Washington County - Urban Planning Area Agreement - Correspondence (1992) MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
TO: Ed
FROM: Duane
DATE: March 31, 1992
SUBJECT: Research Topics
Some time ago, you, John, and I participated in a meeting on ways
to expand the City's influence outside the City limits . I was
assigned the task of collecting information on a number of the
approaches and related items that were discussed during the
meeting. Since no follow-up meeting has been scheduled since the
initial meeting, I am turning over the notes and printed material
that I collected relative to this "influence" meeting.
NOTES ON "INFLUENCE" RESEARCH
1. USA agreement:
Letter sent to City Attorney's office asking for interpretation of
notice clause. A copy of Tim Ramis ' response was given to you.
Relevant to this, according to Mike McKillop, the Tualatin
engineering official, up to now USA has not honored notice
provision of agreement. Five houses along an existing USA line
within the Tualatin interest area have been hooked up in the past
without USA providing notice to the city. No subdivisions have
been serviced, however.
2 . Map of U.S.A. lines within our planning interest area:
Over a several week period, I requested a copy of such a map
without success at least three different times from USA staff . The
last person I talked to was Patti Magee, their cartographer. A
copy of a 1985 map of the area from a USA report is attached. Greg
Berry has reviewed the map and speculates that little change has
occurred since it was compiled.
3 . Comparison of sewer rates inside and within agreement area
outside City:
Per Marge Foss of USA, owners inside and outside pay identical
rates . The revenue split for rate payers inside is as follows:
Sewer, $14 . 32 Surface Water, $3 . 00 Sewer Bond, $4. 18
30% City share 66% City 0% City
70% USA share 33% USA 100% USA
In the case of rate payers located outside the City, the entire
amount goes to USA.
4 . Tualatin's agreement with USA:
Despite approaches to both, I was unable to obtain a copy of this
document from either Tualatin or USA. However, USA did assured me
that the two agreements are identical, word for word. After
receiving this assurance, I did not further pursue procuring a
copy.
5 . County Assessment and Tax Roll Summary:
The only assessment or tax that does not appear in this document
are LID's . LID's are not shown because the boundaries of LIDs do
not replicated the boundaries of tax code areas . The person who
handles the lien docket indicates that she is aware of some road
and sewer LID's within the interest area. Likewise, it should be
noted that there are LID's within the City, which, as indicated,
also are not listed in the tax summary document.
6 . Street width standards:
Per Rick Root, Beaverton transportation planner, the city is
contemplating adoption of narrower residential standards . A
subcommittee is being formed to investigate.
Per Terry Bray, City of Portland Transportation Engineer, Portland
has adopted narrower standards in certain residential zones . These
are not optional; they are the standard. The street cannot be
built wider. The main obstacle to the adoption of the new
standards were the objections of fire officials . Bray was
successful in addressing their concerns because Portland has an
inventory of 200 miles of skinny streets that were built under
older standards . A comparative study showed no difference in
property loss between these older and newer, wider streets .
Newberg and Washington County are looking at the adoption of
revised standards . Copy of Portland staff report and ordinance
attached along with a copy of Residential Streets, the most
important resource document on this subject.
7 . Copies of other jurisdiction's recreation and parkland needs
assessments :
Copy of various survey questionnaires attached. A copy of the
Hillsboro questionnaire previously was given to you by John, I
believe. Copies of Portland, Eugene, Lake Oswego, and Tualatin
park master plans also are attached.
cc: John
DR/Influence
lift
�. OTONNELL, RAMIS, CREW Ce CORRIGAN
ATroRNM AT IAW
RA=W&MUGHT BUEMING
1727 N.W.Hon Sam RECEIVED PLANNING
Portland, OMn 97209
TEIZPHONE- =-44=
03)
FAX. (503)5
.. Z43-2944 FEB 14
199
DATE: February 13, 1992
TO: Duane Roberts, Planning Department
City of Tigard
FROM: Timothy V. Ramis, City Attorney
RE: Tigard Urban Planning Area and USA Intergovernmental
Agreements
Within your letter of December 27, 1991, you raised three
questions. The questions are as follows:
1. Does Section 5, A. of the USA Agreement allow the City to
require annexation, non-remonstrance or a contract annexation
agreement of property owners seeking to connect to sewer. If
so, is this requirement inconsistent with the Urban Planning
Area Agreement, Section_ III, B.4.a?
2. Does Section III, B.4.a. of the Urban Planning Area Agreement
conflict with the USA Agreement?
3 . Is the City's policy of requiring annexation of areas within
the interest area as a condition of development approval
proper in light of UPAA Section III, B.4 .a?
RESPONSE TO QUESTION NO. 1:
Section 5, A. of the USA Agreement states that the City and Agency
agree that:
"The Agency will not extend sewer service. -to areas
outside the City except with prior approval of the City
where such areas are included in the Urban Planning Area
Agreement between the City and the appropriate county or
counties. "
In essence, USA has agreed to limit its ability to extend sewer
service into areas "where such areas are included in the Urban
Planning Area Agreement" unless there is prior approval of the
City. The agreement is not clear whether (1) the UPAA already
identifies the area to which the restriction would apply, or (2)
O'DONNELI, RAMIS, CREW b CORRIGAN
Memo re: Tigard Urban Planning Area and USA Intergovernmental
Agreements
February 13, 1992
Page 2
whether either the Active Planning Area or Area of Interest is the
area of concern.
The Active Planning Area is controlled by the City. The City
performs public facility planning for the area and is the provider
of urban services. However, in the past, USA has provided sewer
service in the Active Planning Area without City approval. For
instance, the Avalon Park project was developed without connection
to City services.
In practice, it appears that the Agency has not contacted the City
when extending sewer service. Washington County routinely sends
copies of subdivision applications to the City for review and
comment, but no formal request for approval is sent by USA. I
recommend that the City make USA and County staff aware of the
requirement of Section V, A. and work out an arrangement so that
City approval is documented before the services is provided.
Section V, A. does not state that the City has the authority to
require an annexation non-remonstrance or contract agreement of
owners who wish to connect to sewer under the jurisdiction of USA.
It only says that the City's prior approval must be granted.
Although it is not clear that the USA Agreement is intended to
apply to the Area of Interest, it is logical to conclude that it
does. But the Area of Interest is governed by a contractual
arrangement where Tigard has agreed with Washington County that the
City will not require annexation of lands in the Area of Interest
as a condition to the provision of urban services for development.
There does appear to be an inconsistency between the two
agreements. One could read the USA Agreement to require that the
areas of concern within Section 5, A. be spelled out in an Amended
Urban Planning Area Agreement. There is no evidence that the two
agreements were reconciled in June of 1990, when the USA Agreement
was completed. One could read Section 5, A. to require that the
Urban Planning Area Agreement be renegotiated so that areas are
identified which USA, the City and the County all understand are
those areas which Section 5, A. applies. Otherwise, it is unclear
whether all areas included in the 1988 Urban Planning Area
Agreement are governed by Section 5, A. , or only those areas which
the City has authority to require annexation. If that's the case,
Section 5, A. could be read to apply only to the Active Planning
Area. This would not be seen as a gain by the City. However, to
read otherwise, by inferring that Section 5, A. also applies to the
O'DONNELL, RAMIS, CREW b CORRIGAN
Memo re: Tigard Urban Planning Area and USA Intergovernmental
Agreements
February 13, 1992
Page 3
Area of Interest, could result in a conflict. USA would look for
City approval yet the City's approval cannot be conditioned upon
annexation as the City gave this right up in Section III, B.4.a.
of the UPAA.
In conclusion, there is an inconsistency between the two contracts
and it may be necessary to revise the Urban Planning Area Agreement
to specifically identify those areas to which Section 5, A.
applies. Without modifying the Urban Planning Area Agreement, the
County can enforce its contract which states that the City cannot
require annexation in the Area of Interest as a condition of
receiving urban services. Therefore, Section 5, A. does not give
the City the authority to require annexation, non-remonstrance or
contract agreements.
RESPONSE TO QUESTION NO. 2 :
Does Section III, B.4.a. conflict with the USA Agreement? Not
necessarily. The City has agreed to restrict its ability to
require annexation under III, B.4 .a. Section 5, A. of the USA
Agreement can be read to allow the City to broaden its authority,
however, only through a revised Urban Planning Area Agreement.
RESPONSE TO QUESTION NO. 3 :
The City, through acceptance of the Urban Planning Area Agreement
in 1988, has agreed to not require annexation within the Area of
Interest. It is not, however, restricted from requiring annexation
within the Active Planning Area. Again, whether the language of
Section 5 A. of the USA Agreement has expanded the City' s authority
must be clarified. There is no evidence in the two agreements that
Washington County has agreed to eliminate the restrictions imposed
by III, B.4.a. of the UPAA. Although we recognize that the
governing bodies of Washington County and USA are one and the same,
the USA Agreement does not supersede the County Agreement.
To resolve the issues raised within the preceding three questions,
the City and County, preferably along with a representative of USA,
should negotiate a revised Urban Planning Area Agreement. Within
O'DONNELL, RAMIS, CREW b CORRIGAN
Memo re: Tigard Urban Planning Area and USA Intergovernmental
Agreements
February 13, 1992
Page 4
that agreement, an exhibit should be identified which delineates
which areas outside the City limits are governed by Section 5, A.
of the USA Agreement.
Please call if you have any questions regarding this
interpretaticn.
Original Memorandum to: Duane Roberts, Planning Department
Copy to: City of Tigard/Community Development File
TVR:DD
2/13/92