's winners... .
k ,FL'NyYi -F'k: e^i<.;"''-. '<3rt'..+'+,.tz.,~.,.s"'. .is:"47"<M`_r'`S'Yd'Itfi~;±9 tF-• `;'vSPC'w •'ai;,n;. ''i,. `4»y4~,~4'. "F¢: 'F-T'7k~R,<"-'G';i. RSp-ca.~•'mI"'C F, ?y1
. ;Safe, welinessti :
City' ~Safetyx'VUellness. City
Safe Wellness
-.<•7.::.iY`^r~^- 'a rty.'
Y Ai 7 "?'i•„tF "'t +r.~ ky _`"°Y"~:t'v s _ ?..$ya-uY,a ;i f da
h ro
'-s., G5- w ° 'd;"7~-'~.:'t'• rc 3:~, k 7 . t, ,.5~ •a@ e •:";ra°
Ad`airmil r-. ,fit'9 r; f i _ 5, l{ K S
9. rt.r ' :Gates _ t X'.<...• r:X.• ~.z r a <Ilyrtle;;FPbmt
w, tri;. f'<' a> r•'~2';_ ~."~::a~aJ, ;.;e..;. ..5, ...t
g. , ffs" xc`4v frS" u1 ~s ~•F3 r.x> {t~n
r..,ah!° tuf'' •rk:, k ,r , a "-;'';h •.:,t~ ;a?;~x T~~~.~fi xs. wry 1 ,rv'
~ °~~y;..,~°`. .r,,~- 5:~w4
,Amity •~t~,.~'•~;x~~ItWrX~•,,'~'r'~~,, "•w r~. Gearhart-,;',:-ns...u~;~ Nehalem.,71!
h°6{`~:S,S'P ~S't',, .[N :'~.I,~r .,'a' .;,4"..ri "r`1;.e =~•!2(Et.v*:.1>;~'r, Ft ,594=?z': :*'d.e . :6.i... :kYY •9+f"t:,<s ,h" 1'?x'57,'.,. 'ilsMirk~', _,.a''f, r:74
:'yy •a,•. ~ ix •r,•f{ k 4. +'4 e'z'~:. ~r~~k; S^' t. ary •'~•4;$~,. r "~S;« >Y 'e;; ~xa S•''.r rii.+'r•.Y ~,'w'.'SY .te. 4" •L'-"`':'' ,,;:,'H,, h
nk..~
:,rArlln ton
xg l 9~..: . }r X Glendale. - X d- : , .e Newbergr? Q1 s
•1^"r• t 5,„rxr a ;:z?"•i'7'~ Y'd• qr•°~ y;< ."c'q~°. -yr ,?1r."; :57, o
a 1. ,9y+ h `t 4r''~ .~4' 3y,. y.. tn•-, y'- 4',
Astoriar =X _ U =tGOld°Beach3 -!<,r, €X:'; ;'i' t`v zNrS § l*,Xr 1~
A 0•w tiw OR t c_:,r 5• - - 4 ~jJ ..!e < J~e ? €rt lyewport`Tt x c ' s~ h >
~'a` ~.t,i' :..Y~1,r T..,~ i. Ji;"1 _ t""'..:''-. t; >>s•~,,~<-c "'S:'c~'''"c'+'°''.f.~-.°g tr,.,z-.,.rte°,~#a ,.~i.
Aumsville x~ X Xy Gold.Hlli. , North:Bend' X, s
. ,M x1,1 < ;tem., •,sw,;• a. G'•, _ ;r:.., :r', 'y
~wsS one? r14, t'~ ,tis"i,3.1:...a:e Iz «z'a..,r,^ a; - kv hx: c.=;La',xi 4.'k'~
• '*1?~s .~'r~.~i .v.. „k±.• .,.C,.wp+,.r ~:5,..,t s„`{;rrrcu-Y ,.ray,,, ~_.•"a;~~t•w~:• :;_,<'~Af', : s't'''i:- : d l?..-fir . o~=,
t, Aurora w .5 ; ;.X=r mX r Haines: vr`f , ; :
9 < Xr Ontano'•• X°{wr
t~
Yiy,k.""cM' "dj7F~,1~,.r t°-.t} .zfi•- t. ;iµ ua ±uf;;sa• r-. +t7. tqr.„£ , 7^a t a:.q, } c'"<t:=<..7 ^a' -,,•r `4$~"• t.r~.ir
+r. t s `t.`f i - `n k r rv;r ~.t ~qt .
==Pendleton=t
Ba SCI X, , ; r Haifwa
tYq
n.x~ r1?~ .tC. az
'Taib~y~C,}:'F~•?~aa,• ~i f~ ~.s;,i~•~.•o,•~T{ ~.r~",~,j~,•Sg•,.vr.,~x :,:;a
~ X `R { V Halseyt 5$ 4 Y.X w X , Pnilomaim. q c_
Ben d
-.4mv: u't h 'ii; cA.-r't%}~vK•a;i1•,`y .3 <Y'`~.~~i,,, `_,'g's'Sa1 ,2 Gi .rrk'`Y. C'b_`•S'€~~/,~},i~.
~iBoardm n H°; PIIot;Rock_' =X V^,~:/X-:2 .N AA
a . x X:' 4~;,- , appy If , v
''"t ar r :,x f
tr~ 3X II =g
,~'K"~,4''P•sr3t't°a9 M a '±Y, ;t<,G, 3',. ?•v^. ;~M:i~>~ v1 i„u~.F .z':-t`:,a. cr,P'~^'~',-v wrc~ {~'r. ° M:• ~
' . tjxBrookin $r ~Harnsbur r r S y.tX, `;rYw 2 '3 4 4, H d'#-ortt„ortora,rr.•lrq X .kx,-`ti'er-'.a6 sc<yX'"",4»•"?ro~:" ~k;
"e'r8rrsa „a . 9? .,T,r1 ' `sue ov, , 9•. r' , ~•"t+~.4 a k q:.,. ter. ,..k ' P e w •-z rte 5• k
kx,r ~.xt"rN'i 5•o"q•Jr , y s~` ~w'~'9.k k a A ' ».1 S~ r"'...<<; °.k!}., {a .s F 't "R' ! n; w~ 'Vi i luOr X: 'tl7 r ` t^~r~ i
, X~ ~,p~at~; §Hmes,Xff< Redmondk '
C anby
~~~~a a;. Pr.~t k- , b'>. r-}, Ht rp!,~ k a»rys •~+K'r~p~
Y i~. C+'pp.' _ S-" 4-w~ •hsG ,S. n ~'=-3 i'°.,. 'C- .Yk'Sk"_. 1 4r w
CannonxBeach' =~z aReeds ort Xf
"F ei p,%= r>"..yx' •`3Y""fi y 1 - burc •t'. .r - =•,r . ~t -';R''§~'' ->It
Carlton X . _ Hubbard; e•, f2oseur9=.X+t .
. 4.r ems , "w rY - X.. ryn$ rl.~'s ~ y r. ,>x -;"•',..,',r..:v
~T4arr y., n;y:.+;.1, •+r, ,xr [ry~!.x':.,(~ r„d••{v Tcyi,;c .'"e'-`~•,<t,`t, m•x- .,t1,-s. '
T~t',fit&a.e z~' i~ , p+ z,.y~t:s t ,j ' ;a: a. c k ub y a.,
Y'••4 z -.r
~dCassade Locksq Idanh X r c Seaslde..2_~ X hA
,,r,ll~4trT7rH:>ty..ti bxi, 4,~r gA+•t''-.::-'r" 's• t., ,,x,c---4F agrtf,,war~i(;-Y•rls,,; ~y.,~,r~".KRr 7•'t•"Rrr ,i''nR?'g~ut',.-ax ~"'R, ,~,5.,"°.{:.1^~t z' 2{
yc"~,G?;'``:,uN &:.5>,r,+s
"u r :G..xa'• {n ,r,y`.._•~ rr yw~t,~,~."4,~r a„ F r7=. ;z
.k "P
Cave;Junctldnax :X`" _dnde endence` L." C { k.Sherwoodh X-: X
01
,:Nay ~c,-^= ' uK w~ p 4 is A a*. s..
4 u'`y€», i¢.c.,,"~ &<° a~`i r? ..n r r"s.:
"Central+Po►nt V X272M. xlmgon F`°,.:Tgh XS ra,:Silverton
3 t~. ",~-"0+ - '6°, T,a'-•.s,.'S. w.., }*X j fiYA? - .~Sk;`, ?di~..a2• ~~:~t,;,.
'~!<r"'?kr" m se,ti'Y,, <'t x. P~.,,~
ClatslCBnle° X} z. i,,; z ?n' .ra, s;-•~ ~SlSte~S'.'* X. b ~zirz''KV
l Island:Ce rX>..y XE
.IF 'w r ;A• ,y- .xk.M'°.. t}7'~' 4r
Fq.,o ,,,5, .~.1:.~`•,+_: ,v'f:: .~•,dil,'Srk~a tC-.*#a•2=.T^s'hr. ~'*.-.n, h; ''3="•'.:a
rt 4x'" "tomS'flelenS,»~}; X?a., t~s-x;s,.<
Condon kX,» Y , r z 4 ,gq,kJeffersOn' X r, r 7 k : 5 y ) m < R"tae: dt .
.d 1'. ",a X^ ,P 3 X,T t R' n+, ;fC, M "vRna-=:.r,' a t 3
f;'•,urnC~,r i. :'-4'^," r 3'. ryca'u .n,#7 -•.x~4' e. a+,i e ..'-'Y,rit Ri,' fir. ?'%#-f•''~'
e'CO ullle f k,;X•x'~ r~k? t ? ~i<t,~s , rtn, 3Stanfielci~$.~u,t X;iX~ 4
qv N- r; ',John Day;?.z *rX t4X
St A
~,r _ •,~X,
;:~c~yyruc~ ..gSf',., •t• w:r':d~ x'4" r" „t:., a-}~'=.yK"'''«~ th+ 3- 1~ .
Cornelius . X'` Jordan Valleys Y X .ta uk .,i- ; = - r' •
•ak^N'1a¢~'..+t»... sSc-St,
,Cotta((77e Grover: X,,~1" sJose h~.~. r. X &-:.,e p....r. atA+~...
~`t^e.r ,:?x .f42~, " ..p -1e ~i' t''f ,.3f~. `-G•Sa~~ #~°-u'".':.
f+., '',v'1:i'frz+a,`SS. y!~,~F•.y:F-^>,G',,r,f- : ..)w~-,~,~' w~2 >?;,~3~T,.;~,L,,,;a"b°"~aa,; r'n. •M..:i:?', .P'"y,."1 ,tea;ac"r,.'.. E'-. *P°"§
.~•:-'a:1.`~' ~;,dA -ur fi_•/y;;:'~'.t!~t' -,M. ; : :~+.n
. x,. 1' , Sweet Home;,;.X
=g'Creswelii.,~ a s,. / ,
a w:~, x ~ b ga 6.,. f . a. « a rrk. v ,.h'• i r . r~~f g~' „
r ~ ar. . •*>F~~'w`",~,3i2.c~:,:~; ~r ~ zr Y «f".,w....:,,~y,", b 4~ ~c s' .9
X
, r~.,}t..,a; z~'~~' ~ f~•,.. ~ ; - -=;Tan ent ~ 5~` d
~ X=- ~-=~~a;,,~•e x, .~,`,~~E ~.:,~;~Lafa ette~.~;;~• ~~::X r zr`'L' ~ .~=3~
' ~.~~.K;~``°`~: u1•~y~f
k:iS"~'ai;'fl.q ` e "~sa~,i °'~i q, r r~-~"'~c+%'i- ~ .i.-•f: t'rL',1:' b _'''`'Sr: .
yt f wJ° sue:, T and
Da on - X LatGrande 4-
`:u•.1U1i= ^'+T, r°`' '*a t 5 rnx;,yva r'i,',_.X#:M .~y~[}` ykY,::`::
• `I N". , .lk x~k. 5..x1ty'h t tc e~N ,,y~.`„~~5 ' I•
1"' ,.x~'.-.'•?:''k."t,y*~-2-"' .A~`~t, `•:a;A,tr',; ;?TlllamOOkq 11;R
£^":y:4rr''4~.'-i'H
Depoea bay '1xcs. ,~F a.M " ~,rtt,m r~ ~eS`~' ~~as ;su , rfR %s.•,x t c`yQr,~" '•1-r•:!'.,.;ps:.'~.~
. N .el«.XLlncoln:CitY ~%T. , , '
x J rr " c • rs t?f• # x
Dralnu t`t'. t .iV. r` St ,p sax.. r ,a s „z. Tualatin t"
r. - C3~= T^`4 s, ,ter>'
3 tt` X w ,V.,r..iLOWelltxX>"i- ~~@
- 7•.3 r ' 'xt-'~•'kt: 1L i -f t~>r-• 'ai
9c+K°!= R t w to -n~ c tad ~n
Dundee a.
X ;rX :`Mahn;~.==X:..
t'-'r`~,}gi,iaifa1<Nes .1 "r`•.'t ^d1 ,"'^'9 ~4iF'S •aaY•'st.:9:11 -r;, -•.b ..E, " "..u.,E! _ matilla,.'' $'+~=,=rX ' "a
Durham'~y{: k°r.},:; gee ~Manzarnta ~nr*
i•31~'``. rn X ~'f ,s - r3,4', F r` +"i .'•~a rF,^~3h~ 'w,-^rf nad~z a•=Y; #
° z > z at r ~k, ; cat aM , x: mmh~ x '~UnlOn f. X,
X - o {.:MaU Ind tra&. . h.s" . z q> t
pF*Ea le',POlnt b < X.
~r6f. .a>= eneta'~?~ 4" X tK ~k,f'
g~ ~'ty T cc i u¢ik. -r' 1• i~ t :fn wX'-0+t,S:.r
McMinnville
!f;A _ ' ' • d, ~ Xg ~-r,~~~' ~y~-',~~~: ~ r: ~='~_,+s . ~ r:-~~° ,•~E:s~
5 EI in b!:. ~ . ~,X., ~
` ~,ak,,r-.' ..gC''K•s e i., x, x;:r> T~'.'':; vx'~,' wK' ~b..o;.r'.~"~ rVemonla Ys?x: "X3c:i°• kSC.'✓?''
Elkton ,t • r.:X - -Metolws:.
-a ~,,i •,,"•r-.+'ae • u ,?'s„'_, }tigxj-;.x,c;:F .•,t,:-.~*s'' W;Y ~,.1~ • , t;1
5"i'td?r{5'. Mr'-"~..-., ysaq'vw,'..;s': Warrenton r:°•X. ,g:a *'N
E .tacada,1 X ME; r.X,. ,.'MIII,CI _ t ;gv: t
} f ft cG4 x, » a n `7 Y X3 & x # s,S•~fi- 3~ P,, 1, Qt
~ la~Fy m .{y} ,t' ,~yp+~w^',,{y+ *A' 3 ~r° .u< V„ ~`t, +Fi', rr,~A~ s~ e V V . ~•r~y'b'«'
'kr'":' " *f. tikW •e"•e1: "1 s~," x: 1 .'h h,. --;3,a "'a;_, r ?b=^^ F 4•+- ~ Y ~ z%v.mV, V WOL Lln I Y7
Eugene`'ac n . t4- 3X"v . ,,y 4 { ro Mllwaukle+x. ~v X Y~ <-'rt"S s; ask ~.ar'~ ' u
i~t.~~x~ r'a x ea~i~'t E;rYnsz,•, ,"~•Zrµ } r z f"1N tfi.r' It
~
c^ysia;r .:Y•~$ x,,:~-„ dT';ffl •Y~'m "~".t' F~
on-mouth X` X-'~,=,
~ ~~,~.;=x , .~,>w • ~ ^ „ate-- ~ Wheeler , . XY.
MOfOx rr az°~ Vic
ezri a N.'eZ,,`•.,.,;,~
'":4SG;'FSSa`t:$4".rd"' w;E:c+•1.. y-z°-fi. G, pp~~ ng_zz<,~a Ka;t~ '?.s,-k:r.,~"kt °,.I;t,!,?z <,F : t,~,'WIISOr1V1~1y~•• 4.' •?X~<''y~y5:'x.,
q.. i,., ,yd~LV, r', ~4''f.. z r.".i ::'9• '`.y~` y.' ,*'t~., . t!.;-xjir n rr'~,'m4• ih? re','' ;:d.
r
Forest2Grove
X
"A'S 1 *3,:'•'f.FX}Yd ti #a:,a.: 4.•;.'''7
' ~,'•a•, r'" a,v > .bdi:
'al, r,rrw-•^`pfi>y,l+~is.. ; ,..gg,~^+.:: •M• .z .,°fx. !~a4- :,k r<~.wzrMosler n~~v. ,,,~..i'~,ir 1VoOCd,"rV111 ar:'t.'>: s- 4 ;:a~ "r7p'~,'•:<- >~~k„ ~k
. a t<yr:; ,s , rs. agP~.~~
Garibaldid4 MORN ` oodbum`Y{• W
sc ~gy rv `Fr.,y~~n`nonrt k
~,•s~ .XSx .E r~=Eix`1E7~~• ~:..w'~ `.~','~'a'~i~.r.: ~s~ii. •~+r~7-5fa,tire"~~s?•F`~r'fii~ek~'~~*'~~~.:;?$f'~~^.~".~r~"~" r '~3`" k a,n
• 2005 PROGRAM 801h • CONFERENCE.