Washington County - Urban Planning Area Agreement - Correspondence (1994) OTONNELL RAMIS CREk
CORRIGAN & BACHRACH
JEFF H. BACHRACH 70RNEYS AT LAW CLACKAMAS COUNTY OFFICE
THEODORE W. BAIRD 1727 N.W. Hoyt Street 181 N. Grant, Suite 202
PAMELA J. BEERYCanby, Oregon 97013
Portland, Oregon 97209
MARK L.BUSCH (503) 266-1149
DOMINIC G. COLLETTA** TELEPHONE: (503) 222-4402
CHARLES E. CORRIGAN* FAX: (503) 243-2944
STEPHEN F. CREW
GARY FIRESTONE PLEASE REPLY TO PORTLAND OFFICE VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON OFFICE
G. FRANK HAMMOND* MALCOLM E. JOHNSON
MALCOLM E.JOHNSON* First Independent Place
WILLIAM A. MONAHAN 1220 Main Street, Suite 510
MARK P.O'DONNELL Vancouver,Washington 98660-2964
TIMOTHY V. RAMIS (206) 699-7287
WILLIAM J. STALNAKER December 29, 1994 FAX: (206) 696-2051
TY K. WYMAN
JAMES M. COLEMAN
ALSO ADMrMD TO PRACTICE IN WASHINGTON SpecW Counsel
••ADMrr ED TO PRACTICE IN CAUFORNIA ONLY
Ms. Loretta S. Skurdahl D E , 1E U
Assistant County Counsel no
Washington County, Oregon BICC 3 0 1994
Office of County Counsel
340 Public Services Building
115 North First Street CI FY OF T IGARD
Hillsboro, OR 97124
Dear Ms. Skurdahl:
I am responding to your September 30, 1994 letter to Tim Ramis
regarding sewer service in unincorporated areas after the Bear
Creek decision. In that letter, you stated that you planned to
advise USA that they should no longer observe Section 5 (A) in the
intergovernmental agreement except to ensure sufficient capacity.
As you are aware, this section of Tigard' s agreement with USA has
been used in the past to allow the City of Tigard to require
annexation as a condition of sewer service outside its boundaries.
After Bear Creek, it is clear that Tigard may no longer require
consent to annexation when USA is the service provider. However,
the City of Tigard interprets the Bear Creek case to apply only to
those areas served exclusively by USA. (For example, the area on
the south side of Bull Mountain in the City of Tigard indicated on
the Master Plan Sewer Map as "served by USA. ")
Under Tigard' s intergovernmental agreement with USA (Resolution 90-
43) , Tigard has retained significant operational authority for its
own sewer system. The agreement makes a distinction between
services provided by the City, and services provided by USA. For
example, Section 3 (A) describes what is referred to collectively
as the "City system. " Sections 4 (A) (3) (b) and 4 (A) (4) allow Tigard
to retain the service charge and connection fee revenue identified
with the City system, and section 4 (A) (5) allows Tigard to charge
higher rates within "the local City system. "
O'DONN�ELL RAMIS CREW
CORRIGAN & BACHRACH
Ms. Loretta S. Skurdahl
December 29, 1994
Page 2
The Bear Creek case does not affect the practice of a city
requiring consent to annexation when the city is the provider of
the service. Under Resolution 90-43 , Tigard is the provider of
the "city system" as defined in section 3 (A) . Based on this
distinction between systems in Tigard' s intergovernmental agreement
with USA, it is our opinion that Tigard may continue to require
actual annexation or consent to annexation prior to connection to
the "city system. "
The City of Tigard intends to observe the distinctions made in the
intergovernmental agreement between those areas served by Tigard
and those served by USA, and to proceed as outlined in this letter.
Please call or write if you have any questions or comments.
sincerely,
Ted W. Baird
TWB/jh
cc: Greg Berry, Engineering, City of Tigard
John:
1. See attached. It's the words "where such areas are included in the Urban Area
Planning Agreement...".
I have always thought that that meant that USA would not extend sewers without our
permission only in those areas specifically noted in the UPAA, and that was essentially the
active area. That's why we got notice of, say, the Avalon Apts, but did receive notice of the
development on Scholls Ferry.
That's also why we have always talked about extending the active area further out...because
that would kick in the USA requirement to get our permission, which would come with an
annexation agreement.
I am not sure the USA agreement could be read to mean that USA notice us for any
activity within our entire area of interest, and ask for our approval. However, if USA is
willing to do that, let's do it!
2. your schedule sounds fine, other than I would like you to set up a meeting with the
appropriate county staff before we go to the Planning Commission.
3. I am still looking for a memo on "what to do" under the current rules.
For instance, if someone in the island wants to connect to city sewer, who connects them,
who sets up the account and bills, now that we are taking non-remonstrances?
Or someone on 135th in the Fern Street area. Or someone on NE Bull Mountain?
7"5
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
TO: Ed
FROM: John
DATE: January 12, 1994
SUBJECT: sewer again
1. What I paraphrased in my memo was section 5 A. on page nine of the
City/USA agreement dated June 25, 1990. You say in #1 of your memo that
there is another reference in the USA agreement to the UPAA regarding
sewer extension. I can't find it. Could you please be more specific.
2. By agreement with Unified Sewerage Agency, USA cannot extend sewer within
our UPAA area without City approval.. By agreement with Washington County
Tigard cannot require annexation as a condition of provision of urban
service within the Area of Interest.
•r.T"hat I suggested, and still recommend, is that: 41) We set up a system for
USA to notify us and request our approval prior to extending sewer service
'01within our entire UPAA area; and #2) We fulfill our agreement with
` \ Washington County by not requiring annexation within the Area of Interest.
The notification system is needed for our Active Planning Area - remember
the apartments south of Albertsons. Plus we will have the notification
system set up and will have a better handle on what is going on throughout
the entire UPAA. The fact that we cannot require annexation in the Area
of Interest does not negate USA's responsibility to get our approval. Of
course we can begin working with the county to amend the UPAA so that we
can require annexation.
I'll have the memo to USA for you next week (1/21) . Let me know if you change
Your mind and want to address the notification issue by Monday 1/17, otherwise
I'll let it go for now.
Amendment of the UPAA requires that the city prepare:
• a redline copy of the UPAA with proposed changes
• a statement of findings that indicate why the proposed amendments are
necessary
• Formal request to amend the UPAA from our City Council to the Washington
County Board of Commissioners
• A map indicating the proposed changes (if the City decides to propose a
boundary change)
I just talked with Carol Monday about putting together an outline for amending
the UPAA which I am attaching (Carol will see this at the same time as you) . I
will have the packet put together and distributed for staff review by February
18, 1994. I will set up a planning commission hearing soon after and will let
you know as soon as it is set.
c: Carol Landsman
-,`
UPAA Amendment Outline
I . Prepare UPAA amendment packet
• I write proposed changes (2/18/94)
• Staff review proposed. changes
• I amend proposed changes & put together packet
including (2/24) :
• Redline UPAA
• Statement of findings indicating why the
d proposed amendment is necessary
Formal reques= for amendment from CC to County
board
i U A map indicating the proposed changes (if
necessary)
II. Planning Commission Reviev;
• PC holds public meeting to consider UPAA changes
(3/7 ??)
• PC recommends for ar against adoption, or modifies,
proposed UPAA revisicns
III . City Council Review
. CC holds a public meeting to consider UPAA changes
(3/21 ??)
• CC authorizes staff to initiate the proposed
amendment by sending the formal request to the
County Board of Commissioners .
• Packet is sent to the county (3/25 ??)
IV. County Review
• within 45 days of receipt of the request, the
appropriate body will review
• If we can't agree, there will be a joint study to
commence within 90 days of determination of
disagreement
• County to give 'careful consideration" to the study
prior to final determination
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
TO: John
FROM: Ed
DATE: January 11, 1994
SUBJECT: memo on sewer
1. you did not quote the entire USA rule. There's a part that refers to the UPAA
agreement.
2. as you say, the UPAA agreement specifically prohibits annexation as a condition of
getting USA sewer in our area of interest. We have been requiring it in our active area.
3. I don't see how we can set up the system you mention in #3 without addressing #4.
4. Addressing #4 is one of the changes we want to make to the UPAA. You are the
lead on initiating these changes.
Would you write up a memo of understanding for my signature stating the current policy
#'s 1 and 2 that can go to USA as well as circulate internally to planning, building,
engineering and finance; and
draft the amendments to the UPAA as per #4, along with other amendments, for my review
by the end of January. Then we can take it to the Planning Commission.
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
TO: Ed Murphy
FROM: John Acker
DATE: January 11, 1994
SUBJECT: Sewers
This is the situation.
JURISDICTION
City is responsible for:
• Construction, Operation & Maintenance
• Erosion Control Permits
• Inspection of Connections
• Billing, Collection, Accounting & Recording
• Connection & Inspection Fees & Monthly Service Charges
for non-industrial sanitary sewer lines of less than 24 inch
diameter within the corporate limits .
USA is responsible for:
• All industrial connections
• All lines 24 inch and greater
• Everything outside of city boundaries
FEES
For SF Residential :
Connection Fee is $2 , 200 - City or County
In the City 20% goes to the City ($440)
80% goes to USA ($1, 760)
In the County 100% goes to USA
Monthly Fee is $20 . 50
In the City $4 .50 goes to the City (billing and maintenance)
$16 . 00 goes to USA (treatment and maintenance)
In the County $20 . 50 goes to USA
As you can see, there is not much money at stake here. The real
issue is to make sure that USA follows through with its IGA
commitment which states :
USA will not extend sewer service to areas outside the
City but within the UPAA boundary except with prior
approval of the City.
Another issue for USA concerns erosion control permits for new
construction. USA requires a separate permit for erosion control
when a sewer connection permit is issued. Erosion control is
included in our building permit so we issue no extra permit for
erosion.
The problem comes when we issue a sewer permit, but the County
issues the building permit - USA has no way to get their money for
erosion control .
Again, no problem if everyone follows the rules . USA needs to
notify and give us the right of approval as it states in the
agreement . As long as that happens, it is much easier and straight
forward if they take care of all in the county and we take care of
the City.
RECOMMENDATION
1 . We issue sewer connection permits only for those areas within
the City.
2 . USA issues sewer connection permits for all areas outside the
City.
3 . We set up a system where USA notifies Tigard' s Director of
Community Development prior to any sewer connection within our
UPAA boundary. USA will not issue a permit without Tigard' s
approval .
4 . We reconcile the apparent inconsistency between the USA
agreement and the UPAA. The UPAA specifically prohibits
requiring annexation as a condition of urban service provision
within the area of interest . In other words, it reads that we
can withhold our approval of a USA sewer connection according
to the USA agreement but we cannot require that a property
annex according to the UPAA.
ja/annex.swr
January 11, 1994