City Council Packet - 07/29/2003
City of Tigard, Oregon
Affidavit of Posting
CITY OF TIGARD
OREGON
In the Matter of the Proposed Notice of Special Meeting
STATE OF OREGON )
County of Washington ) ss.
City of Tigard )
I, G,ense 4 6A mal , being first duly sworn (or affirmed), by
oath (or affmi nation), depose and say:
That I posted in Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon, a
copy of Notice of Special Meeting for the City Council meeting of
J-ULV 22 --WOO , with a copy of said Notice being hereto attached and
by reference made a part hereof, on the M i day of ZU_LY
20-0-`.
~G-
Signature of Person who Performed Posting
Subscribed and sworn (or affirmed) before me this I day of
20-0~.
s
i
OFFICIAL SEAL Signature of r Mo/tary Public for Oregon
>V NOTARYBPUBL C-OREGON (j~V y~V'~~I V 1 ~f
COMMISSION NO.368086
MY COMMISSION EXPIAESAPR.27, 2007
I
A
I:1ADM\GREER\FORMSVWFFIDAMTSVAFFIDAVIT OF POSTING - SPECIAL MEETING.DOC
r~ v
CITY OF TIGARD
NOTICE OF
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Please forward to:
Q"Barbara Sherman, Newsroom, Tigard Times (Fax No. 503-620-3433)
5-41"Lee Douglas, Regal Courier, (Fax No. 503-968-7397)
&K'Emily Tsao, The Oregonian, Metro SW (Fax No. 503-968-6061)
July 29, 2003 - 6 p.m.
Tigard City Hall
13125 SW Hall Blvd
Tigard, Oregon
Notice is hereby given that a meeting is planned between the Tigard City Council and the
Washington County Board of Commissioners. Meeting topics will include:
• Annexation Issues
✓ Method and timing of annexation proposals for the Bull Mountain area
✓ Annexation and/or planning services for 2 tracts of land adjacent to Tigard
■ Other Issues of Mutual Concern
For further information, please contact City Recorder Cathy Wheatley by calling
503-639-4171, ext. 2410.
City Recorder
0
j Post: City Hall Lobby
Date of Notice: July 21, 2003
i
1:%DM%CATHYTCA\CC MTG NOTICESWOTICE SPEC MTG 7-29.03.00C
City of Tigard, Oregon
Affidavit of Notification
CITY OF TIGARD
OREGON
In the Matter of the Proposed Notification of Special Meeting
STATE OF OREGON )
County of Washington ) ss.
City of Tigard )
I, &E-Le- A 6;rZ)A being first duly sworn (or affirmed), by
oath (or affirmation), depose and say:
That I notified the following people/organizations by fax of the Special Meeting
of the City Council on Y 2 9 :1063 , with a copy of the Notice of
Special Meeting being hereto attached and by reference made a part hereof, on
the S / ST day of \ JL LY , 200
Q/Barbara Sherman, Newsroom, Tigard Times (Fax No. 503-546-0724)
[Lee Douglas, Regal Courier, (Fax No. 503-968-7397)
Emily Tsao, The Oregonian, Metro SW (Fax No. 503-968-6061)
Signature of Person who Performed Notification
L
r S sc 'bed and sworn (or affirmed) before me this day of
[AA U , 20-4.
i Signature of otary Public for Oregon
o OFFICIAL SEAL
JBENGTSON
` NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON
COMMISSION NO. 368086
MY COMMISSION VPIRES APR. 27, 2007
I:VIDMIGREERIFORMS%FFIDAVITSWFFIDAVIT OF NOTIFICATION - SPECIAL MEETING.DOC
CITY OF TIGARD
NOTICE OF
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Please forward to:
Ci~Barbara Sherman, Newsroom, Tigard Times (Fax No. 503-620-3433)
VLee Douglas, Regal Courier, (Fax No. 503-968-7397)
li-KEmily Tsao, The Oregonian, Metro SW (Fax No. 503-968-6061)
)uly 29, 2003 - 6 p.m.
Tigard City Hall
13125 SW Hall Blvd
Tigard, Oregon
Notice is hereby given that a meeting is planned between the Tigard City Council and the
Washington County Board of Commissioners. Meeting topics will include:
■ Annexation Issues
✓ Method and timing of annexation proposals for the Bull Mountain area
✓ Annexation and/or planning services for 2 tracts of land adjacent to Tigard
■ Other Issues of Mutual Concern
For further information, please contact City Recorder Cathy Wheatley by calling
503-639-4171, ext. 2410.
City Recorder
Post: City Hall Lobby
i
1 Date of Notice: July 21, 2003
i
!:\ADMICATHIICCAICC MTG NOTICESINOTICE SPEC MTG 7-29.03.DOC
07,(21/2003 13:56 FAX 5036847297 City of Tigard Q001
MULTI TX/RX REPORT *s*
TX/RX NO 1815
PGS. 1
TX/RX INCOMPLETE
TRANSACTION OK [ 0615035460724 TT Newsroom
[ 0915039686061 Oregonian
[ 1115039687397 Regal Courier
ERROR INFORMATION
CITY OF TIGARD
NOTICE OF
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Please forward to:
;Barbara Sherman, Newsroom, Tigard Times (Fax No. 503-620-3433)
9*"Lee Douglas, Regal Courier, (Fax No. 503-968-7397)
64"'Emily Tsao, The Oregonian, Metro SW (Fax No. S03-968-6061)
July 29, 2003 - 6 p.m.
Tigard City Hall
13125 SW Hall Blvd
Tigard, Oregon
L Notice is hereby given that a meeting is planned between the Tigard City Council and the
r Washington County Board of Cornmissiorers. Meeting topics will include:
0
Annexation Issues
✓ Method and timing of annexation proposals for the Bull Mountain area
✓ Annexation ands/or planning services for 2 tracts of land adjacent to Tigard
Other Issues of Mutual Concern
For further Information, please contact City Recorder Cathy Wheatley by calling
503-639-4171, ext. 2410.
City Recorder
TIGARD'CITY COUNCIL
SPECIAL MEETING CITY of TIGARD
JULY 29, 2003 6:00 p.m. OREGON
TIGARD CITY HALL
13425 SW HALL BLVD
TIGARD, OR 97223
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 503-639-4171, ext. 2410 (voice) or 503-684-2772 (TDD -
Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf).
Upon request, the City will also endeavor to arrange for the following services:
• Qualified sign language 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 by calling: 503-639-4171, ext. 2410 (voice) or 503-
684-2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf).
a SEE ATTACHED AGENDA
oc
W
J
COUNCIL AGENDA - DULY 29, 2003 page 1
AGENDA
SPECIAL TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING
WITH WASHINGTON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
JULY 29, 2003 - 6 P.M.
1. SPECIAL MEETING
1.1 Call to Order - City Council & County Board of Commissioners
1.2 Roll Call
1.3 Pledge of Allegiance
2. DISCUSSION TOPICS FOR THE COUNCIL MEMBERS AND COMMISSIONERS:
■ Annexation Issues
✓ Method and timing of annexation proposals for the Bull Mountain area
✓ Annexation and/or planning services for 2 tracts of land adjacent to Tigard
■ Other Issues of Mutual Concern
3. ADJOURNMENT
I: W DKCATHY\CCA\2003\030729. DOC
I
f
I
I
I
COUNCIL AGENDA - JULY 29, 2003 page 2
Special Meeting -
Joint Tigard City Council and Washington County Board of Commissioners Meeting
July 29, 2003
Attendees
Name Representing
1. Mayor Jim Griffith City of Tigard
2. Councilor Craig Dirksen City of Tigard
3. Councilor Brian Moore City of Tigard
4. Councilor Nick Wilson City of Tigard
5. City Manager Bill Monahan City of Tigard
6. City Recorder Cathy Wheatley City of Tigard
7. Community Development
Director Jim Hendryx City of Tigard
8. Planning Manager Barbara
Shields City of Tigard
9. Assistant Planner Beth
St. Amand City of Tigard
10. Chair Tom Brian Washington County
11. Commissioner Andy Duyck Washington County
12. Commissioner John Leeper Washington County
13. Commissioner Roy Rogers Washington County
14. Commissioner Dick Schouten Washington County
15. County Administrator Charlie
Cameron Washington County
16. Sr. Deputy County
Administrator Ellen Cooper Washington County
17. Planning Manager Brent Curtis Washington County
18. Program Educator Anne
Madden Washington County
C 19. Senior Planner Joanne Rice Washington County
20. Conveyance System Dept.
Director Bob Cruz Clean Water Services
i
~ 1:1ADMICATHYICCM120031030729 ROLL CALL.DOC
i
Agenda Item No. 4 1
Meeting of
COUNCIL MINUTES
SPECIAL JOINT TIGARD CITY COUNCIL AND
WASHINGTON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MEETING
July 29, 2003
1. CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Griffith called the meeting to order at 6:15p.m.
Attendees
Name Representing
1. Mayor Jim Griffith City of Tigard
2. Councilor Craig Dirksen City of Tigard
3. Councilor Brian Moore City of Tigard
4. Councilor Nick Wilson City of Tigard
5. City Manager Bill Monahan City of Tigard
6. Community Development
Director Jim Hendryx City of Tigard
7. Planning Manager Barbara
Shields City of Tigard
8. Assistant Planner Beth
St. Amand City of Tigard
9. City Recorder Cathy Wheatley City of Tigard
10. Chair Tom Brian Washington County
11. Commissioner Andy Duyck Washington County
12. Commissioner John Leeper Washington County
13. Commissioner Roy Rogers Washington County
14. Commissioner Dick Schouten Washington County
i S. County Administrator Charlie
Cameron Washington County
16. Sr. Deputy County
L Administrator Ellen Cooper Washington County
C 17. Planning Manager Brent Curtis Washington County
18. Program Educator Anne
Madden Washington County
19. Senior Planner Joanne Rice Washington County
20. Conveyance System Dept.
Director Bob Cruz Clean Water Services
Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes - July 29, 2003 Page 1
2. DISCUSSION TOPICS FOR THE COUNCIL MEMBERS AND COMMISSIONERS:
Mayor Griffith welcomed the County Board of Commissioners noting the purpose of
the meeting was to review the possibility of annexing land on Bull Mountain. The
meeting was called to discuss:
✓ Method and timing of annexation proposals for the Bull Mountain area
✓ Annexation and/or planning services for 2 tracts of land adjacent to Tigard
City Manager Monahan gave a brief history of the City and County consideration of
potential annexation of this area and annexations in general. He referred to the
Comprehensive Plan developed in 1983. The last two years have been spent
collecting and reviewing information to make some final decisions about whether to
go forward with annexation efforts for the Bull Mountain area.
Mr. Monahan referred to exhibits highlighting information about growth management.
The question is not "If" but "when" the Bull Mountain area should be annexed.
Mr. Monahan reviewed elements of an annexation plan, a survey of residents about
annexation, and an assessment report. He referred to the lost opportunities if
annexation is not pursued including collecting parks and recreation system
development charges. In the last five years, more than $1 million of parks system
development charges (SDC's) have been lost because SDC's have not been collected
on new development. Now, there are two urban reserve areas that are also under
consideration for annexation.
Mr. Monahan reviewed the impacts of an annexation policy: site specific, targeting
areas, or area wide. An area wide annexation was presented, proposed as one vote
on whether to annex (sequentially bringing in unincorporated areas) by voters in the
Bull Mountain unincorporated area and City of Tigard voters. The annexation plan
timeline was previewed.
Mr. Charles Cameron, County Administrator, reviewed a PowerPoint slide
> presentation (a copy of the presentation is on file with the City Recorder), advising of
County-wide issues, including the following:
i
i
• In the not-too-distant future, Washington County population numbers will surpass
Multnomah County. The impacts of this increased population and demands for
services from the County were outlined.
County 2000 report showed that cities were subsidizing unincorporated area
residents and some steps were taken to lessen the amount of the subsidy.
Washington County does not provide park and recreation services.
Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes - July 29, 2003 Page 2
• Reviewed the need for comprehensive planning and referenced the City of
Beaverton and the ramifications of target-area annexation vs. the benefits of
annexation by an annexation plan
Community Development Director Hendryx described the boundaries of the area that
is under consideration for annexation.
Council/Board Discussion
• In response to a question from Commissioner Schouten, Community Development
Director Hendryx outlined the differences in street maintenance standards between
the City and County. The City has access to gas tax dollars as a funding
mechanism.
• Commissioner Rogers said he understands the City is a better provider of urban
services. He said he would support an information effort, but would have
difficulty in aggressively supporting annexation. Commissioner Rogers suggested
finding neighborhood advocates for annexation to assist in the information
campaign for an annexation plan.
• Councilor Dirksen noted he favored a coordinated annexation plan noting time is
of the essence for parks planning. He referenced the long-term benefits of
annexation as well as the capital needs in the Bull Mountain area.
• Mayor Griffith noted his desire to annex the area for planning purposes to provide
the area residents with parks and to better address transportation issues.
Councilor Dirksen noted the Council hasn't officially taken a position, but is still
information gathering.
• Councilor Moore indicated he had a number of concerns including financial issues
for dollars that may need to be allocated to the Bull Mountain area when
compared to services needed by current City residents. He was concerned about
"dragging" people in to the City. He said he would like to see the Bull Mountain
area be willing to "financially step up."
• County Chair Brian noted that when he served on the Tigard City Council, the
Council approved 17 annexations and "there was a lot of heat." However, since
then, Tigard has done well and people understand the fundamental fairness "that
wins over time." The leaders must believe that annexation is for the best - it
won't happen on its own. He noted he would support annexation for orderly
planning, developing a sense of community, giving everyone an opportunity to
vote on the issues. Proceeding with annexation will not be easy, but long-term
interests will be better served.
• Commissioner Rogers said the urban services provider should be Tigard. He
referred to the SB 122 planning that has been accomplished. He spoke again to
finding advocates for annexation. Commissioner Rogers said he understands the
issues and pledged that he was willing to support the message about the benefits of
Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes - July 29, 2003 Page 3
annexation, but that it would be difficult for the Board to be advocates of
annexation.
• Discussion followed on the sequence of what would occur if the City and County
decided to go forward with presenting an annexation plan to Bull Mountain and
City of Tigard residents. As the annexation plan is developed and followed,
County Administrator Cameron noted the possibility of the County Board
instituting a mechanism for collection of parks SDCs.
• Commissioner Schouten advised he also thinks it's a question of "when"
annexation will occur. He noted he supported the concepts for benefits of
annexation including addressing equity issues and providing parks and recreation as
well as other services that Washington County cannot do.
• Commissioner Duyck said he was "100 percent in favor" of a comprehensive plan
for annexation. If this area is annexed it would be a "win-win" for the City and
County.
• Commissioner Leeper said he represents the northeast corner of the County
(Beaverton and unincorporated area) - there are 95,000 residents in his district.
He said it's in the best interest of the county to have an annexation plan (multi-
phased for 10, 15 or more years). He noted the long-term planning needed for
infrastructure that will be required as the areas continue to grow. He spoke to
taking responsibility for planning and to address the issues "head on."
Mayor Griffith said it was helpful to know the County was supportive of the
annexation plan. County Chair Brian summarized by saying the Commissioners are
unanimously in support of pursuing an annexation plan and would be happy to assist
as they did when the Walnut area was under consideration for annexation.
City Manager Monahan advised that staff will proceed with the timeline drafted for an
annexation plan for the Bull Mountain area.
3. ADJOURNMENT: 8:15 p.m.
L LAI
r Catherine Wheatley, ecor r -
Attest:
t KLUL a, -
or, o
i
7ae: I: SAD M\CATHY\CCW00M030729. D OC
Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes - July 29, 2003 Page 4
a
D
PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES
ASSESSMENT REPORT
FOR THE BULL MOUNTAIN AREA
CITY OF TIGARD
Community Development
Shaping A Better Community
L Community Development Department
k
2 Long-Range Planning
Draft - updated July 1, 2003
3
D
9
Table of Contents
Page
1. Executive Summary 1
II. Introduction 5
A. Background
B. Report scope and objectives
Ill. Methodology 7
A. Area of Evaluation
B. Range of Alternatives
C. Overview of Evaluation Criteria
1. Fiscal
2. Service Provision Impacts
3. Relationship to UGB
D. Analytical Approach
E. Assumptions
F. Relationship to Bull Mountain Study
IV. Analysis of Alternatives 11
A. Fiscal Analysis
1. General Overview/Approach
2. Analysis of on-going provision of services
3. Analysis of capital needs
B. Analysis of Service Provision Impacts
C. UGB
V. Summary of Conclusions 22
A. Timing and Sequence
B. Policy Analysis
L
r
Appendices
Appendix A. Study Area Profile
1 Appendix B. On-Going Service Costs and Revenues
Appendix C. Growth Based Fund Descriptions
Appendix D. Tigard Service Provision Impacts summaries by Department
Appendix E. Change in Service Levels between County and City
Appendix F. Evaluation Criteria Tables
Appendix G. Chronology of coordination in unincorporated areas
a
City of Tigard D
Public Facilities and Services Plan
for the Bull Mountain Area
PRODUCED BY.
THE CITY OF TIGARD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT IN
COLLABORATION WITH THE FINANCE, ENGINEERING, POLICE AND PUBLIC
WORKS DEPARTMENTS
DIRECTOR, JAMES N.P. HENDRYX
JULY, 2003
CITY OF TIGARD
13125 SW HALL BLVD.
TIGARD, OR 97223
503/639-4171
L
r
A
J
u~
J
Draft
Section I. - Executive Summary
With the adoption of the City's Comprehensive Plan in the early 1980s, the Bull Mountain
area has been identified as within Tigard's urban services area. Over the years, portions
of Bull Mountain have annexed into the City. However, major portions (approximately
1,430 acres) remain outside the City limits. This area is developing rapidly at urban
densities. Given the existing development trends, portions of the Bull Mountain area are
likely to reach build out in the next few years.
Under the Oregon land use system, all cities and counties, through a cooperative process
are required to establish Urban Growth Boundaries separating urbanizable land from rural
land. Establishment and development within the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) area is
based on several factors, including orderly and economic provision of public facilities and
services to support urban levels of development. However, the planning and
development pattern in unincorporated Bull Mountain has not taken into account the
capital needs, including the open space and recreational needs of its residents. Should
the area fully build out before annexation, Tigard will not have all the financial/growth
management tools that exist today to address the needs of the area.
Ongoing services
On-going services such as police service, street maintenance and other services are not
one-time investments. On-going service needs are those needed to maintain newly
annexed areas at the same level of service as provided to the City of Tigard. Revenues
for on-going services are based on population and other factors, not directly tied to new
development. Several funds are not projected to cover the on-going service costs,
however, the Gas Tax fund is the only one that can not be increased to ensure that costs
are covered. Policy choices are proposed to help minimize the Gas Tax fund
deficiencies. The projections indicate that, with all revenue funds combined, the Bull
Mountain area can be provided City of Tigard services without a reduction in services.
Capital needs
Capital needs include park acquisition, major road improvements, storm and sanitary
sewer facilities. Revenue for capital needs comes from new development. The Bull
Mountain Area has estimated capital improvement needs totaling approximately $36
million. While this amount appears significant, it is roughly proportional to the rest of
Tigard's capital needs.
Because revenue for capital needs comes from new developments, annexation should
occur as soon as possible in order for the City to maximize the available funds to meet
the projected needs. By delaying annexation until 2010, 25.6% of the capital funds will
not be available to Tigard. Approximately, 45.6% will not be available if annexation is
delayed until 2015.
SeIrvice provision
All service providers except Public Works -Streets Division and Police, could temporarily
absorb portions, or the entire area, using existing crews, until additional staff and
equipment is purchased. The Police Department could absorb any portion or the entire
area with a reduction only in response time to priority 3 (lowest priority, no one in danger)
Page 1
Draft
calls. The Streets Division could not absorb more than one sub-area without additional
staff being hired up front.
Relation to the UGB expansion areas
The Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) has recently been expanded. Two areas are
adjacent to Bull Mountain. Both are suitable for urban development and eventual
inclusion within Tigard's urban services area. Tigard's involvement in the development of
these areas is critical to assure that urban levels of public facilities and services are
available for future residents. Integration with Bull Mountain will also be necessary so
that they can be planned to complement and enhance the Bull Mountain community and
each other. Consideration must be given to providing logical connections to the UGB
expansion areas and the rest of the City, ensuring that adequate service delivery can be
provided.
Conclusion
Unincorporated Bull Mountain currently receives its public facilities and services from
Washington County and special service districts. The County is responsible for law
enforcement, road maintenance, and sanitary and storm sewer services. Law
enforcement and road maintenance services are provided at enhanced urban levels as
compared to rural areas of Washington County. The County has differing service and
facilities standards than Tigard. The City has limited ability to manage growth outside its
City limits to ensure that efficient and effective public facilities and services are provided.
The timing of annexation is a major factor in addressing this issue. Development
occurring outside Tigard's City limits, while subject to specific regulations, does not
account for the City's ability to ultimately provide urban levels of public facilities and
services. The Bull Mountain Assessment Report indicates:
• As with the rest of the City, the Gas Tax Fund deficit issue must be addressed
for Bull Mountain. However, there are policy choices that can minimize
impacts.
• As with the rest of the City, Bull Mountain has capital improvement needs.
Delaying annexation impacts the City's ability to address those needs.
• Annexation of the entire Bull Mountain area at one time impacts service
r delivery due to increased staffing and equipment needs. However, options are
a available to eliminate or reduce impacts.
• The two UGB expansions adjacent to Bull Mountain offer Tigard the ability to
o plan for the delivery of urban levels of service and capital facilities before these
areas develop.
• An annexation strategy is needed for Bull Mountain to address the long term
delivery of services and capital facilities.
Page 2
Draft
Recommendations
City Council needs to consider how and when it will be the optimal time to provide City
services to Bull Mountain and eventually the two UGB expansion areas adjacent to Bull
Mountain. Delay in addressing this issue reduces the City's ability to adequately provide
for those needs. There is a series of policy choices Council can take. Council can decide
to maintain the status quo or actively pursue annexation of portions or the entire area.
Listed below are five potential policy choices, followed by sub-tasks to implement each
policy choice.
1. Support property owner annexations and require annexation prior to development.
(status quo)
- Formalize existing policy that all undeveloped property should be annexed
prior to developing. This will require amendments to the Urban Planning
Area Agreement between Tigard and Washington County.
- Utilize the double majority annexation method wherever possible. This
method of annexation allows inclusion of additional properties beyond those
requesting annexation.
2. Actively seek support of annexations in targeted areas
- Formalize existing policy that all undeveloped property should be annexed
prior to developing. This will require amendments to the Urban Planning
Area Agreement between Tigard and Washington County.
- Utilize the double majority annexation method wherever possible.
- Focus on areas that have the greatest opportunities for Tigard to address the
public service needs.
3. Actively seek annexations via island, cherry stem, and other annexation methods.
Formalize existing policy that all undeveloped property should be annexed
prior to developing. This will require amendments to the Urban Planning
Area Agreement between Tigard and Washington County.
Utilize the double majority annexation method wherever possible.
Focus on areas that have the greatest opportunities for Tigard to address the
public service needs.
4. Initiate annexation and take to vote of Bull Mountain area only.
- Formalize existing policy that all undeveloped property should be annexed
prior to developing. This will require amendments to the Urban Planning
Area Agreement between Tigard and Washington County.
- Consider annexation of the entire area or focus on areas that have the
greatest opportunities for Tigard to address the public service needs.
- Extensive public involvement is necessary to proceed with either the Bull
Mountain or Annexation plan vote.
• Direct development of public involvement plan.
• Actively involve Washington County in the development and
implementation of any public involvement plan.
Page 3
Draft
8. Annexation plan - vote of Tigard and the affected Bull Mountain area.
- Formalize existing policy that all undeveloped property should be annexed
prior to developing. This will require amendments to the Urban Planning
Area Agreement between Tigard and Washington County.
- Consider the entire area or focus on areas that have the greatest
opportunities for Tigard to address the public service needs.
- Extensive public involvement is necessary to proceed with either the Bull
Mountain or Annexation plan vote.
• Direct development of public involvement plan.
• Actively involve Washington County in the development and
implementation of any public involvement plan.
If Council chooses to seek annexation of the entire Bull Mountain area, there will be short
term impacts on service delivery. To address this issue, the following policy choices
could be considered:
- Delay the effective date of annexation until staffing and equipment can be
obtained.
• Delaying the effective date of annexation by up to a year would allow
hiring and training of police staff and purchase of new equipment.
• This would require authorizing funding in advance of the annexation
becoming effective.
- Negotiate agreements with the County to provide short-term assistance until
Tigard service providers are fully staffed.
- Accept short-term, citywide reduction in service levels until staff and
equipment are up to standard levels.
i
i
i
Page 4
Section 11. - Introduction Draft:
A. Background
With the adoption of the City's Comprehensive Plan in the early 1980s, the Bull Mountain
area has been identified as within the Urban Growth Boundary of Tigard. Over the years,
portions of Bull Mountain have annexed into the City. However, major portions
(approximately 1,430 acres) remain outside the City limits. This area is developing
rapidly at urban densities. Specific areas are nearing build out while other areas can
accommodate considerable growth. The planning and development pattern in Bull
Mountain has not taken into account the capital needs, including the open space and
recreational needs of its residents. Given the existing development trends, portions of the
Bull Mountain area are likely to reach build out in the next few years which would further
exacerbate the open space/recreational deficiency. A detailed chronology of coordination
efforts is provided in Appendix A.
Unincorporated Bull Mountain currently receives its public facilities and services from
Washington County and special service districts. The County is responsible for law
enforcement, road maintenance, and sanitary and storm sewer services. Tigard, through
an intergovernmental agreement with the County, provides development related planning,
building, and engineering services to the area. Law enforcement and road maintenance
services are provided at enhanced urban levels as compared to rural areas of
Washington County.
In December 2002, the Metro Council finalized the two-year process of reviewing the
region's capacity for housing and jobs by expanding the urban growth boundary (UGB).
As part of this decision, Tigard and Washington County will need to incorporate an
additional 480 acres adjacent to the unincorporated Bull Mountain area as part of the
overall urban services provision/annexation strategy. When combined with the projected
Bull Mountain area population, this may ultimately result in approximately 15,000 new
residents. Since the current Tigard population is approximately 44,000 (2002), the
unincorporated portion of the Bull Mountain area will constitute approximately 21 % of the
overall number of residents (59,000) living in this portion of Tigard's Urban Growth
Boundary area at its estimated build out.
L In 2001, the Tigard Council established a goal to develop an annexation policy/strategy
r
for non-island areas, such as Bull Mountain. In 2001, Tigard developed a Bull Mountain
annexation study to assess the feasibility of annexing the Bull Mountain area. The key
conclusions and policy issues identified in the Bull Mountain Annexation Study centered
0 on the capital needs and lack of funds to meet all the needs in the Bull Mountain area.
After the Bull Mountain Annexation Study was published, a public opinion survey was
completed to assess Tigard citizen and Bull Mountain resident opinions on the potential of
annexing the Bull Mountain area. In fall 2002, Council considered a resolution to initiate
an annexation plan for the Bull Mountain area; however, the resolution did not pass.
While Council decided not to go further with an annexation strategy last year, its goals
continue to involve the Bull Mountain area. Therefore, in order to develop a long-term
Page 5
Draft
strategy for providing services to the Bull Mountain area, a Public Facilities and Services
Assessment Report has been developed.
B. Resort Scope and Objectives
The & oalysis contained in this report addresses the relationship between the efficiency of
service provision and annexation strategies and its impact on the efficient use of
urbanizable land. The objectives of the report are:
• To provide a comprehensive analysis of public services and facilities needs for Bull
Mountain, with the emphasis on the relationship between the timing of annexation
and funding mechanisms for both on-going and one-time capital improvement
projects.
One of the primary objectives of the Bull Mountain Public Facilities and Services
Assessment Report is to evaluate the potential timing and sequence of annexation and its
impacts upon the City's ability to provide efficient and effective public facilities and
services. The City has limited ability to manage growth outside its City limits to ensure
that efficient and effective public facilities and services are provided. The timing of
annexation is a major factor in addressing this issue. Development occurring outside
Tigard's City limits, while subject to specific regulations, does not account for the City's
ability to ultimately provide urban levels of public facilities and services.
• To identify policy choices related to the provision of public services and needs
upon annexation.
The Assessment Report provides the framework for further policy discussion on how and
when the area is annexed and receives City services.
is
i
i
i
i
i
i
Page 6
Section III - Methodology Draft
A. Area of Evaluation
The area evaluated for this assessment report, commonly referred to as Bull Mountain, is
generally comprised of all the unincorporated area north of Beef Bend Road, east of the
Urban Growth Boundary, south of Barrows Road and west of 99W. According to the
2000 census, there are 7,300 people in the study area. The area consists of a mix of
larger undeveloped lots, large developed lots, and smaller lots built to the minimum
densities (generally R-7). The study area was defined in the 2001 Bull Mountain
Annexation Study and consists of approximately 1,430 acres. While some annexations
have occurred, they are not reflected in this study. However, the development of these
areas was already approved at the time of the 2001 Bull Mountain Annexation Study and
was factored in to the growth projections.
B. Rancie of Alternatives
Due to the size of the area, growth potential and nature of existing development, the
study evaluated nine alternatives: four sub-areas, four combinations of sub-areas and the
entire area as a whole. The entire area was divided into the same four sub-areas utilized
in the 2001 Bull Mountain Annexation Study (see Figure 1, next page). Because this
report utilized the previous work conducted, the projected population and housing units
for each sub-area over time is known and was used in the evaluation. The following is a
brief summary of what is known about each sub-area (a more detailed description is
located in Appendix B):
North - This area consists of approximately 383 acres and a population of 3,001.
It is largely built out with only about 10% of the area identified as vacant or
redevelopable. Based on the household growth rate of 2.2% identified by Metro,
the 2001 Bull Mountain Annexation Study estimated thv this area will be built out
in 4.5 years.
West - This area consists of approximately 259 acres with 944 people. The
majority of the area has been developed with large lot subdivisions, which are not
expected to be divided further. However, 15.3% of the land in this area is identified
as vacant or redevelopable. Based on the 2.2% household growth rate identified
by Metro, the 2001 Bull Mountain Annexation Study estimated that this area will be
L built out in 6.9 years.
South - This area consists of approximately 507 acres of land and 3,196 people.
Many of the subdivisions were developed with large lots that are not expected to
be divided further; as a result, this area has about 10.6% vacant or redevelopable
land. Based on the 2.2% household growth rate identified by Metro, the 2001 Bull
Mountain Annexation Study estimated that this area will be built out in 4.8 years.
9
East - This area consists of approximately 282 acres with 544 people. This area
has most of the area's growth potential, with almost 40 percent of the land
identified as vacant or redevelopable. Based on the 2.2% household growth rate
identified by Metro, the 2001 Bull Mountain Annexation Study estimated that this
area will be built out in 18 years. However, recent land purchases in this area and
initial discussions with developers indicate that this area could develop much
sooner than projected.
Page 7
g abed
*
* r
o F m
to c a
10
w t 1f~~tr S~ si , n~E#J t~Q °o
an 11 I' { 4 ~k~ ~('Vr~' 7F~3* 0
A.T~j
tTl
3
=ic, y
1 `
~zj
J-,'.1,`L,La;.4Pt
IMl
L 11 III, _ I I- _l r
150TH AVE
I-A
1+ I
•t~ -_I
nL
r-~~r~t T~t t;, -r
E~r't sr ufE rsL ~~r~
Jmr', 1 Ilt Ilillli
z t- U I,lli- 1 L Ul-Ji i!
-
Eaan61~
Draft
The information provided for each sub-area from the 2001 Bull Mountain Annexation
Study was utilized to make financial and service need projections to meet the objectives
of this assessment report. In addition to the four sub-areas evaluated in the 2001 Bull
Mountain Annexation Study, this report also looked at combinations of 2 areas in order to
evaluate impacts to the City to serve larger areas and also to identify if strategic
combinations of areas created a more optimal provision of services than single areas
alone. Because the possible combinations were countless, combinations were only
considered if the areas were contiguous to one another. Four combinations of areas
were contiguous:
• South and East
• South and West
• North and South
• North and West
The report also looked at the entire area as a whole to determine the issues that may
arise if the area were to annex at the same time. The end result is 9 alternatives.
C. Overview of Evaluation Criteria
To meet the objective of evaluating the efficient and effective provision of services to the
Bull Mountain area over time, three criteria were developed:
1. Fiscal
a. On-going provision of services - how much does it cost to provide on-going
services over the long term (2015) versus the revenue that will be collected;
and
b. One-time capital facility needs - how much revenue can be expected to meet
the capital needs. This analysis looks at the factor time (and continued
development without annexation) has on the City's ability to collect fees to
address the anticipated capital needs. Capital need estimates were based on
existing Public Facilities Plans and Master Plans.
2. Tigard Service Provision Impacts
a. Service provision impacts - What would the impact be on existing City services
and their ability to meet the historically accepted service levels immediately
upon annexation?
- This factor is temporary in nature because, as funds are collected,
additional staff and equipment will be obtained to bring each
department up to the desired service levels.
b. Proximity to City limits/require crossing unincorporated areas to serve - It is
more efficient provide municipal services to contiguous area than non-
contiguous areas. This avoids out of direction travel and simplifies service
provision boundaries. This analysis looks at whether an alternative is adjacent
to the City limits and whether service providers would be required to cross
unincorporated areas to serve all or a portion of each alternative being
evaluated.
Page 9
Draft
3. Relationship to the UGB expansion area
a. Does the area or combination of areas provide a link to one or both of the UGB
expansion areas? By providing a link to the UGB expansion areas, the
provision of services to both the Bull Mountain area and the UGB expansion
area is more efficient and effective.
The remainder of this report provides more detailed analysis of the factors discussed in
this methodology section.
D. Analytical Approach
Each section of the report addresses the two main objectives of the report:
1. Sequence and Timing
In order to evaluate the effectiveness of providing public facilities and services to each
alternative (sub-areas), points were assigned to the criteria (i.e., fiscal, service impacts,
etc). This provided a method to analyze the effectiveness of providing facilities and
services. Ranking resulted from this analysis indicating the most optimal sequence to
serve the areas. The "fiscal impacts" category was weighted most heavily with 45
possible points. "Tigard service provision impact" was allocated 30 possible points and
"relationship to UGB expansion area" was allocated 20 possible points. An additional
category was also included to capture additional considerations, such as publicly owned
land with park potential, that didn't fit into the three main categories. The "Additional
Factors" category was allocated 5 points.
2. Policy choices identified
The analysis includes identification of key policy decisions that Council will need to
consider. Policy decisions are identified when there is a "gap" in funding of public
facilities such as roads, or in providing on-going services, such as street maintenance or
police services.
E. Assumptions
In the development of this document, projections were made that were based on the
following assumptions
Assumptions in the 2001 Bull Mountain Annexation study for population and
development were used to estimate the needs for on-going services and capital.
• 2015 population estimates from the 2001 Bull Mountain Annexation Study were
$ used for on-going services
All cost estimates are in 2002 dollars
• It is assumed that the entire area would, at some point, annex
o For analysis only, it was assumed that the revenue produced in the Bull Mountain
area would go towards costs in the area and money for costs in the area would
come only from the revenue generated from the area as opposed to Citywide
funds.
Growth has occurred since the 2001 Bull Mountain Annexation Study was complete. In
an effort to continue building upon the original annexation study area projects, the
boundaries, population numbers and growth projections were not updated. However, it is
believed that the projections and information provided within this report represent an
accurate picture of the issues.
Page 10
Draft
Section IV - Analysis of Alternatives
A. Fiscal Analysis
1. General Overview/Approach
In order to evaluate how efficient service-provision will be provided over time, this report
looked at the financial implications of annexation. The primary question asked is: Will the
needs for public facilities and services in the Bull Mountain area create a financial burden
on the City or will the revenues generated in the areas off-set the financial needs?
There are two major funding considerations for the City to determine the financial
implications of serving an area:
• Projected impact on on-going provision of services and
• Projected one-time capital investment needs (future/long term)
Below is a brief summary of the two major funding considerations:
• Projected impact on on-going provision of services
On-going services are services such as police service, street maintenance and
other services that are not one-time investments. The on-going service provision
needs are those needed to maintain newly annexed areas at the same level of
service as historically provided to the City of Tigard. Are the revenues projected to
cover the costs or will the on-going needs exceed that of available funds?
Revenues for on-going services are based on population and other factors, not
directly to new development. If growth occurs prior to annexation, revenues will
not be lost forever. For this reason, the long term impact of annexation was
analyzed for on-going services to insure that annexation did not result in a burden
on City services as the areas reach build out.
• Projected one-time capital facilities needs (future/long term)
Capital facility needs include major one-time investments such as major road
upgrades or park facilities. This report identified the potential capital needs for this
area utilizing existing Facilities Plan, Master Plans and/or known or anticipated
capital needs. The capital needs are mostly medium to long term needs (6 plus
y years). Revenues for capital improvements come from the one-time costs
r associated with new development such as park SDCs, traffic impact fees and
a sewer connection fees. The 2001 Bull Mountain Annexation Study projected that
revenues do not cover the total anticipated need. The Assessment Report
analysis evaluated the factor of how time impacts the projected revenues. This re-
evaluates the capital need assumptions by looking only at capital projects that are
identified in existing Public Facility Plans or Master Plans. The revenue potential
decreases over time if property develops prior to annexation. For this reason, the
one-time capital needs analysis factors in the revenue lost over time if annexations
are delayed. For analysis purposes only, potential annexations in 2005, 2010 and
2015 were evaluated.
Page 11
Draft
2. Analysis of On-going provision of services
a. Scope of Analysis
This section is intended to evaluate if the projected revenues from each sub-area cover
the projected costs for providing on-going services. Do individual sub-areas or the entire
area generate sufficient revenue to off-set the cost of providing on-going services? On-
going services are any service that requires yearly funding to maintain, such as police
service, street maintenance and water. For the fiscal analysis, it was assumed that
Tigard will provide services at historic levels. The following table (Table 1) provides a
brief summary of the assumptions used by each department liaison who participated in
this assessment:
Table 1
Sanitary Looked at existing and projected feet of sewer line and estimated needed staff and
Sewer equipment based on the standard FTE per x feet of line. Also included pro-rated
re lacement costs forequipment.
Water Currently providing service for this area so numbers are based on known costs.
Road Looked at age of existing roads in the area and calculated needs based on
Quality projected pavement condition indexes on a sub-area basis.
Street Looked at existing lane miles and projected lane miles based on projected housing
Maint. units in each area. Applied these numbers to the existing cost per lane mile to
conduct street maintenance activities (sweeping, checking signs, dust abatement,
crack sealing, etc. Also included pro-rated replacement costs forequipment.
Street Looked at how much Tigard currently pays per month for lights and estimated that
Lights the entire Bull Mountain area represents about 1/5 of the entire City. Each area
allocated a certain percent of the estimated area costs.
Parks Looked at parks planned for in the 1999 Parks System Master Plan. Cost
estimates were from the Master Plan with an inflation factor applied. Also included
-pro-rated replacement costs forequipment.
Police Assumed 1.5 police officers per 1,000 residents. Also included pro-rated
replacement costs for 1 fully equipped vehicle for every 3 officers.
Community Assumed one additional long range planner was needed for the entire area. Each
Dev. sub-area was allocated .25 new staff.
Storm Looked at existing and projected feet of sewer line and estimated needed staff and
Sewer equipment based on the standard FTE per x feet of line. Also included pro-rated
replacement costs forequipment.
For on-going service cost projections and revenue projections, the 2015 population and
dwelling unit estimates were used to determine what the long-term financial impacts
would be for the City. In the East and West sub-areas, full build out is not projected to be
reached by 2015, however, it provides a better picture of the on-going service needs each
area will require and the ability of the City to fund those needs. The tables in Appendix C
show the 2015 projected service costs for each area and the 2015 revenues for each
area. Table 2, below shows the difference between the costs of providing on-going
services and revenues for each sub-area.
Page 12
Draft
Estimated 2015 Revenues versus Costs for on- oin services Table 2
Sub-areas North East South West
Sanitary Sewer $41,600 $8,600 $49,700 $13,600
Water $70,900 $77,200 $69,600 $41,900
Gas Tax: ($1,200) ($19,600) ($70,500) ($236,400)
• Road Quality
Maintenance
• Street Maintenance
• Street Lights
General Fund: $324,500 $474,500 $471,200 $330,700
• Parks and Open Spaces
• Police
• Community Development
Storm Sewer $1,700 ($300) 1 00) 1 $1,200
Table 2 shows that, in all areas, several funds do not have enough revenues to cover the
cost of providing service at current Tigard standards, however, the net result in each area
is that the total revenues exceed the total on-going service provision costs. The Storm
Sewer and Water funds are intended to be self-sufficient. Fees can and should be raised
as needed to ensure that there are adequate funds to pay for on-going services.
Currently the storm sewer and water funds have sufficient fund balances to meet
anticipated needs. Should fund balances decrease significantly, citywide, fees could be
increased to address the needs.
Gas Tax rates are set by the state legislature. Throughout the City, Gas Tax Fund
revenues have not been keeping pace with service provision costs. This is the case in
the Bull Mountain area as well. The Gas Tax funds pay for road maintenance (widening,
re-pavement, etc.), street maintenance (sweeping, pot hole repairs, etc.) and street lights.
As Council looks at potential solutions to the Gas Tax deficit issues, citywide, one option
they may consider is using General Fund revenues to subsidize the Gas Tax Fund
deficiencies. The proposed street maintenance fee, if approved, would also help off-set
the Gas Tax Fund deficits. If a citywide solution to the Gas Tax Fund needs is not found,
the list of projects will continue to grow longer and longer.
a In 2015 the total General Fund balance for all areas combined is 1.74 million. Based on
the 2015 projections, it could be concluded that there would also be sufficient revenues to
provide for the on-going services if the area were to be annexed prior to 2015. If the
entire area were annexed earlier than 2015, it may be possible to use the additional
revenues to off-set or finance the anticipated capital needs.
io
9
L
J
Page 13
Draft
b. Conclusions for on-going provision of services
i. Time and sequence
■ For on-going services, the long term projections indicate that overall,
the revenues exceed the costs of providing on-going services for all
areas evaluated.
■ There would also be sufficient revenue to provide on-going services if
the entire area (or portions) were to annex prior to 2015. It may be
possible to use the additional revenues anticipated to off-set some of
the anticipated capital needs.
• Water and storm funds do not cover the costs of providing on-going
services based on current rate projections. If needed, fees can and
should be raised so that, citywide, the funds are self-sufficient.
■ The Gas Tax Fund is projected to have a deficit in all areas and will
not be able to provide all Gas Tax Funded services.
■ The total 2015 General Fund revenue for all areas combined is 1.74
million.
fl. Council Policy choices for on-going services
The analysis shows that, with all funds combined, the projected 2015 Bull
Mountain populations can be provided City of Tigard services at existing
service levels. While some funds do see deficiencies over time, most are
fee driven and the fees will be adjusted to accommodate the projected on-
going service needs.
A policy choice is needed related to the projected deficiencies in the Gas
Tax fund. The choices identified include:
• The General Fund surplus could be used to subsidize the Gas
Tax needs; and/or
• The Street Maintenance fee could be instituted which will provide
needed funding which would help off-set the Gas Tax Fund
Z deficit; and/or
g • The standards could be further reduced for the Gas Tax Fund
services citywide. However, over the long-term, maintenance
cost savings will not be realized due to the higher cost to replace
3 versus maintain.
0
u
Page 14
Draft
3. Projected one-time capital facility needs (future/long term needs)
a. Scope of Analysis
This section looks at the anticipated capital needs of the Bull Mountain area and the
impact time has on the ability to collect funds to address those needs.
Capital needs include park land acquisition, major road improvements, and new storm
sewer facilities to address capacity. While Facility Plans cover the entire urban services
area and are used to calculate System Development Charges (SDCs), the City's Capital
Improvement Plan does not include unincorporated areas. Capital projects for Bull
Mountain are not included in Tigard's Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) because the area
is not in the City limits. To determine what the funding needs are for this area, the
Assessment Report looked at existing plans to determine needed improvements, potential
timing and estimated costs. Table 3
Typically, through the Capital Improvement Program Estimated capital needs
process, priorities are made and funding is granted to the by sub-area
projects with the greatest need. The same process would be short to long term
used in the Bull Mountain area. Bull Mountain estimated North 5.2 Million
capital improvement needs total almost $36 million. The East 13.3 Million
east section requires the most improvements (it also has the South 8.3 Million
greatest percentage of estimated revenue to cover the West 8.9 Million
anticipated costs). Water-related projects are not included in Total 35.7
this total, since the Tigard Water Division already
administers this area and will continue to, regardless of annexation. Table 3, to the right,
shows the total estimated capital needs for each sub-area. While the $36 million
estimated need may seem high, it needs to be kept in perspective. Most jurisdictions
(including the City of Tigard) have needs that exceed their revenues. Through the Capital
Improvement Program (CIP) process, priorities are made and funding is granted to the
projects with the greatest need. The same process would be used in the Bull Mountain
area.
The majority of funding for Capital facilities is tied to growth. Once growth subsides,
growth-based capital funding mechanisms cease functioning to collect funds. Alternative
funding sources are required, such as utilizing the general fund or applying for grants.
Bull Mountain can absorb only a finite amount of growth. It is necessary to evaluate the
capital needs and the impact the timing of annexation has on the ability to efficiently and
effectively provide for those needs.
L,
System Development Charges (SDCs) are collected at the time of development for parks,
A roads, water, and sanitary and storm sewer. These SDCs are one-time capital revenues
tied to growth. If growth occurs, prior to annexation, some of the one-time capital
o revenues will not be available to Tigard to provide for the needs in this area. While
g" Washington County and other service providers may collect funds, there is no guarantee
that the funds collected will be used in the Bull Mountain area (with the exception of
Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) funds). There are two reasons: 1) the County and/or service
district has a large number of projects from which to prioritize distribution of funds, and 2)
many of the potential projects will not be needed until the area will be Tigard's
responsibility.
Page 15
Draft
Table 4, below, provides a summary of the capital funds and the type of improvement that
could be funded: Table 4
Sanitary Sewer SDCs a for major new line and line replacement to increase the system capacity.
Water SDCs pay for new line and major line replacement to pay for new capacity, revenues pay
to re lace existin infrastructure.
Traffic Impact Pays for TIF eligible arterial and collector road improvements to bring them up to
Fee (TIF) standard. Also pays for traffic flow and safety improvements such as traffic signals,
intersection improvements, etc.
Park SDC Pays for acquisition and development f ark land.
Storm Sewer SDCs are used for capacity improvements to the drainage system such as culverts for
streets crossing streams and replacing bridges to increase floodwater capacity.
Gas Tax If funds are available, they could be used to bring any road up to standard, pays for
street lights, etc. Gas Tax Funds are very limited.
Table 5
Table 5 illustrates how each fund source North 2005 2010 2015
decreases over time. In addition, the
majority of capital improvements needed Sanitary sewer 190,200 0 0
in each area are projected to be needed Water 161,200 0 0
in the medium to long term (6 plus TIF 178,500 0 0
years). At issue is whether the City will Park SDCs 129,600 0 0
have the capital funds necessary to WACO street (12,500) (12,500) (12,500)
address the area's long term capital CIP cost sharing
needs. As the area continues to develop Storm Sewer 39,500 0 0
outside Tigard's City limits, the City East 2005 2010 2015
loses the ability to provide for capital Sanitary sewer 505,600 440,600 365,900
needs. Water 428,600 373,500 310,200
TIF 474,600 413,600 343,500
It is important to note that parks are Park SDCs 344,400 300,100 249,300
urban amenities provided by Tigard. WACO street (12,500) (12,500) (12,500)
The County does not have a method for CIP cost sharing
addressing needed park facilities for the Storm Sewer 105,000 91,500 76,000
Bull Mountain area. Table 5 also
illustrates the potential park SDCs that South 2005 2010 2015
would be collected if the area develops Sanitary sewer 260,000 0 0
in the Tigard City limits. Water 220,400 0 0
TIF 244,100 0 0
IL Park SDCs 177,100 0 0
WACO street (12,500) (12,500) (12,500)
CIP cost sharing
Storm Sewer 54,000 0 0
J
m West 2005 2010 2015
W Sanitary sewer 363,500 262,400 151,700
J Water 308,200 222,500 128,600
TIF 341,300 246,300 142,400
Park SDCs 247,600 178,800 103,300
WACO street (12,500) (12,500) (12,500)
CIP cost sharing
Storm Sewer 75,500 54,500 31,500
Page 16
Draft
b. Conclusions for one-time capital needs
i. Time and Sequence
• The Bull Mountain Area has estimated capital improvement needs totaling
approximately $36 million.
• Some areas have greater capital needs than others, such as East which
has 13.3 million in identified capital needs as compared to the North, which
has only 5.2 million in capital needs.
• In order for the City to maximize the available funds in the Bull Mountain
area for capital needs, annexation of all areas should occur by 2005 to
maximize potential financial contributions. With each incremental
annexation delay, contributions are lessened or eliminated entirely. After
2010, the North and South are projected to provide no capital revenues.
• Assuming annexation does not occur and current growth rates continue; by
2010, 25.6% of the capital funds projected for 2005 will not be available to
Tigard. 45.6% will not be available if annexation occurs in 2015.
ii. Council Policy choices for one-time capital needs
• As with existing capital needs in the City of Tigard, the potential funding
does not cover all of the capital needs in this area. There are several
options available for Council to consider which would help off-set the
funding needs. These are:
Modify existing plans to anticipated funding levels
Raise fees (Increase fees like SDC's and/or apply for grant
funds to help off-set park funding deficiencies)
Use other funding source to off-set capital needs (General
Fund)
• Immediate policy action is needed to help ensure as much growth based
revenue is collected as possible.
L
r
3
6
7
Page 17
Draft
B. Analysis of Service Provision Impacts
1. Scope of Analysis
Regardless of whether annexation is efficient from a fiscal standpoint, the Bull Mountain
area must be able to be served by City services without a noticeable reduction in existing
service levels, even in the short term, to Tigard residents. This report has identified in the
fiscal analysis section that, over the long-term, existing service levels can be provided to
the Bull Mountain area.
The objective of this section is to analyze Tigard's initial ability to provide service to the
unincorporated Bull Mountain area immediately upon annexation with no upfront hiring
and equipment purchases. This was done to understand the impacts of a
phased/sequential annexation versus annexation of the total area. Three factors were
looked at:
• Short term service provision impacts,
• Proximity to the City limits, and
• Need to cross unincorporated areas to provide service.
a. Short Term Service Provision impacts
The City of Tigard service providers are Water, Sanitary and Storm Sewer, Street
Maintenance, Parks, and Police. They were asked which of the nine possible annexation
scenarios could be absorbed with the existing staff and equipment until additional hiring
and equipment purchases could occur. A summary of their reports is provided in
Appendix D. Based on the information provided, the following is a summary of the
impacts immediately upon annexation:
• All service providers except Public Works -Streets Division and Police, could
temporarily absorb any or all areas annexed using existing crews, until additional
staff could be hired and additional equipment purchased.
The Police Department could absorb any or all areas with a reduction only in
response time to priority 3 (lowest priorty, no one in danger) calls.
The Streets Division could absorb any one area (north, south, east or west) but
could not absorb more than one area without additional staff being hired up front.
As an alternative, major reduction in services citywide would be necessary until
additional staff could be hired and equipment purchased.
• Additional funding would be necessary to provide for all the Gas Tax Fund services
' (street maintenance, road maintenance, and street lights). Some sub-areas have
less Gas Tax fund deficits than others. North has the least deficit in Gas Tax
Funds ($1,200 deficit), and West has the largest deficit ($236,400).
b. Proximity to City Limits
Providing service to an area that is not adjacent to the City limits, creates confusion and
can result in longer response times for emergency service. If an area is not adjacent to
the City limits, under current Comprehensive Plan standards, the area can not be
annexed into the City. Cherry stem annexations (annexing the right of way to get to a
non-contiguous parcel) may be an option, however, it would likely result in a boundary
Page 18
Draft
that is not uniform and could cause confusion regarding who the service provider is and
could cause service delays in an emergency situation.
• All areas and combinations of areas, except West, are adjacent to the City limits.
c. Require crossing unincorporated areas to serve
In order to provide service to an area that requires crossing unincorporated areas,
efficiency is lost and the potential for confusion to the service provider and potential of
reduction in response times in emergency service increases. Therefore, it is preferable to
avoid primarily traveling through an unincorporated area to serve parcels in the City of
Tigard. The following is a summary of how each sub-area or combination of sub-areas
relates to the city limits:
• North, East, South & East and the alternative "ALL areas" do not require crossing
through unincorporated areas to serve.
• South, North & West, North & South and South & West require crossing
unincorporated areas to serve some portions.
• West requires crossing unincorporated areas to serve.
2. Conclusions for Service Provision Impacts
a. Time and sequence
• Because of the limited impact on services and the proximity to the City limits,
the North area (based on the technical ranking scores discussed further in
this assessment report) provides the least impact on service provision
immediately upon annexation.
• The West area appears to provide the greatest impact on service provision
because it is not adjacent to City limits, would require crossing
unincorporated areas to service, and has limited gas tax funds projected to
serve the gas tax needs.
• The following is a list of all scenarios evaluated in order from least impact to
greatest impact on service delivery:
- North
- East
- South
- All areas/South & East
- North & South
L - North & West/South & West, and
"c - West
b. Council Policy Choice
Because of the potential service provision impacts if the entire area or a
combination of 2 areas were annexed at one time, Council must make a policy
choice if one of those options were desired. There are several options to address
the efficiency of service issues:
• Delayed effective date for portions of the area.
• Authorize funds up front to hire staff and purchase equipment prior to the
effective date.
• Negotiate agreements with the County to provide short-term assistance
until Tigard service providers are fully staffed.
• Accept citywide reduction in service levels for a period of time.
Page 19
Draft
C. Relationship to the Urban Growth Boundary Expansion
1. Scope of Analysis
Metro is charged with establishing the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) to accommodate
the projected housing and employment needs in the region. After much research, public
involvement and analysis, the Metro Council adopted an expansion to the UGB that
included several specific areas throughout the region.
Two areas adjacent to the Bull Mountain area (63 and 64) have been determined to be
suitable for urban development and inclusion within Tigard's urban services area. Both
areas are approximately 480 acres in size. Figure 2 identifies the UGB expansion areas.
Metro estimates 1,735 residential units can be accommodated in these areas which will
require urban levels of facilities and services. Development of these areas will impact
Tigard and the Bull Mountain area. The development in the Bull Mountain area, in turn,
impacts how and when the UGB expansion areas can develop. Therefore, consideration
of expansions of the Urban Growth Boundary is needed.
The two areas are rural in nature and do not have extensive road or public infrastructure.
The size of individual parcels, overall configuration, and location of the two areas
complicates existing and planned transportation needs. Neither area is likely to develop
as "balanced" and distinct communities. Integration with the existing Bull Mountain areas
will be necessary so that they can be planned to complement and enhance the Bull
Mountain community and each other.
The evaluation looks at whether a sub-area or combination of sub-areas provides a link
between the City and one or both of the UGB expansion areas. For example: The West
sub-area is adjacent to both UGB expansion areas but is not adjacent to the City limits.
When combined with the South, however, it is adjacent to both UGB expansion areas
and, together, there is a link to the City limits.
2. Conclusions for relationship to the UGB
a. Time and sequence
• A combination of areas including the North and West, North and South, South
and West, or All sub-areas provides connections to both UGB expansion areas.
• No single area alone provides adequate connections to both UGB expansion
areas.
• The north sub-area provides connection to the northern most UGB expansion
area.
e The south sub-area provides a connection to the southern most UGB
expansion area.
b. Policy choices
in • Should the UGB expansion areas develop as two distinct, separate
W communities?
J • Should the UGB expansion areas be integrated with Bull Mountain?
• How does the City provide efficient and effective services to these areas?
Page 20
Fiaur$ 4 ` .
wowol~
woo
_ T 4 • -1.
n ]15tN- ~ ~ r - _
1. I ~T~ ~ k'-~ t-.
1 -fir- t y' TJ
_ tit T 4~t~tilt t t 1_ ~~.ta ~ ' ,r yZZ t ~ 4~
iko
-r ice, 1 ~ h tr ~ ~4 t
t
w
J Page 21
Draft
Section V - Summary of Conclusions
A. Timing and Sequence
Regardless of how and when annexation occurs, there will be gaps in certain funds
compared to the on-going service and capital needs. The longer the time before
annexation, the less capital revenues are available to Tigard. Based on the analysis in
this report, the following was concluded:
1. Summary of analysis
The previous sections discussed the evaluation factors in detail and the information from
those sections was used in the analysis to apply point values to each alternative as it
relates to the evaluation factors. A copy of the detailed evaluation chart is provided in
Appendix E. A summary of the results is provided below:
The following is a summary of how each individual sub-area ranked: Table 6
Financial Tigard Service Relationship to Additional All criteria
Impacts Provision Impacts the UGB Factors considered
(45 possible (30 possible pts) (20 possible (5 possible pts) (100 possible pts)
is is
to 25 is East 30 is North (tied 10 pts each) (tied 5 pts each) 60 is South
c_ 20 is South 28 is East North and South North and East 58 is East
x 15 is West 25 is South (tied 0 pts each) (tied 0 pts each) 55 is North
C
(10 pts) North (10 pts) West West and East West and South (25 pts) West
The following is a summary of how each combination of areas ranked
Table 7
Financial Tigard Service Relationship to Additional All criteria
Impacts Provision Impacts the UGB Factors considered
(45 possible (30 possible pts) (20 possible pts) (5 possible pts) (100 possible
is is
(35 pts) (23 pts) (tied 20 pts each) (tied 5 pts each) (77 pts)
South & East South & East North & West, North & West, North& South
(30 pts) (32 pts) South & West, and South & East and (73 pts)
North & South North & South North & South North & South South and East
(25 pts) (tied 20 pts each) (tied 65 pts each)
Y South & West North & West and North & West and
(20 pts) South & West (10 pts) (0 pts) South & West
North & West South & East South & West
The following is a summary of how the alternative "All areas" combined ranked Table 8
Financial Tigard Service Relationship to Additional All criteria
Impacts Provision Impacts the UGB Factors considered
(45 possible (30 possible pts) (20 possible (5 possible pts) (100 possible pts)
is is
40 23 20 5 88
Page 22
Draft
2. Summary of Conclusions for Timing and Sequence
• The South area ranked highest of the single sub-areas with 60 points
primarily because it provides revenues with minimal costs and creates a link
to the UGB expansion areas.
• The West area ranked the lowest of all scenarios with 25 points primarily
because, if annexed alone, it would create impacts to the provision of
services and would not provide a link to the UGB expansion areas.
• North and South is the combination of two areas that received the highest
ranking with 77 points. Together they provide revenue with minimal costs,
have park land potential, create few service provision impacts, and provide
a link with both UGB expansion areas.
• The alternative "All areas" combined received the highest points (88 points)
and was ranked the highest in each category except "Tigard Service
Provision Impacts".
B. Policy Choices
1. Council policy choices for on-going services
Prior to annexation, the Gas Tax Fund deficit issue must be addressed. Potential
policy choices identified for Council include:
• The General Fund surplus could be used to subsidize the gas tax needs; and/or
• The Street Maintenance fee could be instituted which will provide much of the
needed funding and would help off-set the Gas Tax Fund deficit; or
• The standards could be reduced for the Gas Tax Fund services citywide.
However, over the long-term, maintenance cost savings will not be realized due
to the higher cost to replace versus maintain.
2. Council policy choices for capital improvements
• The potential funding does not cover all of the capital needs in this area. There
are several options available to Council to consider which would help off-set the
funding needs:
- Modify existing plans to anticipated funding levels;
- Raise fees (Increase fees like SDCs and/or apply for grant funds to
help off-set park funding deficiencies); or
i - Use other funding source to off-set capital needs.
Immediate policy action is needed to help ensure as much growth based revenue
i is collected as possible
i
Page 23
Draft
3. Council policy choice for service provision impact upon annexation
Annexation of the entire Bull Mountain area at one time impacts service delivery
due to increased staffing and equipment needs. To address this issue, several
options exist:
• Delay the annexation effective date for portions of the Bull Mountain area;
• Authorize funds up front to hire staff and purchase equipment prior to the
effective date;
• Negotiate agreements with the County to provide short-term assistance until
Tigard service providers are fully staffed; or
• Accept short-term, citywide reduction in service levels until staff and
equipment are up to standard levels.
4. Council Policy choice for UGB
Council must determine how the UGB will be integrated into the community and
what approach should be taken:
• Continue existing trend of County controlling development in unincorporated
areas;
• Use annexation and coordination as a growth management tool;
• How do we ensure that we can provide efficient and effective services to the
UGB expansion areas?
i
i
i
II
I~
Page 24
Appendix - Additional information
A. Chronology of Coordination in Unincorporated Areas
B. Study Area Profile (from 2001 Bull Mountain Annexation Study]
C. On-Going Service Costs and Revenues
D. Tigard Service Provision Impacts Summaries by Department
E. Evaluation Criteria Tables
F. Change in Service Levels between County and City
6
r
9
a
1
J
Appendix Page 1
Appendix A
Chronology of coordination in unincorporated areas
Draft
1973 Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines established,
setting the foundation for land use planning in Oregon.
1983 Comprehensive Plan adopted with specific policies
regarding annexation. Sets framework for all future
annexation efforts.
1988 Urban Planning Area Agreement signed between
Tigard and Washington County to ensure coordinated
and consistent comprehensive plans. The UPAA defined
a site specific urban planning area, a process for
coordinating planning, and policies regarding
comprehensive planning and development.
1993 Senate Bill 122 passed by the State Legislature,
requires the coordination and provision of urban services
for lands within the Urban Growth Boundary.
1997 Tigard and Washington County entered into an
Intergovernmental Agreement that transferred land
development, engineering review and building permit
activity to the City.
March 2001 The Tigard City Council establishes a goal to
establish an annexation policy for non-island areas, such
as Bull Mountain and began to study the feasibility of
annexing the Bull Mountain area.
July 2001 The City and County meet with Bull Mountain
residents to identify questions which influence the scope
of The Bull Marrrtain A mxxation Study.
Nov., 2001 City finalizes Bull Mountain Annexation Study.
Jan., 2002 Study conclusions presented to a group of Buff
Mountain residents. A survey is suggested as a means to
get input from a representative sample of the area.
July 2002 Public opinion poll conducted of Bull Mountain and
Tigard residents by phone.
August 2002 Tigard Council examines the survey results and
considers three annexation policy alternatives. Council
considers a resolution to initiate an Annexation Plan,
however the motion does not pass.
Oct 2002 -
May 2003 Public facilities and Services Assessment Report
developed for Council to assist in making annexation
policy decisions that come up.
Nov, 2002 Council approves signing the SB 122 required Urban
Service Agreements which spell out what urban
services Tigard will be the ultimate provider of.
Appendix Page 2
Appendix B
Study Areas Profile from 2001 Bull Mountain Annexation Study
The area identified in the Bull Mountain Study consists of approximately 1,430 acres of
land located west of the City of Tigard (see map below) in Washington County, within
the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). The Study Area abuts Beaverton and Tigard on
the north and east, respectively, King City to the southeast, and unincorporated County
land outside the Urban Growth Boundary to the south and west.
Figure 1
The land in the Study Area is - - - -
sloped-steeply in some areas- Bull Mt Study Area Vicinity Map
allowing for views at higher
elevations. Traditionally a farming Portland
area, the last decade brought Beaverton
additional home developments to the
area. Today, both farms and
subdivisions co-exist here. Although
the identified area is now outside the Tigard
City limits, the City of Tigard provides
many urban services to residents. In '
1997, the City of Tigard and Lake
Washin ton Count entered into an Oswego
g y Bull Mt Study Area
Urban Services Agreement, which
transferred responsibility for land use
decisions, building and development- Tualatin n;related engineering to the City of CITY OF LkTIOAND Printed on Odober70n 9001
Tigard. The County adopted the City of Tigard Community Development Code for the
Bull Mountain area, which applies standards to any new development in the area.'
At the time the Bull mountain Annexation study was completed (November 2001),
approximately 7,300 people lived in the Study Area, according to 2000 Census data.
There is no commercial or industrial zoned land in the Study Area. Most of the property
is zoned R-7, a medium density residential zone requiring lots of a minimum of 5,000
square feet. The area consists of a combination of (1) a mix of larger undeveloped lots,
(2) larger lots developed through the County under different standards, and (3) smaller
lots that are built to the minimum density allowed under the current zoning regulations.
r The sub-area descriptions below represent the sub-area development assumptions
o utilized for this plan.
North
This sub area is located south of Barrows Road, north of Baker Lane and Roshak
Road, east of the urban growth boundary and west of the Bonneville Power
Administration (BPA) easement line. The North area consists of approximately
383 acres and a population of 3,001. This area has a combination of R-7, R-12
and R-25 zoning; however, all of the higher-density (R-25) residential lots were
developed as single-family home subdivisions. While there are several larger
Appendix Page 3
lots, there are very few redevelopable or vacant lots in this area due to steep
slopes. This area is largely built out with only about 10% of the area identified as
vacant or redevelopable. Based on the household growth rate of 2.2% identified
by Metro, it is estimated that this area will be built out in 4.5 years.
West
The western sub area is bordered on the south and west by the Urban Growth
Boundary. It is bordered on the east by SW 150th and to the north by Roshak
Road and Baker Lane. The western area consists of approximately 259 acres
with 944 people. The majority of the area has been developed with large lot
subdivisions, which are not expected to be divided further. However, 15.3% of
the land in this area is identified as vacant or redevelopable. The zoning in this
area is R-7 (medium density residential). Based on the 2.2% household growth
rate identified by Metro, it is estimated that this area will be built out in 6.9 years.
South
This sub area is generally located west of SW Peachtree, east of SW 150th, north
of Beef Bend Road and south of High Tor Drive. The southern area consists of
approximately 507 acres of land and 3,196 people. The zoning is primarily R-7
(medium density residential) with a small portion of R-25 (medium-high density
residential) to the south between Foxglove #2 subdivision and Beef Bend
Heights. Many of the subdivisions were developed with large lots that are not
expected to be divided further; as a result, this area has larger lots with only
limited infill potential. This area has about 10.6% vacant or redevelopable land.
Based on the 2.2% household growth rate identified by Metro, it is estimated that
this area will be built out in 4.8 years.
East
This area is generally located east of the Mountain Gate subdivision, south of
Bull Mountain Road and north of Beef Bend Road. The eastern area consists of
approximately 282 acres with 544 people. This area has most of the Study Area's
growth potential, with almost 40 percent of the land identified as vacant or
redevelopable. The zoning is R-7, which calls for a minimum lot size of 5,000
square feet. Based on the 2.2% household growth rate identified by Metro, it is
estimated that this area will be built out in 18 years. However, recent land
i purchases in this area and initial discussions with developers indicate that this
r area will develop much sooner than projected.
r
7
1
Appendix Page 4
C
On-Going Service Costs and Revenues Draft Appendix
Estimated 2015 cost (in 2002 dollars) to provide services at City standards by
sub area
Table 1 North East South West
Sanitary sewer $47,200 $13,600 $51,900 $20,000
Water $343,500 $145,500 $381,700 $145,200
Road quality maintenance $76,800 $15,600 $143,000 $240,000
Street Maintenance $47,900 $20,400 $66,900 $34,700
Street lights $20,200 $13,400 $20,200 $13,400
Parks and Open spaces $6,100 $57,600 $18,100 $18,100
Police $479,400 $166,100 $557,700 $244,400
Community Development $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000
Storm Sewer $44,400 $11,000 $49,000 $17,400
The numbers in the above chart have been refined and updated from the estimates
provided for in the Bull Mountain Annexation Study (November 2001). While the 2009
Bull Mountain Annexation Study provided broad brush estimates, the estimates
provided here are based on detailed analysis of the population projections, and include
staff, equipment and equipment replacement costs. In addition, the estimates from the
Bull Mountain Annexation Study (November 2001) were based on 2000 population and
did not project the financial implications time, and increased populations, had on the
cost to provide services.
Estimated 2015 Revenues to su ort on-going services
Table 2 North East South West
Sanitary sewer $88,800 $22,200 $101,600 $33,600
Water $272,600 $68,300 $312,100 $103,300
Gas Tax: $143,700 $29,800 $159,600 $51,700
• Road quality maintenance
• Street Maintenance
• Street lights
General Fund: $830,000 $718,200 $1,067,000 $613,200
. Parks and Open spaces
L . Police
r • Community Development
°p Storm Sewer $42,700 $10,700 $48,900 $16,200
r
0
i
Appendix Page 5
Draft Appendix D
Tigard Service Provision Impacts Summaries by Department
Police
Urban Services currently provided by Tigard: Currently Tigard responds to
911 priority 1 and 2 calls if they have an officer closer than a Washington County
patrol officer. In many cases, this means Tigard is the first responder, secures
the scene and waits for a Washington County Officer to take over the scene.
This agreement occurs between all law enforcement offices in the State. Tigard
does not currently have data on the number of calls they respond to in the Bull
Mountain area, because when any officer arrives on the scene, the 911 system
does not distinguish what jurisdiction responded, only that an officer responded.
Beginning in May, 2003 Tigard began tracking these calls, so that we will be able
to compile data on the number and types of calls we respond to in this area. The
bottom line is that this area is receiving some Tigard police services without
paying City taxes.
Impact of providing services immediately upon annexation: The Police
department has estimated that if any or all areas were annexed, the existing staff
could absorb that area without a significant reduction in service levels until
additional employees can be hired and fully trained to bring the department up to
the standard of 1.5 officers per 1000 residents. The response time for priority 1
and 2 calls would not be noticeably reduced, however, until the department could
be fully staffed, there would be a slight reduction in response times to priority 3
calls. Priority 3 calls are calls where no one is in danger (car broken into, loud
noise, etc) but an officer is needed to take a report. The more people annexed at
one time, the higher the demand on police services and the greater the chance
that there would be a reduction in response time to these lower priority calls.
Parks
Urban Services currently provided by Tigard: None
Impact of providing services immediately upon annexation: Tigard owns
Cache Creek, however it is intended to be a nature park/preserve and is not
developed. Because there are no developed parks in the Bull Mountain area,
immediately upon annexation, there will be no requirement to provide park
maintenance services. As parks are purchased and developed, equipment and
staff will be acquired to insure that maintenance is provided in accordance with
Tigard City standards.
Water
Urban Services currently provided by Tigard. See Below
Impact of providing services immediately upon annexation: The City of
Tigard provides water service to the Bull Mountain area already through an
intergovernmental agreement with the Tigard Water District. The only change
that will occur if the Bull Mountain area is annexed is that it will technically be
withdrawn from the Tigard Water District and included in the City of Tigard Water
Division. Because the area is already being served, there is no issue with when
Appendix Page 6
Draft
and how the Bull Mountain area annexes that would affect the efficiency or
effectiveness of service.
Sanitary and Storm Sewer
Urban Services currently provided by Tigard: Tigard does not currently
provide storm or sanitary sewer services to the Bull Mountain area. However,
Tigard recently entered into an intergovernmental agreement with Clean Water
Services that stipulates Tigard will begin providing maintenance services to this
area effective July 1, 2004.
Impact of providing services immediately upon annexation: While these
services are based in different funds, they utilize similar equipment and staff.
The Public Works department has indicated that all areas alone or in combination
with one other area could be maintained immediately upon annexation, by
stretching the current work crew, until additional equipment and staff could be
acquired.
Street Maintenance
Urban Services currently provided by Tigard: None
Impact of providing services immediately upon annexation: Street
maintenance includes: sweeping 12 times per year, checking all signs annually,
yearly dust abatement for gravel roads, 5 year cycle to replace street markings, 4
year cycle for crack sealing and road shoulders, and other maintenance as
needed. Because of the equipment and staff needed to perform these tasks, the
Public Works Department has stated that any one sub-area annexed alone could
be temporarily absorbed by the existing staff and equipment. While services
would be reduced, it would not be to the extent that roads would be neglected.
However, if more than one area were annexed, service levels would be
significantly reduced citywide until additional staff and equipment could be
obtained to meet the added demand.
Road Maintenance
Urban Services currently provided by Tigard: None
Impact of providing services immediately upon annexation: Road
L maintenance includes things like overlay or slurry seal on roads with poor
C pavement condition, pavement widening, etc. Many roads in the Bull Mountain
n area are new and will not require road maintenance for many years. Per the
Urban Services Agreement signed in 2002, prior to transferring roads to Tigard,
' the County shall make needed roadway improvements so that all individual roads
0
have a pavement condition index (PCI) of 40 or greater and the average PCI of
streets and roads in the area is 75 or higher. Finally, costs to do road
maintenance are programmed based on available funding and construction is
contracted out. For these reasons, annexation of the entire area (or
combinations) will not result in a reduction of services for Tigard residents and
service will continue to be effectively provided.
Appendix Page 7
Draft
Street Light Maintenance
Urban Services currently provided by Tigard: None
Impact of providing services immediately upon annexation: Street light
maintenance involves paying electricity, lamp replacement and pole maintenance
for existing street lights. Service in the study areas is currently assessed to the
property owner. Upon annexation, maintenance is provided by the City and the
property owner assessment would go away. Engineering staff has estimated that
it will cost approximately $5,600 per month for the entire Bull Mountain area.
Street lights are funded through gas tax. Because street light costs are paid to
PGE, there is no ability to reduce service levels (short of turning off lights)
however, the need to fund this service will reduce Gas Tax Funds that could be
used for other Gas Tax Funded services.
L
J
0
9
u
Appendix Page 8
S$4W p11
N&S
LEGI B►I.v STR1P ~vv S&V- Yes
t South fast Yes Yes Yes
'6ro~h wes Yes Yes
400 P34) is Yes
n criteria t
Evaiuatio vision 1m a Yes No
a$$
Ser4lce prO
and its fu11Y
-Ti acent to Ctt 1► alone, can rCasing Yes
pd Hexed
if area is an t significantly re ately Yes No/
served withou ice IeVeIS ltnm ewer and Yes NO No 54°l0
City Sere ganitarY se e this O %
40
current I? -Water. se n. Yes already uPOn annexatlo - since they use major t4
luated beta of be Y e5 80%
-yes
7°f0
r are not eva is not included and 'W'" n is NO
storm sewe ed into the C1P maintenance yes Yes 450/0
O
ad maintena~ gtamm Pans YeS
xatwn. d Parks Yes 6o% Park.
area. c s have to be P on anne velope
Prot c ' medlateusE here are no de Y eg
Yes 69% part.
nee YeS 18% 140
nroi e~rtueStdo maintain. PW % Pad
Police nc
9 No Yes-2
of as
gtreet maintena o gg
t light n"aint cover gas part. Yes-2
. tree that Yes Yes-2
tax revenues NO _ ~ ,~2s 7aa
tax needs area Yes 1 445,3$1
f this Yes-2 72,967
O 6
se Provi r
ice ea NO ,822
ea that is yes _ 1
eq 1d cro aced an a ansion area 20 Yes _ 1 N° ,711 386,111 356'926 766
uir°..
.3% g 7% 9 5°l0
unlncor orh, to .G13 exa 64,6670 380 9 4°!0 8
Relations in t0 tJGB are is 292,256 9.6% 1210
es l
a on-going 9.90/0 424
ai im acts 4 for COSts
0 6% 8.6% 8pp 488
F►nniax Revenueon-going -
A0.
iota s total 7.8% 410
ervices) v - revenues 549
by 251 Yes
s COVered
2p15 tal needs dSl 05 173 No
% of Cap, all capital fun 237 Yes Yes Sa
(includes difference Yes 65
xation otential t ellin9 units Ye 77
anne owthp s
Ad~eenegr(. gtba5elln we In units No 73
out d Appendix Page 9
65
and ro ected build- out NO 56 5$
d with some Park 25
Additional la'tors
Publicly Owned lain 55
Otential
Poihts
Total
Point allocation sheet
Evaluation criteria (100 pts) North West South East N&W S&E N&S S&W All
Tigard Service Provision Impacts 30 is
• Adjacent to City limits -10 pts total 10 0 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Yes=10 pts
No=O is
• If area is annexed alone, can it be fully
served without significantly decreasing
current City service levels immediately Draft
upon annexation? ? *Water, Sanitary sewer and
storm sewer are not evaluated since they already serve
this area. Road maintenance is not included because
major projects have to be programmed into the CIP and
will not be needed immediately upon annexation. Parks
maintenance is not included because there are no
develo ed arks properties to maintain.
Police - 5 pts 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Street maintenance - 5 pts 5 5 5 5 0 0 0 0 0
Street light maint. - 4 0 2 2 2 2 4 2 2
because this depends on when funds are collected
and what else the gas tax needs to be spent on , points
will be distributed based on the % of gas tax revenues
to pay gas tax needs (AKA - will there be money to pay
the light bills).
0-25% = 0 pts
25-75% = 2 pt
75%+ = 4 is
• Would service provision of this area 6 0 3 6 3 6 3 3 6
require crossing an area that is
unincorporated? 6 pts total
Yes= 0 pts
Part. = 3 pts
No= 6 is
Subtotal 30 10 25 28 20 23 22 20 23
Relationship to UGB expansion area 20 is
• Provides link to UGB area - 20 pts 10 0 10 0 20 10 20 20 20
Yes-2 = 20 pts
Yes 1 = 10 pts
No=O is
Subtotal 10 0 10 0 20 10 20 20 20
Appendix Page 10
t.SG181L►TY STR►p $'8~` E N&S S&>~ All
0 &W
Mato - West South asit 15 25
North 20 20
t100 Pts} 10 10
Evaluation criteria 5 10
10
is
cts 45 for on-going
c►ai im a (
,:►nan Tax Revenues o0-going costs - siraft 5
services) vs, Total 5
is total 5 5
2015'" 800,000 = 25 Pts- 20 pis 5
60000-8p0,0o0 - 15 Pts 5
,0
400,000-600.000 = 10 Pts 10 5
204,000-40 5 00 - 0
'20o,op0 - covered by 5 10
of capital needs all capital funds) - 10 5
revenues (includes 5
annexation - 10 Pts 10
2005 < 8% = 0 PIS 5 pts 5
° 10%= P
8,1 lo-
>10.1% = 1 tlal (dlfferencE
A) poten dwelling units and
Additional 9f° basejine) units- 10 PIS 40
between existin out d~vellin9 25
prpaected build- o Pts 35 30
- 250 d-u• = 5 PIS 20
250-500 d.u = build 25 areas > 500 d.u =10 Pt'
roiections - ~f will 15 20 5
rowth dP revenue 0
based on 2-50/0 the actual lost 10 5
out sooner than Projecte, 5
5 5
be d'+6erent 0 8a
Subtotal 5 pts 5 0 65 ors ptential 73 77
with some park p 65
Additional ned and 58
publicly is 25 60
Yes = 5 Pt 55
No=OP
tal Points Appendix page 11
To
Appendix F
Change in Service Levels Between County and City
1. ervice 1l. Provider Todav 111. UnderAnnex tion IV. C an e l
Servige upon
n exatlon?
Police Washington County provides The City of Tigard would provide Yes
1.0 officers/1000 people 1.5 officers/1000 people There would
(.5 standard; .5 from Enhanced be an increase
Patrol) of
approximately
.5
officers/1000
people
Fire/Rescue Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue No
provides services. continues to provide services.
Parks Washington County does not The Tigard Park Master Plan calls Yes
provide parks services. for 2 neighborhood parks and 1 The City
community park in the Bull provides park
Mountain area. The plan also services.
calls for a small playground to be
built adjacent to the Cache
Nature Park.
General Road Washington County through the The City's road maintenance Yes
Maintenance Urban Road Maintenance District. performs maintenance on regular The City
General street maintenance by the schedules as well as on a provides
County is primarily on a complaint- complaint-driven basis. Typical additional road
driven basis. Typical maintenance maintenance activities include: maintenance
activities include: services.
• pothole patching
• pothole patching • grading graveled roads
• grading graveled roads • cleaning drainage facilities
• cleaning drainage facilities • street sweeping
• street sweeping • mowing roadside grass and
• mowing roadside grass and brush (shoulder strip + ditch
brush (only the shoulder strip) line)
• maintaining traffic signals • maintaining traffic signals
• replacing damaged signs • replacing damaged signs
• installing and replacing street
markings
• crack sealing
L • vegetation removal for vision
x clearance
p • street light tree trimming for
ti light clearance
• dust abatement on graveled
roads
u
~ Sanitary Sewer Clean Water Services (CWS) The City of Tigard will meet the No
same level of service as CWS. All
service levels for CWS and
surrounding jurisdictions must be
uniform b Jul 2003.
Storm Sewer Clean Water Services (CWS) The City of Tigard will meet the No
same level of service as CWS. All
service levels for CWS and
Appendix Page 12
surrounding jurisdictions must be
uniform by July 2003.
Water Intergovernmental Water Board Service remains the same. Tigard No
contracts with the Tigard Water Water District will continue to
District to provide water. provide water but will bill directly.
Street Light Washington County administers The City of Tigard will assume all Service
Maintenance Service Districts for Lighting for street light operations and remains the
PGE. Residents pay an annual maintenance for existing lights. same but
operations and maintenance Residents do not pay a separate property
assessment. assessment. owners are
notassessed
for the
operation of
the lights.
Community The City of Tigard provides building The City of Tigard will continue to Only change
Development and services-including land use provide building services to this in service is
Building Services decisions, building and area. that the City
engineering-under an reviews
intergovernmental agreement with All land use decisions will legislative
Washington County. continue to be reviewed under the matters.
City standards and through the
All land use decisions are reviewed City's hearing process. The City
under the City standards and would be the review authority for
through the City's hearing process legislative actions as well (zone
with the exception of legislative changes, comprehensive plan
actions (zone changes, amendments, etc).
Comprehensive Plan amendments,
etc.)
Library Washington County Cooperative The City of Tigard, which receives No
Library Services (WCCLS) approximately 62% of its funding
Consortium, which provides funding through the WCCLS. Bull
through the county tax to area Mountain residents would have
libraries, including Tigard. influence on the library's services,
and could advocate for the
services they want.
Schools Both the Beaverton School District Annexation does not change No
and the Tigard School District school district boundaries.
provide service based on district
boundaries.
Garbage Residents are charged rates The City franchises City garbage Service
Collection established by Washington County collection, and the Bull Mountain remains the
for service provided by Pride, area would become part of the same, but
Residents pay the fee depending on franchised area. The service rates will
the size of container they use. provider remains the same but differ,
residents would be charged the
rates established by City Council
based on the size of the container
the use.
Appendix Page 13
LeGi93r'L. f f V S-f POP
LEGIBILITY STRIP
\(\(r Iiffiri:~f i ~~[lf ►i:~/ pr~~~f~ri:f~f i
• 470,000 County Residents
• 175,000 Unincorporated Residents
(42 of 728 Square Miles)
• 260,000 City Residents
• 35,000 Rural Residents
~a~.rrr sTwv
(,10 f.J (i 1
unt cannot perform t'VVo missi°ns
• Co Y
-Municipal services
- County-'Vide services
-Cities are best providers Of municipal
services
• icy and statute
state pol
-Gas tax and Franchising
Magi&
id --mmE
LEGIBILITY STRIP
Ma Local ervices by Provider
LIC SAFETY. o- HEALTH/HUMAN Y LAND USE, HOUSING, CULTURE, EDUCATION
PUB
PROVID GENERAL GGiIERPiiW2-0
ADMIN.SERVIfE5 SERVICES y TRANSPORT,ANDUTILITIFS AND RECREATION f
COUNTY Elections Sheriff Patrol Public Heath Planning Libraries
Assessment/Taxation Enhanced Patrol Environmental Health Permitting Parks
Managementand Internal District Attorney Mental Health Survey County Fair
Support Justice Court Alcohol/Drug County Road Construction Extension Service
Court' Facilities Developmental County Road Maintenance
Probation and Parole Disabilities Local Street Maintenance
Jail Solid Waste Housing Services
Juvenile Justice Medical Examiner CDBG
Emergency Planning Veteran's/Aging Services
Ambulance Regulation Children/Family Programs
Animal Control
Solid Waste Planning Libraries
CITIES Management and Internal Police
Support Fire h "PenTiitting Parks and Recreation.
Local Street Maintenance Community Programs
Economic Development Emergency Planning
Water
Sewer
Electricity
ii i s, :~,Js $Wasee'-'~}i ~~T~i ,ParksandRetreb
11Dispaxcn''r ~ydyr d p L ~eNler 't
~ r y I ~ ~r`}z i f ra3'1F,' S 1 , r ~ t1~ j. P ~ r mil n._
7-Jan-02
lics: Service to unincorpor t only... "Munic' rvices" r~
- t
G.;
LEGIBILITY STRIP
mono
adopts interim service strategies
county
Urban Road Maintenance District
Enhanced Sheriff Patrol District
dari
and cities attempt to balance need
• County an tax
for base services and property differential
Now"
LEGIBILITY STRIP
~2-1` 0 0 0 E) f G~ F1 (k-f 6
• Limited annexations
• Urban unincorporated population grows
• Interim districts continue to serve
LEEG1131ury STRIP
1r fir
C~(1~
g(11600 rr►I)
Local ne►9hb°rhood plannin
ement and
. Neighborhood traffic manag
enforce►Y►eo~enforcement (2~72K
. Zoning and Ce
arcels) (1/1000)
p
laW enforcement
. Non-emergencY arks and open spare
. Attention to P
. Libraries ' on
Biagio
mom
LEGIBILITY STRIP
® values
property . infrastructure
Community l d e ntity
.
subsidy by adjacent cities
. a ~
Revitalization
.
in$
LEGIBII-IT`S STRIP
low
It -j r
service to level ot
increases s
.
County unincorporated areas
an ;onately
u~rb dNS roport
~on rows p anent
rganizat~ g is to pe
conversion Of ►n$er status and create more re-apportion gas tax,
:
Tres legislation to ex an
allo d role of
--Re . ability and p
~ for franchise
districts
. 4L uble taxation"
lams of do
ENERIMEbaft-
owl -
AROMA wwwwo
LEGIBILITY STRIP
1
• B. Passively Pursue Annexation
("aggressive neutrality")
• C. Actively Implement SB 122 Plans
- Utilize Annexation Plan methodology County-
wide
LEGIBILITY STRIP
r
f ~ rlJ' ~ cJ
F
• What to d® about new UGB expansion
areas? elation by
unincorporated pop
Increase urban
thousands? ?
etch anneXations
Cherry-stem or p annexation approach?
- Comprehensive
LEGIBILITY STRIP
• r
_ear timeline 0-15 years)
1~/lult4y
•
.on of new UGB areas and
Assure annexatr
•
areas (treat them as a ,hole)
existing
do their work
Allow the plans to
®
~oieam srwr M
P
• Commitment to plan (formal)
• Write and communicate plan
• Adopt plan (all affected gouts)
• Vote on plan (Unincorp & city voters)
• Implement plan (in phases)
i
CITY OF TIGARD
Community Development
Shaping R Better Community
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD
T0: City Council and Washington County Board of Commissioners
FROM: Jim Hendryx ~ Glw-
DATE: July 21, 2003
SUBJECT: Bull Mountain Annexation
Since the adoption of the Tigard Comprehensive Plan in 1983, unincorporated Bull Mountain has
been identified as ultimately being served by the City of Tigard. Subsequent intergovernmental
agreements and memorandums of understanding have reinforced this fact, culminating in the
recent adoption of the Tigard Urban Services Agreement with Washington County in December,
2002. The outstanding question is not if the area will annex into Tigard, but when annexation will
occur. The Public Facilities and Services Assessment Report for the Bull Mountain Area
evaluates the most efficient and effective method to service the area, pointing out that by delaying
action, important financial resources to address the area's needs will be lost.
At the July 15, 2003 City Council workshop meeting, Council discussed the pros and cons of the
various annexation options. The options include:
1. Site Specific Annexation - Site specific annexations are initiated by individual property
owners and typically involve limited properties or parcels. This would basically maintain the
status quo and result in the longest path to full incorporation. This approach is inefficient
since long term revenue can be lost and service delivery is not effective or efficient.
L
2. Target Area Annexations - Target area annexations are also initiated by property owners,
typically with land development applications. City boundaries become illogical through
"cherry stem" and island annexations. Efficiency is increased by proactively annexing
undeveloped lands and collecting the resulting system development fees. Full incorporation
is dependent upon development activity and consistency in requiring annexation.
U Intergovernmental agreements would need to be amended to implement this option.
3. Area-wide Annexations - An area-wide annexation can be implemented through the
development of an annexation plan whereby unincorporated and City residents vote on the
plan. This process allows either sequential annexation or annexation of the entire area at
one time. Specific areas can be targeted over other areas. As an alternative, Council could
initiate annexation subject to a referendum, which would result in only an unincorporated
+f'
r
residential vote. There are pros and cons to either method. The annexation plan gives a
voice to residents and non-residents alike, while the Council-initiated process limits the
issue to non-residents only. Of the three options for annexing unincorporated Bull
Mountain, the area-wide approach is the most efficient.
As Council continues to evaluate this issue, it is important to understand what Washington
County's plans and interest are with regard to supporting Tigard's efforts to annex Bull Mountain.
The County must lead the effort to transition Bull Mountain services to Tigard.
The following questions are intended to lead the discussion for the joint City Council/Board of
Commissioner meeting on July 29, 2003.
• The Bull Mountain Public Facilities and Services Assessment Report identifies the capital
improvement needs, totaling $36 million. What are the County's plans for addressing these
needs? What assistance can be provided to address long term needs?
• Annexation of undeveloped and/or redevelopable lands provides the greatest potential for
addressing the long term capital facility needs. However, projected revenue falls short of
identified needs. How can we best address this funding gap?
• Metro's recent action expanding the Urban Growth Boundary has resulted in an additional
400± acres immediately adjacent to Bull Mountain. Washington County is in the process of
enacting new protection zoning for these areas until concept plans are developed and
appropriate land use regulations can be put in place. Integration of these areas into the rest
of Bull Mountain is important and could address area wide capital needs, such as for parks.
However, development of concept plans for these two areas that meet Metro's criteria, as
well as the Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines, will require considerable resources.
Coordination of this effort should fall to Tigard since we appear to be the ultimate service
provider. What is the best process and who should be responsible for accomplishing this?
• Clean Water Services currently provides sanitary and storm water services to
unincorporated Bull Mountain. Local improvement districts have been recently formed to
provide sanitary sewer services to specific areas with failing septic systems. Should such
programs continue or should property owners be required to annex into Tigard for such
services? Secondly, how should such a program be implemented and paid for?
Attached is background information including the Bull Mountain Annexation Study, the Bull
[ Mountain Annexation Public Attitude Survey, and the draft Public Facilities and Services
Assessment Report for the Bull Mountain Area.
i
i
i
i
MLEY i SEARCH ASSOCIATES
Research for Marketing, Public Relations, and Planning
August 6, 2002
TO: Barbara Shields / Beth St. Amand / Jim Hendryx
CITY OF TIGARD
Anne Madden
WASHINGTON COUNTY
FROM: Michael J. Riley / Scott M. Davis
RILEY RESEARCH ASSOCIATES
RE: BULL MOUNTAIN ANNEXATION
PUBLIC ATTITUDE SURVEY
L
k
0
i
t
i
i
0
www.rileyresearch.com
9900 S.W. Wilshire, Suite 250, Portland, OR 97225
phone [503] 222-4179 fax (503] 222-4313
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE OVERVIEW.... 1
INTRODUCTION ..3
METHODOLOGY 3
CONCLUSIONS. 5
RESULTS,
DEMOGRAPHICS 30
APPENDIX: Questionnaire
r
3
9
U
J
RILEY RESEARCH
ASSOCIATES
EXECUTIVE OVERVIEW
Introduction & Methodology
Riley Research Associates was asked by the City of Tigard and Washington County to conduct
a scientific telephone survey among City of Tigard and Bull Mountain residents. The purpose of
the study was to hear from a representative cross section of the potentially impacted population
regarding the awareness and opinions of the citizens relating to the City's potential annexation
of Bull Mountain, while providing a gauge of current annexation support and opposition levels.
Riley Research Associates, with input from the City of Tigard and Washington County,
developed the research plan and questionnaire. Respondents were selected at random from
County voter records. A stratified sample was utilized to ensure representative subsamples for
each population. A total of 305 interviews were completed between July 8 and July 16, 2002,
ensuring a sampling error no larger than +/-5.8% at a 95% level of confidence for the sample as
a whole and +/-8% for each of the two subsamples. Calls were made between 5:00 p.m. and
9:00 p.m. Monday through Friday.
In addition to looking at each area independently, geographic responses were weighted to
reflect actual population proportions throughout the sampling area in the final analysis. Both the
general population and voter records indicated that 85% of the survey's population is from
Tigard. As such, the aggregate responses are weighted to reflect this 85/15 split.
Awareness & Initial Support
® Awareness of the annexation issue was relatively high, with 56% of !9 participants and 71%
of Bull Mountain participants being previously aware that the City of Tigard and Washington
County are "exploring the idea."
When asked whether or not they would support the idea of annexation, 49% of all respondents
initially said they would support' it, while 34% were "on the fence" (or undecided). Just 15%
were somewhat or strongly opposed to the annexation.
® Significant differences could be seen between Tigard and Bull Mountain residents. While 52%
of Ti and residents initially supported annexation, just 30% of Bull Mountain residents did.
Similarly, while just 10% of Tiaard residents initially opposed annexation, 44% of Bull Mountain
residents were opposed.
Tradeoff Analysis & Continued Support
® When asked to evaluate potential tradeoffs, respondents overall were most likely to support the
annexation if it would result in the contribution of money toward parks and open spaces (84%),
followed by the sharing of street and road costs (76%), the sharing of the expense of building a
new Tigard library (75%), and the gain in Bull Mountain's political representation (74%).
tL
® The tradeoffs that received the most support from Bull Mountain respondents included the
» contribution of money toward parks and open spaces (57%), the gain in Bull Mountain's political
representation (54%), and the sharing of the expense of building a new Tigard library (52%).
Tigard residents showed the most support for the contribution of money toward parks and open
spaces (89%), the sharing of street and road costs (82%), and the sharing of Library building
costs (79%).
u
J
' Unless otherwise specified, "support" represents a combination of those who strongly supported and those who
somewhat supported annexation.
2 Tradeoff: The following items represent potential results of annexation that may be a "gain" or "loss" for one group of
citizens or another.
I M ASSOCIAAT EARCH
TES 1
~,Does this individual statement make you more likely to support or Support Noutral/ DIK Oppose
oppose annexation ~..strongly or-s.omewhat?
08. New development on BM contributes money for development of 84% 5% 12%
arks and reservation of open-spaces
Q9. BM residents share the cost of providing streets and roads in Tigard 76% 11% 12%
/ no longer a WC's urban road maintenance or streetlight district fees
Q7. BM residents help pay for Tigard's new library building, while all 75% 9% 15%
continue to a for library services
010. BM residents gain higher level of political representation / likely 74% 13% 13%
more tax dollars to local projects
Q6. Replace Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol / Eliminate Enhanced Sheriff 68% 10% 20%
Patrol tax
Q12. Decisions regarding school boundaries, zoning, and density levels 66% 24% 9%
stay the same
05. Increase property taxes for BM residents 66% 7% 26%
013. Higher level of code enforcement for BM residents 56% 29% 15%
011. Annexation may occur with majority support from within Tigard, 38% 10% 51%
regardless of BM support
® Following the list of tradeoffs, the overall support level climbed from 49% to 74%. Support
among Tigard residents increased 18% (from 52% to 80%) while support on Bull Mountain
climbed 7% (from 30% to 37% - within the 8% margin-of-error).
® The least popular tradeoff was that annexation may occur with majority support from within
Tigard, regardless of Bull Mountain support (38% support / 51% opposition, overall). However,
given the aforementioned increase in overall support after all the tradeoffs were addressed, it
did not appear to have a significant impact on the overall results. As an individual argument,
respondents reacted negatively to it, but yet, only half (51%) said the argument made them
more likely to oppose annexation.
The "Typical" Supporter- Demographic Profile
Among Ti and respondents, those most likely to initial) support annexation included those who
had previously been aware that the City of Tigard and Washington County are "exploring the
idea" and those in higher income brackets (with those making over $100,000 being the most
likely to initially support it). These groups of supporters may not be surprising, given the
foreseeable benefits to Tigard residents (including the expansion of Tigard's tax base) that
those who are aware would support.
® Over the course of the interview (Post-tradeoff analysis), two additional support groups could be
seen with the Ti and population - "younger' respondents and those with children in the
r household. Respondents in the 18-24 age group showed the highest level of post-tradeoff
support (87%), which decreased to 74% among those 65 and over. Nearly nine in ten parents
with kids at home also showed support (88% vs. 77%).
t Among Bull Mountain residents, no statistically valid demographic differences appeared to
differentiate supporters from non-supporters.
i
Communications
® Overall, respondents most often reported learning about local government from The Oregonian
(56%), Tigard Times (47%), TV News (22%), the Cityscape newsletter (20%), and word-of-
mouth (19%). As such, these sources should prove to be the most effective in communicating
with Tigard and Bull Mountain residents about the issues of annexation.
~RASSOCLUES CH 2
INTRODUCTION
Riley Research Associates was asked to conduct a scientific telephone survey among City of
Tigard and Bull Mountain residents, regarding the City's potential annexation of Bull Mountain.
The purpose of the study was to hear from a representative cross section of the potentially
impacted population regarding the awareness and opinions of the citizens, while providing a
gauge of current annexation support levels.
This study was designed to engage citizens in both the City of Tigard and Bull Mountain, in
order to provide a representative examination of the issues facing each population. Key issues
addressed included pre- and post-levels of support for annexation, changes in support when
tradeoffs were presented, and the development of a demographic profile for the targeting of
annexation-related communications to the area's citizens.
METHODOLOGY
Riley Research Associates, with input from the City of Tigard and Washington County,
developed the research plan and questionnaire. Boundaries included the City of Tigard and a
predetermined Bull Mountain study area. Respondents were selected at random from County
voter records. Precincts 397, 400, 402-406, 408-410, 414, and 416 were included. A stratified
sample was utilized to ensure representative subsamples for each population.
Fielding took place between July 8 and July 16, 2002, including a pretest. A total of 305
interviews were completed (151 in Tigard and 154 on Bull Mountain), ensuring a sampling error
no larger than +/-5.8% at a 95% level of confidence for the sample as a whole and +/-8% for
each of the two subsamples. Calls were made between 5:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m. Monday
through Friday.
Sample Characteristics
Respondents were selected at random by name from their voter records, based on their voter
precinct. Precincts 397, 410, and 414 were included in the Bull Mountain sample. Voters in
precinct 410 were screened based on their nearest cross streets to ensure they resided within
the study area.
Among Tigard respondents, 59% were female, 32% had kids at home, and 87% were
homeowners. On average, Tigard respondents had voted in 3.1 out of the last four elections.
Among Bull Mountain respondents, 52% were female, 42% had kids at home, and 90% were
homeowners. On average, Bull Mountain respondents had voted in 2.8 of the last four
elections, had a higher average household income, and were newer to their current residence.
a In the final analysis, geographic responses were weighted to reflect actual population
proportions throughout the sampling area. Both the general population and voter records
indicated that 85% of the survey's population is from Tigard. As such, the aggregate responses
are weighted to reflect this 85/15 split.
_J
m
a
W
J
WRASSOCIscH 3
Interpreting the Results
The results are displayed in a question-by-question format, including numeric tables. Relevant
subgroup differences found to be statistically significant are cited throughout the body of the
report, conclusions, and executive overview3. A copy of the questionnaire can be found in the
Appendix; cross tabulations are bound separately.
Each table/question in this report shows the total responses for Tigard and Bull Mountain
respondents. These results are not weighted. As you examine these results, it is important to
consider the margin of error for each subsample (+/-8% at a 95% level of confidence). As a
basic rule, one should expect the differences between answer categories to be at least 8% apart
before concluding that the difference is statistically significant. However, it is also important to
understand that the margin of error is based on a worst-case 50/50 scenario, in which each
response has exactly half of the overall responses.
The cross tabulations used for subsegment analysis have been weighted to reflect the
appropriate population proportions for Tigard and Bull Mountain (85/15%). Therefore,
references made to the overall sample throughout the report are based on this weighted data.
The purpose of the weighting is to understand how the entire population views the annexation,
and because Tigard and Bull Mountain's populations are not equal, our unweighted 300-person
sample (150 each) would not accurately reflect the overall level of support/opposition.
Cross tabulation analysis is also based on statistical significance, as determined by the chi-
square test. As the cross tabulations are examined, one should look for a p-value of 0.05 or
less.
a
ol:
rr
U)
c7
w
J
3 Statistically valid subgroup differences were measured using the cross tabulations and chi-square test, using a p.
value of 0.05 to determine statistical validity.
IWASSOC TES 4
CONCLUSIONS
Clearly, support for annexation is divided at the border between Tigard and unincorporated Bull
Mountain. Throughout the survey, Tigard showed significantly higher levels of support from an
initial level of 52% (vs. 30% among Bull Mountain respondents) to a peak at 80%, following the
series of potential tradeoffs (vs. 37% among Bull Mountain respondents).
However, when Tigard respondents shifted toward their peak support (80%), their vote
outweighed Bull Mountain's 53% opposition, producing an area-wide support level of 74% (in
the weighted aggregate).
Awareness and issue education appear to be key factors in developing support for the
annexation of Bull Mountain. While the entire sample (Tigard and Bull Mountain combined and
weighted) produced an initial support level of 49%, only 40% of those previously unaware of the
possibility of annexation said they supported the idea (compared to 56% of those who were
previously aware).
Therefore, one key to the passage of the annexation appears to lie in spreading awareness
among Tigard voters. The initial support level among Tigard participants (52%) would not have
been enough to pass the annexation, given Bull Mountain's opposition (only 30% support, with
49% overall support). However, given Tigard's initial lack of awareness (56% previously aware)
and change in support over the course of the interview, it is clear that the dissemination of
information regarding the issues of annexation should produce positive results for the
annexation effort.
A number of the "tradeoffs" explored in the interview proved to have "pro-annexation" impacts
on voter's views. This level of "success" can be determined by looking at those "tradeoffs" most
likely to have moved people from a negative or neutral viewpoint to a positive one. The
following table shows this impact (the percentage of respondents who were initially
opposed/neutral to annexation, but provided an answer showing support for the argument):
Q8. New de
arks velopment on BM contributes money for development of 63%
and
07 reservation of open-spaces
. BM residents help pay for Tigard's new library building, while all 58%
continue to a for library services
Q9. BM residents share the cost of providing streets and roads in Tigard 53%
/ no longer a WC's urban road maintenance or streetlight district fees
010. BM residents gain higher level of political representation / likely 52%
more tax dollars to local projects
L 06. Replace Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol / Eliminate Enhanced Sheriff 45%
t>C Patrol tax
Q12. Decisions regarding school boundaries, zoning, and density levels 44%
stay the same
J 05. Increase property taxes for BM residents 41%
a
D 013. Higher level of code enforcement for BM residents 37%
U
Q11. Annexation may occur with majority support from within Tigard, 20%
regardless of BIVI support
Overall: 45%
M° RASSOCIIATESS 5
As the above table demonstrates, 45% of all respondents providing an initially negative or
neutral response when asked about annexation were swung to the positive side by the
"tradeoffs" discussed. The strongest of these points (having the greatest swing impact)
included: 1) the additional contribution of money for the development of parks and open-spaces,
2) the sharing of the expense of building a new Tigard library, 3) the sharing of the expense of
streets and road maintenance, and 4) the higher level of political representation made available
to Bull Mountain residents.
Regarding the communication of these messages, it is clear that The Oregonian, Tigard Times,
TV News, Cityscape newsletter, and word-of-mouth are the strongest vehicles through which to
promote the benefits, or "tradeoffs" of annexation.
Subsegment Analysis
In your efforts to target key audiences and build overall support, it may be necessary to move
beyond citywide messaging to a niche communications effort. While the executive overview
highlights those who support annexation, it is also important to examine those most likely to
stand in opposition in order to concentrate your efforts on those needing to be "swung."
While no statistically valid demographic differences appeared to differentiate Bull Mountain
supporters from non-supporters, some key differences were apparent among Tigard residents.
Those most likely to initially oppose annexation included those who had not previously been
aware that the City of Tigard and Washington County are "exploring the idea" and those in lower
income brackets. Over the course of the interview, two additional opponent groups came into
play - "older" respondents and those without children in the household. Of course, it is
important to look closely at these numbers, because while statistically significant, "opponents"
still showed a very high level of support 74% among those 65 and over and 77% among those
without kids at home.
r.
%
i
i
i
i
i
®~ASSOCITES cN 6
RESULTS4
01. Before this call, were you aware that the City of Tigard and Washington
County were exploring the idea of Tigard annexing the Bull Mountain area?
Overall, three in five respondents said they were aware that the City of Tigard and Washington
County were exploring the idea of annexing Bull Mountain (59%), including 56% of Tigard
residents and 71% of Bull Mountain residents.
Older respondents tended to be more likely to be aware of the exploration of annexation as
reflected by the fact that those who had lived 20 or more years at their current residence (66%),
those aged 55 and above (65% and 66%), and those who had voted in all of the last 4 elections
(72%) were all significantly more likely to know about the possibility of annexation. Females
were also more likely than males to know about the possibility of annexation (65% vs. 50%).
Location
Bull
Tigard Mountain
Total Participants 151 154
Yes 56% 71%
No 43 29
Refused 1 -
i
i
i
I
I
4 Unless otherwise stated, question-by-question analysis refers to the overall sample, not specifically Bull Mountain or
Tigard respondents.
WAASSOCIA RESEARCH 7
d
Q2/2b. (From what you may have heard) Would you say that you strongly support,
somewhat support, somewhat oppose, or strongly oppose the annexation of Bull
Mountain?
Approximately half of respondents supported the annexation of Bull Mountain (49%), while an
additional 34% were "on the fence" or undecided. Just 15% were somewhat or strongly
opposed to the annexation.
Significant differences could be seen in initial support levels between Tigard and Bull Mountain
residents. While 52% of Tigard residents supported annexation, just 30% of Bull Mountain
residents did. Similarly, while just 10% of Tigard residents opposed annexation, 44% of Bull
Mountain residents showed opposition.
Among Tigard respondents, those most likely to initial) support annexation included those who
had previously been aware that the City of Tigard and Washington County are "exploring the
idea" and those in higher income brackets (with those making over $100,000 being the most
likely to initially support it). These groups of supporters may not be surprising, given the
foreseeable benefits to Tigard residents (including the expansion of Tigard's tax base) that
those who are aware would support. Among Bull Mountain residents, no statistically valid
demographic differences appeared to differentiate supporters from non-supporters.
Previously Aware
Of those previously aware of the possibility of annexation, three in five Tigard residents
supported the annexation (62%). Conversely, more than half of aware Bull Mountain residents
said they opposed the annexation (54%).
Previously Unaware
Of those Tigard residents not previously aware of the possibility of annexation, one-half replied
"depends" or "don't know." This left neither those who support nor those who oppose in a
position of majority (39% support and 8% oppose). Interestingly, unaware Bull Mountain
respondents were as likely as Tigard respondents to initially support the idea of annexation
(39% support).
Location
o, Bull
Tigard Mountain
Total Participants 151 154
J
m Strongly oppose 4% 32%
C7 Somewhat oppose 6 12
.J Depends/Don't know 36 26
Somewhat support 33 20
Strongly support 19 10
Refused 2 -
M ASSOCIIAATES EARCH
8
Q3. Why is that?
All responses are listed below.
Strongly oppose
Tigard:
Keep in county
I don't like the idea of more people
I don't think the city has any business to touch it
Because they will subdivided
Bull Mountain:
Don't see any benefit/fine the way it is (18)
Increased taxes (12)
Increased taxes with no benefit (3)
We have septic tanks and it would cost too much to get in the sewer lines (3)
Children would be forced to change schools (2)
1 don't know (2)
Its close (2)
We don't need any more homes
If you look at it now it looks like a limit town in New York, jammed up, its terrible
I don't want any new development
It just more encroachment of this area being urbanized
Tigard has enough problems and does a bad job taking care of the city
I've had some run-ins with the city of Tigard
I don't think Tigard is very efficient with their money
I don't like the way their sewer system works
I don't like Tigard government, and the way they handle money
I don't think Tigard would manage the money wisely
I bought my house here because it was not in a city
A variety of reasons
I think it is outrageous
It just more encroachment of this area being urbanized
They haven't helped us out with anything ever
Tigard, having growing pains, does not need us
Because of its originality
Somewhat oppose
L
Tigard:
l7 It should be their choice whether to be annexed
Because I am afraid that we would lose the separate little city
j Does it benefit us, or is it politics
D I would like more information about the implications of the tax for the city of Tigard
Because of the water district
I think they should remain isolated
Too many people using Tigard's resources
The city's large enough as it is
No reason
• RILEY RESEARCH
P ASSOCIATES
Q3. Why is that? (continued)
Bull Mountain:
Increased taxes (6)
Don't know enough about it (4)
1 don't see any benefits (4)
1 don't like the density of Bull Mountain
I don't want any new development or people
The issues are unclear
I just like the surroundings compared to Tigard
My past experience with annexation wasn't positive
I do not want to be part of the city of Tigard. I would have moved there if I wanted to live there
Depends/don't know
Tigard:
I think Tigard needs to expand and Bull Mountain needs to be part of a city
Don't know
Somewhat support
Tigard:
Don't know/no reason (18)
Geographic proximity (5)
Increase tax base (4)
1 thought it was already annexed (2)
We are already supplying these services to them, so they might as well share the cost
Hopefully Bull Mountain residents will help with money
The kids in the school district should bind together instead of being separated
City services good
I've lived here for a long time and would like Bull Mountain to be a part of it
It is good for the community
I hope it will help Tigard grow and bring money into the city
They could stand to pay some money
I think that the city would be able to operate better having a larger area
I think the people in the area that pay property tax should have a say
Because they use city services and it is an urban zone that needs to be treated as such
It will put more people into using our facilities
Well, it wouldn't hurt the city of Tigard, to have more people in the city of Tigard
I do not care that much but if they use the services they should be part of the city of Tigard
L I think they need to be part of Tigard
C I don't know how the Bull Mountain people feel about it
1 think Bull Mountain is a beautiful place
Past experience
Bull Mountain:
Don't know/no reason (9)
Services/Benefits (9)
J I would like Tigard police (2)
To be a part of Tigard's services
I have a fear of higher taxes
Used to work for the city of Tigard
IMRILEY ASSOCIIAATES RESEARCH 10
Q3. Why is that? (continued)
Because of the building out there and being apart of the city
What will it do for me in the long run
Making the services local is better than having to deal with the county; I want a say in library issue
We are being taxed all over the place already. My kids are going to Tualatin schools now
Its kind of already my address, and schools
Strongly support
Tigard:
Increase the tax base/Use services and should pay for them (12)
Don't know/no reason (3)
Reduce taxes
It's an area that uses the resources of the city of Tigard and therefore should be included
Because they are in our school district as well as use our services
It is a logical connection--all of Bull Mountain area attends the same schools; no purpose for an imaginary
line
The people in Bull Mountain would benefit from Tigard's resources
Since they already use some services, have them be a part of the city
I think as a community they receive many of the services that we get, so they need to be apart of us
I think it's good for city growth and services
They're close enough as it is
The urbanization of the Bull Mountain area
They have always been a part of Tigard and have their phone numbers and addresses
It would cut down the expenses of government, and it is better for Tigard
Since our area was annexed they should be annexed as well
Bull Mountain:
Better services (3)
Better police protection (4)
We use most of the facilities of Tigard and I would like to have more say in the community
I would like to be part of the city of Tigard as well as take part in the benefits of being in Tigard
My land is out here and I think it will make it worth more
I do not want to be part of the city
It would be nice to have bus service
It would be nice to belong to somebody
School reasons primarily. I am a home schooler where my children would be put into Tualatin schools
We should be a part of the community more
a
1
n
U
J
®R ASSOYCIAATTEEARCH 11
Q4. What questions or concerns do you currently have about the annexation?
All responses are listed below.
Tigard:
No concerns at this time (94)
Not sureldon't know enough (11)
What are the pros and cons (3)
How taxes would work
It would bring in more taxes into Tigard that they could use; it would keep my taxes from being raised
I want to know what it will do to our tax base as well as city services
Concerned that they aren't currently part of the tax base but use the services
I suppose it gives Tigard more taxes, but every time we annex, everything goes up, so I don't know
They have cheaper taxes there and they benefit from the services of Tigard
Want to know how to fund it
My concern is for the people of Bull Mountain and the cost they will have to endure
Cost impacts to Tigard
I'm concerned about the upkeep of the fire, water and police departments
Would we still get police and fire support
Only if it would impact the sewers
What will be done about the sewer water
I would like the same city services
To control traffic, bringing additional money, and provide parks
My concern is can the city provide adequate service for annexing. Is it going to stretch our current
facilities, are we going to need more people to work
I was not really aware but hope it won't be a forcible annexation
Bull Mountain should have a say so, more than Tigard should
I have an opinion but it should be up to the bull mountain residents
What do the people up there think about it
I just know the residents don't want to be
How many people are for it
What areas will open up for parks and recreation
How much of Bull Mountain will be annexed
I do not know why it was not annexed in the first place
Very little publicity. They could have more town meetings and public involvement
Will the annexation give more money to Tigard schools
It would be too crowded
No more deer and open land. Too crowded all ready
r
i
M RASSOCIscx 12
Q4. What questions or concerns do you currently have about the annexation? (continued)
Bull mountain:
None (61)
How will it affect taxes/Don't want tax increase (39)
What would the benefits/drawbacks be/What services would we get (20)
Don't know/need more information (9)
Density/Lot size concerns (7)
The schools (2)
Police services (2)
Are we going to be taken away from Beaverton schools
What provisions they would have for students changing schools
Will it change the school boundaries
The kids go to Beaverton schools now - they would have to transfer to the Tigard schools
We need more schools
Concerned about losing the enhanced police patrol, will there be the same level of police patrol in the Bull
Mountain area
I'm concerned about the Bull Mountain residents taking up water supply and such
Would there be water and sewer up here
Storm runoff and septic problems
They may force us to put in sewers
What the city intends to do to fix the area streets, parks etc.
If a parcel of land by us can be developed into a park, we would support annexation
I am concerned about having a recreation district in the area
I wish there could be a recreation district
Who would be responsible in maintaining Bull Mountain road
If Bull Mountain gets annexed, I hope they will put up streetlights
Street improvement
Traffic management
The traffic, there needs to be something done
Additional bureaucracy, what's going to happen with the cost/benefits ratio. Increasing the costs of taxes
would be a downside The city has not made clear the benefits
Who's going to pay for the infrastructure costs
What is it going to cost
How the city address issues instead of the county
Responsibility for the debts of the city of Tigard. My experience with the city of Tigard is poor service
specifically with the building departmer;'
Concerned about how the city of Tigard runs and just does things
The city of Tigard is not very responsive, they don't care about our thoughts
I don't want to be a part of Tigard
I don't want Tigard getting any more involved with us at all
Tigard has an unsound financial system
I hate Tigard. We want nothing to do with it
Depends on whether Bull Mountain residents want to be annexed
That those being annexed would want to be annexed
I don't see that we gain that much
There are no additional services that I would receive
Not sure how much it is actually effecting the environment
I think that annexation is a good thing
I would support it if it benefits Tigard
I think everything is fine I just don't want to be annexed into Tigard. I am happy the way everything is
Losing Tigard
M~ RASSac~s acH 13
Q4. What questions or concerns do you currently have about the annexation? (continued)
I don't need another layer of government
We are unincorporated, I think that we need to have a stable place, not both Tigard/Beaverton
I would like to know where the issues started
I don't know how the city is planning the layout
When would it happen if approved
It will completely change our way of living
Impact in the quality of life
We are retired, we don't use any of Tigard's services
I think it is crazy
L
to
3
0
9
u
J
M RasSOCIAM RESEARCH 14
Washington County, Bull Mountain residents, and the City of Tigard have
discussed the possibility of annexing those parts of Bull Mountain not already
within city limits into the City of Tigard, making them an official part of the city's
population. Such annexation would involve a number of tradeoffs. I'm going to
read a list of some of those tradeoffs, and after each one I'd like to know whether
it makes you more likely to support or to oppose the annexation. How would you
react to the following...
Q5. Annexation would increase property taxes for Bull Mountain residents to pay
for their share of city services. Does this individual statement make you more
likely to support annexation or oppose it? (If necessary) Would that be strongly
or somewhat... support / oppose?
Nearly three in four Tigard respondents were more likely to support the annexation after
knowing about the property tax increase for Bull Mountain residents (73%). As expected, a
majority of Bull Mountain respondents were more likely to oppose the annexation after learning
about the proposed property tax increase (69%).
Compared to all respondents, Bull Mountain residents and respondents who had lived at their
current residence for 3 or fewer years were more than likely to strongly oppose the annexation
(53% and 22%, respectively, vs. 14% overall).
Among all respondents, those most likely to strongly support the annexation have a high school
or less education, have an annual household income of under $50,000, and/or are aged 55-64
(41%, 53%, and 47%, respectively, vs. 35% overall).
With the additional knowledge this question provides, a majority of overall respondents who
initially answered strongly oppose maintained their opposing decision (75%), as did those who
had somewhat opposed the annexation (56%). A majority of initial depends/don't know
respondents became supportive (58%).
Location
Bull
Tigard Mountain
Total Participants 151 154
i Strongly oppose 7% 53%
Somewhat oppose 11 16
Neutral/Don't know 7 5
Somewhat support 33 20
Strongly support 40 6
NA/Refused 1 -
MMCH
15
Q6. Annexation would replace the Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol with Tigard Police
for Bull Mountain and eliminate the Enhanced Sheriff Patrol tax. Does this
individual statement make you more likely to support or oppose it? (if necessary)
Would that be strongly or somewhat ...(Depends on answer) support / oppose?
A majority of Tigard respondents were more likely to support the annexation with this knowledge
(71 Exactly half of the Bull Mountain replies were supportive considering the replacement of
the Enhanced Sheriff Patrol tax with Tigard Police (50%).
Those most likely to strongly oppose included Bull Mountain residents, those who had lived at
their current residence for 3 or fewer years, and/or those who had voted 1 time in the last 4
elections (23%,16%, and 16%, respectively, vs. 9% overall).
Those most likely to strongly support were previously aware of the annexation idea and/or had
an annual household income of over $100,000 (38% and 44%, respectively, vs. 31 % overall).
Over three in four initial strongly oppose respondents maintained their opposition (78%), as did
a majority of initial somewhat oppose respondents (58%). More than two of every three initial
depends/don't know respondents became supportive (68%).
Location
Bull
Tigard Mountain
Total Participants 151 154
Strongly oppose 7% 23%
Somewhat oppose 11 10
Neutral/Don't know 9 16
Somewhat support 39 28
Strongly support 32 22
NA/Refused 1 -
i
i
r
WRIASSOC TFS 16
Q7. Annexation would include Bull Mountain residents in the tax base to help pay
for Tigard's new library building, while all Washington County residents would
continue to pay for library services. Does this individual statement make you
more likely to support or oppose it? (If necessary) Would that be strongly or
somewhat... (Depends on answer) support 1 oppose?
A majority of respondents from Tigard were more likely to support the annexation with this
information about the library issues (79%, with 36% somewhat support and 43% strongly
support). A little over half of Bull Mountain replies were also supportive (52%), considering the
situation with the libraries.
Those most likely to strongly oppose were Bull Mountain residents and/or those aged 55-64
(27% and 18%, respectively, vs. 9% overall).
Respondents most likely to strongly support included those who had lived 10-19 years in their
current residence, those who rent their home, and/or those who had voted 3 times in the last 4
elections (47%, 46%, 47%, and 56%, respectively, vs. 39% overall).
Half of initial strongly oppose respondents maintained their opposition (with 40% strongly
oppose and 10% somewhat oppose), while 72% of initial somewhat oppose respondents
switched over to being supportive. Three in every four initial depends/don't know respondents
became supportive (75%).
Location
Bull
Tigard Mountain
Total Participants 151 154
Strongly oppose 6% 27%
Somewhat oppose 5 12
Neutral/Don't know 9 8
eL Somewhat support 36 36
Strongly support 43 16
NA/Refused 1 1
J
u
J
~RASSOCIAATTESS 17
0 - 0
Q8. Once annexed, new development on Bull Mountain would contribute money
for the development of parks and the preservation of open-spaces. Does this
individual statement make you more likely to support or oppose it? (If necessary)
Would that be strongly/ or somewhat... (Depends on answer) support / oppose?
A vast majority of Tigard respondents were more likely to support the annexation when provided
with the information regarding park and preservation issues (89%, with 44% somewhat support
and 45% strongly support). Nearly three in five Bull Mountain respondents were more
supportive of the annexation when they heard that new development on Bull Mountain would
contribute money for the development of parks and the preservation of open-spaces (57%).
Bull Mountain residents and/or those aged 55-64 were more than likely to strongly oppose (25%
and 12% vs. 6% overall).
A majority of initial strongly oppose respondents maintained their opposition (60%, with 33%
strongly oppose and 27% somewhat oppose). However, 54% of initial somewhat oppose
respondents switched to a supportive view and nearly nine in ten initial depends/don't know
respondents became supportive (88%).
Location
Bull
Tigard Mountain
Total Participants 151 154
Strongly oppose 3% 25%
Somewhat oppose 4 14
Neutral/Don't know 5 4
Somewhat support 44 25
Strongly support 45 32
L
r
p
a
J
J
RILASS OC TEESARCH 18
Q9. Bull Mountain residents would begin to share the cost of providing streets
and roads in Tigard, but would no longer pay Washington County's urban road
maintenance or streetlight district fees. Does this individual statement make you
more likely to support or oppose it? (if necessary) Would that be strongly or
somewhat... (Depends on answer) support / oppose?
A vast majority of Tigard respondents were more likely to support the annexation when provided
with information regarding road maintenance costs (82%). The most popular reply from Bull
Mountain residents was somewhat support (32%), followed by strongly oppose (27%) and
neutral/don't know (16%). This indicates that the population is likely to be split on this issue.
Those most likely to strongly oppose included Bull Mountain residents, those with high school or
less education, and/or those age 65 or over (27%, 13%, and 13%, respectively, vs. 6% overall).
Respondents most likely to strongly support included those who had some college education,
those without kids in the household, and/or those aged 55-64 (35%, 34%, and 34%,
respectively, vs. 28% overall).
Almost three of every four initial strongly oppose respondents maintained their opposition (74%,
with 48% strongly oppose and 26% somewhat oppose). However, over half of initial somewhat
oppose respondents switched to being supportive (51%), as did three in four initial neutral/don't
know respondents (76%).
Location
Bull
Tigard Mountain
Total Participants 151 154
Strongly oppose 3% 27%
Somewhat oppose 5 12
Neutral/Don't know 10 16
Somewhat support 51 32
[ Strongly support 31 12
NA/Refused - 1
i
i
i
i
®RASSOCIATES RESEARCH
19
Q10. As part of Tigard, Bull Mountain residents would gain a higher level of
political representation and would likely see more of their tax dollars used on
local projects vs. countywide projects. Does this individual statement make you
more likely to support or oppose it? (if necessary) Would that be strongly or
somewhat... (Depends on answer) support / oppose?
More than three of every four Tigard respondents were more likely to support the annexation
with this information regarding political representation (78%), while 54% of Bull Mountain
respondents felt this way.
Half of initial strongly oppose respondents maintained their opposition (50%), as did a majority
of initial somewhat oppose respondents (59%). Three in four initial neutral/don't know
respondents became supportive (75%).
Location
Bull
Tigard Mountain
Total Participants 151 154
Strongly oppose 2% 19%
Somewhat oppose 7 14
Neutral/Don't know 13 12
Somewhat support 40 29
Strongly support 38 25
NA/Refused - 1
r
J
D
u
J
IWASSOC RESEARCH 20
Q11. Annexation may occur with majority support from within Tigard, regardless
of whether or not Bull Mountain residents support the Idea. Does this individual
statement make you more likely to support or oppose it? (If necessary) Would
that be strongly or somewhat... (Depends on answer) support / oppose?
Respondents from Tigard were most likely to somewhat oppose (25%), followed by strongly
oppose (23%). However, there was no majority response. Instead, replies were distributed
relatively evenly across the spectrum, thus indicating the likelihood of a split population. Bull
Mountain respondents were predominantly more likely to oppose with this information (76%).
Those most likely to strongly oppose annexation included males, Bull Mountain residents,
and/or respondents with a 4-year degree (35%, 58%, and 34%, respectively, vs. 28% overall).
Those most likely to strongly support had some college education (26% vs. 19% overall).
More than three in every four initial strongly oppose respondents maintained their opposition
(78%, with 60% strongly oppose and 18% somewhat oppose). A majority of initial somewhat
oppose respondents maintained their opposition (63%, with 13% strongly oppose and 50%
somewhat oppose). A majority of initial neutral/don't know respondents became unsupportive
(66%, with 37% strongly oppose and 29% somewhat oppose).
Location
Bull
Tigard Mountain
Total Participants 151 154
Strongly oppose 23% 58%
Somewhat oppose 25 18
Neutral/Don't know 10 9
Somewhat support 21 10
Strongly support 21 5
NA/Refused 1 -
i
i
'r
i
®RASSOCATESRESEARCH 21
Q12. Decisions regarding school boundaries, zoning, and density levels would
stay the same for Tigard and Bull Mountain because the City already manages
these issues. Does this individual statement make you more likely to support or
oppose it? (If necessary) Would that be strongly or somewhat... (Depends on
answer) support / oppose?
A majority of Tigard respondents were more likely to support the annexation knowing that the
decision-making process will stay the same (70%, with 36% somewhat support and 34%
strongly support). Just over half of Bull Mountain respondents were more likely to support the
annexation with this knowledge (51%).
Those most likely to strongly support annexation included renters and/or those who had lived
10-19 years at their current residence (60% and 40% vs. 32% overall).
A majority of initial depends/don't know respondents became supportive (57%, with 35%
somewhat support and 22% strongly support).
Location
Bull
Tigard Mountain
Total Participants 151 154
Strongly oppose 3% 18%
Somewhat oppose 4 3
Neutral/Don't know 24 28
Somewhat support 36 27
Strongly support 34 24
L
k
i
i
'r
i
i
®RIAS80C SEARCH 22
Q13. Annexation would result in a higher level of code enforcement for Bull
Mountain residents. Does this individual statement make you more likely to
support or oppose it? (If necessary) Would that be strongly or somewhat...
(Depends on answer) support / oppose?
A majority of Tigard respondents were more likely to support the annexation with this
information about the level of code enforcement (59%). The most popular reply from Bull
Mountain respondents was strongly oppose (25%), followed by somewhat support and neutral
or don't know (21 % and 20%, respectively).
Those most likely to strongly support annexation had an annual household income of over
$100,000 and/or voted 3 times in the last 4 elections (42% and 35%, respectively, vs. 26%
overall).
A majority of initial strongly oppose respondents maintained their opposition (63%, with 34%
strongly oppose and 29% somewhat oppose), while a majority of initial neutral/don't know
respondents became supportive (55%).
Location
Bull
Tigard Mountain
Total Participants 151 154
Strongly oppose 3% 25%
Somewhat oppose 7 18
Neutral/Don't know 31 20
Somewhat support 31 21
Strongly support 28 14
NA/Refused - 1
L
_2
M
3
7
u
J
ORRILEY RESEARCH
Assoc TES 23
Q14. Now, having heard a variety of issues discussed, would you say that you
strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose, or strongly oppose the
annexation of Bull Mountain?
After hearing about the issues, four of every five Tigard respondents were supportive of the
annexation (80%), while a majority of Bull Mountain were still opposed to the annexation (53%).
Bull Mountain residents and/or respondents aged 55-64 were more likely to strongly oppose
annexation, compared to their respective counterparts (37% and 18% vs. 10% overall).
Four support groups could be seen within the Tigard population - respondents with higher
annual household incomes, those who were previously aware of the possibility of annexation,
"younger" respondents and those with children in the household. Respondents in the 18-24 age
group showed the highest level of post-tradeoff support (87%), which decreased to 74% among
those 65 and over. Nearly nine in ten parents with kids at home also showed support (88% vs.
77%).
Among Bull Mountain residents, no statistically valid demographic differences appeared to
differentiate supporters from non-supporters.
A majority of initial strongly oppose respondents maintained their opposition (76%), as did a
majority of initial somewhat oppose respondents (61%). A little more than two in every three
initial depends/don't know respondents became supportive (67%), while a vast majority of initial
somewhat and strongly support respondents maintained their support (95% and 92%,
respectively).
Location
Bull
Tigard Mountain
Total Participants 151 154
Strongly oppose 5% 37%
r Somewhat oppose 9 16
» Depends/Don't know 6 10
Somewhat support 43 29
Strongly support 37 8
6
9
u
®ASSOCIARESEARCH
TES 24
Q15. Which of the issues are most important to your decision? (Or) What other
comments or questions do you have?
All responses are listed below.
Strongly oppose
Tigard:
The issue that it could be decided weather or not Bull Mountain wants to or not
Being in city limits
The free exercise of the Bull Mountain rights, they should be the ones to say they want to be annexed
Taxes to the City of Tigard
I'm afraid it would increase my share of taxes
The environment being able to stay less crowded
I'm not well read on this problem
Bull Mountain:
Higher taxes (21)
None (8)
School issues (4)
Quality of service provided (3)
Additional costs (3)
The issue of increasing the tax base
The Tigard residents can vote it in without my approval--that is not right
Using the increased tax revenue for non-essential things like parks, recreation and libraries is not
necessary; we need a smaller, not a larger, government
I would pay the taxes if I would receive the value, but there is no value
Code enforcement; Tigard police in Bull Mountain; cost of streets; new Tigard library
Tigard city hall is not efficient at all
Do not want another layer of government
The addition of another bureaucracy
Control of city
And the city would be involved with how we live, I am happy the way things are, And I love my privacy,
And if we become part of the city we lose all control
Laws, I just don't like the way Tigard handles things
I don't like the way Tigard handles money, and I don't care for the city services
I don't like the idea of having our neighborhood now turning into an apartment; it is just getting ridiculous
L My biggest issue is with the city's road department
C 1 think it should only be up to Bull Mountain weather they should be annexed
Oppose it because I think there putting parks , schools in front of everything
Tigard can go to hell
It's all about the money, why should we have to pay for something that's not better
J I have worked with the City of Tigard in the past
I hope it never happens
7 I don't think it will help me at all
j I like having the farmland designation on Bull Mountain I like it zoned the way it is
The businesses that are allowed in residential areas - the whole mess is a joke
Like it the way it is
We like the way it is now under Washington County
Don't know/Need more information
EMRASSOCRESEARCH 25
Q15. Which of the issues are most important to your decision? (Or) What other
comments or questions do you have? (continued)
I would have to find out what increases will be made and what services I possibly will lose
I've considered the questions and I feel that we receive enough benefits for what we pay and oppose any
annexation
Somewhat oppose
Tigard:
Taxes (4)
Money--it's not fair that they are going to make Bull Mountain residents pay for this (2)
Schools and police
I think Tigard has enough issues to worry about before annexing Bull Mountain
I don't like Tigard planning; it allows too much development
Bull Mountain should have total say in weather they should be annexed or not
I think it should be up to Bull Mountain residents
I don't see that the financial benefits are equivalent to the increased population density and development
of Bull Mountain
Its family that has farms that don't want to be annexed, I seen enough farms destroyed
None in particular
Bull Mountain:
Tax increases (6)
None (4)
Need more information - cost/pros and cons (4)
Density/There's been way too much development already (3)
Mainly my decision is based on value, I don't mind paying higher taxes, but I need to know if it is actually
worth it
It needs a real comparison, pros and cons. I need to look into further before I decide
None in particular, except I don't know if I like the city services
The city of Tigard gets to make the decision of whether or not we are annexed. That's the hardest part
for me to understand. Nothing changes for them, only for us
The sheriff provides better coverage than the Tigard Police. Also, I have questions regarding the sewer
issue
Services
The parks and the tree issues
In my past experience it wasn't a fair trade
I'm completely in favor
L
r Depends/Don't know
Tigard:
None (3)
1 I'm in favor of whatever Bull Mountain residents want
I'm still neutral about the whole thing
I don't think I have enough information to decide
The people of Bull Mountain should have the right to vote for the annexation themselves
J
I don't have an opinion
I would have to know about what the Bull Mountain people think.
M / RILEY RESEARCH
M ASSOCIATES 26
Q15. Which of the issues are most important to your decision? (Or) What other
comments or questions do you have? (continued)
Bull Mountain:
How much will my tax increase (4)
The ratio of tax increase vs. service increase
I don't know it depends on the amount of money
I would like to see some type of mailing on the information that would address these issues - the people
that would be affected by this
I think that the parks would be good
Don't blow a lot of money on open spaces
It would be nice if the will of the people could override the politicians
Will the school boundaries stay the same
Will it impact our utilities--who will take care of them
What benefits would I receive for being annexed as a property owner
All of them
Some suppo
Tigard:
None (18)
Tax issues (9)
Bull Mountain residents should have a say in the matter (9)
Tax base (6)
Since they benefit from the services of the city of Tigard they should pay for them (4)
1 want to know if the population of Bull Mountain would oppose it, and what would be their reasons
Why does the city think it should be annexed in
I think the main thing that makes me support it would be that school districts stay the same and that their
tax dollars go toward local improvements instead county projects
I feel bad, that the deer that used to run in my front yard, now don't come here any more
Environmental question to provide parks and green space
I'm retired and I really enjoy open spaces and parks.
I'm concerned that we are going to stretch our town too big, although I understand we have more people
supporting city services
The people being incorporated recognizing the benefits of annexation; it would be beneficial because they
are close to Tigard
They're close enough to Tigard to be a part of it
I think Bull Mountain should be more involved with Tigard
Make sure Bull Mountain has full rights and privileges
L Concerned about extra burden on Tigard police
1C It would be a win win situation, if they were to become one
Political representation is important and I don't think we should not be spending 14 million on the Tigard
library.
Neither - all the issues are important
Need a lot more information, where money is coming from, how big of annexation
0 Codes
9
u
Bull Mountain:
Tigard police in Bull Mountain (10)
Money for parks (9)
None (7)
®RASSO~t RESEARCH
FSS 27
Q15. Which of the issues are most important to your decision? (Or) What other
comments or questions do you have? (continued)
How much are my taxes going to go up (5)
Additional services (4)
Streets and roads (4)
The new library (3)
Schools issues (3)
1 want the school district to stay the same (2)
1 would like to see more of my tax dollars put into public education (2)
Code enforcement will be better (2)
School boundaries should change
School boundaries
1 don't want property taxes increased. The tax dollar would stay in the area
Tax dollars going to the local area instead of the county
I just want to see the area stay the same as much as possible, but I am for doing my part for the services
I benefit from
How effective of spending
I also think both towns should be cohesive
My concern would be that we should have a say in the matter
Need more information about this
Can we get streetlights
The way the city manages the density levels
The development of Bull Mountain
I think the counties are out of control in regulation and I am in favor of local control
Generally better property value as a result
They are all equally important
Strongly support
Tigard:
None (19)
Tax base increase (12)
If they're going to use the services, they should be part of the city and pay their fair share of the load (6)
Tigard policelfire in Bull Mountain (5)
Bull Mountain needs to be involved in streets and road improvements (4)
Part of the community geographically (3)
Tax money for parks (2)
Bull Mountain should pay for the new library (2)
School boundaries
I: 1 support the schools; they should have not closed the schools in Tigard in poorer districts for the Bull
Mountain schools
Schools
I think that they need to be apart of the community both socially and economically.
All of the issues matter, I think they're all good ideas
Only if the bull mountain people agree
Giving Tigard the growth
j I believe that annexing Bull Mountain would benefit the city of Tigard
I thought they were already annexed
I hope I don't have to pay too many taxes
Will maintenance work be done on Bull Mountain Road or other side streets
More everything
MRILEY
ASSOC~FS RESEARCH 28
Q15. Which of the issues are most important to your decision? (Or) What other
comments or questions do you have? (continued)
Bull Mountain:
The police protection (4)
All of the services available (3)
1 would like to know the difference in coverage of Tigard police vs, enhanced sheriff patrols
To have the bus service in the area
My only concern is that my kids will still go to Beaverton
School boundaries are my number one issue - when is it being discussed
Road maintenance
The decision to concentrate their tax money locally
I like the library that we will be using
I want to more of a part of the community, I think we should pull together more
a
ac
00
w
J
pp~~RILEY RESEARCH 29
fL2ASSOCIATES
DEMOGRAPHICS
0 16. How do you generally learn what's going on in local government? (Unaided
- Multiple responses allowed)
Location
Bull
Tigard Mountain
Total Participants 151 154
Oregonian 56% 57%
Tigard Times 48 38
TV News 22 23
Cityscape Newsletter 21 18
Word-of-mouth 20 16
County newsletters 5 5
Internet/Web 2 3
KLlIK Radio 2 1
NPR/OPB 1 3
Public access TV 3 -
Don't know - 5
Refused 1 3
Miscellaneous 7 6
Miscellaneous:
Town Hall meetings (3)
AM 620 (2)
KEX 1190 (2)
Portland Tribune (2)
AM 750
KPAM (radio)
860
Neighborhood newsletter
1 Senior center newsletter
Regal currier
Wall Street Journal
City Council meetings
CPO monthly
I ignore local government
I participate
My wife
Personal involvement
We have a lawyer who attends every meeting and keeps us informed
Assoc s RESEARCH 30
M
Q17. Flow long have you lived at your current residence?
Location
Bull
Tigard Mountain
Total Participants 151 154
3 years or less 11% 20%
4-9 years 30 36
10-19 years 26 22
20 years or more 32 18
Refused 1 3
Q18. And do you rent or own your home?
Location
Bull
Tigard Mountain
Total Participants 151 154
Rent 11% 6%
Own 87 90
Refused 2 4
i
i
P RSSOCRIATESEARCFZ 31
Q19. What is the highest level of education you have had the opportunity to
complete?
Location
Bull
Tigard Mountain
Total Participants 151 154
High School or less 17% 7%
Some College/Trade School 22 23
4-year College degree 39 47
Graduate School/more 20 18
Refused 3 5
020. Do you have children under age 18 living in your household?
Location
Bull
Tigard Mountain
Total Participants 151 154
Yes 32% 42%
No 66 55
CL Refused 1 3
EiC
d
U)
W
J
M RASSOC~~ ctt 32
021. And finally, If you don't mind my asking, into which of the following
categories does your annual household income fall? (Read list)
Location
Bull
Tigard Mountain
Total Participants 151 154
Under $25,000 3% 1%
$25-$50,000 18 6
$50-$75,000 19 11
$75-$100,000 11 18
$100-$150,000 9 16
Over $150,000 5 10
Don't know/Refused 35 38
Gender
Location
Bull
Tigard Mountain
Total Participants 151 154
Female 59% 52%
6 Male 41 48
ASSOCIATES 33
Age
Location
Bull
Tigard Mountain
Total Participants 151 154
18-24 3% 2%
25-34 7 7
35-44 15 20
45-54 25 30
55-64 17 24
65+ 31 17
Refused 1
n
U
J
®RILEY RESEARCH 34
ASSOCIATES
Voter precinct (From list):
Location
Bull
Tigard Mountain
Total Participants 151 154
397 - 50%
400 9 -
402 2 -
403 18 -
404 15 -
405 15 -
406 13 -
408 17 -
409 6 -
410 - 36
414 - 14
416 6 -
Record times voted (Among General and Primary, 1998 & 2000)
Location
Bull
Tigard Mountain
L Total Participants 151 154
C
One (1) 13% 18%
Two (2) 11 16
i Three (3) 23 27
Four (4) 47 32
None (0) 7 8
Mean 3.1 2.8
MASS oc~~ cx 35
APPENDIX
City of Tigard /Washington County
Bull Mountain Annexation
Public Attitude Survey July 9, 2002 (Version 4 - Final)
Introduction
Hello, my name is of Riley Research Associates, a local polling firm. Is available? We are calling
on behalf of the City of Tigard and Washington County to listen to your thoughts regarding the potential
annexation of the Bull Mountain neighborhood into the City of Tigard, including those areas of Bull Mountain
not already within the city limits. (IF NECESSARY) Are you 18 or older? (IF UNDER 18) Is there an adult
available? (IF NO TIME) When would be a good time to call back?
ENTER VOTER PRECINCT (FROM LIST): _ '410 will only partially be included.
(IF TIGARD) According to our records, you currently reside within the boundaries of the City of Tigard. Is that
correct? (IF NO - POLITELY DISCONTINUE) Yes -1
(IF BULL MOUNTAIN) According to our records, you currently reside in the unincorporated Bull Mountain area.
Is that correct? (IF NO - POLITELY DISCONTINUE) Yes -1
(IF BULL MOUNTAIN AND PRECINCT #410) May I have your nearest cross streets?
Awareness
Q1. Before this call, were you aware that the City of Tigard and Washington County were exploring the idea of
Tigard annexing the Bull Mountain area?
Yes -1 No -2 Refused -9
Q2. (IF AWARE) From what you may have heard... (IF UNAWARE) would you say that you strongly support,
somewhat support, somewhat oppose, or strongly oppose the annexation of Bull Mountain?
Strongly slfpport -5 Some support -4 (Depends/Don't Know) -3 Some oppose -2 Strongly oppose -1 (Ref) -9
Q3 Why is that?
Q4 What questions or concerns do you currently have about the annexation?
Scenario Testing
Washington County, Bull Mountain residents, and the City of Tigard have discussed the possibility of
annexing those parts of Bull Mountain not already within city limits into the City of Tigard, making
them an official part of the city's population. Such annexation would involve a number of tradeoffs.
I'm going to read a list of some of those tradeoffs, and after each one I'd like to know whether it
makes you more likely to support or oppose the annexation.
How would you react to the following (READ AND ROTATE LIST) Does this individual statement
make you more likely to support annexation or oppose it? (AFTER EACH) Would that be strongly or
somewhat (support/oppose)?
• RILEY RESEARCH
®ASSOCIATFS
Strong Some Neutral/ Some Strong NA/
Support Support OK Oppose Oppose Refused
Q5. Annexation would increase property taxes 5 4 3 2 1 9
for Bull Mountain residents to pay for their share
of city services.
Q6. Annexation would replace the Enhanced 5 4 3 2 1 9
Sheriffs Patrol with Tigard police for Bull
Mountain and eliminate the Enhanced Sheriff
Patrol tax
Q7. Annexation would include BM residents in 5 4 3 2 1 9
the tax base to help pay for Tigard's new library
building, while all Washington County residents
would continue to pay for library services
Q8. Once annexed, new development on BM 5 4 3 2 1 9
would contribute money for the development of
parks and preservation of open-spaces
Q9. Bull Mountain residents would begin to 5 4 3 2 1 9
share the cost of providing streets and roads in
Tigard, but would no longer pay Washington
County's urban road maintenance or streetlight
district fees
Q10. As part of Tigard, BM residents would gain 5 4 3 2 1 9
a higher level of political representation and
would likely see more of their tax dollars used on
local projects vs. countywide projects
Q11. Annexation may occur with majority 5 4 3 2 1 9
support from within Tigard, regardless of
whether or not Bull Mountain residents support
the idea
012. Decisions regarding school boundaries, 5 4 3 2 1 9
zoning, and density levels would stay the same
for Tigard and BM because the City already
manages these issues
Q13. Annexation would result in a higher level of 5 4 3 2 1 9
code enforcement for BM residents
Q14. Now, having heard a variety of tine issues discussed, would you say that you strongly support,
somewhat support, somewhat oppose, or strongly oppose the annexation of Bull Mountain?
Strongly support -5 Some support -4 (Depends/Don't Know) -3 Some oppose -2 Strongly
oppose -1 (Ref) -9
Q15. Which of the issues are most important to your decision? (Or) What other comments or
questions do you have?
• RILEY RESEARCH
rXIIASSOCIATES
Communications & Demographics
Q16. How do you generally learn what's going on in local government? (DO NOT READ LIST)
Tigard Times -01 Word-of-mouth -06 KKCW/K103 -11
Noticias en -02 Internet/Web -07 NPR/OPB -12
Espanol
Oregonian -03 KUIK Radio -08 Cityscape -13
Newsletter
El Hispanic -04 Public access TV -09 Don't know -18
County -05 TV News -10 Refused -19
newsletters
Other (list): -20
Q17. How long have you lived at your current residence? years ("01" for <one
year/"99"=Ref)
Q18. And do you rent or own your home? Rent-1 Own -2 Refused -9
Q19. What is the highest level of education you have had the opportunity to complete?
High school or less -1 4-year College -3 Refused -9
Some college/trade -2 Graduate school/more -4
Q20. Do you have children under age 18 living in your household? Yes -1 No -2 Refused -9
Q21. And finally, if you don't mind my asking, into which of the following categories does your annual
household income fall? (READ LIST)
Under $25,000 -1 $50-$75,000 -3 $100-$150,000 -5 DK / Refused -9
$25-$50,000 .2 $75-$100,000 -4 Over $150,000 -6
That concludes our survey. On behalf of the City of Tigard and Washington County, I would
like to thank you very much for your participation!
Q22. RECORD GENDER (Don't ask) 275: Female -1 Male - 2
i Q23. RECORD AGE:
r 18-24 -1 25-34 -2 35-44 -3 45-54 -4 55-64 -5 65+ -6 Refused -9
Q24. RECORD TIMES VOTED (In General & Primary, 1998 & 2000):
1
0
Phone number:
Interviewer name:
M RILEY RESEARCH
ASSOCIATES
THE BULL MOUNTAIN
ANNEXATION STUDY
CITY OF TIGARD
Community Development
Shaping A Better Community
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
LONG-RANGE PLANNING
NOVEMBER 2001
L
fL
H
_J
5
W
A
THE BULL MOUNTAIN
ANNEXATION STUDY
PRODUCED BY:
THE CITY OF TIGARD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
DIRECTOR, JAMES N.P. HENDRYl
LONG-RANGE PLANNING
BARBARA SHIELDS, LONG-RANGE PLANNING MANAGER
JULIA HAJDUK, ASSOCIATE PLANNER
JOEL GROVES, GIS SPECIALIST
BETH ST. AMAND, ASSISTANT PROJECT MANAGER
JODI BUCHANAN, INTERN
NOVEMBER 27, 2001
i
CITY OF TIGARD
13125 SW HALL BLVD.
TIGARD, OR 97223
503/639-4171
THE BULL MOUNTAIN
ANNEXATION STUDY
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION P. 1
1. STUDY AREA PROFILE P. 2
2. URBAN SERVICES IN THE STUDY AREA P. 6
3. COSTS AND REVENUE OF ANNEXATION
UNDER CURRENT CONDITIONS - SCENARIO 1 P. 9
4. COSTS AND REVENUE OF ANNEXATION
LONG TERM CONDITIONS - SCENARIOS 2 AND 3 P. 12
5. ANNEXATION AND TAXATION P. 17
6. CONCLUSIONS AND KEY POLICY ISSUE P. 18
A P P E N D I C E S
APPENDIX A. COST AND REVENUE ANALYSIS BY SUBAREAS
APPENDIX B. SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
APPENDIX C. COST AND REVENUE ANALYSIS BY FUNDS
APPENDIX D. ANNEXATION AND TAXATION
APPENDIX E. METHODS OF ANNEXATION
Eti
APPENDIX F. BULL MOUNTAIN ANNEXATION QUESTION AND ANSWER
PACKET
`J APPENDIX G: RESIDENTIAL GARBAGE COLLECTION RATES FOR THE BULL
MOUNTAIN STUDY AREA
W
J
E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y
Since adoption of the City of Tigard's Comprehensive Plan in the mid-1980s, the Bull Mountain area
has been identified as eventually being within the City limits of Tigard. In 1993, the State Legislature
passed Senate Bill 122, which required the coordination and provision of urban services for lands
within the Urban Growth Boundary. In 1997, Tigard and Washington County entered into an urban
services agreement that transferred land development and building permit activity to the City.
The Tigard City Council established a goal for 2001 to establish an annexation policy for non-island
areas, such as Bull Mountain, and directed staff to study the feasibility of annexing the Bull
Mountain area. "The Bull Mountain Annexation Study" is an outcome of Council's direction.
"The Bull Mountain Annexation Study" provides a context for policy issues related to annexation of
Bull Mountain.
Since the demand for services and generated revenue is dependent on the number of people living in
the area, the study examines the costs and revenues of annexation based on growth scenarios. Three
growth scenarios were developed for the purpose of this study: current conditions (Scenario 1),
buildout (Scenario 2) and moderate development (Scenario 3).
A comparative analysis of the three scenarios constitutes the quintessential portion of this study.
Scenario 1 assumes that no future growth occurs in the area and is used as a starting point for a
comparative analysis. Scenario 2 assumes that all buildable land will be developed and built out at
the maximum densities under current land use regulations. Scenario 3 assumes that development will
occur at lower density (50% of the "buildout" growth). While Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 reflect two
extreme conditions for comparison purposes, Scenario 3 provides a conservative estimate of what
could occur in the study area.
A capital improvement funding strategy for roads and parks is the key policy issues in all three
scenarios. The estimated need to provide an adequate level of service for parks and roads is the most
critical aspect in evaluating the Bull Mountain annexation issues. Furthermore, the projected park
and transportation improvement costs exceed the projected revenues in the three scenarios.
This report does not contain a fully developed strategy addressing the funding issues. However, it
does identify the discussion parameters to provide a context for the decision making process. A
possible strategy would consist of a variety of alternatives, as identified in Section 6 of the report:
r
Use a portion of the General Fund to address capital improvements.
• Assistance from Washington County to address some or all of the capital improvement needs.
• Form Local Improvement Districts to address specific capital improvement needs, such as parks
and roads.
Delay improvement of streets until funding sources are available.
• Obtain grant fundings to address portions of capital improvements.
• Identify the effective sequence of annexing specific sub-areas of Bull Mountain.
The study identifies several alternatives and policy choices for Council's review and discussion over
the next few months. Public outreach must follow. Ultimately, annexation of the Bull Mountain
study area is a policy issue that deserves considerable discussion by the City and those people most
affected.
INTRODUCTION
One of the Tigard City Council Goals is to provide urban services to all citizens within Tigard's
urban growth boundary and that recipients of services pay their share. In March 2001, the Tigard
City Council directed staff to conduct a study of the Bull Mountain area (see map on page 2) to help
Council evaluate policy recommendations related to annexation of the Bull Mountain area. The
purpose of this study is to determine if the City of Tigard should pursue annexation based on an
analysis of annexation's costs and benefits to both the City and current Bull Mountain residents.
In order to be assured this study addressed the concerns of Bull Mountain residents, the City and
Washington County held a Focus Group meeting in July 2001, The Focus Group meeting gave
residents an opportunity to ask questions related to the Bull Mountain area. The meeting was
attended by over 100 people and provided a direct input to the scope of the study. As an outcome
of this effort, two documents were initiated. The first is "The Bull Mountain Annexation Study,"
and the second is the "Bull Mountain Annexation Question and Answer Packet."
The study report is divided into six main sections.
Section 1 provides background and a current profile of the study area in terms of
population, development and zoning.
Section 2 provides information on the levels of urban services provided to study area
residents.
Sections 3 & 4 examine the costs and revenues of annexation based on three growth
scenarios: current conditions, buildout, and moderate development.
Section 5 provides information on how annexation will affect taxation rates for
residents, and how it will affect expenditures and revenues for the City.
Section 6 summarizes the findings and raises key policy issues for Council to consider.
Appendices A through F provide detailed background information, which was used
in preparing the report and the "Bull Mountain
Annexation Question and Answer Packet."
t)il~\#f4! !t 20M ~.I{! li! i t Z~~i { 11~• A'.,i.~';11~>"~ `-i~
1. STUDY AREA PROFILE
The Bull Mountain Study Area consists of approximately 1,440 acres of land located west of the City
of Tigard (see map below) in Washington County, within the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). The
Study Area abuts Beaverton and Tigard on the north and east, respectively, King City to the
southeast, and unincorporated County land outside the Urban Growth Boundary to the south and
west.
The land in the Study Area is sloped-
steeply in some areas-allowing for views Bull Mt Study Area Vicinity Map
at higher elevations. Traditionally a
farming area, the last decade brought
additional home developments to the area. Portland
Today, both farms and subdivisions co- Beaverton
exist here. Although the identified area is
now outside the City limits, the City of
Tigard provides many urban services to Tigard
residents. In 1997, the City of Tigard and
Washington County entered into an Urban
Services Agreement, which transferred Lake
responsibility for land use decisions, Bull Mt Study Area Oswego
building and development-related
engineering to the City of Tigard. The
County adopted the City of Tigard Tualatin
Community Development Code for the Pn,e,o«,~ ~h._~,
`J CRY OF iIOARD
Bull Mountain area, which applies
standards to any new development in the area.'
Currently, approximately 7,300 people live in the Study Area, according to 2000 Census data. There
is no commercial or industrial zoned land in the Study Area. Most of the property is zoned R-7, a
medium density residential zone requiring lots of a minimum of 5,000 square feet. The area consists
of a combination of (1) a mix of larger undeveloped lots, (2) larger lots developed through the
L County under different standards, and (3) smaller lots that are built to the minimum density allowed
2 under the current zoning regulations.
0
Given the existing development pattern and topography, this study divides the Bull Mountain area
into 4 subareas: North, South, East and West (see map, next page).
0
Section 2 of this report further discusses current and anticipated service provisions for the Study Area.
No" I "tits p ._001 1'111 1 , i N1 ~I , \ i i P , ,r _
[ASULL MOUNTAIN
Sub Areas Ma
~Tli
t „ ~,n I ' ,~tt,~ f'lll l~latll'NN
]Eii~{,Lltfllfllq u
1Cf~~ { {ItiU' i F tIf'IT
~i lulifUl(' >fh~ t plat yt{tii~{~ 5
AqNT t~ 11 ~ 1 111ulm+rff t)E1.! tl i11[4[iu~ ~
IP 11 1 11a
klal'~ i~
u 11L'IIFCT~ I]t" I ni 1 I, L ;l
-1j l
4 I "I}ry' )1 (t il}l kr)J
E }'~u ! A p t . rrlt~T-
1' rC)C➢7itL GC S `~krl~7t Olaf i l
LL -;,"r,
tt , it L'l lirf 'r iT` t J~ \r}~ 4 r" i
' ~ i tale ~F,~F
Goo o sm Flod
0.
IH
_J
m
W
J
I ifl, iii
,'V(J~V AlliLlt?U41I j,j
North
This subarea is located south of Barrows Road, north of Baker Lane and Roshak Road, cast
of the urban growth boundary and west of the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA)
easement line. The North area consists of approximately 383 acres and a population of
2,813. This area has a combination of R-7, R-12 and R-25 zoning; however, all of the
higher-density (R-25) residential lots were developed as single-family home subdivisions.
While there are several larger lots, there are very few redevelopable or vacant lots in this area
due to steep slopes. This area is largely built out with only about 10% of the area identified
as vacant or redevelopable. Based on the household growth rate of 2.2% identified by Metro,
it is estimated that this area will be built out in 4.5 years.
West
The western subarea is bordered on the south and west by the Urban Growth Boundary. It
is bordered on the east by SW 150`h and to the north by Roshak Road and Baker Lane. The
western area consists of approximately 259 acres with 944 people. The majority of the area
has been developed with large lot subdivisions, which are not expected to be divided further.
However, 15.3% of the land in this area is identified as vacant or redevelopable. The zoning
in this area is R-7 (medium density residential). Based on the 2.2% household growth rate
identified by Metro, it is estimated that this area will be built out in 6.9 years.
South
This subarea is generally located west of SW Peachtree, east of SW 150", north of Beef Bend
Road and south of High Tor Drive. The southern area consists of approximately 507 acres
of land and 3,077 people. The zoning is primarily R-7 (medium density residential) with a
small portion of R-25 (medium-high density residential) to the south between Foxglove #2
subdivision and Beef Bend Heights. Many of the subdivisions were developed with large lots
that are not expected to be divided further; as a result, this area has larger lots with only
limited infifl potential. This area has about 10.6% vacant or redevelopable land. Based on
the 2.2% household growth rate identified by Metro, it is estimated that this area will be built
cut in 4.8 years.
East
This area is generally located east of the Mountain Gate subdivision, south of Bull Mountain
Road and north of Beef Bend Road. The eastern area consists of approximately 282 acres
with 434 people. This area has most of the Study Area's growth potential, with almost 40
percent of the land identified as vacant or redevelopable. The zoning is R-7, which calls for
a minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet. Based on the 2.2% household growth rate identified
by Metro, it is estimated that this area will be built out in 18 years.
i
I
ovi:.yti .'t,11001 lit )).Vol ^.rvI i ir~
Table 1, Bull Mountain Study Area Profile
Hull Mountain Study Area Profile
Study Area is 1,440 ac, or 2.25 sq miles, or 62,726,400 square feet"
Total Assessed Acres is 1130 ac or 1.77 sq miles
North West South East Total'•
Total Acreage 383.8 259 507.41 282. 1432.5
Total Population 2000 Census 2813 944 307 434 72681
Median Avera a Household Size 2.85 3.00 3.061 1.8 2.92
Number of Housing Units 948 331 110 16 Total Assessed Value (Bldg and land)* 98 668,803.00 02 772 030.00 261 492 712.00 61,350 130.0 Median Assessed Value bld and land 174,440.00 215,960.0 239,550.0 283,760.% Remainin for Develo ment % 15.3% 10.6°/ 39.9Projected Rate of Po ulation Growth 2.0% 2.0% 2.0°/ 2.0Projected Timeline to Reach Buildou 4.5 years 6.9 years 4.8 years 18 years
Data from Magic, Sept. 2001, which reflects Wash. Cty. Tax Assessor's records.
Note: Subarea totals do not add up to the overall total due to scale; these are only approximations
This total is less than the 2143 from the overall calcuation; this reflects rounding down
Also, please note that GIs sq ft was used, which is not as accurate as surveyors measurements.
All square footage is approximated.
1 From Metro's Data Resource Center. 2 Also from Metro. Based on household growth rate for the City of Tigard at 2.2 percent.
The above table provides a general overview of the Bull Mountain area by four subareas.
The following is a summary of the major assumptions and sources, which were utilized in preparing
Table 1-
• population, housing unit and household data were obtained from Census 2000 information;
• land data and assessed value information were obtained from the City's MAGIC GIS system,
which uses Washington County Tax Assessor data;
• the growth projections utilize Metro's 2.2 percent growth rate for households or housing units, and
2.0 percent for population.; this rate could vary based on the economy and other factors;'
• "I?edevelopable land" refers to partially developed lots; these large lots are not built to minimum
density, and could potentially be subdivided for "infill."
L
r
3
0
9
u
2 The City has approved approximately eight subdivisions in this area with approximately 432 lots total. All lots and
infrastructure in these subdivisions were built to City standards. It is not anticipated that growth will continue at this
rate, however. Therefore, for this study, the Metro assumptions of 2% were used to develop future populadon
forecasts, and 2.2% for future housing units.
i` o%flr113IA. -2001 1111 lit 1-M (11 `,I !I', ~~`•.'~.I'~lIfW, if', 1 °1
2 . URBAN S E R V I C E S IN T H E
STUDY AREA
As stated earlier, although the Study Area lies in unincorporated Washington County, the City of
Tigard already provides some urban services to residents. In 1997, the City of Tigard and
Washington County entered into an Urban Services Agreement, which transferred responsibility for
land use decisions, building and development-related engineering to the City of Tigard. The
remainder of the Study Area's services are provided by either Washington County or regional service
agencies, such as Clean Water Services, etc. Table 2, next page, identifies each service for the Study
Area, the current provider, and compares the current level of services to the projected level of
services under annexation.
l
G
i
i
i
NO" \ml 1(20(11 (111 Iii 11,)If); `,i 1t`-.'\""iA\iiWi` 1,11 1
j''E 1 It
Table 2: Service Provision in the Bull Mountain Study Area
service Provider Today UnderAnnexation Change In,
Service upon
annexedon?
Police Washington County provides The City of Tigard would provide Yes
1.0 officers/ 1000 people 1.5 officers/ 1000 people There would be
(.5 standard;.5 from Enhanced Patrol) an increase of
approximately
.5 officers/1000
people
Fire/Rescue Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue provides Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue No
services. continues to provide services.
Parks Washington County does not provide Tigard's Parks standard is 7.65 acres Yes
parks services. for every 1,000 residents. This The City
includes Greenways, trails, open provides park
space and improved parks. Until services.
parks could be provided in Bull
Mountain, the City ratio would be
approximately 6.74/1000.
General Road Washington County through the Urban The City's road maintenance Yes
Maintenance Road Maintenance District. General performs maintenance on regular The City
street maintenance by the County is schedules as well as on a complaint- provides
primarily on a complaint-driven basis. driven basis. Typical maintenance additional road
Typical maintenance activities include: activities include: maintenance
services.
• pothole patching • pothole patching
• grading graveled roads • grading graveled roads
• cleaning drainage facilities • cleaning drainage facilities
• street sweeping • street sweeping
• mowing roadside grass and brush • mowing roadside grass and
(only the shoulder strip) brush (shoulder strip + ditch
• maintaining traffic signals line)
• replacing damaged signs • maintaining traffic signals
• replacing damaged signs
• installing and replacing street
. markings
• crack sealing
• vegetation removal for vision
clearance
• street light tree trimming for
light clearance
• dust abatement on graveled
roads
Sanitary Sewer Clean Water Services (CWS) The City of Tigard will meet the No
same level of service as CWS. All
service levels for CWS and
surrounding jurisdictions must be
uniform by July 2003.
F
ti~)lv,imm,id,i)iIl i''.G,!
Storm Sewer Clean Water Services (CWS) The City of Tigard will meet the No
same level of service as CWS. All
service levels for CWS and
surrounding jurisdictions must be
uniform by July 2003.
Water Intergovernmental Water Board Service remains the same. Tigard No
contracts with the Tigard Water District Water District will continue to
to provide water. provide water but will bill directly.
Street Light Washington County administers The City of Tigard will assume all Service remains
Maintenance Service Districts for Lighting for PGE. street light operations and the same but
Residents pay an annual operations and maintenance for existing lights, property owners
maintenance assessment. Residents do not pay a separate are not assessed
assessment. for the
operation of the
lights.
Community The City of Tigard provides building The City of Tigard will continue to Only change in
Development and services-including land use decisions, provide building services to this area. service is that
Building Services building and engineering-under an the City reviews
intergovernmental agreement with All land use decisions will continue legislative
Washington County, to be reviewed under the City matters.
standards and through the City's
All land use decisions are reviewed hearing process. The City would be
under the City standards and through the review authority for legislative
the City's hearing process with the actions as well (zone changes,
exception of legislative actions (zone comprehensive plan amendments,
changes, Comprehensive Plan etc).
amendments, etc.)
Library Washington County Cooperative The City of Tigard, which receives No
Library Services (WCCLS) approximately 62% of its funding
Consortium, which provides funding through the WCCLS. Bull Mountain
through the county tax to area libraries, residents would have influence on
including Tigard. the library's services, and could
advocate for the services they want.
Schools Both the Beaverton School District and Annexation does not change school No
the Tigard School District provide district boundaries.
service based on district boundaries.
3
Garbage Collection Residents are charged rates established The City franchises City garbage Service remains
by Washington County for service collection, and the Bull Mountain the same, but
provided by Pride, Residents pay the area would become part of the rates will differ.
fee depending on the size of container franchised area. The service provider See Appendix
they use. remains the same but residents would G for rates.
be charged the rates established by
City Council based on the size of the
container the use.
yri; F:'iHit f~ >(N)1 i'I ~t. lti r,, ,,Ini I ,I,,
1' `.b t ~n~, t ~ -i i' ?~,1
3. COSTS AND REVENUE OF
ANNEXATION UNDER C U R R E N T
CONDITIONS - SCENARIO 1
Introduction
The previous section showed how annexation would affect services in the Bull Mountain area;
however, there are additional considerations affecting the City's decision to annex. The City must
also project the study area's demand for services and the cost and revenue of providing those
services.
The following section looks closely at the City's projected revenues and costs to serve the study area
if it were annexed in the near future. For estimation purposes, this scenario (Scenario 1) assumes
that all currently approved subdivision lots will be built with no future growth occurring. While it is
highly unlikely that no further land development will occur, this scenario creates a starting point for
evaluation.
Service Demand
The demand for services in the Study Area is dependent on the number of people living in the Study
Area, and the number of housing units. The area has approximately 7,300 residents living in 2,545
housing units, according to Census 2000 data. As of this date, an additional 164 building lots have
been approved. Assuming that all approved lots are built, it is expected that over 2,700 housing
units and 7,680 people will live in the Study Area, under current conditions.
The major objective of the report is to examine costs and revenues associated with the City services
for the entire area. This provides a solid understanding of the key parameters affecting the area
which will ultimately help in the decision making process.
It should be emphasized that the amount of services required for the study area will also vary by
subareas due to differences in population and development densities. Appendix A provides details
on all four subareas. This information could be used in examining specific strategies for different
subareas.
Based on the projected population and number of housing units, Table 3, next page, contains the
City's expected revenues, operating costs, and capital improvement costs associated with each City
fund for the entire Study Area.
l4tltl„!3)iy V? _~f}I(; 1111 I'yl f A A9U3 ~ +f', ~-'".I:x. 31 N '7I ~ f~, 1' .~,I
Table 3 Projected Revenues and Costs by Funds for Bull Mountain Area
(Scenario 1)
Ongoing Operating Costs
Fund Revenue Operating Balance
Cost
General $2,161,822 1,298,469 $863,353
State Gas Tax $319,081 391,932 Iy7'.S~ ( 1
Sanitary Sewer $202,904 $85,597 $117,307
Stone Sewer $97,524 78,188 $19,336
Water $1,767,550 691,659 $1,075,891
One-time Capital Costs
Fund Fund Balance/ Capital Improvements Balance
-Capital Revenues
General $863,353 0 $863,353
State Gas Tax 11, - , i, 0 072,~;11
Sanitary Sewer $394,830 0 $394,830
Storm Sewer $82,000 0 $82,000
Water $1,075,891 $322,854 $753,037
Traffic Impact Fee $370,640 0 $370,640
Parks SDC $268,960 $13,105,000 ,6.((-! D)
Water SDC $334,724 0 $334,724
Based on the above table, the following is a summary of issues that need to be addressed in
considering annexation of the Bull Mountain area;
• with the exception of the State Gas Tax Fund, the operating costs are significantly less than the
j respective revenues for all funds;
• annexing the study area in the near future would create a significant need for land and park
improvements to meet the City's current level of services for parks; the projected park
improvement (CIP) costs (Appendix B), exceed the projected revenue (park SDCs)
approximately 49 times;
• water system improvements are needed regardless of annexation. Sufficient revenue is projected
to address capital needs;
\wl
• Scenario I does not asstune one-time capital costs for most funds except for Water and Parks
because the limited growth will not pay for improvements.
Summary; The estimated need to provide an adequate level of service for parks is the most
critical aspect in evaluating the Bull Mountain area annexation in the near future.
Capital costs for transportation are not assured with this assumption. However,
transportation improvements ultimately will be needed. Scenarios 2 and 3 identify
potential capital needs; however, a certain level of transportation improvements will
also he needed with Scenario 1. Scenario 1 does not reflect capital improvements for
transportation.
DC
n
J
0
9
u
1
!)il4,til;l I? to+){ IIII ];I if \I'll A l ~ `li f~1 t'111 lE
4. THE COSTS AND REVENUES OF
ANNEXATION IN THE LONG TERM -
S C E N A R I O S 2 AND 3
Introduction
The previous section (Section 3) showed the Study Area's estimated demand for services based on
current population and housing; units. f lowever, for purposes of calculation, Scenario 1 assumes no
further growth. Bull Mountain will continue to grow in the long term and, therefore, this must be
considered.
This section examines two additional scenarios, Scenario 2 and Scenario 3. Both of these scenarios
assume future growth in the Study Area will consist of 5,000-sq.ft. lots with single-family housing
units. This assumption is based on the current R-7 medium density residential zoning, which
requires a minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet.
Both growth scenarios are based on the following assumptions:
• Future growth projections are based on the amount of "net buildable land" in the Study Area.
"Net buildable land" refers to available land that can accommodate housing units. This excludes
land that is publicly owned, owned or under option by the Trust for Public Lands, reserved for
right-of-way, wetlands, with a slope exceeding 25 percent, or already developed to its minimum
development potential. This also excludes all lots in existing and approved subdivisions.
• Buildable land consists of two categories: vacant and partially developed. Vacant lands are those
without housing units. Partially developed lots are oversized lots that arc not built to the
minimum density, and have the potential to be divided.
• Both scenarios are based on aerial photographs and tax assessor data in determining the net
buildable land in the Study Area.
Scenario 2: "Buildout"
This scenario assumes that all buildable lands will be developed and "built-out" by the year 2019.
L Based on current average household sizes, it is projected that the Study Area would have 12,905
residents and 4,824 housing units.
~ Based on the number of additional homes and residents projected in this scenario, service demand
J would increase. Table 4 details those changes by examining each of the City's expected revenues,
operating costs, and capital improvement costs associated with each City fund at the buildout.
9
u
J
Table 4 Projected Costs and Revenues by Fund for
Bull Mountain Area at Buildout (Scenario 2)
Ongoing O eratin Costs
Fund Revenue Operating Balance
Cost
General $3,806,006 $2,260,681 $1,545,325
State Gas Tax $535,816 $628,011
Sanitary Sewer $361,318 $143,739 $217,579
Storm Sewer $173,664 $131,300 $42,364
Water $2,968,150 $1,161,450 $1,806,700
One-time Capital Costs
Fund Fund Balance/ Capital Improvements Balance
-Capital Revenues
General $1,545,325 $267,200 $1,278,125
State Gas Tax I'r5) $252,500 I ~I-Ln i 1
Sanitary Sewer $5,486,693 $1,510,100 $3,976,593
Storm Sewer $1,139,500 0 $1,139,500
Water $1,806,700 $542,094 $1,264,606
Traffic Impact Fee $5,150,540 $12,718,600 ti', r,~.nr;nl
Parks SDC $3,737,560 $22,033,000 O5.-1A
Water SDC $4,651,439 $816,400 $3,835,039
4 Based on the above table, the following is a summary of issues that need to be addressed in
considering annexation of the Bull Mountain irea:
i
• • with the exception of the State Gas Tax Fund, the operating costs are significantly less than the
j respective revenues for all funds;
i o as compared to Scenario 1, the needed operating costs will more than double to serve the entire
Bull Mountain area at buildout, which is proportional to the population and development
increase;
• the significant need for road improvements and parks (Appendix B) would be the major
consideration in the development and annexation of the Bull Mountain, area;
• the projected park and transportation improvement (CIP) costs (Appendix B) exceed the
projected revenue;
• there are one-time capital costs associated with all funds except for Sanitary Sewer.
Summary: The estimated need to provide an adequate level of service for parks and roads is the
most critical aspect in evaluating the Bull Mountain area annexation at buildout.
Revenues for these improvements do not fully address capital costs.
i
Scenario 3: Moderate Growth
Introduction
This scenario assumes that development will occur at a lower density, or 501%o of the new growth in
Scenario 2. Scenario 3 allows for current land-use patterns on Bull Mountain, which includes the
following: some existing lots are larger than 5,000 sq ft.; some homes occupy more than one tax lot;
some owners do not want to further develop their property. The Study Area would have 10,235
residents and 3,755 housing units approximately by the year 2010.
Based on the number of additional homes and residents projected in this scenario, service demand
would increase. Table 5 details those changes by examining each of the City's expected revenues,
operating costs, and capital improvement costs associated with each City fund.
Table 5 Projected Costs and Revenues by Fund for
Bull Mountain Area, Moderate Growth (Scenario 3)
Ongoing Operating Costs
Fund Revenue Operating Balance
Cost
General $2,974,309 $1,843,752 $1,130,557
State Gas Tax $424,978 $509,303 (ti x-1.125)
Sanitary Sewer $281,324 $114,005 $167,319
Stone Sewer $135,216 $104,134 $31,082
Water $2,354,165 $921,240 $1,432,925
One-time Capital Costs
Fund Fund Balance/ Capital Improvements Balance
Capital Revenues
General $1,130,557 $267,200 $863,357
State Gas Tax (titi4 3 25 i $252,500 I "31
Sanitary Sewer $2,917,890 $1,510,100 $1,407,790
Stony, Sewer $606,000 0 $606,000
Water $1,432,925 $429,996 $1,002,929
Traffic Impact Fee $2,739,120 $12,718,600 (sI).979.-lsni
Parks SDC $1,987,680 $17,482,500 (S 15.404.820)
Water SDC $2,473,692 $816,400 $1,657,292
;`~,~rttr.;~1l3F,tt._'!I(11 1tt1 1r! ! I A(„~ '.i'ti. `1~i~,'-.'-'s~ I:,. :'.a,( 1'•
Based on Table 5, the following is a summary of issues that need to be addressed in considering
annexation of the Bull Mountain area:
• with the exception of the State Gas Tax Fund, the operating costs are significantly less than the
respective revenues for all funds;
• the significant need for road improvements and parks (Appendix B) would be the major
consideration in the annexation of the Bull Mountain area;
• the projected park and transportation improvement (CIP) costs (Appendix B) exceed the
projected revenue;
• there are one-time capital costs associated with all funds except for Sanitary Sewer.
Summary: The estimated need to provide an adequate level of service for parks and roads is the
most critical aspect in evaluating the Bull Mountain area annexation in the Moderate
Growth Scenario. Capital costs exceed projected revenues.
1
I
I
~Olf`.A21il,it2001 IIELW f.l':%!Oi (11'. ~~_":J.'•iil!1`, D~'~'irF (f=
5 . ANNEXATION AND T A X A T I O N
In all scenarios, this report focuses on service provision and its costs. This section provides a
comparison of the tax rates for the study area.
The following is a brief summary of the Bull Mountain area taxation (see Appendix D for details).
• Property owners in the Bull Mountain area are grouped into two tax districts: 51.78 and 23.78.
The City of Tigard tax district is 23.74.
• Bull Mountain property owners (tax districts 51.78 and 23.78) now pay the following taxes for
general government services and would continue to pay them under annexation: Washington
County, Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue, Port of Portland and Metro.
• Bull Mountain property owners (tax districts 51.78 and 23.78) now pay the following taxes to
support General Obligation bonds, and would continue to pay them under annexation:
Washington County, Portland Community College, Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue, Port of
Portland, Metro and Tri-Met.
• Bull Mountain property owners (tax districts 51.78 and 23.78) would cease paying the following
taxes for general government services, as these services would be assumed by the City of Tigard:
Washington County Enhanced Patrol, Washington County Road Maintenance, and Washington
County Street Light Assessment.
• A home with an assessed value of $227,755 would pay an additional $256.50 per year if annexed.
Those taxes support the full government and operations of the City of Tigard, and the additional
services provided to City versus County residents, as detailed in Table 2, in Section 2. It also
includes one existing general obligation bond for the City of Tigard. Fora detailed breakdown of
taxes, please see Appendix D.
The Federal government offers the Entitlement Communities Program to those cities with a
population of at least 50,000. The program makes cities eligible for HUD grants, which can be used
for neighborhood revitalization, affordable housing, and to improve community facilities and
services to primarily benefit low- and moderate-income persons. Under all scenarios, the City's
combined population is projected to be over 50,000. The City would become eligible for the
Entitlement Communities program after it reaches 50,000 population, which is dependent upon the
area's growth rate.
;\:o ,I %I lit I:.~PIi)1
6 , CONCLUSIONS
AND KEY P O L I C Y I S S U E
Summary of Conclusions
• With the exception of the East Subarea, the majority of the Bull Mountain area is almost built
out.
• Assuming buildout of approximately 12,905 residents and 4,824 housing units for the entire
Study Area, each subarea could reach buildout at different times.
• Annexation under scenarios 2 and 3 would make the City an Entitlement Community in the
future. Additional funding may become available to Tigard.
• Revenue projections are mostly dependent upon growth. The rate and amount of growth
determines revenue forecasts.
• The Study Area has extensive capital needs, mostly road and park improvements.
• Capital costs for road improvements and park improvements exceed revenue projections.
Key Policy Issue
Based on the above conclusions, the key policy issue is a capital improvement funding strategy.
Possible strategies:
• Use a portion of the General Fund to address capital improvements.
Assistance from Washington County to address some or all of the capital improvement needs.
• Form Local Improvement Districts to address specific capital improvement needs, such as parks
L and roads.
• Delay improvement of streets until funding sources are available.
• Obtain grant funding to address portions of capital improvements.
D
• Identify the effective sequence of annexing specific subareas of Bull Mountain.
u
Appendix E identifies the various methods of annexation available to the City of Tigard.
No~\ L'.AH;f It 1001 FI II ii! 'I I Nip )I
Appendix A
West Sub-Area
Scenario 1
Ongoing Operating Costs
Fund Revenue Operating Cost Balance
General $319,504 137,066 $182,439
State Gas Tax $39,195 52,524 (S13,329)
Sanitary Sewer $24,792 10,514 $14,278
Storm Sewer $11,916 9,604 $2,312
Water $217,120 84,960 $132,160
One-time Capital Costs
Fund Fund Balance/Capital Capital Improvements Balance
Revenues
General Fund $182,439 $0 $182,439
State Gas Tax ($13,329) $0 (513.329)
Sanitary Sewer $0 $0 $0
Storm Sewer $0 $0 $0
Water $132,160 $39,669 $92,491
Traffic Impact Fee $0 $0 $0
IL Parks SDC $0 $1,675,000 (51,675.000)
N Water SDC $0 $0 $0
C
J
m
W
J
Page A - 1
f
Appendix A
West Sub-Area
Scenario 2
Ongoing Operating Costs
Fund Revenue Operating Cost Balance
General $574,613 $364,571 $210,042
State Gas Tax $82,293 $98,183 ($15,890)
Sanitary Sewer $50,707 $22,076 $28,631
Storm Sewer $24,372 $20,165 $4,207
Water $455,860 $178,380 $277,480
One-time Capital Costs
Fund Fund Balance/Capital Capital Improvements Balance
Revenues
General Fund $210,042 $0 $210,042
State Gas Tax ($15,890) $57,800 (S73,690)
Sanitary Sewer $832,995 $235,000 $597,995
Storm Sewer $173,000 $0 $173,000
Water $277,480 $83,265 $194,215
Traffic Impact Fee $781,960 $1,928,000 (51,146,040)
Parks SDC $567,440 $3,375,000 (S2,807,560)
i
Water SDC $706,186 $195,700 $510,486
E
I
1
I
1
Page A - 2
Appendix A
West Sub-Area
Scenario 3
Ongoing Operating Costs
Fund Revenue Operating Cost Balance
General $447,059 $261,864 $185,194
State Gas Tax $60,744 $76,404 (S15,660)
Sanitary Sewer $37,750 $16,295 $21,455
Storm Sewer $18,144 $14,885 $3,259
Water $336,490 $131,670 $204,820
One-time Capital Costs
Fund Fund Balance/Capital Capital Improvements Balance
Revenues
General Fund $185,194 $0 $185,194
State Gas Tax ($15.660) $57,800 ($73,460)
Sanitary Sewer $416,498 $235,000 $181,498
Storm Sewer $86,500 $0 $86,500
Water $204,820 $61,467 $143,353
Traffic Impact Fee $390,980 $1,928,000 (S 1,537,020)
0. Parks SDC $283,720 $2,497,500 ($2,213,780)
per- Water SDC $353,093 $195,700 $157,393
J_
M
W
J
Page A - 3
Appendix A
South Sub-Area
Scenario 1
Ongoing Operating Costs
Fund Revenue Operating Cost Balance
General $887,928 $541,657 $346,271
State Gas Tax $132,698 $164,764 (S32,066)
Sanitary Sewer $85,761 $35,598 $50,163
Storm Sewer $41,220 $32,517 $8,703
Water $735,080 $287,640 $447,440
One-time Capital Costs
Fund Fund Balance/Capital Capital Improvements Balance
Revenues
General Fund $346,271 $0 $346,271
State Gas Tax ($32.066) $0 (S32,066)
Sanitary Sewer $93,893 $0 $93,893
Storm Sewer $19,500 $0 $19,500
Water $447,440 $134,253 $313,187
Traffic Impact Fee $88,140 $0 $88,140
L Parks SDC $63,960 $5,400,000 (55,336,040)
Water SDC $79,599 $0 $79,599
5
W
el
Page A - 4
Appendix A
South Sub-Area
Scenario 2
Ongoing Operating Costs
Fund Revenue Operating Cost Balance
General $1,244,099 $778,549 $465,549
State Gas Tax $189,207 $256,469 (567.262)
Sanitary Sewer $119,091 $50,757 $68,334
Storm Sewer $57,240 $46,365 $10,875
Water $1,048,110 $410,130 $637,980
One-time Capital Costs
Fund Fund Balance/Capital Capital Improvements Balance
Revenues
General Fund $465,549 $267,200 $198,349
State Gas Tax ($67,262) $42,900 ($110,162)
Sanitary Sewer $1,165,230 $124,300 $1,040,930
Storm Sewer $242,000 $0 $242,000
Water $637,980 $191,415 $446,565
Traffic Impact Fee $1,093,840 $5,444,000 (54,350,160)
Parks SDC $793,760 $7,768,000 (56.974,240)
j Water SDC $987,844 $365,600 $622,244
i
i
i
i
Page A - 5
Appendix A
South Sub-Area
Scenario 3
Ongoing Operating Costs
Fund Revenue Operating Cost Balance
General $1,057,617 $673,712 $383,905
State Gas Tax $159,624 $207,997 (548,373)
Sanitary Sewer $101,639 $42,821 $58,818
Storm Sewer $48,852 $39,110 $9,742
Water $884,235 $346,050 $538,185
One-time Capital Costs
Fund [Fund Balance/Capital Capital Improvements Balance
Revenues
General Fund $383,905 $267,200 $116,705
State Gas Tax (548.373) $42,900 (591.273)
Sanitary Sewer $604,283 $124,300 $479,983
Storm Sewer $125,500 $0 $125,500
Water $538,185 $161,511 $376,674
Traffic Impact Fee $567,260 $5,444,000 ($4,876,740)
L Parks SDC $411,640 $6,570,000 ($6,158.360)
r
0 Water SDC $512,291 $365,600 $146,691
J
0
9
u
Page A - 6
Appendix A
North Sub-Area
Scenario 1
Ongoing Operating Costs
Fund Revenue Operating Cost Balance
General $722,853 $516,800 $206,053
State Gas Tax $124,602 $144,651 ($20,049)
Sanitary Sewer $75,949 $33,426 $42,523
Storm Sewer $36,504 $30,533 $5,971
Water $690,230 $270,099 $420,131
One-time Capital Costs
Fund Fund Balance/Capital Capital Improvements Balance
Revenues
General Fund $206,053 $0 $206,053
State Gas Tax ($20,049) $0 (520,049)
Sanitary Sewer $158,895 $0 $158,895
Storm Sewer $33,000 $0 $33,000
Water $420,131 $126,063 $294,068
Traffic Impact Fee $149,160 $0 $149,160
L Parks SDC $108,240 $5,175,000 ($5.066,760)
r
Water SDC $134,706 $0 $134,706
3
0
Page A - 7
Appendix A
North Sub-Area
Scenario 2
Ongoing Operating Costs
Fund Revenue Operating Cost Balance
General $936,587 $699,038 $237,550
State Gas Tax $165,167 $188,222 ($23,055)
Sanitary Sewer $101,639 $44,308 $57,331
Storm Sewer $48,852 $40,474 $8,378
Water $914,940 $358,020 $556,920
One-time Ca itaI Costs
Fund Fund Balance/Capital Capital Improvements Balance
Revenues
General Fund $237,550 $0 $237,550
State Gas Tax (523,055) $42,900 (S65,955)
Sanitary Sewer $984,668 $575,400 $409,268
Storm Sewer $204,500 $0 $204,500
Water $556,920 $167,097 $389,823
Traffic Impact Fee $924,340 $2,846,600 ($1,922,260)
L Parks SDC $670,760 $6,795,000 ($6,124,240)
r
Water SDC $834,769 $189,200 $645,569
J
J
Page A - 8
Appendix A
North Sub-Area
Scenario 3
Ongoing Operating Costs
Fund Revenue Operating Cost Balance
General $828,156 $621,312 $206,844
State Gas Tax $143,742 $165,637 (S21,895)
Sanitary Sewer $88,794 $38,561 $50,233
Storm Sewer $42,678 $35,224 $7,454
Water $796,260 $311,580 $484,680
One-time Capital Costs
Fund Fund Balance/Capital Capital Improvements Balance
Revenues
General Fund $206,844 $0 $206,844
State Gas Tax ($21,895) $42,900 (S64,795)
Sanitary Sewer $572,985 $575,400 (52,415)
Storm Sewer $119,000 $0 $119,000
Water $484,680 $145,425 $339,255
Traffic Impact Fee $537,880 $2,846,600 ($2,308.720)
IL Parks SDC $390,320 $5,917,500 ($5,527.180)
N Water SDC $485,758 $189,200 $296,558
..I
W
J
Page A - 9
Appendix A
East Sub-Area
Scenario 1
Ongoing Operating Costs
Fund Revenue Operating Cost Balance
General $231,537 $102,946 $1282591
State Gas Tax $22,587 $29,993 ($7,406)
Sanitary Sewer $16,403 $6,059 $10,344
Storm Sewer $7,884 $5,534 $2,350
Water $125,120 $48,960 $76,160
One-time Capital Costs
Fund Fund Balance/Capital Capital Improvements Balance
Revenues
General Fund $128,591 $0 $128,591
State Gas Tax (S7,406) $0 (57,406)
Sanitary Sewer $142,043 $0 $142,043
Storm Sewer $29,500 $0 $29,500
Water $76,160 $22,869 $53,291
Traffic Impact Fee $133,340 $0 $133,340
I- Parks SDC $96,760 $855,000 (S758,240)
r
0 Water SDC $120,419 $0 $120,419
7
J
J
Page A - 10
Appendix A
East Sub-Area
Scenario 2
Ongoing Operating Costs
Fund Revenue Operating Cost Balance
General $1,050,707 $418,523 $632,183
State Gas Tax $99,150 $85,137 $14,013
Sanitary Sewer $89,880 $26,598 $63,282
Storm Sewer $43,200 $24,296 $18,904
Water $549,240 $214,920 $334,320
One-time Capital Costs
Fund [Fund Balance/Capital Capital Improvements Balance
Revenues
General Fund $632,183 $0 $632,183
State Gas Tax $14,013 $108,900 (S94,887)
Sanitary Sewer $2,503,800 $575,400 $1,928,400
Storm Sewer $520,000 $0 $520,000
Water $334,320 $100,317 $234,003
Traffic Impact Fee $2,350,400 $2,500,000 (S149,600)
L Parks SDC $1,705,600 $4,095,000 (52,389.400)
C
D Water SDC $2,122,640 $65,900 $2,056,740
J
J
Page A - 11
Appendix A
East Sulu-Area
Scenario 3
Ongoing Operating Costs
Fund Revenue Operating Cost Balance
General $641,478 $286,864 $354,614
State Gas Tax $60,868 $59,265 $1,603
Sanitary Sewer $53,142 $16,328 $36,814
Storm Sewer $25,542 $14,915 $10,627
Water $337,180 $131,940 $205,240
One-time Capital Costs
Fund Fund Balance/Capital Capital Improvements Balance
Revenues
General Fund $354,614 $0 $354,614
State Gas Tax $1,603 $108,900 (5107,297)
Sanitary Sewer $1,324,125 $575,400 $748,725
Storm Sewer $275,000 $0 $275,000
Water $205,240 $61,593 $143,647
Traffic Impact Fee $1,243,000 $2,500,000 (51,257,000)
L Parks SDC $902,000 $2,497,500 (51,595,500)
r
D Water SDC $1,122,550 $65,900 $1,056,650
1
7
J
a
Page A - 12
Appendix B
Assumptions
Streetlight operating Costs
$7 per light per month for streetlights in local streets
$10 per light per month for streetlights in major collectors
Road Maintenance Assumptions
Frequency of Maintenance
Scenario 1
North Cycle every 5 years
West 6
South 6
East 6
Scenario 2
North Cycle every 4 years
West 4
South 4
East 4
Scenario 3
North Cycle every 4.5 years
West 5
South 5
East 5
% Source of information: City of Tigard Engineering Department
1
r
I
I
I
I
Page B - 1
Appendix B
CIP Assumptions:
Assumptions are that Bull Mountain Road, Beef Bend Road, 1501h Avenue, Menlor Street
and Sunrise Lane will have to be reconstructed and widened to collector standards. These
improvements will be sometime in the next 20 years and are included in Scenarios 2 and
3, but not Scenario 1.
By Area:
North
Mentor Street - From existing pavement across ravine to Scholls Meadow #2 (2,500')
Sunrise Lane - North to existing paved area (1000')
150`h Avenue - Bull Mountain Road to Sunrise Lane (1,150')
West
Bull Mountain Road -Beef Bend Road to 150`h Avenue (3,450
South
Beef Bend Road -131st Avenue to 1501h Avenue (5,085')
Bull Mountain Road - 150`h Avenue to 133`d Avenue (4,122')
150 Avenue - Bull Mountain Road to Beef Bend Road (5,950')
Source of information: City of Tigard Engineering Department
Page B - 2
Appendix C
Total All Areas
General Fund
Ongoing O eratin Costs
Fund Revenue Operating Balance
Cost
Scenario 1 $2,161,822 $1,298,469 $863,353
Scenario 2 $3,806,006 $2,260,681 $1,545,325
Scenario 3 $2,974,309 $1,843,752 $1,130,557
One-time Capital Costs
Fund Fund Balance/ Capital Improvements Balance
Ca ital Revenues
Scenario 1 $863,353 $0 $863,353
Scenario 2 $1,545,325 $267,200 $1,278,125
Scenario 3 $1,130,557 $267,200 $863,357
L_
r
I.
J
V
Page C - 1
Appendix C
Total All Areas
State (Gas Tax Fund
Ongoing Opera tin Costs
Fund Revenue Operating Balance
Cost
Scenario 1 $319,081 $391,932 IS71,~5I i
Scenario 2 $535,816 $628,011 (,592.1 Q.i (
Scenario 3 $424,978 $509,303 f ~N4 +251
One-time Capital Costs
Fund Fund Balance/ Capital Improvements Balance
Capital Revenues
Scenario 1 (57? 8511 $0 W2.x5I
Scenario 2 (ti 2, I'~5 $252,500 (1,344,(,4)5 i
Scenario 3 1 tie 1.3'5 $252,500 0
i
f
I
Page C - 2
Appendix C
Total All Areas
Sanitary Sewer Fund
Ongoing Operating Coiits
Fund Revenue Operating Balance
Cost
Scenario 1 $202,904 $85,597 $117,307
Scenario 2 $361,318 $143,739 $217,579
Scenario 3 $281,324 $114,005 $167,319
One-time Capital Costs
Fund Fund Balance/ Capital Improvements Balance
Capital Revenues
Scenario 1 $394,830 $0 $394,830
Scenario 2 $5,486,693 $1,510,100 $3,976,593
Scenario 3 $2,917,890 $1,510,100 $1,407,790
L
is
J
0
u
Page C - 3
Appendix C
Total All Areas
Storm Sewer Fund
Ongoing Operating Costs
Fund Revenue Operating Balance
Cost
Scenario l $97,524 $78,188 $19,336
Scenario 2 $173,664 $ 131,300 $42,364
Scenario 3 $135,216 $104,134 $31,082
One-time Capital Costs
Fund Fund Balance/ Capital Improvements Balance
Capital Revenues
Scenario 1 $82,000 $0 $82,000
Scenario 2 $1,139,500 $0 $1,139,500
Scenario 3 $606,000 $0 $606,000
L
is
J
D
u
Page C - 4
Appendix C
Total All Areas
Water Fund
Ongoing Operating Costs
Fund Revenue Operating Balance
Cost
Scenario 1 $1,767,550 $691,659 $1,075,891
Scenario 2 $2,968,150 $1,161,450 $1,806,700
Scenario 3 $2,354,165 $921,240 $1,432,925
One-time Capital Costs
Fund Fund Balance/ Capital Improvements Balance
Capital Revenues
Scenario 1 $1,075,891 $322,854 $753,037
Scenario 2 $1,806,700 $542,094 $1,264,606
Scenario 3 $1,432,925 $429,996 $1,002,929
L
r
3
0
u
Page C - 5
Appendix C
Total All Areas
Traffic Impact Fee Fund
One-time Capital Costs
Fund FF ndBalance/ Capital Improvements Balance
ital Revenues
Scenario 1 $370,640 $0 $370,640
Scenario 2 $5,150,540 $12,718,600 (ti .SoN"Mu )
Scenario3 $2,739,120 $12,718,600 18o)
IL
a
go
J_
m
!1J
J
Page C - 6
Appendix C
Total All Areas
Parks SDC Fund
One-time Capital Costs
Fund Fund Balance/ Capital Improvements Balance
Ca ital Revenues
Scenario 1 $268,960 $13,105,000
Scenario 2 $3,737,560 $22,033,000 i 1 ~ 1)5,-44 i
Scenario3 $1,987,680 $17,482,500 tii5:li(,z'ni
Page C - 7
Appendix C
Total All Areas
Water SDC Fund
One-time Capital Costs
Fund Fund Balance/ Capital Improvements Balance
Capital Revenues
Scenario 1 $334,724 $0 $334,724
Scenario 2 $4,651,439 $816,400 $3,835,039
Scenario 3 $2,473,692 $816,400 $1,657,292
L
r
0
J
J
Page C - 8
O 88858 888M8'"'::~ 888888~88~ ~
a ;
_ 6cifS66 66;: N 6 666
m 00/]00 ooo<v o-~ O6 o6 6 6 0000
3
14~ `3,ag~~ ~~O p~m$($VmB,, tgt~~m~ $`Y, ~~pp pgp~$~p og~oNi,~ ~ ~
a~~~~ MNN ~✓1NN19 NNH~N3Yl~M„y ~ w p
$ 5p~u*t xpp 3
C N 066 o GOOOIY M
p~ y GG G N N C
6 6
e(85i 2 m
7
p8p p0p 00o p0O 00o ooO pOO pOO ~ OOO i ~f ny~ aaO ppOO pOp pOpONp~pp~OO~ b vmm~~
NHYIHW WMNN N". ~'i WK~HNhHNN~ N Q ~
w d- S o o 6 O N 0,' N 000000 n >
3 G O O 0 0 0 0 0 0.
N O ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
yy ~ N N N N
rmL ~mG ~ m0
~E3 3d 5Q " t
7c4 quo SoH bi NN~SO3bcry `.°S
m OOVf N N OG COOCo ON ? '9
W C
R > E
~~pp ppppp ~p ppp 1. f rn
tO~~rrV~~ O O~O CNC11 O»V N N DD Oo0 p0p p6p (WVV $N$ ~~~pp ~000OO~m1yy~~~ N N ~Npp A gymm'
NN~HV W~~N NN ViN NN t9H~~gNNW~~ VI 2 6
O N m ~ O
E w w w w `m Q o
vn4 m 25
£ m
`m
I- A p~ Q$~ QC]p 2 £
(jN OOi ON b1~ O N00 NSOVON ~O tp pN T
m .o... -6,4666 fA GC 00 GCC ^ e0
9 G C'3
= Op.
I Opc_C
N E L
~ Y' ~ ~ ~ W ~ J (3 N ~j ~ y ~ ~ •a ? y ~i
U m5
E"S
NP
w° ~ 3 i3 333 3: is a- rp d`aw99
F ~~-MMO
Appendix E
METHODS OF ANNEXATION PROVIDED BY ORS CHAPTER 222
Method: Prior consent Election requirement Election
required? within City? requirement
within
territory to be
annexed?
City Initiated - By the legislative body of the City, on its own NO NO (City charter does YES
motion [ORS 222.1 11(2)] (requires public /rearing and not require, but Council
Ordinance which will set election and effective date upon can send to election if
passage) desired)
Subject to referendum
Owner Initiated - By petition to the legislative body of the YES NO (City charter does YES (f prior
city by owners of real property in the territory to be annexed. not require, but Council consent of
[ORS 222.111(2)] (requires public hearing and Ordinance can send to election if electors and land
which will declare the territory annexed upon condition that a desired owners is not
majority of votes cast in the territory being annexed favor provided, as
annexation or as described in a, b or c below) Subject to referendum described in
subsection a, b
or c below, prior
to action)
a. 100% Owner and Majority of Electors - by written YES NO NO
consent to annexation by all the owners of land and
not less than 50% of the electors, if any, in the Subject to referendum
territory [ORS 222.1251
b. Triple Majority - by written consent to annex of YES NO NO
more than half of the owners of land in the territory
who also own more than half of the land in the Subject to referendum
territory and of real property therein representing
more than half of the assessed value of all real
property in the territory [ORS 222.170] (Triple
majority discouraged because it may not be
constitutional)
c. Double Majority - by written consent of a majority YES NO NO
of the electors in the territory along with the written
consent of property owners of more than half the land Subject to referendum
area in the territory. [ORS 222.170(2)]
L Island annexation - When territory not within a city is NO NO (City charter does NO
X surrounded by the corporate boundaries of the city, or by the not require, but Council
corporate boundaries of the city and the ocean shore or a can send to election if
stream, bay, lake or other body of water, except when the desired
territory not within a city is surrounded entirely by water.
J [ORS 222.750] Subject to referendum
u
Page E - 1
Appendix F
BULL MOUNTAIN ANNEXATION QUESTION AND
ANSWER PACKET
ANSWERS TO THE JULY 2001 FOCUS GROUP QUESTIONS
~ i ik
CITY OF TIGARD
NOVEMBER 27, 2001
d
OC
J
W
J
BULL MOUNTAIN STUDY AREA:
DRAFT ANSWERS TO THE FOCUS GROUP QUESTIONS
A. WASHINGTON COUNTY
1. What is the County's long-term outlook on services to this area if Tigard does not
annex Bull Mountain? (Answer provided by Washington County and the City of Tigard)
Washington County has no plans to change existing levels of County service to the area. If
the annexation does not occur, service delivery would continue as it is. The County would
continue to provide a basic level of service as it does countywide. Municipal-type services
would be provided on a fee-for-service basis (building permits, street lighting, etc.) or
through special service districts (Urban Road Maintenance District, Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol
District, a possible future Park and Recreation District if voters set one up, etc.). The City of
Tigard is continuing to provide some services such as planning, engineering, and building
services in accordance with an intergovernmental agreement between Washington County
and the City. This agreement is in effect for 5 years from the date it was executed (May,
1997) and may be renewed for an additional 5 years by mutual agreement. In addition, the
agreement may be terminated by mutual agreement or by either party between the months of
March 1 and July 1 of any year with 90 days written notice.
2. What are the County's current responsibilities to Bull Mountain residents? What is the
vision of the County (i.e., what the County sees as its main roles in the future, as it
applies to its entire area of governance)? (Answer provided by Washington County and the City
of Tigard)
Washington County has indicated that it sees itself both as a provider and as a convener (one
who convenes or brings together partners in a given situation) of services. The County
covers 727 square miles, 85% of which is rural. The population is over 450,000 residents;
90% of them live within the Urban Growth Boundary (half in their 12 cities, half in the urban
unincorporated areas). Services the County provides to everyone include public safety (the
Sheriff's Department, the jail, parole and probation, Community Corrections, the court
system, district attorneys, victims' services, etc.), the county-wide road system (including
maintenance and new capital construction), Juve nile Services, Housing Services, Health and
L Human Services (health clinics, child and family welfare, public health, restaurant
C inspections, solid waste and recycling), Assessment and Taxation, marriage licenses,
passports, animal shelter and adoption services, funding support for the county's 12 libraries
(city-supported and otherwise. For example, Tigard receives 62% of its overall operating
i funds for the Tigard Library which serves a population of 53,519), Aging and Veterans
Services, Consolidated Emergency Management and support for Citizen Participation
Organizations. Washington County does all this with the second leanest per capita staff of
any County in the State of Oregon.
According to Washington County, it cannot meet many more needs with current resources.
Thus, the County strives for efficiencies in government, and also engage in broad
Page 2
partnerships with the private and non-profit sectors, Currently, Washington County is
engaged in a broad outreach effort called Vision West, which is bringing together the best
minds in the County in areas ranging from education to health care, transportation, safety and
the environment. Their on-going charge is to make sure public and private agencies converse
and collaborate to improve the communities' future.
The specific services the County provides include:
• Roads - as part of the Urban Road Maintenance District (URMD), Bull Mountain property
owners pay for and receive both County and URMD levels of maintenance to County and
public roads in the area. County policy allocates available road maintenance funding with
priority given to the major system (arterials and major collectors) throughout the County.
Neighborhood roads (minor collectors and local streets) are the lowest priority, and as a
result, have deteriorated relative to the major system over the years. The URMD is a special
district that does provide road-related maintenance and repair on these minor collector, local
and public roads in the urban unincorporated areas of Washington County. It provides a
paved surface to fair or better conditions. The URMD also provides $100,000 per year for
the Neighborhood Streets Program.
• Law enforcement - Bull Mountain is part of the Enhanced Sheriff's Patrol District; thus its
property owners pay for and receive both County and ESPD levels of law enforcement
service. The County service level is .5 officers per 1000 and the ESPD provides an
additional .5 officers per 1000 residents for a total of I per 1,000 residents.
• Building services and Planning - the County currently has an intergovernmental agreement
with the City of Tigard, under which the City provides !and development and building
services to residents of Bull Mountain directly, saving them the trip to Hillsboro. The
County adopted the City's Development Code for this area. This agreement is in effect for 5
years from the date it was executed (May, 1997) and may be renewed for an additional 5
years by mutual agreement. In addition, the agreement may be terminated by mutual
agreement or by either party between the months of March 1 and July I of any year with 90
days written notice.
■ Street lighting - not required, but usually built in by developers with payment organized
under a Service District for Lighting. This annual fee is included on a property owner's
property tax assessment. Assessment varies from $32 to $37 per year, on average. The
assessment amount is determined by three factors: 1) the number of property owners in each
district, 2) the number of lights in the district, and 3) the type of lights. The assessment
covers the operation of the lights, and is provided by the County through a contract with
PGE. PGE owns the lights and will continue to own them upon annexation.
0
7 • Library services - supported through the Washington County Cooperative Library Services
(WCCLS) consortium. This is funded partially by County tax. The City of Tigard receives
62% of its overall operating funds for the Tigard Library from the WCCLS. Funding levels
are determined by circulation, open hours, collection expenditures, etc.
Page 3
• Park services - none.
• Fire protection - Bull Mountain residents receive fire protection directly from Tualatin Valley
Fire and Rescue, to whom they pay a separate tax or assessment as part of their property
taxes.
• Community organizations - the County provides basic support for the Citizen Participation
Organizations. CPO 4B has represented Bull Mountain over the years; however, it is
presently inactive.
• Code Compliance - compliance with standards found in the City of Tigard Development
Code are enforced by the City of Tigard Code Compliance Officer as part of the
intergovernmental agreement between the City of Tigard and Washington County. The
County continues to regulate standards that are not covered in the City's Development Code
including: solid waste, animal control, noxious vegetation, junk/cars and noise.
(To see the difference between the County level of service and the level of service the City will
provide if annexed, see table 3 in this document.)
3. Why did the County decide to be a County and not an urban/rural County that
provides City services? How was the County 2000 vision created? (Answer provided by
Washington County and City of Tigard)
With approximately 200,000 County residents now living in urban unincorporated
neighborhoods (outside cities), the demand on the County for neighborhood services has
been steadily increasing. Planning for growth at the neighborhood level, traffic management,
enhanced police patrol, local street maintenance and zoning enforcement are a few examples.
These are the types of services that a city normally provides. Related to this is the issue of
equity. City property owners pay City taxes to receive these local services, as well as County
taxes for countywide programs. For years, County taxes paid by City property owners
subsidized a portion of local services the County provided to urban unincorporated
neighborhoods.
The subsidy issue was raised by Cities and this was corrected in 1986 when the Board of
County Commissioners adopted County 2000, a long-term financial plan. Recognizing its
financial limitations and the underlying theme that the County cannot be all things to all
? citizens, County 2000 makes a distinction regarding the financing of traditional services that
j are of countywide benefit versus municipal-type services that benefit specific geographic
areas. Updated in 1994, County 2000 focuses general purpose tax dollars on services that
benefit residents countywide, regardless of whether they live inside or outside cities or in the
rural area.
The current County 2000 plan is the result of a comprehensive public review process during
which the County gathered extensive public feedback, suggestions and evaluations. Every
Board since 1986, including the current one, has maintained a policy that cities will
eventually provide neighborhood services to the entire urban unincorporated area, sometimes
Page 4
in partnership with special districts like Tualatin Hills Park and Recreation District and
Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue,
The County has maintained a position of "aggressive neutrality" with regard to annexation,
with practicality and resident interest driving the timeline. However, lack of annexation may
significantly impact the infrastructure of affected communities, potentially resulting in a
lesser quality of life. For this reason the County is also working closely with Metro, the
cities and special districts in setting Urban Services boundaries, preparing for future
annexations (Senate Bill 122). In 1997, the County entered into an intergovern mental
agreement with the City of Tigard, turning over certain urban services including land
development, building permits and some local road maintenance for the Bull Mountain area
to the City. This agreement is in effect for 5 years from the date it was executed (May, 1997)
and may be renewed for an additional 5 years by mutual agreement. In addition, the
agreement may be terminated by mutual agreement or by either party between the months of
March I and July I of any year with 90 days written notice.
4. Explain how Senate Bill (SB) 122 relates to the annexation process. (Answer provided by
Washington County and City of Tigard)
In 1993 the state legislature passed Senate Bill 122, which requires the coordination and
provision of urban services for lands within the urban growth boundary. It requires the
collaboration of counties, cities and special districts to determine which jurisdiction will be
responsible for the long-term provision of urban services (such as sanitary sewers, water, fire
protection, parks, open space, recreation, streets/roads, and mass transit) to residents of
unincorporated areas. The County, the CPOs and SB 122 Citizen Involvement Advisory
Committees have been working with the cities of Beaverton, Tigard and Hillsboro for the
past few years helping settle urban services boundary lines. The City of Tigard and
Washington County have had an Urban Services Agreement in effect since 1997 that
transfers land development and building permit responsibility to the City of Tigard. This
agreement is in effect for 5 years from the date it was executed (May, 1997) and may be
renewed for an additional 5 years by mutual agreement. In addition, the agreement may be
terminated by mutual agreement or by either party between the months of March 1 and July 1
of any year with 90 days written notice.
5. Who should residents talk to at the County about annexation and County service
issues? (Answer provided by Washington County)
L
2 If it is a question of policy, the appropriate contact is their County Commissioner Roy Rogers
or County Chairman Tom Brian. Staff points of contact are Walt Peck, County
Communications Officer, 593-846-2013, or Anne Madden, Sr. Program Educator,
Department of Land Use and Transportation, 503-846-4963.
0
5. If there is no parks department at the County, how does the County deal with park
issues? (Answer provided by Washington County)
The County parks effort is focused on Hagg Lake and Metzger Park. Hagg Lake is supported
entirely by user fees and Metzger Park is supported 2/3 through a Local Improvement
Page 5
District (LID) and 113 through user fees collected from the rental of Metzger Hall. The
County owns other properties that are designated as parks but are not developed. The only
park land that has been purchased in the Bull Mountain area is a portion of the Cache Creek
site, however, there are no plans at this time for the County or City to develop it. Otherwise,
all other park services in the County are provided by local park providers such as Tigard,
THPRD, and Hillsboro. The remaining unincorporated areas receive no park services if they
are not in the THPRD territory. Individuals living outside the THPRD district can pay a non-
resident price to use THPRD facilities.
7. What is the Washington County permanent tax rate? (Ansiver provided by Washington
County)
The County rate is $2.2484 per $1,000 of assessed valuation. It should be noted, however,
that the permanent rate does not include special district assessments such as the URMD or
ESPD. For a complete breakdown of assessments paid on property taxes, refer to Table 6 at
the back of this document.
8. How much money is now available for infrastructure under Washington County?
(Answer provided by Washington County)
The County does not have a dedicated amount of resources available for infrastructure
improvements. Most large projects (such as the new jail) are funded through voter-approved
bond measures. Other projects, such as transportation improvements, are funded through the
discretionary distribution of property tax resources.
For sewer related capital improvement projects, Clean Water Services updates a five-year
Capital Improvement Program (CIP) annually during the budget process. From this
document, an annual construction program is developed and included in the annual budget.
The Sanitary Sewer Construction Fund in the current FY 2002 budget includes more than
$52 million. Proposed treatment facility projects account for $24 million; collection capital
projects, $23 million; and planning and support projects, nearly $5 million.
However, the CIP generally supports the major sewer projects; a transportation analogy
might be the funding of the State or County road system. As with improvements to the local
street system, the local sanitary sewer system is generally funded by the adjacent (or directly
benefited) property owners. As a result, most of the local sewer system is funded by
development or through local improvement districts (LIDS). The District's Board recently
adopted a revised LID ordinance that does provide financial incentives, under certain
conditions, for the sanitary sewer projects.
Page 6
9. What local service levies (i.e., Washington County Enhanced Patrol) or LIDs do Bull
Mountain residents pay for in addition to the current County tax rate? (Answer provided
by Washington County)
• The Urban Road Maintenance District (URMD); the URMD tax rate is $.25 per thousand
assessed valuation.
County policy allocates available road maintenance funding with priority given to the major
system (arterials and major collectors). Neighborhood roads (minor collectors and local
streets) are the lowest priority, and as a result had deteriorated relative to the major system
over the years. The URMD is a special district that does provide road-related maintenance
on these minor collector, local and public roads in the urban unincorporated areas of
Washington County. District revenue is from a property tax that residents voted to assess
themselves in 1994 and is unique to Washington County (as far as we know). Since
formation of the URMD, neighborhood roads have improved. In 1997, Ballot Measure 50
passed, which made the URMD permanent.
• Enhanced Sheriff's Patrol District (ESPD); the ESPD tax rate is $1.0534 per $1,000 assessed
valuation
The ESPD program began in 1988 and provides (approximately) an additional .5 officers per
1,000 residents. This is in addition to the County-wide provision of .5 officers per 1,000
residents.
• Service District for Lighting (SDL)
Property owners of urban unincorporated areas pay for their street lighting services (if they
have street lights) through the SDL. The average charge is somewhere between $32 and $37
per year per property owner. The assessment amount is determined by three factors: 1) the
number of property owners in each district, 2) the number of lights in the district, and 3) the
type of lights. The assessment covers the operation of the lights, and it is provided by the
County through a contract with PGE. (Source: Washington County)
tL B. SEWER/WATER/STREETS
1. Will residents be forced to hook up to sewer or City water? If so, how much will it cost
per household? If not, how can residents get access to City sewer or water, and how
much will it cost to do so? (Answer provided by City of Tigard)
G
Once sanitary sewer is available in proximity to a property, the property owner has the option
D to connect after paying the appropriate fees. There is no fee to be paid until property owners
choose to connect to the sewer, and there is no obligation to connect to the sewer if property
owners continue to use an existing septic system as it is now being used. Property owners
may, however, be required to connect to sewer if there is a sewer reimbursement district and
Page 7
they do work that requires a building or land use permit. For residential developments, any
building permit for a new building or for an addition, modification, repair or alteration
exceeding 25% of the value of the building will trigger the need to connect to sewer. They
would also be required to connect to sewer if their septic system fails.
If the City chose to provide sewer service to fully developed subdivisions on septic, it would
most likely be accomplished through a reimbursement district under the existing City
program. The City would not be likely to propose a project unless there was an expectation
that one-half of the owners would connect within three years. The City engineering staff
estimated the cost of providing sewer service based on an existing subdivision in the Bull
Mountain area. Based on this scenario, it is estimated that the cost would be approximately
$6,000 per household. Under current policy, property owners must connect to the sewer
within three years from the time sewer becomes available to take advantage of any benefits
of the Incentive Program. However, if a property owner is able to wait fifteen years after the
district formation date to connect, there is no reimbursement fee (except for the connection
fee that is currently $2,407.50, which all property owners have to pay regardless of when
they connect. This fee may increase over time.). In addition, the property owner is
responsible for the cost to bring the sewer line from the main line to the residence.
Existing property owners on wells would not be required to connect to municipal water. For
new developments, or in instances where property owners wish to connect to water, the
property owner or developer would be required to pay for a water meter (price depends on
the size of the meter required/needed) and, if needed, extension of the water main across the
frontage of the property. Construction of a new well or to replace an existing well is
determined on a case by case basis depending on many factors. For information on well
placement or construction, contact the State Water Resources Department at 503-378-3739.
2. Are any street improvements planned? (Answer provided by City of Tigard)
The City of Tigard, in cooperation with Washington County has scheduled to make minor
improvements to the Bull Mountain/Roshak Road intersection. Bull Mountain Road, Beef
Bend Road, 1501h Avenue, Menlor Street and Sunrise Lane have been identified as needing
improvements (widening, resurfacing, etc.) to be brought up to collector standards in the
future (within the next 20 years), however, they have not been incorporated into the City's or
County's Capital Improvement Plan.
0. C. DEVELOPMENT TRENDS
fY
t-
1. Will development trends on Bull Mountain change if annexed? (Answer provided by City of
Tigard)
J
m The County developed its comprehensive plan for Bull Mountain in 1983. It established
W development standards which guided development. Tigard and Washington County have an
J Urban Planning Agreement that has been in effect since 1997, which gives Tigard the
authority to review and approve land use applications, building permits and engineering
permits. The area has been reviewed under the City's regulations since that time, while
maintaining consistency with the County Comprehensive Plan standards for the area. When
Page 8
MA
the Urban Planning Agreement was developed, findings were made that indicate that "the
City has functionally equivalent plan and zoning designations ...because of the historic
coordination between the County and the City." It is not anticipated, therefore, that there will
be any change in the current development patterns as a result of an annexation. Should a
property owner seek a change of land use designation to develop property in a way not
allowed under the present zoning, the application would be reviewed and decided by the
Tigard City Council in accordance with the City's standards.
2. Will the residents have a say in the vision for the Bull Mountain area? Will they get to
decide how Bull Mountain should look? (Answer provided by City of Tigard)
Yes, residents will have a say in the vision for the Bull Mountain area. Residents will have a
say in who their representatives are by participating in the election process. If the Bull
Mountain area is annexed into the City of Tigard, residents would have an opportunity to
participate in any public process that would change plans for the area. However, the current
zoning and development code standards will continue to apply and there are no plans for
changes in the near future. If standards or zoning were desired to be changed at some later
date, there would be notification to all affected property owners within 500 feet of a subject
site and opportunities for public involvement at public hearings prior to any changes taking
effect.
3. Will they be forced to accept a more citified look, such as sidewalks and street lights?
(Answer provided by City of Tigard)
Existing developments would not be forced to "upgrade" to a more urban look. New
developments, however, are required to provide infrastructure (streets, sidewalks, lights,
street trees, etc.) improvements. In addition, there may be opportunity through the City's
capital improvement program (CIP) process to make street improvements in areas needing
them which would result in upgrades as well. The City's annual CIP formulation process
provides opportunities for citizen input through a wide variety of means including Citizen
Involvement Team meetings, internet email, written correspondence, Planning Commission
public hearing, and City Council public hearing prior to adoption of the CIP projects for
implementation. Major streets such as Bull Mountain Road and Beef Bend Road may be
widened at some point in the future to provide additional capacity and to accommodate
alternative modes of travel (additional lanes, sidewalk on both sides, and bike lanes).
Potential funding sources could be the Washington County Major Streets Transportation
Improvement Program, the Countywide Traffic Impact Fee, or a bond issue that requires
y voter approval.
4. Will adding Bull Mountain to the City of Tigard create a need for additional multi-
family built-density areas on Bull Mountain or within the City of Tigard? (Metro 2040
I
i Growth Plan) (Answer provided by City of Tigard)
I
No. Both the City of Tigard and Washington County currently meet their target population
goals by requiring development to build at no less than 80% of the maximum zoning allowed
in that zone. The existing zoning, adopted by Washington County, in Bull Mountain will
Page 9
continue to apply and new developments will continue to be required to build to minimum
densities.
5. Will zoning be changed because of annexation? (Answer provided by City of'Tigard)
No. The Urban Planning Agreement between the City and Washington County, and the
City's development code, requires the City to apply the equivalent County zoning to land
annexed into the City and not make any changes for at least one year. If, however, it is
mutually agreed upon by both County and City Planning Directors at the time of annexation
that the County designation is outdated, an amendment may be initiated before the 1 year
period is over. There are no plans to change the zoning in this area. If zoning were desired
to be changed at some later date, there would be notification to all affected property owners
and opportunities for public involvement at public hearings prior to any changes taking
effect. Notice would be provided to all property owners within 500 feet of a site specific land
use proposal. In addition, public notice would be published in the local newspaper (usually
in the Tigard Times).
D. PARKS
1. Will annexation change the mindset of the City towards purchasing green space on Bull
Mountain? Will Bull Mountain buy land for parks if annexed? (Answer provided by City
of Tigard)
Tigard has allocated Metro green spaces money to purchase land in the unincorporated area,
but has not spent parks System Development Charges (SDC) generated by development in
Tigard. The City's primary funding source for park improvements is the park SDC on new
development. The park SDC is collected at the time a building permit is issued and is used
solely for park acquisition or development. At present, the park SDC imposed on a single
family house inside the City is $1,600. Because the City lacks jurisdiction and Washington
County doesn't charge a park SDC, a single family house constructed in the Bull Mountain
area contributes no fees for parks. Tigard is designated as the area's future park provider, but
currently has no funding source to improve parkland conditions outside the unincorporated
area in Bull Mountain. Annexation would allow the City to begin collecting the park SDC
on new developm ,nt within the annexed area. From June 1997, when the City first began
providing services in the Bull Mountain area, to August 2001, the City issued permits for 776
permits for single family and 56 multi-family housing units inside the Urban Services Area
L (Bull Mountain). Based upon the current City fee structure, had the City had authority to
collect park SDCs during this period, approximately $1.3 million in SDC revenues would
have been collected and been available for park acquisition and development. Over the last 8
months (March to October 2001), 200 permits were issued with a potential $328,000 of parks
SDC funds going uncollected. The longer the area waits to annex, the more funds are lost
n and the less vacant land is available to begin to meet the area's park needs. In addition,
u property values are continuing to rise, making land all the more difficult to obtain.
The City's primary source of funding for park maintenance is the City General Fund.
Property taxes paid by City property owners and businesses provide the revenue for the fund.
The unincorporated area does not pay City property taxes.
Page 10
Bull Mountain annexation would not necessarily provide immediate revenue for parks. As
new development occurs over time, park SDCs would be collected which could be used for
park acquisition and improvements within the area. Revenues collected from property taxes
would be used for the on-going maintenance of park facilities throughout the City. At the
time of annexation, the beginning SDC and maintenance fund balances would be zero, unless
the City Council chooses to provide start up funding from City resources (the General Fund).
2. What are the chances of Bull Mountain getting a park if it isn't annexed? (Answer
provided by City of Tigard)
County policy is that it does not provide park services within the area it governs and it does
not charge a parks SDC. To date, the City Council has chosen not to invest limited City park
dollars in providing park services in the unincorporated area. The City has applied some of
its Metro greenspaces dollars to the Cache Creek property in the Bull Mountain area, as has
Washington County. There are approximately 12 acres, but no development of the site using
general fund dollars has been planned. Without additional funds, the City would not
purchase additional park lands in the unincorporated area.
3. Will the study select locations for parks on Bull Mountain? What is the likelihood of a
park located on the spine of Bull Mountain? (Answer provided by City of Tigard)
No, the scope of the study does not include selecting parks. However, in 1999, Tigard
adopted a park system master plan that covered both the incorporated and Urban Services
Areas. The plan identified future park needs and priority improvements. In the Bull Mountain
Area, it identified the need for three neighborhood parks and one community park. An
exception is that the City and County jointly acquired a 12-acre site on Bull Mountain for a
nature park. The park is not open to the public at this time because the City does not have
funds for park improvements and maintenance outside the City.
In general, buildable residentially zoned property is very expensive, particularly property
with a view amenity, such as the spine of Bull Mountain. A portion of the powerline corridor
is close to the Bull Mountain summit. The park master plan identifies the potential
opportunity for a playfield and a regional pedestrian and bicycle trail within the powerline
corridor, however there has been concern about developing within this corridor and no
development would be planned until these concerns are addressed and development and
y maintenance funds secured.
'r
E. LAW ENFORCEMENT
1. How will Law Enforcement service differ between County and City? (Answer provided by
® City of Tigard)
j The County currently provides .5 officers/ 1000 people county-wide and an additional .5
officers/1000 people in the ESPD (Enhanced Sheriff Patrol District); the City of Tigard
provides 1.5 officers/1000 people. If the entire Bull Mountain area were annexed at its
current population, the City would need 10 additional officers and 3 additional cars to serve
Page 11
this area at the City's current service level. The City's average response time for Priority 1
calls is 3.5 minutes, for Priority 2 calls the average response time is 3.5 minutes and for
Priority 3 calls the average response time is 6.5 minutes. Priority 1 calls are defined as calls
involving threat of physical injury to life or property, Priority 2 calls are urgent, but not life
and death matters (stilt dispatched immediately), and Priority 3 calls are routine calls, which
must be dispatched within 15 minutes. Tigard Police continues to work under a mutual aid
agreement with other jurisdictions which allows for Tigard to provide officers in another
jurisdiction with aid when necessary and vice versa, however, this is generally for large scale
need situations.
2. How will the City provide service to the area, since annexing adds a lot more land and
people to the police service district? (Answer provided by City of Tigard)
The City's police department will respond to calls originating in the Bull Mountain area. The
level of service will be provided at the City's standard ratio; see #1. If the entire Bull
Mountain area is annexed, the City will most likely create a new patrol district for the area.
The City police department has indicated that they would want to locate a kiosk in the Bull
Mountain area, with the annexation. The Chief of Police envisions the kiosk to be a small
substation which would be used by patrol to make telephone calls, write reports, meet people,
make computer queries, receive and give out information and to create a high visibility of a
police presence in the area. It would not be staffed full time and would be used daily on an
as needed basis by the officers. In the future, when the level of activity warrants it, they
would like to have it staffed part-time.
3. How will the proposed Washington County Police consolidation affect us: will it
eliminate the benefit of annexing to the City in the Law Enforcement area? (Answer
provided by City of Tigard)
It is unknown at this time how such a consolidation would affect law enforcement services in
Washington County, if it occurred. There are numerous questions about such a consolidation,
which include cost, service levels, local control and local identity, that have not been
addressed. At this point, there are more questions than answers. To date, the study of
consolidation of police services in Washington County has been promoted by the
Washington County Police Officer's Association and a private citizen. Cities and the County
have not suggested consolidation.
i
Page 12
F. ANNEXATION PROCESS AND OPTIONS
1. What is the process of annexation, and who votes on it? (Answer provided by City of Tigard)
The following table identifies the methods of annexation available:
Table 1 - METHODS OF ANNEXATION PROVIDED BY ORS CHAPTER 222
Method: Prior consent Election Election
required? requirement within requirement
City? within territory
to be annexed?
City Initiated - By the legislative body of the City, on NO NO (City charter does YES
its own motion [ORS 222.111(2)] (requires public not require, but
hearing and Ordinance which will set election and Council can send to
effective date upon passage) election if desired)
Subject to referendum
Owner Initiated - By petition to the legislative body of YES NO (City charter does YES (if prior
the city by owners of real property in the territory to be not require, but consent of electors
annexed. [ORS 222.111(2)] (requires public hearing Council can send to and land owners is
and Ordinance which will declare the territory annexed election if desired) not provided, as
upon condition that a majority of votes cast in the described in
territory being annexed favor annexation or as Subject to referendum subsection a, b or c
described in a, b or c below) below, prior to
action)
a. 100% Owner and Majority of Electors - by YES NO NO
written consent to annexation by all the owners
of land and not less than 50% of the electors, if Subject to referendum
any, in the territory [ORS 222.1251
b. Triple Majority - by written consent to YES NO NO
annex of more than half of the owners of land
in the territory who also own more than half of Subject to referendum
the land in the territory and of real property
therein representing more than half of the
assessed value of all real property in the
territory [ORS 222.1701 (Triple majority
discouraged because it may not be
constitutional)
c. Double Maiority - by written consent of a YES NO NO
majority of the electors in the territory along
with the written consent of property owners of Subject to referendum
more than half the land area in the territory.
[ORS 222.170(2)]
Island annexation - When territory not within a city is NO NO (City charter does NO
surrounded by the corporate boundaries of the city, or not require, but
by the corporate boundaries of the city and the ocean Council can send to
shore or a stream, bay, lake or other body of water, election if desired)
except when the territory not within a city is surrounded
entirely b water. [ORS 222.7501 Subject to referendum
Page 13
2. Can the City annex only part of Bull Mountain, (Answer provided by City of Tigard)
Yes. A preliminary recommendation will be made by City Council on how best to approach a
possible annexation. Among the options are full, partial, or no annexation. Whichever
course is chosen will be further refined in an outreach plan if Council directs staff to pursue
annexation. In addition, individual parcels meeting the established City standards (they must
be adjacent to the City limits, they must be able to be accommodated by necessary services,
etc. - see Comprehensive Plan policy 10.1.2), may submit an annexation application at any
time.
3. Can the area become its own city? (Answer provided by City of Tigard)
ORS 221.020 and 221.031 allow for property owners to petition for incorporation of a city in
an unincorporated area and sets forth the process. However, ORS 221.031 (4) states that
when the area proposed to be incorporated lies within an urbanized area, the petition must be
accompanied by a resolution approving the proposed incorporation by the city or cities
whose proximity would otherwise prohibit incorporation. The City Council has not
considered this issue.
4. Is there the possibility of any other city annexing the area? (Answer provided by City of
Tigard)
No. The Bull Mountain area is in the Tigard's Urban Services Area, which means that this
area has been identified by Washington County and the City of Tigard as being part of the
City of Tigard in the future. The area was identified in an Urban Planning Agreement
between the City of Tigard and Washington County which was signed in 1988. Both
jurisdictions have adopted this as an Area of Interest in their comprehensive plans. The area
south of Beef Bend, however, is in King City or its Urban Services Area.
G. RIGHTS AND LAWS
1. How will property owner rights, laws, processes of law, and mediation differ between
the current County standards and City standards? (Answer provided by City of Tigard)
In general, land use regulations will be the same as now, since the City of Tigard administers
r land-use regulations in the area. Municipal code standards will replace County code
L
requirements and enforcement will be ultimately in municipal court. While we can not
provide an analysis of all issues in this document, below is a list of some common issues
which explains the difference between the City standards and County standards:
9
Page 14
Table 2 - Comparison of standards for Washington Count and Tigard
Topic Count standards in Bull Mountain area City standards in Bull Mountain area
Noise No specific decibel level restrictions, Very Specific - decibel levels may not exceed
Construction may not occur between 7pm 50db between the hours of lam and IOpm or
and 7 am Monday-Saturday and not at all 40db between the hours of IOpm and 7am.
on Sundays or holidays. Between 7pm and Construction activity is prohibited between the
IOpm no excessive people noises such as hours of 9pm and 7am Monday through
yelling, etc. After 10pm enforcement is at Friday, 9pm-8am Saturday, 9pm-9am on
the sheriff officer's discretion. Sunday.
Tall grass and Complaint based- letter issued telling Complaint based- letter issued telling property
weeds property owner to cut if nuisance exists owner to cut if nuisance exists
Livestock Covered in City of Tigard Title 18 so there "When an agricultural use is adjacent to a
is no difference between City and County residential use, no poultry or livestock, other
since the intergovernmental agreement than normal household pets, may be housed or
between Washington County and the City provided use of a fenced run within 100 feet of
of Tigard was signed in May, 1997. any nearby residence except a dwelling on the
same lot." TDC table 18.510.1, foot note 6.
Abandoned/ On-street is enforced by Sheriff. On-street is enforced by the Police.
inoperable Private property - can not have more than 5 Private property - can not have any in-
Vehicles vehicles stored unless they are in a structure operable vehicles stored (other than in a
or are driven in a 48 hour period, structure), however there is no limit on the
number of vehicles stored as long as they are
operable.
Home Covered in City of Tigard Title 18 so there Anyone doing business out of the home must
Occupations is no difference between City and since the have a home occupation permit:
intergovernmental agreement between Type I - no employees or customers - cost is
Washington County and the City of Tigard $175 in the URB ($30 in the City), good for
was signed in May, 1997. (Properties in the duration of business
City are charged a lesser fee at this time Type II - up to I employee or volunteer and 6
because the URB fees represent 100% cost customers per day. Notice to property owners
recovery whereas the City fees are partially within 500 feet prior to decision. Cost is $883
subsidized by general fund dollars.) in the URB ($545 in the City), good for
duration of business.
The Washington County standards are very
similar to the City's except it must be Note: additional regulations apply, see 18.742.
renewed annually, allows a few more
customers (up to 10, versus 6 in the City),
and does not have a limit on the hours of
operation (so businesses such as bed and
breakfasts were allowed in the County but
no new ones will be allowed under current
p, City standards).
OC Business Tax None Required to be paid yearly for anyone
engaging in any business within the City of
Tigard. Tax is based on the number of
employees and ranges between $55 per year
_J for up to 10 employees to $220 per year for 51
m or more employees.
W Accessory Covered in City of Tigard Title 18 so there Detached accessory structures may not exceed
J Structures is no difference between City and County 528 square feet on sites less than 2.5 acres or
since the intergovernmental agreement 1,000 square feet on sites larger than 2.5 acres.
between Washington County and the City May not exceed 15 feet in height, may not be
of Tigard was signed in May, 1997. The located in the front yard setback. Side or rear
Washington Count standard, however, is: and setbacks are 5 feet.
Page 15
Detached accessory structures may not
exceed 600 square feet for lots up to 12,000
square feet, 5% of the total lot area for lots
between 12,000 and 24,000 square feet and
may not exceed 1,200 square feet for lots
larger that 24,000 square feet. Special
setbacks for structures for livestock or
poultry. If greater than 120 square feet,
setbacks of the underlying zone apply. If
less than 120 square feet, side or rear yard
setback is 3 feet.
Tree Removal Covered in City of Tigard Title 18 so there Commercial forestry is prohibited.
is no difference between City and County Commercial forestry is the removal of 10 or
since the intergovernmental agreement more trees per acre per calendar year, not
between Washington County and the City associated with a development. Removal of
of Tigard was signed in May, 1997. In less than 10 trees per acre per calendar year is
addition, in certain areas in Bull Mountain, permitted. If trees are removed as part of a
based on the Bull Mountain community development, a mitigation plan must be
plan, tree removal for development is reviewed and approved.
limited to 50%.
Storage of RV's May store 1 RV or boat on private property, Can not be located on the street for more than
however, it may not be occupied. 10 days per calendar year. May be stored on
private property as long as it is outside of
vision clearance areas. May not be occupied.
Animal Control Washington County Animal Control Washington County Animal Control regulates
regulates licenses, nuisances, removal of licenses, nuisances, removal of dead animals,
dead animals, etc etc
The above table is a GENERAL summary only, and it is strongly recommended that all
property owners contact the City of Tigard and/or Washington County if there is a specific
issue they would like information about. In instances where the City standards are more
restrictive than the County standards, uses that were in existence and legally created prior to
the Urban Services Agreement would be considered pre-existing non-conforming. A pre-
existing legal non-conforming use may remain but may not be enlarged or expanded and may
not be discontinued for more than 6 months without losing its non-conforming status.
2. How will the City's Development Code and Municipal Code affect the daily life of a
Bull Mountain resident? (Answer provided by City of Tigard)
In most cases the answer is that it won't, since land-use issues are now reviewed under
L Tigard's land-use code standards. There are additional County code issues relative to home
2 occupations, construction hours, and public rights-of-way, that will come into play when
annexed, however, citizens will see little difference from what they see now. People are
encouraged to evaluate individual differences between the two jurisdictions by reviewing the
J various standards themselves.
n
9
u
J
Page 16
3. Will existing home businesses (specific example was a bed and breakfast) have to
change the way they operate? Will they need to pay more for permits? How will
annexation affect home businesses? (Answer provided by City of Tigard)
The bed-and-breakfast operation will become a nonconforming use in Tigard. A pre-existing
legal non-conforming use may remain but may not be enlarged or expanded and may not be
discontinued for more than 6 months without losing its non-conforming status. The City will
be considering regulations for bed-and-breakfasts in the future. Existing home businesses
would be required pay an annual business tax.
Land-use permits are currently based on County fees, which are more than City fees. The
City of Tigard is studying its fees, and they may change. All City home occupation standards
now apply within the Urban Services Area with the exception of the existing County
regulations that the City adopted, including prohibiting outside storage, distribution of
materials or sales outside the home, and parking of a commercial vehicle as part of a home
occupation, which are all part of the County code.
4. Currently, residents of Bull Mountain enjoy life as a rural community. Will annexation
affect the current standards involving livestock, farmland, and rural atmosphere?
(Answer provided by City of Tigard)
The Tigard Development Code provisions related to livestock state that when an agricultural
use is adjacent to a residential use, no poultry or livestock, other than normal household pets,
may be housed or be provided use of a fenced run within 100' of any nearby residence,
except a dwelling unit on the same lot. Existing conditions would remain nonconforming
unless changed by development.
Regarding farmland and the area's rural character: Those areas considered for annexation
are zoned for urban development at 5,000 sq-ft. lots. That is no different from Washington
County. There are, however, many larger undeveloped lots that probably would still consider
themselves "rural". These areas are most likely to be found in the eastern sub-area and found
throughout portions of the southern sub-area. Please refer to the comparison provided in
Table 2 above, that shows how some identified issues differ between the City and County.
For specific issues, you will need to contact the City and/or County. There is no requirement
for properties to develop, however, if land develops, it is required to be developed to the
minimum density. The minimum density is calculated at 80% of the maximum. Washington
L County recently adopted similar standards.
r
H. OTHER QUESTIONS
J 1. (Some) Bull Mountain residents like the County because the County has pretty much
left them alone. Will the City continue this laissez-faire attitude? (Answer provided by City
of Tigard)
It was not clear what exactly was meant by this question since there are rules and regulations
in the County that every resident must follow and if they are found to be in violation of a
standard, appropriate action would be taken to bring them into compliance. The City of
Page 17
Tigard does not go out "searching" for violators of land use and development standards,
however, if a reside;lt or property owner is found to be in violation of a standard (and is not a
pre-existing non-conforming use) the City's code compliance officer would work with them
to bring them into compliance. Washington County and the City of Tigard have a variety of
standards and regulations. Table 2, above, illustrates some of these differences. Both
jurisdictions are complaint driven with regards to enforcement of regulations and standards.
2. How will the City identify what the residents want before and after annexation? (Answer
provided by City of Tigard)
The City held a Focus Group meeting with Bull Mountain residents in July 2001; the
questions in this document reflect residents' queries at that meeting.
The issue of annexation is subject to Council direction. Based upon the direction Council
decides on, public outreach will be determined.
3. Does annexation affect school boundaries? (Answer provided by City of Tigard)
No, school district boundaries for elementary, middle and high schools are determined by the
school districts. In addition, there are two school districts: the Tigard-Tualatin School
District and the Beaverton School District. The City is not a decision maker in the district or
school boundary lines, however we do provide data, as requested, on the number of lots
approved which helps each district in their school boundary decision making.
4. What is the difference in service levels between the County and the City?
The following table summarizes the level of service provided in the County and what will be
provided by the City if the area were annexed.
Table 3: Service Provision in the Bull Mountain Study Area
Service . Provider Today Under Ann_ exation Chanee in
Serpice upon
annexation?
Police Washington County provides The City of Tigard would provide Yes
1.0 officers/1000 people 1.5 officers11000 people There would be
L (.5 standard; .5 from Enhanced Patrol) an increase of
approximately
.5 officers/ 1000
people
J
Fire/Rescue Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue provides Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue No
services. continues to provide services.
J
J
Page 18
Parks Washington County does not provide Tigard's Parks standard is 7.65 acres Yes
parks services, for every 1,000 residents. This The City
includes Greenways, trails, open provides park
space and improved parks. Until services.
parks could be provided in Bull
Mountain, the City ratio would be
approximately 6.74!1000.
General Road Washington County through the Urban The City's road maintenance Yes
Maintenance Road Maintenance District. General performs maintenance on regular The City
street maintenance by the County is schedules as well as on a complaint- provides
primarily on a complaint-driven basis. driven basis. Typical maintenance additional road
Typical maintenance activities include: activities include: maintenance
services.
• pothole patching • pothole patching
• grading graveled roads • grading graveled roads
• cleaning drainage facilities • cleaning drainage facilities
• street sweeping • street sweeping
• mowing roadside grass and brush • mowing roadside grass and
(only the shoulder strip) brush (shoulder strip + ditch
• maintaining traffic signals line)
• replacing damaged signs • maintaining traffic signals
• replacing damaged signs
• installing and replacing street
markings
• crack sealing
• vegetation removal for vision
clearance
• street light tree trimming for
light clearance
• dust abatement on graveled
roads
Sanitary Sewer Clean Water Services (CWS) The City of Tigard will meet the No
same level of service as CWS. All
service levels for CWS and
surrounding jurisdictions must be
uniform by July 2003.
Storm Sewer Clean Water Services (CWS) The City of Tigard will meet the No
same level of service as CWS. All
service levels for CWS and
surrounding jurisdictions must be
uniform by July 2003.
N
Water Intergovernmental Water Board Service remains the same. Tigard No
contracts with the Tigard Water District Water District will continue to
to provide water, provide water but will bill directly.
u
Page 19
Street Light Washington County administers The City of Tigard will assume all Service remains
Maintenance Service Districts for Lighting for PGE. street light operations and the same but
Residents pay an annual operations and maintenance for existing lights. property owners
maintenance assessment. Residents do not pay a separate are not assessed
assessment, for the
operation of the
lights.
Community The City of Tigard provides building The City of Tigard will continue to Only change in
Development and services-including land use decisions, provide building services to this area, service is that
Building Services building and engineering-under an the City reviews
intergovernmental agreement with All land use decisions will continue legislative
Washington County. to be reviewed under the City matters.
standards and through the City's
All land use decisions are reviewed hearing process. The City would be
under the City standards and through the review authority for legislative
the City's hearing process with the actions as well (zone changes,
exception of legislative actions (zone comprehensive plan amendments,
changes, Comprehensive Plan etc).
amendments, etc.)
Library Washington County Cooperative The City of Tigard, which receives No
Library Services (WCCLS) approximately 62%n of its funding
Consortium, which provides funding through the WCCLS. Bull Mountain
through the county tax to area libraries, residents would have influence on
including Tigard. the library's services, and could
advocate for the services they want.
Schools Both the Beaverton School District and Annexation does not change school No
the Tigard School District provide district boundaries.
service based on district boundaries.
Garbage Collection Residents are charged rates established The City franchises City garbage Service remains
by Washington County for service collection, and the Bull Mountain the same, but
provided by Pride. Residents pay the area would become part of the rates will differ.
fee depending on the size of container franchised area. The service provider See Appendix
they use. remains the same but residents would G in main
be charged the rates established by report for rates.
City Council based on the size of the
container the use.
L
9
J
1
1
Page 20
1. COST/BENEFIT ANALYSIS (Answers provided by City of Tigard)
1. What is the difference between the Washington County permanent rate vs. City of
Tigard permanent rate?
The County rate is $2.2484 per $1,000 of assessed valuation. The City of Tigard's rate is
$2.5131. The County permanent rate pays for countywide services such as juvenile justice,
jails, courts, social services, etc. The City permanent rate pays for local services such as
police, parks, library, and a portion of land use planning and street maintenance services.
Following annexation, Bull Mountain property owners, like all City of Tigard property
owners, will pay both permanent rates. It should be noted that the permanent rate does not
include special district assessments such as the Urban Road Maintenance District or
Enhanced Sheriff Patrol District. Upon annexation, Bull Mountain property owners will not
pay the special district assessments anymore. For a home assessed at $227,775, this amounts
to a difference of $256.50 per year. Refer to Table 6 for a complete breakdown of property
tax assessments.
2. How would annexation affect Tigard's "tax base" and tax rate?
Since the passage of Measure 50, there are no longer any tax bases in the State of Oregon.
Measure 50 eliminated tax bases in favor of permanent tax rates. Tigard's rate will not
change as a result of annexation. Following annexation, the City permanent tax rate will be
applied to assessed values in the newly annexed area, producing additional property tax
revenue for the City to help pay for City services provided to those areas.
3. What would property taxes be if annexation happens?
Property taxes will be based on Tigard's permanent rate and the total assessed value of your
property. The tax rate is permanent. For a home assessed at $227,755, annexation would
increase taxes by approximately $256.50 per year. See the attached Table 6 for a complete
breakdown of all the assessments paid in the County and the City of Tigard. If the assessed
value increases, the property tax paid will increase as well, however, it should be noted that a
property's assessed value can only be raised a maximum of 3% per year.
4. Would there be any additional taxes beyond property taxes (such as existing local
option taxes in Tigard)?
C
Currently, the City of Tigard has one General Obligation Bond tax levy for construction of
the Civic Center and transportation improvements. For a home assessed at $227,755, it
equates to approximately $14.99 a year. The last year of this levy is FY 2002-03. Tigard
does not have a Local Option Levy.
1
Bull Mountain property owners now pay the following taxes for general government
services, and would continue to pay them under annexation: Washington County, Tualatin
Valley Fire & Rescue, Port of Portland and Metro. Bull Mountain property owners (like
Tigard property owners) now pay the following taxes to support General Obligation bonds,
Page 21
and would continue to pay them under annexation: Washington County, Portland Community
College, Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue, Port of Portland, Metro and Tri-Met.
However, Bull Mountain property owners would cease paying the following taxes for general
government services, as these services would be assumed by the City of Tigard: Washington
County Enhanced Patrol, Washington County Road Maintenance and Street Lighting
districts. For a home assessed at $227,755, the net increase (after subtracting the special
district assessments and adding in the City of Tigard permanent tax rate and one general
obligation bond) in property taxes would be approximately $256.50 a year.
5. What potential local option taxes are on the horizon? (schools, roads, etc.)
Tigard is considering placing a General Obligation Bond levy on the ballot in 2002 to build a
new library. The size of the bond is currently under development, so the tax impact is not yet
known. This information will be developed well in advance of the election.
The Tigard-Tualatin School District is also considering a General Obligation Bond levy to be
referred to the voters in 2002. Annexation to the City does not affect school district
boundaries, however, so annexation will not affect this levy. (Attendance boundaries for
elementary, middle and high schools are set by the respective school district. Annexation has
no impact on the attendance boundaries.)
The Washington County Cooperative Library Services (WCCLS) is considering going out
for a local option levy in 2002, however, if this levy were approved it would be paid
regardless of whether annexation occurred.
Other overlapping jurisdictions may also be considering bond levies or Local Option Levies,
but the City has no information on these plans.
It should be noted that any decision on proposed bonds rests solely with the voters in the
district to be served.
6. How much additional revenue for Tigard would annexation generate? What would the
additional revenue be at build-out?
The table on the next page shows the Projected Revenues and Costs by Funds for Bull
Mountain Area upon annexation with the existing population. Numbers in parentheses
represent balance shortfalls.
i
i
i
Page 22
Table 4-A - Ongoing O eratin Costs
Fund Revenue Operating Balance
Cost
General $2,161,822 1,298,469 $863,353
State Gas Tax $319,081 391,932 6721.851 1
Sanitary Sewer $202,904 $85,597 $117,307
Storm Sewer $97,524 78,188 $19,336
Water $1,767,550 691,659 $1,075,891
I
Table 4-B - One-time 7Capital Rai Costs
Fund Fund Balance/ Capital Improvements Balance
Revenues
Traffic Impact Fee $370,640 0 $370,640
Parks SDC $268,960 $13,105,000 (S 12.8 30,040 )
Water SDC $334,724 0 $334,724
The next table shows the Projected Revenues and Costs by Funds for Bull Mountain Area at
build-out which is 80% of the maximum buildable using vacant and re-developable land.
Table 5-A - Ongoing Operating Costs
Fund Revenue Operating Balance
Cost
General $3,806,006 $2,260,681 $1,545,325
State Gas Tax $535,816 $628,011 (Y) 1. 105 IL Sanitary Sewer $361,318 $143,739 $217,579
OC
N Storm Sewer $173,664 $131,300 $42,364
Water $1,767,550 691,659 $1,075,891
tD
t7
W
J
Page 23
Table 5-B - One-time Ca ital Costs
Fund Fund Balance/ Capital Improvements Balance
Capital Revenues
Traffic Impact Fee $5,150,540 $12,718,600 ~}7.ioN.060)
Parks SDC $3,737,560 $22,033,000 ti l S. -1 5,4au i
Water SDC $4,651,439 $816,400 $3,835,039
7. How is the annexation study being paid for?
Funding for this study comes from the City's General Fund.
8. How much money will be available for infrastructure under Tigard versus under
Washington County?
The Bull Mountain Study, prepared by the City of Tigard, identifies infrastructure needs for
the entire area. Transportation and park improvements exceed revenue projections. At this
point funding strategies have not been determined to address the infrastructure needs of the
area.
9. If annexation happens, how much of the Bull Mountain revenue stream will stay in the
Bull Mountain area? How much will stay in Tigard, and where will it go?
The City does not segregate revenues by geographic area. Revenues are used to provide
needed services to all citizens. As part of the annexation study, the City is in the process of
identifying those services needed in the Bull Mountain area, and if annexed, the City will
provide services.
10. By annexing, would the additional revenue coming to Tigard actually outweigh any
additional costs to the City?
The tables (4A, 413, 5A and 5B) above show that, in some funds the City would have increase
in revenue whereas in other funds the City would see a shortfall in order to provide the level
of service currently provided to City of Tigard residents.
OL
1!C
11. Are there additional benefits (such as grants) that become available to the City of
Tigard if they annex Bull Mountain that aren't available now? Are there any negative
consequences to the City if they don't annex Bull Mountain?
a
n
The Federal Government offers the Entitlement City Program to those cities with a
r population of at least 50,000. The program makes cities eligible for HUD grants. The 2000
Census shows Tigard's population as 41,223. If Bull Mountain is annexed, 7,268 current
residents will be added, for a total of 48,491. If the Bull Mountain area is fully built out to the
minimum density, the study projects an additional 5,637 residents. The City would be
Page 24
eligible for Entitlement City grants in the year it reaches 50,000 population, which depends
on the area's rate of growth.
In addition to grants, certain state shared revenues (such as cigarette tax, liquor tax, state
revenue sharing, and state gas tax) that are shared with cities based on formulas that include
(among other factors) population. The share of these revenues to Tigard will increase with
annexations.
The City currently provides some services to the Bull Mountain area under contract to
Washington County. These services (such as land use permitting and building inspection)
will probably continue to be provided as along as fees charged for these services continue to
cover costs. However, Bull Mountain residents also use City of Tigard facilities for which
they are not assessed; i.e., the library and parks. Growth in population in an un-annexed
area, such as Bull Mountain, requires increasing levels of service from the City without a
corresponding increase in funding. This can result in lower levels of service for all citizens,
whether they live in un-annexed areas or within the City itself.
I:Irplan/julia/annexation/Draft answers to the questions.doe
1 I/7/01 3:24 PM
d
H
_J
m
W
J
Page 25
Appendix G
Residential Garbage Collection Rates
for the Bull Mountain Study Area
Cart Size Washington County City of Tigard
Monthly Urban Rates' Monthly Rates2
Mini Cart $17.91 $16.10
(20 gallon)3
32 gallon $19.30 $18.75
60 gallon $28.01 $29.25
90 gallon $33.12 $35.50
1. County rates as of June 1, 2001. Urban refers to collection within
the metropolitan service district boundary.
2. City rates as of January 1, 2002
3. All rates include yard debris collection.
4. To be consistent with City requirements, curb rates (0-5' from curb)
are used for both County and City.
1
n
3
0
9
u
s
Page G - 1