City Council Packet - 10/20/1998
•1' r~t
~ ;..,,~''r (j s µ ti, r^ ~ k ; rr ~rl i r irtY ~rti 7 ~ Csl !r ~ff.tt ~A'~,}f~r'~1'" ~^y~il 7,}µo 1~ ~I`•'I~V Itl~t`,} j' i..
1 V ~ r 1 ~ S : r'Sl .i, ~;y tti• xJ ~t1 Ai "~'4 f t' vd a~
i' 1 t'., ~ Y t:r ' ~ t 1} d~ ".1 r1 G!•~ta`F" ~Mi 'tc rjraA yti $1 i ~"A 4~ ~1i:1
t t ?•t t. rti 1~ •irs }N1" 4 Il. t:j "'Sir^y,~n.. tr, t 1(xtlk Ilk 1 ; ` ) '.1 rt ~ yr!{ r K >f tY f ~ f ~~t}r~,+`, p'r'}t n. tl l r r?~i~'314
~`',t t J r. ~ ftr f, t 1+'s 7rJ ! !lY y~t pp`y yn tr3. ~la;:. {vl)S~" ~ff r 1 7.
r ~ th•1h~.~ x t A'3 ~ 1 t'~~!lS my " rr ~ xq} ' 1~;j1,
r (r. }li(, 1 i t 1' ~ ~ s 11 !r rrrv 1,~ +'v 1 ail ~ ~ it 1 S " t
S stf 'c ~ Y. 3 `f kY} ,7v li ! ] tit t 'yJ'c ! '9t{P 2 t ~ ~r~ 2~1 rYl{ J
( r+r!, { P k°a rr `F r 1~ o *F 4' t l k'l r 'i'';4r ~J l i
s 11 i 1 1 c f r 1 r ty
! ,.r i t rt YZJ r ;furl { ' ~ jr~'rt 4vYi Irrr.
'~.Y r. y,. ty} ''!(+v tttt ° ~.r., i ! ,Y ks~ t, L Zt t.,;1:
r t-7' Sl t, s y(t ,rts r t f:, t 'ft{> i rr ,~R
i. ~ 1 '1, r t, . r J ~t K t :t le r f t 4 5 x rv 1 it}
1 ) r tk :
r.
r fit.
f r r J.s vY
. t y I r t c C.
t ` t x t 1t. "
rt s
TIGARD =CITY C®IL' r , 1
i
- r 1 4.( ( R Y v 1A s w
r r r t ; ~ ~ i' ritt +y , tf,
Y
f
VlPORKSHOP 'i IN'
"t: + Y
Oor i 2 199 , j F ,
R
i + r " r4 n
~.x Y ~ Ilal y Zl+ t
c t
Cr •
COUNCIL MEETING WILL NOT:'$
{
TELEVISE
a r:
1
1 y S 1 w IY 14{~h~
(t Y +iy !i 7 err Y4 y.~
}x t~ r, a X~~~J { r4 1,1~~d
iA3dmyess1cakcpkt2.doc
..4 r S., w 1 r. n u 4 f Ar\a~~9 yy . 5 `y : .!J'
R S Yr Y~ a 4r 'K°}1 q) ti}y ((~Gll~7,?1FJ _'7)!
a l t x l 4r i t 7 1 Y t Y ~ag.~'~(
t t`~ ?e) Y} + it } ~i ~ d Jig ^j ~u ~t S7~y~`SCi!Mr ~ ~ >1 t fr jr,. f1t .7N~tr 4?4t 7~r Jy j
ti
I'll ~V4
CITY OF TIGARD
'f ~t~9Y y ',fit
1*4
PUBLIC NOTICE:
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 639.4171, Ext.
309 (voice) or 6842772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf).
Upon request, the City will also endeavor to arrange for the following services:
• Qualified sign language interpreters 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 date at the same phone numbers as listed above: 639-4171, x309 (voice) or
684.2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf).
SEE ATTACHED AGENDA
COUNCIL AGENDA - OCTOBER 20,1998 - PAGE 1
AGENDA
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING
OCTOBER 20,1998
6:30 p.m.
1. WORKSHOP MEETING
1.1 Call to Order - City Council & Local Contract Review Board
1.2 Roll Call
1.3 Pledge of Allegiance
1.4 Council Communications
1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items
6:35 p.m.
2. REVIEW OPTIONS FOR DEDICATION AND IMPROVEMENT OF 107TH AVENUE
• Engineering Department
7:05 p.m.
3. PARK AND RECREATION DISTINCT AND ATFALATI UPDATE
• Administration Department
7:35 p.m.
4. REVIEW OF EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR LONG-TERM WATER SOURCE
• Public Works Department
8:05 p.m.
5. PARK ENCROACHMENT ISSUES
i Public Works/Administration Departments
8:35 p.m.
6. REPORT ON 4-WAY STOP AT ROYALTY PARKWAY AND NAEVE STREET
0 Engineering Department
9:00 P.M.
7. SOCIAL SERVICE APPLICATION PROCESS DISCUSSION
0 Administration Department
9:20 p.m.
8. DISCUSSION ON THE BALLOON FESTIVAL
• Administration Department
10:00 P.M.
9. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS
10:10 P.M.
10. NON-AGENDA ITEMS
COUNCIL AGENDA - OCTOBER 20,1998 - PAGE 2
10:30 p.m.
11. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session under the
provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), & (h) to discuss labor relations, real property
transactions, current and pending litigation issues. As you are aware, all discussions within
this session are confidential; therefore nothing from this meeting may be disclosed by those
present. Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend this session, but must not
disclose any information discussed during this session.
10:50 P.M.
12. ADJOURNMENT
1: %D M\CATHY\CCA\981020. D OC
i
COUNCIL. AGENDA - OCTOBER 20,1998 - PAGE 3
COMMUNITY w r~ w~d+ 3
NEWSPAPERS, INC. Legal f
P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 684.0360 Notice TT 9 2 4 4
BEAVERTON, OREGON 97076
Legal Notice Advertising
"City of Tigard • O Tearsheet Notice
13125 SW Hall Blvd.
•Tigard,Oregon 97223 • O Duplicate Affidavit
"Accounts Payable •
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
STATE OF OREGON, )
COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, )ss'
1, Kathy Snyder
being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Advertising.
Director, or his principal clerk, of theTj ia rd-Tt,a 1 ati n Times
a newspaper of general circulation as defined in ORS 193.010
and 193.020; published at Tigard in the
aforesaid county and state; that the
City Council Meetings
a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the
entire issue of said newspaper for n successive and
consecutive in the following issues:
nCtnhPr 15,1998
Subscribed and sworn t be re me thisl 5th day of October, 1998
OFFICIAL SEAL
ROBIN A. BURGESS
Not Public for Oregon NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON
COMMISSION NO. 062071
My Commission Expires: CQMMi6619N EXPIRES MAY 16, 2001
AFFIDAVIT -
ThO following meeting highlights are published for your information. Full
agendas may be obtained from the City Recorder, 13125 SW Hall
Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon 97223, or by calling 639-4171.
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL
AND LOCAL CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD MEETING
October 20,199S 6:30 P.M.
TIGARD CITY HALL - TOWN HALL
13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD, TIGA tD, OREGopi
Reports and updates to Council on the folloopics:
n' a rs
* Review Options for Dedication acid Improvamettt of 1070h Avenm
* Park and Recreation District and Atft*.Updit .
* Review of Evaluation Criteria foII Li 6t-Tsrm Water Source
* Park Encroachment Issues
* Report on 4Way Stop at Royalty Parkway and. Naeve Street
* Social Service Application Process Discussion
* Discussion on the Balloon Festivtd
* Executive Session
T M44 -Publish October 15, 199S.
AGENDA ITEM # a
FOR AGENDA OF October 20, 1998
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE 107th Avenue Improvement Costs
PREPARED BY: A.P. Duenas DEPT HEAD OK 0-/C+-"-CTTY MGR OK
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
Information briefing to City Council on the improvement costs for upgrading 107`h Avenue (between Park
Street and Cook Lane) to City standards.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Presented to Council for discussion and use in determining further action on the offer of dedication by residents
adjacent to 107`h. The acceptance of the dedication offer is a policy matter that is presented to Council for
discussion and direction to staff. Staff is prepared to follow through on whatever decision is rendered by
Council.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
The residents of the private properties on the west side of the existing 107`h Avenue submitted a proposal
offering to dedicate the right-of-way needed along their respective frontages and requesting City Council to
accept the dedication and upgrade, pave, and maintain the existing street consistent with the streets in the
surrounding neighborhood. Upgrading and paving this street would require design and construction of a
drainage system to adequately drain the street and resolve the periodic flooding problem experienced in that
area. This drainage system could readily connect to the newly installed underground drainage system in Park
Street.
Council discussed the offer of dedication during the business meeting on September 22, 1998. At that meeting,
staff was directed to prepare a cost estimate for the improvements required to upgrade the street to City
standards. There was discussion during the meeting about the possibility of the City and the residents sharing in
the cost of the necessary improvements. Attached are two cost estimates, one reflecting an upgraded street with
drainage ditches and the other depicting an upgraded street with an underground drainage system. The upgraded
street with open ditches is estimated at $65,000. The upgraded street with the underground drainage system is
estimated at $90,000. The cost estimates for the improvements are being sent to each of the property owners
requesting the acceptance of dedication. Council's intent (expressed during the meeting on September 22) is to
conduct further discussions during the meeting of October 20`h, and then take formal action on the proposal
during the November 10, 1998 business meeting.
As explained in the meeting of September 22, 1998, dedication of a 25-foot strip along the eastern frontage
provides only half of the right-of-way required for this street. The Engineering staff and the City attorney's
office are looking into the status of the eastern strip. The eastern strip varies in width from almost 25 feet on the
north end adjacent to Park Street to approximately 23 feet adjacent to Cook Lane. A sliver of land from the
existing lots on the east side would also be needed to provide the full 50-foot width. A title search has been
initiated, and the results should be available during the week of October 12, 1998. An update on the status of the
adjacent strip will be provided to Council as soon as it becomes available.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
N/A
VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY
N/A
FISCAL NOTES
There are no funds currently earmarked for a project on this street.
0citywide\sum\ G7cost.doc
Cost Estimate
Upgraded Street with Open Ditches
16.00
12.00 12.00
4.00
4.00
2% MIN. 2% MIN. 2.1 1
o _ fipk 2.
/,3" 1 /2" AC
2" (3/4„^O„)
7" (2"-0")
SW 107th Ave. Typical Section
NTS
Cost Estimate
Upgraded Street with Underground
Drainage System
16.00
12.00
12.00
4.00
4.00
2% MIN.
2%a MIN. .
3" 1 /2" AC
2" (3/4"-0") -
7" (2"_0")
Storm Drain Pipe
it
ical Section
SW 107th Ave. Typ
NTS
COST ESTIMATE
10/1/98
SW 107TH AVENUE
ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE
ITEM BID UNIT TOTAL
NO. DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT PRICE AMOUNT
1 MOBILIZATION L.S. $3,400.00
2 TRAFFIC CONTROL L.S. $2,000.00
3 EROSION CONTROL L.S. $1,000.00
4 CLEARING & GRUBBING L.S. $1,000.00
5 REMOVE TREES 4 EA $250.00 $1,000.00
6 REMOVE SHRUBS 10 EA $100.00 $1,000.00
7 SAWCUTTING 112 L.F. $1.50 $168.00
8 ROADWAY EXCAVATION 432 C.Y. $27.00 $11,664.00
9 DITCH EXCAVATION 207 C.Y. $27.00 $5,589.00
10 AGGREGATE BASE (2"-0") 300 C.Y. $50.00 $15,000.00
11 AGGREGATE BASE (11/2"-0") 70 C.Y. $60.00 $4,200.00
12 ASPHALT CONCRETE PAVEMENT 254 TON $40.00 $10,160.00
13 RELOCATE MAILBOX 4 EA. $100.00 $400.00
14 RELOCATE FENCE 150 L.F. $15.00 $2,250.00
16 ADJUST STRUCTURES 2 EA. $100.00 $200.00
17 TRAFFIC STRIPING 10 L.F. $6.00 $60.00
TOTAL $59,091.00
(+10% CONTINGENCY) $5,909.00
(TOTAL) $65,000.00
1AENG %KlP%107THEST.XLS
• COST ESTIMATE
10/1/98
SW 107TH AVENUE
ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE
ITEM BID UNIT TOTAL
NO. DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT PRICE AMOUNT
1 MOBILIZATION L.S. $4,400.00
2 TRAFFIC CONTROL L.S. $2,500.00
3 EROSION CONTROL L.S. $1,300.00
4 CLEARING & GRUBBING L.S. $1,300.00
5 REMOVE TREES 4 EA $250.00 $1,000.00
6 REMOVE SHRUBS 10 EA $100.00 $1,000.00
7 SAWCUTTING 112 L.F. $1.50 $168.00
8 ROADWAY EXCAVATION 432 C.Y. $27.00 $11,664.00
9 TRENCH EXCAVATION & BACKFILL 207 C.Y. $47.00 $9,729.00
10 AGGREGATE BASE (2"-0") 178 C.Y. $50.00 $8,900.00
11 AGGREGATE BASE (11/2"-0") 70 C.Y. $60.00 $4,200.00
12 ASPHALT CONCRETE PAVEMENT 254 TON $45.00 $11,430.00
13 RELOCATE MAILBOX 5 EA. $100.00 $500.00
14 RELOCATE FENCE 145 L.F. $15.00 $2,175.00
15 MANHOLES 2 EA $1,800.00 $3,600.00
16 CATCH BASIN 4 EA. $2,000.00 $8,000.00
17 TRAFFIC STRIPING 14 L.F. $6.00 $84.00
19 12" PVC 395 LF $25.00 $9,875.00
TOTAL $81,825.00
(+10% CONTINGENCY) $8,175.00
(TOTAL) $90,000.00
11ENOMMIP107EMALS
SW. PARK ST.
STREET 15 350 FEET LONG, 24 FEET WOE
11200 SQUARE FEET
2
1
4' AC SHOULMR
Ac sHOU~>~
N
1
SCALE 1" n 50'
I SW. COOK LANE
COVANC l
107th Avenue Residents Committee h*IeAj
c/o Mr. & Mrs. Peters
13365 SW 107`h Avenue
Tigard, OR 97223 x-
(503) 639-2682
August 9, 1998
City Council
City of Tigard, Oregon
c/o Mr. William A. Monahan
City Administrator
13125 SW Hall Blvd.
Tigard, Oregon 97223
Subject: 107th Avenue Paving Project
Dear Council Members:
In an effort to upgrade the aesthetic and functional value of 107th Avenue, between Park Street
and Cook Street, the community members listed below would like to respectfully submit the
following proposal for consideration.
Proposal:
After talking with Gus Duenas, City Engineer, we wish to have the current SW 107`h Street
between SW Park Street and SW Cook Street dedicated to the City of Tigard.
Our expectation in having the street dedicated, with the appropriate 50' right of way (25'
each direction from the center of the current street) would be to upgrade, pave and maintain
the street to the existing neighborhood streets. At a later date, if the City decided to add bike
paths or sidewalks, the appropriate footage would be there to accommodate.
Advantases to the City of Tigard & the Community:
❑ 107th Avenue was slated to be paved by the City this fiscal year (until further
investigation revealed that the City did not own the road) - therefore, the City had already
deemed this a worthy project
❑ Adjacent homeowners will be donating the land to the City for this project
❑ Paving the road would improve the aesthetic value of the community while also
mitigating unwanted dust and gravel strewn into windows, yards and ditches
❑ The safety of the members of the community would be increased by eliminating an
unstable, potentially hazardous "gravel playground" used by road-racing youth
❑ Pavement and the appropriate drainage system would greatly augment the value of the
recently completed "Park Street Drainage System" project
City Council
City of Tigard
August 9, 1998
Page 2
❑ Storm drains and the appropriate road contour would mitigate neighborhood water
problems, as local homeowners have suffered from flooding for over 30 years
By signature below, the residents adjacent to 107th Avenue in Tigard are hereby requesting that
the proposal discussed above be presented for consideration at the next City Council meeting
slated for September of 1998.
Thanking you in advance for the Council's consideration of this proposal.
Respectfully,
Rose C. August Mr. & Mrs. Peters •
13285 SW 107'h Avenue 13365 SW 107'h Avenue
resident & taxpayer for 31 years resident for 7 months & taxpayer for 25 years
Mr. & Mrs. Kraft Mr. & Mrs. Hughes
13335 SW 107th Avenue 10695 SW Cook Lane
resident & taxpayer for 18 years resi aver 6 years
Mr. & Mrs. Rosenquist Mr. Tabert
10690 SW Park Street 13395 SW 107th Avenue
resident & taxpayer for years resi t taxpayer for 5 years
w
~L ~
~ GCIiJ
AGENDA ITEM #
FOR AGENDA OF 10/20/98
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Park & Recreation Update & Atfalati
PREPARED BY Mills & L. Newton DEPT HEAD OK Jam- CITY MGR OK
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
Determine how the City should proceed in addressing the Tigard Beyond Tomorrow goal "Create a special
parks and recreation district with the City of Tigard spear-heading the process and maintaining membership for
its citizens".
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
None.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
As a part of the Urban Services Target Area in the City's Tigard Beyond Tomorrow visioning process, the
Tigard citizens suggested the City `Create a special parks and recreation district with the Ci, of Tigard spear-
heading the process and maintaining membership for its citizens". Attached is a memo from Loreen Mills &
Liz Newton noting the citizens' direction for action for park & rec. review. An update of activities to date are
listed below:
a) Develop a short term pilot recreation program for school age children: City staff (Loreen Mills and Jeff
Munro) have been working with K&C (a non-profit recreation program provider) and the Tigard-Tualatin
School District to provide recreation activities for school age children as well as limited adult activities. The
programs were run during Spring Break (39 children), Summer (125 children & adults); and Fall of this year
(early enrollment count is 38). Special before & after school activities are also provided for middle school
kids in Tigard. Since there is growing interest in the recreation program and it takes 3-5 years to build a
strong program, City staff is drafting a proposed memorandum of understanding between the City, K&C and
the School District to participate together in promoting recreation activities until a more formal park &
recreation solution is found for Tigard residents. This document will be coming back to Council for review
by the end of the year. It should be noted that this program is considered to be an interim alternative until
the Parks and Recreation District question is resolved.
b) Create a task force regarding development of a park and recreation district. Bill Monahan and Ed Wegner
are meeting with the Atfalati group on Wednesday, October 14th. That group has been gathering
information on how a recreation district could be formed. It has looked at the Oregon Revised Statutes,
boundaries, options, process to establish a district, taxation issues, etc. The group would like to discuss its
preliminary findings with Council and determine if there is Council approval to create one or gather more
alternative options. See Wayne Lowry's memo (attached) which addresses property tax questions that the
Atfalati recreation district effort has raised. After that meeting, material will be prepared for this packet and
distributed with the "Council Mail" on Friday, 10/16/98.
The Parks & Recreation Program concerns are also addressed in the Schools & Education Target Area in the
City's Tigard Beyond Tomorrow visioning process. The Tigard citizens suggested "Schools and City
government will work together to provide a community-based recreation activity program for young people".
The Atfalati group has been investigating a tax-supported funding source to provide after-school sports and
activity programs. See the attached memo entitled "Tigard Beyond Tomorrow Update" to see the action
citizens' directed for park & rec. review. You will see many similarities between this and the issues under the
Urban Services Target Area.
As a reminder, any agreement or District formation for Park and Recreation purposes does fall under the
requirements of S13122, the Urban Services Bill, which was passed by the Oregon Legislature in 1993. This
legislation requires units of local government and special districts, where they exist and provide service within
local government boundaries, to develop two kinds of agreements:
1. cooperative agreements that specify how the city and county will involve a special district in comprehensive
planning and what the district's responsibilities will be, as well as the roles and responsibilities of districts
with regard to the City's or County's approval of new development; and
2. urban service agreements that identify who, where and how providers of an "urban service" within an urban
growth boundary will provide those services in the future.
In SB 122, urban services include parks, open space, and recreation.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
1. Consider inviting other communities to work with Tigard to provide recreation programs. Initial discussions
have indicated that both the cities of Tualatin and Sherwood are not interested at this time in joining the City
of Tigard in formation of a Park & Recreation District.
2. Contact with Tualatin Hills Park & Recreation District (THP&RD) to provide service to Tigard residents.
THP&RD has indicated they are not interested in providing this service for the City of Tigard at this time.
3. Incorporate Tigard's boundaries into THP&RD.
VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY
Urban Services target area - see attached memo from Loreen Mills & Liz Newton.
FISCAL NOTES
The expanding pilot recreation program (noted in a. above) is requiring some City staff time and limited use of
some City facilities (i.e., meeting room, parks) at this time.
The creation of a Task Force or development of a Park & Recreation District is currently requiring some staff
time.
I:\CITYW ID EWIS ION\10-20SUM.DOC
MEMORANDUM
TO: Bill Monahan, City Manager /
~ V
FROM: Loreen Mills & Liz Newton ~
RE: Tigard Beyond Tomorrow Update
DATE: October 9, 1998
Since Council has a meeting scheduled with the Atfalati group in October, this is offered as an
update on the direction given by Tigard citizens for Park & Rec. District review as part of the
Urban Services Target Area in the City's Tigard Beyond Tomorrow vision process..
GOAL: Create a special parks and recreation district with the City of Tigard spear-
heading the process and maintaining membership for its citizens
1. Develop a short term pilot recreation program for school age children.
Educate partners/citizens about pilot program
Gather volunteers and staffing for pilot program
Create athletic and non-athletic recreational programs
Develop training for staff and volunteers
Cooperate with existing leagues and groups
Address latch key issues
Maximize use of existing facilities
Address short term funding options, grants, fees, hardship grants
Implement program
Debrief to determine success of program and whether to continue
This was accomplished by the City, Tigard/Tualatin School District, and Kids & Company
90197 through 3198. The program was so successful, that these partners continue to work
together to offer year-round programming. This program is considered an interim
alternative until the Parks and Recreation District question is resolved.
2. Create a task force regarding development of a park and recreation district.
Appoint task force
Educate partners/citizens re: community recreation needs & avail facilities
Develop interest and representation for non-athletic recreational needs
Assess community needs and resources
Develop community-wide partnership
Develop and utilize existing school/park facilities and properties
Create a partnership to maintain existing facilities
Address funding issues - bond/levy, prop taxes, private support, grants, fees
Coop with existing leagues and groups
Include Senior Center & Seniors as an essential part of the District's programs
Staff has been meeting with the Atfalati group.
The Schools & Education portion of the Tigard Beyond Tomorrow report also identified
recreation program concerns. Listed below are those issues.
GOAL: Schools and City government will work together to provide a community-based
recreation activity program for young people
1. Identify community resources for supporting/ providing recreation and activity
programs for young people
Explore the possibility of local business sponsorship of clubs, athletic and recreational activities at all
school levels
Increase volunteer participation in leading club, athletic and recreation programs in middle schools,
high schools and elementary schools
Tie existing youth athletic programs more directly to schools with support of new Business
partnerships
Recruit senior citizens and other community volunteers to coordinate and teach hobby, activity and
recreation classes
2. Investigate a tax supported funding source to provide after-school sports and activity
programs for students
Investigate the funding relationship between schools and cities in other local park and recreation
districts
Explore the city/school funding agreements formed in Lake Oswego and Ashland to fund student
athletics and activities
Create a Citizens Task Force to make a recommendation about forming a park and recreation district
or establishing a City levy to fund student activities
Establish a true Community Schools Program (offering after-school education, interest classes for
adults as well as young people) through the Park and Recreation District
Create an intergovernmental agreement between the Tigard-Tualatin School District and the cities of
Tigard and Tualatin to develop/reconstruct school properties used for recreation
i1citywide/atfalati. doc
( I
MEMORANDUM
TO: Bill Monahan, City Manager '
FROM: Wayne Lowry, Director of Finance
RE: ATFALATI property tax questions
DATE: September 25, 1998
You related two property tax questions to me that came up at the August 25, 1998 City
Council meeting during the discussion of the ATFALATI recreation district effort. The
questions were:
1. If a new district is formed by the voters, can it get a permanent tax rate under the °
new rules of measure 50?
2. How much capacity is there between the consolidated tax rate in Tigard and the
measure 5 compression rate of $10 per thousand?
I have researched both questions and offer the following answers.
1. Measure 50 set a permanent tax rate for each jurisdiction that had taxing authority.
The measure provided the ability for newly created districts or those districts that did
not have taxing authority to go to the voters for a permanent rate. Therefore, the
ATFALATI district can get a permanent tax rate if it is approved by the voters. Some
research will have to be done to determine if the permanent rate can be on the
same ballot as formation of the district or if a separate ballot is required.
2. Tigard area consolidated property tax rates have historically been low compared to
the measure 5 $10 cap. According to the 1997/98 Washington County summary of
assessment and tax roll, the consolidated rate in most of Tigard is $6.45. This
leaves substantial room under the measure 5 cap for additional levies should they
be approved by the voters.
I hope this information answers the Council questions. If you need more information,
please let me know.
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: William A. Monahan, City ManagerC4~
DATE: October 16, 1998
SUBJECT: Council Agenda Materials for October 20, 1998
Agenda Item No. 3 is the Park and Recreation and Atfalati updates. Within the Agenda
Item Summary, Section B, reference is made to a meeting that Ed Wegner and I had
with Mayor Nicoli and Dave Nicoli of Atfalati on October 14, 1998. Dave Nicoli has
provided us with additional material which will help Council to prepare for the
discussion on Tuesday evening. That material is attached to this memo.
WAM\jh
attachment
\\TIG333\US R\DEPTS\ADM\B ILL\101698-2. DOC. RTF
ATFALATI RECREATIONAL. DISTRICT
Friday, October 16,1998
Bill Monahan
City Manager
13125 SW Hall Blvd.
Tigard Oregon 97223
Dear Bill Monahan:
Subject: Parks and Recreation District Presentation
I am enclosing the outline and materials for our presentation to the council on
October 20, 1998. We may have a few more handouts and will bring ample copies.
Thanks for this opportunity and I look forward to meeting with you and the council.
Sincerely,
zid P. Nicoli
President
Atfalati Recreational District
Enclosures (6)
DPN
19600 SW CIPOLE ROAD TUALATIN, OR 97062 503 612-8200
AN
ATFALATI RECREATIONAL DISTRICT
Outline
Presentation to the Tigard City Council
October 20, 1998
Atfalati Recreation District Committee
1. Purpose of Presentation
1. Introduce ARD and Committee
2. Review with council need and support for improved Park and Recreation Facilities in
Tigard area.
3. Obtain support and commitment to form a task force to further study options to form
a district.
4. Appoint members to the task force from City, ARD, TTSD, County, Tigard residents in
Beaverton School District AREA, Community and other interested parties.
5. Obtain commitment of funding to assist with consultant work to develop economic
feasibility study and provide other assistance to support task force.
II. Need for Park and Recreational bistrict
1. Review studies that have been done to date:
A. Tigard Park, Recreation Facility and Open Needs Assessment, 1998.
B. TTSD Facility and Fields Advisory Council Annual Report
C. Tigard Beyond Tomorrow! ( Annual Report, January 1998) and from Tigard City
Council Goals (1998)
D. From the 1197 5B 122 process (Washington County Study by Cogan Owens Cogan)
2. To create a larger boundary that reflects the actual use by the residents of the City,
Urban growth area, and the surrounding communities.
3. To generate funds to maintain our current facilities, build new facilities as required,
and generate programs, as the public requires.
III. The Basics of the Parks and Recreational District Concept
1. Different types of formation
2. Boundaries
A. Tigard Area
B. Include other Cities?
3. Taxes
4. Budget
VI. The Timeline for district formation to meet November, 2000 election
IV. Task Force Scope and Budget
V. Conclusion
Page One
19600 SW CIPOLE ROAD = TUALATIN, OR 97062 = 503 612-8200
Property Tax Revenue Capacity for a Tigard Area Park and Recreation District
Typical Tax Rates for Tigard Service Area
(per $1,000 of assessed value)
0 Pemaining Capacity
$3.55 E Metro
$10 $0.10
$8 OCity of Tigard
51
$6 _ x.07 a Port of Portland
$1.53
$4 t7Tualatin Valley Fire and
Rescue
2
. 0 Washington County
$0
Typical Tax Rates for BeavertonrrHPRD Area
(per $1,000 of assessed value)
O Remaining capacity
$10 IiTualatln Hills Parks
0.10
$8 O Metro
$6 $0•07 O City of Beaverton
$1.53
$4 O Port of Portland
. ....r
e ' 724
$2 flTtslatin Valley Fire and
Rescue
$0 0 Washington County
Total Potential Tax Revenues and Comparisons to
Tualatin Hills Parks and Recreation District
Total Assessment Value for Tigard Urban Service Area $3,482,680,671
City of Tigard assessed value (77.9% of service area) $2,711,669,298
Remaining tax assessment capacity (based on $3.55 rate) $12,358,292
Potential assessment revenues assuming tax rate same as $4,560,570
for Tualatin Hills Parks and Recreation District ($1.3095/1,000)
Potential revenues assuming $60/year payment, average $1,393,072
home price of $150,000 and assessment rate of $0.40/1,000
Potential revenues assuming $961year payment, average $2,228,916
home price of $150,000 and assessment rate of $0.64/1,000
Potential revenues assuming $114/year payment, average $2,646,837
home price of $150,000 and assessment rate of $0.76/1,000
Tualatin Hills PRD Annual Property Tax Revenues $12,995,701
Tualatin Hills PRD Annual Operating Budget $22,587,382
Tualatin Hills PRD Area Assessed Value' $9,924,170,294
Tualatin Hills PRD Total Population Served 190,000
Estimate based on tax rate and total property tax revenues COGAN
OWENS
COGAN
2
Comparison of
Selected Park and Recreation Districts
in Qregon
systems
permanent ment Charge
How elected tax Rate Develop le unit
# Bd. p 351$1,000 $950 per sing 11Y unit
POP. Services offered mem3 ers County service district $ $650 per Mu►b'fam county
District arks, (elected
90,000 Full service p
camping, aquatitc commissioners)
North Clackamas 9 Advisory committee
Contact: Don Robertson park, senior center appointed by board
(503) 794-8002 by zone
$0.961$1,000 $662 per single unit
5 Elected at large $484 per muitafamiiy unit
21,000 Aquatic department,
senior program and
C center, rental
ntle
Contact' m Heidi Smith
(503) 538-7454 facilities, various
camps, spot dept.
rec sasses (youthl le and
adult) $1941$1.000 $1,000 for slug
Elected at large mu18-family units
5
Wilamalane 501000 Senior center, rec.
Contact. Dan plaza center, two aquatic
numerous
(541) 726-4335 parks,
sports fields, rental $1.301$1.000 None
facilities 5 Elected by district
Senior center, five aquatic
190.000 centers, numerous parks, t
Tualatin Hills park & recreation programs, natural
Recreation District cial facilities 1998 public hearing
Contact Nell y areas, spe COGAN
(503) 545.6433 Rp Board and will be decided after a November 17, oWFrts
before the THP c~o~
.q proposal for SDCs is currently
Rates being proposed:
$ 1,950
Single, family $ 1,499
Multiple family 1,375 3
Manufactured Housing $ 61
Nonresidential
Election Timeline
Atfalati Park and Recreation District
The timeline below reflects two possible methods of initiation: 1) initiation by 15% of
the registered voters; and 2) initiation by Board of County Commissioners. The target
date is the November 7, 2000 general election.
Formation Preparation:
Sept. - Dec., 1998 Organize Steering Committee and formation process
Jan.,- Feb., 1999 Select consultant to assist committee with formation process
March -August, 1999 Determine/prepare:
♦ Type of district and governance structure
o Park and recreation district program
Boundaries of district
♦ Economic feasibility statement
♦ First and third year budgets
Sept.,1999 Hold public meetings to discuss district formation
Oct. - Nov., 1999 Final decisions on district formation
Make final determination on formation method A or B
Method A: Initiation by Petition of Registered Voters (Based on statutory timelines
and requirements)
October, 1999 Prepare petition materials
November 10, 1999i File copy of petition, and supporting materials with County
Clerk; begin circulating petition
April 10, 2000H File voter petition (signatures)
File city resolutions of support
Provide bond or security deposit
April 20, 2000 County Clerk verifies signatures
May 10, 2000 FINAL PETITION FILING DEADLINE
May 20, 2000 Final signature verification
COG
OWENS
4 coc;AN
Method B: Initiation by Board of County Commissioners
January, 2000 Submit proposal to Board of Commissioners, including:
Economic feasibility study
Feb. - June, 2000 Board work sessions and discussions; follow-up work
Submit city resolution(s) of support
Methods A & B: Board of County Commissioners Action to Place on Ballot
June 29, 2000 County holds first public hearing
August 18, 2000iv County holds second public hearing
September 8, 2000 County deadline to approve measure on the ballot.
November 7, 2000 General election on question of district formation and
approval of permanent tax rate
i No petition can be filed with signatures that are older than 6 months. Therefore, the petition should not
be circulated too early or signatures will become void.
li At least 180 days before the election
iu Between 30 and 50 days after filing the petition
Between 20 and 50 days after first public hearing
v Must be approved at least 60 days before election day
ORGAN
OWENS
5 QOGM
Task Force Scope
Task:
1. Define service area of district
II. Establish park and recreation district program
A. Define alternatives
B. Cost out alternatives
C. Conduct poll
D. Select program package
III. Prepare economic feasibility statement
A. Identify program costs
B. Examine revenues from all sources
C. Determine permanent tax rate
D. Develop 1st and 3rd year budgets
IV. Hold public meetings to discuss proposal & obtain
feedback
V. Decide on type of district and governance structure
A. Name of district
B. Number of board members
C. Zone or at-large members
D. Ex-officio members, if any
E. Advisory committees
VI. Obtain city resolutions
A. Agreement on city facilities, equipment and
personnel
B. On-going coordination
C. Final resolution
VII. Prepare petition and supporting materials; submit to
County Clerk
o)G"M
6 me
ation N l n
Beds jp o
and Recre
Estimate of Park ice Area ~vtA:~ C Td Urban
of Tigard and Urban Serv the g
City area within its current 'ar
rovide services eyer 2015•
,,Provider were to p dbeneeded nilseeded
a new parkber of Additiona service AYta
of Tigard and/or ar and facilities wou uses N"m Ti atdUiban
if t rv he City additional p for 2u15 g Tigard
fo11aw1ng Standard Unit for Planning ~ NRPA sting
ice Area, the Units Standard Unit THPRD Standard
1995 Actual NRPA; Existing Standard Standard
TIiPRD Tig d
Type of Park or ar 12.9
1995 ° 74 79-128
F8C'tlit Trgard .3
THPRD
1A 1.0 to 2.0 106.2
acresjl,~ F°F~ 111 370-592
152.6
190.2 10.2 5.0 8.0 25
to
266 NA
1.5
Neighborhood 78.9 acresjl,~ 3.6 14A. 36
Park 395 acres/l,om Pop' 2.0
unit 114 NA
Comm 632 NA 1 22 1 NA
openspaceJ
GreenwaY / ,Hiles/1,000 pop. 3 0
1.7 mi. 50,000 40,f~ 33
Natural Area 32.5 mi. NA
0 population/ 3,3
Trails 3 center NA 12,558
. 21,898 15 4.0
Community/ Rec ourt
25 population] c '
Center g 5 AD 10,715 37
outdoor 2,0(10 8 26
Covered 3 population/ 37 2.6
Basketball Courts 107 field 16,072
10,1100 37 37
2' 16,072 NA
Baseball/ Softball 2 population/ field 2,000
Fields 117 20 3 3
population/ court
2 25,000 200 0 ills Park and
r,,occer Field 91 Tualatin H
0 population/ Fool une, M1997; 2 1995•
Tennis Court g Cogan et. A11 aster
swimm Plan Draft 1
in Pool Project, Cogan Qwe~Year Comprehensive
Ti and Area Urban Services Recreation District 20
Source: Beaverton) g
NA = No standard; not applicable
-cMAN
OWENS
1995.E
standards, TNPRD Ntaster plan,
NRPA) of Tigard,1994,
iation (ion -Facilities System Development Charges, CitY
t National Recreation and park Assoc
ii Park and Recreat
BeavertonlTigard Area
Urban Services .Pro sect
FIRE LAW SANITARYSEWER &
ENFORCEMENT STORMWA TER
Aim-
DRINKING WATER ROADS MASS TRANSIT PARKS, RECREATION
&STREETS & OPEN SPACE
COGAN OWENS COGAN
MOORE BREITHA.UPT
PACIFIC RIM RESOURCES, INC.
June, 1997
This is an excerpt of a larger report.
For the Beaverton/Tigard Urban Services Report
Contact Mark Brown,
Washington County Department of Land Use
and Transportation
FINAL REPORT OF TASK GROUP ON
PARKS,. RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE .
I. Participants
The following agencies participated in the task group meetings:
Agency Participant
City of Beaverton Barbara Fryer
City of Hillsboro* Jennifer Gardner
City of Tigard Duane Roberts
Tualatin Hills Park and Recreation
District (THPRD) Andy Priebe
Washington County Mark Brown, Larry Eisenberg
*Ex officio
Linda Davis, Cogan Owens Cogan, facilitated the task group meeting and
prepared the evaluation of alternatives, assisted by Jim Breithaupt, Moore
Breithaupt Associates, who prepared the financial evaluation.
II. Issues
The Task Group refined the issues in the Action Plan, specifically, the four
alternatives identified.
Alternative 1: Two providers: a) Tualatin Hills Park and Recreation District
(THPRD) within Beaverton's urban service boundary; and b) City of Tigard
within its urban service boundary.
Alternative 2: One provider: THPRD for both Beaverton and Tigard urban
service boundaries.
Alternative 3: Two providers: a) THPRD within Beaverton 's urban service
boundary; and b) a new park and recreation district that would include Tigard's
urban service boundary and could also include the urban service boundaries of
Tualatin and Sherwood.
Alternative 4: City of Tigard contract with THPRD for recreation services for a)
the Beaverton school district area; b) the entire city.
Final Report - Parks, Recreation and
Open Space Task Group
1 ( 1
III. Process Used
The Task Group refined the four alternatives in the Action Plan. Consultants
conducted an evaluation of the alternatives, examining both financial and non-
financial aspects. Based upon the results of the evaluation, the Task Group
arrived at a consensus concerning principles for urban service agreements for
parks, recreation and open space.
IV. Task group Conclusions and Recommendations
The Task Group recommends the following principles for urban services
agreements involving the governments within the study area:'
A. Beaverton Urban Service Area (BUSA):
• THPRD to be the provider of park, recreation and open space services for the
City of Beaverton and the unincorporated area within the BUSA. THPRD
may annex areas within the BUSA and expand to include all of the study
area, with or without annexation by Beaverton.
• Standards for park, recreation an d open space development will be per the
THPRD 1996 20-year master plan, subject to limitations imposed by Measure
50 or subsequent measures to limit revenue.
• The City of Beaverton, the County and THPRD should consider adopting a
systems development charge (SDC) for future land acquisition and capital
construction within the BUSA, based on the 20-year master plan.
• The urban service agreement should reflect that the City of Beaverton now
owns park land; mere ownership of land should not define Beaverton as a
park or open space "provider" and the agreement should not restrict the
acquisition of additional park or open space land in the future which can be
then deeded to THPRD or contracted to THPRD for development, operation
and maintenance.
• The City of Beaverton shall contract with THPRD for development, operation
and maintenance of land and facilities it owns.
B. Tigard Urban Service Area (TUSA):
• For the near future, the City of Tigard shall remain as the provider of park
services within the City; as the City annexes, it would become the provider of
parks in new areas. Within the Metzger Park LID, it would be a joint
provider of parks (see below for further clarification).
• Tigard would maintain its current level of services for parks as outlined in its
Master Plan.
While the City of Hillsboro participated in the Task Group as an observer, Hillsboro would not be
subject to these recommendations.
Final Report - Parks, Recreation and 2
Open Space Task Group
• The City and County should further examine the feasibility of creating a park
and recreation district for the TUSA.
• The City of Tigard should expand its master plan to include the entire TUSA.
The City and County should examine the feasibility of establishing a systems
development charge for land acquisition and development of parks within
and outside the City, within the TUSA.
• The City of Tigard and the County will agree to allow the Metzger Park LID
to remain as a "special purpose" park provider for as long as a majority of
property owners within the LID wish to continue to pay annual levies for the
operation and maintenance of Metzger Park as a separate entity. They will
also agree to the continuation of the Metzger Park Advisory Committee.
However, the County as administrator of the LID, may consider contracting
operation and maintenance services to another provider if that option proves
to be more efficient and cost-effective. This option would be presented and
discussed with the Advisory Committee before a decision is made by the
County.
• The continuation of the Metzger Park LID shall not impede provision of
parks, and eventually recreation service, to the Metzger Park neighborhood
by the City of Tigard or a possible future park and recreation district.
Continuation of the Metzger Park LID will be considered as providing an
additional level of service to the neighborhood above and beyond that
provided by the City of Tigard or a park and recreation district.
Discussion: Based on the results of the evaluation, and input from the public
meetings, the Task Group concluded that there are no reasonable alternatives to
THPRD for the BUSA. However, for the Tigard area (TUSA), the extension of
City of Tigard services, annexation of THPRD and the formation of a park and
recreation district all have merit, with the latter having the most potential. A
county service district organized under ORS 451 may be preferable to a special
district organized under ORS 198 and 266 for reasons outlined in the evaluation.
The concept of a park and recreation district will require further study;
therefore, the Task Group believes that for the short term, the City of Tigard
should be designated the park provider for the City and areas to be annexed.
There. is not currently an entity to provide recreation services in the City or
outside; this could be solved with the formation of a park and recreation district.
The Task Group believes that an agreement to allow the Metzger Park LID to
continue under any of the alternatives is beneficial to the residents of the
Metzger area and should not impede the implementation of any of the
alternatives under consideration for the Tigard area.
Final Report - Parks, Recreation and 3
Open Space Task Group
V. Effects of Measure 50
A financial evaluation was conducted to determine the effects of Measure 50 on
the alternatives studied by the Task Group. It was found that all alternatives are
negatively affected by this property tax limitation measure. Neither the City of
Tigard nor THPRD may be able to continue to provide services at their current
levels to areas that may be annexed to these jurisdictions under alternatives 1
and 2. The alternative that is least affected by Measure 50 is Alternative 3b, the
creation of a new park and recreation district in the TUSA. Creation of a district
would allow a new tax base to be established for land acquisition, development,
operations and maintenance of park and recreation services.
VI. Impacts Related to Annexation
The expansion of THPRD to include all of the BUSA is responsive to annexation
by the City of Beaverton - all areas annexed to the City automatically become
part of THPRD if they are not already within the District. The District may also
annex territory within the BUSA prior to city annexation. Therefore, THPRD is
also a provider of park, recreation and open space services to the unincorporated
area of Washington County within the BUSA.
The expansion of the City of Tigard's services will also occur with annexation by
the City. However, unlike the situation within the BUSA, Tigard will likely not
extend services outside its boundaries prior to annexation to the City. Therefore,
with the exception of the area within the Metzger Park LID, the unincorporated
area of Washington County within the TUSA will not have a park and recreation
provider in the interim.
Final Report Parks, Recreation and 4
Open Space Task Group
1' r r
SUMMARY EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES FOR
PARK, RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE SERVICES
Alternative 1: Two providers: a) Tualatin Hills Park and Recreation District
(THPRD) within Beaverton's urban service boundary; and b) City of Tigard within
its urban service boundary.
THPRD:
• There are no physical factors related to service provision other than those that relate
to the location of urban service boundaries of the two cities.
• Long-standing working relationship with City of Beaverton and Beaverton School
District
• Patrons of district have been loyal supporters politically and financially; reflects
values of the area.
• There are no other likely providers of PROS services outside the district within
Beaverton s urban service boundary.
• • Elected THPRD board accountable to all voters of the district, in and outside of the
city.
• There are no transition issues because no new units of government would be
created.
• Insufficient property tax revenue would be collected from the area to be served to
pay the costs of operating and maintaining the facilities required to serve the area at
the current level of service.
City of Tigard:
• There are no physical factors related to service provision other than those that relate
to the location of urban service boundaries of the two cities.
• Area residents must annex to Tigard to receive services; other than Metzger Park
LID, no PROS services exist outside the City of Tigard.
• The Metzger Park LID s future is independent of city annexation.
• Accountability for PROS services is through the city council of the City of Tigard.
• There are no transition issues because no new units of government would be
created.
• Insufficient property tax revenue would be collected from the area to be served to
pay the costs of operating and maintaining the facilities required to serve the area at
the current level of service.
Alternative 2: One provider. THPRD for both Beaverton and Tigard urban service
boundaries.
• Direct impacts to Beaverton area are the same as with Alternative 1.
• There are no physical factors related to service provision other than those that relate
to the location of urban service boundaries of the two cities.
• Character and makeup of elected THPRD board could change as it reflects
potentially different values by annexing Tigard area.
Evaluation of Alternatives for Park, Recreation and 1 ccx:A\
O WENS
Open Space Services, Beaverton-Tigard Study C MAN
M,,N
uc~arn rnrre
• A relationship with the Tigard-Tualatin School District would need to be developed
to. provide similar recreation services received .by Beaverton. area residents.
• Would resolve problem of Tigard city residents that attend Beaverton schools to
receive the same recreation services that other Beaverton school children and
parents receive.
• Tigard would give up a municipal service that could be an incentive to annex.
• Accountability for services in the Tigard area would change.
• The Tigard area would receive recreation services that it currently does not have,
and unincorporated residents would receive park services.
• A transfer of personnel from Tigard to THPRD might be required.
• Tigard's assets could remain with the City (ownership) or be transferred to THPRD.
• Insufficient property tax revenue would be collected from the area to be served to
pay the costs of operating and maintaining the facilities required to serve the area at
the current level of service.
Alternative 3: Two providers; a) THPRD within Beaverton's urban service
boundary; and b) a new park and recreation district that would include Tigard's
urban service boundary and could also include the urban service boundaries of
Tualatin and Sherwood.
Beaverton/THPRD area:
• Same as Alternative 1.
Tigard area:
• Provision of PROS services to unincorporated area would not depend on annexation
to Tigard.
• Two types of district formation provided by ORS.
• If city and district boundaries are eventually coterminous, the district would be
automatically extinguished.
• Formation of a district might remove an incentive to annex to Tigard, or it could
become a unifying factor.
• Formation of a district could be part of an overall strategy to provide interim and
eventual PROS services.
• Accountability would differ depending on the type of district formed.
• A transfer of personnel from the City of Tigard to the new district may be required.
• Sufficient property tax revenue would be collected from the area to be served to pay
the costs of operating and maintaining the facilities required to serve the area,
including capital costs.
Evaluation of Alternatives for Park, Recreation and 2 COGAN
OWENS
Open Space Services, Beaverton-Tigard Study area COGAN
RKICUOPAMR
~1 a
Alternative 4: City of Tigard contract with THPRD for recreation services for a) the
Beaverton school.district. area; b). the entire city,.
• Under (a), City of Tigard residents in the Beaverton School District would have the
same recreation programs as those within the balance of the Beaverton School
District in THPRD. However, this will create a disparity in services with the rest of
the City of Tigard which would not have recreation programs.
• Under (b), THPRD would likely need to contract with the Tigard-Tualatin School
District for use of district facilities for recreation programs.
• THPRD board members would not be accountable to City of Tigard residents.
• THPRD could involve Tigard residents in an advisory capacity.
• There would be no transition issues under this alternative.
Evaluation of Alternatives for Park, Recreation and 3 7o-MN
OW ENS
Open Space Services, Beaverton-Tigard Study area OMAN
amuo rAM
1 1 i
EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES FOR
PARKS, RECREATION AND.OPEN SPACE
BEAVERTON-TIGARD STUDY AREA
Prepared by Linda L. Davis, Cogan Owens Cogan and
Jim Breithaupt, Moore Breithaupt Associates
Four broad alternatives are evaluated for future parks, recreation and open space
(PROS) in the Beaverton-Tigard study area. These alternatives are:
Alternative 1: Two providers: a) Tualatin Hills Park and Recreation District (THPRD)
within Beaverton's urban service boundary; and b) City of Tigard within its urban
service boundary.
Alternative 2: One provider: THPRD for both Beaverton and Tigard urban service
boundaries.
Alternative 3: Two providers: a) THPRD within Beaverton 's urban service boundary;
and b) a new park and recreation district that would include Tigard's urban service
boundary and could also include the urban service boundaries of Tualatin and
Sherwood.
Alternative 4: City of Tigard contract with THPRD for recreation services for a) the
Beaverton school district area; b) the entire city.
The process used to evaluate these alternatives is outlined in the Parks, Recreation and
Open Space Action Plan methodology, December 19, 1996. The methodology conforms
with requirements of ORS 195 (SB 122) for urban service agreements.
The evaluation of each alternative discusses: 1) description of the alternative; 2) non-
financial factors related to service provision, and 3) financial factors. A matrix
summarizing each of the alternatives is presented at the end of the report.
I. Alternative 1: Two providers: a) THPRD within Beaverton's urban service
boundary; and b) City of Tigard within its urban service boundary.
A. Description of the Alternative
This alternative can be considered a "default" or "trend" alternative because, in the
absence of any other decision, service provision will likely follow the current trend.
Evaluation of Alternatives for Park, Recreation and 4
OWE\5
Open Space Services, Beaverton-Tigard Study area COGAN
UCYCLEo rwr[R
1. Beaverton urban service area
The THPRD is the only public provider of local parks, recreation and open space in the
Beaverton urban service area.' When the District was established in the early 1960's, as
required by state law, territory that is not already within the park district is also
annexed as the City of Beaverton annexes. At the same time, the District can and has
annexed beyond the City of Beaverton's boundaries to encompass 90% of the Beaverton
urban service area. The only areas not already within the District are those in the very
northern portion of the urban service area.
The District currently has a total of 1,300 acres of park land and 185 park sites. About
80% of these sites are within the study area. In addition, it has several other facilities
including seven swim centers, a senior center, and major recreation complex.
In 1994, over 119,500 people resided in the portion of the park district within the study
area of which 61,085 lived in the City of Beaverton. Approximately 11,600 people
resided area outside the District in the study area. In total, 131,120 lived in this part of
the study area in 1994. See Table 1 in Appendix 1.
In this alternative, the District would expand to include all of the area of the Beaverton
urban service area, either concurrently through annexation by Beaverton or through its
own annexation. All annexations would be conducted according to ORS 222 and ORS
199 which requires approval by the Portland Metropolitan Area Local Government
Boundary Commission (PMALGBC). By 2015, it is estimated that a total of 217,600
people will reside in the District within the study area.2 This represents an increase of
86,480 people, of which 28,830 will be through annexation and 57,650 will be as a result
of further growth and development within the current district boundaries. See Table 1
in Appendix 1.
The City of Beaverton's population may be the same as for the urban service area
within the study area (217,600) or it could be larger, depending on how far west the city
may extend beyond this study area.
It is assumed that THPRD's level of service for the area annexed to the District would
be the same as for its current district.
2. Tigard urban service area
The City of Tigard is one of the providers of PROS in the Tigard urban service area.
The Metzger Park Local Improvement District (LID) is the other. The City of Tigard
provides park services only to the area within the city limits. The LID is under the
' Metro is a provider of regional open spaces
z It should be noted that a portion of the current and future area of the District extends to the west
outside the study area. Population figures presented here represent only those within the study area.
Evaluation of Alternatives for Park, Recreation and 5 coGAN
OWENS
Open Space Services, Beaverton-Tigard Stridy area COGAN
RVIMUD PAM
. 1 .
supervision of the Washington County Board of Commissioners and provides service
within the unincorporated area .north of Tigard and in apart of northern Tigard that
has annexed into the LID.
The LID was formed in 1975 by the Washington County Board of Commissioners. In
1976, funding for the LID was approved. The purpose of the LID was to renovate and
operate Metzger Park owned by the County, which had been closed due to disrepair
and lack of funding. Formation of the LID included a Metzger Park Advisory Board.
Over the years, improvements have been made to the park and recreation hall and is
the pride of the residential property owners within the LID.
The City of Tigard operates ten parks on 236 acres within the city. It does not have a
recreation program.
In 1994, 33,730 people resided in the City of Tigard and received city park services. In
total, 49,530 people lived in the Tigard urban service area in 1994. The 1990 U.S.
Census estimate for the Metzger Park LID is 6,730 people. Of this number about half
(3,240) live in the City of Tigard and also received city park services. See Table 1 in
Appendix 1.
In this alternative, the City of Tigard would expand to include all of the area of the
Tigard urban service area. All annexations would be conducted according to ORS 222
and ORS 199 which requires approval by the Portland Metropolitan Area Local
Government Boundary Commission (PMALGBC). By 2015, it is estimated that a total
of 74,040 people will reside in the urban service area and the City of Tigard. This
represents an increase of 24,510 people due to annexation and real growth within the
current city and area to be annexed. See Table 1 in Appendix 1.
It is assumed that Tigard's service level would be extended to the area annexed.
Service levels for this alternative are depicted in Table 2 in Appendix 1.
B. Non-financial Factors Affecting Service Provision
PROS services are not affected by physical factors in the way public utility services are.
Sanitary sewer and water services are highly influenced by geography and topography.
PROS services are more likely to be affected by geo-political factors the relationship
to other units of government and their boundaries, some of which have been influenced
by geography but are often a factor of historical events.
1. THPRD
a. Physical factors/boundaries. THPRD's boundaries today reflect its beginnings in
the immediate Beaverton area as it existed in the early 1960's together with opportunity
to expand as eastern Washington County has grown and developed. As discussed
Evaluation of Alternatives for Park, Recreation and 6 COGAN
OWENS
Open Space Services, Beaverton-Tigard Study area COGAN
earlier, when Beaverton annexes, land is automatically also annexed to the park district
Even so, most. of .THPRD.'s..expansion. has been. through its own annexation. Its
boundaries today more closely match the Beaverton School District's than the City of
Beaverton's and reflect the strong relationship the Park District has with the School
District. This alternative would continue to relate to those boundaries.
b. Socio-political factors. The District has a long-standing working relationship and
strong identity with the City of Beaverton and Beaverton School District For example,
several park sites that the District maintains are actually owned by the City of
Beaverton. The District operates many recreation programs in the Beaverton schools
and has purchased neighborhood park sites adjacent to schools. They all assist each
other with landscape/ grounds maintenance activities.
Patrons of the Park District (primarily taxpayers) have been strong, loyal supporters of
park district programs, approving most bond issues and operating levies over the life
of the District. This can be attributed to a collective value district patrons place on
PROS services. It is likely that new residents have been attracted to the area because of
the combination of the Park District and School District's reputation. This alternative
provides some assurance that the values that have placed the District in the position it
is today will continue in the future.
If the District and City of Beaverton do not expand to include the area not already
within the Districts boundaries, the area will not have park and recreation services
unless Washington County provides them or another district is formed. Both of these
options appear politically and financially unlikely.
c. Accountability. The THPRD has an elected board of directors composed of five
members elected at large for four year terms. The District is professionally staffed and
has a strong presence in the community. The District recently completed a twenty-year
master plan that had a significant public involvement component.
There is no difference in accountability inside and outside the City of Beaverton.
Beaverton city residents also have the city government that can act on their behalf
concerning issues within the city.
d. Transition issues. Because no new units of government would be created to
provide services, transfer of personnel, equipment and other capital assets would not
be an issue.
2. City of Tigard
a. Physical factors/boundaries. In the same manner as THPRD, the City of Tigard's
boundaries are based on history and expansion over time. There are no particular
physical features affecting its eventual boundaries and provision of PROS services.
Evaluation of Alternatives for Park, Recreation and 7 co 7N
Open Space Services, Beaverton-Tigard Study area C,GAN
".OC LED PAPER
Unlike the Beaverton area, where. residents in. and out .of.. the Beaverton city.. limits
receive PROS services from the same provider, the provision of PROS services by the
City of Tigard depends on annexation to the city.
The boundaries of the Metzger Park LID reflect where backers of the LID were able to
obtain support at the time the LID was formed. The area of the LID roughly
approximates the historic, unincorporated community of Metzger, of which half now is
within the Tigard city limits. Eventually, all of the community will likely be contained
within the city.
Unlike a district, the city can eventually encompass all of the LID and it will not
automatically be dissolved. It would require a separate act of the county and/or city to
dissolve it.
b. Socio-political factors. Provision of PROS services by the City of Tigard depends
on annexation by the city.3 In this manner, for this service, there is more at stake with
city annexation than there is in the Beaverton area where the District is able to expand
independently of city annexation. In Tigard, PROS services may be an incentive for
annexation to the city for those who want them.
The City of Tigard is conducting a visioning process which may help determine the
desire and need for future PROS services by city residents. The City's offerings could
change as a result of this process.
The existence of the Metzger Park LID has been an issue in the past as the City of
Tigard has annexed about half the LID in the past ten years. The City was concerned
about "double-taxation" - residents being taxed by the City and the LID for park
services, and possibly a lack of future support of the city parks program by the LID
residents. The issue has abated in recent years and the City approved continuation of
the LID within the city limits. At some time, however, if and when the city has
annexed all of the LID, this may be an issue again. This is apt to be more of a political
issue than a direct financial one. Overall, the LID should not significantly affect
expansion of the city and provision of park services to that area over and above what
those residents receive through the LID.
At the same time, it is acknowledged that the LID residents feel threatened by city
expansion and loss of identity and control they exercise through the LID Park Advisory
Board (PAB). It may be possible that the City of Tigard and PAB could reach an accord
that allows the people in the LID to determine their own destiny after complete
annexation to Tigard. For example, it could operate similarly to a homeowner's
association within a city.
3 Even though we generalize by calling services "PROS", Tigard does not provide recreation services at
this time and this alternative assumes that they will not be provided in the future.
Evaluation: of Alternatives for Park, Recreation and 8 COGAN
OWENS
Open Space Services, Beaverton-Tigard Study area COGAN
UV V CLED rArva
c. Accountability, City Council members elected by th e voters of the City of Tigard.
are now and would continue to be accountable for these services.
d. Transition issues. Because no new units of government would be created to
provide services, transfer of personnel, equipment and other capital assets would not
be an issue. If the Metzger Park LID is dissolved, the County could choose to transfer
title of Metzger Park to the City of Tigard or retain title and contract with the City for
maintenance and operation of the park. It is unlikely that such a transfer will have
much of an impact on county employees but if it does, the provisions of ORS 236.605 to
236.650 may be involved.
C. Financial Factors Affecting Service Provision
The overriding financial factor affecting the provision of PROS is the projected
availability of property tax revenues. While fees and charges are an important source
of revenue for many recreation programs and some recreation facilities, property tax
revenue is the predominant means of financing the acquisition, development,
maintenance, and operation of parks, recreation facilities, and open space within the
study area.
For greater detail regarding the following financial projections of costs and revenues,
please refer to Appendix 3.
1. THPRD serves unincorporated Beaverton Urban Service Area
Projected Costs
Capital Costs to serve existing population (1997 $8,560,000
Capital Costs to serve projected population (1997 $20,205,000
Cost to Operate and Maintain (1997 $3,271,000
Cost to Operate and Maintain (2015 $5,568,659
Projected Property Tax Revenue collected from area to be annexed
Projected Revenue Year 2015 $1,765,139
Cost to Operate and Maintain (2015 ($5,568,659)
Projected Revenue Shortfall ($3,803,659)
Insufficient property tax revenue would be collected from the area to be served to pay
the costs of operating and maintaining the facilities required to serve the area at the
current level of service. (See: Appendix 3 for detail)
Evaluation of Alternatives for Park, Recreation and 9 ccx:.~~
OWE\5
Open Space Services, Beaverton-Tigard Study area CODA`
RECVCLEOPAI4A
2. City of Tigard serves unincorporated Tigard Urban Service Area
Projected Costs
Capital Costs to serve existing population (1997 $10,872,000
Capital Costs to serve projected population (1997 $7,169,333
Cost to Operate and Maintain (1997 $422,000
Cost to Operate and Maintain (2015 $718,427
Projected Property Tax Revenue collected from area to be annexed
Projected Revenue Year 2015 $152,711
Cost to Operate and Maintain (2015 ($718,427)
Projected Revenue Shortfall ($565,716)
Insufficient property tax revenue would be collected from the area to be served to pay
the costs of operating and maintaining the facilities required to serve the area at the
current level of service. (See: Appendix 3 for detail)
H. Alternative 2: One provider. THPRD for both Beaverton and Tigard urban
service boundaries.
A. Description of the Alternative
For the Beaverton area, the description of Alternative 2 is the same as Alternative 1.
In this alternative, THPRD would expand to include the City of Tigard and the Tigard
urban service area, as well as all of Beaverton s urban service area. All annexations
would be conducted according to ORS 222 and ORS 199 which requires approval by the
Portland Metropolitan Area Local Government Boundary Commission (PMALGBC).
Annexation of the City of Tigard to the district would require an affirmative vote by the
voters of the City of Tigard. A vote of unincorporated residents is technically not
required unless a petition is submitted representing 15% of the electors, or 100,
whichever is less, or unless a new tax base is involved. It is assumed that the City of
Tigard would no longer provide parks and the facilities they currently own would be
transferred to THPRD for operation and maintenance.4
The Metzger Park LID could continue to operate the Metzger Park or residents and
Washington County could decide to terminate the LID and transfer Metzger Park to
THPRD for operation and maintenance.5 The County could contract with THPRD for
a Under such an alternative, it would not be required that Tigard transfer title to property it owns, but
could do so if it wishes.
5 As with Tigard's park land, the county would not be required to transfer ownership of Metzger Park.
Evaluation of Alternatives for Park, Recreation and 10
OWENS
Open Space Services, Beaverton-Tigard Study area COG..
UCYCLED rAM
maintenance and operation or it could continue to provide this service in the manner it
does now.. .
The total 1994 population within the study area is 180,650, of which 119,520 is in the
current district boundaries within the study area. The 2015 population within the
study area would be 291,640. THPRD's service area population increase due to
annexation would be 102,870; an increase of 69,250 is due to actual growth within
current district boundaries within the study area. See Table 1, Appendix 1.
Service levels for this alternative are depicted in Tables 3a and 3b of Appendix 1. Table
3 shows service levels for the Beaverton and Tigard urban service areas. Table 3b
shows service levels if THPRD annexed the City of Tigard and the City of Tigard plus
the unincorporated area.
B. Non-financial Factors Affecting Service Provision
1. Physical factor,%(boundaries. There are no particular physical factors affecting this
alternative other than urban service boundaries.
2. Socio-political factors
THPRD has a five-member board of directors elected at large, and covers the City of
Beaverton and the unincorporated area of Washington County. Because the directors
are elected at-large, instead of by district, there would not be a need to change the
manner in which directors are elected. At the same time, there might be pressure to
change, either to assure new residents of the Tigard area that they would be fairly
represented, or perhaps by current residents of the District who might be concerned
that their influence and control would be diluted by annexing such a large area.
Whether a conscious plan to change is put in place or not, the character and makeup of
the board could change over time to reflect the values and needs of a much larger
district, which may or may not share the same values and needs as the current district.
This could be a discomforting thought to current district patrons, district management
and elected officials.
The District has a long-standing relationship with the City of Beaverton and the
Beaverton School District. Under this alternative, the District would need to cultivate a
similar relationship with the City of Tigard and the Tigard-Tualatin School District to
provide a similar level of service to areas annexed in the Tigard urban service area.
The alternative would resolve one problem that currently exists for residents within the
City of Tigard whose children attend the Beaverton School District. These children
(and parents, too) cannot participate in District-sponsored recreation activities in the
Beaverton schools without paying an "out-of-district" fee. Annexation of the Tigard
area would solve this problem and allow these children and parents to receive the same
services as others in the Beaverton schools.
Evaluation of Alternatives for Park, Recreation and 11 CMAU
OWNS
Open Space Services, Beaverton-Tigard Study area CM-AN
UCYCLMPAI'flt
3. Accountability .
The major disadvantage of this alternative to the City of Tigard might be the giving up
of a city-provided service to a special district. The City might see this action as eroding
their image as an urban service provider and they may feel some loss of control over an
important urban service. In this case, however, the District is an established entity with
a track record, which might be more acceptable than a new entity which would have to
start from scratch to acquire assets, establish a tax base and hire qualified staff. It is
also possible that the City of Tigard and Washington County could enter into
agreements with THPRD concerning many aspects of formation which it might not be
able do with a new district (see discussion later concerning Alternative 3).
The issue of accountability can be seen from two sides. Some would say that
accountability is greater with a special district providing the service. The special
district has one area of concern, in contrast to a city that has many different kinds of
services it provides and may not be able to give the same level of attention to any one
that a special district can. With a special district, some say, the board of directors is
directly accountable to the voters and taxpayers for the services it provides.
Others say that special district elected boards do not have the same type of
accountability that cities do because they are not exposed to the same level of scrutiny
by the media and the general public. Furthermore, they would say that cities have to
select from a range of financial and social priorities and have greater control over the
total tax burden for services.
The issue of accountability in this case is not easily resolved. Both points of view have
validity. At the same time, accountability may not be a major issue, particularly if
agreements can be made ahead of time.
4. Level of Service
A major advantage of this alternative could be the addition of recreation services and
facilities that the City of Tigard and the Tigard urban service area do not have now.
While the District would be in the same position as the City to initially establish these
services, the District has the experience in knowing how to set up these programs.
The area annexed is assumed to receive the same level of service that current residents
of the District receive. An advantage of this is that the level of service is established
and Tigard area residents could see what they would be getting in their area. A
disadvantage could be that Tigard area residents might want different types of services
or service levels. It might be difficult for the District to make such a distinction,
especially if there were major cost differences.
Evaluation of Alternatives for Park, Recreation and 12 M7
Open Space Services, Beaverton-Tigard Study area
.ccvcitorrcA
5. Transition Issues
This alternative would require transition of personnel, equipment and other capital
assets from the City to the District. ORS 236.605 - 236.650 provides for the manner in
which this must occur:
"No public employee shall be deprived of employment solely because the duties
of employment have been assumed or acquired by another public employer,
whether or not an agreement, annexation or consolidation with the present
employer is involved. Notwithstanding any statute, charter, ordinance or
resolution, but subject to ORS 236.605 to 236.650, the public employee shall be
transferred to the employment of the public employer which assumed or
acquired the duties of the public employee, without further civil service
examination." ORS 236.610(1)
Typically, in other cases where a new entity has been formed and there would be an
impact on public employees, transition plans have been put into effect to minimize the
impacts. For example, transition plans often recognize attrition the impacted entity
agrees not to hire replacement employees for those who leave employment, or the
employer finds other employment for employees within its agency so that employees
do not have to be transferred. In some cases, employees are given the option of
transferring or remaining with the current employer, if a suitable position is found. In
the case of specialized positions such as firefighters and police, all employees are
usually transferred at one time and any "surplus" is handled through attrition. Thus
there are a number of ways of handling the issue of employee transition in a non-
threatening manner.
Transition plans may have to be approved by employee collective bargaining units,
depending on agreements in place. However, collective bargaining units cannot stop
the formation of new units of government as long as the provisions of the ORS are met.
As footnoted earlier, ownership of park land would not necessarily have to be
transferred to the District. The District and City of Beaverton went through a transition
of service after the District was formed in the early 1960's. The City owned a number
of park sites. Many of these park sites are still owned by the City but are maintained
and operated by the District to provide a "seamless" service. The same could occur in
the City of Tigard.
C Financial Factors Affecting Service Provision
As with Alternative 1, the overriding financial factor affecting the provision of PROS is
the projected availability of property tax revenues. While fees and charges are an
important source of revenue for many recreation programs and some recreation
facilities, property tax revenue is the predominant means of financing the acquisition,
Evaluation of Alternatives for Park, Recreation and 13
O%VE%S
Open Space Services, Beaverton-Tigard Study area COGAN
Ylfll 11111'.11
development, maintenance, and operation of parks, recreation facilities, and open space
within. the. study area....
For greater detail regarding the following financial projections of costs and revenues,
please refer to Appendix 3.
1. THPRD serves unincorporated Beaverton Urban Service Area and Tigard Urban
Service Area.
Projected Costs
Capital Costs to serve existing population (1997 $54,219,500
Capital Costs to serve projected population (1997 $33,941,667
Cost to Operate and Maintain (1997 $10,504,000
Cost to Operate and Maintain (2015 $17,882,357
Projected Property Tax Revenue collected from area to be annexed
Projected Revenue Year 2015 $ 3,800,205
Cost to Operate and Maintain (2015 ($17,882,357)
Projected Revenue Shortfall ($14,082,152)
Insufficient property tax revenue would be collected from the area to be served to pay
the costs of operating and maintaining the facilities required to serve the area at the
current level of service. (See: Appendix 3 for detail)
III. Alternative 3: Two providers; a) THPRD within Beaverton's urban service
boundary; and b) a new park and recreation district that would include Tigard's
urban service boundary and could also include the urban service boundaries of
Tualatin and Sherwood.
While potentially a new district could include other cities in Washington County, we
have only evaluated the formation of a new district in the Tigard urban service
boundary area.
A. Description of the Alternative
1. Beaverton Area
This alternative would be the same as Alternative 1 for the Beaverton area.
Evaluation of Alternatives for Park, Recreation and 14 -777
Open Space Services, Beaverton-Tigard Study area
REGYCLEDrAREA
2. Tigard Area
Under this alternative a district would be formed in the Tigard urban service area to
provide PROS services, relieving Tigard of providing its current park program and
adding recreation services which it currently does not provide. Except for the residents
within the Metzger Park LID, residents within the unincorporated area of Washington
County in the Tigard urban service area receive neither parks nor recreation so this
would provide an alternative for receiving these services without depending on
annexation to Tigard, which could be many years away. This could be particularly
attractive to unincorporated residents which either do not favor annexation to Tigard in
the immediate future or desire a different type of service than Tigard currently
provides. It could also be critical to obtaining park land before all land is developed in
the unincorporated area.
One of two types of districts could be formed to provide park and recreation services -
a special district under ORS 198 and 266, or a county service district under ORS 451.
ORS 198 pertains to special districts generally, and ORS 266 pertains specifically to the
formation and operation of park and recreation districts. A special district under these
statutes would be a municipal corporation with its own separately elected governing
body. A county service district organized under ORS 451, however, is a district formed
under the auspices and supervision of the county board of commissioners to carry out a
specific function(s); it does not have a separately elected governing body. Both types of
districts have similar powers to levy and collect property taxes, issue revenue and
general obligation bonds, etc. Both types can be formed by a county board of
commissioners, with approval by the PMALGBC. Voter approval is required to also
establish a tax base for operation of the district, which is nearly always the case.6 A
district that would include the City of Tigard would require approval by a majority of
the voters within the City of Tigard.
A subtle difference between a special district and a county service district is that a
special district can only be formed to provide one or two related services. A county
service district be formed to provide a number of different and unrelated services,
either at the time of formation or later.
The formation of a district could occur at any time and would not depend on
annexation by Tigard. It could also be phased to include only the unincorporated area
initially and later the City of Tigard, or visa versa. It could be formed in either of the
two ways described above. With the county service district in particular, there could be
considerable flexibility and variation on the specifics of its formation. We have
included a case study of the North Clackamas Park and Recreation District which
6 However, if a proposal is put on the ballot with two questions whether to form and whether to
approve a tax base - it is possible that one can be approved without the other. The formation of
districts have been approved by the votes while the tax base approval has been withheld.
Evaluation: of Alternatives for Park, Recreation and 15 c«
OWENS
Open Space Services, Beaverton-Tigard Study area COGA
UE ILD rARO
occurred in 1990 to provide an example of how a county service district could be
formed ..under ORS. 451,, Other...q;pm.ples, include . Washington. County's Enhanced
Sheriff's Patrol District and the Urban Road Maintenance District. Our own THPRD
provides the best example of a special district organized under ORS 198 and 266.
If a district is organized today to include all of Tigard's urban service area, it would
have over 49,000 people (1994) and over 74,000 by 2015. We have assumed a level of
service for parks equal to that of the City of Tigard today and a level of service for
recreation facilities based on the National Park and Recreation Association (NRPA)
where a standard does not already exist within the City of Tigard. However, with
formation of a new district, any level of service could be proposed. See Table 4 in
Appendix 1.
B. Non-Financial Factors Affecting Service Provision
1. Beaverton Area
m
The same factors that apply to Alternative 1 apply to this alternative.
2. Tigard Area
a. Physical factors/boundaries. The boundaries of the new district could be
coterminous with Tigard's urban service boundary, or it could be larger to include
other cities and unincorporated areas in southeast Washington County. If the district is
formed prior to all the unincorporated area within Tigard's urban service area being
annexed to the city, the district would be larger and more populous than the city. With
full annexation of the city to include all the unincorporated area to make the
boundaries coterminous, the district would automatically be dissolved per ORS
222.510. In such a situation, the district's assets would be transferred to the city.
If the boundaries of the district are larger than those of the city, or the city consciously
determines to leave out at least one piece of property, the district would remain.
However, according to state law, the City can choose to withdraw from the district at
any time.
The Metzger Park LID could remain as is within the district to provide for operation
and maintenance of the Metzger Park. It could choose to contract with the district for
operation and maintenance or the county could continue to provide this service.
b. Socio-political factors. With formation of a district prior to annexation of the
unincorporated area to the City of Tigard to receive other city services, one incentive
for annexation could be removed. On the other hand, if unincorporated residents come
to like the park and recreation services of the district, there would not be a threat of
these changing with annexation to Tigard. For example, with annexation to the City of
Evaluation of Alternatives for Park, Recreation and 16 77
OWENS
Open Space Services, Beaverton-Tigard Shady area COGAN
arcvcten rAl'FR
Beaverton since THPRD's formation, those being annexed are assured that they will
receive. the same level-of.. park. and.,. recreation. services they have. enjoyed prior to
annexation.
The formation of a district to include all of Tigard's urban service area could also be a
unifying factor that creates community identity for the area. This has been a significant
factor for the City of Beaverton and THPRD. The unifying factor of a district might
actually make it easier for the City of Tigard to eventually annex all the urban service
area.
If the district is established as a county service district, it could become part of an
overall strategy for city expansion and eventual dissolution. A special district could be
difficult for the city to influence and control, and if the district annexed territory
outside Tigard's urban service boundary, it would be more difficult for the city to
withdraw at a later date to provide park and recreation services directly. With a
county service district, however, the city and county could enter into an
intergovernmental agreement that specifically stipulates the boundaries of the district
and provide for dissolution once Tigard annexed all the territory. The agreement
would be binding on the county even with changes in commission members. The same
arrangement would be difficult to make with a special district because there would be
no legal entity for the city to enter into an intergovernmental agreement with until after
the district was formed. At that point, a new elected board might not be willing to
make the sort of agreements that the City would desire.
If a district formed to provide services only to the unincorporated area, as an interim
measure until the city annexed the area and provided services, this could make it more
difficult for the City to annex the area. First, unincorporated residents might prefer
district PROS programs over the City's, or if the City's are more expensive, they may
not be willing to pay for them. If the City withdrew territory a little at a time as it
annexed, this could cause the remaining portions of the district to become economically
nonviable. The City would likely be more successful in making such transitions if the
district is a county service district as opposed to a special district. A special district,
with its own separately elected body, would likely be more concerned with "turf" and
perpetuating itself whereas the county board of commissioners would not be
threatened with dissolving itself. It would still have many other duties and
responsibilities and might actually welcome the dissolution of the district upon full
annexation to the City.
c. Accountability. Accountability to the voters and to the City of Tigard would differ
depending on which type of district is formed.
A special district with its own governing body would be more directly accountable to
the voters within the district. The Washington County Board of Commissioners would
be accountable for a county service district, although as in the North Clackamas case,
Evaluation of Alternatives for Park, Recreation and 17 cOGAN
OWENS
Open Space Services, Beaverton-Tigard Study area COGAN
ucvctFDrAPG
there is an opportunity for both the residents and the City to provide an advisory role,
a role .that might. not be present in.a.special district.. This maybe .particularly important.,
to the City which might be reluctant to seriously consider a district at all the county
service district potentially could provide it more initial control of its formation (see
previous discussion and the case study in Appendix 2) and an ongoing advisory role.
d. Transition issues. Pursuant to ORS 236.610, the formation of a district would
require the transfer of personnel from the City of Tigard to the district to the extent that
employees would be impacted by formation of the district (see previous discussion
under Alternative 2). The city may or may not transfer land or equipment, as it wishes.
If the district is eventually extinguished pursuant to ORS 222.510, personnel and assets
would be transferred to the City of Tigard.
Similarly, the Metzger Park LID could be affected by ORS236.610 if any county
employees are in danger of losing their positions as a result of the formation of the
district and the County decides to dissolve the LID. However, given the small scale of
the operation, this appears unlikely.
As discussed under Alternative 2, there are a variety of ways of managing transition of
services without detrimentally impacting public employees and these can all be worked
out ahead of time.
C. Financial Factors Affecting Service Provision
Alternative 3a is the same as Alternative 1a - THPRD extends its boundary as areas are
annexed by the City of Beaverton, or as it annexes on its own. As noted before, we
project insufficient property revenue from the annexed area to fund the current THPRD
level of service for the current or projected population.
As with Alternatives 1&2, the overriding financial factor affecting the provision of
PROS is the projected availability of property tax revenues. While fees and charges are
an important source of revenue for many recreation programs and some recreation
facilities, property tax revenue is the predominant means of financing the acquisition,
development, maintenance, and operation of parks, recreation facilities, and open space
within the study area.
Under Alternative 3b, we assume a new taxing district and a new tax base is approved
by the voters of Tigard and the Tigard Urban Service Area. Under this general
alternative we have created two sub-alternatives labeled 3b-1 and 3b-2. The difference
between the two sub-alternatives is in the size of their beginning tax base. The tax base
offered for voter approval in 3b-1 and 3b-2 is sized to include administrative costs and
startup equipment costs. Alternative 3b-2 also includes an amount for annual debt
service on facilities required to serve the current population. This levy would be
subject to both the governmental $10 tax rate limit and the M50 frozen tax rate.
Evaluation of Alternatives for Park, Recreation and 18 coc.~u
OWENS
Open Space Services, Beaverton-Tigard Study area COGAN
ucrctEO r•rt.
Under Alternative 3b-2,, the new district would undertake capital financing through the
issuance of limited tax obligation bonds or certificates of participation, rather than
general obligation bonds. By including an additional $3,000,000 for debt service in the
voter approved tax base, the estimated growth in taxable value generates a much larger
potential revenue stream than a tax base sized just for operating costs. In fact, by 2015
there is a $7,000,000 annual revenue difference between the two sub-alternatives.
For both sub-alternatives we show a net positive revenue flow in the year 2015. The net
positive revenue for 3b-1 has reached only $1,400,000 by 2015. However, for
Alternative 3b-2 the year 2015 net revenue flow is about $5,000,000. Obviously, the
new district would not levy more than it required as is implied by this result.
However, the size of the projected positive cash flow gives added comfort to the
conclusion that this sub-alternative is financially viable.
Apart from the question of whether voters and existing governments would support
the formation of a new district, there is an issue regarding the resulting composite tax
rate. In our model, the assumed $9,000,000 tax base would require a tax rate of around
$2.16 per $1,000 Taxable Value. Were this new tax rate to force overlapping taxing
districts into rate compression (by exceeding the $10 limit), support for district
formation from other governments might be limited.
While Alternative 3b-1 shows a net positive revenue stream of about $1,400,000 in 2015,
it has some serious drawbacks compared with Alternative 3b-2. The projected revenue
surplus of $1,400,000 is only reached in 2015. In the earlier years, the cash flow could
be negative depending upon the size of administrative costs and the rate at which
facilities and their attendant costs were brought on board. Furthermore, if a district
were formed without simultaneously providing for the acquisition of land, park
development and other facilities development, there is a risk that voters might not
approve the subsequent funding required to make the district operational. On the
other hand, the advantage of not including capital construction money within the tax
base, is that subsequent capital financing approvals could be made outside the M50
limits.
For greater detail regarding the following projections of costs and revenues, please
refer to Appendix 3.
3b-1. New District with $6,000,000 tax base sized to meet operating costs. Serves City
of Tigard and unincorporated Tigard Urban Service Area.
Projected Costs
Capital Costs to serve existing population (1997$) $32,278,167
Capital Costs to serve projected population (1997$) $22,142,333
Cost to Operate and Maintain (1997$) $ 7,315,000
Cost to Operate and Maintain (2015$) $12,453,298
Evaluation of Alternatives for Park, Recreation and 19 coc:,~ti
OWENS
Open Space Services, Beaverton-Tigard Sturdy area COG AN
ucYCt.co rrtR
Will
Projec.ted.P.roperty.Tax.Revenue, collected,(rom.area. to.. be annexed:
Projected Revenue Year 2015 $13,886,314
Cost to Operate and Maintain (2015$) $12,453,298
Projected Revenue Surplus $1,433,016
Property tax revenue collected from the area to be served would be sufficient to pay the
costs of operating and maintaining the facilities required to serve the area. (See
Appendix 3 for detail).
3b-2 New District with $9,000,000 tax base sized to meet operating costs plus debt
service required to serve current population. Serves City of Tigard and unincorporated
Tigard Urban Service Area.
Capital Costs to serve existing population (1997$) $32,278,167
Capital Costs to serve projected population (1997$) $22,142,333
Cost to Operate and Maintain (1997$) $ 7,315,000
Cost to Operate and Maintain (2015$) $12,453,298
Projected Property Tax Revenue collected from area to be annexed:
Projected Revenue Year 2015 $20,829,471
Cost to Operate and Maintain (2015$) $15,681,115
Projected Revenue Surplus $ 5,148,356
Property tax revenue collected from the area to be served could pay the costs of
acquiring, constructing, operating and maintaining the facilities required to serve the
area. (See Appendix 3 for detail).
IV. Alternative 4: City of Tigard contract with THPRD for recreation services for a)
the Beaverton school district area; b) the entire city.
Description of the Alternative
This alternative only affects the City of Tigard.
Under this alternative, the City of Tigard would contract with THPRD to provide
recreation services, which the City does not currently provide. The City could contract
for services for the area that is within the Beaverton School District (a) or the entire city
(b).
This alternative would correct a problem that exists in the portion of the Beaverton
School District that is within the City of Tigard. Currently, these children and adults
Evaluation of Alternatives for Park, Recreation and 20 CMA
OWES
Open Space Services, Beaverton-Tigard Study area COCAN
utYCLFU r.ri■
cannot participate in THPRD recreation programs, including those which take place
within the. schools, without paying am.put-of-district fee.. While these . recreation.
programs are park district-sponsored, the perception by children and parents is that
.children who attend the same school, some of whom live in THPRD and some who do
not, do not receive equal benefits. This is not a school district problem but manifests
itself more directly within the school system because THPRD uses school facilities for
many of its recreation programs.
B. Non-financial Factors Affecting Service Provision
1. Boundaries. The boundaries of the contract area would be coterminous with those
of the Beaverton School District in (a) and with the city in (b). Under (a), the entire
school population within the Beaverton School District would have access to the same
recreation programs provided by THPRD without paying an out-of-district fee. This
would eliminate the current problem that exists with children (and adults) who live in
the City of Tigard and are also within the Beaverton School District who are unable to
take advantage of THPRD recreation programs, especially those that are provided
within the schools. Under (b), the enhre city would have access to these programs.
Under (b), THPRD would likely need to enter into the same kinds of agreements with
Tigard schools that the district has with the Beaverton School District. While the
Beaverton District is within the City of Tigard city limits, it does not have any school
facilities within the city at this time. Therefore, all Tigard residents would have to go to
schools in Beaverton to take advantage of these services. It is possible that these schools
could not handle the additional participation of Tigard residents, particularly under
(b)-
2. Socio-political factors. Under (a), the current problem described above would be
eliminated for Tigard residents within the Beaverton School District. However, a new
problem could be created as the rest of City of Tigard residents would not have the
some recreation programs as those within the Beaverton School District. This disparity
is resolved under (b) where the entire city would have the same recreation programs.
Because Tigard would contract with THPRD for these services under either (a) or (b),
these areas would not be within the actual jurisdictional boundaries of THPRD.
Therefore, the residents within the City of Tigard would not have a direct voice in the
THPRD political process. For example, they would likely have to accept the programs
that THPRD provides and would not have a direct ability, through the elections
process, to impact changes they desire.
Even assuming that the contract amount that Tigard would pay to THPRD for services
under (a) or (b) reflects the full cost of THPRD's services, this arrangement, particularly
under (b) would likely be politically difficult for THPRD. Residents of the City of
Tigard may not understand how their services are different from those of residents
within THPRD elsewhere. For example, the contract would not cover parks, and the
Evaluation of Alternatives for Park, Recreation and 21
0WENS
Open Space Services, Beaverton-Tigard Study area COGAN
RrC ctxn rAMR
types of parks and level of service between THPRD and the City of Tigard might
remain very different,
3. Accountability. Because the City of Tigard would be contracting with THPRD for
recreation services under both (a) and (b), there would be no direct accountability of
the THPRD board to voters within the City of Tigard. Voters within THPRD would
elect THPRD board members who would select program and budget priorities for
patrons within THPRD as well as those within the City of Tigard. The Tigard City
Council might have some influence over THPRD decisions, but they would likely be
more in a position of either choosing to participate in THPRD programs as presented or
not participating.
THPRD could involve Tigard residents in planning and overseeing its programs,
however. For example, THPRD could choose to appoint Tigard residents to various
advisory committees and boards either as voting or as ex officio members.
4. Transition issues. Because no unit of government is being formed, nor would one
unit be taking over the responsibilities of another, there would not be any transition
issues associated with personnel or equipment.
Financial Factors Affecting Service Provision
We did not analyze Alternative 4 for three reasons. First, Alternative 4 in both its
forms, is based on contracting for services rather than on the annexation of territory by
a PROS provider. Second, contracting for recreation programs in the near future seems
unlikely unless the City of Tigard was to reverse its current park policy - a policy that
does not include recreation programs as a City service. Third, even if the City reversed
its policy, it would have to budget general fund revenue for recreation program
contracts at a time when local government general fund budgets are being severely
tested by M50. Thus the Alternative appears to be not feasible at this time.
Evaluation of Alternatives for Park, Recreation and 22
OWENS
Open Space Services, Beaverton-Tigard Study area COGAN
ucx~cur..rt~
Appendix 1
Tables of Population, Service Levels and
Projected Needs
Appendix 1: Evaluation of Alternatives for Park, Recreation and i COGAN
OWE\S
Open Space Services, Beaverton-Tigard Study Area COGAV
RfEY EO PAff
0
3
Table 1
Current and Pro'ected Po ulation, Households and Em to went b Alternative
1994 Population Households Households Employments
Alt. Components Populati on to ,11ene
1 A) THPRD for 80,550 126,920
Beaverton: 188,770 47,810 75,510 1,390 5,080
Current 714PRD 119,520 5 11,530
11,600 28,830 87,040 81,940 132,000
Outside THPRD 131,120 217,600 52'900
TOTAL North: 40,1?0 53,680
B) City for Tigard: 47,370 13,930 18,950
Currant City 33,730 26,670 6,320 10,670 2„600 0
Uninc. South 15,800 20,250 29,620 42,710
TOTAL South: 58,320
49,530 74,040
2 Oneproviderforall 801W 126,920
Beaverton:
Current THPRD 119,520 188,770 47,810 75,510 801W 5,080
Outside ~ 11,530 1
Outside THPRD 11,600 28,830
40,170 53/"
Tigard: 47,370 13,930 18,950 ON
Current City Tigard 33,800 26,670 6,320 10,670 2,600 190 20
Uninc. South 15,800 ?3,150 116,660 12 710
TOTAL- 180,650 291 610
3 A) THPRD for ,510 80,,5550 126,920
75,510 5,080
Beaverton: 119,520 188,770 47,810 1
Current TNPRD 28,830 5,090 11,530 132,000
outeide111PRD 11,600 52,90A 87,040 ~ ~
131,120 217,600
TOTAL North:
B) New Service District: 170 53,W
Current City Tigard 47,370 13,930 18,950 40, ~
,770
49,530 26,670 74,040 20,250 29,620 42 'TUninc.OTAL South South: 15,800 33,730 6,320 10,670 2,600 5$320
87,040 81940 132,000
4 A) Beaverton Area 131,120 217,600 52,900
TOTAL North: 3,480 4,853
B)Tigard Area 5 647 1,744
a)Tigard wi/Beav. School 4,322 53167
36,690
District
b)Balance of City of 29,408 68,343 12,186 26,957
40,170
Tigard 13,930 29,620
33,730 74 090
TOTAL South: Source: Metro, Washington County, Cogan Owens Cogan
ii
Appendix 3: Evaluation of Alternatives for Park, Recreation and
Open Space Services, Beaverton-Tigard Study Area
TABU 2
Altemahve ected14eeds
Setyice Levels city of Tservice bound?''
THPRD art
¢ebYUarY,1997 and within t. v►sbari
das,Y% b) City of rest Whole uum
.
an service botro to the HeaNu~ter of
on s havebin ro unded u~ Number Additional Units
2015
um i Units N~ for
with>riBeavert
a THPRD additional 1995 Service pddiriona .D and
ded for 2015
'(f1PRD Within City`
tentative Trv0 Provid Aa protected needs in Standard Standard Unit for Level Nee t3utstde
Al Unit ninsPurvoses Within outside City's
plan Di~'~i`t
District'► .u 8 acres
f,ard ~PRD,,. T►sard' 5
units
1995 Actual acres
m
►T pe of Park or Ti ~1iPR 59 acres 29 acres 67 acres
y Facility 40 acres
11 43 acres 96 saes
TNPRD T►6ard 1.0 .31 2.45 0 acres 8! acres 57 accts
51 acres
1,040 Pop. 2.2 3 6 A
25
14.42 ac 1.5 2.9
2 3.6
hb°rh°od 1~~ accee►1,400 P. no 1 ale 1
Neig, 78911 1pWpop. standard les TO
park park 385 113.98 ac X2,9 for 28a' 9 ors NIX
Cotnmutti 632A ptolectto►► 19 .05 2 centers 0 cent ovenSPac~ .05 58,40 N►A 1 1 courts
court
GreenwayI p 32 N►p 3 court
Natural lea ni. n►iles4ft" 000po 50,000 2IA96 12,8`'8 courts 3fields
i. 1 i,,utlor4 1 field
32,5 m NIP,- p° 12,8` 14f►elds .
center 21,896Y'y 18 fields
Trails 3 10,715 l field 2 fields
n`un. Rec. populatton► courts
COn 2.5 center 1,600 1+4 fields 2
Center 8 440 10,5 10,715 S fields 14 courts 1 court id►A
34 coup i N►p
p~ls 1Pp°
Coveted population/ 10 '715 1,500 16,072 2 other"ut~"
Basketball 3 1;340 0
t 107 field 2,000 16972 noted
2 unl ss otherW i$e
Courte ~putatton► field 21,` tan Draft 1 aril
Softball cou 25A~
rt NIP, ens. Master 1'
Baseba 3
t lnventorY
Melds 117 2 Qulatiorulatior4 J Pool 20-ye, r COOP Tis d Fixed Asse
g°ccer Field 51 N►p*'`a THpIZD Plan and the
Te ms C°go01 8 SOU~gg parks Master
Sw nttn Tigard 1994 SDC Study, the 1
r park' Re atian and
f Alternatives S tcdy Area
Appefldix 3: EvnllfatiBeav~'tfNl-T{$m'd
o Q pert Spate Services,
m^
LNI
-logo
'TABLE 3A )Iternative 2 •
ectedi4eeds'
d P
lH roj o
Levels an d city es
Service f Tigard
Febr►tary,1r and urban service b° nom Units
n and T'$ eareSt whole 14um O! for 2015
f for both $eavextode d up to the n
TKPRD ed for
der. have been roun n service
Otte Provi al units Number of Addit'to201 5 unite Nee TotalTio u
Alternat've 2. needs in addition Unit for area
jeCted Standard rp~° Tot,d
All, Pro Unit putetde ~
Standard Ylannin6 Yu ytiithin -1PRD utban
urban
1995 ACtual Units 11tYRD'" Torn Distad", ~rvice area 643cres
Dis aae6
88 acres 32
Type of pack or Facility 29 acres scree 267 acres
A3
TIP 59 acres 43 acres 369 acres .(0,2151
~pRD 1.0 0 acres 104 (p175) les
1.5 265""' acres 22 rm
acres/1, Y
000 POP- no standard acres or &1 57 miles 1 center
1010
2 acree(l~ (or 3.6) or 41 9 miles 2 minters A to
ood park 385 75. ac w pop. or 29 °d~ 47 miles 0 centers 5 coutte
Net hborh 113.9 2centers lcourt
632
Communi Greenwa9l ,p00pop. 50.000 3coom 32ftetds lds
a 325 mi. 1.71 mi. tionj center 21,8` 14f1 eldo fie
opelk Nahual We
attonj center 18 f ieids 22 fields 35 courts
3 0 PO ut 2,00 14 fields 48 couro : 3 pool
Trails sec. Centex 2.5 8 fields
8 ulation) 14 courts 3 4po1
Common' etball pop Z 34 coins 1 pool noted
eyed Bank 3 f ield pool unless 0therw
C O 107 field 2,00 s l
Cmtu populatton( othe1'w~:nOted
Softball Fields 3 court 25,000 plan Draft.2
Baseball] 2
117 pop ula 0 ear Compre Fix hensive eti ter p'sset Inventory eSS
populad tlonj YpOt
field 91 0 TEIpRp 2 Y the Tigand
Soccer urt 8 courceS: plan and
Te'uus n pool th.19SS Parks Master
e
Swim 1994 SDC Study,
Tigard
iv
Recreation acrd
Alternatives Park,
Area
£vattiatiou of and Study
o Append' 3e Services, $eav~tort- T19
open Spa
N~
TABLE 3B Alternat've 2'x'1995
d p,,jected Heeds -
(
d City o WIA ure
Service Levels an ILD an WILD Ann
exedthe a the cunt
Pebrua►sY 1997 -jigara and i¢
City of. -gol awry.
, ggD arrt Service o"xt
Dsb 5 SeVsce t evel if
nt service level if area w,,hi, the 99
ws the tune des d the t ~Tiyacd
Column sho and the remain 1995 Service i1lPRD aoQtl` cxatton
1995: Last and Standard Unit tevel for c+xa and city Alta
Alternative 2 in City of Ti$ Within UsB
1995 ActuatUnrta t1iPRr Trsara", citywca
area,°°~
,ryPe of Park or 9s 89
combined ,32
Facility rrgacd
CtiPR~
ac~t,0o0 poP• 1 2.2 2.1
~
200 2.5 3.6
10.02 2 2 3.6
2,9
190.2 acceallA~ 00o po POp.P•
POP-
Nghborhood 464 acceelt, 1b
071 78.91 746 15
park 385 11398 .05 74,901
Contmuni 632 19 0 6913'
open Space] mil"q,000 poP 58,' 21AOO
Gxeenway/ 171 ml- 34 p,pulatt001 19.E
Natural Area 32.5 mi• 3 center
0 21,896
Txaile 3 vopula►ianl y43
ConnunitYlRec. ~s 10.5 court 10715
Center g 1,600 1,873
Covered populatior+r 1,741
110 10'"ns 2,416
'Basketball 3 field 1 2,24b
court s°o8' 107 populati04 16,072
Sasebal>/ Softball 120 field -11,9000 3 ,pulatio~ 0 26,113
elds 117 othetse noted
Fi
Field 93
court 21,` ft 1.2 un1 ess oth
exti'ltse noted
soccer 91 2 populatio+j Ppo1
s court rehensi'1e Master Plan Dra
Tenor e 0 a ~ 2p..year Comp ue Tigard Fixea Asset Inventory
it T14PI2 an
swmmin pool Sources. Plan
"SDC Study, the 1988 Parks Master
Tigard 1 v
afiues r Pa►k, Recreation and
Attern f° Area
Appendix Evn1u SerulceStiBeav ton-Ti $d Study
o
Open Space
V~4 ,f. 1.
Bj,E 4 five
sterna
TA Needs- 3
atwoal
and Frolected of T;gatd
' Se1yiceLevels gD andC;ty trio
} a new p ation dia
7 and recce
p 'I'mo Febr+ta''1' ~ of
t+er
bound~Y;
B b~ . Num Uniu
Additiol y„a►
on's a *,nsett'$e;viceice b0u°daq 0f ceded for 20Numbsr unite N ~
yTRDwuaeTip,ard
s Additional rd Urban
Vide t a '1 5Service Neededfor2at Total ftiBra A
TWpyra level TIdPR~ Totalfkaverton service
e~rvree
paternative 3s Stan dardUnltfor puuide
uses Urban
Standard Unit ptanni ou Within Dietrict Area 1283
Tt6ard°°d` Distract x73
1995 'al VFW)
acres 19
TItPRD Trbard 59 acres ~4 15254
Type of Park of
FaClUty 11 4324 acres 369 OS
Ti'Ara 0 acres 103.79
ti1pRD 1.0 245 265.29
acre Am Pop 2.5 22 3.55 acres acres 2 1 g9
10.02 1.5 29 5b 5 155
35 rrules .6 Or e1ghbothood 190 2 78.91 acres~l pop. 3~~ .05 47.3 miles 90 Centers 2 346
NA acre .27 2Centers 47
Pack 385 11398 0
A5 400 1.32 Courts 3.9
Comrttu 632 40A 58, 3.38
()pert SQact 000 Pop' 50,000 -1 58 Courts 32 4
Gteenv+ay/ 171 mi mitesj4 21,5' 1,1 A f fields Z bt
Nal Area nu. 0 ponter ty0~ 12'858'i'a 18 fields 4 2.61
atur 325 21,898' 10,715 22
Ttai18 3 1,600 14.4fietd6 48.4 3q
nturtity~ gec ~pulationl 10,715 8 fields
Cotrt t'5 center 2,()00 16,072 144 courts 312
1,500 34 courts 115 e5s odier~►~ noted
Certtet 8 ~pulation( 16,012 1~ noted
o,tdoo: 16,072 1,~Q0
ra ss othe
Covered coos 3 field 2,OCA o Draft"- 2 a oral
Basketball 00 107 ~pulation f reld 000 j6 X12 21,`100 aster Plan se tventot
Ba~ball/ Softball t! 2. 20 t hy
2 ~pnlation! court 25000 Coalp reh stde~ive Fixed AsRD 2p.year a nd the Tig
Fields 117 2 ~pulatio poor Sources: TIip std Study
Soccer yield 91 0 98g parks Master Plan 13eaverton Ttg
Tewu court n pool 8 19 SDC Study, the 1 ide of the `
outs
Swu" Tigard including areas
entire distnct~
,K used for the the Mastec Plan, Vi
49 as
,248 service level in
forecast of2 or
aster existing
plan, a 2015 five A, Table 3,
pRp M Alterna
For the TH TxpRD 1996 Master Plan,
area. pon goals ►n the park? Reeation and
u Based"
Of Altertlatia $t11dy Area
3Evaltisti Beautott Ttg
r. O Appendix • tce
NR' Opel, Space Se-v
service level derived
for the City of Tigard, or existing
SDC stud
veto ment Charges stud 2145. ise noted.
Recreation Facilities y)
otherw
population used in theTablSDeC3; study; 175,174, unless
W Based upon the 1994 Park and System ~
stud and the fixed asset inventory. Master plan,
from the SDC y ulation as used in'he'THPR i e SDC study, p• 13.
Based upon 1992 p°p ulation, 32,145, as use
Bated upon Tigard 1993 pop Master plan, 249,248'
996
etro for the study area; 28,830.
population protection for 2015 in the THPR D 1 Y ,370•
ecctio for 22015, 01 provided d by M Metro for the stud area, 47
Vii population pro). 26,b70.
Yu; population proe ction for 2015 provided
by Metro;
ial use or linear Parks until further notice.
ix population projection for 2015 p
Metzger Park, spec dix B2 purchase, p. 29.
x Does not include 199b Master Plan, Appel acquire( through Master Plan.
Based upon THPRD 1R plans for 100 acres to be acq
Plan e level, until further notice.
THPRD 1996 Master s demand model as used in the THPRD 1996
my Using ses rather than .19, existing servic
mi; pave Evans and Associate tanning purpo
•32, standard unit for p
No policy to provide. 175,174•
Neither THPRD nor Tigard d upon include school district facilities'
level in the Master Plan-
ulation,
or existing service s otherwise poked.
xv;; Existing service level base P°n 1992 pop ernative A, Table 3, Table 3; 249,248' unles
!,c to provide. Master Plan, At' Master Plan, es used for Alternative 2.
xYiu No Po Y goals in the THPRD 1996 the THPRD 1996 lanning purpos
28,830.
x~ Based upon projection as used in area,
Based upon 2015 population Metro for the study 74,040 THPRD standards for p
xx; Population projection for 2015 pr ov deed by Metro for the arks study until area ;
further notice. eludes purchase of 100 acres.
xxii population projection for r 2015 Pap special use or linear p plans in
Master Plan. Laster Plan Alternative A xx;n Does not include M, THPRD serce level,1996 1996 THPRD M Master Plan•
xx;v Based upon existing rovided through donation. the 1996 THPRD M
xxv some expected to be p model as used in
district facilities.
xxvt pave Evans and Associates deman m s include school unless otherwise noted'
x%Vii Neither THPRD nor Tigard figure Master Plan, Table 3;175,174, o ulation figure'
xxv;;; Existing service level based upon 1992 the THulation. PRD 1996 13, ter unless otherwise noted. PRD and Tigard.
population as used in 32,115 facility inventories from THd. 1994 P p
xxu~ Based upon o ulation as used in the SDC s(175174) and 1985 Tigard 15,800)•
xxx Based upon 1993 1 ulation figures from Metro ulation figures from Metro for .x Based upon 1992 pop and 1994 PoP
,730)• res from Metro for THPRD
from Tigard used (33 Population figu arks until further notice.
xxx;i Based upon 1992 special use or linear p .
Tigard figures include school district facilities-
Does not include Metzger park,
at NRPA standards less
Neither THPRD nor Tib Metro analysis of TAZ zones.. urban service boundaries)
,xxiv
on Metro analysis of TAZ zrated areas within
nxxv population forecast for THPRD base upon
xxxv; population forefor thesouthern study area (City plus unincor
xxxvi; New park district parks Master Plan. vii
ulation as used in the THPRD 1996
7995 actual units.
xx, it Based upon 1992 P°P
ecreation and
11tation of Alternatives for ParArea
%
N AppQf1dix 3: Eva _Ti ard Study Open Space Services, Beavertorl
N
0
a
X"ix Based upon Tigard 1995 population as 35,000.
xI Maintenance of existing service level for both jurisdictions.
A For their purposes of projecting as if a new parks and rec. district were provided, 19% NRPA standards are used.
xui Based upon existing service level -19%.
xiiii Based upon existing service level -19%.
XhV Neither THPRD nor Tigard existing units includes outdoor uncovered and half courts and school district facilities.
x1v For the purposes of projecting as if a new parks and rec. district were provided, 19% NRPA standards are used.
m Appendix 3: Evaluation of Alternatives for Park, Recreation and Viii -
I Open Space Services, Beaverton-Tigard Study Area
Appendix 2
Case..Sliady t
North Clackamas Park and Recreation District
a
The North Clackamas Park and Recreation District was formed in 1990 as a county
service district under ORS 451. It serves the City of Milwaukie and the unincorporated
area around the city including Oak Grove and Sunnyside.
The district was formed out of the concern that the urban unincorporated area was
rapidly developing without park and recreation facilities. While Clackamas County
had a well developed and managed system of rural county parks, it was not in the
urban park business. Initial surveys that the county did prior to 1990 indicated a lack
of support for a district serving all of the unincorporated urban area, but there was
strong support in the Milwaukie area.
The effort to form the district began by developing a twenty year master plan that
established a vision and defined needed facilities and services. In May, 1990, toward
the end of the master plans creation, a random sample telephone survey was taken of
the Milwaukie area to test the proposal for creating a district to implement the plan.
The survey indicated a tax rate of $.66/$1,000 assessed valuation as a tax base for the
district with $10 million in capital improvements to be paid for out of the tax base over
15 years. Of those surveyed, 64% in the City of Milwaukie and 55% in the
unincorporated area supported the district. The county proceeded with the district
formation.
The City of Milwaukie agreed to become part of the new district. About 60% of city
facility users were not city residents. According to discussions with the City Manager,
the City was facing budget cuts that would have placed parks in competition with
police and fire. Formation of the district allowed the city to transfer this function
without facing a budget cut.
The city and county entered into an intergovernmental agreement prior to the election
that addressed a number of transition issues including timing and financial issues
related to transferring city-owned parks to the district for maintenance (they would
stay in city ownership), capital improvements that the new district would make to a
number of facilities, including a senior center, and other issues such as joint signage.
The city agreed to transition all facilities by July 1, 1995. All parks personnel were to be
transferred to the district and the city was to receive a $.5 million credit (cash) for its
transferring equipment. All capital improvements to city-owned facilities were to be
approved by the city. The city was guaranteed the same or greater service level than
what they had prior to the district formation. The agreement also provides that the city
may withdraw from the district at any time and "take back" its facilities for operation
and maintenance - while allowed by state law anyway, this provided a greater
impetus to work together.
Appendix 2: Evaluation: of Alternatives for Park, Recreation and N COGAN
Open Space Services, Beaverton-Tigard Study Area c°oc N
V~CLFD PAM
The district formation,w.ent ,before the, Boundary, Commission. in. July,., 199.0 and. was .
approved. It was then placed on the November, 1990 ballot, at the same time as
Measure 5 property tax limitation. In keeping with many of the contradictions of the
time, voters within the new district approved both the district with its accompanying
tax base of $.66/$1,000 valuation ($1.99 million) and the Measure 5 property tax
limitation!
After the district was formed, the city and county entered into a new agreement with
the board of commissioners in the official capacity as the district board.
Since the district was formed, its main objective has been to purchase land and build a
major aquatic center, which has been accomplished. The county issued $12 million in
revenue bonds for land acquisition and development, backed by property tax revenues.
About 2/3 of the cost of operation of the district comes from property taxes with 1/3
coming from fees and donations. A parks foundation established in 1983 receives
donations. One large business owner in the area contributed $1.0 million immediately
after the district was approved.
The city transitioned personnel and facilities to the district one year ahead of schedule.
The city also received $.5 million from the district as credit for equipment that was
transferred. The city used the funds to purchase additional park land and make
improvements to the Senior Center.
The district is governed by a nine-member Urban Parks Advisory Board appointed by
and under the supervision of the county board of commissioners. Six of the positions
are designated for particular geographic representation and three of the positions are
at-large. For example, the City of Milwaukee and the Milwaukie Senior Center each
have one position. The other designated positions represent neighborhoods outside
Milwaukie. The City of Milwaukie s representative is a councilor.
The district also has an intergovernmental agreement with the North Clackamas School
District for joint use of facilities for recreation programs.
According to discussions with the City Manager, the City still views itself as being in
the park service business and, in effect, contracting the service with the district. He
sees county service districts as transitional entities that allow urban services to be
provided prior to annexation. A county service district is preferable to a special district
because of the agreements that can be made before and after the district formation. The
arrangement is the "best of both worlds".
Appendix 2: Evaluation of Alternatives for Park, Recreation and X CMAN
(WENS
Open Space Services, Beaverton-Tigard Study Area COGAN
~ CLIUrAR4
Appendix 3
Financial, Model.
Description of the Financial Model
The overriding financial factor affecting the provision of PROS is the projected
availability of property tax revenues. Fees and charges are an important source of
revenue for many recreation programs and some recreation facilities. However,
property tax revenue is the predominant means of financing the acquisition,
development, maintenance, and operation of parks, recreation facilities, and open space
within the Study Area.
Oregon voters have adopted a new constitutional amendment (M50) that cuts property
tax revenues by a statewide average of 17% for fiscal year 1997-98. It also effectively
caps future property tax revenue for operating levies to an annual increase of 3% (plus
revenue from new construction). As a result, property tax revenue available to fund
PROS in the future will be greatly diminished in comparison to previous years.
To quantify this property tax issue, we developed a financial model to project both
anticipated property tax revenues and PROS financial requirements to the year 2015.
To simplify the financial model, we focused our analysis on the operations and
maintenance (O&M) costs associated with new parks and other recreation facilities that
would be required to serve the current and future population within the unserved
portions of the Study Area (see: Projected Facility Needs and Projected Facility Costs
for each Alternative in the Model Output section following).
Our comparative analysis of costs and revenues did not include the capital costs
required to acquire and develop land or to construct new facilities - although we
estimated and show these costs for each alternative (see: Projected Facility Costs). We
assumed that PROS service providers would establish System Development Charges
sufficient to meet the needs resulting from new population growth. We further
assumed that general obligation bonds and capital serial levies outside existing
property tax limitations would be used to acquire land and facilities to serve the
existing population. Thus, capital costs would be outside the tax limit of M50, while
O&M costs would need to be met primarily from "limited" property tax revenue.
For the unnerved areas within the unincorporated Urban Service Areas of Beaverton
and Tigard we used the projected facility needs to the year 2015 for each Alternative
examined (see: Projected Facility Needs). The projected needs for the existing
population and for anticipated new growth are shown separately on the Projected
Facility Needs output for each Alternative. We then developed cost projections for
1997 and 2015 based on both the capital and O&M cost assumptions identified for each
cost category and Alternative in the model (see: Projected Facility Costs).
Appendix 2: Evaluation of Alternatives for Park, Recreation: and xi «K:.\
0%%'E\%
Open Space Services, Beaverton-Tigard Study Area COCA\
"CYCLED rm"
Projected property tax revenues generated from the unserved areas after annexation are
based. on: . , , . .
approximated M50 frozen tax rates and assessed values for 1997-98;
® subsequent 3% annual growth in revenues plus the addition of 2% to account
for new construction value.
These annual projected revenues are shown on the Projected Tax Revenue tables for
each Alternative.
It is important to note that without an affirmative vote by the residents of an area to be
annexed, it may not be possible to increase their property tax rate beyond the
unincorporated area rate. However, legislative interpretations and future court
decisions may shed light on this important issue in the near future. For this analysis,
we assumed that the annexations in question could be accomplished under the method
of annexation allowed when an Urban Services Agreement has been adopted and the
planned annexation of areas is made a part of the Agreement. Under that method, a
single affirmative vote of the combined residents in the annexing and annexed area is
sufficient to both annex and increase the tax rate in the annexed area. However, the
double majority requirement of M50 is likely to apply unless the election is part of a
general election.
Method of Analysis
To predict the gross financial feasibility of each Alternative, we compared the year 2015
projected property tax revenue with the projected O&M cost for the same year. This
modeling approach leaves out many other costs, such as those for administration,
overhead, and recreation programs, and does not consider other revenues from sources
such as fees, charges, and donations. Because there was such a large negative
imbalance between projected costs and revenues for almost every Alternative we did
not consider the effect of these lesser magnitude variables.
Alternative 4 Excluded
We did not analyze Alternative 4 for three reasons. First, Alternative 4 in both its
forms, is based on contracting for services rather than on the annexation of territory by
a PROS provider. Second, contracting fro recreation programs in the near future seems
likely unless the City of Tigard was to reverse its current park policy - a policy that
does not include recreation programs. Third, even if the City reverses its policy, it
would have budget general fund revenue for recreation program contracts at a time
when local government general fund budgets are being severely tested by M50. Thus
the Alternative appears to be not feasible at this time.
The Summary Findings of the Cost and Revenue Analvsis
The projected year 2015 property tax revenues and 2015 O&M costs for Alternatives 1,
2, and 3 are shown in the following table. The table shows that only one Alternative is
Appendix 2: Evaluation of Alternatives for Park, Recreation and xii COGAN
Open Space Services, Beaverton-Tigard Study Area COG v
projected to generate enough revenue under the model assumptions to pay the costs of
...!yeas 2p15. Facilities d&lv1•., This is.Altemative.3 - the creation of anew district.
Financial Factors in Conclusion
Current methods of municipal finance in Oregon appear inadequate to reliably
continue the levels of park, recreation and open space service that citizens of THPRD
and Tigard now receive. Without strong and continuing voter support for higher taxes
when annexed, and the ongoing use of "local option" operating levies, the property tax
system will not permit an extension of the existing level of service to the
unincorporated areas as they are annexed.
i
Appendix 2: Evaluation of Alternatives for Park, Recreation and xiii col. 7
EN'S
N
Open Space Services, Beaverton-Tigard Study Area M GA
uncunr•rtR
Parks, Recreation and Open Space version 1.4a
Summary Findings - Comparison of Year 2015
O&M Costs with Annual Property Tax Revenues
Alternative 1a
THPRD annexes that portion of the Beaverton Urban Service Area not now served
Projected property tax revenues from the area in FY 2014/15 S 1,765,139
Projected O & M costs for facilities to serve the area in FY 2014/15 S X68,659)
Projected Annual Revenue Difference S (3,803,519)
Alternative 1 b
Tigard annexes its Urban Service Area as sole Park and Recreation provider
Projected property tax revenues from the area in FY 2014/15 S 152,711
Projected O & M costs for facilities to serve the area in FY 2014/15 S 0 (718,427.)
Projected Annual Revenue Difference S (565,716)
Alternative 2
THPRD annexes that portion of the Beaverton Urban Service Area not now served,
City of Tigard and Tigard Urban Service Area.
Projected property tax revenues from the area in FY 2014/15 S 3,800,205
Projected O & M costs for facilities to serve the area in FY 2014/15 S 17,882,357
Projected Annual Revenue Difference S(14,082,152)
Alternative 3a - (same as 1 a above)
Alternative 3b-1
A new Park and Recreation District is created to serve the City of Tigard
plus the Tigard Urban Area wQ a tax base for operating costs only.
Projected property tax revenues from the area in FY 2014/15 S 13,886.314
Projected O & M costs for facilities to serve the area in FY 2014/15 q_(12,453,298)
Projected Annual Revenue Difference S 1,433,016
Alternative 3b-2
A new Park and Recreation District is created to serve the City of Tigard
plus the Tigard Urban Area with a tax base for operating & debt service costs'.
Projected property tax revenues from the area in FY 2014/15 S 20,829,471
Projected 0& M + debt service" for facilities to serve the area in FY 2014/15 S(15.681,115)
Projected Annual Revenue Difference S 5,148,357
Estimated 2015 Cost of Administration S 1,245,330
Note: Alt. 3b-2 provides for debt service on capital cost to serve current population. Debt
service on capital cost for future pop. assumed to come from SDC revenues.
Moore Breithaupt Associates
APPENDIX 3
Parks Recreation & Open Space
Financial Evaluation of Alternatives
Contents:
Summary Findings - Comparison of Year 2015
O&M Costs with Projected Annual Property Tax Revenues
Alternative 1 - Two Service Providers
1 a - Beaverton Unicorporated Urban Service Area to be served by THPRD
Projected Facility Needs
Projected Facility Costs
Projected Tax Revenue
1 b - Tigard Unincorporated Urban Service Area to be served by Tigard
Projected Facility Needs
Projected Facility Costs
Projected Tax Revenue
Alternative 2 - One Service Provider
2 - City of Tigard and Unincorporated Urban Service Areas of Beaverton and Tigard
to be served by THPRD
Projected Facility Needs
Projected Facility Costs
Projected Tax Revenue
Alternative 3b - New Service Provider created for Tigard and Tigard Urban Service Area
3b-1 - New District with tax base sized to operations and maintenance costs
3b-2 - New District with tax based sized to O&M plus debt for required facilities
Projected Facility Needs
Projected Facility Costs
Projected Tax Revenue - alternative 3a
Projected Tax Revenue - alternative 3b
Estimated Administrative and Startup Costs
Fiscal Year 1995/96 and M50 Calculations
Moore Breithoupt Associates ~
Parks, Recreation and Open Space
Alternative la - Projected Facility Needs
Beaverton Urban Service Area (BUSA) Outside THPR District
Projected Facility Needs from: "Service Level and Projected Needs - Alternative 1, Feb., 1997"
Assumed Population
1992 1997 2015
Total THPR District 175,174 191,277 249,248
BUSA outside THPRD n/a 12,420 28,830
Facility Needs to provide THPRD planning Level of Service (LOS)
Planning --Required to Serve--
Unit LOS Standard Current Pop. Future Pop._
Neighborhood Park acres 1.00 12 16
Community Park acres 1.50 18 25
Open Space/
Greenway/ Natural
Area acres 2.90 36 48
Trails miles 3 6
Community Rec.
Center center 50,000
Covered Basketball
Courts court 21,896 1
Baseball/Softball
Fields field 2,000 6 8
Soccer Field field 2,000 6 8
Tennis Court court 2,000 6 8
Swimming Pool pool 21,900 - 1
See footnotes from "Service Level and Projected Needs - Alternative 1, Feb., 1997"
Version 1.3
Moore Breithaupt Associates 2
Parks, Recreation and Open Space
Alternative la - Projected Facility Costs
Beaverton Unincorporated Urban Service Area (BUSA) Outside THPR District
Projected 1996 Facility Costs from: "Projected Facility Needs, Version 1.1
Assumed Capital Costs
Acquisition Development Acquisition Development
Park Land/acre 100,000 50,000 Covered Basketball Court - 75,000
Greenway/acre 40,000 - Baseball/Softball Field 120.000 50,600
Trails (per mile) @ 3 mi./acre 13,333 150,000 Soccer Fields 2/3 large 1/3 micro 90,000 45.0.00
Comm./Rec. Center (10,000 sf @ $100/sf) 1,000,000 Tennis Court (outdoor) - 50,000
Swimming Pool (acquatic/rec) 600,000 8.000.000
Assumed Operating & Maintenance Costs
Annual Annual
Neighborhood Park/acre ' 2,000 Baseball/Softball Field 40,000
Community Park/acre 5,000 Soccer Fields 2/3 large 1/3 micro 28.000
Covered Basketball Court 2,000 Tends Court - outdoor 2,000
Comm./Rec. Center (10,000 sf @ $0.50/sf) 5,000 Swimming Pool (acquatic/rec) 2,000,000
Trails -
Estimated Facility Cost to provide THPRD planning Level of Service (LOS)
-Required to Serve- ----Capital Cost to Provide New Facilities for-- O&M Cost to Provide -
Current^Pop Future Pop. Current Pop_ Future Pop. Total Pop. Current Pop. Future Pop_ Total Pop`
Neighborhood Park 12 16 1,800,000 2,400,000 4,200,000 24,000 32,600 56,000
Community Park 18 25 2.700,000 3,750,000 6,450,000 90,000 125,000 215,000
Open Space/ Greenway/
Natural Area 36 48 1,440,000 1,920,000 3,360,000 -
Trails 3 6 490,000 980,000 1,470,000 6.000 12.000 18,000
Community Rec. Center - - - - -
Covered Basketball Courts 1 - 75,000 75,000 - 2.000 2,000
BasebaU/Softball Fields 6 8 1,020,000 1,360,000 2,380,000 240,000 320,000 560.000
Soccer Field 6 8 810,000 720,000 1.530.000 168.000 224,000 392,000
Tennis Court 6 8 300,000 400,000 700,000 12,000 16,000 28,000
Swimming Pool 1 8.600.000 8,600.000 - 2,00000 _2_000_000
1997 Totals 8,560,000 20,205,000 28,765.000 540,000 2.731,000 3,271,000
2015 Totals 24.433.143 57.671.923 82.105.066 919.314 4,649345 5,568,659
(est. w/ 6% capital cost inflator and 3% 0&M inflator)
1997 Per Capita Totals 2,316 1997 Per Capita Totals 263
w 2015 Per Capita Totals 2,848 2015 Per Capita Totals 193
Version 14
Moure lireiLhaupt A.;swiate);
Parks, Recreation and Open Space
Alternative 1a - Projected Tax Revenue
Beaverton Unincorporated Urban Service Area Outside THPR District
Projected Tax Revenue from area to be annexed
M50 Limited Revenue produced from new district area is Tax Base
Est FY 1995196 A.U. taxed at M50 Effective Tax Rate plus 3% growth
after 1997198
Est. FY 1995/96 A.V. 680,528,783
M50 Effective Tax Rate/81,000 1.0772 (THPRD)
New construction and remodels estimated at 2% of prior year value.
Existing Property Existing + New.
:Est Limited lax Revenue FY 1998199 785,562 801,273
00.
Est Limited Tax Revenue FY 2000!01 867,072 884,41
Est. Limited Tax Revenue FY 2002/03 957,040 976,181
:sic.::~s.s.~:>:~'#::.::::~.:.~:.~:.~:._::•::::-::•: ..}~4.r~..'r:~:.:~~~'='~~~>..;.<. ' .
Est. Limited Tax Revenue FY 2004105 1,056,343 1.077,469
i'C~~~~3fFf46&•~?6:~~sst:~: -rs?:s::«;:~=•-:s;~::s:~:~:y3:~~~~~:;sr;:~~:~{:~3
Est. Limited Tax Revenue FY 2006107 1,165:949 1:18' M
Est. Limited Tax Revenue FY 2008109 1,286,928 1,312,667
Est. Limited Tax Revenue FY 2010/11 1 1,420,461 1.448,870 .
r.?~:..fit.'~~{!P•.?3'f~AS~:~}:4:,•i~,,`E~~~1.:::} :}i:.Y. ~i:'~'~;:••~? ~:~iS.::%~:{-}: ~f'{~:•f. r.:..::....
Est Limited Tax Revenue FY 2012113 1,567,848 1,599,205
...;..~l. :r ;.......r:::~...•;r
.
::-#:3iAFE'~#f3t:~R~Et3E'EEtf#;i~iE`:•.•'~•~....~, ~:•:k:::;:.:..... : y..:: ~;~:~3~? = ~
Est. Limited Tax Revenue FY 2014115 1,730,528 1,765,139
Version 1.4a
Moore Brpithnupt. Associntes 4
Parks, Recreation and Open Space
Alternative 1 b -Projected Facility Needs
Tigard Urban Service Area (TUSA) Outside THPR District
Projected Facility Needs from: "Service Level and Projected Needs - Alternative 1, Feb., 1997"
Assumed Population
1993 1997 2015
City of Tigard 32,145 37,500 47,370
TUSA outside THPRD n/a 16,318 26,670
Facility Needs to provide Tigard planning Level of Service (LOS)
Planning --Required to Serve--
Unit LOS Standard Current Pop. Future_Pop_
Neighborhood Park acres 0.31 5 3
Community Park acres 2.50 40 26
Open Space/
Greenway/ Natural
Area acres 3.60 58 38
Trails miles 0.05 - 1
Community Rec.
Center center n/a
Covered Basketball
Courts court 12,858 1 1
Baseball/Softball
Fields field 10,715 1 1
Soccer Field field 10,715 1 1
Tennis Court court 16,072 1 -
Swimming Pool pool n/a -
See footnotes from "Service Level and Projected bleeds - Alternative 1, Feb., 1997"
#REF!
5
Moore Breit.haupt. Associates
Parks, Recreation and Open Space
Alternative 1b - Projected Facility Costs
Tigard Unincorporated Urban Service Area (TUSA) Outside T14PR District
Projected 1996 Facility Costs from: "Projected Facility Needs, Version 1.1
Assumed Capital Costs
Acquisition Development Acquisition Development
Park Land/acre 100,000 87,000 Covered Basketball Court - 75,000
Greenway/acre 40,000 - Baseball/Softball Field 50,000 100,000
Trails (per mile) @ 3 mi.lacre 13,333 75,000 Soccer Field 50,000 12,000
Comm./Rec. Center (10,000 sf @ $1001sf) - 1,000,000 Tennis Court (outdoor) - 35.000
Swimming Pool (acquatic/rec) 600.000 8.000.000
Assumed Operating & Maintenance Costs
Annual Annual
Neighborhood Park/acre 2,000 BasebalUSoftball Field 20,000
Community Parklacre 5,000 Soccer Fields 2/3 large 1/3 micro 14,000
Covered Basketball Court 2,000 Tennis Court - outdoor 2,000
Comm./Rec. Center (10,000 sf @ 50.50/sf) 5,000 Swimming Pool (aquatic/rec) 2,000,000
Trails -
Estimated Facility Cost to provide Tigard planning Level of Service (LOS)
-Required to Serve- -----Capital Cost to Provide New Facilities for C&M Cost to Provide----
Current Pop_ -Future Po_p. Current Pop_ Future Pop_ Total Pow _ Current Pok Future Pop Total Po_p
Neighborhood Park 5 3 750,000 450,000 1,200.000 10.000 600 16.000
Community Park 40 26 7,480,000 4,862,000 12.342,000 200,000 13000 330.000
Open Space/ Greewmy/
Natural Area 58 38 2,320,000 1,520,000 3,840,000 -
Trails 1 - 88,333 88,333 2.000 2.000
Community Rec. Center - - - -
Covered Basketball Courts 1 1 75,000 75,000 150,000 2,000 2.000 4,000
BasebalUSoftball Fields 1 1 150,000 150,000 300,000 20,000 20;000 40,000
Soccer Field 1 1 62,000 24,000 86,000 14.000 14.000 28.000
Tennis Court 1 35,000 - 35,000 2,000 2.000
Synmmng Pool - -
1997 Totals 10,872,000 7,169,333 18,041,333 248,000 174,000 422.000
2015 Totals 31,032,375 20.463.709 51,496,084 422.203 296:223 718.427
(est. w/ 6% capital cost inflator and 3% 08M inflator)
1997 Per Capita Totals 1,106 1997 Per Capita Totals 26
2015 Per Capita Totals 1,931 2015 Per Capita Totals 27
Version 1.4
Moon Broihtaupt Associates
Parks, Recreation and Open Space
Alternative 1 b - Projected Tax Revenue
Tigard Unincorporated Urban Service Area
Projected Tax Revenue from area to be annexed
M50 Limited Revenue produced from new district area is Tax Base
EsL FY 1995196 A. V. taxed at M50 Effective Tax Rate plus 3% growth
after 1997/98
Est. FY 1995/96 A.V. 784,595,962
M50 Effective Tax Rate/$1,000 0.0808 (Tigard)
New construction and remodels estimated at 2% of prior year value.
Existing Pro eft Existing + New
c:;•,•...............
. ".:'f..:..rl...:.•?f.:f :Jf:•••.:Y:::l:i:?Y: •l:: i:Ji iii:?•i::i:•Ji' J.:'.
Est. Limited Tax Revenue FY 1998199 67,963 69,322
. . • :•.v ; r • v.•:: •:?r:ii:•i::::•i:.;:::•::.v.:::i:••,i i..
'$FJ70Ci:~k~' Ef~~'Ef~~ri,•~-!~ %v'r Ji {•Yri: r !•i'i:: is :•:%hi ~rrj,'r;::'~~•f~;''i:i'::?:{;:::i: f?'::$.' •':ii'i:•!.•:4''~w7~ir
: ..........t.J,..n.:r.:•,.....r..,.,.•:/..:.,/,v/.vJ..:/..:.•.b..,f;.....~f'J,:ir..~~ i:.::. f. 1.. :••i: r•:•:: J.~::..,...C
Est. Limited Tax Revenue FY 2000101 75,015 76,515
i ..,,i' - ~ - • :::•i is ri.•iyr:::: Sy}:f `i ii •i} •}•:.v:::::.::•:
:1:+.~:1 jrii••~%C`;: r.•l i::•r:: ~~:~5:•'?•i: :•i:~~;'•s~.~'
Est. Limited Tax Revenue FY 2002103 82,798
~i.~•:.~!..~~..~~((~~..,,,,~~~~//.. r~ rv :•r :•r:: •:.v •..,....vr: •r.••: ~:~Q .........j~~~~: j; j~~ .
, CF:i iiaii{Yffof~':4% i-~~$ i~:•: ~l; lY...... ......f ;ii r•}ii}::;SJSJ {7•,SJ ::i}{y y ~ : SK!7 t:,r,.GF =
Est. Limited Tax Revenue FY 2004105 r 91,390 93,217
, r r ~:=:%rr ~i:~:r ~rf :~`~'~:~:~y~(~~.(r •?i~'ls:~~ ~ ~ r ~.s~}T~;~
: Y~f~...:~:T.1T.T.T.:S'I5T:1:?•i:.',ll,T., ,~,•,,,,•?::':J~f::?•i 'i.:'.1•:~•:Xr~•r:.•.•:'::.•.•:••.•.•.•::::YY}~::.:'.':: rJ
Est. Limited Tax Revenue FY 2006107 100,~8y72 102,890
r:;{% !;{:•''i'.ii:-i:: si7'• rlii ri::i::ir~ pT~'•'.Z ri:+7.7Fi•'ST.JAi
•~:~~:~E~~=:: ,.r•.,z,r. ~1.. f.. r:•::. ~:i?:' :...3T1; [Y.. ~~:~::~i~;•:'• .
: .....r•}:: is ~ :•:f:•}i:•i •
Est Limited Tax Revenue FY 2008109 111,339 113,566
?:•lJ.vJ.?•rlr rr.•: tr :•lrr,'.:;:jr'i. is:j'r'.i•:•}Ja:4}f:•:•:{::-;::::i:'i' .
Y :.,:4i•F3Tii':
.'PS^:.'F;F:F:.f~•:'7'r'.•. ••W►,•,•~?Y.•:•: r:.v:: :{JlJ.:v::: i:::::::::.• ~:~i'.•:•:::::. v..v ...........................:•.v....: G r..l.
Est. Limited Tax Revenue FY 2010111 122,891 125,349
:~~:~#tf2~~~~EiG~lb:~~X~~3: : rl.,r.:.,.._•.'•.,~:...:.:...:....... '.~-~~;~~:~:~S:i.;:-5i:_:>:~::~.~~.~~i~l::f
Est Limited Tax Revenue FY 2012/13 ~ 135,643 '138,355
il•.'•Yl%~il.•rf r i~ v ~r,:j%:~$ rl:;{{.:::; ::i:'r$:i i:;{i:r:;:ti{:...ii.,
.i::•ifv.:•i:~ii:•:•: is r•:? Y::•::•i:~iii:•:.v.:~i~•4 .k:...:... C..:.:.
Est Limited Tax Revenue FY 2Q14H5 1 9,717 1 2,711
Version 1.4a
Moore. Breit.haupt Associates ~
Parks, Recreation and Open Space
Alternative 2 - Projected Facility Needs
Beaverton S Tigard Urban Service Areas Outside THPR District plus City of Tigard
Projected Facility Needs from: "Service Level and Projected Needs - Alternative 2, Feb.. 1997"
Assumed Population 1997 2015
BUSA outside THPRD 12,420 28,830
City of Tigard + TUSA outside THPRD 53,818 __74,040
totals 66,238 102.870
Facility Needs to provide THPRD planning Level of Service (LOS)
Assumes turnover of all Tigard Facilities
Planning Less Avail. --Net Required to Serve--
Unit LOS Standard Tigard Facil Current Pop. Future Pop
Neighborhood
Park acres 1.00 10.02 56 36
Community Park acres 1.50 78.91 20 55
Open Space/
Greenway/ Natural
Area acres 2.90 113.98 78 106
Trails miles1.71 19 11
Community Rec.
Center center 50,000 - 1 1
Covered
Basketball Courts court 21,896 2.50 1 1
Baseball/Softball
Fields field 2,000 3.00 30 18
Soccer Field field 2,000 3.00 30 18
Tennis Court court 2,000 2.00 31 18
Swimming Pool pool 21,900 - 3 1
See footnotes from "Service Level and Projected Needs - Alternative 2, Feb., 1997"
#REF!
Moore Breithaupt Associate; 8
Parks, Recreation and Open Space
Alternative 2 - Projected Facility Costs
Beaverton & Tigard Urban Service Areas Outside THPR District Plus City of Tigard
Projected 1996 Facility Costs from: "Projected Facility Needs, Version 1.1
Assumed Capital Costs
Acquisition Development Acquisition Development
Park Land/acre 100,000 50,000 Covered Basketball Court - 75,000
Greenway/acre 40,000 - Baseball/Softball Field 120.000 50.000
Trails (per mile) 3 mi./acre 13,333 150,000 Soccer Fields 2/3 large 1/3 micro 90,000 45,000
Comm./Rec. Center (10,000 sf @ $100/sf) - 1,000,000 Tennis Court (outdoor) - 50.000
Swimming Pool (acquatic/rec) 600,000 8.000.000
Assumed Operating & Maintenance Costs
Annual Annual
Neighborhood Parkiacre 2,000 Baseball/Softball Field 40,000
Community Park/acre 5,000 Soccer Fields 2/3 large 1/3 micro 28,000
Covered Basketball Court 2,000 Tennis Court - outdoor 2,000
Comm./Rec. Center (10,000 sf @ $0.50/sf) 5,000 Swimming Pool (aquatic/rec) 2,000,000
Trails -
Estimated Facility Cost to provide THPRD planning Level of Service (LOS)
--Net New Required to Serve- -----Capital Cost to Provide New Facilities for-- -O&M Cost to Provide New & Existing
Current Pop_ Future Pop_ Current Pop Future Pop.Total Pow Current Pop. Future Pow Total Pow
Neighborhood Park 56 36 8,397,000 5.400,000 13.797.000 132.000 72,000 204,000
Community Park 20 55 3,013,500 8,250,000 11,263,500 495,000 275,000 770,000
Open Space/ Greenway/
Natural Area 78 106 3,120,800 4,240,000 7,360,800 - -
Trails 19 11 3,150,700 1,796,667 4,947,367 42,000 22.000 64,000
Community Rec. Center - - -
Covered Basketball Courts 1 1 37,500 75,000 112.500 6,000 2.000 8,000
Baseball/Softball Fields 30 18 5,100,000 3,060,000 8,160,000 66,000 720,000 786,000
Soccer Field 30 18 4,050,000 1.620.000 5.670.000 66,000 504.000 570.000
Tennis Court 31 18 1.560.000 900,000 2,450,000 66.000 36,000 102,000
Svnmming Pool 3 1 _25,8_00.000 _ 8.60 _34,40_0_000 6,000,000 2.000.000 8,000.000
1997 Totals 54,219,500 33,941,667 88,161,167 6,873,000 3,631,000 10,504,000
2015 Totals 154,760,842 96.881.028 251.641.870 11.700.822 6,181.534 17,882,357
(est. w/ 6% capital cost inflator and 3% O&M inflator)
1997 Per Capita Totals 1,331 1997 Per Capita Totals 159
0&M for current pop includes existing Tigard facilities 2015 Per Capita Totals 2,446 2015 Per Capita Totals 174
Version 1.4
Moort, lirmi..hsupt AiS(K-lab-s
Parks, Recreation and Open Space
Alternative 2 - Projected Tax Revenue
Beaverton & Tigard Unincorporated Urban Service Areas - outside THPRD
Projected Tax Revenue from area to be annexed
M50 Limited Revenue produced from new district area is Tax Base
Est FY 1995196 A. V. taxed at M50 Effective Tax Rate plus 3% growth
after 1997198
Est. FY 1995/96 A.V. 1, 465,124, 745
M50 Effective Tax Rate/$1,000 1.0772 (THPRD)
New construction and remodels estimated at 2% of prior year value.
Existing Property Existing + New
. .
:33BEE$?t:#`~ffffSr@JEFft:i?1~;`<: ;:;:s:;::::::'>`;:::::•::::•'::z$::;::;::;i'{ 5
'
%
Est. Limited Tax Revenue FY 1998199 1,691,253 1 125,078
Est. Limited Tax Revenue FY 2000101 1,866,738 1,904,073
Est. Limited Tax Revenue FY 2002103 2,060,431 2.101.640
Est. Limited Tax Revenue FY 2004105 2,274,222 2,319,707
:~~:•~i#39t1E~~t:~&~EtfiL::i~::+~~:::::::r:~:;:i:::::::~;; 8=`:~'::s:::i::~:::<~~~~~J~~.•~~:
Est. Limited Tax Revenue FY 2006107 2,510,196 2.560,400
7~~ ~~y~y,y,yy, ~{.~.y~,(~~~rii'fj y7yf ~t ':ii:'i'}}{:vS:{;i:•ii:•}:v:ti:i i::{:i::i:•:•::Y~ •~~•::h h
.rF•i•~S,:~;41~FSFf.4Y:~:#RRS<~:.'v}ef~. '°.4i?~a~;!~:~:~4..:: it}}i: i ~ is i::•. i'•ii}i:: }:4::i1?fi~~.r il?G~ t€S:':::".:: i:::: i:,-fii?Y•3?~i~•f?•f•3•:
Est. Limited Tax Revenue FY 2008109 2,770,655 2,826,068
Est. Limited Tax Revenue FY 2010111 3,058,139 3,119,302
i.t.•~.:::.!!L-•j''-~S~P,•;I:.T.•:::}4•i';f4~f:1:~f:.r.i:vX ~i%:iil'{:i$:•is{'•i:•:•i$i:I'r'.•:•::~:•: ~>:?r:?>>.T.:T:r
Est. Limited Tax Revenue FY 2012113 3,375,453 3,442,962
.
Est. Limited Tax Revenue FY 2014115 fto 3,725,691 3,800,205
Version 1.4a
Moore Breitlinupt Associates 10
Parks, Recreation and Open Space
Alternative 3 - Projected Facility Needs
Create a New Parks and Recreation District for TUSA plus City of Tigard
Projected Facility Needs from: "Service Level and Projected Needs - Alternative 3, Feb., 1997"
Assumed Population 1997 2015
City of Tigard + TUSA outside THPRD 53,818 74,040
totals 53,818 74,040
Facility Needs to provide existing Tigard Level of Service plus NPRA recreation standards
Assumes turnover of all Tigard Facilities
Tigard/NPRA Less Avail. --Net Required to Serve--
Unit LOS Standard Tigard Facil. Current Pow Future Pop
Neighborhood
Park acres 0.31 10.02 6 6
Community Park acres 2.50 78.91 55 51
Open Space/
Greenway/ Natural
Area acres 3.60 113.98 79 73
Trails miles 1.71 0 1
Community Rec.
Center center 40,000 1 1
Covered
Basketball Courts court 12,858 2.50 2 1
Baseball/Softball
Fields field 5,000 3.00 7 4
Soccer Field field 10,000 3.00 2 2
Tennis Court court 2,000 2.00 24 11
Swimming Pool pool 20,000 - 2 1
See footnotes from "Service Level and Projected Needs - Alternative 3, Feb., 1997"
#REF!
11
Moore Breithaupt Associates
parks, Recreation and Open Space
Costs
_ Projected facility
IUS City of Tigard Feb„ 1997" peveto meet
Alternative 3 Alternative 3, 65u 75,000
Parks and Recreation Distrlclfor Tl1S p •50.000
"Service Laver and ProjectedNeeds-
Create a New Costs from 45,000 -
projected FacllitY Covered Basketball Court 1 000
75.000 50,000
AcAC tip pevelo ment BasebaNSoftball Field 113 micro
Assumed Capital costs 50.000 Soccer Fields 213 larg 500,000 8.000.004 ,
100,000 (outdoor)
AOA00 150,000 'tennis Court t uatichec)
13000 Swimming Pool taco Annual
Park Landl ace 1,000,000
GreerwaYlacre - 04- x,000
Trails (per l~ent ~ e3tm0,000 si @ 51001sp
Conan. BasebalUSoflball Fielde 113 micro 282,000 2,000
8 ~sintenance costs Mnuual Soccer Fields 2o~door 2,000,000
rating
Assumed Ope 2,000 Tennis Cou Pool (equatielrec)
5,000 Swimming
Neighborhood Parklacre 2.000
Community Parldacre 5 040 Existing
Covered Basketball Court y0 501st) O&M Cost to Provide New 8` Total PPp•
Comrn.iRec Center 110.004 si P0~
lus NPRA recreation standards Fac Current PoQ Future 12 p0o 44,400
Traits eves of Service p Capital Cost to provide New Tt otal Po , ✓ _ 2 p0
,sting 925.000
wired to Serve Future Po 255,000
_ 1,797,000
Beds to Provide ex FtlTigard ities t Net New Re4 Current Pop: 670,000
Facility N Future PoQ• _ 900,000 15,913.500
ver of all l Cum . 6 897,000 T 650,000 6000
Assumes turnoiga►d 6 8,263.504 2 000
51 6,080,800 4,000 10 000
55 2,920 000 210,700 5,004 10 ppD
73 3160,800 163,333 2 5.000 00 2,000 180
Neighborhood Park 79 47.367 ,000,000 8.004
Park 0 1 1.000.400 187.500 20.0 160,000 66.000
Community 1 1000.000 75000 561,000 56.000 74.000
Open Spacel GreenwaYl 1 112 500 10040
1 204,000 420,000 52.000 22.000 6 000,000.
Natural Area 2 4 357,000 180,000 -
Trails Center 7 240.000 1.750,000 0 2_000_000
7,315-00
550.000 500 f)00 4,000_00
REC. 2 25
Community 2 1.200.000 4801,000 2.514,000
11 8.50 _ 54,420,500 12 453.298
Covered Basketball Courts 24 _ 17 004.00 279,917
BaseballiSoftbat Fields 1
2 7 000 419 22,142,333 4
8178381
Soccer Field 1997 Totals' 63 201,72 155,334,564
Tennis Court 136
Swimming pool 82132 835 O&M inflator) it 'T BIs 168
2015 Totals' capital cost inflator and 3 b 1 011 •1997 Per Cap 0a Totals
(est w16% ita totals 2,098 "2015 Per Ca
.1997 Per Cap da Totals
•2015 Per Ca -
M for current poR includes existing Tigard facilities
'O&
Version 1.4
N L f\a>r:lll~
~luun 11rc1L1Laup
Now
Parks, Recreation and Open Space
Estimated Administrative & Startup Costs for Tigard Area P&R District
Altemative 3 Estimation of Administrative and Start-up Costs
Administrative Cost as a Percentage based on:
THPRD 1996197 Costs from 1996197 Budget
Board of Directors Costs
612,100
less Contingency (510.000)
subtotal S 102,100
Administration
subtotal $ 239,417
Business Services
1,583,052
less debt service (611,431)
subtotal S 971,621
Total Admin. S 1,313,138
Expenditures
Total Requirements 40,004,680
less debt service (2,158,788)
less bond const. (17,459,000)
less greenspaces (1,765,734) rev. from Metro
less cash on hand (1,692,000) less bond proceeds
subtotal 16, 929,158
less Total Admin. (1,313,138)
Total Adjusted Expenditures $ 15,616,020
9
Estimated Total Administration as a percent of Adjusted Expenditures:
8.41
For a new Park and Recreation Agency we assume a startup Administrative Cost Percentage
not less than THPRD and probably greater for the following reasons
Smaller population base to serve
Fewer facilities and programs operating in early years
Conclusion : for this analysis use an Administrative Cost Percentage of LE a:
Equipment Allowance - the new district will need to acquire equipment to start that will
be in excess of later year requirements since the equipment can be used more efficiently
than in the early years of operation
Conclusion : for this analysis use a startup equipment cost of -
Version 1.4a
Moore Breihaupt Associates 13
Parks, Recreation and Open Space
Alternative 3b - Projected Facility Needs
Create a New Parks and Recreation District for TUBA plus City of Tigard
Projected Facility Needs from: "Service Level and Projected Needs - Alternative 3, Feb., 1997"
Assumed Population 1997 2015
City of Tigard + TUSA outside THPRD 53,818 74,040
totals 53,818 74,040
Facility Needs to provide existing Tigard Level of Service plus NPRA recreation standards
Assumes turnover of all Tigard Facilities
Tigard/NPRA Less Avail. --Net Required to Serve--
Unit LOS Standard Tigard Facil. Current Pop Future Pow
Neighborhood
Park acres 0.31 10.02 6 6
Community Park acres 2.50 78.91 55 51
Open Space/
Greenway/ Natural
Area acres 3.60 113.98 79 73
Trails miles1.71 0 1
Community Rec.
Center center 40,000 1 1
Covered
Basketball Courts court 12,858 2.50 2 1
Baseball/Softball
Fields field 5,000 3.00 7 4
Soccer Field field 10,000 3.00 2 2
Tennis Court court 2,000 2.00 24 11
Swimming Pool pool 20,000 - 2 1
See footnotes from "Service Level and Projected Needs - Alternative 3, Feb., 1997"
Version 1.4a
Moore Breithaupt Associates 15
Parks. Recreation and OPen Space
ected Facility Costs
_ Pf0)
pevelo ment
Alternative 3b IVISA District for plus CHy of TigarAd d frialive 3. Feb.. 1997"
allon acted Needs - Ac uq X51 75,000
NOW parks and RecrS Ser 50.000
Create a N Costs trom; Service Level and d prof 1,000 45,000
projected Fa ,ww Covered Basketball COUrt ppp 5 000
,
pevelo ment gasebatU Fields Softball filarge eld 113 micro 75 0
itai casts 659u 50,000 8,000,000
Assumed Cap 100,000 Soccer 213 500.00
Tennis Court (outdooraticirec)
400,-000 000 150,000 S ramming Pool (8c4 Annual
Park Landlacre 1000,000. 13,333 Gteenwaylacre
Traits (Per mile 1 @ 3 mi.lacre 1001st? il 40,000
Center (i0,000 st 5 micro 28.000
Comm.IRec. Costs Soccer occer Fields Field 113 2.000
rating 8 ryiaintenance Annual S Fields outdoor 2,000,000
Assumed ope 2,000 Tennis Court.
Swimming pool (aquaticirec)
acre 5,000
Neighborhood Park1 2,000
Community Parklacre 5.000 & Facistin9•
Total P~
Covered Basketball C1000 si @ 50.50M _ _O&M Cost to Provide New
Comm lRec Center 00- recreation standards Facils for
Current P01 - i2 000 44,000
I of Service Plus NPRA _--__Capital cost to Provide New Total Po.._ 32,000 825,00a 0
Trails to Serve-- Future Pop; 1;797 000 670,000 255,000
s to provide axis d Tigard
facilities Leve _Net New Required Current PoP~ - 900,000 15 918,500 -
. Future PoR 897,000
Facility Need current Po 6
Assumes turnover of all Ttgar 6 6 7 650,000 _ 6 ppp
51 8,263.500 6,080,800 4 000 2.000 10.000
55 2,920,000 210,700 5,000 10.000
73 3160 800 163000 5.000 160 ~j000
Neighborhood park 79 a7 ,367 2,000,000 6,000 .000 180.000
4eig corrimuntly park 0 1 1.000.000 187,500 20.000 66.000
aces Greerrrrayl 1 1,000.000 75,000 561.000 10,000 56.000 74.000
Open SP 1 i 112 500 204.000 420.000 22,000
Natural Area 2 52 000 6. 000 000
2,000.000
4 357.000 180,000 1,750,000
5
Traits enter 7 2 240.000 550.000 4`000,000 7,31 .000
Community Rec- C 2 1,200.000 000 25 -500`004 4801,000 2514.000
11 8500. 54,420,500 12,453,29B
Covered Basketball Courts 24 1 17.000.000 - 4 .817
BasebalUSottball Fields 2 32.278.167 22,142 333 B,173 ,38i 279
Soccer Field 1997 Totals' 155,334,564
Tennis Court 63201.729 136
in Pool 92,132,835 , 0&M inflator) 168
Swimm 9 20151018's ' 1 pit '1997 Per Capi 0 otats
(est wi r,,% capital cost mtlator and 3b
ita Totals 2 098 •2015 Per Ca
"1997 Per Capita Totals
•2015 per Ca
. OW for current pop includes existing Tigard facilities
Version 1.41,
Muo+•c Ilrcithaupt h~'r"':utc
Now
Parks, Recreation and Open Space
Estimated Administrative & Startup Costs for Tigard Area P&R District
Altemative 3b Estimation of Administrative and Start-up Costs
Administrative Cost as a Percentage based on.
THPRD 1996197 Costs from 1996197 Budget
Board of Directors Costs
612,100
less Contingency (510.000)
subtotal S 102,100
Administration
subtotal S 239,417
Business Services
1,583,052
less debt service (611,431)
subtotal S 971,621
Total Admin. S 1,313,138
Expenditures
Total Requirements 40,004,680
less debt service (2,158,788)
less bond const. (17,459,000)
less greenspaces (1,765,734) rev from Metro
less cash on hand (1,692,000) less bond proceeds
subtotal 16, 929,158
less Total Admin. (1,313,138)
Total Adjusted Expenditures S 15,616,020
Estimated Total Administration as a percent of Adjusted Expenditures:
8.41
For a new Park and Recreation Agency we assume a startup Administrative Cost Percentage
not less than THPRD and probably greater for the following reasons:
- Smaller population base to serve
- Fewer facilities and programs operating in early years
Conclusion : for this analysis use an Administrative Cost Percentage of -
Equipment Allowance - the new district will need to acquire equipment to start that will
be in excess of later year requirements since the equipment can be used more efficiently
than in the early years of operation.
Conclusion: or this analysis use a startup equipment cost of -
Version 1 4a
Moore Breihaupt Associates 16
Parks, Recreation and Open Space
Alternative 3b-1 - Projected Tax Revenue
Create a New Parks and Recreation District for Tt1SA plus City of Tigard
Projected Tax Revenue from area to be annexed with Tax Base for 08M
M50 Limited Revenue produced from new district area is Tax Base
Est FY 1995196 A. V. taxed at M50 Effective Tax Rate plus 3% growth
after 1997198
Est. FY 1995/96 A.V. 4,165,647,327 Est. Tax Base* 6,000,000
M50 Effective Tax Ratel$1,000 1.4404
New construction and remodels estimated at 2% of prior year value.
Existing Property Existing + New
.:3,~3.E~EF~Ef'.::.iii!C:~f~6G~f`•:f`1~•:::;>::::~:r'~:::::=~:~:~~:~:~:~F~~•:
Est. Limited Tax Revenue FY 1998/99 6,180:000 6,303,600
Est. Limited Tax Revenue FY 2000101 6,821,239 6,957,664
.
=::3ttE#=: 2f~G ~~E P?# i3" .;:o-:.::::::•:;: <
Est. Limited Tax Revenue FY 2002103 7,529,013 7,679,594
Est. Limited Tax Revenue FY 2004105 8,310,226 8,476.431
:~~L:1~B~E:~#tif::#~~S~t1EEfiEl:Pif`• ::r,.:::.~:;;::•:;:
Est. Limited Tax Revenue FY 2006107 9.172,498 9,355,948
Est Limited Tax Revenue FY 2008109 10,124,240 10,326,725
Est Limited Tax Revenue FY 2010H1 11,174,735 11,398,230
Est. Limited Tax Revenue FY 2012113 12,334,230 12,580,914
Est. Limited Tax Revenue FY 2014115 13,614,034 13,886,314
* !Vote: Estimated Tax Base is Total O&M facilities costs for current population
+ administrative cost estimate + allowance for equipment
(see: "Estimated Admin. & Start up Costs for New P&R District" worksheet)
Version 1.4a
Moore Breithaupt Associates 17
Parks, Recreation and Open Space
Alternative 3b-2 - Projected Tax Revenue
Create a New Parks and Recreation District for TllSA plus City of Tigard
Projected Tax Revenue from area to be annexed
M50 Limited Revenue produced from new district area is Tax Base
Est. FY 1995196 A. V. taxed at M50 Effective Tax Rate plus 3% growth
after 1997/98
Est. FY 1995/96 A.V. 4,165,647,327 Est. Tax Base" 9,000,000
M50 Effective Tax Rate/$1,000 2.1605
New construction and remodels estimated at 2% of prior year value.
......Existing Property Existing + New
A
Est. Limited Tax Revenue FY 1998199 9,270,000 9,455,400
....................................................:.::•:~:::...:.::•:..:~.:::.::.~.:ifs::~:•:::....:..............:>.i~::~.:~.:::.:......
Est. Limited Tax Revenue FY 2000101 10,231,859 10,436,496
:
.
:=:3tffa2f.2Eac~ttt3e:13:: .
Est. Limited Tax Revenue FY 2002103 11,293,520 11,519,390
:fit:: ~...;~s.~$+~:~''• ::.:..::..:..::~~'s`~~`~~~~~~~~~:~:=•:.:~:.~:::>.:.
Est. Limited Tax Revenue FY 2004105 12,465,340 12,714,646
.
Est. Limited Tax Revenue FY 2006107 13,758,748 14,033,923
Est. Limited Tax Revenue FY 2008/09 15,186,360 15,490,087
.
31fEf3~#-"2E1G1tfltii39~#3 M::5?
Est. Limited Tax Revenue FY 2010111 16,762,102 17.097.345
Est Limited Tax Revenue FY 2012113 18,501,344 18,871,371
. . .
:_1:~~:33E1'flfli#lt:.ddEEE4~~:~f`•:~~:f~tf~#:~:::~:=~?:~:~:~~~~:~:~~:~:~:~_:~:`:::::;:;::~~~'•:::;':'•~:~'~~~':: ~ ~~~~#~•2E~~~t~:~:~
Est. Limited Tax Revenue FY2014115 20,421,050 20,829,471
" Note: Estimated Tax Base is Total O&M facilities costs for current population
+ annual debt service for facilities to serve current pop @ S100k/$M + administrative
cost estimate + allowance for equipment
(see: Estimated Admin. & Start up Costs for New P&R District worksheet)
Version 1.4a
18
Moore Breit.liaupt Associates
Parks, Recreation and Open Space
FY 1996196 and M60 Calculations
Beaverton
FY 97 Total Market Value 4,368,398,202 he assessed values for the cities
FY 96 Total Market Value 3,849,903,079 of Beaverton and Tigard for the
Percent Difference (FY 97 to 96) -11.87% current tax year and FY 1995/96
are compared to determine an
Tigard adjustment factor to apply to FY
FY 97 Total Market Value 3,111,388,324 1996/97 AV's in the study area for
which FY 1995/96 values are not
FY 96 Total Market Value 2,735,213,090 known. - see below
Percent Difference (FY 97 to 96) -12.09%
Tualatin Hills Parks & Recreation District
FY 96 Total Market Value 9,942,287,888
FY 96 Taxes Imposed - Unlimited 2,149,682
FY 96 Taxes Imposed - Limited 11,900,273
M47 Est. Taxes - Limited (-10%) 10,710,246
M47 Effective tax rate (Limited) " 1.0772
Beaverton unincorp. Urban Service Area (Total Area)
Est. A.V. 1996/97 5,488,293,483
less percent change FY 97 to 96 -11.87% `
Est. A.V. 1995/96 (from FY 97) 4,836,875,441
ypo~I thetical tax rate per
Beaverton unincorp. Urban Service Area outside THPR District 61,000 AN. applied to
Est. AN. 1996/97 772,180,663 annexed area to estimate
t revenue.
less percent change FY 97 to 96 -11.87% -
Est. A.V. 1995/96 (from FY 97) 680,528,783
Tigard unincorp. Urban Service Area (less THPRD portion)
Est. A.V. 1996/97 892,501,840
less percent change FY 97 to 96 -12.09%
Est. A. V. 1995;96 (from FY 97) 784,595,962
Estimated City of Tigard Park and Recreation Share of Taxes:
FY 96 Taxes Imposed - M5 Unlimited ;des Imposed" is 50%
FY 96 Taxes Imposed - M5 Limited 245,662 of Tigard Grounds Div. 1995/96
budget adjusted to estimate amount
M47 Est. Taxes - (M5 Limited -10%) 221,096 spent on Parks 8 Open space 08M i
M47 Effective tax rate (Limited) " 0 0808 we add 10% to budgeted Personal
"'Rate that would produce Services and M&S to account for
the M50 reduced tax General Overhead. -
Version 1.4a revenue.
19
Moore Breithaupt Associates
Task Group Meeting Notes
PARKS, RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE
November 13,19%
Introductions: Linda Davis, Cogan Owens Cogan Project Manager for the Urban
Services Project and group facilitator, opened the meeting and invited attendees to
introduce themselves. In attendance was Jim Breithaupt (Moore Breithaupt), Duane
Roberts (City of Tigard), Larry Eisenberg (Washington County Facilities Manager),
John Jackson (USA), Kirstin Greene (Cogan Owens Cogan), Walter Peters (Metzger
Park), Andy Preibe (THPRD) and Ali Turiel and Barbara Fryer (City of Beaverton).
Why are we here: Linda reviewed the purpose of the Parks, Recreation and Open
Space ("PROS") task group, who the affected parties are, what the issues are that will
be addressed by the Task Group, and the overall approach.
Review Action Plan: Linda reviewed the four parks, recreation and open space
alternatives in the Action Plan. Walter Peters stated that the Metzger Park Board wants
to remain as is. Linda emphasized that all alternatives will receive objective analysis,
that there is no predetermined agenda or resolution envisioned for the outcome of the
Task Group work.
Open Discussion: Several of the group members made statements about what their
organizations' responsibilities are with regard to parks and recreation provision, and °
the challenges they are facing under the recent passage of Measure 47.
Linda emphasized that this task group work and the urban services agreement for the
Beaverton-Tigard portion of Washington County was not a "precedent-setting"
procedure for other areas in the County, but more appropriately can be referred to as a
"model" of a process that could be transferred to other areas of the County.
Meeting Schedule: Discussing the proposed meeting schedule and purpose of the next
40
meetings, the group agreed to meet next on November 20th at 3:00pm, followed by
December 18th at 3:00pm. Both of these meetings will be held at THPRD. The three
Wednesday meetings scheduled for January and February in Tigard (to be confirmed);
and March 5th at the Metzger Park Community Center. The following meetings may
be held in Beaverton.
Assignments: Linda asked to make relevant data, such as budgets, available for
technical and financial review. Washington County will be asked to provide a set of
population and employment data for use by all task groups. In addition, Beaverton
and Tigard have been asked to develop annexation scenarios.
COGAN
OWENS
1 COGAN
ILLLN l2D rAMR
Task Group Meeting Notes
PARKS, RECREATION, AND OPEN SPACE
November 20,1996
Attending: Don Bohn (Washington County), Mark Brown (Washington County), Linda
Davis (Cogan Owens Cogan), Barbara Fryer (City of Beaverton), Kirstin Greene (Cogan
Owens Cogan), John Jackson (USA), Andy Prier (THPRD), Duane Roberts (City of
Tigard)
Linda Davis introduced the agenda for the meeting - to refine the four parks, recreation
and open space alternatives described in the Action Plan and develop a methodology
by which to evaluate the four alternatives. The methodology will be approved by
Washington County before the consultant team proceeds with analysis of the
alternatives. The group brainstormed issues, questions and concerns for each of the
four alternatives (attached - edited for clarity).
After the alternatives were discussed, due to the amount of time remaining, Linda
suggested that the consultant group take the issues, questions and concerns offered by
the task group, and send a methodology to the task group members for their comment
within the next week to ten days.
A resource list of materials which the consultant team has compiled to date was
distributed. Linda made an appeal for additional information that jurisdictions
consider might be useful for the scope of the study, particularly capital and/or
departmental budgets, intergovernmental agreements, Tigard SDC information, capital
improvement plan projects, or any other relevant data.
Per request of the Metzger Park LID Board, the possibility of evening meetings was
discussed. All agreed there are many conflicts with evening meetings. Andy Priebe
suggested a few evening meetings could be considered at critical points. Linda and
Washington County will discuss how best to accommodate the Metzger Board. The
next meeting will be on December 18, 1996 at 3:00 at THPRD.
COGAN
OWENS
1 COGAN
RECYCllD •MER _
Brainstorming:
Alternative„ 1: Two providers: a) THPRD within Beaverton's urban service
boundary; b) City of Tigard within its urban service boundary.
To what extent does the City of Tigard (Tigard) provide recreation programs;
classes, lessons and what facilities do they own/lease/operate?
♦ What service level do Tigard residents desire for recreation programs? Is this
included in the visioning process that they are undergoing, or survey work?
What effect does the Beaverton School District spillover into the City of Tigard
have? What are the boundaries and numbers?
♦ If Tigard wanted to increase their services, or acquire property, how would they
finance it? Exactions or SDCs for parks?
♦ What is the number of Tigard residents signing up for THPRD programs?
Availability of data?
♦ THPRD is looking at SDCs.
♦ Tigard is doing/ has completed a parks SDC study for the unincorporated area
surrounding Tigard.
o Would Alternative #1 consider the dissolution/or incorporation of the Metzger Park
LID? (Need LID establishment legal documents)
e Under this scenario, USA would have to deal with two jurisdictions.
e Issue of visibility for THPRD residents in Beaverton; community identity with
THPRD as their parks and recreation provider.
♦ What would be the effect on disposition of City of Beaverton assets? (There are
currently 13 City owned parks all maintained by THPRD).
Alternative #2: One provider: THPRD for both Beaverton and Tigard urban service
boundaries.
♦ USA would be dealing with one agreement, one jurisdiction.
♦ Community identity for Beaverton residents an issue; the perception of their taxes
going to another jurisdictions' benefit.
♦ Equitable distribution of existing resources and access to facilities.
♦ SDC equity issue across the jurisdictions.
s Distance of existing facilities and recreation programs from Tigard area residents.
♦ Possibility of a differential rate for Tigard, i.e., a lower rate due to distance to
facilities.
COGAN
OWENS
2 COGAN
Ulcr Eurnru
♦ Metzger Park LID subalternative, w/ LID remaining; community identity; routes
..and. service,levels.. . . .
♦ THPRD maintenance issues - distance from Tigard facilities.
♦ Tigard maintenance and facilities; existing staff could be transferred.
♦ Use of Tigard equipment; different city departments (e.g. parks and wastewater)
share different resources, uses.
♦ Impact on Tigard's general fund requirement: up or down?
♦ Status of Tigard SDCs?
♦ Use of Tigard school facilities; presently over-booked or nearly booked.
♦ THPRD coordinates some league activities currently as space is available (club use).
♦ Tigard senior center, separate from parks; Tigard maintains.
♦ Tigard does have some garden clubs, PCC offers classes as well, but there is a
difference in scale between Tigard and THPRD.
♦ THPRD offers over 500 classes, recreation therapy programs, and adult programs.
Alternative #3: Two providers: a) THPRD within Beaverton's urban service
boundary; b) a new park and recreation district that would include Tigard's urban
service boundary and could also include the urban service boundaries of Tualatin
and Sherwood.
♦ Would maintain community identity for Beaverton residents as THPRD
beneficiaries.
♦ Consider Tigard new special district and adding other jurisdictions. Impact on
public support for recreation funding; with special districts, public knows exactly
where funding goes and there are elected officials that can be voted in or out of
office.
♦ Expand recreation activities (City of Tigard) (little or no agitation for presently).
♦ Level of community interest in recreation services vs. cost (City of Tigard).
♦ Effect on City of Tigard general fund expenditures and on taxes.
♦ New district level of services?
♦ Needs and acquisition costs?
♦ Other agencies plans, resources; e.g. Sherwood in the process of completing a new
parks master plan; King City golf course.
♦ Taxing authority under Measure 47 for new special districts? What is law now?
COGAN
OWENS
3 COGAN
ucrcuorniu
Alternative #4:
Cityof Tigard contract with THPRD for recreation: services -for- a} -Beaverton School
District area; b) entire city.
# How big of an • issue for Tigard residents (children) who attend Beaverton Schools
and participate in THPRD affiliated recreation programs?
# School district boundaries are fixed and cannot be changed.
# Is there a method of funding for the Beaverton School District residents in Tigard to
participate in THPRD programs (special district e.g. LID; levy?) so that they would
not have to pay out-of-district fees?
# Possibility that THPRD annexes that portion of the City of Tigard that is within the
Beaverton School District Boundary; including parks.
# Impact of the new recreation facility under construction and the planned high
school?
# Possibility of contracting?
# Impact on THPRD capacity, i.e., having to build other facilities to provide service to
Tigard.
# What are the boundaries and population of the area in question?
# Could there be a service differential for the Tigard area, or for just school-age
children?
# What would the impact be on current THPRD users and THPRD capacity?
# What would the impact be on the THPRD draft master plan and updates?
COGAN
MV ENS
4 COGAN
RE(VCLEDrAMR
Task Group Meeting Notes
PARKS,. RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE
December 18,1996
Attending: Jim Breithaupt (Moore Breithaupt), Linda Davis (Cogan Owens Cogan),
Barbara Fryer (City of Beaverton), Kirstin Greene (Cogan Owens Cogan), Andy Priebe
(THPRD), Duane Roberts (City of Tigard).
Andy Priebe relayed a letter from Pat Whiting to the S. B. 122 Parks Task Group
regarding the Metzger Park L.I.D.
Linda Davis distributed and answered questions regarding an expanded methodology
dated December 17, 1996. Specific changes to the previous methodology includes
listing the Agreement Factors under ORS 195.070. In addition, personnel transition
issues will be evaluated for affected alternatives.
As a test of the proposed methodology, Linda distributed a draft comparison of Park
Standards and Service Levels for the Tualatin Hills Park and Recreation District and the
City of Tigard. Additions to the table were considered, and items which were not
relevant for service level comparison across the District and the City of Tigard were
eliminated. An updated table will be distributed finalizing conditions and service level
definitions and standards within the study area according to assumptions the group
agreed upon.
For basis of analysis of all the alternatives, a table of Current and Projected Population,
Households and Employment figures was distributed. Information for this table was
provided by Metro and interpreted by Washington County and Cogan Owens Cogan.
The consultant team will proceed to work on the analysis per the final methodology.
The group agreed to not meet January 15, but to communicate and discuss interim
findings as appropriate. The City of Tigard and THPRD may meet to confirm
standardization of parks, recreation and open space analysis assumptions and
methodology before the next full Task Group meeting.
The next full Task Group meeting remains scheduled for February 5th, 1997, until
further notice.
Enc.: December 16 Letter from Pat Whiting to the Parks Task Group
Finalized Methodology for Parks, Recreation and Open Space
Draft Park Standards and Service Levels Table
Current and Projected Population, Households and Employment Table
November 20 Meeting Notes
COG. AN
OWENS
COGAN
NFn CLFD PAI'F11
Task Group Meeting Notes
PARKS, RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE
February 19,
Attending: Robin Smith, Metzger Park Board; Andy Priebe, THPRD; Mark Brown,
Washington County; Jennifer Gardner, City of Hillsboro; Barbara Fryer, City of
Beaverton; Duane Roberts, City of Tigard; Larry Eisenberg, Washington County; Linda
Davis, Cogan Owens Cogan; Jim Breithaupt, Moore Breithaupt & Associates.
Linda Davis went over the tables on service levels and projected needs for each
alternative. Alternative 1 uses current THPRD and City of Tigard service levels and
Alternative 2 uses THPRD service levels. Alternative 3 is intended to use THPRD
service levels for Beaverton and the NRPA standard for a new park and recreation
district in Tigard. It was noted that Alternative 3 does not seem to reflect the NRPA
standard for Tigard. This will be checked and amended if necessary. Alternative 4
uses THPRD's service levels. It was pointed out that it would be helpful to show what
the immediate service level would be under Alternative 3 if the area were annexed to
THPRD immediately. Linda said they would run some numbers on this.
Linda clarified that the service level information does not factor in the Metzger Park
but does include the population within the LID for purposes of projecting future needs.
Larry Eisenberg said it is effectively assumed that the park would continue as is under
the LID.
Jim Breithaupt discussed tables related to the financial analysis of alternatives 1 & 2.
The analysis shows that the impact of Measure 47 is significant for both alternatives.
The most conservative impacts of 47 were assumed for both THPRD and the City of
Tigard. Jim said it would take state legislation and/or more liberal interpretations of
47 to cause a reduction in the impacts. For example, the Legislature would have to
allow local levies to override the limitations of 47 to allow both jurisdictions to continue
to provide services at their existing levels of service. Maintenance and operations are
particularly impacted. Even if bond issues and other sources of revenue could be
obtained to pay for acquisition and capital costs, there will not be sufficient revenues
for operation and maintenance.
There was discussion about what the financial impacts, e.g., benefits, might be to the
City of Tigard to remove parks from the City's general fund (Alternative 3). There was
general acknowledgment that this could be beneficial to the city's general fun, even if
the opportunity to pursue this alternative is remote. Linda asked Jim to look at this
alternative for impacts to the City of Tigard general fund.
There was further discussion about the role of systems development charges (SDCs) for
capital costs and fees to defray operation and maintenance. Jim said that the use of
SDCs - either increasing them (Tigard) or instituting new ones (THPRD) - still beg the
COGAN
OWENS
1 COGAN
"OCLIDPAM
issue of operations and maintenance. Increasing fees for services (THPRD) will help,
but park and recreation services are very price sensitive and may not actually help to
make up for loss in property taxes. Andy Priebe said that THPRD currently recoups
about 19% of its program costs through fees.
Mark Brown said that we need to be able to tell people what will need to be done to
make up for revenue shortfalls. It would probably be a good idea to show people what
the pre-47 picture would be compared to post-47.
Linda also suggested that we show the per capita costs for each alternative as a better
way to compare them.
Mark Brown related the schedule of public meetings set for April. There was
discussion about what information would be provided at these meetings. Mark said it
is not planned that service provider would give any kind of sales pitch. Linda said that
this still needs to be worked out and will be discussed more at the next meeting.
Jim will meet with Andy and Duane next week to finalize service level and cost
information.
The next meeting will be March 5, 1997 at Metzger Park. Revisions to the financial
analysis will be discussed as well as non-financial impacts of each alternative.
COCA`
OWENS
2 COGAN
UC KLEO PAPER
Task Group Meeting Notes
PARKS, RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE
March 5, 1997
Attending: Larry Eisenberg, Washington County; Andy Priebe, THPRD; Duane
Roberts, City of Tigard; Jennifer Gardner, City of Hillsboro; Linda Davis, Cogan Owens
Cogan; Jim Breithaupt, Moore Breithaupt Associates.
Linda Davis briefly reviewed the report covering the evaluation of non-financial factors
that was sent out before the meeting.
Jim Breithaupt discussed the financial analysis on the alternatives completed to date.
Because of Measure 47, Alternative 3b, establishing a county service district in the
Tigard area, is the most attractive of the alternatives, assuming that existing
jurisdictions cannot go outside Measure 47 to establish a new tax base. In response to a
question by Andy Priebe, Jim said it is uncertain whether THPRD could ask the voters
for a new tax base outside of Measure 47 limits. The most conservative answer at this
time is no.
Jim discussed the "son of Measure 47" being considered by the Legislature and handed
out descriptive material.
The overall conclusion is that we will not be able to make a final evaluation of the
financial impacts of the alternatives until we know the final outcome of Measure 47
either a new measure on the ballot in May, or what the Legislature might do to address
Measure 47 issues.
Linda reminded the group of the public meetings scheduled for April. The group
discussed some possible questions that could be asked of participants at the public
meetings.
Linda asked that comments on the evaluation to date be sent to her by April 1. The
next meeting of the task group will be May 14 at which time we will review results of
the public meetings, the outcome of Measure 47, assuming an election has taken place,
and a final version of the evaluation.
coc.t
OWE\5
COCAN
RKICI[orArcA
Task Group Meeting Notes
PARKS, RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE
May 14,1997
Attending: Larry Eisenberg, Washington County; Andy Priebe and Steve Bosak,
THPRD; Duane Roberts, City of Tigard; Barbara Fryer, City of Beaverton;
Jennifer Gardner, City of Hillsboro; Linda Davis, Cogan Owens Cogan; Jim
Breithaupt, Moore Breithaupt Associates
The committee discussed the results of the public meetings held in April. The
primary concerns in the Tigard area meetings was retention of the Metzger Park
LID and the lack of recreation services. There was some interest in annexing to
THPRD and one person suggested a new park and recreation district similar to
THPRD for people in the Tigard area. In the Beaverton area, participants are
very satisfied with services they receive from THPRD and no one suggested any
other alternative for people in the Beaverton area.
The task group discussed recommendations for principles of urban service
agreements.
Beaverton: THPRD to continue as service provider in the Beaverton area and
expand to include all of the Beaverton urban service area within the study area.
Standards should be per the 1996 20-year master plan. The City of Beaverton,
County and THPRD should consider adopting a systems development charge
(SDC) for future land acquisition and capital construction. The urban service
agreement should reflect that the City owns park land and contracts with
THPRD for operation and maintenance.
Tigard: For the immediate future, Tigard should be the service provider for the
City and, as the City annexes, it would become the provider of parks for
annexed areas. Tigard would maintain its current level of services for parks.
The City and County, and perhaps other cities such as Tualatin and Sherwood,
should examine the desirability of creating a special district for park and
recreation services.
There was discussion about whether an SDC could be adopted county-wide to
assure that there would be money to purchase and develop park land. Linda
and Jim pointed out that it wouldbe necessary to develop a master plan to
identify the level of funding and qualified projects; it is uncertain
whether,practically speaking, this could be done. It might be possible, however,
for the City of Tigard to consider expanding its master plan to include all of its
urban service area so that an SDC could be adopted for this area. Duane said
there had been discussion in the City about this. Further direction on this issue
COG A\
OVENS
I COGAN
R[C\CLED PI'ER
and the broader question of a park and recreation district may come out of the
City's visioning process now underway.
Linda suggested that there needs to be come agreement among all the providers
concerning the future of the Metzger Park LID. If all parties can agree that the
LID will continue as long as the LID property owners wish it to, this could
establish a level of trust and open up discussion with this neighborhood about
other issues. Everyone concurred with this concept.
Linda asked what the status is of Metro Greenspaces - is Metro planning to
retain properties it purchaseswith Greenspaces money or will they be turned
over to other providers? Several suggested that Metro is trying to get local
providers to take over certain properties,but it is unclear what role they intend to
play in the future.
Jim discussed Measure 47 and Measure 50 and what differences, if any, each will
make in parks and recreation alternatives. Measure 50 fixes the annexation
problem. The prognosis for passage of 50 is probably not good. The Legislature
could transfer some provisions it wrote for Measure 50 to Measure 47
implementation in the event 50 fails. Overall, if Measure 50 passes we will have
some more certainty about a number of questions than if we have to live with
Measure 47. Measure 50 does not change the analysis of the alternatives.
Linda described the process to complete this project. The analysis will be
completed to include the financial analysis. A summary report will be written
this will be sent to the task group for comments.
Linda thanked everyone for their assistance and participation.
y
COGAN
OWENS
2 COGAN
•[C1flFD/M'G
AGENDA ITEM #
FOR AGENDA OF October 20. 1998
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Review Evaluation Criteria for Long_Teerrmm/Water Supply
PREPARED BY: Ed Wegner DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
A review and discussion of our evaluation criteria used in the 1994 Water Supply Update and make a decision
on whether the Council should revise or rank the criteria for evaluation of the two water supply options.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Engage in discussion with Phil Smith of Murray, Smith and Associates on the evaluation criteria and be
prepared to revise the criteria, as needed.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
In the City's Water Supply Up late, evaluation criteri as were setforth in determining and ranking long term
water supply source alternatives. Attached is this ranking and Chapter 4 of this Plan which explains in detail
these alternatives and sources. Also as requested Davis & Hibbits conducted a telephone survey regarding
water supply problems and options as well as advise to Council. The summary is also attached.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
1. Revision of our existing criteria
2. Rank or re-prioritize criteria '
3. Develop a new list of criteria for evaluating water source options.
VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY
This is in conjunction with our visioning goal of securing a long-term water supply source for the City of
Tigard's Water Service area.
Y
FISCAL NOTES
The discussion has no impact on the budget, however the decision on water supply source will be discussed
once the Portland and Willamette options are reviewed in early 1999.
kathy\cc10-2.1
Table 4-1
Summary of Evaluation Criteria
and Tabulation of Rankings
i...,..w:: :vv:»r:r{. .:n. .2 n. ::r x..:.. :i?: •i:v; .i Y:v:
?:!:!.C, r vnvCf3:~%:«puY•:::p)}:h}Y::::::::n: u::.:}:}:)y: ))Y. .r...
: '}Y:iiy: 4:::•}'v:::: is }:::::'::9Y::3y,i
r:: v:bui;::::::::n:::::::: sr:v r ....n3::'::~
x.:.:v } i}'!:: Y. J~ ::.:.::..:'4: }:4;33 :
?•Y33}3: i•Y
{..N.J.Hi O uvnv.•nvnv: n n.... Y..
:.:.n..:::r::...:.....»,,,,!..,..:v,.,?::.:.:.:::v..::::::.:.:~:..~:.:::::.~ .....:....::::.::.....<.:Y}Y}: e _ . auk.}:::.fit
r...: ..............:.........._:::::.:r..}iii;:<.; ;}in.::::: _ ..:...:..~:07.~....................:n.:::.:::.:::::::::.~.:::::.:.:,:. :r.1P3~=
! r ....................::•.4Y:o: ,:::.:.........nnv: yii:::J'YY'.}YYY.. T.:f<: b:;ib)
.YC::•:Y:.Y:.nr..; f.. .:«n. :!Y:Jn•:. :n::ny,: :w: n:.:::.~.......... : r. ,r..... n:?•:. ~:3 'y:??<33}::..
. n..... r.r k . .n.,/ ..........::::?C!4iYi}:•i:?: :4:: p•.; :)i:}}}, L:?!..v::::; .
:vri}' l.L.}\.}•p:?4}:YJ}n::r/~!" i)~':. v: .:::.w: v:.:. .n :4}} '33v:i::}:,vi!': 3??C
!fiJ<?i.YYYJ: i}}>i:•Y:4: 3:u~' ~;:3;:;'f,.j;
.4 .
Opportunity for City Ownership 1 2 1 1
of Supply System
Water Supply Agreements and 1 2 1 1
Contract Provisions
Required Improvements and 2 1 4 3
Estimated Project Costs
Estimated Cost of Water 1 1 3 2
Water Rights 1 2 4 2
Water Quality 1 1 1 1
Supply Implementation Timing 2 1 4 3
Certainty of Supply 1 2 4 3
Total Points 10 12 22 16
Final Ranking 1 2 4 3
93-0292.101 4-8
u~zo~4Y
p.oaxukA ~/s k„,xNF
WATER SUPPLY PLAN
UPDATE
CITY OF TIGARD
OREGON
OCTOBER 1994
CHAPTER 4
EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
General
Each of the supply alternatives presented in Chapter 3 have advantages and
disadvantages for Tigard. To quantify and assess these qualities, criteria must be
established by which each alternative can be evaluated. A wide range of criteria can
be used to evaluate the alternatives. This chapter presents eight criteria by which
each alternative is evaluated and ranked in comparison to the other alternatives.
These criteria are as follows:
1. Opportunity for City Ownership of Supply System
2. Water Supply Agreements and Contract Provisions
3. Required Improvements and Estimated Project Costs
4. Estimated Cost of Water
5. Water Rights
6. Water Quality
7. Supply Implementation Timing
8. Certainty of Supply
Ranking of Alternatives
A brief discussion of each alternative is presented for the individual criteria. Each
alternative receives a ranking for the criteria. The ranking ranges from 1 to 4, with 1
being the highest ranking and a 4 the lowest ranking. The ranking is relative and
some alternatives can receive an equal ranking for the same criteria.
Opportunity for City Ownership of Treatment and Supply Facilities
Certain supply alternatives give Tigard the opportunity for an ownership interest in
the supply system. It is of benefit to Tigard to gain an equity interest in its water
supply, treatment and delivery systems. Each alternative will be rated on whether
Tigard has the opportunity to gain ownership or an equity interest in an alternative.
City of Lake Oswego Supply
The City of Lake Oswego has indicated a willingness to discuss the potential formation
of a water authority or similar entity with Tigard. It is anticipated that such an
institutional arrangement would allow Tigard the opportunity for ownership of its
water supply, treatment and delivery systems. This alternative receives a ranking of
1.
93-0292.101 4-1
Evaluation of Alternatives
Discussions were held with purveyors of each developed water source. Of those
providers under consideration, only the City of Lake Oswego and the City of Portland
provide Tigard the potential for a long range supply of water from an existing supply
system. A long range supply of water could be obtained from the Willamette River
through a city-owned or a jointly owned supply system. These four alternatives were
evaluated under a set of eight criteria and ranked in comparison each other. The
eight criteria are:
1. Opportunity for City Ownership of Supply System
2. Water Supply Agreements and Contract Provisions
3. Required Improvements and Estimated Project Costs
4. Estimated Cost of Water
5. Water Rights
6. Water Quality
7. Supply Implementation Timing
8. Certainty of Supply
A tabulation of the evaluation and ranking results is presented in the following table.
Summary of Evaluation Criteria and Tabulation of Rankings
:....Z.;::;::.:..:... g
.<~a~y
X-N 1:1
Opportunity for City Ownership 1 2 1 1
of Supply System
Water Supply Agreements and 1 2 1 1
Contract Provisions
Required Improvements and 2 1 4 3
Estimated Project Costs
Estimated Cost of Water 1 1 3 2
Water Rights 1 2 4 2
Water Quality 1 1 1 1
Supply Implementation Tinting 2 1 4 3
Certainty of Supply 1 2 4 3
Total Points 10 12 22 16
Festal Ranking 1 2 4 3
93-0292.101 E-2
City of Portland Supply
It is anticipated that prior to the completion of the Phase 2 Plan Portland will not
consider changes.in the present ownership arrangements of its water supply system.
There is presently no opportunity for acquiring an equity interest in the Portland
system. Portland has indicated that its consideration of long term supply
arrangements will rely on the results of the Phase 2 Plan. Whether Portland will
accept joint ownership of its water supply system by others is not known. This
alternative receives a ranking of 2. _
Willamette River Supply
City of Tigard System
A City of Tigard supply system would be owned by the citizens of Tigard. This
alternative receives a ranking of 1.
Region& Supply System
It is anticipated that the development of a regional supply system will provide Tigard
the opportunity for ownership of these facilities. This alternative receives a ranking of
1.
Water Supply Agreements and Contract Provisions
Tigard has existing water service agreements with Lake Oswego and Portland. A
general description of these agreements is presented in Chapter 3. It is to Tigard's
advantage to pursue and enter into a water service contract that provides the city and
a potential provider with the fairest contract provisions. Each alternative is ranked on
the existing contract and the potential for renegotiation of the existing agreement with
more equitable terms. The highest ranked alternatives are those that provide Tigard
the opportunity to enter into a new agreement for water service that, among other
things, establishes the amount of water to be supplied, provides the potential for the
most equitable contract provisions and provides the potential for Tigard to have direct
and substantive input into the rate setting process.
City of Lake Oswego Supply
The existing agreement for water service between Lake Oswego and Tigard allows
Tigard to purchase surplus water, allows Lake Oswego to unilaterally establish the
cost of water and allows the supply of water to be reduced at Lake Oswego's
discretion. Lake Oswego has presented a framework for discussions of a new
institutional arrangement by which Tigard can gain water service through ownership
of facilities. It is anticipated that such an arrangement will provide Tigard the
opportunity to share in water supply and cost decisions through the potential creation
of a water supply authority or similar entity. This arrangement provides Tigard the
93-0292.101 4-2
opportunity to pursue a favorable water supply agreement. This alternative receives a
ranking of 1.
City of Portland Supply
The existing agreement for water service between Portland and Tigard allows Tigard to
purchase surplus water at rates established by Portland. While Uhis contract is utility
based, water rates are established through calculations based on- an average annual
water use and peaking factors of past water use periods. Application of certain
provisions of this agreement result in variability of water rates and can cause
significant changes in these rates from year to year. While Portland has indicated
that there is a potential for a renegotiation of the existing contract, or any subsequent
contract, there are no indications of anticipated contractual provisions. This
alternative receives a ranking of 2.
Willamette River Supply
City of Tigard System
A city owned supply and treatment system would require no contract for service. This
alternative receives a ranking of 1.
Regional Supply System
It is anticipated that a regional supply system would allow Tigard the opportunity to
participate in the development of agreements for water service. Through this process
it would be expected that Tigard could secure a contractual framework that provides
water to Tigard on a cost of service basis. This alternative receives a ranking of 1.
Required Improvements and Estimated Project Costs
For each alternative under consideration required improvements have been identified
and estimated project costs developed. Project cost estimates include the cost of
treatment facilities, pumping facilities, transmission mains and any cost related to the
construction of new facilities required to bring a long term supply of water to the city.
These costs also include costs that Tigard must pay to other providers for water. The
estimated project costs for each alternative are presented and discussed in Chapter 3,
Supply Alternatives. Each alternative is ranked according to the estimated costs of
implementing the supply alternative. All project cost estimates are in 1994 dollars
and include the estimated cost of improvements through the year 2020.
City of Lake Oswego Supply
It is estimated that the project cost of a Lake Oswego supply for Tigard will be
approximately $16.4 million. A summary of these costs is presented in Table 3-1..
This alternative receives a ranking of 2.
93-0292.101 4.3
City of Portland Supply
It is estimated that the project cost of a Portland supply for Tigard will be
approximately $6.05 million. This alternative receives a ranking of 1.
Willamette River Supply
City of Tigard System
The estimated project cost of a City of Tigard Willamette River water supply system is
approximately $35.0 million. This alternative receives a ranking of 4.
Regional Supply System
The estimated project cost of a regional Willamette River water supply system is
approximately $182.0 million. Tigard's estimated share of this cost is approximately
$18.2 million. This alternative receives a ranking of 3.
Estimated Cost of Water
The cost of water has been estimated for each alternative. As presented in Chapter 3,
these costs may include operation and maintenance costs, debt service for the
repayment of bonds used to finance initial capital improvements, depreciation costs
and/or a return on investment cost. These costs are presented in the cost per ccf of
water and represent the estimated cost of water in 1994 dollars. If possible,
consideration is also given to the estimate cost of water to the year 2020. Each
alternative is ranked according to its estimated costs of water.
City of Lake Oswego Supply
The estimated cost of water for the Lake Oswego supply is approximately $1.06 per
ccf. Based on the estimates presented in Chapter 3, the estimated cost of water may
decline over time as the user base expands and debts are retired. This alternative
receives a ranking of 1.
City of Portland Supply
The estimated cost of water for the Portland supply is variable. It may range from
approximately $0.80 to $1.05 per ccf. No determination of water costs beyond 1999
have been made. While the lower limit of this cost range is the lowest estimate of
probable water costs, the.potential for variability of costs and the uncertainty of
future water costs raises the relative ranking of the other alternatives. This
alternative receives a ranking of 1.
93-0292.101 4-4
i
Willamette River Supply
City of Tigard System
The estimated cost of water from a Willamette River supply owned by Tigard is
approximately $2.00. This alternative receives a ranking of 3.
Regional Supply System
The estimated cost of water from a regional Willamette River supply is approximately
$1.08 This alternative receives a ranking of 2.
Water Rights
Each alternative has water rights issues associated with the delivery of water to
Tigard. The inability to use or acquire water rights may make an alternative
unfeasible. Should Tigard develop a new water supply independently, water rights
issues become very important. When purchasing water from other water purveyors,
the water rights issues become a matter of evaluating the providers ability to meet the
contractual obligations to Tigard. Each alternative will be ranked on this issue when
comparing water supply alternatives.
City of Lake Oswego Supply
The City of Lake Oswego has water rights on the Clackamas and Willamette Rivers.
Lake Oswego has used these rights to supply surplus water to Tigard. Lake Oswego
has indicated the willingness to consider the potential of allowing these rights to be
used by an institutional entity comprised of Lake Oswego and Tigard in a water
supply authority or similar entity. This alternative receives a ranking of 1.
City of Portland Supply
The City of Portland has exclusive water rights to the Bull Run Watershed and
additional rights for the Columbia River Ground Water Well Field. Portland has used
these rights to supply water to wholesale users. Portland is awaiting the outcome of
the Phase 2 Plan prior to action on the further use of these rights or acquisition of
new rights such as on the Columbia River. This alternative receives a ranking of 2.
Willamette River Supply
City of Tigard System
The City of Tigard has no water rights on the Willamette River. This alternative
receives a ranking of 4.
93-0292.101 4-5
Regional Supply System
The Tualatin Valley Water District has water use permits on the Willamette River that
could potentially be used as a source for a regional treatment and supply system.
Tigard may gain access to these rights through participation in a regional water
supply entity. There are some issues related to the ability to use these rights that
remain unresolved. This alternative receives a ranking of 2.
Water (,duality
All of the existing developed supply alternatives presently meet existing State and
Federal water quality requirements and would be expected to meet any future
requirements. Any development of a new Willamette River source will also meet water
quality requirements. All of the alternatives receive a ranking of 1.
Supply Implementation Timing
City of Lake Oswego Supply
It is estimated that this supply alternative could be operational in approximately 3 to
5 years. This alternative receives a ranking of 2.
City of Portland Supply
It is estimated that this supply alternative could be operational in approximately 1 to
3 years. This alternative receives a ranking of 1.
Willamette River Supply
City of Tigard System
It is estimated that this supply alternative could be operational in approximately 7 to
12 years. This alternative receives a ranking of 4.
Regional Supply System
It is estimated that this alternative could be operational in approximately 5 to 10
years. This alternative receives a ranking of 3.
Certainty of Supply
Each alternative is capable of providing of water to Tigard to meet its estimated 2020
needs with varying degrees of certainty. A discussion of the quantity of available
supply and conditions of this supply is presented with the description of each
alternative presented in Chapter 3. Each supply alternative is ranked on its relative
93-0292.101 4-6
certainty of meeting Tigard's water needs as presented in Chapter 2. For developed
systems, certainty of supply is the provider's expressed willingness to work with
Tigard in developing a firm long term water supply for the city. Alternatives with the
greatest potential to provide a firm long term water supply to Tigard rank the highest.
For undeveloped supplies, certainty of supply relates to the potential for successful
development of the supply. Alternatives with the greatest potential for providing
Tigard certainty of supply are ranked the highest.
City of Lake Oswego Supply
The Lake Oswego analysis of water service to Tigard concluded that expanded Lake
Oswego facilities would have adequate capacity to supply both cities to the year 2020.
The analysis also presented a documentation of required improvements and provided
a framework for discussions that offer Tigard control of its water supply availability.
This alternative receives a ranking of 1.
City of Portland +Supply
The City of Portland has not indicated a firm commitment to supply water to Tigard.
This alternative receives a ranking of 2.
Willamette River Supply
City of Tigard System
A City of Tigard treatment facility on the Willamette would be designed to provide
adequate supplies to meet Tigard's 2020 estimated peak day demands. Issues related
to raw water availability reduce the ranking of this alternative. This alternative
receives a ranking of 4.
Regional Supply System
A regional supply system on the Willamette would be designed provide adequate
supplies to meet Tigard's 2020 peak day demands. The certainty of this supply is less
then for developed supply systems. The availability of existing water use permits,
however, improves the ranking of this alternative. This alternative receives a ranking
of 3.
Ranking Summary and Conclusion
A summary of the evaluation criteria and a tabulation of the evaluation ranking of
each alternative is presented in Table 4-1. The City of Lake Oswego supply alternative
receives the highest total final ranking. The City of Portland supply alternative ranks
second. A regional supply system on the Willamette River is ranked third and a City
of Tigard treatment facility on the Willamette ranks fourth. Recommendations for the
implementation of the Lake Oswego supply alternative are presented in Chapter 5.
93-0292.101 4-7
EXECUTIVE SUM%1ARY
General
This document is an update of a water supply plan prepared for the Tigard Water
District in 1990. This update includes an evaluation of seven long term water supply
alternatives. These alternatives are:
I . City of Lake Oswego Supply (Clackamas River)
2. City of Portland Supply (Bull Run River and Columbia River Well Fields)
3. City of Tualatin Supply (Bull Run River and Columbia River Well Fields)
4. Hillsboro-Forest Grove-Beaverton-Tualatin Valley Water District-Joint
Water Commission Supply (Tualatin and Trask Rivers)
5. South Fork Water Board Supply (Clackamas River)
6. Tualatin Valley Water District Supply (Bull Run River, Columbia River
Well Fields and the Tualatin and Trask Rivers)
7. Willamette River Supply above Wilsonville
Water Demand Estimates
Estimated water demands for the water service area were developed using City of
Tigard population estimates for the years 2000, 2010, and 2020. Also developed were
estimates of anticipated 1994 demands and a 1994 population estimate. Tigard's year
1990 population of 30,800 is included as a base line year. Population estimates and
water demand estimates are summarized in the following table.
Summary of Estimated Population and Water Demands
•l'✓: d•zi•;;r•si4: chary . .
1990 30,800 4.6 10.6
1994 33,500 5.0 11.5
2000 39,700 6.0 13.8
2010 45,500 6.8 15.7
2020 51,700 7.8 17.9
93-0292.101 E-1
Evaluation of Alternatives
Discussions were held with purveyors of each developed water source. Of those
providers under consideration, only the City of Lake Oswego and the City of Portland
provide Tigard the potential for a long range supply of water from an existing supply
system. A long range supply of water could be obtained from the Willamette River
through a city-owned or a jointly owned supply system. These four alternatives were
evaluated under a set of eight criteria and ranked in comparison each other. The
eight criteria are:
1. Opportunity for City Ownership of Supply System
2. Water Supply Agreements and Contract Provisions
3. Required Improvements and Estimated Project Costs
4. Estimated Cost of Water
5. Water Rights
6. Water Quality
7. Supply Implementation Timing
8. Certainty of Supply
A tabulation of the evaluation and ranking results is presented in the following table.
Summary of Evaluation Criteria and Tabulation of Rankings
;:PttSnd::::. Wales
atI
.....................................................................M
Opportunity for City Ownership 1 2 1 1
of Supply System
Water Supply Agreements and 1 2 1 1
Contract Provisions
Required Improvements and 2 1 4 3
Estimated Project Costs
Estimated Cost of Water 1 1 3 2
Water Rights 1 2 4 2
Water Quality 1 1 1 1
Supply Implementation Timing 2 1 4 3
Certainty of Supply 1 2 4 3
Total Points 10 12 22 16
Final Ranking 1 2 4 3
93-0292.101 E-2
Recommendations
The recommended alternative for Tigard's long term water supply is the Lake Oswego
supply alternative. Tigard should proceed immediately with the steps needed to
develop this supply. Interim water supplies are needed to supplement existing
supplies as the recommended supply alternative is developed. Discussions should be
held with Portland and the Tualatin Valley Water District for these interim water
supply needs.
It is recommended that Tigard proceed with the following items. Items 1 through 11
should proceed immediately and concurrently and be concluded in approximately one
year. Items 12 and 14 should proceed immediately and continue indefinitely.
1. Formally adopt this plan and recommendations.
Note: The City of Tigard City Council formally adopted this plan on September
27, 1994, under City of Tigard Resolution No. 94-45. A copy of this resolution is
included as Appendix D of this document. This final Water Supply Plan Update
includes minor nwcgftations of the draft document.
2. Incorporate this plan into the City's Comprehensive Plan.
3. Proceed with negotiations with the City of Lake Oswego to develop a long term
supply of water. The negotiations should consider institutional, financial,
operational and other relevant matters.
4. Develop and execute agreements with Lake Oswego upon successful completion
of negotiations.
5. Prepare a comprehensive water system master plan update. The plan will
identify those system improvements required for implementation of the Lake
Oswego supply as well as internal system improvement requirements. Data
from this plan will be used in the financial plan.
6. Prepare a financial plan for the city water system considering the financial
requirements of the Lake Oswego supply, interim water supply costs from
Portland and the Tualatin Valley Water District until completion of the Lake
Oswego supply expansion, internal system capital improvement requirements,
operations and maintenance costs, and other items as appropriate.
7. Proceed with the recommendations of the financial plan including authorization
for and sale of bonds and water rate adjustments.
8. Review existing operational conditions with Lake Oswego to establish
arrangements that allow Tigard and Lake Oswego to maximize the available
water supply prior to the completion of the proposed supply expansion.
93-0292.101 E-3
9. Review with Portland Tigard's interim water supply needs during the period
that the recommended long term supply alternative is being developed. These
discussions should include:
A. An immediate review of transmission piping configuration and
capacities to confirm the actual capacity of the Bradley Corner
connection.
B. A review of water use patterns and system operations to provide
the most economical supply of water.
C. A further review of the impacts on anticipated water costs from
variations in system operations.
D. A review of the existing agreement for water service. This review
should include a discussion of the potential cost impacts of an
interim supply arrangement and the potential benefit to Portland
for Tigard's ultimate reduction in Portland water use.
10. Review with the Tualatin Valley Water District Tigard's interim water supply
needs. The discussions should include:
A. Review the potential for an agreement for water service that
provides Tigard the opportunity to purchase surplus water to
supplement existing supplies while the recommended long term
supply alternative is developed.
B. Determine the need for improvements to provide an adequate
interim water supply while the Lake Oswego supply is developed.
C. Review potential connection configurations of this interim supply
in addition to pressure, flow, supply and the cost of service
associated with such an arrangement.
D. Review the costs associated with the development of this interim
supply and assess its further consideration.
11. Maximize the use and capacity of City of Tigard ground water well supplies.
These supplies are limited, however, additional well capacity may be available
to supplement existing supplies as the recommended long term supply
alternative is developed.
12. Participate in the current regional water supply planning efforts, the Phase 2
Regional Water Supply Plan, and in the subsequent implementation of that
plan and other plans that may provide for Tigard's water supply needs beyond
the year 2020.
93-0292.101 E-4
r• d
13. Participate in discussions of water supply issues with entities interested in the
potential long term development of the Willamette River as a regional water
supply-
14. Periodically review the findings and conclusions of this supply plan update to
provide guidance for the supply of water to the city beyond the year 2020.
93-0292.101 E-5
Davis ' & Hibbitts • Inc.`
lblarket and Public Opinion Research
921 S.W. Morrison, Suite 424, Portland, OR 97205
Phone (503) 220-0575, FAX 220-0576
e-mail: davishib@fta.com
September 8, 1998
TO: Brian Bell, Rockey Bowler
FROM: Davis & Hibbitts, Inc.
RE: Tigard Water District Survey Results
L Introduction ,
Davis & Ilibbitts, Inc. (DHI) is pleased to present the results of a telephone survey conducted
during August to assist the City of Tigard in planning for its future water supply.. The sample size
for the survey was 305, and the respondents were randomly drawn from among registered voters
in the Tigard Water District.
Description of Sample. As will be noted in the accompanying tables, a substantial quantity of
demographic data was collected during the survey. This enabled various comparisons to be made
in each major question area. Major characteristics of the sample were as follows:
(a) The sample was 50% female and 50% male.
(b) Age was grouped into three categories. Eleven percent (11%) fell in the 18-34 range, 43%
were ages 35-59, and 46% were age 60 and over.
(c) Forty-four percent (44%) lived in the Tigard Water District area for 10 years or less, 23% for
11 to 20 years, and 34% for more than 20 years.
(d) Income was grouped into four categories. Twenty-three percent (23%) reported incomes
under $30,000, 16% fell in the $30-45,000 range, 33% fell in the $45-75,000 range, and 29%
earned $75,000 or more.
(e) Eighty-four percent (84%) of the sample were homeowners, and 16% were renters.
(f) Twenty-eight percent (28%) of the respondents had children under age 18 living at home,
while 72% were without children.
Questionnaire. A copy of the questionnaire is, attached as an Appendix In gathering the
responses, DHI employed quality control measures which included questionnaire pretesting,
callbacks, and verification. The substantive areas of questioning included water supply problem
and knowledge level, water supply options, and advice to the city council. Each is discussed in a
1
separate section below. This report will highlight noteworthy outcomes. Numerical results were
analyzed by frequency of response for categorical-format data and by comparing means for
scaled-format data. Beyond this, only subgroup variations which appeared useful for planning and
policy-making purposes are discussed.
Statement of Limitations. Any sampling of opinions or attitudes is subject to a margin of error,
which represents the difference between a sample of a given population and the total population
(here, Tigard Water District area). For a sample size of 305, if the respondents answered a
particular question in the proportion of 90% one way and 10% the other, the margin of error
would be 3.37%. If they answered 50% each way, the margin would be 5.61%. The
reason for the difference Lies in the fact that when response categories are relatively even in size,
each is numerically smaller and thus slightly less able - on a statistical basis - to approximate the
larger population.
These plus-minus error margins represent differences between the sample and total population at a
confidence interval, or probability, calculated to be 95%. This means that there is a 95%
probability that the sample taken for this study would fall within the stated margins of error if
compared with the results achieved from surveying the entire target population.
IL Water Supply Problem and Knowledge Level
Respondents were asked if they believed that Tigard currently has, or will have in the near future,
a water supply problem Forty-six percent (46%) said yes, 14% said no, and 40% were unsure or
did not respond (Table 1). Respondents age 35 to 59 (45%) and 60+ (51%) said yes more than
respondents age 18 to 34 (27%). Homeowners, as compared to renters, were also more likely to
believe that Tigard had a water supply problem (49% to 34%).
The 140 respondents who believed Tigard had a water supply problem were asked to rate its
seriousness, and 19% chose very serious, 66% somewhat serious, 8% chose not very serious, 2%
said not at all serious, and 5% were unsure or did not respond (Table 2). When these results were
collapsed into the categories of "serious" or "not serious," the outcome was an 85% to 10%
leaning towards the former. On a scale where loot at all serious to 4--very serious, the mean of
3.07 reflects a somewhat serious orientation. There were no subgroup interactions.
All respondents were informed that Tigard does need a new water supply for the future and were
asked if they had heard or read about plans for Tigard's future water supply. Fifty-five percent
(55%) said yes, 44% chose no, and 2% were unsure or did not respond (Table 3). The older the
respondent, the more likely they knew of Tigard's water supply problem (39%, 49%, and 64% for
each ascending age group).
M. Water Supply Options - General
Respondents were read a list of eight items that have been suggested as considerations in
assessing options for Tigard's future water supply and were asked if the list is a good or poor one.
2
The list included:
• Environmental impact: Impacts on the general environment of using the water source.
• Diversification: Not relying on only one water supply source.
• Untreated water quality: Quality of the water before treatment.
• Tap water quality: Quality of the water after treatment.
• Ownership: Opportunities for Tigard to own or share in ownership of the water source.
• Construction costs: Costs to build new water facilities and pipes.
• Ongoing costs: Costs of the water to the customer, including operations and maintenance.
• Certainty: Likelihood that the water source will meet projected demands.
Thirty-eight percent (38 said it was a very good list, 47 % chose good, 6 % said poor, 2 %
said very poor, and 7% were unsure or did not respond. These results amounted to an 85% to
10% split in favor of the positive ratings. The mean of 3.30 (1 =very poor to 4=very good)
reflects a position between good and very good (Table 4). (Percentages exceed 100% due to
rounding.)
Respondents in the under-60 age groups rated the list more positively (3.48 and 3.41
respectively) than older respondents (3.14). Respondents with children also rated the list more
positively than those without (3.43 to 3.24).
The 259 respondents who gave a positive rating were asked why. Seventy-six percent (76
said the list covers a broad range of issues or that the list is comprehensive, and 9 % said that
another source of water is a good idea (Table 5).
The 25 respondents who gave a negative rating were also asked why. Five (5) respondents
said it sounds too expensive, while 4 respondents said the city should consider limiting water
usage (Table 6). The other responses were scattered over a wide variety of topics.
IV. Water Supply Options - Specifics
Respondents were then re-read the above list of items to be considered in assessing water
supply options and were asked to rate each on a 0=not at all important, 5=mid-point,
10=very important scale. The table below summarizes these results. See Tables 7A to Table
7H for an item-by-item breakdown of the frequencies and Table 7 for the means.
Item Mean % Very Important
Tap Water Quality 9.21 65%
Certainty 8.07 33
Diversification 7.52 26
Ongoing Costs 7.48 25
Construction Costs 7.27 26
Environmental Impact 7.23 27
Untreated Water Quality 7.20 27
Ownership 5.81 11
3
Tap water quality stood by itself above all others, and certainty (in meeting future demands) stood
alone in second place. Diversification, ongoing costs, construction costs, environmental impact,
and untreated water quality filled a third tier, and ownership was alone in last place.
There were several significant interactions. By gender, females rated 6 of 8 items as more
important than did males (all except certainty and ongoing costs). By age, environmental impact
was rated as more important by ages 18 to 34 than older respondents, but construction costs were
rated as less important by this age group than by older respondents. Also by age, respondents age
60 and over rated the untreated water quality and ownership as more important than did
respondents age 35 to 59. By income, respondents earning under $45,000 rated the untreated
water quality as more important that respondents earning $75,000 and over. Respondents with
no children living in their household rated untreated water quality as more important.
Respondents who had heard or read about plans for Tigard's future water supply rated
environmental impact as more important.
Along these same lines, respondents were asked what should be the one most important factor in
their decision about a future water supply. Fifty-two percent (52%) said water quality or safety,
15% said meeting demands, and 11% mentioned water prices or cost of new source (Table 8).
Respondents were then asked for their second most important factor, and 36% mentioned water
prices or cost of new source, 23% said water quality or safety, and 9% mentioned environmental
impact (Table 9).
When respondents mentioned water prices or cost of new source, they were referring primarily to
their water bill, but there was quite a lot of sophistication because most saw that construction and
maintenance costs would be passed on in the water bill. Taken as a whole, we can say that both
water quality/safety and cost were about equally important.
Respondents were asked unaided what options does Tigard have for solving the water supply
problem, and 16% mentioned the Willamette River as a source, 14% mentioned Bull Run as a
source, but 67% did not offer a comment (Table 10).-
Finally, respondents were asked for one piece of advice they would like to give the Tigard City
Council regarding making a decision about a future water supply. Sixteen percent (16%) said to
do sufficient research before deciding, 10% mentioned that the project must be kept to minimal
costs or at least be cost effective, and 10% also said to listen to the community and voters (Table
11).
V. Summary
A random sample of 305 registered voters in the Tigard Water District were asked a series of
service and supply-related questions regarding their water. On the whole, awareness of a
potential future water supply problem in Tigard was not high. A little less than half the sample
4
indicated awareness, while a little more than half had heard something about future plans to
increase their local water supply. However, by better than an 8 to 1 margin, those indicating
awareness believed it was a serious need.
This highlights two factors of significance: there is a relatively large unaware segment of the
voting population that is potentially subject to influence on this subject. Secondly, local water
supply is an important issue to those who know about it.
In general, respondents viewed the list of 8 water supply considerations they were given during
their questioning to be full and complete. These included factors such as quality, costs, and
environmental protection. It was not surprising that they regarded finished water quality as the
most-important factor, closely followed by certainty in meeting future needs. A DHI study done
for another local government in the metro area produced similar results earlier this year, even
though that jurisdiction is in the midst of a major conservation program while Tigard is not.
Thus, people want the water they get at home to be of high quality, and they want there to be
enough water to comfortably meet local needs. The fact that construction and operating costs, as
well as environmental issues, fell below these two items may suggest a certain balance in the
public's perspective. The question of cost, as long as it appears reasonable, may not be as
important in this area as other considerations are. Too much should not be made of this
suggestion without further study, since respondents were not given any cost information with
their questions, nor was it explained to them how the costs would be met.
It was also notable that the question of where additional water for Tigard should come from did
not generate a set of powerful responses. Indeed, about 2/3 of respondents offered no comment.
Apparently because of concerns over quality, the possible use of the Willamette River for drinking
water has become a fairly emotional issue in a couple of other jurisdictions that DHI has worked
with on this issue over the past several years. Depending on where the district proposes to get its
water, sensitivity to this subject in Tigard could develop in the same manner.
4M
5
MT-21-98 WED 08;02 MSA FAX NO. 15032259022 P.01
0
-
121 S.W. Salrmn, Suite 1020 N Portland, OR 47204 M1 PHONE: 503-225-9010 O FAX $0..1.225.9022
FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL
Date: 10-21-15 Job No.:
'Dime: Re: _10.10.9 $ 1/VD ~K-
Pages (including cover sheet): secs t b Al 1:70 P Ciff
Apr
Original to follow by mail: ❑ Yes `V No
Attention: C
Company:
Fax Number: 48-q 729'7
Comments:
cc: From: Q.xxt M, At ye.wt A~
NOTE. If you do not receive the rnatRrlelc ae ilwersihiil nhwvo nlonoi ~nnM~/ nrir n/YJ.•~ i...w...r:.d.1..
OCT-21-98 WED 08:03 MSA FAX NO, 15032259022 P.02
CITY OF TIOARD
WATER SUPPLY ALTERNATIVES
EVALUATION CRITERIA REVIEW
WATER QUALITY
• Treated water (tap water) quality
- Current water quality standards
- Exceed existing standards
- Accommodate future standards
* Near term
*Mid term
*Long term
Classes of regulated constituents -
SOC's/DBP's/pathogens, etc
• Raw water quality
REQUIRED IMPROVEMENTS AND ESTIMATED
PROJECT COSTS
• Facilities required to serve Tigard to meet ultimate
demands
• Project costs of facilities
OCT-21-98 WED 08;03 MSA FAX NO. 15032259022 P,03
ESTIMATED COST OF WATER
• Cost per 100 cubic feet -
- Water purchase costs
- Capital costs
- Operations and maintenance costs
® Present and future costs per 100 cubic feet
• Present worth analysis for financial comparison of
alternatives
CERTAINTY OF SUPPLY
® Likelihood supply source can be implemented -
regulatory, financial, physical, political, or other
impediments
® Likelihood supply-source will be available to meet
ultimate demands - same reasons
OCT-21-98 WED 08;04 MSA FAX NO. 15032259022 P-04
WATER SUPPLY AGREEMENTS AND CONTRACT
PROVISIONS
• Key Provisions/Issues
- Term or perpetual
- Renewable
Fair and reasonable rate basis
Meet demands
- Share the pain if shortages
- Relief for non-performance
- Point(s) of delivery
Delivery conditions and restrictions
Other
WATER RIGHTS
• Surplus water
• Water rights in City's name
OPPORTUNITY FOR CITY OWNERSHIP OF SUPPLY
SYSTEM
• No ownership
• Ownership of capacity only
• Ownership of facilities and capacity
~~Jiiii 01 Jill
lill
'OOT-21-98 WED 08:04 MSA FAX NO. 15032259022 P105
SUPPLY IMPLEMENTATION TIMING
® Ability to develop new supply by expiration of
current purchase agreement in 2005
. Ability to match demand growth thereafter to
• ultimate demand
* Risk of not achieving above requirements
potential need to seek other source or sources
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
® Impacts on general environment (Phase II
Regional Water Supply Plan)
® Update with current data
DIVERSIFICATION OF SUPPLY
® Development of additional local/regional supply
source -important?
AGENDA ITEM #
FOR AGENDA OF October 20. 1998
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Encroachment on Public Properties
PREPARED BY: Ed Wegner DEPT HEAD OK~ CITY MGR OK
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
How should the City of Tigard deal with the issue of encroachment of private citizens onto public properties
such as greenways, park wetlands, etc.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Review with Council and citizens all the options for and against in establishing a consistent policy for all to
agree to abide by throughout the City.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
Over the years private citizens have been allowed to encroach upon City owned land. This action has both
positive and negative effects - dependent upon different property owners. Some of these encroachments have
aesthetic value, others for conveniences and others can be detrimental to the City. Attached is an outline of
possible options and procedures to follow.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
This is a discussion to listen to all alternatives and develop a consistent policy for disallowing or allowing
encroachment onto public property.
VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY
N/A
FISCAL NOTES
N/A
kathy\cc 10-20
Department of Public Works' Suggestions:
TIGARD ENCROACHMENT ISSUE
OPTION #1 City Policy should be to allow no encroachment at all onto City-owned
parkland, greenway or other property.
Action Steps:
A) Plan to return all areas to original state and initiate marking plan.
All current residents encroaching on city-owned property must remove all
materials, structures, plants and any other objects placed on City property
within the following timelines. City of Tigard staff will then initiate a
marking plan by installing fencing, shrubs or other materials to mark
boundary lines between City and private properties if not already in place.
• playgrounds 1 week from notice
e fencing 30 days
• pools/ponds 6 months
• shrubs 6 months
e landscaping 6 months
• irrigation 1 year
• dirt/fill/soil 1 year (Unless fill is in wetlands. If in wet-
lands, prompter action with appropri-
ate permits is required.)
• unknowns 1 year
Encroachment is not allowed according to Tigards Municipal Code 7.24
and 7.52. Tigard Municipal Codes would need to be changed if the City
of Tigard were to allow these violations to continue.
Provisions of TMC 7.24 deal with "Criminal Trespass." Section 7.24.120,
(3) (B) (4) states that Criminal Trespass occurs when someone enters or
remains unlawfully by failing to leave premises open to the public after
being lawfully directed to do so by the person in charge. "Open to the
public" means premises which by their physical nature, function, custom,
usage, notice or lack thereof or other circumstances at the time would
cause a reasonable person to believe that no permission to enter or remain
is required.
TMC 7.52 .120 relates to vandalism in parks and states that it is unlawful
for any person to remove, destroy, break, injure, mutilate, or deface in any
way any structure, monument, statue, vase, fountain, wall, fence, railing,
vehicle, bench, tree, shrub, fern, plant, flower or other property in any
park.
OPTION #2) It is permissible, under certain conditions, to encroach upon City-owned
land. Permits (or licenses) must be applied for and obtained before any encroachment
is allowed.
Public Works suggests that all approved encroachment adhere at least to the
following conditions:
• Liability insurance must be purchased prior to acceptance by the City
and maintained throughout the period of the encroachment. Copies of
liability insurance shall be submitted and kept up to date. Copies must
be submitted to the City's Risk Manager.
• Open access must be available to public and City staff.
• Must prove that there is a public benefit not a personal one
• Must be for beautification reasons
• Must show where there is a cost savings to the City
• Must follow a detailed plan approved by City staff
• Cannot increase City liability or maintenance
A) Maintenance Only! (To relieve public of obligation)
In order to gain permission, a property owner
• Must apply for permission from the Parks Supervisor to maintain area
in it's current state without improvement to said area.(ie.mowing)
• Must submit plan with the City and get approval regarding type of
maintenance and frequency of maintenance.
B) Development/if allowed
If a property owner desires to develop on City property, she or he
• Must apply for permission from the Parks Supervisor to improve
and/or develop area.
• Must work out and sign an agreement and submit a plan for review
with the City Engineering, Planning, and Parks departments.
• Parks Supervisor will set limitation of use for each submittal.
• Must fit with park plan and development of that plan.
• Must fit within park master plan
• Parks Supervisor will determine types of plantings allowed and will
determine whether they are permanent or temporary.
• Parks Supervisor will set level of investment allowed for each area.
• Parks Supervisor will set time limitations on area in question. The
program may work like ADOPT-A-PATH/PARK programs where one
year commitments are made and reviewed at the end of the period to
see if maintenance will be continued.
• Homeowners insurance coverage must be purchased and verified prior
to development.
• All liability issues fall upon users and or residents maintaining area.
• • The public needs clear and free access to area as with other park
property
• Development must be for public not personal benefit. This will be
determined by the Parks Supervisor. This means that there is no
negative impact to the land and creates no further run off. It must
follow a plan, beautify and show a cost savings to the City. Also it
must not attract unwanted animals and insects (i.e., mosquitoes). It
must also blend in with the rest of the public use area.
• Area in question must be returned to original state when time period
has expired. (Unless the City chooses to retain the improvement and
have someone else maintain the project.)
C) Retroactive Plan
If the City chooses to allow encroachments that already exist, the City can allow
application as follows:
• Same criteria and terms apply as stated under B)DEVELOPMENT
• 30 days to apply for permission to maintain areas in question
• 30 days to obtain liability insurance on maintained area
• 6 months to comply with City criteria regarding removal of fences
Irrigation pools/ponds and or permanent structures as well as to
modify if necessary.
• Terms are terminated if resident moves or is no longer maintaining
area to City standards. Upon termination, the "improvement" will be
removed by the resident within a time period established by. the City
Public Works Department.
Encroachment not allowed under any circumstances
• PLAYGROUNDS
• IRRIGATION SYSTEM EXTENSION
• POOLS/PONDS
• DRAINAGE IN AND/OR ACROSS CITY LAND
• FENCING
1ACITYWIDEIENCROACKDOC
AGENDA ITEM #
FOR AGENDA OF October 20, 1998
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Removal of the "No Left Turn" Provision As Part of a 4-Way Stop Installation at
Royalty Parkway and Naeve Street
PREPARED BY: A.P. Duenas DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
Shall City Council remove the "No Left Turn" provision at the intersection of Royalty Parkway and Naeve
Street as part of the installation of a 4-way stop at that intersection?
STAFF RECOMMENDATL N
Staff recommends that Council rescind the "No Left Turn" restriction previously in by Council
Resolution No. 94-22 (see attached copy) as part of the installation of a 4-way stop at that intersection.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
There have been numerous requests for installation of a multiway stop at the intersection of Royalty Parkway
and Naeve Street. The Engineering Department evaluated the need for a multiway stop at that intersection in
late 1997 and determined that the warrants were not met at that time. The Arbor Heights Apartments had just
opened and had not filled sufficiently to provide a true indication of the traffic volumes that could be generated
in that area.
The Engineering staff has since rc-evaluated the need for a multiway stop at the intersection based on warrants
in accordance with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). A memorandum dated July 22,
1998 from the City Engineer to City Council and the City Manager summarized the findings (see attached
copy), which are reiteratecrhere. The traffic studies performed in June 1998 indicate that the multiway stop is
still not warranted. One key criterion in the MUTCD is that the traffic volumes on the four legs should be about
the same. The average daily traffic on Royalty Parkway increased from 1427 vehicles (July 1997) to 2286
vehicles (June 1998). The average daily traffic of 880 vehicles on the east leg of Naeve is slightly over one-third
of the traffic on Royalty Parkway. The traffic volume on the west leg is even less than that. The predominant
movement is therefore still along Royalty Parkway. The 85th percentile speed of southbound vehicles on
Royalty Parkway is 35.5 mph. I lowever, there have not been any accidents reported at this intersection, and
sight distances are sufficient even fir the speed that vehicles are traveling up and down the hill. In addition, no
delay problems have been reported for this intersection. In short, based on criteria in the MUTCD, the warrants
for a multiway stop have not been met. Studies have shown that signs placed without justification can actually
result in increased accidents and in a higher incidence of violations. However, there are other considerations that
may be introduced for consideration on a case-by-case basis. The City Engineer's assessment of this situation is
that it would probably be prudent to install the multiway stop because of the following reasons:
• The natural tendency of vehicles is to speed up-both on the downhill and uphill legs. Vehicles
traveling northbound begin accelerating to climb the hill at approximately the Naeve intersection, while
vehicles traveling southbound normally must make an effort to slow down while coasting downhill. A 4-
way stop at the Naeve Street intersection would eliminate speeding through the intersection by forcing
vehicles to come to a stop.
o The intersection as configured is skewed as it goes uphill forcing motorists on the east leg of Naeve to
turn at a more than 90-degree angle to look uphill for oncoming vehicles. Although the sight distances
are more than adequate in that area, this configuration does add another element that should be
considered in evaluating the need for a multiway stop installation.
As part of the overall evaluation -of the multiway stop installation, the Engineering Department solicited input
from the major users in the area including the Summerfield Homeowners Association, the Arbor Heights
management/owners, the Renaissance Summit Homeowners Association, and the apartment complexes at the
top of hill. The responses received were overwhelmingly in favor of the 4-way stop installation. Attached are
copies of the written responses received, together with the mailing list and the letter sent soliciting input.
Periodic observations and input received from the major users in the area indicate that the no-left turn provision
is often violated. Some motorists that do not make the left turn at the intersection turn around at the Safeway
parking lot so they could make a right turn at Naeve Street. Most of the responses received acknowledged that
the no-left turn provision was being violated regularly. In addition, there are no other all-way stops within the
City that have this restriction without physical barriers to discourage the turns. Without frequent enforcement,
the no-left turn provision's effectiveness is questionable.
Since the no-left turn provision was installed by Council resolution (Resolution No. 94-22), its ultimate
disposition must go through Council for discussion and decision. If Council decides to eliminate the restriction
as part of the 4-way stop installation, staff will prepare a resolution eliminating the provision for approval at the
first Council meeting in November.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Maintain the status quo at that intersection.
VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY
Installation of a 4-way stop at the Royalty Parkway/Naeve Street intersection would meet the Tigard Beyond
tomorrow Transportation and Traffic goal of "Improve Traffic Safety", strategy "Reduce actual speed on
neighborhood streets". This 4-way stop would implement traffic control measures where it appears appropriate
to do so.
FISCAL NOTES
N/A
i:kitywide\sumhptutlt. doc
CITY OF TIGARD
Shaping A Better Community
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD
13125 SW Hall Blvd
71gard, OR 97223
Phone (503) 6394171
Fax (503) 684-7297
TO: Bill Monahan, City Manager
City Council
FROM: Gus Duenas*'.~
City Engineer
DATE: July 22, 1998
SUBJECT: Royalty Parkway and Naeve Street Intersection
There have been several requests for installation of a multiwav stop at the subject intersection. We
evaluated the need for a muldway stop at that intersection in late 1997 and determined that the warrants
were not met at that time. We noted that the Arbor Heights Apartments had just opened and had not filled
sufficiently to provide a true indication of the traffic volumes that could be generated in that area. In my
memorandum to you dated December 4, 1997, I stated that we would continue to monitor the traffic in
this area and re-evaluate the situation if conditions change sufficiently to warrant installation of a
multiway stop at this intersection. Since then, improvements to Naeve Street, from Royalty Parkway to
Pacific Highway, have been completed.
We have re-evaluated the need for a multiway stop at the intersection based on warrants in accordance
with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). The traffic studies that we performed in
June 1998 indicate that the multiway stop is still not warranted. One key criterion in the MUTCD is that
the traffic volumes on the four legs should be about the same. The average daily traffic on Royalty
Parkway increased from 1427 vehicles (July 1997) to 2286 vehicles (June 1998). The average daily traffic
of 880 vehicles on the east leg of Naeve is slightly over one-third of the traffic on Royalty Parkway. The
traffic volume on the west leg is even less than that. The predominant movement is therefore still along
Royalty Parkway. The 8S h percentile speed of southbound vehicles on Royalty Parkway is 35.5 mph.
However, there have not been any accidents reported at this intersection, and sight distances are sufficient
even for the speed that vehicles are traveling up and down the hill. In addition, no delay problems have
been reported for this intersection. In short, based on criteria in the MUTCD, the warrants for a multiway
stop have not been met. Studies have shown that signs placed without justification can actually result in
increased accidents and in a higher incidence of violations.
However, there are other considerations that may be introduced for consideration on a case-by-case basis.
My preliminary assessment of this situation is that it would probably be prudent to install the multiway
stop because of the following reasons:
e The natural tendency of vehicles is to speed up-both on the downhill and uphill legs. Vehicles
traveling northbound begin accelerating to climb the hill at approximately the Naeve intersection,
while vehicles traveling southbound normally must make an effort to slow down while coasting
downhill. A 4-way stop at the Naeve Street intersection would eliminate speeding through the
intersection by forcing vehicles to come to a stop.
e The intersection as configured is skewed as it goes uphill forcing motorists on the east leg of
Naeve to turn at a more than 90-degree angle to look uphill for oncoming vehicles. Although the
sight distances are more than adequate in that area, this configuration does add another element
that should be considered in evaluating the need for a multiway stop installation.
As part of the overall evaluation of the multiway stop installation, I intend to solicit input from the major
users in the area including the Summerfield Homeowners Association, the Arbor Heights
managementlowners, the Renaissance Summit Homeowners Association, and the apartment complexes at
the top of hill. Attached for your information is a draft letter to solicit input from these major users.
As a related issue in this evaluation, I feel the existing no-left turn provision should be eliminated if the
multiway stop is to be installed. Our periodic observations indicate that the no-left turn provision is
often violated. Without frequent enforcement, its effectiveness is questionable. Since the no-left turn
provision was installed by Council resolution, its ultimate disposition must go through Council for
discussion and decision. I will keep you informed of my progress in this evaluation and on the results of
the survey of major users. I intend to bring the inter-related multiway stop and no-left turn issues to
Council for discussion in September. This would ensure that the topic is discussed at a time when summer
vacations are over and residents are back in the City. Any further action on this matter will come after
Council discussion and direction.
Attachment
Memorandum to Bill Monahan and City Council on
the multiway stop at Royalty Parkway and Naeve
Page 2 of 2
1 l 1 c
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
RESOLUTION NO. 94- 22
A RESOLUTION OF THE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL TO PROHIBIT A LEFT TURN OF
SOUTH-BOUND TRAFFIC ONTO NAEVE STREET AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE
CONNECTION BETWEEN S.W. 109TH AVENUE AND ROYALTY PARKWAY.
WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan Transporation Map provides for a
connection between S.W. 109th Street and Royalty Parkway, and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Tigard Municipal Code 10.32.010(7) the
Tigard City Council may, by resolution, establish traffic controls which
become effective upon the installation of appropriate signs, signals or
other markings, and
WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council deems it appropriate at this time to
designate a turn restriction at the intersection of the connection
street and S.W. Naeve Street.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that:
Section-1 South-bound traffic on the connecting street shown as
Note 10 on the Comprehensive Plan Transportation Map
shall be prohibited from turning left onto S.W. Naeve
Street.
Section 2 City staff is directed to install appropriate signage at
the intersection to so designate the "No Left Turn" for
south-bound traffic prior to opening the street
connection to traffic.
PASSED: This ~y - day of , 1994.
Ma r - City of Tigard
ATT T:
City Recorder - City of Tigard
h:\login\cathy\naeve.res
RESOLUTION NO. 94-22-
Page 1
5ummer -101 d CIVIC ASSOCIATION
10650 S.W. Summertield Drive
Tigard. Oregon 97224
620-0131
August 10th, 1998
Agustin P. Duenas, P.E.
City Engineer
City of Tigard
13125 SW Hall Blvd.
Tigard, OR 97223
RE: Intersection of SW Royalty Parkway and Neave Street
Dear Mr. Duenas:
Thank you for your letter of July 28th. The Summerfield Civic Association heartily agrees with the need
for a multi-way stop at the intersection at SW Royalty Parkway and Naeve Street. Also, a number of our
residents have reported to our Administrator, and Board members, that the "no left turn" sign on Royalty
Parkway has done little to improve the traffic flow at that intersection. Cars coming down from the Arbor
Heights Apartment complex regularly make left turns onto Naeve Street against the no left turn sign.
However, the Board is requesting that the City of Tigard leave the no left turn sign at that intersection.
As a matter of safety we would encourage the City of Tigard to put in a multi-way stop at the intersection
as quickly as possible.
Your attention to this matter will be greatly appreciated.
Sincerely,
Mel Nielsen, President
Board of Directors
Summerfield Civic Association
fountains
15685 S.W. 116th.Avenue, No. 105
King Citv, OR 97224-2651
August 7, 1998
(1 AUG 10 199
Mr. William A. Monahan, City Manager vL= U
13125 SW Hall Blvd.
Tigard, OR. 97223
Re: Letter of July 28, 1998 written by Agustin P. Duenas, P.E., Tigard City Engineer.
Dear Mr. Monahan,
YES! We agree with Mr. Duenas' solution to the problem at the intersection of Naeve
and S. W. Royalty Parkway.
While we would like to keep the no left turn in effect, we also realize that the 4 way stop
is more important. As you have said, the no left turn is often violated.
I am writing this letter as President of the Fountains Homeowners Association Board and
all the Board agree with the decision. It is also the Board's feeling that the majority of
the Fountain residents would agree.
If we can be of further help by attending a meeting, etc. please let us know.
Respectfully.
FOUNTAINS OF SUMNIERFIELD HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION
Tom Rogers, President.
(503) 684-6065
TR: ab
Ell
AUG 7 1998
Agustin P. Dumas P.E.
City Engineer
City of Tigard CITY, OF TIUAR
13125 SW Hall Blvd.
Tigard Oregon 97223
RE Intersection of SW Royal Parkway and Naeve Street
Agustin, 5-Aug-98
This intersection absolutely needs to have a multiway stop installed As Soon As Possible. Some form of
signage needs to remain in place reducing non-local traffic from attempting to utilize Summerfield Development as
a thoroughfare to avoid the congestion and traffic lights on Pacific Hwy.
1) Traffic to and from the Arbor Heights Apartment complex as well as homes and apartments further up the
hillside that can access the Safeway / Tigard Promenade and are utilizing this road in favor of Highway 99. Not
only has this increased the number of cars passing through this intersection, but also the speed at which much of
the traffic descends and ascends the Royalty Parkway hillside. These factors are making it increasingly
dangerous to cross or enter this intersection from Naeve St.. The traffic is literally on top of you before you see
it coming. It needs to be FORCED to slow down, and the 25-MPH signs are ineffective.
2) Elementary School Children cross and wait for buses at this intersection. Their safety alone warrants the
immediate installation of a multi-way stop.
3) The majority of the motorists entering Royalty Parkway from Naeve St. are elderly. The extra time provided to
them by stopping/slowing the traffic at this intersection is needed.
The minor inconvenience to motorists passing up and down on Royalty Parkway is more than offset by the
welfare and increased safety a multiway stop would provide the elderly, small children and residents entering this
intersection from Naeve St.
No-Left turn sign needs to remain, or Local Traffic Only signage needs to be placed at intersection of Naeve St
and Royal Parkway. As you know, Naeve St. is not a through street, and 109'}', the outlet through Summerfield
development, was never designed to handle anything but local Traffic. Allowing (not discouraging) non-local traffic
from progressing down Naeve St will result in a constant procession of cars turning around in the residential
cultisacs on Naeve St (something which is already a problem) It would also increase the traffic through Summerfield
Retirement Community. In short removal of no left turn signage would send the same drivers who haven't got sense
enough to drive the speed limit down Royalty Parkway, speeding through the quiet residential streets of an elderly
community. Increasing traffic on roads that are designed for anything more than local use and making the cultisacs
of our neighborhoods turn-arounds for dozens of motorists trying to avoid the traffic delays on Pacific Hwy.
Multi-way stop needs to be installed immediately, and access-restricting signs need to remain.
IQ
Dr. Robert D. Fo es
10616 Naeve Street
Tigard, Oregon 97224
July 28, 1998 10 4
CITY OF TIGARD
OREGON
TO: Interested Parties
RE: Intersection of SW Royalty Parkway and Naeve Street
We have received several requests for installation of a multiway stop at the intersection of SW
Royalty Parkway and Naeve Street. We evaluated the need for a multiway stop at that intersection
in late 1997 and determined that the warrants were not met at that time. We noted that the Arbor
Heights Apartments had just opened and had not filled sufficiently to provide a true indication of
the traffic volumes that could be generated in that area. Improvements to Naeve Street, from
Royalty Parkway to Pacific Highway, have since been completed. We have continued to monitor
the traffic in this area and are now re-evaluating the situation to determine if conditions have
changed sufficiently to warrant installation of a multiway stop at this intersection.
As part of this re-evaluation, we are soliciting input from the major users of the streets within this
area. The two actions we are considering at this time are:
Y Installation of a multiway stop at the intersection of SW Royalty Parkway and Naeve Street.
9 Removal of the existing no-left turn provision prohibiting left turns from southbound
Royalty Parkway into the east leg of Naeve Street leading to the Renaissance Summit
subdivision and the Summerfield area. This restriction would be removed if a multiway
stop were to be installed at the intersection. Our periodic observations indicate that the no-
left turn provision is often violated. Without frequent enforcement, its effectiveness is
questionable.
We request your response on this matter no later than August 10, 1998. Your input will be
considered in the overall evaluation of proposed revisions to the intersection signing.
Sincerely, S l S 2N_ V~ L°_Y'('/~ S I r S~~Tt
V` 2~ "t`C i Nr `t l\ U 2~ T S A O
USTIN P. DUENAS, P.E.
Engineer
6 L, hL S~ l~ V\ I V tJ~ fir' t l
%Vg333W U1dW3%enpWwayslop.doc I'S V\- t2 0 YV-\
l~l v~ t` V S te- 1/ In b v I
L ~olti - A, I~v1j
~ ars 17~ l ' ~ i
1 125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772 I
998
July 28, 1998 ,t Y
IDS/ L( S C_o
7( c e- 9-7 Z Z~ f CITY OF TlG ®
TO: Interested Parties Z OREGON
RE: Intersection of SW Royalty Parkway and Naeve Street
We have received several requests for installation of a multiway stop at the intersection of SW
Royalty Parkway and Naeve Street. We evaluated the need for a muldway stop at that intersection
in late 1997 and determined that the warrants were not met at that time. We noted that the Arbor
Heights Apartments had just opened and had not filled sufficiently to provide a true indication of
the traffic volumes that could be generated in that area. Improvements to Naeve Street, from
Royalty Parkway to Pacific Highway, have since been completed. We have continued to monitor
the traffic in this area and are now re-evaluating the situation to determine if conditions have
changed sufficiently to warrant installation of a multiway stop at this intersection.
As part of this re-evaluation, we are soliciting input from the major users of the streets within this
area. The two actions we are considering at this time are:
X • f Installation of a mlew'aiyy~s at the intersection of SW Royalty Parkway and Naeve Street.
Removal of the existing no-left turn provision prohibiting left turns from southbound
Royalty Parkway into the east leg of Naeve Street leading to the Renaissance Summit
subdivision and the Summerfield area. This restriction would be removed if a multiway
stop were to be installed at the intersection. Our periodic observations indicate that the no-
left turn provision is often violated. Without frequent enforcement, its effectiveness is
questionable.
We request your response on this mattcr no later than August 10, 1998. Your input will be
considered in the overall evaluation of proposed revisions to the intersection signing.
Sincerely,
USTIN P. DUENAS, P.E.
Engineer
%U4333%uVkWplsXmVWwsyst0p doe
13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard. OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772
July 28, 1998
CITY OF TIGARD
Fountains Homeowners Association OREGON
c% Allyn Schonweiler
15371 SW 114'h Ct. # 107
Tigard, OR 97224
RE: Intersection of SW Royalty Parkway and Naeve Street
We have received several requests for installation of a multiway stop at the intersection of SW
Royalty Parkway and Naeve Street. We evaluated the need for a multiway stop at that intersection
in late 1997 and determined that the warrants were not met at that time. We noted that the Arbor
Heights Apartments had just opened and had not filled sufficiently to provide a true indication of
the traffic volumes that could be generated in that area Improvements to Naeve Street, from
Royalty Parkway to Pacific Highway, have since been completed. We have continued to monitor
the traffic in this area and are now re-evaluating the situation to determine if conditions have
changed sufficiently to warrant installation of a multiway stop at this intersection.
As part of this re-evaluation, we are soliciting input from the major users of the streets within this
area The two actions we are considering at this time are:
• Installation of a muldway stop at the intersection of SW Royalty Parkway and Naeve Street.
• Removal of the existing no-left turn provision prohibiting left turns from southbound
Royalty Parkway into the east leg of Naeve Street leading to the Renaissance Summit
subdivision and the Summerfield area. This restriction would be removed if a multiway
stop were to be installed at the intersection. Our periodic observations indicate that the no-
left turn provision is often violateiL Without frequent enforcement, its effectiveness is
questionable.
We request your response on this matter no later than August 10, 1998. Your input will be
considered in the overall evaluation of proposed revisions to the intersection signing.
Sincerely,
Q P. USTIN P. DUENAS, P.E.
J Engineer
XU4M3kM%d"%w 4twsWop.d=
13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772
AUG 4. 1998
10573 SW Naeve Street
CITY OF. TIGARD Tigard, Oregon 97224
August 3, 1995
Agustin P. Duenas, P.E.
City of Tigard
13125 SW Hall Blvd.
Tigard, Oregon 97223
RE: Intersection of SW Royalty Parkway
and Naeve Street
Dear Augustin:
Thank you so very much for including and allowing us to make comments concerning the
above intersection. My husband and I have talked about this intersection many times and
have commented that something needs to be done as it is getting out of hand and it is
getting to be a very dangerous intersection. Royalty Parkway has become a type of a
racing road. Cars come from the stoplight, around the corner as rapidly as possible and
race up the hill. If you are stopped on Naeve with the car's nose pointing toward Pacific
Highway, you want to get across the intersection as quickly as possible, as cars come
rapidly from both directions and by the time a person has looked both ways several times,
a car could still appear at any moment and it is not readily seen because of the lay of the
land from both directions and the speed the cars are going. I frequently walk my dog to
Safeway, and the cars are going so fast, that I am afraid to walk on the sidewalk, so we
cut across the medical center parking lot.
If this intersection were a four way stop, this would eliminate the race-car mentality. Then
the no left turn from Royalty Parkway to Naeve could also be removed. If something isn't
done soon, there will be a very bad accident at this intersection. -
Thank you again for allowing us to give you some input. This intersection concerns me
greatly and I am really reluctant to even cross it at certain times during the day and
evening hours.
Very sincerely,
J~h Birkemeier
RE: 4-way stop at Royalty Parkway and Naeve Road.
10:52 AM JULY 30,199
Ron Wise
My phone number is 624-7382
I live in Renaissance Summit and received a letter regarding intersection of
Royalty Parkway and Naeve Street.
We, my wife and I and all in my house favor a multi-stop at the intersection of
Royalty Parkway and Naeve Street. It is becoming increasingly dangerous as
we come out. Very hard to see the cars because Royalty Parkway goes back at
a different angle and they come pretty fast.
I think it should be a four-way stop and the left turn sign should be removed.
I'll try and talk with someone, but that is my input.
~It
July 29, 1998 ALG , PRD
G
Mr. Agustin P. Duenas, P.E.
City Engineer
City of Tigard
I am responding in writing per our telephone conversation of this afternoon
regarding the four-way stop on Royalty Parkway. I am very much in favor of this
proposed plan as I have witnessed many illegal left-hand turns, plus a total
disregard for the 25 mile an hour speed zone.
I would also like you to consider putting an additional stop on the corner of Naeve
and 109th to make this a four-way stop. Here again, I notice daily, the inhabitants of
Naeve St., and others, do not observe the STOP sign. I have also heard the city
doesn't want to install signs until there have been so many accidents but to me this
doesn't compute.
Please consider helping us to keep this before quiet neighborhood at least a livable
area.
Bruce and Janet L. Law
Kimberley Law Hamilton
AGENDA ITEM #
FOR AGENDA OF 10-20-98
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Balloon Festival Discussion
PREPARED BY: C. Wheatley DEPT HEAD OK lam CITY MGR OK t'-0747N~
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
Discussion topic on the future of the Tigard Balloon Festival.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
After hearing an update from Mayor Nicoli, Councilor Moore and City Staff, Council should discuss the future
of the Tigard Balloon Festival and whether staff should explore increased participation. Staff proposes, if the
Council determines that the City become more involved with the planning in the future for this event, that Staff
work closely with Mr. Ellis for the June 1999 Festival to assess the resources required to produce this Festival.
INFORMATION SUMMARY
Mayor Nicoli and Councilor Moore met with Bruce Ellis, Tigard Balloon Festival Coordinator, to determine
what his role would be in the future of this event. The general information given to staff was that Mr. Ellis
would prefer to have a lesser role in the coming years.
*Staff members involved with the planning of the Balloon Festival in years past, met a few days ago to discuss
the event and the potential of more active City involvement. The City's participation has included
concentration on public safety (traffic control, police presence), facilities (parking, field preparation) and public
relations (Cityscape articles, liaison between community and Balloon Festival Committee).
*Staff members were: City Manager Bill Monahan, Police Chief Ron Goodpaster, Public Works Director Ed
Wegner, Captain Gary Schraeder, and City Recorder Cathy Wheatley.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
1. Continue to participate at the same level as the City has done in the past and pledge to support the
individuals or organizations taking the lead in the planning of the Festival.
VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY
This matter relates to Goal No. 4 of the Community Character and Quality of Life Action Planning Committee to
"Develop overall approach for sponsoring community events that establishes balance among popular or traditional
standing events, requests for support of new events and limited City resources.'
J
FISCAL NOTES
The City/Budget Committee contributed $5,000 to the Balloon Festival Committee. In addition, approximately
$33,000 in staff resources (Police Department, Public Works, Engineering and Administration) is connected
with this event.
1 AAMCATHMOUNCI L\B LOONS.DOC
e
lift
• poll~~c
real estate VIofesS1°n~s
te~po~y signs
Ash
who p°S~ is C''
• oauers ashington . °A cote for Stan
ber 1011998, si ns (all or Coiable: education
pcto d dispose of g Te upte f Size,
n"in' g atur willP an
'ck up h Smaller clan
is-of-way. th funding,
o unty crews Cou" ty rlg roadway' the
laced 'I1 more
WCIII
illegally p includ uties the These signs and accountable
t1pe5) enerally tity poles. d edes- ent
right-of-way g to the t State gouernm
d .
the area up driver visibility an p con- ell icien
k octant traffic hard to
ditcha s an bli%ht, bloc i
visual with mp Stan Will uaork
are compete
Irian access and attention. for
trot signs the best interests
for driver removal
f1ght Lake
F C°unty,s sign X81-'t03z • of the People in
the
formation on p erations at 796.101,0 e o and ~siatin
Or more call Road p
policy, please OStug
VDIN
A
October 13, 199$
TO: See Distribution
FROM: Grog Miller
SUBMCT: SIGNS IN THE PIGHT-OF=WAY
Board of County Commissioners has passed new sign policy. Copy of the R&O is
attached. Within. that policy and based upon additional guidance from the Board, the
following rules and restrictions apply:
I.- Outside of City limits:
'Sign is clearly within the right of way (between utility poleslwater
meters/transformcmrW and cable bones; and the road).
If in doubt, leave the sign in place.
Take pictures of the site prior to and after removal.
Pick up the sign and take it to Jackson Quarry.
8-12 first Saturday of every month we will have someone at quarry to return
signs to those who show up.
- Signs will be kept for a minimum of 30 days. Then we will dispose of those
not picked tip.
There will be a fee developed which people will have to pay, per sign, to get
their sign back. Mwdmum feo is $50 per sign. Clint Giberson is developing.
the estimates upon which the. fee will be based.
Cdstormex will pay their fee at the Operations Division fimt desk, then take
the receipt to the quarry to get their sign(s).
2. Within City limits.
We respond based upon complaints. or observed safety issues. Work order
sent to Traffic.
- Traffic engineering checks it out.
If sign is hazard, Traffic will remove it, or will provide a work order to the
operations superintendent for removal. These signs go to Jackson Quarry and
are treated the same thereafter as those found within the R/W outside the
cities.
If not a hazard but within the right-of-way, contact owner to remove it. This
is the normal k&O 77-76 process.
3. The Board has authorized preparation of an ordinance that will bring procedures
for signs within all County right-of-way, whether within or outside of cities, to be
idemtical and within the guidelines in pazagraph one above. These rules will be
revised once that ordinance is in place.
Z "d V80L t 89 SNOI 1V83d0/ -W-HS'V* HMU Wd6S ° Z t 866 t -OZ-O t
to
aerkcrs dam'
d~ with
will s° ova
th~
4. pis o x s.P,,,,e si8~1~
D~butsex►:
()'sea
~ba RoscabeEW
Anue Madder.
SuPervisors
e
glare 4
/~Osvm w=~
Vag
A,
POSW Fax Ncto MTV Mon /v- - Viim_r .13
PNwM • o
t IN THE HOARD OF 0 roe.
2 FOR WASHNOTON . wz%nAjwLn
3 =
In the bb= of Amending Resolution and )
4 Order No. 77176 to Authodu Summary ) RESOLUTION AND ORDER
Collection and Disposal of Signs Unlawfully)
5 Pled in County County bight-of-Way. ) No.
6
7 This matter having come boffom the Board at its meeting of October 13,1998; and
8 : it appearing to the Board that ORS 368.942 to ORS 368.950 prohibit the placement of
4 signs in County right-0f--way, with certain exceptions. and pandt. the County to summarily
10 remove. vind destroy 'said signs; and
1 I it appearing to the Board Mat Community Developnmu Code Section 414-5.2 and
.12 Resolution and Ort1w No. 77-76 prohibit placement of signs on dedicated County right-*f--way.
13 and
14 it wring to the Board that:
15 . 1. Said r,egulat4ons vj=c adopted to, among other things: address the problem of
16 =dwtic clung generally in the community: promote safety by minjudzing the distractions facet!
17 by drivers; avoid-confusion with traffic control signals. and safety signs: and protect abutting
18 landowners from eludes and obstructions:
19 2. • The number of unlawful signs and complaints relating to signs continues to
20 increase,
21 3. Prior efforts to collect signs, hold them and return them to'claitnants is tirm-
22 consuming, cxpcnsive and ineffective. The short-ter., nature of signs makes it difficult to
page t - RESOLUTION AND ORDF.A dee%bm%taW sign RAGWe
WASitsi+lCM?f CoUNW COPWf3.
' )sS N- fiRSY'AVEi, Svc Tau
H¢tseo~w.OR9'/lu
Hwns (501) 64W47 - PAX (600) 6464W6
7 'd V90L L99 SN0.Ilt/Zi3d0/ "00-HSvm W02id Hd00= l e66 t-02-01
i effctti vely provide notice prior to rmnoval. ?he pottabte nstute of sips often tesults in returned
2 signs promptly being again illegally placed. Pecans placing signs use public A&-of-way to
3 avoid having to obtain the permiESitfn of thts abutting prppotty owner. This is unfair to those who
4 object to the clutter or to the fact that he or she becoeocs associated with the message of the sign;
5 and
6 4. The County has neither the budgetary or employee. reS unx s (including space) to
7 eattalo& stem, maintain and nftitve said signs for claimams; now. therefore, it is
8 RESOLVED AND ORDERED that signs placed in the rigkat-of way without a perrnit or
9 not oihetwise authorized by law hearty am dcclwtA a public nuisaam and. it is further
10 RESOLVED AND ORDERED that Resolution and Order No. 77-76 hereby is amended
i i as set }vibe in fthibit 'A' hereto.
12 DATED this 13th day of October. 1998.
13 BOARD OF COUNTY CUA/MMSIONERS
FOR WASEIWGTON COUNTY. ORFr5QN
14
1S
CHAIR
16
17
RECORL'NNG SEC_IMTARY
I$
.19
20
21
22
Pagc 2 - RESOLU110M AND ORDER erolbccucmp sign R&Odt
WAMMOCTON COUWM COUNSCL
lSS N. E3~s'r Ava, SuaE Sip
OR 97}24
pKOM 007) 00474 . F" (W3) 6s8•AG3d
9'd V80L L89 SNOIld2i3d0/ '00-HsVm W02i.I Wd l0: l 8661-02-01
TO RESOLUTION AND ORDER N06
Pai*Vh 7 of Resolution and Order NO. 7746 is atn=dcd as follows:
law
or atithorttd b the toad authoriey. E&Wo c pruhmwd inns inc)ude
gmm$ 1~gm and veedor sites.
2- Pzragmph 10 is addod•to 9,mohWon and Order No. 77-76 es follows.
f0_ Retttovsl of Uttauthvrimd silk
The pimeror is st gdzed to sumtaadly_
mmvp;e *anuniawftaliv placed in the riefie-yf-wlly f
iacotnarated cities.
A
22=s we nn ZM$ r4f[ d%w notiCe of~p~Iuu sect to its .
ten The Dit~etxor howE t, sh 1 provide written notieo, of the sib
pro 'tion and rem v lacy at least aatttuallY 4n- such martaer_i
dog "Mmidatm nsamnles of votertdal 99MARaa 'on mOM& include
• se of the acdia, cmtwdng IM sipit users rmoviding information to the
eWons Division to s .
Bp anal of sighs shall occur vsa EM292SQ content. 5isaaao shall Itot be
t~emoved if the abuttit v owner bus rt4titied the DC~t
he altiects to removal and wishes to move the sign onto. hi or her vrivacc
The Director may tiecc L t to y lligas until at owner is aoti a or a
time for retrieval -has passed if he deems•aoo V iste due•to the exoms-e- of
tht sign or aftm ofgtogrs. Mm content of the sign shall not beg -
consideration In h event. the line amy cW&a- a fix for ttitric~±ai
based on a masons e =Jim= uf ft cost of 'clc- to oval
bw not to eexceed $52.00 m sign.
Cxf+ibic •A'' DCVLtri temp sign amendm.caW- de
TOTAL. P.03
5 'd VeOL Le9 SN0I1'vb3d0/ '00-HSVM W0b=1 Wd00' i e661-02-01