Loading...
City Council Minutes - 10/07/2003 COUNCIL MINUTES SPECIAL JOINT TIGARD CITY COUNCIL AND WASHINGTON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MEETING October 7, 2003 1 . SPECIAL MEETING 1 .1 Council President Dirksen called the meeting to order at 6:1 1 p.m. 1.2 Roll Call: Tigard City Council: Council President Dirksen, Councilors Moore, Sherwood and Wilson Washington County Board of Commissioners: Chair Tom Brian, Commissioners, Duyck, Rogers and Schouten 1.3 Pledge of Allegiance 2. DISCUSSION ON POTENTIAL ANNEXATION OF THE BULL MOUNTAIN AREA TO THE CITY OF TIGARD: The joint meeting provided an opportunity for the Council and County Commissioners to review the draft annexation plan and communication plan for potential annexation of the Bull Mountain area to the City of Tigard. City Manager Monahan introduced the items for discussion at this meting and reviewed the annexation plan draft. A copy of the PowerPoint slide presentation referred to by Mr. Monahan during his report is attached. Community Development Director Hendryx then displayed aerial photographs from 1986, 1999, and 2002 illustrating urban development growth in both the Bull Mountain area and the area within the City of Tigard. Mr. Hendryx distributed a draft "Completing Our Community" brochure, which gave background information, a map, current status of the Bull Mountain area, description of the annexation plan, and a "Q 8T A" section. The plans for communication to the citizens were reviewed, including a number of coffee talks and three community meetings (November 19, about January 21- exact date to be determined, and February 18). Washington County Senior Deputy Administrator Ellen Cooper advised that the County Board conducted a first reading on Ordinance 612 to adopt parks systems Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes - October 7, 2003 Page 1 development charges in the Bull Mountain area. Additional readings of this ordinance are scheduled for October 21 and October 28, 2003. During Mr. Monahan's presentation on the annexation plan, he described three phasing alternatives for annexation of the Bull Mountain areas (north, south, east and west. These alternatives were: • All areas to be annexed at once. • Two phases: north and east, south and west • Four phases County Chair Brian noted he would favor the four-phased annexation approach, which would occur in the years 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007. He said he appreciated the amount of work by the City of Tigard in gathering the information and the planning efforts to date, which lays out the information about the annexation plan. He noted that the public education and involvement component is essential. Commissioner Rogers advised that he lives in the Bull Mountain unincorporated area and said the County is in a neutral position on this issue. He reiterated an earlier recommendation he made at the July 29, 2003, joint Council/Board meeting that community advocates for this annexation effort be sought. He also noted he would prefer a four-phased approach to annexation. He also said it should be made clear as to what the Bull Mountain residents would be receiving for their tax dollars. As an example, he said that potential park areas should be identified. He noted concerns with the "supermajority vote" referring to the fact that there are about 45,000 Tigard residents compared to 7,500 Bull Mountain residents and both areas would be voting on the annexation plan. City Manager Monahan explained that many of the specifics are not available because it was first necessary to prepare the annexation plan framework; the comprehensive planning would then follow. The methods available for voting on an annexation plan would be for both City of Tigard residents and Bull Mountain residents to vote on the annexation or just Bull Mountain residents. Commissioner Rogers asked what specifics could be developed with regard to the transportation system; i.e., plans for a grid system or anticipated improvements? Community Development Director referred to the transportation system plan that was developed and coordinated between Washington County and the City of Tigard. With regard to streets on a neighborhood level, he advised of the application of consistent policies for connectivity and developing a network of streets among several areas. Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes - October 7, 2003 Page 2 Councilor Dirksen advised that the input received at this meeting has been helpful as the City prepares information and anticipates some of the questions that may be asked by the community. Commissioner Schouten referred to past attempts to purchase parcels for land (i.e., Trust for Public Lands) on Bull Mountain for parks, which were not successful. He reflected that this might have been successful if the annexation had been accomplished earlier. He noted that it is not fair to those who are paying for services that are also utilized by others who are not paying; he supported equity. Councilor Moore said he appreciated the comments from the Commissioners noting that the timeframe is now short and there is much work to be done. He said he believed annexation would be good for citizens. He said he hopes citizens will get their questions answered so they will have a comfort level about the annexation plan. Commissioner Rogers suggested that the different standards between the City and County be listed; i.e., home occupation permits, basketball hoops, code enforcement, etc. Chair Brian said it would also be helpful to note those items that will not change: "...what will and can happen and what won't happen..." Council President Dirksen asked if there was agreement about what had been presented in the annexation plan. Chair Brian noted he had not had the opportunity to read the plan in detail; however, based on the presentation tonight, this is a "good way to go about the conversation" County Administrator Cameron noted that the County Staff had reviewed the draft annexation plan; a number of issues were amplified in the report with no "fatal flaws" identified. He added that the report represented discussions that have been ongoing for a long time. Commissioner Schouten said he likes four-phased approach and recommended to "...err on the side of public involvement...to give the public time to grow into this..." County Administrator Cameron said that the annexation plan will change; however, the basic fundamentals have been presented. It would be presumptuous to think that all questions and information could be anticipated without additional input. Community Development Director Hendryx advised that the Council would be reviewing the annexation plan again on November 4. At that time, the Council would be asked for their preference in the annexation approach for the four areas identified on Bull Mountain; i.e., all at once, half and half, or the four parcels phased in individually. A public hearing on the plan is scheduled for December 2. Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes - October 7, 2003 Page 3 Councilor Sherwood asked if the Commissioners would be able to attend any of the community programs. Chair Brian suggested that the schedule be sent to the County Administration offices so that these dates could be recorded on the Board member's calendars. Commissioner Schouten indicated he would be available to attend the November 19 community meeting. City Manager Monahan said he did not think another joint City/County meeting was necessary. Chair Brian said that if there should be a need for an additional meeting, the Board would be happy to meet with the Council. 3. ADJOURNMENT: 7:29 p.m. at her ne Wheatle ItyVR, cor er Attest: yor, Ity r Date: artniCalhj ccmL'OOYa731fiC7 Juc Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes - October- 7, 2003 Page 4 The 20-Year Vision: A Joint Endeavor Bull Mountain Annexation Discussion �i Tigard City Council and the Washington County Board of Commissioners For the last 20 years, the City of Tigard and Washington County Oct. 7, 2003 have planned together for the City's annexation of Bull Mountain The 20-Year Vision: A Joint Endeavor 1983 Urban Planning Area Agreement. Includes Bull Mtn. in City planning "area of interest" County develops Bull Mtn. Community Plan, assigns urban densities to area, not urban services 4 y ut 4 f J tn... 1986, wn., 199. Implement the Joint Vision Implement the Joint Vision Since 1983, urban development has 2002 - In TUSA, City agrees to come to Bull Mtn. With additional "endeavor" to annex Bull Mountain; agreements,Tigard has provided some near to mid-term (3 to 5 years) urban services. 1997 -Intergovernmental Agreement.County transfers building services,development The City, with the County's support, applications and engineering. Long-range conducts its due diligence: two planning still under County(1983 plan). annexation studies and a public opinion 2002 -TUSA agreement;confirms Tigard survey of Bull Mtn. as ultimate provider of urban services Implement the Joint Vision The Annexation Plan 2003 - City and County choose the What is an Annexation Plan? annexation plan as most appropriate method for Bull Mtn. It is a blueprint for annexation that clearly quantifies the future: Sept. 9 - City Council passes a When will annexation happen, resolution initiating an annexation How will it occur, plan. What services can residents expect, How much will it cost, Dec. 2 - Public hearing for a Why it's going to happen. potential election on March 9, 2004 The Annexation Plan The Annexation Plan State law ORS195 established why complete an Annexation Plan? annexation plans' It is an effective growth management tool It requires fiscal and territorial coordination ORS195 allows a simple majority between service providers w Emphasizes efficiency in service provision vote based on the plan. Both affected areas - the territory to be Encourages long-term master plans annexed and the annexing city - Clarifies annexation's costs and benefits can vote. Provides basis for a majority vote ® Allows both affected areas to vote The Annexation Plan The Annexation Plan why now? Where would the plan apply? • Step toward completing our community: implements 20-year old vision,and recent Unincorporated Bull Mountain between County-City Tusa agreement Tigard City Limits and the new Urban Urban development without urban levels of Growth Boundary (UGB) areas, about service 1,400 acres. • City lacks authority to manage growth outside • The plan area includes approximately its borders • Each incremental delay reduces available 7,600 residents; Over time, this area funds for parks capital needs could accommodate 10,000 residents • Impending plans for adjacent UGB areas The Annexation Plan �-� "'�^ Where would the plan apply? • There are 4 subareas: North, West, South and East • Boundaries based on similar development patterns, subdivisions, and major roadsEAsr Lk • All data rests upon these boundaries Plan Contents Plan Contents To address the plan criteria, the Bull Mtn. Annexation plans must comply with State plan is based on analytical assumptions: Law ORSi95: A) Growth Pro)'ections ♦ Pre-Requisites - Expected # homes, people, based — Urban Services Agreement on R-7 zoning, Metro growth rate — Fiscal Impact Analysis B) Projected Service Needs ♦ Five Plan Criteria - Based on # homes, people, current standards, area conditions _> Costs and Benefits of Annexation Plan Contents Criteria Analysis ♦ Five Plan Criteria 1. Local standards of urban service 1. Local standards of urban service availability availability 2. Schedule for providing urban services Local standards and service 3. Timing and Sequence of Annexation providers are identified 4. Effect on existing service providers Before annexation, County will need 5. Long-term benefits of the annexation plan to improve roads to pavement quality standard and establish parks SDCs Criteria Analysis Criteria Analysis 2. Schedule for providing urban 3. Timing and Sequence services Tigard can serve the area without a More areas = more efficiency Ti (economy of scale) significant reduction in service to Tigard residents • A phased annexation provides time City will assume all services upon to obtain staff/equipment needs annexation except road/street maintenance (transfer within i yr.) • To maximize funds for capital projects, City will initiate parks planning annexation would occur by 2005 Police can serve entire area with a slight reduction in response time to Priority 3 calls until more staff is hired. Criteria Analysis Criteria Analysis 4. Effects on existing service S. Long-Term Benefits of the providers Annexation Plan • Annexation would not significantly • Annexations will occur regardless - the impact Washington County and its plan offers a comprehensive strategy special districts, or other service • Provides certainty, efficiency, a smooth providers transition, more capital improvement urban • Tigard Water District's loss of accounts unificat onservices, equity, parks, would not cause it to dissolve - it could continue to serve remaining accounts Step toward completing our community Additional Criteria Phasing Alternatives An Annexation Plan must also The Plan analysis shows that three comply with Tigard Comprehensive phasing alternatives comply with Plan Policies: annexation plan and Comprehensive Urbanization Standards: Plan criteria: a) Can this area be served, and All Areas b) Without significantly reducing service levels to existing residents? Two Phases: North and East, south and West Four Phases Phasing Alternatives Phasing Alternatives •i Alternative 1: All Areas at One Time Alternative 2: Two Phases T Economy of Scale 1.North and East, 2. South and West Some conditions for service delivery • Moderate Economy of Scale ■ Some conditions for service delivery Subarea with parkland annexed from beginning Subarea with parkland annexed from beginning Annex by 2005 More time to adjust to new service boundaries Phasing Alternatives Phasing Alternatives Alternative 3: Four Phases Economy #of Time to Low Economy of Scale of Scale Service annex all Conditions areas ■ No conditions for service delivery All AreasO p ° Most time to adjust to new service boundaries 2 Phases O O O Subarea with parkland annexed later Comprehensive Plan update delayed 4 Phases O until 2007 0 ° Subarea Analysis Subarea Analysis East North Least populated area (4/4); requires - Ranks 2/4 in population least services upon annexation ■ Limited growth remains Largest share of future growth due to • City owns parkland in this area large, undeveloped lots; maximize • Makes a connection to UGB site 64 future funds tied to development ■ Contiguous to City boundaries Contiguous to City boundaries • �Nould eliminate Fern St. island Ranked highly in report analysis Ranked second in report Subarea Analysis Subarea Analysis South West Most (1/4) homes and population; requires most services upon • Ranks 3/4 in population annexation ■ Limited growth remains Limited growth remains ~ Makes a connection to UGB sites Makes a connection to UGB site 63 63 and 64 Contiguous to City boundaries only on Not contiguous to City boundaries north side Ranked low in report analysis due to Ranked highest in report location Recommendations A Firm Foundation ♦The Plan recommended a 4- phase annexation 2003-04 •Decision-making bodies also 2003 need to consider other factors gained through public outreach 2001-03 Choice Annexation Plan 1 Mtn. Services Assessment udy Report • Focus on the three alternativesTigard Comprehensive Plan _> Final Policy Choice Agreement 1980sUrban Planning Area County UGB Areas Discussion Points ♦Almost 500 acres, 1,735 projected Phasing Alternatives housing units adjacent to Bull Mtn. 1. Balance economy of scale, public ♦In March, City Council stated that involvement it wanted UGB areas and Bull Mtn. 2. Use Criteria from Plans on separate paths Nov. 4t": Choose Alternative ♦Therefore, areas could annex to Finalize Plan for Hearing through double majority method by Dec. 2nd: Public Hearing annexation petition