Loading...
City Council Packet - 12/02/2003 Agenda Item No. S , Meeting of I - 13 • c-'-I COUNCIL MINUTES TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING December 2, 2003 Meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Council President Dirksen. City Council Present: Council President Dirksen, Councilors Moore, Sherwood and Wilson. • STUDY SESSION Councilor Moore will speak at the services for Mayor Griffith on behalf of the City of Tigard. Angela Jensen, Student envoy from the Tigard High School will speak during the visitor's agenda. Dan Murphy of the Tigard Chamber of Commerce cannot attend. The Chamber holiday lunch was scheduled for December 9, but has been cancelled since it is the same day as the funeral services for Mayor Griffith. Council discussed process for the public hearing on Bull Mountain. Staff report will take about 20 minutes. After the staff report Councilor Dirksen will note that Council has discussed the possibility of postponing the annexation plan ballot measure until November 2004. In the interim a number of subcommittees will be formed to research and respond to issues raised from Bull Mountain residents who have attended Coffee Talk&-and.the .-Open House meeting on November 19. The Council will not make a decision tonight. Oral testimony will be received at this hearing; written testimony will be requested and the Council will set a deadline for submittal of the testimony. Council decided to hold the two Coffee Talks scheduled in December: December 10 will be attended by Councilor Wilson and the Talk of December 18 will be attended by Council President Dirksen. A CP04b meeting will be held on December 4 at Deer Creek Elementary at 7 p.m. Council President Dirksen and Councilor Wilson will attend. Councilor Sherwood advised that she will be serving for the next year on the Regional Affordable Housing Task Force. City Manager Monahan noted that there is a ribbon cutting ceremony scheduled for the Bonita crosswalk at 9 a.m. on December 4. Council President Dirksen and Community Development Director Hendryx will attend a meeting regarding urban renewal at 2 p.m. in Beaverton on December 4. There was brief discussion about the Council's options for filling a vacancy on the Council. Information was distributed to the Council Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes - December 2, 2003 Page 1 members. City Attorney Ramis noted that there are a range of choices for the Council to consider. This matter will be discussed further on December 16. Council members commented that they would like to wait until after the first of the year decide upon what should be done about the vacancy of the Mayor's position. A goal-setting session is scheduled for January 12, which may be one reason why Council members thought they might want to make a decision by that time if possible. City Manager Monahan advised that the Griffith family has requested that donations in memory of Mayor Griffith be made to the Tigard Skatepark. City Manager suggested that the Council review in late January some guidelines to give to the Skatepark Task Force regarding when the property would be available for the park and to obtain from the Skatepark a commitment about when they anticipate they would have completed their fundraising. Council meeting recessed at 7:03 Council business meeting convened at 7:27 p.m. Council President Dirksen called the meeting to order. He noted the passing of Mayor Jim Griffith on November 28, 2003. He asked for a moment of silence in memory of Mayor Griffith. Council President Dirksen said he thought the Mayor would want the business of the City to move forward and he and the City Council proceeded to review the agenda items before them. 2. VISITOR'S AGENDA Tigard High School Student Envoy Angela Jensen gave a report on the activities at Tigard High School. 3. CONSENT AGENDA: Motion by Councilor Wilson, seconded by Councilor Sherwood to a ~ pprove the Consent Agenda as follows: 3.1 Approve Council Minutes for October 20, 21 and 28, November 4, 2003 i 3.2 Authorize the Issuance of a Limited Tax Improvement Bond for the Remaining I Unpaid Assessments for the Dartmouth Street Local Improvement District - Resolution No. 03-63 f 3.3 Local Contract Review Board: a. Award Three-Year Contract with JBI&K for Insurance Agent of Record Services b. Award Contract to LRS Architects, Inc., for City Hall and Existing Library Facilities Remodel and Construction Oversight Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes - December 2, 2003 Page 2 3.4 Approve Budget Amendment No. 11 Transferring One Position from Network Services to Police and Adjusting Appropriations - Res. No. 03-64 3.5 Approve Continued Participation in the International Resource Cities Program - Resolution No. 03-65 The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present: Council President Dirksen Yes Councilor Moore Yes Councilor Sherwood Yes Councilor Wilson Yes 4. Sz 5. PUBLIC HEARING (LEGISLATIVE) - BULL MOUNTAIN ANNEXATION PLAN (ZONE CHANGE ANNEXATION [ZCA] 2003-00003/ZONE CHANGE ANNEXATION [ZCA] 2003-00004/ZONE CHANGE ANNEXATION [ZCA] 2003-00005/ZONE CHANGE ANNEXATION [ZCA] 2003-00006) ZONE CHANGE ANNEXATION (ZCA) 2003-00003, 2003-00004, 2003-00005, 2003-00006 BULL MOUNTAIN ANNEXATION PLAN REQUEST: The City of Tigard is proposing to annex 1,378 acres of Washington County known as Bull Mountain through the annexation plan process. State law allows the City to annex, territory within an urban growth boundary (UGB) pursuant to a detailed annexation plan, subject to voter approval. If the Tigard City Council approves the annexation proposal, it would set a date for the proposal to be placed on the ballot. LOCATION: The unincorporated area is within the UGB. It is generally bounded on the north by Barrows Road, on the east by Tigard City limits, on the south by Beef Bend Road, and on the west partially by 150th Avenue and near Roy Rogers Road. For specific boundary, see vicinity map. ZONE: The area includes R-4.5 (Low-Density Residential District; minimum lot size 7,500 square feet), R-7 (Medium-Density Residential District; minimum lot size 5,000 square feet), R-12 (Medium-Density Residential District; minimum lot size 3,050 square feet) and R-25 (Medium High-Density Residential District; minimum lot size 1,480 square feet). APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: The approval standards for annexations are set out in Community Development Code Chapter 18.320 and 18.390, Comprehensive Plan Policies 2 and 10; ORS Chapters 195.205 and 222; and Metro Code Chapter 3.09. a. Council President (Mayor Pro Tem) Dirksen opened both the annexation plan and ballot measure (see Item No. 5) hearings so that testimony could be taken on both items. Council President Dirksen advised the audience of guidelines for the public hearings noting that the intention was to hear the staff report and conduct the public hearing. The Council would not make a decision about the annexation plan tonight; the hearings would be continued to December 16, 2003. Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes - December 2, 2003 Page 3 b. A staff report was given by Community Development Director ]lm Hendryx, highlighted by a PowerPoint presentation, the presentation is on file with the City Recorder. Staff recommended approval of the Annexation Plan. Council President Dirksen advised the audience that in light of citizen input received to date, the Council had discussed an option of postponing the ballot measure from March 2004 to November 2004. The interim months would be used to form subcommittees to review and respond to issues raised including questions about parks, police, street maintenance, engineering, etc. The subcommittees would include staff members from Tigard and Washington County and citizen representation from CP04b. County Chair Tom Brian and County Commissioner Roy Rogers indicated they would lend their full cooperation and support to this review process and would be happy to provide staff services. If it is determined to place this issue on the ballot in November 2004, the current proposal would be that the area would not come in to the City in phases, but would be annexed all at once. One drawback is that the County was committed to collecting parks systems development charges once the City of Tigard had approved a ballot measure for an annexation plan. There is a question about whether the County would delay collecting these charges to coincide with the delay in the process referred to above. Councilor Dirksen gave a brief review of guidelines for testimony asking that people limit testimony to three minutes; testimony should not be repeated. There was discussion about the large number of people in attendance, including individuals who were in the lobby. It was determined that one of the lobby speakers was not working. The volume was turned up on the other lobby speaker so that people in the lobby could hear the proceedings. There was a request for a change in location of the hearing; however, City Attorney Ramis said the City has made a reasonable attempt to accommodate those attending the hearing; legal requirements were met. All people who signed up on the testimony sign-in sheets will be allowed to speak. C. Public Testimony: Proponent: • Bob Meurisse, 14145 SW 164` Avenue, Tigard, Oregon spoke in favor of the annexation plan noting his belief that Bull Mountain residents should join the City of Tigard so that they would be paying for facilities and services provided by the City. He said it was imperative to incorporate the Bull Mountain area for a more sustainable overall sense of community. Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes - December 2, 2003 Page 4 71 Opponents: • Stuart Byron, 15650 SW 133rd Avenue, Tigard, OR noted: Concern about the way the development has occurred to date in the area, citing poor planning. No tangible benefits from annexation have been identified for the Bull Mountain residents. Codes should be changed for better planning purposes. • Tom Jacobs, 14860 SW 139th, Tigard, OR noted: Support of a city moratorium on building permits until the annexation plan is in action. • LaVelle Day, 14055 SW High Tor, Tigard, OR noted: Concerns about whether the ORS 195 process for annexation is the best process to be using for this situation. Request that the annexation plan provide for controls in protection of views from properties. Concerns about the one-year delay before the City would assume responsibility for roads and streets and questioned whether the City would be responsible for maintenance. • Guy L. Haynes, 16269 SW O'Neill Ct., Tigard, OR noted: Charged that the City is looking to annex Bull Mountain because it is a "plum" and the reason for annexing is to collect additional taxes from this area without a corresponding benefit to the Bull Mountain residents. Services received from Washington County meet the needs of the residents. Request that benefits of annexation for residents be specifically identified. • Madalyn Utz, 14880 SW 133rd, Tigard, OR noted: Concerns about the burden of higher taxes. Notation that the Bull Mountain residents use the area's transportation system, but so does "half of Portland." Referred to problems of Pacific Highway and lack of good planning. Concerns about building density that is occurring. Suggested a fee be charged to non-Tigard residents for the Library and parks. Noted volunteer services given by Bull Mountain residents to Tigard causes. Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes - December 2, 2003 Page 5 Concerns that this process has created an adversarial situation. Concerns that the beauty of the area be protected. Want of a government that cares for citizens and listens to citizens' concerns. • Ellen Beilsteln, 14630 SW 19' Avenue, Tigard, OR noted: Desire to maintain the rural character on Bull Mountain. Concern that comprehensive planning needs to be done with citizen participation. Applauded the idea of forming subcommittees of staff and citizens to review the issues noted by residents about the Bull Mountain Annexation Plan. • Alice Ellis Gaut, 100947 SW Chateau Lane, Tigard, OR noted: Her efforts with the "Take Back Tigard" group and charged that Tigard needs to take care of planning issues and update its code and comprehensive plan before looking to annex Bull Mountain area. • Ron Ellis Gaut, 10947 SW Chateau Lane, Tigard, OR noted: - Support for the delay to November to address questions and to use time for voter education. - Concern there has been no emphasis toward education City of Tigard voters. - Noted opposition because it feels like a hostile take over. - What benefits would there be for City of Tigard citizens should this annexation take place? • Virginia Dean, 14305 SW 144, Tigard, OR noted: - She had at one time lived in the City of Tigard (1951) and lived there until the taxes began to increase, saying she believes the taxes were one-third less on Bull Mountain than they were when she was in Tigard. - Concerns that the trees around her are growing taller than they should be allowed. • Teddi Duling, 15421 SW 145` Terrace, Tigard, OR noted: Sheriff's department has been responsive and is concerned that with annexation, there would be less police protection. • Jim Duling, 15421 SW 145' Terrace, Tigard, OR noted he concurred with earlier testimony. Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes - December 2, 2003 Page 6 • Lisa Hamilton-Treick, 13565 SW Beef Bend Road, Tigard, OR noted: Community character and quality of life issues were not addressed. . Annexation Plan has been described as "adequate," and "adequate" is not acceptable - should work towards "excellence." More citizen input is needed. Noted appreciation of Council's "genuine efforts" to look again at this issue. • Todd Marshall, 14245 SW Bull Mountain Road, Tigard, OR noted: He "likes the way it is now," and doesn't want anymore development. - Concurred with previous testimony. . Services for police and roads are now adequate. • Julie Russell, 12662 SW Terra View, Tigard, OR noted: Concerns with safety on Beef Bend Road and Bull Mountain Road and what plans would there be for capital improvements and when would these take place? Concerns with the density of development that has taken place. She is happy with the service the Sheriff's office is giving the area. Concerns about how the Alberta Rider School area will be allowed to develop. • Tom Fergusson, 14850 SW 141' Avenue, Tigard, OR noted: There are many areas in the City of Tigard that do not have contiguous sidewalks; Tigard needs to look at its own infrastructure. A request for answers to questions such as: Will residents be required to hook up to sewers, pave gravel roads, construct sidewalks? People are frustrated by the lack of control and want to have questions answered. Does not want the Bull Mountain area to look like the rest of Tigard. • Noel Bauer Stevens 15130 SW 1411 Avenue, Tigard, OR noted: - Concurred with most of what previous speakers had said. r - People get frustrated with lack of control and want to have their questions answered. - She does not want to have where she lives look like the City of Tigard. ii u • Richard Gaunt, 14875 SW 141 SI Avenue, Tigard, OR noted: - He concurred with many of the previous speakers. - He referenced an earlier meeting where he understood City of Tigard officials to say that nothing would happen on annexation without the approval of voters on Bull Mountain. - He does not want higher taxes. Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes - December 2, 2003 Page 7 • Ken Henschel, 14530 SW 144' Avenue, Tigard, OR noted: Will there be any guarantees that tax dollars contributed by Bull Mountain would be spent on Bull Mountain? Suggested that in the first five years, all tax dollars generated by Bull Mountain be spent on Bull Mountain. He agreed with many of the previous speakers' comments. SDC's collected would take many years before there would be a chance to buy land for parks and there would be no guarantee that the dollars collected would be spent for parks on Bull Mountain. Many people who live on Bull Mountain have performed community service for the city of Tigard. Tigard residents are not paying a fee to use Bull Mountain roads. • Holly Shumway, 14535 SW Woodhue Street, Tigard, OR noted: Willing to wait for annexation until 2004 so that more planning could be done for park improvements on Bull Mountain. Development is occurring at an alarming rate. Thanked the City for what they have done with the County and indicated the need to reshape Tigard into a more livable city. • G. Winterowd, 14749 SW Juliet Terrace, Tigard, OR noted: - Tigard is a great city known for accomplishments and listening to citizens. Past leaders have listened. 99% of Bull Mountain residents are against annexation. - Washington County has done an excellent job providing services; additional layers of government are not necessary. • Wynne Wakkila, 15522 SW 14151 Avenue, Tigard, OR noted: - Satisfied with services in Washington County; does not want to pay more taxes for something that is not needed. - Suggested that annexation of Bull Mountain would increase Tigard's ll tax revenue it collects by 50%. - Glad to be part of an unincorporated area. ~ I Steven C. Burke, 16147 SW Palermo Lane, Tigard, OR noted: 3 I - Wants more specificity, what has been presented is too vague. - Wants a ban on townhouses and row houses, noting that higher density development eventually declines in value. - Interested in serving on a subcommittee. • Mary Deason, 14240 SW 1441 Avenue, Tigard, OR noted: - Annexation would be of no benefit to her and suggested the City consider annexing the Metzger area. Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes - December 2, 2003 Page 8 • Keshmira McVey, 13525 SW Beef Bend Road, Tigard, OR noted: - The Annexation Plan lacks substance. - Urban services standards identifying levels of services to be provided have not been identified. - Fearful that all Bull Mountain residents would receive is higher taxes without corresponding benefits. - Pointed out that the north area identified in the Annexation Plan is In the Beaverton School District. - So far, it "feels like a hostile take over." • Dick Franzke, 14980 SW 133rd, Tigard, OR noted: Discussion of legal issues regarding the annexation method chosen by the City; suggested the annexation procedure be validated. Request that people of Bull Mountain and City of Tigard be allowed to vote separately (double majority). • Bruce Stobbe, resident of 14795 SW 144' Avenue, Tigard, OR noted: Questioned when a citizen of Bull Mountain could run for a City Council position. (if annexation is effective July 1, 2004, Bull Mountain residents would be eligible to run for a Council position in November 2004, if they have lived in the Bull Mountain or Tigard area for at least one year prior to the election.) Concerns about how growth has occurred. Concerns about whether the City has the resources to take over responsibility for the roads. Does not want to be annexed. s Supported waiting until November to place this matter before voters. • Tom August, 15707 SW Bristlecone Way, Tigard, OR noted: - Has TriMet service to the area been addressed? Where would the park land be located? Advised his contact with the City of Tigard was a negative experience and related to a time when he was cleaning up his yard. • Gary Stevens, 15120 SW 1411 Avenue, OR noted: He has been a resident of the area for 25 years. Concerned that there has been a lack of coordination between the City and County. Disappointed with the County with regard to the collection of parks system development charges. Concern about availability and cost of land remaining for parks. Looks like a tax grab; what planning has been done to provide for livability? Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes - December 2, 2003 Page 9 • Glen Kaufman, 15250 SW Bull Mountain Road, Tigard, OR noted: . Dissatisfaction with police response time from the City of Tigard. - Doesn't agree with "completing our community" statement and questioned what was incomplete for Tigard and Bull Mountain? - Lack of consistency because Council identified a phased-in approach and now may consider annexing the area all at once. - Appears that the only value will be for additional taxes for Tigard. • )lm Fisher, 13883 SW 159th , Tigard, OR noted: - This action can be likened to a marriage and said that a plan is needed that shows how Tigard and Bull Mountain residents will benefit. • Bob Rohlf, 12430 SW North Dakota, Tigard, OR noted: - Acknowledged Council members for their willingness to proceed with this meeting after their "profound loss" with the passing of Mayor Griffith. - Questioned why there were no citizens from the City of Tigard present to give their views? Has this annexation plan been explained adequately to the Tigard residents? At the conclusion of the public testimony, the Council decided to proceed as follows: • The Bull Mountain Annexation Plan and Proposed Ballot Title public hearings were continued to December 16, 2003, 7:30 PM, Tigard City Hall, Town Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd, Tigard, OR. • The Council closed the oral public testimony segment of the hearing. • The Council will accept written public testimony that is delivered to City Recorder Cathy Wheatley by noon on Thursday, Dec. 11, 2003. • The hearing has progressed to the Council consideration segment of the hearing and the Council will consider the Bull Mountain agenda item during the December 16 Council meeting. Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes - December 2, 2003 Page 10 5. PUBLIC HEARING ON A BALLOT MEASURE FOR THE MARCH 9, 2004 ELECTION FOR A MEASURE EXPANDING THE TIGARD CITY LIMITS BY PHASED ANNEXATION (Note: This agenda item was combined with Agenda Item No. 4 above.) 6. ADJOURNMENT: 10:18 p.m. 'We D at erine ity ecor e Attest: ay , City ot -1 igar Date: l -13 • L-Y4 1.1 dmlcathylcanW=3%031202.d0c Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes - December 2, 2003 Page 1 1 -eSI IS -A asaid-a TIGARD` CITY C01d- [ MEETING CITY OF TIGARD DECEMBER 2, 2003 6:30'p m OREGON TIGARD CITY HALL: 1312-5 SW HALL-BLVD TIGARD, OR 97223 PUBLIC NOTICE: Anyone wishing to speak on an agenda item should sign on the appropriate sign-up sheet(s). If no sheet is available, ask to be recognized by the Mayor at the beginning of that agenda item. Visitor's Agenda items are asked to be two minutes or less. Longer matters can be set for a future Agenda by contacting either the Mayor or the City Manager. Times noted are estimated; it is recommended that persons interested in testifying be present by 7:15 p.m. to sign in on the testimony sign-in sheet. Business agenda items can be heard in any order after 7:30 p.m. 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). SEE ATTACHED AGENDA COUNCIL AGENDA - DECEMBER 2, 2003 page 1 I Mj d AGENDA TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 2, 2003 6:30 PM • STUDY SESSION • EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council may go into Executive Session. If an Executive Session is called to order, the appropriate ORS citation will be announced identifying the applicable statute. All discussions are confidential and those present may disclose nothing from the Session. Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend Executive Sessions, as provided by ORS 192.660(3), but must not disclose any information discussed. No Executive Session may be held for the purpose of taking any final action or making any final decision. Executive Sessions are closed to the public. 7:30 PM 1. BUSINESS MEETING 1.1 Call to Order - City Council 8t Local Contract Review Board 1.2 Roll Call 1.3 Pledge of Allegiance 1.4 Council Communications 81 Liaison Reports 1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items 7:40 PM 2. VISITOR'S AGENDA (Two Minutes or Less, Please) • Tigard High School Student Envoy Angela Jensen • Tigard Area Chamber of Commerce President Dan Murphy W ► l N1 Uk -be 7:50 PM 3. CONSENT AGENDA: These items are considered to be routine and may be enacted in one motion without separate discussion. Anyone may request that an item be removed by motion for discussion and separate action. Motion to: 3.1 Approve Council Minutes for October 20, 21 and 28, November 4, 2003 3.2 Authorize the Issuance of a Limited Tax Improvement Bond for the Remaining Unpaid Assessments for the Dartmouth Street Local Improvement District - Resolution No. 03-10 3.3 Local Contract Review Board: a. Award Three-Year Contract with JB18ZK for Insurance Agent of Record Services COUNCIL AGENDA - DECEMBER 2, 2003 page 2 b. Award Contract to LRS Architects, Inc., for City Hall and Existing Library Facilities Remodel and Construction Oversight 3.4 Approve Budget Amendment No. 11 Transferring One Position rom Network Services to Police and Adjusting Appropriations - Res. No. 03_IL~ Approve Continued Papcipation in the International Resource Cities Program - Resolution No. 03- (QS • Consent Agenda - Items Removed for Separate Discussion: Any items requested to be removed from the Consent Agenda for separate discussion will be considered immediately after the Council has voted on those items which do not need discussion. 7:55 PM 4. PUBLIC HEARING (LEGISLATIVE) - BULL MOUNTAIN ANNEXATION PLAN (ZONE CHANGE ANNEXATION [ZCA] 2003-00003/ZONE CHANGE ANNEXATION [ZCA] 2003-00004/ZONE CHANGE ANNEXATION [ZCA] 2003-00005/ZONE CHANGE ANNEXATION [ZCA] 2003-00006) ZONE CHANGE ANNEXATION (ZCA) 2003-00003, 2003-00004, 2003- 00005, 2003-00005 BULL MOUNTAIN ANNEXATION PLAN REQUEST: The City of Tigard is proposing to annex 1,378 acres of Washington County known as Bull Mountain through the annexation plan process. State law allows the City to annex territory within an urban growth boundary (UGB) pursuant to a detailed annexation plan, subject to voter approval. If the Tigard City Council approves the annexation proposal, it would set a date for the proposal to be placed on the ballot. LOCATION: The unincorporated area is within the UGB. It is generally bounded on the north by Barrows Road, on the east by Tigard City limits, on the south by Beef Bend Road, and on the west partially by 150th Avenue and near Roy Rogers Road. For specific boundary, see vicinity map. ZONE: The area includes R- 4.5 (Low-Density Residential District; minimum lot size 7,500 square feet), R-7 (Medium-Density Residential District; minimum lot size 5,000 square feet), R-12 (Medium-Density Residential District; minimum lot size 3,050 square feet) and R- 25 (Medium High-Density Residential District; minimum lot size 1,480 square z + feet). APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: The approval standards for annexations are set out in Community Development Code Chapter 18.320 and 18.390, n Comprehensive Plan Policies 2 and 10; ORS Chapters 195.205 and 222; and Metro Code Chapter 3.09. ii 5 a. Open Public Hearing i b. Staff Report: Community Development Staff C. Staff Report: Community Development Department d. Public Testimony Proponents COUNCIL AGENDA - DECEMBER 2, 2003 page 3 i Opponents e. Staff Recommendation f. Council Questions g. Close Public Hearing h. Council Consideration: Resolution No. 03-. 9:25 PM 5. PUBLIC HEARING ON A BALLOT MEASURE FOR THE MARCH 9, 2004 ELECTION FOR A MEASURE EXPANDING THE TIGARD CITY LIMITS BY PHASED ANNEXATION a. Open Public Hearing b. Staff Report: Community Development Staff C. Public Testimony Proponents Opponents d. Council Discussion e. Close Public Hearing f. Council Consideration: Resolution No. 03 - 9:45 PM 6. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS 7. NON AGENDA ITEMS 8. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council may go into Executive Session. If an Executive Session is called to order, the appropriate ORS citation will be announced identifying the applicable statute. All discussions are confidential and those present may disclose nothing from the Session. Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend Executive Sessions, as provided by ORS 192.660(3), but must not disclose any information discussed. No Executive Session may be held for the purpose of taking any final action or making any final decision. Executive Sessions are closed to the public. 10:00 AM 9. ADJOURNMENT I: W D KCATHY\C CA\2003\031202 DOC COUNCIL AGENDA - DECEMBER 2, 2003 page 4 City of Tigard, Oregon Affidavit of Posting A4 CITY OF TIGARD OREGON In the Matter of the Proposed Notice of Public Hearing STATE OF OREGON ) County of Washington ) ss. City of Tigard ) I, &HLEh_'L&t_ 41 i'ulLtC~t , being first duly sworn (or affirmed), by oath (or affirmation), depose and say: That I posted in Tigard City Hall, 13125 5W Hall Bo levard, Ti ard, Oregon, a copy of Notice of Public Hearing of the 60 0 d D ffLea su h.1_- -br G , a copy of said Notice being hereto attached and by reference made a part hereof, on the 94yb day of / J0ye-^ kW-4' _20W Signature of Person who Pe ormed Posting Subscribed and sworn (or affirmed) before me this J4 th day of I Jovernbcr , 20 3 . Signature of Notary Public for Oregon OFFICIAL SEAL CAREER A GASTON ` NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON COMMISSION NO. 373020 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES OCT. 10, 2007 I:\ADM\GREER\FORMS\AFFIDAVITS\AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING - PUBLIC HEARING.DOC NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PROPOSED CITY OF TIGARD BALLOT MEASURE FOR THE MARCH 9, 2004, ELECTION The Tigard City Council will conduct a public hearing to receive comments from voters on a proposed ballot measure concerning the Bull Mountain Annexation Plan pending approval of the Plan after a public hearing on December 2, 2003.. The hearing on the proposed Tigard ballot measure on the Annexation Plan will be held on Tuesday, December 2, 2003, at 7:30 p.m. in the Town Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon. During the hearing, the Council will consider forwarding to Tigard and Bull Mountain voters the following: A proposed ballot measure annexing territory in the Tigard Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) as provided in the Bull Mountain Annexation Plan. Approval will annex territory within the UGB in three phases: Phase 1 (East) - Effective July.1,.2004: Generally located north of Beef Bend Road; east of the Mountain Gate subdivision; south of Bull Mountain Road including parcels north of Bull Mountain Road; west of Aspen Ridge and Helm Heights subdivisions. Phase 2 (South) - Effective July 1, 2005: Generally located north of Beef Bend Road; east of SW 150th; south of Sunrise Lane extended east to, and including, the High Tor subdivisions, south to Bull Mountain Road (including two parcels north of Bull Mountain Estates); and west of the Mountain Gate subdivision. Phase 3 (North/West) - Effective July 1, 2006: Generally bounded by Barrows on the north to Kerron's Crest subdivision, south to about 630 ft. west of Meyer's Farm subdivision; east to SW 150th; north along SW 150th to Sunrise Lane; east until just south of Pacific Crest subdivision; north along the east boundary of Hillshire Creek Estates; north to Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) easement to Barrows. Includes unincorporated Fern Street parcels. Page 1 of 2 M Further information may be obtained from City Recorder Cathy Wheatley at cathv@ci.tigard.or.u5 ; 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, OR 97223; telephone, 503-639- 4171, Ext. 2410. (Note: Map is attached.) TT Publish November 20 and 27, 2003 Posted: City Hall Lobby on November 19, 2003 CWmlram~ANetbnt2oo~viar. of "c h-wV - wraNion pr+.0a I I: I Page 2 of 2 OEOOPpNIC INFORYTION 6T8TEM N VICIt4lty TAP BOLL M- N- a ANN~yp,T~ON r : ZGp,2003-OOQO 4 0000 ZCA,2003- y ZGAZ°o3-00°°5 'Q zCA2003_04006 A _DiRT~ GAARDE O~t fed . Y dWJ' IS175 owl us Apt sledtgilatlons tot 2004\f] \annexation lull 2003 onWpd pd 15, 2003; i:Urpn\baih Blot date: sid7t Devel Itu c Comte AGENDA TIGARD CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS MEETING - STUDY SESSION December 2, 2003 - 6:30 p.m. 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon The Study Session Is held In the Red Rock Creek Conference Room. Enter at the back of Town Hall The Council encourages Interested citizens to attend all or part of the meeting. If the number of attendees exceeds the capacity of the Conference Room, the Council may move the Study Session to the Town Hall. 6:30 PM • STUDY SESSION ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS ■ Discuss hearing process for the Bull Mountain Annexation Plan Visitor's Agenda - Angela Jensen will be here. Dan Murphy called to say he could not attend ■ Discuss Upcoming Coffee Talk Schedule ■ Discuss Upcoming CPO Meeting, December 4, Deer Creek Elementary, 7-9 p.m. ■ Reminder: TVF8TR Lunch, December 3, Noon, Burnham Street Station ■ Tigard High School Football Acknowledgements ■ Mayor Grlffith's Service Is Tuesday, December 9, 1 p.m. at the Tigard United Methodist Church. Discuss speakers at service to represent the City. ■ Calendar Review December 9 - No items scheduled for this meeting date. Council President Dirksen and Councilor Sherwood will be absent. December 16 - Council Meeting 6:30 p.m. January 12 - Council Goal Setting Session - 1 p.m. - Tigard Water Auditorium January 13 - Council Meeting - 6:30 p.m. - State of the City Address? January 20 - Special Workshop Session 5 p.m., Transportation Strategic Planning January 27 - Council Meeting - 6:30 p.m. Holiday Tree Lighting Event - Downtown - December 5, 6 p.m. hayrides; 7 pm. Santa arrives • EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council may go into Executive Session. If an Executive Session is tailed to order, the appropriate ORS citation will be announced identifying the applicable statute. All discussions are confidential and those present may disclose nothing from the Session. Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend Executive Sessions, as provided by ORS 192.660(3), but must not disclose any information discussed. No Executive Session may be held for the purpose of taking any final action or making any final decision. Executive Sessions are closed to the public. Executive Session - The Public Meetings Law authorizes governing bodies to meet in executive session in certain limited situations (ORS 192.660). An "executive session" is deflned as "any meeting or part of a meeting of a governing body, which Is closed to certain persons for deliberation on certain matters." Permissible Purposes for Executive Sessions: 192.660 (1) (a) - Employment of public officers, employees and agents, if the body has satisfied certain prerequisites. 192.660(l) (b) - Discipline of public officers and employees (unless affected person requests to have an open hearing). 192.660 (i) (c) - To consider matters pertaining to medical staff of a public hospital. 192.660 (1) (d) - Labor negotiations. (News media can be excluded In this Instance.) 192.660(l) (e) - Real property transaction negotiations. 192.660(l) (f) - Exempt public records - to consider records that are "exempt by law from public inspection." These records are specifically Identified in the Oregon Revised Statutes. 192-660 (1) (g) - Trade negotiations - Involving matters of trade or commerce in which the governing body Is competing with other governing bodies. 192.660 (1) (h) - Legal counsel - Executive session are appropriate for consultation with counsel concerning legal rights and duties regarding current litigation or litigation likely to be flied. 192.660 (1) (1) - To review and evaluate, pursuant to standards, criteria, and policy directives adopted by the governing body, the employment-related performance of the chief executive officer, a public officer, employee or staff member unless the affected person requests an open hearing. The standards, criteria and policy directives to be used in evaluating chief executive officers shall be adopted by the governing body in meetings open to the public in which there has been an opportunity for public comment. 192.660 (1) Public investments - to carry on negotiations under ORS Chapter 293 with private persons or businesses regarding proposed acquisition, exchange or liquidation of public investments. 192.660 (1) (k)- Relates to health professional regulatory board. ew&n%c ~Mt.naet-aWCy"%WWnagendaa12W MI11e.a« ;5 MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: Honorable City Council FROM: Cathy Wheatley, City Recorder VGA DATE: December 2, 2003 SUBJECT: Vacancy Information Attached is information regarding options for a vacancy on the Council: • See Charter, Page C-2, second paragraph • July 11, 2000 memo from Tim Ramis about "Mayoral Position" vacancy and the options available for filling the position • Council minutes of July 11, 2000, (excerpt) where the discussion of the vacancy in the position of Mayor was held • Council minutes of July 18, 2000, (excerpt) where the discussion of the vacancy in the position of Mayor was held ~ ~ om".d- TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE z current office at the time of filing for the other Measure 53, November 2,1982 election). office. A resignation submitted to satisfy this section shall not be withdrawn. A resignation Section 9. shall be adequate for purposes of this section if it provides for the termination of the signer's service Repealed by Ordinance 72-16, Section 9, May in the office not later than the last day before 23,1972 election. service would begin in the office for which that person seeks to become a candidate. Section 10. OTHER OFFICERS. 7 In the event the office of mayor or councilor Additional officers of the City shall be a city becomes vacant before the normal expiration of its manager, municipal judge, a recorder, and such term a special election may be held at the next other officers as the council deems necessary. available date to fill the office for the unexpired Each of these officers shall be appointed and may term. Such an election shall only take place if the be removed by consent of the council. The council can schedule and hold a special election at council may combine any two or more appointive least twelve months before the term would city offices. The council may designate any otherwise expire. If an election is held, it shall be appointive officers to supervise any other held in accordance with the election laws of the appointive officer except the municipal judge in state of Oregon and city ordinances not the exercise of judicial functions. (Measure 34-88, inconsistent with such election laws. The council November 3, 1998 election, Res. 9846; Measure may appoint a person to fill a vacancy until an 34-58, November 5, 1996 election, Res. 96-53; election can be held. (Res. 93-63, May 17, 1994 Measure 52, November 5, 1985 election). election: Measure 34-7, May 15, 1990 election: Measure 51, November 4, 1986 election: Measure Section 11. SALARIES. 51, November 5, 1985 election: Measure 53, November 2, 1982 election: Measure 53, May 18, The compensation for the services of each 1982 election). city officer and employees shall be the amount fixed by the council. Section 8. COUNCILORS. Section 12. QUALIFICATIONS OF The councilors holding office at the time of OFFICERS. adoption of this amendment shall hold their offices for-the balance of the terms for which they A qualified elector within the meaning of the were elected or appointed and until their State Constitution, who will have resided successors are elected and qualified. At each continuously for a period of twelve (12) months or general election after this amendment takes effect, more immediately preceding the election in an C two councilors shat be elected for four-year area which is within the corporate boundaries of terms, with the two candidates receiving the the City as the same shall exist as of a date one highest number of votes being elected to office. In hundred twenty (123) calendar days immediately the event a vacancy exists on the City Council and prior to the date of the election (inclusive of all j a special election is called to fill the vacancy as territory previously effectively annexed to the i described in Section 7 above, the candidate City), shall be eligible for an elective office of the receiving the highest number of votes in the City. The Council shall be final judge of the special election shall be deemed elected for the qualifications and election of its own members, remainder of the vacant positions term. (Measure subject, however, to review by a court of 34-57, November 5, 1996 election, Res. 96-54; competent jurisdiction. C-2 SEICode Update: 01/00 ,r. i. TI - r • y.., y SIR " RAW' S CP W CORRIGAN & RACHRACH, up t ATTORNEYS AT LAW i ln' N.W. Hoyt stmt MEMORANDUM Pa i", Omrn 97209 (503) 222-4402 i F= (503) 243-2944 TO: Tigard City Council and William A. Monahan, City Manager FROM: Timothy V. Ramis, City Attorney DATE: July 11, 2000 ! RE: Mayoral Position The recent passing of Mayor Nicoli creates a vacancy in the mayoral position on the City Council. This memo will provide the City with the legal requirements and the options available for filling this vacancy. Vacary By operation of the Charter, the position of Mayor is now vacant. Section 32 of the Tigard Charter states that an office shall be deemed vacant upon the incumbent's death. Council PresidtyM L d`C Brian Moore is the current Council President. This person is chosen at the first meeting of each odd j numbered year. Section 18 of the City's Charter states that, "Whenever the mayor is physically or mentally unable to perform the functions of office, the n president shall act as the mayor pro tem." U The Council President has been signing documents and performing the functions of the Mayor's office when Mayor Nicoll was not available. Under the Charter this can continue. The Council need not take formation action to appoint the Council President as Mayor Pro Tem. It may do so if it wishes. ~ ~ , y n.. ;,s. s ~~f7 };F s . f R ...t f. ..S J it ~ n yri.r. e' ~r > n i Memorandum re: Mayoral Position f July 11, 2000 Page 3 L 3. Hold an election at a date other than November 2000. The Council would love is hold an election at some point, but could choose a later election date. With this option, the Council may choose to appoint a person who: a. Promises not to run for Mayor at the later election date, or b. May choose to run for Mayor at the later election date. Or, the Council may choose to leave the position vacant until the election is held. Charter Section 7 states that, "In the event the office of mayor becomes vacant before the normal expiration of its term a special election may be held at the next available date to fill the office for the unexpired term." Again, as the word "may" indicates, holding a special election at the next available date is not mandatory. 4. Fill the vacancy by appointment for the remainder of the term and hold no election until November 2002. 5. Do nothing; operating with a four-person Council, until the November 2002 election. Filling Mayoral Position b Election As discussed above, the Council may hold a special election at the next available date to fill the mayoral position for the unexpired term. However, this is not a required action. Mayor Nicrli's term expires December 31, 2002. If an election is held in November 2000, the person elected to fill the office for the unexpired term will hold the position of Mayor for approximately two years- Tha next available election is November 7, 2000. The County Cleric's deadline for filing at this election i is September 7, 2000. Therefore, the City's deadline for the mayoral position, as required by TMC §2.40.030 is, August 7, 2000. f1 - y„ C. ;r~_,~r-. K •sQr Y r !y?•, . :y"" 1:s e,s0 r. Memorandum re: Mayoral Position July 11, 2000 Page 2 t If the Council President becomes Mayor Pro Tem, the Council may appoint a new Council President to serve until the first meeting of 2001, at which time a new Council President will be elected by the Council for a two year term. The Charter is silent as to whether an interim appointment for Council President is required if the amwit Council President becomes Mayor Pro Tem. The Council may wait until the first meeting of 2001 to elect a new Council President, but would have no acting Council President in the instance the Mayor Pro Tem is absent from a meeting. Filling Mayoral Position Vacancy There are numerous options to choose from for filling the vacant mayoral position. The Council may fill the vacancy by appointment or by election. It may choose to fill the vacancy on an interim basis or leave the seat unfilled until an election is held. The Charter does not preclude leaving the seat unfilled until the end of the term. The vacancy may be filled by an election, by interim appointment until an election can be held, or by appointment for the remainder of the term, with variations on each option: 1. Do not fill the vacancy until a person can be elected at the November 2000 election to fill remaining term. Section 7 of the Charter states that, "The council may appoint a person to fill a vacancy until an election can be held." As the word "may" indicates, filling the vacancy by appointment is not a mandatory action. 2. Fill the vacancy with an interim person until a person can be elected at the November 2000 cL election to fill remaining terra. With this option the Council can choose to appoint a person who: a. Promises not to run for Mayor at the November 2000 election, or b. • May choose to run for Mayor at the November 2000 election. n u The Council could also opt to hold an election in November 2000, but not fill the vacancy until after August 7, 2000 (the filing deadline for mayoral candidates for the November election), thus assuring that the appointee will not run for Mayor in November. 1 i r.4.;: {r-. Memorandum re: Mayoral Position July 11, 2000 Page 4 In order for current Council members to be candidates for the mayoral position at the November 2000 election, they must resign from their current office at the time of filing for the mayoral role. Such resignation cannot be withdrawn. The resignation shall provide for termination of the signer's service in the office not later than the last day before service would begin in the office for which that person sought to be a candidate. i Charter Section 7 provides for term limits for all Council positions. It states that no person shall serve on the City Council for more than twelve consecutive years. Filling a vacancy does not count toward the 12 consecutive year limit. Furthermore, filling a vacancy does not start over the 12 consecutive year time limit, unless there is a break in service. Based on the 12 consecutive year time limit, all current Council members are eligible to run for Mayor in the November 2000 election. Filling Mayoral Position Vacancy by Appointment As discussed above, the Council may fill the vacant mayoral position by appointment. However, appointment is not required. As noted above, the Council may also appoint on an interim basis until an election is conducted. If the Council chooses to appoint someone to fill the mayoral position vacancy, a process for choosing the appointee will have to be agreed on. Interviews are not required, but if interviews are held, they may not be held in executive session. Effect of Election or Appointment of Current City Council Member on the City Council If a current City Council member chooses to run for Mayor, that person must resign from their current position as discussed above. Their current position becomes vacant on the effective date of the resignation or on the last day of service before they take office as Mayor. IL If a current City Council member is appointed to the mayoral position, their current position becomes vacant on the effective date of appointment. Filling the vacancies left by the election or appointment of current City Council members is a similar m process to the process discussed in this memorandum. However, our office would be happy to assist the City in clarifying its options for filling council vacancies when the need arises. TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JULY 11, 2000 • STUDY SESSION > Council President Moore called meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. > Council Present: Council President Brian Moore, Councilors Paul Hunt, Joyce Patton, and Ken Scheckla. > Staff Present: City Manager Bill Monahan; City Attorney Tim Ramis; City Engineer Gus Duenas; City Recorder Catherine Wheatley; Public Works Director Ed Wegner; Associate Planner Julia Hajduk; Finance Director Craig Prosser > Agenda Review and Administrative Items: Bill Monahan, City Manager, reported that: > Staff was pulling Item 3.4 off the agenda. This item concerned an agreement with Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue; staff was advised that one of the numbers in the agreement might change. > There is a possibility of an issue that could be raised during the Visitor's Agenda with respect to Item 3.5c, the Cook Park wetland mitigation project. > New Library Board member Marvin Diamond may not be attending later in the meeting to be introduced to the City Council. Logistics for the Korean War Commemorative ceremony scheduled for the meeting tonight were reviewed. > There may be some citizen concerns with respect to the annexation creating an island. He noted that the Council could adjust the annexation boundaries if it desired. > Jeff Munro, Park Supervisor, was leaving to work at the City of Gresham. > Mr. Monahan reviewed the Council-initiated proposal to name new athletic fields in Cook Park after Jfzn and Dave Nicoli. After brief discussion, the Council decided to s move forward wiih naming the new area after Jim and Dave Nicoli and the: consider naming the individual fields after other people as it deemed appropriate by the Council and/or the Atfalati committee. i > Discussion of Vacancy in the Position of Mayor 1 Tim Ramis, City Attorney, reviewed the options available to the Council to fill the mayoral position, as outlined in his memo. He noted that the recent change in the City Charter eliminating the earlier mandatory requirements for filling a vacant position gave the Council broad discretion in filling the vacancy. The options included Council appointment of an interim mayor until an election, Council appointment of an interim mayor to fill out the rest of the term, and the Council continuing to operate with four members until the next regular mayoral election. Mr. Ramis advised the Council that it did not have to schedule an election for the November ballot. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES -JULY 11, 2000 - Page 1 He mentioned a consideration of whether or not to restrict the interim mayor from running in the election. He noted the September 7 filing deadline at the County Clerk's office and the August 7 deadline at the City. Councilor Scheckla asked if people in the recently annexed Walnut Island area were eligible to run for Mayor or Council. Mr. Monahan indicated staff's findings that the Walnut Island residents were eligible to run for Council but staff was still researching their eligibility for the mayoral position. Mr. Ramis stated that filling out an unexpired term did not count in the term limits provision. Therefore, any seated Council member who had reached his/her term limit was eligible to fill out the unexpired portion of the term. He explained that any Councilor running for the mayor position had to resign as Councilor at the time of filing, although the effective date of the resignation was the date that the candidate would take office if he/she won. He confirmed that the resignation as Councilor was irrevocable, even if the candidate lost the mayoral race. Councilor Scheckla spoke to appointing Councilor Hunt as Mayor to fill out the unexpired term, citing concerns with continuity on the Council. The Council discussed the implications of the suggestion. Mr. Ramis noted that if the Council chose to appoint someone, then it needed to decide on the process. He pointed out that if the Council appointed a sitting Councilor, then it had to fill the Councilor's vacant position. Mr. Ramis confirmed to the Council that residency within the city limits was a requirement but observed that it was a slim test to pass because the case law spoke to the intention to reside within the jurisdiction. Councilor Patton suggested holding the election next year, as opposed to November, because of the short time period left before the City's August 7 filing deadline date. She said she did not think that this provided people with sufficient time to make a decision about running for the office. Council President Moore concurred that three weeks was riot enough time to make the decision. Council discussed whether to appoint a Mayor from among the current Councilors. Councilor Scheckla noted concerns with continuity and experience. Councilor Patton mentioned the option of appointing an interim mayor until they could hold an election. Council President Moore suggested continuing the discussion at the workshop next week. The Council concurred. Councilor Hunt asked for sufficient time on the agenda to discuss the options and to reach a decision. The Council agreed that Mr. Ramis should attend next week's meeting. Mr. Ramis noted a changed on page 3 of his memo from "The Council would have to hold..." to "The Council would hold..." > Discussion about Revisions to the Intergovernmental Agreement Creating the Intergovernmental Water Board Mr. Wegner reviewed the history behind the composition of the Intergovernmental Water Board of i four representatives from Tigard, King City, Durham and the Tigard Water District plus one non- voting member-at-large. He indicated that the Board had specific duties in the areas of water i supply and capital improvements while the City of Tigard ran the day-to-day operations of the i water system. He noted that the other three entities had had no vote on the Tigard Charter amendment with respect to using the Willamette River as a water source. Mr. Wegner presented the Board's request for staff to return with options to include the other three jurisdictions in a Tigard vote on going to the Willamette. He mentioned that the Tigard Water District requested other changes to the intergovernmental agreement also. He referenced the memo outlining the possibilities of changing the IGA to allow a vote by all the jurisdictions. Councilor Hunt asked what difference changing the IGA would make because the Citizens for Safe Water petition said that the City could not use the water, not that it could not build a plant. Mr. Wegner explained that if the agreement was that a 3 out of 4 vote prevailed in the matter of a CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES -JULY 11, 2000 - Page 2 Mr. Monahan discussed the determination of the Washington County Bond Counsel that sending both levies to the ballot as separate measures created the potential of a legal challenge, because the second measure would be for the capital expenses of a district not yet formed. He said that the Bond Counsel recommended combining the two rates into one permanent tax rate of 83 cents per $1,000. He noted that the City Attorney's Office concurred with the Washington County Counsel's opinion that the earlier resolutions passed by the jurisdictions were adequate and did not need changing. Mr. Monahan referenced the Council's interest at the June 27 study session in discussing whether it should affirm the earlier resolution. He presented a new resolution, which re-affirmed the Council's request to place the formation of a new County service district on the ballot and clarified that the Council understood that the combined tax rate would not exceed 83 cents per $1,000. He emphasized that if this resolution did not pass, then the Council's earlier Resolution 00-12 stood as the legal document of the City. Councilor Hunt questioned how the County could approve the changed proposal if the Council did not pass this resolution, as the Council had not intended to approve this kind of financing with the earlier resolution. Mr. Monahan indicated that the issue was that the resolution did not specifically bind the measure to an operating levy of 48 cents and a capital expense levy of 35 cents; the resolution authorized the City Manager to sign a memo of understanding. Mr. Ramis concurred that the County could rely on the original resolution in making its decision with respect to combining the tax rates. Councilor Hunt characterized the first resolution as intentionally vague and misleading. Mr. Ramis concurred with Councilor Scheckla that there was a difference between what the County was considering and the Council's earlier resolution. He commented that if the Council saw it as an important difference, then it should go on record stating that. He emphasized that if the Council did not do so, then the existing resolution prevailed. Motion by Councilor Scheckla, seconded by Councilor Hunt, to adopt Resolution 0042. The City Recorder read the number and title of the resolution. RESOLUTION 00-42, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON, REAFFIRMING ITS CONSENT TO FORMATION OF A NEW COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT. a Motion failed by split voice vote of the Council present. (Council President Moore and Councilor Patton voted `yes;' Councilors Hunt and Scheckla voted `no.') [2-2] Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Scheckla, that the Council let the County know that the authority the Council gave to the City Manager to support this did not include a permanent tax levy of 35 cents, and that the Council does not favor that change. Councilor Hunt clarified that his intent was to advise the County that the Council did not favor the combined permanent rate with respect to the Atfalati measure. Motion failed by split voice vote of the Council present. (Councilors Hunt and Scheckla voted `yes;' Council President Moore and Councilor Patton voted `no.') [2-2] 11. DISCUSSION OF `'VACANCY IN THE POSITION OF MAYOR Mr. Monahan noted the staff briefing of Council during the study session on the options available to fill the mayoral position under the Charter. Mr. Ramis referenced his memo describing the available options and issues involved in filling the vacancy. He pointed out that the critical issue discussed in the memo was the process by which the Council would fill the vacancy. He observed that the Council President served as mayor pro tem and carried out the mayor's duties. Mr. Ramis reviewed the options of filling the vacancy by election, filling the vacancy by direct appointment by the Council without an election, and filling the vacancy with an interim Council CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES -JULY 11, 2000 - Page 12 appointee with an election later. He stated that the Charter did not specify any timing for the election. He noted that the City filing deadline for the November ballot was August 7. He emphasized that the first responsibility of the Council in this situation was to make a decision about the procedure that it would use to fill the position. Mr. Ramis confirmed to Councilor Hunt that, should the Council not agree on a process, the Council President would continue to perform the mayor's duties until the end of his appointment. He mentioned that the Council would decide about appointing a new Council President in January. Councilor Scheckla reiterated his concern that they would be left without a Council President following the November election, should Council President Moore not be re-elected. Council President Moore explained that his Council term and Council Presidency tern both continued until January 1, even if he lost the election. Therefore, there would be no gap in Council leadership. Councilor Patton discussed her concern that the August 7 filing deadline for the November election did not allow sufficient time for the City to provide information to the citizens or for the citizens to seriously consider whether they wanted to run for the mayoral seat. She spoke to holding a March election. She mentioned the option of the Council appointing an interim mayor from the Council or the community. She said that she preferred having some time to think about the numerous options available before discussing the issue. Councilor Hunt spoke to the Council appointing an interim Mayor if they waited until April for the election. Council President Moore concurred with Councilor Patton about taking time to think over the information presented to the Council tonight. He said that the Council would discuss the issue at the workshop meeting next Tuesday. 12. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS: None. 13. NON-AGENDA ITEMS: None. 14. EXECUTIVE SESSION: Canceled. 15. ADJOURNMENT: 10:10 p.m. I Attest: Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder Mayor, City of Figard Date: 1 14ADRiCATFMCCAA00071 I-DOC I I I CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES JULY 11, 2000 - Page 13 Association with nothing if something unexpected came up. He suggested funding the downtown manager over the banners, if they had to make a choice. Mr. Ellenson concurred that the downtown manager was a greater priority than the banners in making the organization self-sufficient. Mr. Monahan asked if the Association would pay out the $10,000 estimate for ODDA consulting over one or two years. Mr. Ellenson said that he needed to talk to ODDA about where they were but he thought that $6,000 for the first year was a reasonable target number. He agreed with Mr. Monahan that, due to a manager probably not starting until September, they might need only $25,000 for the downtown manager, bringing their expenditures down to the $31,000 range. He concurred that, if necessary, they could revisit the banners later. Mr. Ellenson confirmed to Mr. Monahan that he would return next week to the Council's televised meeting to make another presentation as part of educating the public. Councilor Hunt asked Mr. Ellenson to bring back a proposal for a specific dollar amount, now that he has heard the Council's concerns. Mr. Ellenson said that they could break their proposal down on a fiscal year basis to clarify where and when the money might be spent. The Council agreed by consensus on the direction discussed. Council President Moore and Councilor Patton each supported implementing the banners. Councilor Scheckla suggested that the Association set up a regular meeting time, date and place so that interested citizens could drop in, as opposed to the Association's current practice of setting the next meeting date at the meeting. Councilor Hunt suggested setting audience participation rules. Mr. Ellenson indicated that the Association encouraged participation in the discussion by any visitors. A lady in the audience pointed out that, although the banners appeared to be a frivolous expenditure, they actually served as concrete evidence that the Association was doing something. She observed that all their work so far has been behind the scenes and invisible to the general public and businesses. Council President Moore recessed the meeting for a break at 1:40 p.m. Council President Moore reconvened the meeting at 1:51 p.m. 4. DISCUSSION OF VACANCY IN THE POSITION OF MAYOR Tim Ramis, City Attorney, recalled the memo he reviewed last week on the rainbow of options available to the Council to fill the vacancy. Councilor Scheckla mentioned the editorial in the Oregonian. Council President Moore noted that Councilor Patton's remarks were misrepresented. Councilor Patton commented that, in her article, Emily i sao accurately reported the discussion she had with her but the editorial took one comment that she made about there being too short a timeframe before the November election, and implied ulterior motives on the part of the Council. She indicated that while she found nothing wrong with the paper's opinion that they should hold an election, she did disapproved of the manner in which the paper went about relaying that opinion. Councilor Scheckla recalled the process used when Mayor Bishop resigned and he filled in as Council President until the earliest election date when John Cook won the election. He confirmed that the Council operated with four members until the election. The Council discussed the option of appointing a sitting Councilor as an interim mayor, and what would happen with the Councilor vacancy. Mr. Ramis confirmed that legally the Council could appoint a sitting Councilor as interim mayor and then appoint a Councilor whose term was ending this year to fill the Councilor vacancy. He commented that the Charter language did not give direct answers on the various options of appointing a person to fill a vacancy until an election was held . He stated that, in his view, the Charter provided a general guideline that created a great deal of authority for the Council and gave it the freedom to interpret the language. He indicated his opinion that appointing a sitting Councilor as an interim and temporary mayor did not create a vacancy in that Councilor's position. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JULY 18, 2000 - PAGE 4 7~ Council President Moore reviewed the questions before the Council in this situation. He summarized the Council discussion as agreement on the need to hold an election, leaving open the questions of when to hold the election and who would be the interim mayor. Councilor Patton spoke in support of a March election over a November election in order to allow citizens sufficient time to consider running for the position. She said that she wanted a five- member Council. She indicated that she was willing to consider someone from the community as interim mayor, if the Councilors could not agree among themselves on an internal appointment. Councilor Hunt noted that Jack Schwab had been an excellent interim mayor the last time. There was brief discussion about Mr. Schwab. Council President Moore said that he supported either a March or a May election. He suggested soliciting that people be asked to submit letters of interest and then the Council conduct interviews, similar to the process used to fill the last Council seat vacancy when he was appointed to Council. Councilor Scheckla reiterated his concern with losing continuity on the Council (especially with respect to water issues) if Councilor Hunt went off the Council. He suggested that appointing Councilor Patton as interim mayor and then appoint Councilor Hunt to fill her seat would maintain continuity. Councilor Patton commented that, while she appreciated the sentiment, that should she consider becoming mayor, she would prefer to obtain the position by election. The Council discussed the election date. Councilor Scheckla mentioned a March election. Cathy Wheatley, City Recorder, noted that the March election could cost the City $13,000 while the May primary election may be available at no cost to the cities. Council President Moore suggested waiting two months and saving the City $13,000. Councilor Patton concurred with Council President Moore. *Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Patton, to set the mayoral election date for May. Motion passed by unanimous voice vote of the Council present. (Council President Moore, Councilors Hunt, Patton and Scheckla voted "yes.") [4-0] *Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Patton, that the City Council appoint an interim mayor to fill the position until a May election. Motion passed by unanimous voice vote of the Council present. (Council President Moore, Councilors Hunt, Patton and Scheckla voted "yes.") [4-0] *Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Patton, to allow the interim mayor to run for the mayoral position in the May election. Motion passed by unanimous voice vote of the Council present. (Council President Moore, Councilors Hunt, Patton and Scheckla voted "yes.") [4-0] *(City Recorder's note: Subsequent to this meeting, it was determined that the only election available to the City at no cost is the General Election held in November during even-numbered years. After, conducting a telephone poll of the City Council members, the Council determined to proceed with a March election. This election would be to elect a Mayor to fulfill the remainder of Mayor Nicoli's term, which would expire on December 31, 2002.) I l v3 -__/~y and AjOV~P-r0b&r ir, _ev et) - ni.l/rnb_,me k cis aA,e a u Lab/e G nv- c!%tG~t"~k ~;i_ ~iPCt~s mrcnaCjeA M t~1C1-e- Kaat~rvv~c - l,Uash. oaznt~l CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JULY 18, 2000 - PAGE 5 eo,7 0040V~__ The Council discussed the process to use in selecting an interim mayor. Councilor Hunt suggested that the Councilors be allowed to contact anyone they wanted and to suggest that the person submit a letter of interest. The Council discussed who was eligible to vote and who was eligible to run in the mayoral election. Mr. Ramis advised the Council that the residents in recently annexed properties were eligible to vote, and in addition, registered voters in recently annexed areas would also be eligible to run for the office of Mayor. Council President Moore opened the meeting to questions from the audience. Council President Moore clarified for a gentleman that the Council has decided to hold an election for an elected mayor and also to select an interim mayor to fill the position until the election. He clarified that the interim mayor could run for office if he/she so chose. He indicated that the Council would ask people to submit their names as soon as it decided what process to use. He also noted that two Council seats are up for election this November. Mark Padgett recommended that the Council complete the interim mayor selection process by the August 28 filing deadline for the Council seat election in order to avoid someone having to withdraw from the Council race because the Council appointed that person as interim mayor. Council President Moore concurred. The Council discussed possible venues to advertise for an interim mayor, including the newspapers, a brochure and the web page. Ms. Wheatley noted that the Cityscape was scheduled to go to press tomorrow. Mr. Monahan reviewed the process used in 1994 to fill the mayor vacancy when Mayor Edwards resigned, noting that it took approximately two months. He suggested an aggressive schedule so that the appointment would be made by August 22, 2000. The Council discussed Mr. Monahan's recommended process and decided to proceed as outlined by Mr. Monahan. The Council agreed to wait to see how many people applied before deciding how many applicants should be interviewed. Council President Moore suggested that the Mayor be sworn in at the first televised meeting in September, which would be September 12. Council President Moore mentioned an inquiry from Mike Lucas of the Tigard Times with respect to the process. Mr. Monahan said that he would talk to Mr. Lucas. Mr. Monahan posed the question of whether or not the interim mayor had to reside in the city for one year before taking office. Mr. Ramis pointed out that the title of the Charter section was "Qualifications of Officers," and did not address how an officer got to the position. The Council agreed on maintaining the one-year residency qualification. 5. DISCUSSION OF CRITERIA FOR CITY MANAGER'S REVIEW Mr. Ramis reviewed the Council's two options for developing criteria for the City Manager's i review. He noted the statute language clearly stating that the Council could not invent the review i criteria outside of the public process. He said that the Council could use the criteria existing in the City Manager's contract or determine the criteria at a public meeting at which it allowed the public i an opportunity to comment. Councilor Hunt mentioned the Council's earlier discussion with respect to the review criteria. Mr. Monahan indicated that if the Council was ready to finish up his review this evening using the contract criteria, that was fine. Mr. Ramis advised the Council that if it wanted to hold the review in Executive Session, then it had to adhere to the contract criteria. He confirmed that the Council could hold a public hearing at a later date to develop additional criteria. The Council agreed by consensus to complete the City Manager's review tonight in Executive CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JULY 18, 2000 - PAGE 6 Page 1 of 6 Cathy Wheatley - FW: Bull Mountain Annexation Update 4]Lim]w'.tA'GYl•.'.d~tW.I'M.1...!w%_+..L'F~u._'t.~~.1.f:..a1 ?.i.Y:.,-~.,ir_.LLC:.Z~ .'.;..-:'..~."r:.: C. ..'.1:.'^S f::'.. .....~._.IY~9..]!2 i ~~.Y1.1!i]L'...Wul:!':ltiTe.'.I13`_.ri.:i]..f:.:ill.a?..^...A: ILI From: "Dirksen Home" <dirksen.home@verizon.net> To: "Nick Wilson" <nickw@ci.tigard.or.us>, "Brian Moore" <brianm@ci.tigard.or.us>, "Bill Monahan" <bill@ci.tigard.or.us> Date: 12/2/2003 9:11 AM Subject: FW: Bull Mountain Annexation Update Hi Guys Sydney and I received this invite this morning. What do you think? Let's discuss during the study session tonight. cd -----Original Message----- From: McVey Family [mailto:McVey.Family@verizon.net] Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2003 8:41 AM To: 'Dirksen Home'; Sydney Sherwood (E-mail) Cc: Holly Shumway (E-mail) Subject: RE: Bull Mountain Annexation Update Thanks for your feedback. was wondering if either of you were going to attend the CPO meeting Thursday evening at Deer Creek Elementary from 7-9 pm. I think it would be great if you come in at the beginning and give a few words of encouragement for the CPO - "the City looks forward to working closely with us over the next few months to address a number of annexation issues" etc. We have not scheduled time on the agenda for a discussion with you because there was some miscommunication in getting to your schedules to confirm your attendance. Thus I think it would be fine if you excused yourselves rather early. Given the City's current annexation proposal, I think it would be a way to start things off on the right foot. Thoughts? Thanks Keshmira McVey -----Original Message----- From: Dirksen Home [mailto:dirksen.home@verizon.net] Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 9:31 AM To: McVey.Family@verizon.net Cc: Sydney Sherwood; Nick Wilson; Brian Moore; Bill Monahan Subject: RE: Bull Mountain Annexation Update Hi Kesh Thank you for talking to me the other day and for passing on the info.about the proposed amendment to the annexation plan. I see only one small issue with your synopsis; you stated that the council "will not" (your emphasis) take a vote on the new proposal on Tuesday night. This is probably true, but not necessarily so. It is within the realm of possibility that council could choose to vote on the issue, though it's very unlikely. Other than that small comment, your outline accurately conveys the gist of what file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\Cathy.000\Local%2OSettings\Temp\GW } OOOO I 12/2/2003 Page 2 of 6 we talked about. I also appreciate the insight into how you perceive this addresses your concerns and those of the groups we have heard from. Thanks again; I assume I'll see you there Tuesday night. Craig Dirksen -----Original Message----- From: McVey Family [mailto:McVey. Family@verizon.net] Sent: Saturday, November 29, 2003 2:46 PM To: home (E-mail) Subject: Bull Mountain Annexation Update Happy Thanksgiving everyone. Many of you have probably seen the articles in Tigard Times this week. We wanted to provide everyone with more detail on the Bull Mountain Annexation and also address the issue of "Hopes and Fears". At the end of Tuesday's City Council meeting (11/25/03), Councilor Brian Moore stated that there were signs all over Bull Mountain regarding the annexation. (Good job to all that bought and displayed them, it worked!) Councilor Nick Wilson publicly acknowledged that the City of Tigard needs Bull Mountain. (Over the long run, the increased tax base and resulting revenues will increase the City's budget.) Frankly, many of us feel we need Tigard too! While under the County's jurisdiction development has run a muck and we have not received any parks or consideration for other livability issues such as safe sidewalks, open spaces, connectivity, and traffic. I, along with many others, do not want to continue with the status quo mismanagement of Bull Mountain. The City Council is discussing a few different proposals for annexing Bull Mountain. Ron Ellis Gaut and Lisa Hamilton-Treick attended the Tuesday evening meeting. Below is my understanding of the new annexation proposals. NEW Bull Mountain Annexation ProposaL (There are actually 3 uptans) As a result of the Coffee Talks, City Council meetings, open house, and one-on-one discussions, the City Council is considering postponing the annexation vote till the November 04 elections. This would allow the City, County, and CP04B to work together to address many of the concerns i people currently have regarding the current Bull Mountain Annexation Plan. i The City would like to create several subcommittees that parallel the areas of concern (parks, open-space, police, planning, etc.) Each committee would have a City staff person, county representative, and representative of CP04B. The committees would be chartered to develop solutions to each one of the particular areas of concern and present those solutions to the City Council. file:HC:\Documents%20and%20Settings\Cathy.000\Local%20Settings\Temp\GW } 00001.... 12/2/2003 Page 3 of 6 The solutions, or products of these subcommittees, will become part of the annexation plan. The written findings will be incorporated as an appendix to the plan and thereby become a commitment by the City and County. This is a HUGE STEP in the right direction. But, there still remains to be a lot of work. The City has a few options. it appears that the new proposal and postponing the election are contingent upon the County collecting SDCs for parks. a) Thus, if the County will only collect SDC's when the City develops an annexation plan, then arguably an election in March is not necessary. b) But if the County will only collect SDC's when the City has a voter approved annexation plan, then the City will probably go forward with the election in March but include the aspects of the new proposal as commitments to process in the future. c) City could choose to stay with the original plan: annexation plan as it currently is written and election in March. We need to advocate for "a" postponing the March election and holding an election on the annexation issue in November after we develop details and commitments that clarify the annexation proposal. This will allow individdals to make an educated decision regarding whether annexation will benefit them. 2. PHASING ANNEXATION A second important issue that the City is discussing is no longer phasing the annexation, but rather annexing, or bringing everyone in at once. The importance of annexing us all at once is to ensure we all have voting rights in the City. The current phasing will notallow everyone to participate in City matters because they will not be residents of the City of Tigard. They will remain residents of Washington County until they are "phased" into the City. Bringing all of us in at once will ensure our voice is not diluted on the very important issues that will be decided after we are annexed. Soon after the annexation vote the City will be deciding the future land use on Bull Mountain, street improvements, and other important issues. We all must have a say in that and we all will not have a say unless we are all annexed at the same time. ! As part of the new proposal, Bull Mountain would be annexed all at one time: tentatively July 2005. Some may be concerned about the impact of increased taxes. In my discussions with fellow CP04B members, some have brought up the fact that the City could phase in our tax burdens. We should raise that with the City. 3. PUBLIC MEETING DECEMBER 2 file:HC:\Documents%20and%2OSettings\Cathy.000\Local%20Settings\Temp\GW } 00001.... 12/2/2003 Page 4 of 6 Given this new annexation proposal, the City is still debating the format of the Public Meeting on December 2nd. Councilor Dirksen said he thought that the City would: • First, have Staff introduce the topic of the Bull Mountain Annexation and give some background. • Then, Council will introduce the new proposal(s) • Finally, they will open the floor to testimony The City Council will not take a vote on Tuesday night on the new proposal and will probably carry over the vote. The Council must make a decision by December 31st to get it on the ballot. The Council may also carry over testimony to December 16. The Council is required to tell us when they will take vote on the issue. Even though this is a significant change in direction for the City and may take many people off guard, it is a step in the right direction. .rn my opinion, as CP045, we should support the new proposal. We should provide public testimony and ask questions to the City about the issues we want to see resolved: parks, open space, street improvements, voting, tax burdens, "hopes & fears", etc. The issues presented at the public hearing will probably be addressed by the various committees. And remember, the recommended solutions from the committees wii! be presented to the Council and if approved, become a commitment on the part of the City and included in the annexation plan. Although many of us are still upset or emotional about this issue, and rightfully so, it serves our interests best if we can state our issues in a rational manner. Personally, when someone is yelling or rude to me, I sure as heck am not wanting to bend-over-backwards and do any favors for them. 4. Hopes &_Fears Here is the condensed list of the Hopes and Fears from our first CPO meeting. We did submit this list to the City. They have not responded to the list in whole but have addressed questions from this list on its web page and in meetings. So to respond to someone's question earlier, there has been no complete written response from the City regarding the hopes and fears.` We need to stage each one of the questions in the public hearing to assure that they get into the public record, ACT1AN ITEM: Please let me know which question you would like to ask from this list at the public hearing. That way we can make sure at least every one of these questions will make it into the public record. I'm sure there will be other questions we will want to ask too in addition to these. Fear of 100 unit apartments and higher density. There is no sound file:HC:\Documents%20and%20Settings\Cathy.000\Local%20Settings\Temp\GW } 00001.... 12/2/2003 Page 5 of 6 plan for development of area; what will it look like, how will we retain the remaining character of the community and develop the area? Will people be forced to go sewer, public water and update their private gravel drives or install sidewalks? Dedicate land for easements or right-of way before property sale? Fear that we will not get any parks or poor park location or not the type ofpark. There are several different types ofparks, play grounds, nature, skate etc. Fear that we will have no voice, our vote is diluted. Need some assurances, more that what is in the plan. Want city to come out and make it clear what they want and don't want; Pitting City residents vs. Bull Mountain residents Fear that we will not receive the street improvements and safety improvements we need, no specifics at this time. Fear that we get nothing for higher taxes. Doesn't appear that the City has any intention to provide additional services. What does the $36 million buy? Is it going to take Tigard 10 years to break even. How can we obtain more precise dollar figures? How will we direct the traffic issues from additional building. How will traffic impact fees from development on Bull Mountain be used for improvements on Bull Mountain? 77 J ear that we will have less police protection Concerned about density and negative impacts on wildlife habitat and deer population What will be the impact to business owners? Fear about other fees and regulations that we are not aware a bo u t? Livestock, RVs, basketball hoops? Concern about the impacts to schools. Only further complicates the issues for those residents off Barrows Road that are in Beaverton Sch_ ool District. C Everyone is encouraged to prepare and deliver testimony on the 2nd. Be there by 6:30 to sign up and reserve your right to °s speak! 5. CP048 December 4 Meeting at Deer Creek Elem from 7-9 pm r I understand that there has been some difficulty and some communication confusion on whether anyone from the City will be at the meeting. At this time we are still trying to confirm the attendance of someone from the City. Holly, I wonder if we can get Roy Rogers to attend? 6. Tigard Times !November 27th Check it out file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\Cathy.000\Local%20Settings\Temp\GW } 00001.... 12/2/2003 1. Page 6 of 6 Be sure to check out the Tigard Times because it had several articles that are relevant to our issues including: • Front Page: Council Delays Annexation Vote • Page A2: Summit Ridge Planning Commission hearing • Page A4: Support for Alice Ellis Gaut support for appoint to planning commission (by me) • Page A4: Letter to the editor regarding more questions about annexation (by Mark Mahon) • Page A4: Take Back Tigard letter (by Alice Ellis-Gaut) • Page A4: Another Look at Bull Mountain (by Julie Russell) • Page A4: Economic Strategy Tied To Healthy Communities; pg A4 • Page A5: Ad for Dec 2nd hearing www.tigardtimes.com <http://www.tigardtimes.com> Check out the yahoo group we set up: <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/buil_mountain/>. We have uploaded many of the relevant documents regarding the annexation. We are in the process of setting up a web page and are looking for folks that are computer savvy. Another good site is www.takebacktigard.org Finally, a small committee has divided Bull Mountain into twelve contact groups and is toda)~to assign a contact person for each group. Please email Lisa if you are interested in serving as an area contact: Lisa@FiamiltonRealtyGroup.com <maiIto: Lisa @HamiltonRea_ItyGroup.com>. Thanks for taking the time and all your effort to work and rind solutions to this issue. F file://C:\Documents%20and%2OSettings\Cathy.000\Local%2OSettings\Temp\GW } 00001.... 12/2/2003 Tigard High Leade ship 9000 SW Durham Road • Tigard • Oregon • 97224 v~ x +°t (503) 43 1-55 18 • FAX (503) 43 1-54 10 • http://ths.ttsd.k 12.or.us/leadership/home.html thsasbprez@yahoo.com M ~4 Academics No school on Nov. 27`x', 28`x', and Dec. 1" Arts Pied tlnt~,~ a]ensen~ Fall Musical "Pippin" 'e Chamber Choir Festival a Jesuit t 'Vtoe'Presldent c November 22"`' Choir Concert y ~r December 9`l', 7:30pm Ac~tvitII } ]ennlefTan~ Athletics seetaryr, Football ! ! ! ! ! ! tiny Uny r Playoff game on Saturday, December 6`h, Eugene Fall Athletic Awards November 18°i 'Treasurers, Winter Sports began November 12`h An'nle Phou ~ ~ f Dance Team Competition Human Re6ations-j December Oh, Gresham - Brjana yories Assemblies Activities ?Dj'~au Canned Food Drive: 13,864 cans!! English Language Learner's (ELL) Thanksgiving Dinner Spirit-. November 21 80 students attended Nikki Pham THS Craft Fair December 6`h, 8:00am-4pm f'ubltdty Winter Formal Ke" Ua, raft December 13`h, 8-11:00pm Technology C, ral a f t' }rµ'~kt~ j w 4 ` "Expecting Excellence" THS Leadership '03 -'04 Mission Statement 4 .M AGENDA ITEM # Q- FOR AGENDA OF December 2, 2003 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF A LIMITED TAX IMPROVEMENT BOND FOR THE REMAINING UNPAID ASSESSMENTS FOR THE DARTMOUTH STREET LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT. PREPARED BY: Crain; Prosser DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK V14- V ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Should the Council authorize the issuance of bonds to complete the financing of the Dartmouth Local Improvement District? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve issuance of bonds INFORMATION SUMMARY The City of Tigard created the Dartmouth Local Improvement District in the 1980s, completed the project, and spread a final assessment of project costs to benefiting property owners in the 1990s. Two property owners, Gordon R. Martin and Gordon S. Martin challenged their assessments in a series of court cases and appeals. The City of Tigard prevailed in each of these court actions. This summer, the Oregon Supreme Court declined to hear the Martins' final appeal. With the conclusion of the appeals, the assessment became due and payable. The Martins and a third property owner (who bought a portion of Gordon R. Martin's holdings) have applied to finance the principal portion of their assessments over a 10 year period as allowed by Oregon law and City Code. The City of Tigard issued a request for proposals for a bank to provide 10 year financing for the remaining Dartmouth LID assessments. Two proposals were received, with Bank of America submitting the winning proposal with aq interest rate of 3.95%. The attached resolution authorizes issuance of these bonds. The interest of 3.95% on the bonds will be passed on to the remaining property owners along with a "bump rate" of 1.25% to cover City administrative costs and to help protect against any future delinquencies. The effective interest rate to the property owners will, therefore, be 5.20%. The issuance of these bonds does not affect the obligation of the property owners to pay accrued interest from the date of the final assessment in 1998. The City began charging interest on the principal amount of the assessments according to City Code from the date of the assessment. Gordon R. Martin and the third property owner have paid the accrued interest due on the parcels they own. In addition, Gordon R. Martin has paid one half the accrued interest on the parcel that he owns jointly with his son, Gordon S. Martin. Gordon R. Martin has also made arrangements to pay the remaining accrued interest on the jointly held parcel in the event that his son fails to do so. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED None VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY NA ATTACHMENT LIST Resolution, including Attachment A to Resolution FISCAL NOTES The principal amount of the bonds will be $1,947,678. Bond sale proceeds will be used to pay off bond anticipation notes issued to finance this project. i i i s AGENDA ITEM # FOR AGENDA OF 12/2/03 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE LCRB - Insurance Agent of Record ILI PREPARED BY: Loreen Mills DEPT HEAD OK TY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Should City Council authorize signing a contract for Insurance Agent of Record? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Motion to authorize City staff to enter into a three-year contract with JBL&K for Insurance Agent of Record services with an option for an additional two year extension and authorize signature by the City Manager. INFORMATION SUMMARY The City received one proposal for Agent of Record; that from JBL&K our current Agent. Other service providers who received the RFP (Marsh, USA Inc., J.D. Fulwiler & Company Insurance, and Willis) determined they would not be filing a response. Reasons given for no response were either because Tigard was satisfied with the JBL&K's service or because the proposer's office was not in the Portland Metro Area. The City's current Purchasing Rules state an Agent's appointment can't exceed a period of three years. However, this is more restrictive than the five-year term allowed for all other contracts addressed in the City's rules. Staff will be recommending a revision to these rules over the next year to allow a five-year contract timeline for insurance agent services. The attached contract states that ythe City's rules are amended to allow for 5-year terms during the first three years of the Agent's contract, that this contract could be extended for an additional two years. Staff recommends awarding the contract to JBL&K. They have sen ed the City well since 1995, have provided excellent access to the insurance market place, and have the strong public sector expertise to assist the City in addressing its liability exposures. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED N/A VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY N/A ATTACHMENT LIST The service plan from the contract is attached for Council information along with the 2004 service calendar. The contract for personal services is the City's boilerplate contract which has not been included in this packet due to its length. However, this contract can be viewed in the City Recorder's office or on the City's web site under the RFP for this project. FISCAL NOTES The fee arraignment with JBL&K will be compensation through the standard commissions paid by the insurance carriers that provide coverage for the City. During FY 03/04, JBL&K received $42,535 from the insurance companies providing Tigard coverage. This was based on $541,141 of insurance premium, which equals an average of 7.9% commission rate for the Agent of Record. There are no additional fees paid by the City to the Agent for regular services. EXHIBIT A SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED Insurance Agent of Record will: 1. Assist in the design of a comprehensive insurance program, addressing retention levels, broadest available coverage terms and insurer financial security. 2. Make recommendations for self-insurance and other risk-financing methods as appropriate. 3. Organize renewal underwriting information and prepare insurance specifications. 4. Prepare marketing strategies for review by City prior to approaching markets. 5. Approach insurance marketplace on behalf of City. Analyze insurer proposals with respect to cost, coverage and stability of insurers. Review proposals received from insurance companies for conformance with specifications and present quotations to City in a spreadsheet format detailing and comparing coverages, forms and pricing. Make recommendation to City Risk Management for approval. Negotiate final renewal terms. 6. Obtain policies from insurance carriers and forward to City in a timely fashion. Keep City apprised of delays. 7. Review all binders, policies and endorsement to assure coverage is as intended. Verify accuracy of all policies, endorsements and invoices prior to delivery. 8. Maintain a summary listing of all policies and endorsements that identify the type of coverage, insurance company name & policy number, policy period, coverage synopsis and a brief synopsis of significant coverage features, policy limits, deductibles, and premiums. Update summary pages as revisions occur. Identify potential or actual uninsured or underinsured exposures. 9. Issue Certificates of Insurance and other evidence of insurance as requested or required. 10. Place, cancel and otherwise handle, at the direction of the City and for the benefit of the City all placements, binders, policies and endorsements as requested by the City in a timetable which would avoid lapses in coverages. 11. Assist City in submittal of claims to insurance carriers. Interface with carrier when coverage issues arise. 12. Maintain insurable values on buildings at replacement values to include new construction and make statement available to the City. 13. Consult with the Risk Manager when called upon throughout the year on any matters pertaining to the operation of the City's insurance and safety programs. 14. Be available to attend meetings when needed. Respond to questions in a timely manner. 15. Prior to renewal of insurance policies, Agent shall analyze losses and loss history trends, with frequency and severity information on losses. Agent shall provide loss forecasts and loss retention analysis when appropriate. 16. Supply City's Risk Manager a budget letter for estimated premiums that will be required for the next fiscal year. This requires a projection of new total property values, including any completed construction or contemplated acquisitions. Based on this review and a survey of current market trends, a total premium is projected. This is due no later than January 20,' each year. 17. Prepare an annual report for delivery to the Risk Manager. This report is to include any pertinent information relative to new or changed coverages, companies, amounts or premiums, term of policies, deductibles, and claims history & trends. New rulings by the Insurance Service Office or the Insurance Commissioners may also be included. This report will also include information about the services provided by Agent and issues the City should address during the next contract year. This report shall be filed no later than January 20'x' each year 18. Assist City, as needed, in evaluation and recommendation in the areas of safety loss control, review of Certificates of Insurance provided by contractors and other vendors. 19. Provide other such services consistent with devising, adopting, administering or revising plans of insurance coverage for the City. K DETAIL pLA App at in place. CE 2004 SERVt Leh 0 Kaye library C Plan meeting. ~ p Quarterly gerv. ecifications. schedules: ket sp Up 1]Finalize marketing ply' et ' e ective date insur O etc. WK from a Agree °n covage ff February autos, a w Po1 llution lines °f property, to )BL WK & e marketing other Renewal packecasualty' 0 10 Japuury 0 Begin 5j1104. mittee for pr0~ by coverage. Cry casualty rry August et projections ~ Provide annual safety Coen pollution. Waal prope itBudg o Semi-an 3(15104. fl S o4- rtby 1120j04• iumbreakd0 1120 104. ua1 Repo training clam review by Submit A~ ice Plan meeting. Ja1y 0 Complete preen 0 Quarterly n a seYV1ce plan. meeting. p Update an June 0 Quarterly Service Plan roperty ©1Jpdate annual service plas►• May and p r 0 present liabili for July renewal Lions status coverage °p City. to market' et date 6116104. results to Decempet 0 Specifications tang arketing options. claim comp clam 0 present m isk financing work comp report. ua1 work Analyze Semi'an'nual 0 Semrann O coverage ce ID November of needed). d Bind suran with other food coverage of needed) review ReneW -SVI If review t Deliver benders &o conversations October 0 Continue 114105. meeting ble markets. comp claim effective tember Quarterly Serve, a fo?IaTn r $eparate vO Stint- al wby 11115(04. SeP 0 eeded) appraised 0 Review neCess USA 1GA review date all ash. COY Review and up TigardlW 0 em casually coverage. values. i annual prop ~a me eview by 9115104 ement Coordinators. &I{ Risk 1vlanag bout the year: coordinatedu T 1B ange GpING throe eds will be re4 0 Loss Controas as they come due, or 0 Renew bon assistance. needed. 0 Contract otiati°ns as 0 claim Leviews identification. eat ne m r`lem C clai $e 0 Assist with exposure lex W 0 Assist with com AGENDA ITEM # 3 FOR AGENDA OF 12/02/03 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE LCRB - Award Proposal for Facility Remodel Architect PREPARED BY: Loreen Mills - DEPT HEAD OK ITY MGR OK i ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Should the Local Contract Review Board award an Architectural Services proposal for City Hall & existing Library facilities remodel & construction oversight which is planned for 2004? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Award the proposal to LRS Architects, Inc. to not exceed $97,600 and authorize the City Manager to sign the personal services contract with the fine. INFORMATION SUMMARY Tigard citizens approved a bond for the construction of a new Library building. As part of the bond measure process, the City assured citizens that the existing Library and City Hall buildings would be remodeled to accommodate the programming needs of administrative departments of the City for 10 years. By the time staff moves in to the remodeled facilities that time line will be for 8 years. In order to facilitate the timing of remodeling and relocation of administrative staff, the DUST Committee (Divvy Up Space & Technology) was formed in 2002 and consists of staff representatives from various departments to proceed with planning and implementation. DUST has set the following goals for the remodel and relocation that will occur during 2004: .25 Better serve our customers (internal and external); Maximize space utilization; Create efficient work environments; and ;d Provide appropriate customer confidentiality. Based on these goals, the DUST Committee and City Manager approved building use concepts. The highlights of the plans are as follows Rearrangement of staff will occur ■ Existing Library will house a one-stop permitting center consisting of Building, Engineering and Planning functions and internal support functions of Human Resources and Risk Management. ■ Existing City Hall will house City Manager's office and staff along with Finance and Municipal Court functions. ■ Existing Inspector's Modular will house Network Services functions. Finance Department staff move from the Water Building into City Hall. Staff and program impacts anticipate fiscal projections and increased service area impacts which include future annexations for those departments going to the existing Library and City Hall buildings. .21 Limited funding is available for building improvements thus options are to be cost effective with limited new walls in the buildings/modular (though the existing Library is anticipated to need more than City Hall). The DUST Committee refers to the building improvements as being "bare bones improvements" while meeting the Committee's goals. In fall of 2002 and early 2003, efficient programming/space design and remodel construction cost estimates were developed with the assistance of the architectural firm of Yost, Grube, Hall Architecture. It is now time to build on those plans and hire a firm to provide services in the scope of services addressed in this RFP; namely: 1. Provide the final remodel design of the buildings from the existing conceptual designs and develop construction cost estimates for the 2004/05 CIP budget; 2. Develop construction bid scope of work and drawings and assist the City with the bid process; and 3. Oversee the remodel construction contracts and process. Responses to the RFP were received on Thursday, October 30, 2003 from the following firms. LRS Architects, Inc. Yost, Grube, Hall Architecture 1121 SW Salmon Street, Suite 100 1211 SW 5`h Avenue, Suite 2700 Portland, OR 97205 Portland, OR 97204 $88,740 $142,660 These firms were then interviewed on November 5, 2003 by the DUST Review Team (Greg Berry, Dennis Koellermeier, Councilor Nick Wilson, and Loreen Mills). The proposer ratings developed through the review process are attached. The Review Team and the DUST Committee (Divvy Up Space & Technology) unanimously recommends contract award to LRS Architects, Inc. The amount of contract is recommended "not to exceed" $97,600 which includes a 10% contingency should construction uncover issues unknown to us today that would require additional assistance from the firm. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Renegotiate with firms or re-advertise. Neither of these would be recommended by staff. VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY N/A ATTACHMENT LIST Proposer ratings. Project timeline. Contract for personal services is the City's boilerplate contract which has not been included in this packet due to its length. However, this contract can be viewed in the City Recorder's office or on the City's web site under the RFP for this project. FISCAL NOTES The 2003-04 CIP budget has $139,380 identified for this contract. LRS provided the lowest responsible cost + proposal for this project at $88,740. With the 10% contingency added to the contract, the total project would be $97,600. This is almost $41,800 lower than the budget for this phase of the project. Loreen\H:\DOCS\Space Review\Dust Arch. RFP 2003-05\LCRB Sum Remodel Oversight Award.doc PROJECT TIMELINE 12/2/03 LCRB action to award proposal to LRS Architects, Inc. 12/3/03-12/4/03 Contract signed with City 12/8/03-2/3/04 FINALIZE DESIGN CONCEPT 12/8/03-12/19/03 Staff interviews & site visits Review program elements Review M/E/P elements Identify constraints and opportunities 12/15/03-1/6/04 Provide DD level documents 12/22/03-1/6/04 Preliminary Electrical Design (low & high voltage) Preliminary Mechanical Design 1/7/04-1/12/04 DD level cost estimate/review 1/12/04 Presentation to DUST Committee 1-3 PM meeting in City Hall 1/22/04 City selects final design option 1/23/04 DUST Committee meeting to authorize final plans for construction 9:30 - 11:30 AM in City Hall 2/2/04 Submits DD estimates for budget purposes (FY 04105) 2/4/04-5/21/04 PROVIDE BID DOCUMENTS Architectural bid docs 2/18/04-4/13/04 Electrical bid docs Mechanical bid does Structural bid docs 3/10/04-3/30/04 Provide technical specifications 3/31/04-4/20/04 Provide statement of probably cost 2/18/04-3/2/04 Provide salvage and recycle plan 4/30/04 Presentation to DUST Committee 5/3/04-5/21/04 City approval of bid documents 5/24/04-8/10/04 BID SERVICES 5/24/04-7/2/04 Manage bid documents 6/7/04 City advertises for bids 6/7/04-7/2/04 Respond to bidder questions 6115104 Pre-bid conference 7/6/04 Bids due at 2 PM 7/7/04-7/13/01 Bid evaluation & recommendation C 7/14/04-8/10/04 City Review & accept bid 2 7/27/04 LCRB Action packet due 8/10/04 Bid awarded & Consultant serves as City's rep for project 8/24/04-1/28/05 CONSTRUCTION SERVICES i 8/24/04 Pre-construction conference 9/6/04-10/15/04 Library Renovation i 10/18/04-10/22/04 Relocate staff to Library (Building, Engineering, Planning, HR & Risk) 10/25/04-11/19/04 City Hall Renovation 11/22/04-11/24/04 Relocate staff to City Hall (City Manager's staff, Finance & Network Services) 11/29/04-12/23/04 Modular Unit Renovation 12/27/04-12/30/04 Relocate staff to Modular Unit (Network Services) BUILDING REMODEL DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION OVERSIGHT RFP COMPOSITE RATINGS ~ 10/30/03 -11/10/03 nnis K.oellermeier, Loreen Mills, and Councilor Nick Wilson (at interview portion of review) Review Team members: Greg Beriy, De Notes Company Composite Rahn + a possible $1,500 due to serve room unknowns for a total of LRS Architects, Inc. 95.3 M &M. . $87,$81,246 180 + $4,000 reimbursable expenses. Due to review team request for Team Members: fication on proposal, $2,060 added to Task A for detailed systems furniture inventory and $1,500 for structural fee due to server room/building unknowns. (If Paul Boundy, Principal & clan Project Manager alternative location does not involve additional structural work, they stated this fee Jefj''Tathwell, Designer would not be needed.) Nishkian Dean Engineering Notes Firm Paul & his staff talked with CD staff about land use issues before the interview to have a Edwin Dean, Principal & better idea of complexity of permitting. Structural Engineer LRS did the RVAC design for the PD remodel Passion Accipio Mechanical During the intervilw, all members of the team d splayed deal project moane project. ager. Doug Downie, Project Manager Remodel team liked the idea of having a Principal Reyes Engineering (Electrical) LRS reported their change orders over the last 2 years have been 2-3% of project budget. Stressed communication as the key to keeping on time and within budget. Flaviano Reyes, Principal Senior Electrical Engineer Ideas to save project dollars: Doug Recommended a reduced timeline for construction 9/04 -1/30/05 vs. 9/04 - 4/05 o & Associates Roberts, Technical Manager & Senior Estimator which was in RFP Review early in process the location of network services & server room options side of Most work has been done for public agencies Inn & understands d o finpoli d more suitab ersite jects Expressed uncertainty about server room/build g Re erences report Paul Boundy & his team did an excellent job of: construction & management; problem solving; accurate mg strength in managing construction timeline. LRS references noted Pau BoundY ro'ects y Notes owns. due to serve roam nnkn osite a be necessary They have romp additional fees n► y n~design Company Iselin space pls the furnishinS Plan' 83.3 price -1 ect by developi Sgatpher high Notes c fe pTpro, }t dough dollar effective of Ball YGH did the first p n anels" winch are very cost Yost, Gruber deTStandi Architecture the best un Toject dollars: "reconditioned p er Toom Options Team Members: Ideas to save p uTGha$e of ers. ices & sere ble site bam Principal in charge Recommended p ork sere find more suite etw anted to Neis all , Project fic,entsound assion TojeCt on er Herndon' while bei ngly efin process th°arooT u lding & w Rog Review about server 1a ed lack of e s to keeping p ay as the k Y Manager Planner certainty words but disp Moody' Space Expressed un said the right decision-nl~ng Debbi CoaPerider, Project During interview and early Nathan unication lete project. a ement; strongnin stressed comtn budget line to comp a ng Architect Enginee, within construction mang capable in In- - Mann,value time and very sufficient time Jo of: GH is very Jtm $elieved there was GH did an eXcellenJo WofteT of Y & timeline owledge of Roger Kp principal is cle costs; Mile FF Gaafar Gaafar, Re erences ,eP°rt & life cy within budget ferences had first hand Structural EngiWeer value engmeenng ng Charge, TOjects; and stays of the re e Harrison, eQnm'Tri w,, expressed the that n II process. Steve ect Manager civil Proj Herndon in managing Interface Mattes", Principal In Robert senior Mechanical charge, Designer ickett, Senior Electrical David p Engineer LAN Specialist, prie Weeks, Consultmlt es Senior Tecbnolo6n Robert DuP t ' Desi er Senior Li AGENDA ITEM # -3, FOR AGENDA OF December 2, 2003 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE A RESOLUTION APPROVING BUDGET AMENDMENT #11 TRANSFERRING ONE POSITION FROM NETWORK SERVICES TO POLICE AND ADJUSTING APPROPRIATIONS PREPARED BY: Craig Prosser DEPT HEAD OK_ CITY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Should the Council approve Budget Amendment #11 to transfer one position from the Network Services Division of the City Administration Department to the Police Department? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve Budget Amendment #11 INFORMATION SUMMARY Two years ago, the Budget of the City of Tigard transferred the position of Police Data Specialist from the Support Services Division of the Police Department to the Network Services Division of the City Administration Department. This was done to better coordinate the Police data network support with citywide network support and to achieve economies of scale. 'The consolidated network support has been in place for a year and a half, and coordination of efforts has improved. However, despite these improvements, the Police Department has experienced a reduction in service levels that have raised concerns. The Police Department and the Network Services Division have discussed these concerns and are now jointly recommending that the position in question be transferred back to the Police Department. Both units feel that this transfer will improve service levels for the Police Department without jeopardizing the gains in citywide coordination that have been achieved. Budget Amendment #11 adjusts the FY 2003-04 Budget to reflect this transfer. i - OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED i Do not approve Budget Amendment #11. Leave the position in question in the Network Services Division. VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY None ATTACHMENT LIST 71 Resolution, including Attachment A to the Resolution FISCAL NOTES This Budget Amendment reduced the budget of the Network Services Division by $44,729 and increases the budget of the Police Department by an equal amount. The Police Department, however, is funded out of the General Fund and the Network Services Division is funded through the City's cost allocation plan. Budget Amendment #11 therefore reduces the General Fund transfer to the Central Services Fund by its share of this position, and transfers appropriations from the General Fund contingency for the balance of needed to fund this position. This amendment thereby increases overall costs in the General Fund by $13, 334. In the Central Services Fund, resources are reduced by the amount of the General Fund transfer reduced, and the balance of the reduction is transferred back to the Central Services Fund contingency. In actuality, transfers from funds other than the General Fund will be reduced by the amount of the Central Services Fund contingency adjustment, but because of the large number of funds affected and the small impact on each of those funds, the amendment makes that adjustment through contingency rather than adjusting the budgets of each fund affected. L C J a i AGENDA ITEM # 3 FOR AGENDA OF December 2, 2003 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Approve Resolution to Continue the Resource Cities Program PREPARED BY: Bill Monahan DEPT HEAD OK ~~CITY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Shall the City Council support continuation of the City's participation in the International Resource Cities Program, funded by USAID and administered by the International City County Managers Association (ICMA)? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the City to continue participation in the International Resource Cities Program. Authorization will allow the staff to finalize application for a two year extension of the partnership with Samarinda, Indonesia and possibly Washington County and County of Kutai, Indonesia. INFORMATION SUMMARY In August 2001, the City Council passed Resolution No. 01-53 supporting Tigard's participation in the Resource Cities Program. From February 2002 through to this date, Tigard and Washington County have actively participated in an exchange with the City of Samarinda and County of Kutai, Indonesia. Delegates have been engaged in several exchanges resulting in impressive achievements to develop and improve citizen involvement, accounting practices, water system conditions, rate structures, public health, and staff development, among other things. Recently, USAID awarded a contract extension to ICMA to continue the program. We have been invited to apply for an extension of two years. Our Indonesian partners are very enthusiastic about keeping the program active and continuing our successful efforts. To apply, a demonstrated commitment of the City Council is needed to show our desire to continue participation. If Council agrees to apply for an extension, the draft resolution should be adopted. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Take no further action, choosing to conclude the Resource Cities Program at this point. VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY ATTACHMENT LIST 1. Resolution No. 01-53 2. October 2003 letter from Carol Bard, Program Manager 3. Resource Cities Program Indonesian Selection Criteria 4. Draft Resolution supporting continuation of the Resource Cities Partnership FISCAL NOTES The cost of the Resource Cities Program is funded by USAID. The cost of airfare, hotel, meals, etc. for delegates is paid for by USAID. Staff participating for Tigard do so as employees of the City with their time devoted to the program conducted as paid time. OadmVesource titles propram.doc i I I I t t CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON RESOLUTION NO. 01- 53 A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING PARTICIPATION IN THE INTERNATIONAL CITY/COUNTY MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION (ICMA) INTERNATIONAL RESOURCE CITIES PROGRAM WHEREAS, the Intemational/City/County Management Association (ICMA) in cooperation with the United States agency for International Development (USAID) and other international agencies established an international partnerships program called the International Resource Cities Program; and WHEREAS, through the International Resource Cities Program, selected local governments exhibiting a record of exceptional management in the U.S. have been invited to share their local government expertise and successes with communities in developing countries that are making the transition to democracy; to provide technical assistance in improving professional and ethical municipal management; to support participatory and inclusive government; to improve delivery of public services; and to increase access to decent and affordable housing; and WHEREAS, the City of Tigard, Oregon, partnering with Washington County, Oregon, has been chosen to participate in this extraordinary program to represent the United States by being matched with the City of Samarinda, Indonesia, and the county of Kutai, Indonesia. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Counci I that: SECTION 1: The City Council supports the City's participation in the International Resource Cities Program, and by so doing endorses the promotion of democratic principles in the City of Samarinda, Indonesia, and the county of Kutai, Indonesia. t PASSED: This - day 2001. M or- >yo i d ATTEST: i City Recorder - City of Tigard I:VIDMkRESol.uv0NSVCMA - IRCROOC RESOLUTION NO. 01--% Page 1 s BIGG - Building Institutions for Good Governance Graha Iskandarsyah 5`h Floor A Iskandarsyah Raya No. 66 C. Kebayoran Baru ern Jakarta Selatan 12160 - Indonesia Tel. (62 21) 727- 2026; 727 91936, Fax : (62 21) 720-6890 Jakarta, 20 October 2003 Dear Partners: USAID recently awarded a contract extension to ICMA to continue the Resource Cities Program. While the Phase 2 Resource Cities Program will not be funded up to the same level as was Phase 1, there will be an opportunity for four of the current eight partnerships to extend for another two years. If you wish to be considered for the extension, please prepare and submit a joint response. I have attached the criteria by which the applications will be evaluated. It will be in your best interest to address as many points included in the criteria as possible. The four Phase If partnerships to be awarded will be as follows: 1. Indonesian-U.S. Partnership - 2 awards This will be in the same format as your Phase 1 partnerships • 3 trips: Indonesian city representatives to travel to the U.S. • 4 trips: U.S. city representatives to travel to Indonesia. II. Indonesian-Indonesian Partnership - 2 awards In addition to the two current partners, this new type of partnership requires the participation of a new Indonesian city and will include the following trips: 1 trip: Indonesian cities representatives to travel to the U.S. 2 trips: Indonesian city representatives to travel to each others' cities. 2 trips: U.S. city representatives to travel to Indonesia. L We will ask the current Indonesian partner to suggest the new Indonesian city with whom both current partners wish to work. It is not necessary to identify this new city at the time that your response is submitted. If the Indonesian partner does/can not indicate a new city that wishes to join the partnership, ICMA will assist in looking for a suitable partner after the awards have been decided. t Please indicate your preference, if any, as to the type of partnership you area interested in. (You will be considered for both unless you indica?e one type of partnership in which you do not wish to participate.) For your information, we will also be inviting two new Indonesian-U.S. partnerships (in the format of point I. above) to the Resource Cities Program. If you know of any cities that were not previously involved in Phase 1 and who wish to participate, please forward them the contact information to either Kemal Taruc or Carol Bartl so that we can provide them with information about the program. We ask that both partners work together to submit a single response, in English. The length of the response will not be criteria when evaluating your responses as long as you feel you adequately described the points by which we must evaluate the responses. The due date for this response is December 5, 2003. Feel free to call/email Kemal Taruc or Carol Bartl if you have any questions. We look forward to hearing from you. Best regards, Carol Bartl Program Manager 2 ' BIGG - Building Institutions for Good Governance Graha Iskandarsyah 5s" Floor JI. Iskandarsyah Raya No. 66 C, Kebayoran Baru "W Jakarta Selatan 12160 - Indonesia Tel. (62 21) 727- 2026; 727 91936, Fax : (62 21) 720-6890 RESOURCE CITIES PROGRAM INDONESIA SELECTION CRITERIA 1. Leadership: Demonstrated commitment by the mayors and local council/legislature to improving local government and a willingness to participate in the program, including: a. a resolution from the local council/legislature that they support the program. b. a letter from the mayors (if the mayors will not be signing the response) indicating that they support the program. 2. Management: Mayors and councils appreciation of the value of strong technical capacity and professionalism of staff and a well-defined administrative framework. 3. Vision: Mayors and councils understanding of the critical issues facing the community, and their ability to set priorities to address them. 4. Community Visible signs of community pride, traditions of civic volunteerism, and general unity among the local sectors. This will be best described by showing community organizations that have participated in prior exchanges. If commitment from new community organizations is expected during the Phase II project, a letter from this organization will be highly regarded. 5. Citizen Participation Tradition or introduction of new programs and policies aimed at increasing citizen participation in the decisions of their local government. 6. No Significant Barrier: No significant trend, unique characteristic, or detectable deficiency that will distract from optimal participation in the program. 7. Sector of Technical Interest: Please indicate the areas of technical interest in which the partners wish to cooperate for Phase II. USAID has indicated that its strategy from year 2004 and forward is to focus on projects in the sectors of education, environment, health, energy, and water. This is not mandatory for current partners wishing to extend in a different area of technical interest (such as tourism, new city development, finance, etc.) so long as the work in that sector had already been undertaken during the Phase I partnership. However any new technical areas, if any, to be included in a Phase II project must fall within education, environment, health, energy or water. 8. Communication between partners and ICMA Timeliness and quality of information prepared and communication between the three parties during the Phase I program. 9. English language and electronic communication capabilities: At least two Project coordinators per partner with English language skills and who have daily access to email. 10. Demonstrable results: Demonstrable interim results from activities undertaken during the Phase 1 program. (It is not necessary to respond to this criteria, since ICMA staff should be aware of all results from Phase I. It is only included here so that you are aware of its existence.) 11. Level of contribution in past partnership and level of in-kind commitment in the future. For example: time contributions, additional travel or program funds added by the city or other sources; creative ways of extending budget resources through, for example, home stays, frequent flyer miles, etc. 12. Diversity. The partner cities will reflect the diversity of local government authorities in Indonesia in terms of population size, administrative authority (kota/kabupten), resource base, location, and other characteristics. (It is not necessary to respond to this criteria. It is only included here so that you are aware of its existence.) Loreen\H:\DOCS\Indonesia\Resource Cities Criteria-Final 10-17-03.130C AGENDA ITEM No. 4 Date: December 2, 2003 PUBLIC HEARING (LEGISLATIVE) TESTIMONY SIGN-UP SHEETS Please sign on the following page(s) if you wish to testify before City Council on: CONSIDER BULL MOUNTAIN ANNEXATION PLAN ZONE CHANGE ANNEXATION [ZCA] 2003-00003/ZONE CHANGE ANNEXATION [ZCA] 2003-00004/ZONE CHANGE ANNEXATION [ZCA] 2003-00005/ZONE CHANGE ANNEXATION [ZCA] 2003-00006 Due to Time Constraints City Council May Impose A Time Limit on Testimony I:\ADM\GREER\CITY COUNCIL\CCSIGNUP\PH TESTIMONY LEG - ZOAMOC r 1111 mi~ I AGENDA ITEM No. 4 Date: December 2, 2003 PLEASE PRINT Pro onent - (Speaking In Favor Opponent - S eakin A ainst Neutral Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. 'gru Pr2.T' BYeo f) /5-6-T-0 5 w 1334 Av C ,,S'o3 5~~-SFISl2 Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. r5~~,~ Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. 1_,01t ~Arw?R r uo~~ ~ , r 0 I S 3 _.S9c) A a o I Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. I Marne, Address & Phone No. A04I-y d GcrZ- 4 s, 4() "c' ~el~,a2 9 -7 Zz54 i 5U3-~ 3~ - 8.2~~0 ! Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Eli& (s~~ AGENDA ITEM No. 4 Date: December 2, 2003 PLEASE PRINT Pro onent - (Speaking In Favor O onent - (Speaking Against) Neutral Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. l Oq+7 Name, Address & Phone No. N e, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. O.VVI 0 ( 616LG(I 10943 w a Y OV ff7, Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & P ne No. Name, Address & Phone No. vil r 1 ~q ~ y~os- 9~aa /J Name, Address & Phone No. Names ho No. Name, Address & Phone No. qJ~ 7A f4 i'Sy 2J 6w) y~rth r nkq- Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. J 1=rt, D I i n t lIa f~ J OR g Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. ► 3 S (n _rx . 50-"A) OV- g )ad (4 C-57D?) sT?9_ia~? 71 AGENDA ITEM No. 4 Date: December 2, 2003 PLEASE PRINT Pro onent - S eakin In Favor Opponent - (Speaking Against) Neutral Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. /earl ~ ~clh~;~~ ~yz os s ~ u« ,Gith ~,J,Q,,d ~ ter 9711 ~ Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. JMvx .~-rcrld kc-esk4tj tq-LCI 5 SW j3tA11M61- -TI, C 'zJ ) U2. 4~ Z z q 503-31Cf-732 Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. L7lwe' t2u s 1 12~L(o a Sw T . rkViGy/ T~~ Utz y7a sa3- [-a3- glsd- Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. 7 '2'v Name, Address & Phone No. rNari* Adds &,Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. S `I -w V 09- q')22 Sv3 Sl~D7 ~ i Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. N e, Address & Phone No. A('Viv.ri &C:u&~ ~~~7s s w l'~I WujA, UfZ q-1-i Sv3~sg0-3s~ e AGENDA ITEM No. 4 Date: December 2, 2003 E PRINT Proponent - S eakin In Favor O onent Speakin Against) Neutral Name, Address & Phone No. N ,Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. 100 R -7 v 3-s7f -937S_ Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. wOCOt e T'go~r-off oe 9 7a.)- y Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. 7. (c%v~-~ C6W - /y9 ~VW&F- ~ • am Name, Address & Phone No. Ne, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Y.i,\e Wa*~:i i Zz S w !'4 (sr T14K/O,O~- e-t-77Z 43D , o z2Z- Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. i Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. AGENDA ITEM # I FOR AGENDA OF December 2, 2003 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE The Bull Mountain Annexation Plan (Zone Change Annexation (ZCA) 2003-00003/Zone Change Annexation (ZCA) 2003-00004/Zone Change Annexation (ZCA) 2003-00005/Zone Change Annexation (ZCA) 2003-00006) Public Hearing PREPARED BY: Barbara Shields DEPT HEAD OK TY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL 1. Review The Bull Mountain Annexation Plan (Attachment 1, Exhibit A) and Staff Report (Attachment 1, Exhibit B); 2. Receive public testimony and submittals on The Bull Mountain Annexation Plan and Staff Report 3. Take action on the land use applications, Zone Change Annexation (ZCA) 2003-00003/Zone Change Annexation (ZCA) 2003-00004/Zone Change Annexation (ZCA) 2003-00005/Zone Change Annexation (ZCA) 2003-00006; and if approved, 4. Place the issue before voters on March 9, 2004 or subsequent election dates. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approval of The Bull Mountain Annexation Plan (Zone Change Annexation (ZCA) 2003-00003/Zone Change Annexation (ZCA) 2003-00004/Zone Change Annexation (ZCA) 2003-00005/Zone Change Annexation (ZCA) 2003-00006) by adopting the attached Resolution (Attachment 1). INFORMATION SUMMARY The City of Tigard is proposing to annex 1,378 acres of Washington County known as Bull Mountain through the annexation plan process. State law ORS 195.205 allows the City to annex territory within an urban growth boundary (UGB) pursuant to a detailed annexation plan, subject to voter approval. If the Tigard City Council approves The Bull Mountain Annexation Plan (Exhibit A of Attachment 1), it could place the proposal on the March 91h 2004 ballot. The Bull Mountain Annexation Plan proposal states that the City of Tigard can serve the Bull Mountain area without a significant reduction in service to Tigard residents. Due to size, the proposal divides the area into four subareas: East (276.95 acres), South (492.18 acres), North (357.35 acres), and West (251.23). To allow time to hire additional staff, acquire equipment, and maintain current service standards to City residents, the Plan proposes a three-phase approach: Phase 1: East, 2004; Phase 2: South, 2005; Phase 3: North and West, 2006. Although there are other methods of annexation, the City chose the annexation plan method because it requires the creation of a long-term annexation strategy. The Tigard Urban Service Agreement ([TUSA] The Bull Mountain Annexation Plan, Appendix B) names the City of Tigard as the ultimate service provider for the Plan Area, for most services. Without annexation, the City has limited ability to plan for, provide for, and manage growth outside its City limits to ensure that efficient and effective public facilities and services are available when needed. The TUSA contains a provision that the City shall endeavor to annex the Bull Mountain area in the near to mid-term (3 to 5 years). Lastly, if The Bull Mountain Annexation Plan is approved by the Council, ORS 195.205 allows both the territory to be annexed and the annexing city to vote on the annexation plan proposal. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED OPTION 1: Modify The Bull Mountain Annexation Plan phasing recommendations by choosing one of the three options (below) and approve Zone Change Annexation (ZCA) 2003- 00003/Zone Change Annexation (ZCA) 2003-00004/Zone Change Annexation (ZCA) 2003-00005/Zone Change Annexation (ZCA) 2003-00006. If the Tigard City Council approves The Bull Mountain Annexation Plan with the modified recommendations by December 16, it could place the proposal on the March 9'h 2004 ballot. There are three alternatives for Council consideration: 1. Annex all-areas at one time, prior to 2005 2. Annex in 2 phases (East/North subareas in 2004; South/West subareas in 2005) 3. Annex in 4 phases (2004, 2005, 2006, 2007). The suggested sequence contained in the report is based on the numeric ranking identified in the Bull Mountain assessment report. However, given the minor differences in the ranking score between the South, East, and North, altering the sequence would not impact the City's ability to serve one of these areas, except the West which must be annexed last. The three alternatives are based on the extensive analysis of the Bull Mountain area and are well grounded and supported by The Bull Mountain Annexation Study (November 2001) (Attachment 2), The Public Facilities and Services Report for the Bull Mountain Area (July 2003) (Attachment 3), and The Bull Mountain Annexation Plan (November 2003). All data collection and research rest upon the four subarea boundaries. In short, the collected data, analysis and recommendations contained in these documents provide an "adequate factual base", as required by Statewide Planning Goal 2. The three alternatives are based on quantitative methods and do not address the intangible elements of the decision malting process (social acceptance, sensitivity toward the change, etc.). Any deviations from the above three alternatives and/or four established subarea boundaries, that may be considered through public testimony, run the risk of not complying with the applicable criteria identified in the Staff Report (Attachment 1, Exhibit B). OPTION 2: Deny Zone Change Annexation (ZCA) 2003-00003/Zone Change Annexation (ZCA) 2003-00004/Zone Change Annexation (ZCA) 2003-00005/Zone Change Annexation (ZCA) 2003-00006. If the City Council finds that based on its review of the staff report and public testimony that any of the three alternatives do not meet the applicable approval. criteria to annex the Bull Mountain Plan Area through the annexation plan method, the applications (Zone Change Annexation (ZCA) 2003-00003/Zone Change Annexation (ZCA) 2003- 00004/Zone Change Annexation (ZCA) 2003-00005/Zone Change Annexation (ZCA) 2003-00006) will be denied. VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY Growth and Growth Management Goal #2, Urban services are provided to all citizens within Tigard's urban growth boundary and recipients of services pay their share. ATTACHMENT LIST Attachment 1: Resolution Exhibit A: The Bull Mountain Annexation Plan, September 2003 Appendix B: Fiscal Analysis Update Appendix C: Tax Rate Table Appendix D: Tigard Urban Service Agreement, November 26, 2002 Appendix E: Evaluation Criteria from 2003 Assessment Report Technical Document B: Facilities and Public Services Assessment Report for the Bull Mountain Area, 2003 and The Bull Mountain Annexation Study, 2001 (including Appendix D, 2001 Tax Rate Table, and Appendix F, Question and Answer Packet) Exhibit B: Staff Report Attachment 2: Bull Mountain Annexation Plan Comment Log, through 11/18/03 FISCAL NOTES The Bull Mountain Annexation Plan proposes to annex approximately 1,378 acres of land into the City of Tigard with an assessed value of $605,857,310 (North: $193,411,910; East: $52,016,420; South: $251,261,770; West: $109,167,210). The plan proposes a three-phased annexation, employing the following sequence: East, 2004; South, 2005; North and West, 2006. i i i i i Issues Before the Council 1. Review The Bull Mountain Annexation The Bull Mountain Plan (Plan) and Staff Report; Annexation Plan 2. Receive public testimony and submittals on the Plan and Staff Report; (ZCA 2003-00003, -00004, 3. Take action on the land use -00005,-00006) applications, ZCA2003-00003, -00004, Public Hearing -00005 -00006; and If approved, 4. Place the Issue before voters March 9, Dec. 2, 2003 2004, or subsequent election dates. What is Annexation? Steps Toward Annexation ■ Annexation brings unincorporated Since 1983, urban development has areas into a City by adding come to Bull Mtn. The County has properties to the City tax roll. drawn up agreements with Tigard Householders become City for urban services. residents and receive City services. 1997 - Intergovernmental Agreement. County transfers building services, ■ Portions of Bull Mountain are development applications and engineering. currently unincorporated. Long-range planning still under County (1983 plan). Steps Toward Annexation Steps Toward Annexation 6 2002 - TUSA confirms Tigard as July 29: County Board of ultimate urban services provider. Commissioners, City Council meet; City agrees to "endeavor" to annex agree annexation plan is preferred j iBull Mountain; near to mid-term way to annex this area (3 to 5 yrs) The City, with County's support, September 9: Council passes conducts due diligence: 2 annexation resolution, directs staff to prepare studies and a public opinion survey. annexation plan for Bull Mountain I 1 Steps Toward Annexation Annexation Process Oct• 7: joint meeting between 2003-04 choice County and City to review plan 2003 Annexation Nov. 4: Council directs staff to Plan prepare three-phased annexation Bull Mtn. services plan 2001-03 Study Assessment Report Dec. 2: Public hearing to adopt plan bti~mpr ~fivtPI n 4? March 9. 2004: If adopted, plan =°~+~urbanglannlrtgllrea F; 19805 rki x./lgnemant potentially on ballot rcr: 5z~nrashrouney_'BUIi,Mtn;s<< i What is an Annexation Plan? Why an Annexation Plan? ■ Allowed by ORS195.205 ■ A proposal for transferring services and bringing households into the ■ Requires long-term annexation strategy City of Tigard in an organized and ■ TUSA: City shall endeavor to annex efficient manner. Bull Mountain area In near to mid-term w Council can adopt the plan and place it ■ Allows City to plan, provide for, and manage growth in area - limited now on ballot, allowing both Bull Mountain residents and City residents to vote on ■ Allows vote of both affected areas ! the annexation. ■ County Board preferred method s ■ Step toward collecting parks SDCs i Application Proposal: The Bull Mountain Applicant: The City of Tigard Proposal: Annex 1,378 acres, Annexation Plan contingent on a public vote (ZCA 2003-00003, - 00004,-00005, -00006) Location: Unincorporated Washington County area known as Bull Mountain How: Use annexation plan process allowed by ORS195.205 2 Proposal: A ' The Bull Mountain Annexation Plan proposes annexation timing and sequence, based on urban services. It divides the Plan Area - i i into four areas for annexation: ■ EAST - 2004 ■ SOUTH - 2005-` ■ NORTH & WEST - 2007 i : - I I f i Q Subarea Analysis Subarea Analysis ■ East South • Least populated area (4/4); requires • Most (1/4) homes and population; least services upon annexation requires most services upon annexation ■ Largest share of future growth due to ■ Limited growth remains large, undeveloped lots; maximize future SDCs tied to development • Makes a connection to UGB site 63 ■ Contiguous to City boundaries ■ Contiguous to City on north side • Ranked highest in report ■ Ranked second in report Subarea Analysis Subarea Analysis ■ North West ■ Ranks 2/4 in population ■ Ranks 3/4 in population ■ Limited growth remains d i ■ City owns parkland in this area • Limited growth remains 1 ■ Makes a connection to UGB site 64 ■ Makes a connection to UGB sites 1 j ■ Contiguous to City boundaries 63 and 64 ■ Would eliminate Fern St. island ■ Not contiguous to City boundaries i ■ Ranked highly in report analysis ■ Ranked low in report analysis due to location 3 Review Criteria State Criteria o / N 1. State ♦ORS195.205: Annexation b Provider e: ORS Chapters 19S and 222 A A Irea must mu 2. Metro - Subject to Urban Services Metro Code Chapter 3.09 Agreement 3. City - Fiscal Impact Analysis - In an Annexation Flan, subject Community Development Code to a public hearing with public Chapter 18.320 and 18.390 notice published in local paper aThese criteria were met. State Criteria State Criteria ♦ ORS195.220: Five Plan Criteria 1. Local standards of urban service availability 1. Local standards of urban service 2. Schedule for providing urban services availability rvice a al standards 3. Timing and Sequence of Annexation provide s are identified 4. Effect on existing service providers ■ Before annexation, County will need 5. Long-term benefits of the annexation plan to improve roads to pavement quality a ,dard and establish parks SDCs aThese criteria were met. L State Criteria State Criteria 2 2. Schedule for providing urban 3. Timing and Sequence :s 0 services More areas = more efficiency Tigard can serve the area without a significant reduction in service to (economy of scale) Tigard residents 5 ■ A phased annexation provides time city will assume all services upon 0 annexation except road/street to obtain staff/equipment needs a maintenance (transfer within 1 yr.) J ■ City will initiate parks planning To maximize funds for capital J I Police can serve entire area with projects, annexation would occur by a slight response time reduction to 2005 or County institutes parks SDCs Priority 3 calls until more staff is hired. 4 State Criteria State Criteria 4. Effects on existing service S. Long-Term Benefits of the providers Annexation Plan • Annexation would not significantly Individual annexations will occur impact Washington County and its regardless - plan offers comprehensive special districts, or other service strategy providers Provides certainty, efficiency, a smooth ■ Tigard Water District's loss of accounts transition, more capital improvement would not cause it to dissolve - it could urban services, equity, parks, unification continue to serve remaining accounts Step toward completing our community State Criteria Metro Code Standards ♦ ORS222: C;ty Boundary ♦ Metro Code 3 09 040 (a)• Information Changes: Mergers: Consolidations: reouired for a boundary change petition. Withdrawals. The City's land-use application for The Bull ORS 222 does not apply to the current Mountain Annexation Plan includes all of the proposal, but is not precluded by ORS195. information required by Metro Code 3.09.040 (a) and has been deemed complete. 0 This standard was met. Metro Code Standards Metro Code Standards ♦3.09.050 (b) 15 days prior to hearing ♦3.09.050 (d) Findings and Conclusions report must be available and address: shall address these criteria: ■ Extent urban services are available ■ Consistency with annexation plan 1 ' ■ Existing service agreements ■ Consistency with service agreements 1 . Consistency with all applicable plans ■ Consistency with land use, facility plans Withdrawal of territory from entities ■ Effect on provision of services... Proposed decision effective date aThis standard was met. 5 Metro Code Standards City Policies ♦3.09.050 (d) Findings and Conclusions Tigard Community Development Code shall address these criteria: (Title 18) Policies ■ Consistency with regional plans 18.320.020: Approval Criteria. (Type IV) B.Annexation approval decision based on: ■ All applicable state and local criteria 1. All services and facilities are available ■ Proposed decision effective date with sufficient capacity to provide service; OThis standard was met. 2. Applicable Comp Plan policies and implementing ordinance provisions satisfied. OThis policy was met. City Policies City Policies Tigard Community Development Code CDC 18-390.060 Type IV Procedure. The 18.320.020: Approval Criteria. (Type IV) recommendation should consider five C. Convert zoning to City zoning (already factors, where applicable: in effect) 1. Statewide planning goals 2. Federal, state statutes/ regulations OThis policy was met. 3. Metro regulations 4. Comprehensive plan policies 5. City implementing ordinances OThis policy was met. City Policies City Policies 1. Statewide planning goals. Comprehensive Plan 19 goals addressed. Policy 2.1.1: Citizen Involvement 2. Federal, state statutes + Notice was provided to all affected parties ,regulations and those within 500ft. The Bull Mountain ORS195 and 222 addressed. hotline and E-mail was established in 13. Metro regulations. Sept. for questions and answers. Code 3.09 addressed. 14. Comprehensive plan policies. j5. City implementing ordinances. [3 kb 0 6 City Policies City Policies Comprehensive Plan Comprehensive Plan Policy 10. (a): Is there adeagate Policy 10 1 1 (c) The City shall provide caoaci for these services, if area is developed to most intense use, and urban services to areas within the Tigard Urban Planning Area or within the Urban without significantly reducing service Growth Boundary upon annexation levels to the City of Tigard: 1. Water; 2. Sewer; 3. Drainage; 4. Streets; S. Police; and 6. Fire Protection. The Plan includes a schedule for providing services upon annexation. The Plan states that there is adequate 21 The Plan complies with Policy 10.1.1. capacity without a significant reduction. City Policies City Policies Comp Plan Policy 10.1.2: Annexations Comp Plan Policy 10.1.2: Annexations shall be approved based on findings for: shall be agproved based on findings for: a. Annexation eliminates "pocket" or d. Land located in Tigard Urban Planning "island" Area, contiguous to City boundary b. Will not create irregular boundary e. Annexation can be accommodated by making It difficult for police to respond urban services c. Police department has commented 0 The Plan complies with Policy 10.1.2. s City Policies Other Comments Comp Plan Policy 10.1.3: Upon City departments and partner i annexation, assign City zoning to agencies received the proposal and match County designations. did not object to the proposal. i Washington County previously adopted City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan and zoning j designations for the area. 0 The Plan complies with Policy 10.1.3. 7 Staff Recommendation Council Choices ,The Bull Mountain Annexation Plan 1. Adopt the Plan; can place Plan on proposal meets all approval criteria March 9, 2004, or subsequent ballot. in ORS Chapters 195 and 222; Metro 2. Modify and adopt the Plan Code Chapter 3.09; Community recommendation. Choose 1 Development Code Chapter 18, alternative (4, 2, or 1 phase). Can sections 18.320, 18.390. place Plan on March 9, 2004, ballot. Staff recommends APPROVAL of The Bull Mountain Annexation Plan. 3. Deny the Plan application. Annexation plan criteria not met. I i Alternatives Phasing Alternatives ■ The Plan analysis shows that three • Alternative 1: All Areas at One Time phasing alternatives comply with ■ T Economy of Scale annexation plan and Comprehensive ■ Some conditions for service delivery Plan criteria: ■ All Areas ■ Subarea with parkland annexed from beginning ■ Two Phases: North and East, South and West ■ Four Phases (or Three Phases) Phasing Alternatives Phasing Alternatives • Alternative 2: Two Phases ■ Alternative 3: Three or Four Phases 1.North and East, 2. South and West ■ Moderate Economy of Scale • Low Economy of Scale ■ No conditions for service delivery ■ Some conditions for service delivery ■ Most time to adjust to new service ■ Subarea with parkland annexed early boundaries ■ Annex by 2005 ■ Subarea with parkland annexed later ■ More time to adjust to new service ■ Comprehensive Plan update delayed boundaries until 2007 8 a 71 Phasing Alternatives Council Choices economy # of Time to 1. Adopt the Plan; can place Plan on i of Scale Service annex all Conditions areas March 9, 2004, or subsequent ballot. III Areas ® O o 2. Modify and adopt the Plan recommendation. Choose 1 Phases O O O alternative (4, 2, or 1 phase). Can place Plan on March 9, 2004, ballot. or 4 3. Deny the Plan application. 0 0 o Annexation plan criteria not met. hases 9 emu. bl~ c +%es ~ k Vnoft L) 1212103 Subject: Statement to Tigard City Council Re: Proposed Bull Mountain Annexation Plan Date: December 2, 2003 Members of the Council: Our family has lived on Bull Mountain since March, 1975. We live on SW 160 Avenue in an area called "The Woods." Our property is adjacent to the Urban Growth Boundary that now is in the recent addition to the Urban Growth Reserve. Our intention is to remain at this property indefinitely. We have been, and remain active, in the Tigard community and consider ourselves members of the Tigard community. We raised three sons here who attended Tigard public schools and graduated from Tigard High. Our oldest son graduated from Oregon State University and the other two graduated from the University of Oregon. All of our children participated in youth soccer programs for many years. They also participated in youth basketball and, briefly, little league baseball. Our family benefited greatly from our participation in these activities at the local school facilities and at the soccer fields in Cook Park. During the 28 plus years that we have lived on Bull Mountain, we have seen rapid growth that continues. This growth impacts our neighborhood streets as well as the streets, schools, parks and other facilities in Tigard. We have been dismayed that during all of this growth there hasn't been a commensurate building of parks, and bicycle and walking trails. We pay an extra county tax for "enhanced" sheriffs patrol. We use the city library, are involved at the Tigard Senior Center, use the Tigard city streets, and continue to enjoy use of Cook Park and other Tigard facilities, such as the Fanno Creek Trail for bicycling. We support the annexation of Bull Mountain into the city of Tigard. We are advocates of building strong communities and believe that healthy and vibrant communities are the key to a "livable, and sustainable" society. While we don't have any major gripes with Washington County, other than the lack of parks and trails, and inadequate sheriff patrols to control traffic violations, especially on Bull Mountain Road, we believe that annexation will enhance the community of Tigard. We also believe the residents of Bull Mountain will benefit from annexation by becoming a more integral part of the community. We believe that annexation will lead to improved services and more efficient delivery of services, especially police, parks, trails, and transportation. Recent letters to the editor, and signs about the proposed annexation, contribute to the impression that Bull Mountain residents are selfish and greedy. A concrete example of this is the appearance of signs on Bull Mountain that use the extremely divisive language that "annexation is an act of war." Such extreme language does nothing to solve the pressing problems brought by rapid growth and economic disparity in our community. Increasing divisiveness and decline in civility is exacerbated by the cacophony of extreme, crude, and belligerent language throughout our society. The coarsening of American society and the increased focus on greed, selfishness, and "instant gratification" is detrimental to building a civil society. The present situation continues to foster an "us vs. them" attitude that serves only to be detrimental to a high quality of life. Annexation can strengthen the Tigard community and promote a greater awareness of "a sense of place." We encourage the council and all the members of this community to work toward building a stronger, more vibrant civil society and find a way to complete the annexation of Bull Mountain into the city of Tigard. Respectfully, Robert T. and M. Derene Meurisse i i 503-294-9402 C 325 P01 DEC 02 103 18:02 PUBLIC HEARING CITY OF TIGARD DECEMBER 2, 2003 C(OPI UI (Y Ur I 'Li !~'!_f\tltditJ~:iarrl{,F=ERIi•!' Remarks and Supporting Documents by Richard A. Franzke + tv:.;Yt' 1 t r f' cot ov •C~ T,• ' AZT U~~T ups Zuol ~Q~M$E1t', ~ V AILAg1,,E +dNI' A ntSled/10 100 . 41 II ^~~y Ire ? ~ 'I r~ f.: r a •r. 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 and roads. • Delay improvement of streets until funding sources are available. • Obtain grant funding to address portions of capital improvements. • Identify the effective sequence of annexing specific subareas of Bull Mountain. Appendix E identifies the various methods of annexation available to the City of Tigard. NOVEAtI3ER 2001 THE BILL MOUNTAIN ANNEXATION STUDY Rkc:I' 18 N Appendix E METHODS OF ANNEXATION PROVIDED BY ORS CHAPTER 222 Method: Prior consent Election requirement Election requlced? 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 222.111(2)] (requires public hearing 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 (if 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 Maiority 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 222.125] 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)] Island annexation - When territory not within a city is NO NO (City charter does NO 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. [ORS 222.7501 Subject to referendum Page E - 1 f -~r~m~~'~'£ik::..= w~.,,";'-="x'•''~"u,~ °dT' n.:'T: r~;. +,r r, r.~ %K . H GARD TIGARD, OREGON VoL.41 a No.48 15 cEN1s AN E Tigers aim at Some tasty gift ideas ■ Inside another title - Summit Ridge decision due soon ■ Sports NIITCH kids give thanks ■ B8 • o delay exafion Coun s,%,.,L The city council wants more input time to gather more input from citizens both annexation of the 1,400 acres in unincorpomt- betore putting the issue on the inside and outside the city. ed Washington County for two years, and it The council is still planning to hold a pub- was moving forward with a rapid timetable ballot, possibly next November lic hearing on the issue Dec. 2 but won't vote that would have put annexation on the ballot at on whether or not to put the measure on the the first opportunity. By 13ARBARA SHERMAN March 9 ballot. "(Councilor) Brian (Moore) and I were sit- Of the Times At Tuesday's work session, some of the ting on the fence," said Councilor Sydney councilors decided that they had not received Sherwood. "We wanted more input from Bull TIGARD - The City Council did an enough input to go forward with a vote so Mountain residents and from people in the abrupt aboui~ Tuesday evening, deciding soon city. We weren't hearing from city tridents or to delay As vote on putting the annexation of The city has been seriously studying the Bull Motm6W on the March ballot and to take a See ANNEXATION, A2 Victory son ~ ' i t aMe° t % rec. T L6 2I0'fuaMa ei' ie Rio Ali . 1aa11S sa~ti?K i 04~ . j.L~3'I qu xno~µrn'M"►N' tpuo~~y ~iS' , • A group of 38 adjacent and nearby avalfafli abut'a provts ihr'idt'EtttllE APA Mary Ratcliff neighbors also filed an appeal, citing safe- additional units to be constructed if they the Uniform Fire Code's S03 546-0724 ty issues associated with increased traffic are equipped with fire sprinklers. Franzke asked, "Why would volume and traffic access requirements. Once the hearing got under way, Tom another 25 houses to the Dan Brood ~M 546-0734 Annexation: `Opportunities for parks are dwffi, DA, On ■ Continued from Al Bull Mountain resident Lisa Hamilton Treik asked, "is Jaime Valdez from people in favor of annexation:' this the onl ~"way you feel you can bring Bull Mountain PHOTOS 50 546-0732 The council decided to form several groups that would mtAfter irksen answered, "Yes:' Monahan added, This i be composed of citizens and staff people to look in more is the only way for all the citizens in the city and on Bull detail at the ramifications of annexation. The areas to be Mountain to have a say in the decision:' COMMERCIAL - included are parks and recreation, public works, building.. Bull- Mountain resident Stu Byron asked, "As far as PR nMG: codes and police services. mutual benefits (of annexation) to Bull Mountain resi- "We were coming down to the wire, and we just didn't dents, what are they?" Bob Brands feel comfortable going ahead with so little input," When Dirksen started reading from a list that began MANACFR Sherwood said. "We want to talk about what would work with "completing our community:' several people dissent- 503-546-9865 best for everyone:' ed. " W11iooda, The council may decide later to put the annexation ''`Completing our community' is l'or the citizens of RETAIL issue on the November 2004 ballot, according to Tigard, not Bull Mountain," said a woman. Sherwood. Comprehensive plans were created for Tigard and Bull AD'VER ISING: _ Mayor Jim Griffith was ill and did not attend Tuesday's Mountain 20 years ago, according to Monahan. " meeting or a public meeting on annexation Monday at `'The county says it can't update the Bull Mountain 1 Cbtisdne Min Twality Middle School, but the four councilors - plan," he said. "In the meantime, Tigard has collected Sherwood, Moore, Craig Dirksen and Nick Wilson - got SDCs (System Development Charges) and built parks:" 503-546-mi an earful from citizens opposed to annexation at the open A man in the audience brought up the issue of public house. safety, and Dirksen replied that while the city's goal is to J. Fewer than 100 people, mostly Bull Mountkin resi- provide 1.5 officers for eich 1,000 citizens, the figure is Fuccillo a deWs..Sllpty8tit T to learn about annexation.and.,t temporarily lower of save money. By compaddon~with the= -NUIN! it vJoi9d ~ri~rt to 4t dti aiid sheriff's patrol in Washington County, t] ere,is_ ''Bull MounWh residentlDick~Franzke asked why the : otte•.bfficer for every 1,000 residents. • ...c-~f~ w _,i4 ` cowicil phew the annemaianimethod that allows a.sirnple-.%...;, Alonahan.aidad-itbat Tig.*d now provides, 1.3-plus majority vote. iwopi officers per 1,000 residents. "Community service Al 1 lerriges "In 1993, the Legislature created the annexation-plan , officers are not counted, and we would add 11 more offi- 503-546.0787 4• method," answered City Manager Bill Monahan. "The cers if Bull Mountain was annexed," he said. { City Council debated it for a year, and we also did a sur- . According to Dirksen, police respond to priority-one vey of 300 homes. The council determined that this was calls within four minutes, while the average time in the method to be used. There is not a legal mechanism Washington County is 12 minutes. Igae Petungill available for a separate majority in each area." One man complained that "65 to 85 percent of Bull SASEs 503-546-0777 T IM lop You're ready for your Golden Years. Ralston Celle= Is your home? Y SHERWOOD SUM 503-546-0782 V . Most seniors want to stay in their home as they S e Chapter 222 - City Boundary Changes; Mergers; Consolidations; Withdrawals 2001 EDITION i i i 503-294-9402 C 077 P03/25 OCT 30 103 15:49 ttulttt.t ttv t,t,t ttpt;,ty IlrU ly,~. 1vt4_tt;41-. a too cm of M. flit of I.N. %Vill lllla%%iJis 1'ill;l4 .1 ltd .111 determining the permanent rate limit for the city following consolidation or merger as provided in section 11 (3)(d), Article XI of the Oregon Constitution. (4) The question of the consolidation or merger that is submitted to the electors of the city that has not previously approved operating taxes shall be considered approved by such electors if a majority of the votes cast are in favor of the consolidation or merger and: (a) At least 50 percent of registered voters eligible to vote in the election cast a ballot; or (b) The election is a general election in an even-numbered year. (5) ORS 250.036 applies to a ballot title for an election described in this section. (6) Notwithstanding that a majority of all electors voting on the question of consolidation or merger approve the consolidation or merger, the consolidation or merger shall not be considered approved if the voting participation requirements in subsection (4) of this section have not been met in the city to which this section applies. (7) If the city to which this section applies approves the consolidation or merger but the consolidation or merger is not approved by the other electors voting on the question or for some other reason does not occur, no permanent rate limit for operating taxes shall be established for the city as a result of the election. [1997 c.541 §358d] Note: 222.050 was added to and made a part of ORS chapter 222 by legislative action but was not added to any smaller series therein. See Preface to Oregon Revised Statutes for further explanation. ANNEXATION OF CONTIGUOUS TERRITORY Note: Sections 3 and 10, chapter 737, Oregon Laws 1987, provide: Sec. 3. When annexation only with consent of owner before July 1, 2009. (l) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, when property: (a) Is property on which no electors reside; (b) is zoned for industrial uses; (c) Has sewer and water lines paid for and installed by the property owner; and (d) Has an assessed valuation, including improvements, of more than $7 million that property can only be annexed by or to a city after, the city receives a petition requesting annexation from the owner of the property. (2) Property described in subsection (1) of this section shall not be included with other territory as part of an annexation, or annexed under ORS 222.750, unless the owner of the property consents to the annexation in the form of a petition for annexation. (3) This section applies to property that, on September 27, 1987, was within the jurisdiction of a local government boundary commission. [1987 c.737 §3; 1997 c.516 §14] httD://www.leiz.s%te.or.us/ors/222.htmi 10/30/2003 503-294-9402 C 077 P04/25 OCT 30 '03 15:50 ♦ I ♦ I% r sn"It M.n Y ♦ Ilnl~_,~.n, rn..•,,,., ~ )I I,,, VV ItjI'I%%ZI I., See. 10. Section 3, chapter 737, Oregon Laws 1987, is repealed on July 1, 2009. [1987 c.737 §10; 1989 c.226 §1; 1997 c.226 §1] 222.110 [Repealed by 1957 c.613 §1 (222.111 enacted in lieu of 222.110)] 232.111 Authority and procedure for annexation, generally. (1) When a proposal containing the terms of annexation is approved in the manner provided by the charter of the annexing city or by ORS 222.111 to 222.180 or 222.840 to 222.915, the boundaries of any city may be extended by the annexation of territory that is not within a city and that is contiguous to the city or separated from it only by a public right of way or a stream, bay, lake or other body of water. Such territory may lie either wholly or partially within or without the same county in which the city lies. (2) A proposal for annexation of territory to a city may be initiated by the legislative body of the city, on its own motion, or by a petition to the legislative body of the city by owners of real property in the territory to be annexed. (3) The proposal for annexation may provide that, during each of not more than 10 full fiscal years beginning with the first fiscal year after the annexation takes effect, the rate of taxation for city purposes on property in the annexed territory shall be at a specified ratio of the highest rate of taxation applicable that year for city purposes to other property in the city. The proposal may provide for the ratio to increase from fiscal year to fiscal year according to a schedule of increase specified in the proposal; but in no case shall the proposal provide for a rate of taxation for city purposes in the annexed territory which will exceed the highest rate of taxation applicable that year for city purposes to other property in the city. If the annexation takes place on the basis of a proposal providing for taxation at a ratio, the city may not tax property in the annexed territory at a rate other than the ratio which the proposal authorizes for that fiscal year. (4) When the territory to be annexed includes a part less than the entire area of a district named in ORS 222.510, the proposal for annexation may provide that if annexation of the territory occurs the part of the district annexed into the city is withdrawn from the district as of the effective date of the annexation. However, if the affected district is a district named in ORS 222.465, the effective date of the withdrawal of territory shall be determined as provided in ORS 222.465. (5) The legislative body of the city shall submit, except when not required under ORS 222.120, 222.170 and 222.840 to 222.915 to do so, the proposal for annexation to the electors of the territory proposed for annexation and, except when permitted under ORS 222.120 or 222.840 to 222.915 to dispense with submitting the proposal for annexation to the electors of the city, the legislative body of the city shall submit such proposal to the electors of the city. The proposal for annexation may be voted upon at a general election or at a special election to be held for that purpose. (6) The proposal for annexation may be voted upon by the electors of the city and of the territory simultaneously or at different times not more than 12 months apart. (7) Two or more proposals for annexation of territory may be voted upon simultaneously; however, in the city each proposal shall be stated separately on the ballot and voted on separately, and in the territory proposed for annexation no proposal for annexing other territory shall appear on the ballot. [ 1957 c.613 §2 (enacted in lieu of 222.110); 1959 e.415 § 1; 1967 c.624 § 13; 1985 c.702 §71 222.115 Annexation contracts; recording; effect. A contract between a city and a landowner relating to extraterritorial provision of service and consent to eventual annexation of property of the landowner httD;//www.lee.state.or.us/ors/222.htmi 10/30/2003 503-294-9402 C 07? P06i25 OCT 30 '03 15:51 ( 1]a~11C1' 1, 11~ IIUUiIUat l (I.M.U'C:.. AIVI-"%:I 1, t uttNI it l l l:IUM IN. r% IU tut a%%, lttJ t":I L;U U VI ?tl when all of the owners of land in that territory and not less than 50 percent of the electors, if any, residing in the territory consent in writing to the annexation of the land in the territory and file a statement of their consent with the legislative body. Upon receiving written consent to annexation by owners and electors under this section, the legislative body of the city, by resolution or ordinance, may set the final boundaries of the area to be annexed by a legal description and proclaim the annexation. [1985 c.702 §3; 1987 c.738 §11 Note: 222.125 was added to and made a part of ORS chapter 222 by legislative action but was not added to any smaller series therein. See Preface to Oregon Revised Statutes for further explanation. 222.130 Annexation election; notice; ballot title. (1) The statement summarizing the measure and its major effect in the ballot title for a proposal for annexation shall contain a general description of the boundaries of each territory proposed to be annexed. The description shall use streets and other generally recognized features. Notwithstanding ORS 250.035, the statement summarizing the measure and its major effect shall not exceed 150 words. (2) The notice of an annexation election shall be given as provided in ORS 254.095 and 254.205, except that in addition the notice shall contain a map indicating the boundaries of each territory proposed to be annexed. (3) Whenever simultaneous elections are held in a city and the territory to be annexed, the same notice and publication shall fulfill the requirements of publication for the city election and the election held in the territory. [Amended by 1967 c.283 §1; 1979 c.317 §4; 1983 c.350 §33; 1995 c.79 §80; 1995 c.534 §10] 222.140 [Repealed by 1979 c.317 §26] 222.150 Election results; proclamation of annexation. The city legislative body shall determine the results of the election from the official figures returned by the county clerk. If the city legislative body finds that the majority of all votes cast in the territory favors annexation and the city legislative body has dispensed with submitting the question to the electors of the city, the city legislative body, by resolution or ordinance, shall set the final boundaries of the area to be annexed by a legal description and proclaim the annexation. [Amended by 1983 c.83 §23; 1983 c.350 §34; 1985 c.702 §9] 222.160 Procedure when annexation is submitted to city vote; proclamation. This section applies when the city legislative body has not dispensed with submitting the question of annexation to the electors of the city. If the city legislative body finds that a maiori of the votes cast in the territory and majority of the votes cast in the city favor annexation, then the legislative body, by resolution or ordinance, shall yroclatm those annexations which have received a majority of the votes cast in both the city and the territory. The proclamation shall contain a Iegal description of each temtory annexed. [Amended by 1983 c.350 §35; 1985 c.702 §10] 222.170 Effect of consent to annexation by territory; proclamation with and without city election. (1) The legislative body of the city need not call or hold an election in any contiguous territory proposed to be annexed if more than half of the owners of land in the territory, who also own more than half of the land in the contiguous territory and of real property therein representing more than half of the assessed value of all real property in the contiguous territory consent in writing to the annexation of their land in the territory and file a statement of their consent with the legislative body on or before the day: (a) The public hearing is held under ORS 222.120, if the city legislative body dispenses with submitting h"n://www Ina ctate.nrr.ug/ors/222.htm1 10/30/2003 NNW Chapter 195 - Local Government Planning Coordination age o subject to ORS 197.610 to 197.625. (2)(a{ The Land Conservation and Development Commission may require a local government to designate an urban reserve area during its periodic review in accordance with the conditions for periodic review under ORS 197.628. (b) Notwithstanding paragraph (a) of this subsection, the commission may require a local government to designate an urban reserve area outside of its periodic review if. (A) The local government is located inside a Primary Metropolitan Statistical Area or a Metropolitan Statistical Area as designated by the Federal Census Bureau upon November 4, 1993; and (B) The local government has been required to designate an urban reserve area by rule prior to November 4, 1993. (3) In carrying out subsections (1) and (2) of this section: (a) Within an urban reserve area, neither the commission nor any local government shall prohibit the siting on a legal parce of a single family dwelling that would otherwise have been allowed under law existing prior to designation as an urban reserve area. (b) The commission shall provide to local governments a list of options, rather than prescribing a single planning technique. to ensure the efficient transition from rural to urban use in urban reserve areas. (4) For purposes of this section, "urban reserve area" means lands outside an urban growth boundary that will provide for: (a) Future expansion over a long-term period; and (b) The cost-effective provision of public facilities and service within the area when the lands are included within the urban growth boundary. [1993 c.804 §19; 1999 c.622 §6] URBAN SERVICE PROVIDER ANNEXATION 195.205 Annexation by provider; prerequisites to vote; public hearing. (1) A city or district that provides an urban service may annex territory under ORS 195.020, 195.060 to 195.085, 195.145 to 195.235, 197.005, 197.319, 197.320, 197.335 and 223.304 that: (a) Is situated within an urban growth boundary; and (b) Is contained within an annexation le~ adopted pursuant to ORS 195.020, 195.060 to 195.085, 195.145 to 195.235, 't 197.005, 197.319, 197.320, 197.335 A M223.304. (2) A city-Qr district ma submit an annexation pJ& to a vote under subsection (5) of this section only if, prior to the submission of the annexation plan to a vote: . (a) The territory contained in the annexation V"is subject to urban service agreements amon ppropriate counties anu cities and the providers of atban services within the territory, as required by ORS 195.065 and 195.070, and: (A) Such urban service agreements were in effect on November 4 1993; or (B) ThvL~~y stale that the ma be relied u on as a rere uisite of the annexation method authorized b O 195.020, 95.06 to 195.085, 195.145 to 195.235, 197.005, 197.319, 197.320, 197.335 and 223.304; and (6) The territory contained in the annexation plan, il ubiect.to an agreement between-the city. and county addressing fiscal inimets- if the annexation is by a city and will cause reductions in the county property tax revenues by operation of section 1 b, Article XI of the Oregon Constitution. littt)://www.leg-state.or.us/ors/ I 95.htm) 10/31/2() X -195 Chapter - Local Government Planning Coordination age o (3) Prior to adopting an annexation the governing body of a city or district shall hold a public hearing at which time iriteres a persons may appear and Se eard on the question of establishing the annexation plan. (4) The governing body of the city or district shall cause notice of the hearing to be published, once each week for two successive weeks prior to the day of the hearing, in a newspaper of general circulation in the city or district. (5) If after the public hearing required under subsection (3) of this section, the governing body of the city or district ecide~- to proceed with the annexation 1}Uan, it shall cause the annexation lla~an ~tto be submitted to the electors of the ci or di 'ct and to the electors of the territory ronose to be annexed under t~annexatron plan. The propose annexation lean may b,. voted upon at a general election or at a special election to e e for that purpose. [1993 c.804 §13] 195.210 Election procedures. (1) The statement summarizing the measure and its major effect in the ballot title of a proposal for adoption of an annexation Un shall contain a general description of the boundaries of each territory proposed be annexed. The description shall use streets and other generally recognized features. Notwithstanding ORS 250.035, the statement summarizing the measure and its major effect shall not exceed 150 words. (2) The notice of an annexation lean electi n shall be given as provided in ORS 254.095 and 254.205, except that in additit the notice shall contain a map indicating the boundaries of each territory proposed to be annexed. [1993 c.804 §14; 1995 c. §72; 1995 c.534 §9] 195.215 Election certification; order. (1) The governing body of the city or district shall determine the results of the election from the official figures returned by the county clerk. If the governing body of the city finds that a majority of all the votes cast in the territory and the city favor the annexation Mean, then the governing body, by resolution or or inance, shall proclaim the a option of the annexation Laan. The governing body of the district shall certify the results of the electio! to the appropriate county governing body. When a majority of all of th . vntPa in h .territory and district are in favor of the annexation plan, the county governing body by order shall so declare. The proclamation or order declaring approval of the annexation plan shall contain a legal description of each territory annexed. (2) Annexation of particular tracts of territory shall take effect in accordance with the provisions of the adopted annexation plan. [1993 c.804 §15] 195.220 Annexation plan provisions. (1) An annexation >W adopted under ORS 195.205 shall include: (a) The timing and sequence of annexation. (b) Local standards of urban service availability required as a precondition of annexation. (c) The planned schedule for providing urban services to the annexed territory. (d) The effects on existing urban services providers. (e) The long-te benefits of the annexation plan. (2) An annexation plan shall be consistent with all applicable comprehensive plans. [1993 c.804 § 16; 1997 c.541 §341] 195.225 Boundary commission review; action; plan amendment; election. (1) In areas subject to the jurisdiction of a local government boundary commission, the boundary commission shall conduct an advisory review of an annexation plan for conformity with annexation plan requirements set forth in ORS 195.220, 199.462 and the rules of procedure of the Lan, Conservation and Development Commission. (2) If a boundary commission finds that an annexation plan does not comply with ORS 195.220, 199.462 or the procedural rules of the commission, the boundary commission, by order, shall disapprove the annexation plan and return the plan to tll governing body of the city or district. The order of the boundary commission that disapproves an annexation plan shall describe with particularity the provisions of the annexation plan that do not comply with ORS 195.220, 199.462 or the procedural rules of the commission and shall specifically indicate the reasons for noncompliance. http://www.leg.state.or.us/ors/195.html 10/31 /20 o•~zs ids. ohs (4) Fob purposes of ORS 195.020, 195.070, 195.075, 197.005 and this sectiotl-trb=-services" means- (a) Sanitary sewers; (b) Water; (c) Fire protection; f (d) Parks; (e) Open space; (f) Recreation; and (g) Streets, roads and mass transit. (5) Whether the requirement of subsection (1) of this section is met by a single urban service agreement among multiple providers of a service, by a series of agreements with individual providers or by a combination of multiprovider and singly provider agreements shall be a matter of local discretion. [1993 c.804 §3] 195.070 Agreement factors. (1) The following factors shall be considered in establishing urban service agreements under ORS 195.065: (a) Financial, operational and managerial capacity to provide the service; (b) The effect on the cost of the urban service to the users of the service, the quality and quantity of the service provided a: the ability of urban service users to identify and contact service providers, and to determine their accountability, with ease: (c) Physical factors related to the provision of the urban service; (d) The feasibility of creating a new entity for the provision of the urban service; e) The elimination or avoidance of unnecessary duplication of facilities; f) Economic, demographic and sociological trends and projections relevant to the provision of the urban service; g) The allocation of charges among urban service users in a manner that reflects differences in the costs of providing ervices to the users; Matching the recipients of tax supported urban services with the payers of the tax; i) The equitable allocation of costs between new development and prior development; and Economies of scale. 2) The extent of consideration of the factors set forth in subsection (1) of this section is a matter of local government and pecial district discretion. [1993 c.804 §4] 95.075 Agreement provisions and considerations. (1) Urban service agreements entered into under ORS 195.065 shall rovide for the continuation of an adequate level of urban services to the entire area that each provider serves. If an urban rvice agreement calls for significant reductions in the territory of a special service district, the urban service agreement hall specify how the remaining portion of the district is to receive services in an affordable manner. Units of local government and special districts that enter into an urban service agreement shall consider the agreement's ffect on the financial integrity and operational ability of each service provider and iv; nrntem; " nf rhA DRAFT 9 26 03 Table 3. Bull Mountain: Service Standard Changes Following Annexation •r Fire Protection St Emergency Services Tualatin Valley Fire and No Rescue Mass Transit TriMet No. Building and Development Services City of Tigard No. Tigard now provides these services for Plan Area through an agreement with Washington County. The agreement will cease but Tigard continues same services. Recreation No provider. Tigard does not No. Not currently provided. provide recreation services. However, Tigard has a Paris and Recreation Advisory Board that can examine the issue in the future. Schools Annexation does not change school district boundaries. Sg` efl~eiaiiis~tlae Sanitary Sewer Clean Water Services City of Tigard No. Water (Tigard Water District Ci of T' rd No. Street Light Maintenance City of Tigard No. (Washington Coung) 7~ Storm Sewer Clean Water Services City of Tigg& No. Road Quality Maintenance* City of Tiga No. However, the Tigard Urban (Washington County) Service Agreement WA) requires (*Actions to maintain pavement quality) the County to improve individual roads to a pavement condition index (Pq of at least 40, with all roads averaging at least 75, prior to transfenring the roads and service. Parks and Open Space (NO 'ty of Tigard. Washington Yes; 8 acres/ 1,000 people. unry does not provide these services to unincorporated areas. Street Maintenance - (W n City of Tigard Yes. Mowing roadside grass and County through the Urban Rc1 brush (strip and ditch line). Dust Maintenance District) abatement on graveled roads. Vegetation removal for vision clearance. Crack sealing and road shoulders on 4-year c«le. Police (Washington CountyEnhanced City of Tigard Yes. Additional .5 officers/1000 Sheriff Patrol District) people (citystandard is 1.5 officers/ 10(k). Community Development - Long City of Tigard This includes Yes. Staff serves smaller area than Range Planning (Washington County). comprehensive plarrnirtg, such as County, focuses on local projects. master plans. The 1983 B Annexation will allow the City to plan Mountain PM-is the for growth on Bull Mountain with an operaave as a updated comprehensive plan for the County has for the Plan Area. entire community. THE BULL MOUNTAIN AN EXA'I7ON PLAN PAGE 8 r ~4' ,Jy it ./l~V.~ ~t. :Y • 1 I I 1 1• 1. 1 j ANNEXATION - LEGAL AND PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS i : Andrew Stamp i _ r i i f 9 j C } decision because landowners had not sustained an "injury in fact" as a result of the approval of an annexation of neighboring property). Of course, Utsey does not change anything for purposes of LUBA.review. See Friends of Yamhill County v. Yamhill County, 41 Or LUBA 247, 250 (2002); Troy v City of Grants Pass, 41 Or LUBA 112,114-15 (2001); Doob v. Josephine County, 41 Or LUBA 569,571-72 (2001). However, post Utsey, it appears that a petitioner who lost a challenge to an annexation at LUBA would not be able to seek judicial review of that decision unless the petitioner can demonstrate a practical effect on that person's rights. II. Types of Annexations. 1. Annexations by State Legislature. Annexations may be conducted directly by the state legislature. See Mid-County Future Alternatives Comm'n v. City of Portland, 310 Or 152, 795 P2d 541 (1990) (upholding the enactment of 1987 Or Laws Ch. 818, Sec. 3, codified at ORS 199.534, which affected a legislative annexation of certain territories); Mid-County Future Alternatives Comm'n v METRO Area LGBC, 304 Or 89, 742 P2d 47 (1987); State ex rel. Anderson v. Port of Tillamook, 62 Or 332, 342, 124 P 637 (1912). More frequently, however, the decision to annex property is made at the local level. 2. Types of Annexations Not Subiect to Boundary Commission Review - ORS Chapter 222. In all parts of the state except Lane County, annexations of territory into a city are ' governed by ORS Chapter 222. Before delving into the specifics of chapter 222, two caveats are noted. ~i First, since there are now approximately 30 jurisdictions that have voter-approval i provisions in their charter and/or city ordinances, annexation processes in those jurisdictions may be unique based on these local requirements. See Section VII, infra. For. purposes of the following discussion, the possibility of the presence of voter-approval provisions is not considered. 41 Second, in discussing the various types of annexation processes below, it is important to keep in mind that these methods only relate to the political component of the annexation. Thus, the use of any of the various methods discussed below does not obviate the City from complying with any applicable state and local land use procedural laws. See Roloff v. City of Milton- ! Freewater, 27 Or LUBA 80 (1994). State statutes provide for eight different types of annexations. The first seven of the methods, set forth in ORS Ch 222, may be used in both city-initiated annexations, as well as by landowner-initiated annexation proposals. The remaining method, called Urban Service Provider Annexation, will typically be a city-initiated proposal. See ORS 195.205 et seq. and Section IV, infra. a. Annexation by vote. ORS 222.111(5). Because of the way ORS Ch 222 is organized and written, this annexation method is considered to be the "general" or "default" annexation process, with all other annexation methods being considered "exceptions" to this general method. With this method, the governing body first makes a decision of whether the proposed annexation is in compliance with the comprehensive plan and land use regulations. If so, two separate elections are held: (1) a city-wide election, and (2) an election within the territory to be annexed. In this manner, the voters of the city and in the territory to be annexed are tasked with deciding whether the property should, as a policy matter, be included within the jurisdictional boundaries of that municipality. See generally, Couch v. Marvin, 67 Or 341, 136 P 6 (1913); Landers v City of Cottage Grove, 64 Or 155, 129 P 537 (1913). The elections may be held simultaneously or within 12 months of one-another. ORS 222.111(6). As a practical matter, this method is almost never used. b. Annexation by vote (Public Hearing Option to Dispense with City-Wide Election) ORS 222.120(4)(a). The City Council may elect to dispense of the city-wide election required by ORS 222.111(5) by instead holding a public hearing satisfying the requirements of ORS 222.120(2)-(3). The local government may then conditionally approve the annexation, subject to receiving majority support by electors in the affected territory. 42 This annexation method may become increasingly useful in areas experiencing a drawdown in groundwater affecting the viability of existing domestic water supplies. Judicial review of decisions to annex territory under these provisions is to the court of appeals, not LUBA. West Side Sanitary Dist. v LCDC., 289 Or 393,614 P2d 1141 (1980). However, if the decision at issues goes beyond simply declaring and alleviating a health hazard, it will be deemed to be a land use decision. See City ojAshland v. Bear Creek Valley Sanitary Authority, 59 Or App 199, 650 P2d 975 (1982). A good summary of the Health Hazard Abatement Law is contained in the Attorney General's Opinion Request OP 6326, dated Oct 3, 1989. f. Urban Service Provider Annexations. ORS 195.205 to ORS 195.220.ORS 195.235. In 1993, the Oregon Legislature enacted 1993 Or Laws Chapter Ch 804, (Senate Bill 122), which is codified at ORS 195.205 -195.235. Senate Bill 122 provides cities with a new tool for annexing property as part of a city's comprehensive growth management system. This annexation method allows urban service providers to prepare a plan, which if adopted by the voters, governs subsequent annexations over the plan's planning horizon. The statute requires service provides to enter into intergovernmental agreements for the areas subject to the plan. Under the statute, a city that provides urban services may annex territory within a UGB by adopting an annexation plan for that area. ORS 195.205. Annexation plans adopted pursuant to this statute are required to comply with the city's comprehensive plan and must contain information regarding five criteria: ❖ The timing and sequence of annexation; I ❖ Local standards of local service availability required as a pre-condition to annexation; - i ❖ The planned schedule for providing urban services to the annexed territory; i ❖ The effects on existing service providers; and, ❖ The long-term benefits of the annexation plan. ORS 195.220(1). Critically, all urban service providers in an area subject to an annexation plan must be parties to the agreement. ORS 195.205(2Xa). Also, there must be a separate agreement 46 t between the city and county that addresses the fiscal impacts of the annexation. ORS 195.205(2)(b). A public hearing is required before the annexation plan is adopted. ORS 195.205(3). If the City Council decides to proceed with the plan, a public vote of the electors in the city/district and the electors in the territory to be annexed is required. ORS 195.205(5). Prior to submitting the plan for a vote, certain conditions must be met. ORS 195.205(2). The election must be handled according to the process set forth in ORS 195.210-215. Note that the statute allows for a combined election, and the annexation plan may be approved if "a majority of all the votes cast in the territory and the city favor the annexation plan." ORS 195.215. It is unclear whether this requires a majority in both the city and the territory to succeed, or whether a simple combined majority is required. If the statute can be interpreted as requiring only a combined simple majority, then the vote of the city can dilute the votes of the voters in the territory. The City of Bend is one of the first cities (if not the fast city) to successfully adopt an annexation plan pursuant to this statute and have that plan enacted by the voters. A copy of Bend's annexation plan may be found at http://www.ci.bend.or.us/leadpages/Site inap.htm. M. Annexation Subject to Boundary Commission Review - ORS Chapter 199. 1. Generally. In 1969, the legislature statutorily created three boundary commissions, one in the Portland Metropolitan area, one in the Salem Area (Marion-Polk counties) and one in the Eugene (Lane County) region. See 1969 Or Laws Ch 494, §4 (currently codified at ORS 199.425). However, the Marion-Polk County Boundary Commission was abolished in 1981, and the expansion of Metro's authority in the 1990's eventually sealed the fate of the Portland Metropolitan Area Local Government Boundary Commission (Metro Area LGBC), which was finally disbanded by the Legislature in 1997. See 1981 Or Laws Chapter 265; 1997 Or Laws Chapter 516 (SB 947). With regard to the Metro Area LGBC, some of its administrative, record keeping, and rulemaking functions of the Boundary Commission were absorbed by Metro, but 47 503-291-9402 C '03 13:10 Madill Bisrhol'f _~c ► u► 1 Andrew H. Stamp atamn aartjrtl~ischoff.com Practice Emphasis Mr. Stamp joined the firm in 2001, and focuses his practice on all aspects of land use planning and real estate development law. In addition to having a broad knowledge of zoning and planning issues, he has particular expertise in areas related to: . Transportation Planning Law . Access Permitting . Systems Development Charges and Impact Fees . Annexations . UGB Amendments . Wetlands Law . Storm Drainage/Storm Water Management . Writ of Review and Mandamus Litigation Procedure . Private Property Rights and Takings Law . Metro Regional Government Planning Issues . Endangered Species Act Compliance . Appellate and LUBA Practice Education Mr. Stamp received his Batchelor of Science degree in Geology, with departmental honors, from Tulane University, New Orleans, Louisiana in 1989. He received his JD, cum laude, in May of 1997 from Northwestern School of Law of Lewis & Clark College. While attending Lewis & Clark, he also earned a Certificate in Environmental & Natural Resources Law. Prior to attending law school, Mr. Stamp served 5 years as an officer in the United States Army. During Law School, he interned at the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA). Professional Activities • - y ~ ►~nnz 503-294-9402 C 296 P02 DEC 01 '03 13:10 'Martin Bischoff Mr. Stamp is the co-chair of the Education Committee of the Real Estate & Land Use Section of the Oregon State Bar and is a member of the Government Law Section of the Oregon State Bar. He also served as a member of ODOT's Access Management Advisory Committee (AMAC 11) and currently serves on Metro's Water Resources Policy Advisory Committee (WRPAC). He occasionally contributes to Real Estate & Land Use Section's bi-monthly Real Estate & Land Use Digest. Representative Cases Bigley v. City of Portland, 168 Or App 508, 4 P3d 741 (2000). Publications . Co-Author: Integrating Procedural Aspects of Transportation and Growth Management in Oregon: A Critical View of ODO'i's Role as a Growth Management Agency, Or. L. Rev., 1998 . Co-Author: Chapter 10, Oregon State Bar's Land Use Deskbook. . Co-Author: Chapter 8, Nichols on Eminent Domain. . Author: "The 120-Day Rule, Writ of Mandamus and LUBA Jurisdiction," NBI, Aug. 2002. o Author: "The Goal Five Administrative Rules (Division 23), Good Medicine for an Ailing Land Use Program?" NBI, Aug. 2002. Speaking Engagements e "Dispatches from the Frontline: Access Management in Oregon," presented at Law Seminar Group's Annual "Oregon Land Use" CLE, Dec. 2000. e "Case Law Update" and "Can't Get There From Here: A Survey of Section 060 of the Transportation Planning Rule," presented at Law Seminar Group's Annual "Oregon Land Use" CLE, Dec. 2001. . Land Use Law Update In Oregon, National Business Institute, Au . ® regon aw on Annexations, National Business Institute, Dec. 2002. 50.'i-234-94QI2 C Martin Bischoff 296 P03 DEC 01 103 13:10 -s kit Recent Awards . Northwest Examiner's 2001 Keeston Lowery Better Government Award RACK p OCopyright 1999-2003. All Rights Reserved. Martin, Bischoff, Templeton, Langslet & Hoffman LLP Phone: (503) 224-3113 Fax: (503) 224-9471 900 Pioneer Tower, 888 SW 5th Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97204 L a ~~9 »nnz Attachment 1 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON RESOLUTION NO. 03- A RESOLUTION AND FINAL ORDER APPROVING THE BULL MOUNTAIN ANNEXATION PLAN ZONE CHANGE ANNEXATION (ZCA) 2003-00003/ZONE CHANGE ANNEXATION (ZCA) 2003-00004/ZONE CHANGE ANNEXATION (ZCA) 2003- 00005/ZONE CHANGE ANNEXATION (ZCA) 2003-00006, ADOPTING FINDINGS. WHEREAS, City staff has drafted a Bull Mountain Annexation Plan authorizing a possible approach to annexation of the Bull Mountain area to the City of Tigard; and WHEREAS, the Bull Mountain Annexation Plan would add 1,378 acres, including approximately 7,600 residents living in 2,600 homes, from an area of unincorporated Washington County known as Bull Mountain to the Tigard City limits; and WHEREAS, Bull Mountain is located within the Metro Urban Growth Boundary; and WHEREAS, urban services to the Bull Mountain area will be provided according to the Tigard Urban Services Agreement; and WHEREAS, the Annexation Plan states that the City of Tigard can serve the Bull Mountain area without a significant reduction in City service to Tigard residents; and WHEREAS, while there are other methods for annexation, the annexation plan method was chosen because it requires the creation of a long-term annexation strategy; and WHEREAS, because of the large land area involved, the Annexation Plan divides the area into four subareas (East, South, North and West) based on development patterns, topography and major roads; and WHEREAS, the Annexation Plan calls for a three-phase annexation, in 2004 (East Subarea), 2005 (South Subarea) and 2006 (North and West Subareas); and WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on the Bull Mountain Annexation Plan on December 2, 2003, and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the testimony, submittals, and staff report on this matter; and Resolution No. 03- Page 1 WHEREAS, the City Council concludes that the proposed Annexation Plan would be in compliance with all applicable review criteria in the Oregon Revised Statutes, Metro Code and the Tigard Community Development Code, as described in the Staff Report; and WHEREAS, the Bull Mountain Annexation Plan would be subject to general voter approval at a later time, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that: SECTION 1: The Tigard City Council approves applications ZCA2003-00003/ZCA2003- 00004, ZCA2003-00005/ZCA2003-00006 - Bull Mountain Annexation Plan, attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference. SECTION 2: The Tigard City Council adopts the findings stated in the Staff Report to the City Council, attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by this reference. The Council further adopts the findings stated in the above-referenced Exhibit A. SECTION 3: This resolution is effective when notice of the decision is mailed. PASSED: This day of , 2003. Council President - City of Tigard ATTEST: City Recorder - City of Tigard i Resolution No. 03- Page 2 EXHIBIT "A" THE BULL MOUNTAIN ANNEXATION PLAN oe~ • .tn4i , ' - . CRY OF YIGAAC - ni• A STEP TOWARD COMPLETING OUR COMMUNITY CITY OF TIGARD NOY.17, 2003 THE B U L L M O U N T A I N ANNEXATION PLAN NOVEMBER 2003 PRODUCED BY: THE CITY OF TIGARD IN COLLABORATION WITH WASHINGTON COUNTY CITY OF TIGARD 13125 SW HALL BLVD. TIGARD, OR 97223 503/639-4171 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1. INTRODUCTION 1 II. ANNEXATION PLAN CRITERIA 5 A. LOCAL STANDARDS OF URBAN SERVICES 6 B. SCHEDULE FOR PROVIDING URBAN SERVICES 8 C. TIMING AND SEQUENCE OF ANNEXATION 11 D. EFFECT ON EXISTING SERVICE PROVIDERS 14 E. LONG-TERM BENEFITS OF THE PLAN 17 III. ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS 19 IV. CONCLUSION 21 APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY APPENDIX B: FISCAL ANALYSIS UPDATE APPENDIX C: TAX RATE TABLE APPENDIX D: TIGARD URBAN SERVICE AGREEMENT, NOV. 26, 2002 APPENDIX E: EVALUATION CRITERIA FROM 2003 ASSESSMENT REPORT TECHNICAL DOCUMENT B (AVAILABLE SEPARATELY) ■ Draft Facilities and Public Services Assessment Report for the Bull Mountain Area, 2003. ■ The Bull Mountain Annexation Strrdy, 2001. EXE i V E S JMMt1i~v Twenty years ago, Washington County and the City of Tigard laid the groundwork for bringing Bull Mountain into Tigard's citylimits (annexation). Although cattle and farms shared the mountain at that time, the County and City recognized that the area's inclusion within the Urban Growth Boundary would eventually lead to urban development. State land-use planning goals require the UGB to contain a 20-year supply of land, and, when conditions warrant, lands within the boundary must be available for urban uses. Washington County and Bull Mountain residents developed the 1983 Bull Mountain Community Plan, which assigned urban densities to the area but did not provide for all urban services. However, statewide planning Goal 14 directs local governments to have a plan in place to allow for an orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban uses. In 1983, the County and City signed the Urban Planning Area Agreement (UPAA). The UPAA established Bull Mountain as part of the City's planning area and paved the way for the County and City to jointly serve the area. At the same time, the City's long-term vision for land-use and development in Tigard (the Comprehensive Plan) encouraged the annexation of all unincorporated areas. The City acknowledged that it should provide urban services to its own citizens - once areas require urban services, residents should receive all the benefits of citizenship, including representation. Today, Bull Mountain has grown beyond its rural roots, and become an urbanized area with streets, sidewalks, and urban service needs. Fauns have been largely replaced by subdivisions built at the same densities as adjacent Tigard neighborhoods. Urban areas need urban service providers - and cities, not counties, are best equipped to provide urban services. Over time, the needs of an urban area will outpace a non-urban provider's service capabilities. There are approximately 7,600 residents living in 2,600 homes on the mountain's 1,378 unincorporated acres. Development of the remaining land to existing zoning standards would raise the overall population to just under 10,000. This additional growth will require additional facilities and services. Without annexation, the City has limited ability to plan for, provide for, and manage growth outside its City limits to ensure that efficient and effective public facilities and services are available when needed. Annexation would allow the City to plan for growth on Bull Mountain with an updated comprehensive plan for the entire community. The Tigard City Council established a goal in 2001 to develop an annexation policy/strategy for unincorporated areas. From 2001-2003, the City has thoroughly examined annexation and urban service issues for Bull Mountain. The&#MavrainA mxxaticnPlan builds upon these efforts and proposes an annexation strategy. It addresses the how, when, where and who of annexation. State law created the annexation plan process as a growth management tool for jurisdictions: the plan must address criteria related to urban service provision to the Plan Area, and is a pre- requisite for an annexation vote by the annexing city and Plan Area. r Recommendation Using existing service agreements among agencies, cost-benefit analyses, and the 2003 Pubic Fadlazz and Ser w A ssessnxm Report for the Ball Mountain A nu recommendations, the plan addresses all criteria set forth by state law ORS 195: the provision (how and when) of urban services, annexation's impact on existing providers, the timing and sequence of annexation, and the plan's long-term benefits. The plan also follows Tigard Comprehensive Plan policies, which require a review to determine that services can be provided to the annexed area and their provision will not significantly reduce service levels to the City of Tigard. Based on these criteria and previous research, the plan provides a proposal for transferring services and households to Tigard in an organized and efficient manner. In order to provide City service standards to annexed residents and maintain standards to current residents, the Tigard City Council directed staff on November 4, 2003, to finalize the annexation plan with a three-phase approach. The plan proposes to annex Bull Mountain using the following sequence and timing: Phase 1-2004. Annex East. Brings in the area that is closest in proximity to the City and the least developed, and with the least service needs. Maximizes potential financial contributions by new development toward capital improvements. Phase 2 -2005. Annex South. Next logical area due to location. Provides a connection to Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) expansion site 63. Annexing second allows additional acquisition time for equipment and staff. Phase 3 - 2006. Annex North and West. Allows the City to develop its parkland and makes a connection to Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) expansion site 64. It must be noted that individual annexations will occur in the Plan Area with or without an annexation plan. Currently, annexations occur at the owner's request, resulting in a piecemeal approach to incorporation. In contrast, The Bull Mountain A m-mation Plan provides a comprehensive strategy for annexation. Long-term planning offers long-term benefits, including certainty of future incorporation, enhanced efficiency, and quantified costs and benefits - which provide certainty to Tigard residents that annexation will not impact their service levels. Financially, it captures more capital improvement dollars for parks and roads, and more funds to enhance capital facilities - such as the library and parks - currently used by both Bull Mountain and Tigard residents but paid for by Tigard residents. Bull Mountain residents would receive park services, local representation, and urban services by an urban provider who can meet the needs of a growing community. Lastly, annexation would unify the community, as both the city and Bull Mountain residents can plan together for their future, a future joined together 20 years ago. In sum, The Bull Mountain A romation Plan presents a clear and efficient approach to annex unincorporated Bull Mountain and a step toward completing our community. L INTRODUCTION - Twenty ytars ago, Washington County and the City of Tigard laid the groundwork for Bull Mountain's annexation to Tigard. Although cattle and farms shared the mountain at that time, the County and City recognized that the area's inclusion within the Urban Growth Boundary would eventually lead to urban development. State land-use planning goals require the UGB to contain a 20-year supply of land, and, when conditions warrant, lands within the boundary must be available for urban uses. Washington County and Bull Mountain residents developed the 1983 Bull Mountain Community Plan, which assigned urban densities to the area but not urban services. However, state planning Goal 14 directs local governments to have a plan in place to allow for an orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban uses. In 1983, the County and City signed the Urban Planning Area Agreement (UPAA), which established Bull Mountain as part of the City's planning area and paved the way for the County and City to jointly serve the area. At the same time, the CIty's long-term vision for land-use and development in Tigard (the Comprehensive Plan) encouraged the annexation of all unincorporated areas. The City acknowledged that it should provide urban services to its own citizens - once areas require urban services, residents should receive all the benefits of citizenship, including representation. Today, Bull Mountain has grown beyond its rural roots, and become an urbanized area with streets, sidewalks, and urban service needs. Over time and additional agreements, Tigard has absorbed more services toward an eventual annexation, blurring the line between County and City. However, major services remain under the County's purview, as does jurisdiction. Without annexation, the City has limited ability to manage growth outside its city limits to ensure that efficient and effective public facilities and services are provided. Since 2001, when the Tigard City Council established a goal to develop an annexation policy/strategyfor unincorporated areas, the City has thoroughly examined urban service issues for Bull Mountain: 71r Bull MaouainA mxxcmas Swdy (2001), which examined the costs and benefits of annexation; a public opinion survey of Tigard and Bull Mountain residents on annexation (2002); the Pubic Facihw and Smia3 A sse sm7r Report for dv Bull MacrainA raz (2003), which evaluated the factors affecting long term service provision to Bull Mountain, including annexation. The 2003 Assessment Report demonstrated that annexation would serve citizens the most efficiently and effectively over the long-tenor, providing urban levels of services to an area that has grown from a rural community to an urban neighborhood. In addition, annexation would allow the City to plan for Bull Mountain's future. Currently, unincorporated areas cannot collect parks system development charges (SDCs) from new developments or plan for parks, and the County has jurisdiction over the area's long-range planning. Annexation would allow the City to plan for growth on Bull Mountain with an updated comprehensive plan for the entire community. As citizens of Tigard, Bull Mountain residents would have a say on local issues that affect their community's future. TheBullMarntainAmxxationPlan represents a significant step toward the realization of an united Tigard and Bull Mountain community. The plan lays out a blueprint for annexation as required by state law ORS 195.205 and .220, which established the annexation plan process. THE BULL MOUNTAIN ANNEXATION PLAN - PAGE 1 It addresses the how, when, where and who of annexation, but in essence, the plan is a proposal for transferring services and households to Tigard in an organized and efficient manner. It is based upon existing service agreements among agencies and cost-benefit analyses, and addresses the following, per state law ORS195220: a) Local standards of urban service availability required as a precondition of annexation; b) The planned schedule for providing urban services to the annexed territory, c) The timing and sequence of annexation; d) The effects on existing urban services providers; e) The long-term benefits of the annexation plan. The plan examines each criterion separately. Each section offers a brief explanation of the criterion and follows with text based on the Cit}2s previous research (71vPu1 cFadh63 and Semite Assessrrm Report for the Bu11 Mwram A m7,2003) and recent analysis produced by the City and County for this plan. Appendix A contains a glossary of planning terms used in this document. Technical Document B (available separately) contains copies of previous Bull Mountain reports. A) THE ANNEXATION PLAN AREA. BOUNDARIES The Annexation Plan applies to the unincorporated area of Bull Mountain ("Plan Area"). It is bounded on the north by Barrows Road, on the east by Tigard city limits, to the south by Beef Bend Road, and on the west by the new Urban Growth Expansion Areas (Roy Rogers Road and 150'' Ave.). (See Map 1 on page 3). The land in the Plan Area is sloped- steeply in some areas- allowing for views at higher elevations. There is no commercial or industrial zoned land. Most of the property is zoned R-7, as designated in the Bull Mountain Community Plan, a medium- density residential zone requiring minimum lots sizes 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. Subareas and Population Estimates The Plan Area comprises 1,378 acres,' with approximately Table 1.2003 Estimates 7,600 residents living in 2,600 homes. Numbers are 2003 estimates based on Census 2000 figures and average growth Homes Population rates? This is consistent with the assessment report methods, North 991 2930 with the exception of deducting four annexations that took west 346 982 place from late 2001 to 2003. South 1174 3259 East 167 452 Due to the area's size, it has been divided into four subareas: Total 2678 7622 North, West, South and East. These subareas were developed Based on census 20D0/avrra a rowth rate i Differs from the 2001 study due to four annexations: Pacific Crest, Fem Street, Thornwood, Daffodil M. 2 The numbers here (7,622 and 2,678) reflect 2003 projected population and deduct for annexations, differing from Ile Bull Morowin Study and Public Fadlity and Serdcev A ssessnar Report numbers. TIE BULL MOUNTAIN ANNEXATION PLAN - PAGE 2 BULL MOUNTAIN s' Annexation Plan Area /TTI R.,® a••: (t.~..'1 - +,t Tigard Cny Lunds a , l C~ a t 9 `~~,+•4 [-s 71 13 Plan Area O~ UGF3ErpansonSnes \ l I, _ 7 ; EEE. tt:u ILI] X17' ,mn `fyl t~, /rat y G „~D k; r Imo' EA I ~l NMI loo. moo moo nn IrT ~~7'=Y r. looo ..l 7 l t~ Ciry' nC t igard N M i I~ r€~"t ~ el.r.o,m. e. ms r.aoe afa,..+xuoe. mlra.. Meukte.e.Md.E Te p..blm.tt.r.c.. Di uen. _ ❑us twwn2w I I TiperJ,OR 11711 I ~~r^•^f Cale'( (J011~]Ye111 Il ~ I ~ 'l• r~:r-~'-t~f ~ nra n...aware eru. ~ ~ I produced &252003 Community Development based on development patterns, topography, and man-made boundaries, such as major roads. The South area has the most homes and population, with North close behind. East has the least number of homes and people (Table 1 on p. 2). Future Projections Future projections were estimated by calculating the number of new homes the area could potentially absorb at current Table 2. Moderate Growth zoning (R-7, or 5,000 sq. ft. lots), and taking half to allow for Estimated capacity) moderate development 4 Based on these estimates, East has Homes Population the largest share of future growth, due to large, undeveloped North 1130 3331 lots (Table 2). The remaining subareas have more developed West 496 1439 subdivisions and few vacant lots, and have limited growth South 1312 3724 remaining. East 650 1356 Total 3593 9850 anne° l. ans that 71)ePublic FacilitiesandSerucesAssasnvrRepmt (2003) used anx,~at°"foimub tl?atahancuiredsisince ze from, ?001 O e these numbers to approximate service needs, costs, and associated revenues. The condition and number of roads, current condition of facilities, current and future population/homes, and year of development affected each subarea's needs. The Annexation Plan analysis is based upon the 2003 report conclusions and additional refinements to the report data. f 1 4Based on vacant or underdeveloped lots. A moderate scenario was assumed due to the uncertainty of the land market - not every owner will fully develop each vacant or underdeveloped parcel. 5 The 2003 Repon did not deduct for annexations; the change did not significantly affect this analysis. THE BULL MOUNTAIN ANNEXATION PLAN - PAGE 4 II. ANNEXATION PLAN CRITERIA In 1993 the State Legislature established the annexation plan approach to make annexation an effective growth management tool for jurisdictions. Annexation plans require fiscal and territorial coordination between service providers, encourage the creation of long-term master plans, address the economic viability of special districts, and clarify the costs and benefits of annexation.' Specifically, state law ORS195.220 requires annexation plans to include the following: a) Local standards of urban service availability required as a precondition of annexation; b) The planned schedule for providing urban services to the annexed territory, c) The timing and sequence of annexation; d) The effects on existing urban services providers; e) The long-term benefits of the annexation plan. What is an Urban Service? ORS195 defines "urban services" as sanitary sewers, water, fire protection, parks, open space, recreation, streets, roads and mass transit. 71ae Bull MarauainA nrxxation Plan considers four additional services as essential elements for an urban community. police, storm sewer, building and development services, and street light maintenance. City of Tigard Annexation Criteria The City's Community Development Code criteria for annexations are consistent with ORS195.220. The Code (Title 18) states that the decision to annex propertyto the Cityshall be based on 1) all services and facilities being available to the area, and with sufficient capacity to provide service; and 2) satisfying all Comprehensive Plan policies. Tigard's Comprehensive Plan policies require a review to determine that services will be available to the annexed area and their provision will not significantly reduce service levels to the City of Tigard. The City's Comprehensive Plan also encourages annexations that eliminate existing unincorporated `islands.' It discourages expansions that result in irregular boundaries, making it difficult for the police to determine a parcel's jurisdiction in an emergency situation. G From Department of Land Conservation and Development; http:www.lcd.state.or.us/tgm/pub/3annex.htm. T) m BULL MOUNTAIN ANNEXATION PLAN - PAGE 5 A. LOCAL STANDARDS OF URBAN SERVICE AVAILABILITY An annexation plan adopted under ORS 195.205 shall include Local standards of urban services required prior to annexation and the availability of each service. Level of Urban Services The annexation plan process emphasizes coordination between service agencies to identify and address any service deficiencies early in the process, assuring that services can be provided to local standards after annexation. Prior to the plan, state law requires urban service agreements between all service providers in the affected territory. By taking this step first, agencies resolve future service provision issues and lay groundwork for the plan. In February 2003, Washington County, the City of Tigard, other agencies and service districts finalized the Tigard Urban Service Agreement (TCJSA) for the Bull Mountain area (Appendix D). In sum, all urban services are available for the Plan Area except recreation! The agreement determines long-term service providers: the City of Tigard is the ultimate service provider for the Plan Area, except for services provided by special districts and agencies. Table 3 on p. 7 summarizes changes in local service standards between current and future providers. Urban Service Requirements Prior to Annexation Table 3 demonstrates that City of Tigard standards offer higher levels of service for parks and open space, street maintenance, police, and long-range planning. Of those services, parks will require action by the County prior to annexation. Road quality maintenance also will require action per the Tigard Urban Service Agreement (TUSA). County action will allow the City to provide its standard of service following annexation. All other services will require only staffing and equipment to meet local service standards as summarized in Table 3. The specifics are addressed in section IIB. Road Quality Maintenance • Countyimproves roads so that all individual roads have a pavement condition index (PQ) of 40 or greater and the average PCI of streets and roads in the area is 75 or higher. Parks and Open Space • County collects parks system development charges (SDCs) for new development prior to annexation. Upon annexation, those funds will transfer to Tigard and be used toward new facilities. Summary: Criteria 1(Local Standards of Urban Service Availability) 0 All services except recreation are available to the Plan Area. © Providers for each urban service are established, per urban service agreements. Q Local standards of urban service are identified. Q Where applicable, identified steps needed by the County to meet local standards prior to annexation. Neither Washington County nor Tigard provide this service at this time. However, Tigard has a Park and Recreation Advisory Board that can examine the issue in the future. THE BULL MOUNTAIN ANNEXATION PLAN - PAGE 6 Table 3. Bull Mountain: Service Standard Changes Following Annexation No Change: Service and Provider Remain the Same Service Provider after Annexation ' Do Local (Tigard) Standards differ from Current Standards? Fire Protection & Emergency Services Tualatin Valley Fire and No. Rescue Mass Transit TriMet No. Building and Development Services City of Tigard No. Tigard now provides these services for Plan Area through an agreement with Washington County. The agreement will cease but Tigard continues same services. Recreation No provider. Tigard does not No. Not currently provided. provide recreation services. However, Tigard has a Park and Recreation Advisory Board that can examine the issue in the future. Schools Annexation does not change school district boundaries. Service Remains the Same, Provider Changes Santa Sewer Clean Water Services City of Tigard No. Water (Tigard Water District City of Tigard No. Street Light Maintenance City of Tigard No. (Washington County) Storm Sewer Clean Water Services Ci of Tigard No. Road Quality Maintenance" City of Tigard. No. However, the Tigard Urban (Washington County) Service Agreement (TUSA) requires (*Actions to maintain pavement quaho the County to improve individual roads to a pavement condition index (PCI) of at least 40, with all roads averaging at least 75, prior to transferring the roads and service. Parks and Oren Space (NONE) City of Tigard. Washington Yes; 8 acres/ 1,000 people. County does not provide Xelse services to unincorporated areas. Street Maintenance - (Washington City of Tigard Yes. Mowing roadside grass and County through the Urban Road brush (strip and ditch line). Dust Maintenance District) abatement on graveled roads. Vegetation removal for vision clearance. Crack sealing and road shoulders on 4-year cle. Police (Washington County Enhanced City of Tigard Yes. Additional .5 officers/ 1000 Sheriff Patrol District) people (city standard is 1.5 officers/1000). Community Development - Long City of Tigard. This includes Yes. Staff serves snuffer area than Range Planning (Washington Count}). comprehensive planning, such as County, focuses on local projects. master plans. The 1983 Bull Annexation will allow the City to plan Mountain Community Plan is the for growth on Bull Mountain with an operative plan Washington updated comprehensive plan for the County has in place for the Plan entire community. Area. THE BULL MQUNTAIN ANNEXATION PLAN PAGE 7 B. SCHEDULE FOR PROVIDING URBAN SERVICES An annexation plan adopted under ORS 195.205 shall include The planned schedule for providing urban services to the annexed territory. As shown in section IIA, the Plan Area receives most urban services today, some of which will be provided at higher standards after annexation. All services would be available upon annexation, due to the continuation of existing services per the Tigard Urban Service Agreement (TUSA). To ensure smooth transitions, this section identifies when providers would transfer services. The following analysis reviews staff and equipment needs and evaluates where gradual provider transitions will best serve the Plan Area, are dictated by the TUSA, or are required to maintain existing service levels to current City of Tigard residents. 7be Bull Mountain A ?vmation Plan defines the annexation effective date ("upon annexation") as the day properties become part of Tigard's tax rolls. For analysis purposes, this section assumes a date of July 1, the first day of the new fiscal year following an approval by voters. Equipment and Staff Needs For 7hePublicFadlitia aryl Saiias Assessn= Reprnt, Cityof Tigard staff from all affected departments projected start-up costs, needs, and ability to serve the entire Bull Mountain area or individual areas upon annexation. Each department based its analysis on current population and housing unit estimates, future service needs at build-out, and service standards. All departments - except for Public Works (Streets Division) and Police - concluded that they could absorb any or all subareas using current resources, and without significantly reducing services to existing residents. The Public Works and Police departments concluded the following: • Public Works. Annexation of the Plan Area would increase the road mile inventory by 23%. The Streets Division could not absorb the entire Plan Area's roads and streets upon annexation without hiring two employees and purchasing three trucks immediately. • Police. Police could absorb all or any subareas with existing resources; however, there would be a temporary reduction in response time to Priority Three calls (lowest priority, no one in danger; i.e., car prowl) within a few minutes. Citizens would not see a difference, and the change would not endanger lives. Internal shifts would occur to fully staff patrols until additional officers could be hired and fully trained. • Police. The entire Plan Area requires 11 police officers,1 supervisor, and 1 support staff. New officer hiring procedures established in 2003 now reduce the time needed to six months, as recruiting time has been significantly shortened by maintaining an applicant pool. It would take less than a year for the department to complete its staffing needs, hiring two phases of new officers at three-month intervals, without significantly reducing services to existing residents. A detailed plan and schedule for hiring staff and purchasing or transferring equipment from Washington County will be developed by February 2004, as required by the TUSA. 'rte BULL MOUNTAIN ANNEXATION PLAN - PAGE 8 Agreement Provisions The TUSA includes separate agreements for each service. For those services transferring to Tigard, the agreements state "upon annexation"; however, roads and streets can be transferred up to one year following annexation. The sewer agreement defers to a separate operating agreement between the City and Clean Water Services. The operating agreement transfers sanitary and storm sewer maintenance to the City on July 1, 2004. The agreement covers an area including Tigard and Bull Mountain, and includes provisions for equipment and funding. Annexation does not affect the transfer or provision of sanitary and storm sewer services. Proposed Schedule for Tigard Assuming Urban Services A thorough consideration of TUSA requirements, Bull Mountain's service needs, and the effects on existing services to Tigard residents suggests the following schedule: Table 4. Proposed Schedule for Tigard to Provide Urban Services ~.InirnecliatelV Upon -Annexation., Building and Development Services (already provided) Parks and Open Space - Bull Mountain receives resident privileges for City parks Police Sanitary and Storm Sewer (provided by Tigard effective July 1,2004) Street Light Maintenance Water Within V:year:_ • Parks and Open Space -Initiate Capital Project planning for Cache Creek Nature Park. Explore additional park opportunities adjacent to Cache, including Tigard Water District reservoir property and Clute property. Develop playground either on Cache Creek or adjacent property. Maintenance begins once lands are bought and developed. • Road Quality Maintenance and Street Maintenance: Within 30 days of annexation, the City will initiate the process to transfer jurisdiction of County and public streets and roads, including local streets, neighborhood routes, collectors and other roads. This transfer should take no more than one year from effective date of the annexation. Services will commence with full transfer. • Long-Range Planning - Annexation will allow the City to plan for growth on Bull Mountain with an updated comprehensive plan for the C entire community. Summary: Criteria 2 (Schedule for Providing Urban Services) 0 City of Tigard can serve the Bull Mountain area without a significant reduction in service to Tigard residents. 0 City of Tigard will assume all services upon annexation, except Road duality and Street Maintenance. 0 City of Tigard will initiate transferof roads and streets within 30 days of annexation, serving the area within one year 0 Following annexation and within the first year, Tigard will initiate capital project planning forParks and Open Space and long-rangeplanning. 0 Police can serve the entire area without a significant reduction in service. Until additional staff is hired and trained, only a reduction in Priority 3 calls (lowest priority; no one in danger)will occur until additional staff is hired, 'TtIE BULL MOUNTAIN ANNEXATION PLAN- PAGE 9 , C. TIMING AND SEQUENCE An annexation plan adopted under ORS 195.205 shall include Timing and Sequence of Annexation. Annexation plans offer the option of phased, or incremental, annexations. In some instances, it maybe more efficient to annex an entire area at one time. In other cases, a phased annexation allows the necessary time for service providers to hire enough staff and buy equipment. 7be PublicFacilkics and Smites Assessnrv Report examined nine sequencing options to identify the combinations which allowed the City to annex and efficiently serve the unincorporated Bull Mountain area. It also studied how timing (i.e., the year of annexation) affected service costs and the availability of capital improvement funds in the Plan Area. Sequencing Factors The assessment report examined annexing subareas alone, in contiguous pairs (i.e., West and North); and all areas at once. Three evaluation factors were chosen based on Tigard Comprehensive Plan policies, which require annexations 1) to not significantly reduce service levels to the City of Tigard and 2) the affected property to receive efficient service provision at capacity (no service islands or irregular boundaries). Each factor was weighted, based on the extent to which it implements those policies: 1) Finaniallnpaa- Will this area be a financial drain on the city? Do service needs outpace tax dollars, and are there large capital improvements needed in the short term? (45 points) 2) Eff kne y q`sertim prtnisiaz Is it easy to access this area, or will staff have to cross unincorporated areas to do so? Does it create islands of unincorporated areas? Is there an economy of scale? (30 points) 3) A dlacvxy to tle mw Urban Grouth Bacmdary properw, located to the south and west of the Plan Area. Metro approved these areas in December 2002. A future city link to these areas would enable long-term planning. (20 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 (5 points). i Ranking The evaluation matrix ranked the nine options (the full evaluation matrix is located in Appendix E), concluding the following: • The more areas annexed, the higher the ranking due to an increase in efficiency. Annexing all areas at once ranked most highly, due to economy of scale and its ability to support areas that ranked less highly. • The contiguous pairs were ranked the next highest, followed by all individual subareas, with the exception of West. In every combination except all areas, West ranked low since it does not connect to City boundaries. 11-m BULL MOUNTAIN ANNEXATION PLAN - PAGE 10 Corrsidc~-A uzila&'e Resourtrs The plan recommendation must also consider comments by individual service providers regarding their ability to serve the area upon annexation, per the Comprehensive Plan. As detailed in section IIB, all service providers except for Public Works (Streets Division) and Police could absorb any or all subareas with current resources. • Public Works (Streets Division) requires additional resources to serve the entire area upon annexation. Six months prior to assuming services, the department would require two additional staff and three trucks. Annexing without these resources would reduce services, including street light clearance pruning, crack sealing, and postponement of speed humps, unless the area was annexed in two or more phases. Since the assessment report's completion, Public Works has indicated that a one-year delay in transferring roads and streets (as the TUSA allows) would give the department time to obtain resources. • Police can serve Bull Mountain and the City of Tigard with current staff, resulting only in a reduction in Priority Three (lowest priority) call response times. The response time would vary within minutes, and citizens would not see a difference. Internal shifts would occur to fully staff patrols until additional officers could be hired and fully trained. The department will need to hire 11 additional officers, 1 supervisor, and 1 support staff. The Public Facilities and Serzice A ssessnm Report concluded that delaying the effective date of annexation by up to a year would allow hiring and training of police staff and purchase of new equipment. However, since the report was completed, Police made two additional statements: 1) An all-areas annexation would provide an advantageous economy of scale, as a larger department can provide more services and reduced response times; and 2) a phased annexation would reach the same goal, but tax existing resources less and result in a higher quality of service in the interim. Condusimr Pbze the aeration Tim The assessment report examined how timing (i.e., the year of annexation) affects the availability of capital improvement funds and general revenues in the Plan Area. Capital Inpawnern Fw? ds Funding for capital improvements, such as major road improvements, parks, and sanitary and storm sewer, are partially funded by system development charges (SDCs) paid by new development. SDCs act as growth management tools by helping pay for system improvements, such as roads and parks, needed as population and households increase. In the Plan Area, SDCs are collected for storm and sanitary sewer, roads (the traffic impact fee or TIF), and water. However, Washington County does not collect parks SDCs in the Plan Area or provide parks services. Because SDCs are one-time charges applied to new developments, each new home built without SDCs represents lost revenue. THE BULL MOUNTAIN ANNEXATION PLAN - PAGE 11 Once the County initiates a parks SDC for the Plan Area, and following annexation, SDCs would be collected and directed into City projects. The City of Tigard collects parks SDCs within its city limits, which are used for developing new parks. Without a parks SDC, delaying annexation impacts the City's ability to address Bull Mountain's parks capital needs. Each incremental delay lessens contributions - or eliminates them entirely in some subareas (new developments have been built). Based on recent development trends, the assessment report recommended that annexation of all areas should occur by 2005 to maximize potential financial contributions. Condusiar Amyx all arts by 2005 or haw Washington Caamly institute Parks SD Cs in the interim and affwn rre tinrz for ammation. Timing and Sequencing Recommendation: Based on the timing and sequencing conclusions above, the Comprehensive Plan criteria, and the PubilicFaalities and Sertia:s Assessmern Report, the most efficient recommendation would annex the entire Plan Area at one time prior to 2005. In the assessment report, this option ranked the most highly due to an economy of scale. However, it requires the authorization of police hiring prior to annexation, and a delay in the transfer of roads and streets until one year after annexation. At its November 4, 2003, meeting, the Tigard City Council supported a phased annexation to lessen the impact on City resources and to provide better service to both new and existing residents. Council recommended the following timing and sequence: Phase 1-2004. Annex East. Brings in the area that is closest in proximity to the City and the least developed, and with the least service needs. Maximizes potential financial contributions by new development toward capital improvements. Phase 2 -2005. Annex South. Next logical area due to location. Provides a connection to Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) expansion site 63. Annexing second allows additional acquisition time for equipment and staff. Phase 3 - 2006. Annex North and West. Allows the City to developeits parkland and makes a connection to Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) expansion site 64. L Summary: Criteria 3 (Timing and Sequence) r 0 The more areas annexed, the higher the ranking due to an increase in efficiency. 0 Based on department resource needs, the annexation needs to bephased. 0 To fund future capital improvements, annexation should occurby 2005 or have Washington County institute a parks p" SDC in the interim and allow more time for annexation. 0 City Council supports an option that takes more time, lessening the impact on City resources and providingbcacr service to both new and existing residents. 0 Therefore, annex Bull Mountain in three phases to provide City service standards to annexed residents and maintain DE BULL MOUNTAIN ANNEXATION PLAN - PAGE 12 D. EFFECTS ON CURRENT PROVIDERS An annexation plan adopted under ORS 195.205 shall include The effects on current urban services providers. Previous sections evaluated the City of Tigard's ability to provide urban services to the Bull Mountain area. However, the service providers that cease serving the area would also be affected. This section examines the impact of withdrawing the Plan Area from current service districts, both on service quality and finances. Table 3 on page 7 provides a summary of service provider changes. The following information was developed in coordination with Washington County and the Tigard Water District, and is based upon estimated 2003 population and housing units (Table 1 on p. 2). Washington County Service Districts Washington County reviewed how annexing the Plan Area would impact County services and the services of its special districts. It detennined that there will be no significant impact on these services. Erdaarx d Sh wfs Pat7d District (ESPD) The ESPD is funded with a two-tiered financing plan that includes a permanent rate of $0.6365 per $1,000 and a local option dollar levy of $6,150,000 per year for five years. The local option levy is authorized through 2008. As a result of this financial structure, only property tax revenue derived from the permanent rate will be affected by the proposed annexation. Annexation of the Plan Area would remove an estimated 3,192 properties from the ESPD area, or 5.3% of the ESPD assessed value. As a result, the district would lose an estimated $397,000 from the permanent rate if the entire Plan Area were to annex in one piece. The ESPD supports a total of 94 certified officers. At the ESPD average service level of .51 officers per 1,000 population, the theoretical reduction in staff due to the annexation would be an estimated 3.9 FTE, or 4.1% of ESPD certified officers. However, it is anticipated that growth elsewhere in the district will mitigate the need for actual staff reductions. Therefore the impact on the ESPD from the annexation is considered minimal, due to the expected future growth in the remaining district over the next five years. Urban Rcwd Mairwwnx District (URMD) The property tax revenue loss to the URMD is estimated to be $153,000. This represents 5.5% of revenue of the LTF NM. The district provides the majority of its services through contracts rather than with paid staff. Due to the relatively small proportion of the URMD service area impacted by the proposed annexation and its reliance on contract-based work, the impact on the URMD is considered minimal. Ym BULL MOUNTAIN ANNEXATION PLAN - PAGE 13 Stmt District for L igting (SDL) Washington County operates a street lighting district throughout the County. As areas develop, special assessment areas are established to collect and pay for street light installation, maintenance, and power. The assessments are determined specifically for each area based on actual costs and assessed annually on property tax bills. The proposed annexation area includes 49 street lighting district assessment areas encompassing 2,430 tax lots. The total assessment to be levied in these areas for FY 2003- 04 is $83,530. Upon annexation, the street lighting assessments will no longer be levied. The impact of this lost revenue on the SDL is considered insignificant: the costs to provide maintenance and operation in the Plan Area will be absorbed by Tigard and no longer paid by the district. Because the street lighting assessments are included on property tax bills, coordination of the transition from the County Street District for Lighting to the City of Tigard will be important. Washington aunry Washington County would lose its share of County gas tax at an estimated $3.71 per capita or $27,179 due to the proposed annexation. The County would also lose an estimated $43,475 per year in cable television franchise fees. Total County operating revenues from all sources for FY 2003-04 are $297,000,000. The loss of the County gas tax share and cable franchise fee share will not have a significant impact on Washington County. The County also has established a number of Road Maintenance Local Improvement Districts (LIDs) throughout the County. The County establishes these LIDS and determines the assessments, but it has not imposed the assessments. The purpose of each district is to ensure that road maintenance activities will be adequately funded as new development occurs. They are a backup funding mechanism to the Urban Road Maintenance District. No assessments have been levied; therefore, the districts have no fiscal impact. Tigard Water District The Tigard Water District (TWD) consists of approximately 3,500 accounts within the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). It is generally bounded by Barrows Road on the north, Tigard city limits on the east, Beef Bend Road on the west and King City on the south. TWD, the City of Tigard, King City, and Durham compose the Intergovernmental Water Board. TWD serves properties that are inside the Urban Growth Boundary but unincorporated. Inpaas The district collects its only revenues from 1% of total water sales within its boundaries. All water sales are billed and managed by the City of Tigard, and the 1% is remitted on an annual basis. Current accounts generate approximately $18,000 in revenue for TWD. Annexing the Plan Area would withdraw 83% of current accounts and just less than half (48.6%) of the current THE BuLL MOUNTMN ANNEXAnON PLAN - PAGE 14 annual revenue. Approximately 524 accounts would remain in the district, producing approximately $9,450 in revenue (Appendix B contains all figures). Irntzartim-d Inpacts As Tigard and King City annex land, they withdraw those lands from TWD. If the Plan Area is annexed, approximately 83% of the current accounts would be withdrawn. The remaining district territory is within the UGB and would be annexed in the future. At that time, the district will cease to exist. The TWD Board has discussed this scenario and has been briefed by the Tigard City Attorney on the process of dissolving the district, should the need develop. However, annexing the Plan Area would not necessarily cause the district to dissolve since approximately 524 accounts would remain. Those accounts could be annexed into either King City or Tigard in the future. The Tigard Water District Board may choose to dissolve the district following procedures clearly laid out in state law, that decision rests with the TWD Board. Other Districts The Plan Area currently is served by Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue (TVF&R), TriMet, and Clean Water Services. The proposed annexation will have no impacts on TVF&R or TriMet, which also provide service to the City of Tigard. The City of Tigard and Clean Water Services have entered into an agreement to transfer operation and maintenance of a portion of the Clean Water Services territory, including the Plan Area, to the City of Tigard effective July 1, 2004. The City is already scheduled to provide these services regardless of annexation. Therefore, the annexation of this territory to the City of Tigard is anticipated to have no impact on Clean Water Services. Summary: Criteria 4 (Effects on Existing Service Providers) Q Washington County's services or the services of its special districts would not be significantly impacted by the annexation. Q The Tigard Water District would lose 8301h of current accounts and 48.601o of current annual revenue. L However, this does not cause the district to dissolve, as it can continue to serve its remaining customers. E Q Other service providers would not be significantly impacted. F 0 9 a U E Burn. MOUNTAIN ANNEXATION PLAN - PAGE 15 4- E. LONGTERM BENEFITS An annexation plan adopted under ORS 195.205 shall include The long-term benefits of the annexation plan. Individual annexations will occur in the Plan Area with or without an annexation plan. Currently, annexations occur at the owner's request, resulting in a piecemeal approach to incorporation. In contrast, The Bull Mcwrain A nr=ation Plan provides a comprehensive strategy for annexation, and long-term planning offers long-term benefits: • Completing the community. Annexation would allow the City to plan for growth on Bull Mountain with an updated comprehensive plan for the entire community. The plan presents a significant step toward completing our community as it was envisioned 20 years ago. • Smooth transition. The plan's orderly schedule of annexation allows services to be phased in effectively. All needed services have been identified, along with interim measures to get these services on-line prior to annexation. Citizens can depend on a smooth transition. • Efficiency. Ensures that annexations occur in an orderly manner. It eliminates piecemeal annexations, which can create inefficiencies for service providers due to irregular boundaries. By coordinating services, agencies assure that services are not duplicated and are provided by the most appropriate provider, leading to cost- savings and more efficient services. • Certainty. The plan establishes a schedule for annexation and service area adjustments, which allows the City, County and affected special districts time to plan for changes and capital improvements. The plan provides certainty for homeowners and developments on annexation's timeline, which can be factored into future decisions in the Plan Area. • Urban services by an urban provider. Bull Mountain has grown beyond its rural roots, and become an urbanized area with streets, sidewalks, and services that require city-level maintenance. Urban areas need urban service providers, as envisioned in the Tigard and Washington County comprehensive plans. Cities, not counties, are best equipped to provide urban services, and the plan assigns this duty to Tigard. Bull Mountain would receive its services from a provider just down the street who can respond quickly to service needs. Maintaining facilities at higher levels protects the original investment and prevents more costly improvements in the long run, maximizing available funds. • Known costs and benefits. The plan clarified the costs and benefits of annexation to Bull Mountain residents, citizens of Tigard, the City and the County, and to all related agencies. By anticipating future needs, the analysis concluded that services TrIE BULL MOUNTAIN ANNEXATION PLAN - PAGE 16 r ~ can be provided to both Bull Mountain and current residents without a significant reduction in services. It assures current Tigard residents they can continue to rely on the same standard of service they receive today. Annexation will not raise taxes for current Tigard residents. • Equity. Annexation would allow all users to equitably share service costs. Bull Mountain residents enjoy Tigard parks and its library, but Tigard resident taxes pay for parks maintenance and almost half of the library capital costs (the other half comes from the County library system, for which all County residents pay). With annexation, everyone would pay for the same service, and facilities will benefit from increased maintenance dollars. • Parks services. Tigard provides parks services only to the incorporated area. Upon annexation, Bull Mountain will receive resident privileges. The plan also allows the County to begin collecting system development charges. The funds would be frozen in a fund until annexation. At that time, the funds would transfer to Tigard for acquisition, planning and development of parks, including Cache Creek in the North subarea. • Unify the community. As citizens of Tigard, Bull Mountain residents would have a say on local issues that affect their community's future. Although Tigard has included Bull Mountain residents in its planning efforts (The Parks Master Plan, Tigard Beyond Tomorrow), Bull Mountain residents cannot vote on Tigard issues or its leaders, or run for City Council. Considering this plan together would help both parties work together for their future. Most of all, an annexation plan takes the guesswork out of future annexations. It is a blueprint for the Plan Area that clearly quantifies the future: when evill annexation happen, how will it occur, what services can residents expect, and how much will it cost, and why it's 4A going to happen. Both the Plan Area and the City can plan for the future, as they move closer to completing their community. Summary: Criteria 5 (Long Term Benefits) _L Q Theplanprovides a comprehensive strategyfor annexation. Theplan's long-term benefits include certainty, r efficiency, making a smooth transition, more capital improvement dollars, urban services by an urban provider, F) quantifying the costs and benefits, equity, parks, and unifying the community. Q It allows the city and residents to plan for Bull Mountain's future. a i i i THE BULL MOUNTAIN ANNEXATION PLAN - PAGE 17 III. ADDITIONAL ANNEXATION PLAN REQUIREMENTS 7beBu11MamtainA rmaationPlan an orderly transition of services. It addresses the criteria contained in ORS 195.220: 1. Local standards of urban service availability required as a precondition of annexation; 2. The planned schedule for providing urban services to the annexed territory; 3. The timing and sequence of annexation; 4. The effects on existing urban services providers; 5. The long-term benefits of the annexation plan. The plan process also requires two additional documents: 1. Urban Services Agreement with all urban services providers in the Plan Area. All providers in the Plan Area signed the Tigard Urban Service Agreement, and it took effect in February 2003. A copy is included as Appendix D. 2. Fiscal impact agreement between the county and annexing city if the annexation causes reductions in the county property tax revenues (compression). The Washington County Finance Department conducted the following analysis: ORS 195.205(2)(b) states that "The territory contained in the annexation plan is subject to an agreement between the city and county addressing fiscal impacts, if the annexation is by a city and will cause reductions in the county property tax revenues by operation of section 11b, Article XI of the Oregon Constitution." Section 11b, Article XI of the Oregon Constitution (commonly known as Measure 5) limits total non-school property tax rates to no more than $10 per $1,000 of assessed valuation. If the tax rates of all non-school taxing jurisdictions exceed $10 per $1,000, the rates of each district are proportionately reduced to bring the total under the $10 limit. This process is called compression. The proposed Bull Mountain annexation area oo~ makes up the majority of tax code area 23.78 and 51.78. The government tax rate in both f, code areas for FY 2002-03 was $5.8878 per $1,000. With tax rate adjustments in both Eaz _ L1 t : T codes due to the proposed annexation, the 3 estimated resulting rate will be $7.1318 per $1,000. This rate is well below the $10 P~'~^3liti7;tijc rd~st'jISYE`..tPi FJ t~ I~ ~`i Measure 5 cap and therefore compression is not likely to occur in the near future. The Plan Area will continue to pay County taxes =tip after annexation, as all Tigard areas do. 1 Iy ~y As a result, no agreement between the City and the County is required under this section because annexation of the Plan Area is not expected to cause reductions in County property tax revenues due to compression. TFIE BULL MOUNTAIN ANNEXATION PLAN - PAGE 18 Summary: All Requirements for Annexation Plans 1. Plan Criteria 0 Local standards of urban service availability required as a precondition of annexation; 0 The planned schedule for providing urban services to the annexed territory, 0 The timing and sequence of annexation; 0 The effects on existing urban services providers; 0 The long term benefits of the annexation plan. 2. Pre-Requisite 0 Urban Service Agreements in place. (TUSA; effective February 2003) 3. Fiscal Impact Agreement Between City and County if Compression Occurs ® County property taxes will not be reduced due to compression. No fiscal agreement is required. 0 All requirements have been addressed. i i TIE BULL MOUNTAIN ANNEXATION PLAN - PAGE 19 IV. CONCLUSION The Bull MamwinAwimationPlan presents a systematic and efficient approach to annex unincorporated Bull Mountain and move toward completing the Tigard community. Using existing service agreements among agencies and cost-benefit analyses, the plan addresses all criteria set forth by state law ORS 195: the provision (how and when) of urban services, annexation's impact on existing providers, the timing and sequence of annexation, and the plan's long-term benefits. Most critically, the plan provides a proposal for transferring services and households to Tigard in an organized and efficient manner, grounded solidly on the ORS 195.220 criteria. In order to provide City service standards to annexed residents and maintain standards to current residents, the plan proposes to annex Bull Mountain in three phases: Phase 1-2004. Annex East. Brings in the area that is closest in proximityto the City and the least developed, and with the least service needs. Maximizes potential financial contributions by new development toward capital improvements. Phase 2 -2005. Annex South. Next logical area due to location. Provides a connection to Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) expansion site 63. Annexing second allows additional acquisition time for equipment and staff. Phase 3 - 2006. Annex North and West. Allows the City to develop its parkland and makes a connection to Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) expansion site 64. T Fm BULL MOUNTAIN ANNEXATION PLAN - PAGE 20 APPENDIX A GLOSSARY Annexation: The act of permanently bringing unincorporated land areas into a City by transferring properties from the County tax roll to the City tax roll. Householders become residents of the annexing city, and receive City resident services. Annexation Effective Date: Following a yes vote and verification of results, annexation would become effective day one of the following fiscal year (July 1, 2004) for East; July 1, 2005, for South; July 1, 2006, for North and West. Availability: The service is provided to the area and the infrastructure is present. It does not mean that each household receives the actual service; for example, in the case of sewer, hook-ups are available in the area, but some households maintain septic tanks until they decide to connect. Comprehensive Plan: The document that envisions how lands will be used and developed in a community and sets policy accordingly. It coordinates all functional and natural systems (i.e., facilities and natural resources). Each Oregon jurisdiction is required by state land-use planning laws to have an adopted comprehensive plan. The plan includes a generalized land use map. The land-use zoning code implements the comprehensive plan. Tigard's is available on its website, www.ci.tigard.or.us Long-Range Planning: Arm of Community Development that is tasked with meeting State Planning Goals. Staff develops long-term land use and transportation strategies, and plans for future growth. Plan Area: The Annexation Plan applies to the unincorporated area of Bull Mountain. See Map 1 on page 3 for a delineation of boundaries. Unincorporated: Lands that are not located inside any city limits. These areas are governed by Washington County. Urban Growth Boundary (UGB): Boundary that divides metropolitan areas from the surrounding rural areas. Areas within the UGB can be developed at urban standards; areas outside the UGB cannot. Urban Planning Area: The City of Tigard's ultimate boundary, determined through the Urban Planning Area Agreement with Washington County. Urban Service: Services that typically are provided to incorporated areas. ORS 195 defines urban services as sanitary sewers, water, fire protection, parks, open space, recreation, streets, roads and mass transit. 7heBullMowrainAnrxxationPlan also considers the following services as urban: police, storm sewer, building and development services, and street light maintenance. TY-IE BULL MOUNTAIN ANNEXATION PLAN - PAGE 21 Urbanization: To provide for an orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban land use, consistent with State Planning Goal 14 (Urbanization). Land within the boundaries separating urbanizable land from rural land (UGB) is considered available over time for urban uses. ACRONYMS: ORS: Oregon Revised Statutes; state law. SDCs: System Development Charges. Fees paid by new development to fund future capital improvements. SDCs act as growth management tools by helping pay for system improvements needed as population and households increase. TUSA Tigard Urban Services Agreement. Signed by the City, Washington County, and all current and future service providers for the unincorporated areas within Tigard's planning area. Determines future service providers and process for transferring services between providers upon annexation. The TUSA took effect in February 2003, and is a pre-requisite for an annexation plan. UGB: Urban Growth Boundary. Divides metropolitan areas from the surrounding rural areas. Areas within the UGB can be developed at urban standards; areas outside the UGB cannot. UPAA: Urban Planning Area Agreement. An agreement between Washington County and City of Tigard which established Bull Mountain as part of the Cltys Urban Planning Area. It was originally signed in 1983 and updated most recently in fall 2003. I I THE BULL. MOUNTAIN ANNEXATION PLAN - PAGE 22 Appendix B Bull Mountain Annexation Plan Fiscal Analysis Update The City of Tigard has conducted two previous studies of the impacts of annexing the Bull Mountain area. The Bull Mountain Annexation Study was completed in November 2001. The Public Facilities and Services Assessment Report for the Bull Mountain Area (draft) was completed in July 2003. Both studies looked at a variety of factors, including the costs of direct service to the Bull Mountain area and revenues that would be generated to pay for those services. These analyses did not attempt to calculate central administrative costs on the assumption that the existing central administrative support structure could absorb the additional workload that would come with annexation of additional territory. The earlier studies looked at the costs and revenues associated with annexation at points in time (current, maximum build-out, and medium build-out in the Annexation Study, and 2005, 2010, and 2015 in Draft Public Facilities and Services Assessment Report.) For the purposes of this Annexation Plan, it is necessary to look at the total cost of service at the point of full development (which may not be the same as developing to the maximum capacity.) For the purposes of this analysis, we have assumed that the area will reach maximum development by 2015. Accordingly, this Plan looks at the cost of providing the level of services needed in 2015 and the operating revenues generated at that level of development. In addition to operating costs and revenues, it is also necessary to analyze one- time capital needs and revenues. The analysis in this Plan looked at the level of one-time capital revenues generated from the point of annexation (assumed to be 2004) to the level of development anticipated in 2015. The fiscal impacts of the earlier studies were calculated in 2001 and 2002 dollars. For purposes of this Annexation Plan, those fiscal analyses were updated to reflect 2003 dollars. No assumptions for future inflation were built into L either the revenue or cost estimates. 'r Cost and revenue projections for the study area rest on three primary footings: population, number of housing units, and current assessed values. ii First, staff reviewed and updated housing unit and population figures for all four sub areas. There have been a number of annexations to the City of Tigard within the study areas since 2002. Each annexation changed the boundaries of the study area and reduced the number of housing units and population remaining to be annexed. In addition, staff reviewed boundaries between sub areas to make sure that they followed subdivision and tax lot lines. Based on this review, staff Appendix B changed the boundary between the North and West sub areas. Finally, staff updated housing unit and population figures to reflect recent development. Washington County staff used the updated maps of the Bull Mountain study area and sub areas to determine current assessed values. The net effect of the changes discussed above were minor adjustments to the number of housing units and population. Given the small size of these adjustments, staff determined that earlier work to determine the basic costs of ongoing services to, and one-time capital needs of the study areas were still valid. Two corrections were identified, however. The November 2001 study identified two costs which were inadvertently omitted for the July 2003 study: the costs of recruiting 13 new police officers required to serve the Bull Mountain area and the cost of expanding the Police Department building to house the additional officers. Both costs have been added back into the Annexation Plan. Finally, all operating costs were increased by the Consumer Price Index of 1.68% to update the 2002 projections to 2003 dollars. All one-time capital costs were updated by the Construction Cost Index of 2.1 % to reflect 2003 dollars. Staff also reviewed and updated all revenue projections. Since the earlier two studies, some fees and charges have been increased. In addition, other revenues are estimated on a per capita or per housing unit basis. Many of those revenues have fluctuated, which required updating of per capita and per housing unit rates. These revised rates were then applied to the updated housing unit and population figures. Finally, since the publication of the two earlier reports, a citizen Transportation Funding Task Force has recommended the adoption of a street maintenance fee to help pay for major maintenance of the street system. statewide, most jurisdictions are dealing with insufficient gas tax and other street-related revenues which are impacting their ability to maintain their street systems. Many jurisdiction, including Tigard, are looking for additional funding sources such as the street maintenance fee. This recommendation has been presented to the City Council, which has directed staff to prepare an ordinance to implement the fee and to bring that ordinance back to the Council for their consideration. The Council has not yet taken action on that ordinance. In updating the earlier financial analyses, staff has calculated the annual revenues from a street maintenance fee structured as i recommended by the Transportation Funding Task Force, and calculated how much revenue that fee would produce from the Bull Mountain Annexation area in i 2004. The following table shows how much revenue would be generated in 2004 from the Bull Mountain area if this fee is adopted by the Tigard City Council and Bull Mountain is annexed. These revenues would help to offset costs shown on ' the following tables charged to the Gas Tax Fund. Table 1 Potential 2004 Bull Mountain Street Maintenance Fee Revenues Appendix B North West South East Total $26,7431 - $9,319 $31,680 $4,514 $72,257 The following tables present the updated cost and revenue projections for the Bull Mountain area. Table 2a Projected Revenues and Costs by Fund for the Bull Mountain Area, North Unit Operating Costs Fund Revenue Operating Cost Balance General $1,001,368 $533,298 $468,070 Gas Tax $121,782 $147,302 $25,520 Sanitary Sewer $72,195 $47,977 $24,218 Storm Sewer $41,112 $45,138 $4,026 Water $535,188 $349,271 $185,917 Table 2b Projected Revenues and Costs by Fund for the Bull Mountain Area, North Unit One-Time Capital Costs Fund Fund Balance/ One-Time Capital Balance Capital Revenue Cost General $468,070 $0 $468,070 Gas Tax $25,520 $297,111 $322,631 Sanitary Sewer $309,113 $295,069 $14,044 Storm Sewer $54,474 $0 $54,474 Water $185,917 $0 $185,917 Traffic Impact Fee $318,240 $3,461,190 $3,142,950 Parks CIP $204,399 $453,120 $248,721 Water SDC $361,296 $367,560 $6,264 Table 3a Projected Revenues and Costs by Fund for the Bull Mountain Area, West Unit Operating Costs Fund Revenue Operating Cost Balance a General $809,097 $302,215 $506,881 u Gas Tax $45,094 $293,020 $247,927 ' Sanitary Sewer $28,385 $20,386 $7,999 Storm Sewer $16,164 $17,737 $1,573 Water $210,420 $147,639 $62,781 Table 3b Appendix B Projected Revenues and Costs by Fund for the Bull Mountain Area, West Unit One-Time Capital Costs Fund Fund Balance/ One-Time Capital Balance Capital Revenue Cost General $506,881 $0 $506,881 Gas Tax $247,927 $315,489 $563,416 Sanitary Sewer $356,204 $384,917 $28,713 Storm Sewer $69,927 $0 $69,927 Water $62,781 $0 $62,781 Traffic Impact Fee $388,960 $530,920 $141,960 Parks CIP $249,821 $1,914,375 $1,664,554 Water SDC $291,863 $0 $291,863 Table 4a Projected Revenues and Costs by Fund for the Bull Mountain Area, South Unit Operating Costs Fund Revenue Operating Cost Balance General $1,261,667 $625,477 $636,190 Gas Tax $134,774 $233,934 $99,160 Sanitary Sewer $84,585 $52,733 $31,852 Storm Sewer $48,468 $49,862 $1,694 Water $627,042 $388,113 $238,929 Table 4b Projected Revenues and Costs by Fund for the Bull Mountain Area, South Unit One-Time Capital Costs Fund Fund Balance/ One-Time Capital Balance Capital Revenue Cost General $636,190 $272,811 $363,379 Gas Tax $99,160 $2,552,500 $2,651,660 Sanitary Sewer $316,747 $95,974 $220,773 Storm Sewer $56,806 $0 $56,806 Water $238,929 $0 $238,929 Traffic Impact Fee $318,240 $1,255,830 $937,590 Parks CIP $204,399 $1,914,375 $1,709,976 Water SDC $361,296 $366,641 $5,345 Table 5a Projected Revenues and Costs by Fund for the Bull Mountain Area, East Unit Operating Costs Fund Revenue O eratin Cost Balance Appendix B General $1,649,439 $262,738 $1,386,701 Gas Tax $20,737 $50,231 $29,494 Sanitary Sewer $13,718 $13,811 $93 Storm Sewer $7,812 $11,208 $3,396 Water $101,695 $147,944 $46,249 Table 5b Projected Revenues and Costs by Fund for the Bull Mountain Area, East Unit One-Time Capital Costs Fund Fund Balance/ One-Time Capital Balance Ca ital Revenue Cost General $1,386,701 $0 $1,386,701 Gas Tax $29,494 $581,970 $611,464 Sanitary Sewer $1,166,272 $499,269 $667,003 Storm Sewer $236,104 $0 $236,104 Water $46,249 $1,337,510 $1,383,759 Traffic Impact Fee $1,302,880 $2,695,440 $1,392,560 Parks CIP $836,813 $5,743,125 $4,906,312 Water SDC $1,479,152 $9,025,640 $7,546,488 Table 6a Projected Revenues and Costs by Fund for the Bull Mountain Area, Total Area Operating Costs Fund Revenue Operating Cost Balance General $4,721,571 $1,723,729 $2,997,842 Gas Tax $322,386 $724,487 $402,101 Sanitary Sewer $198,883 $134,907 $63,976 Storm Sewer $113,256 $123,945 $10,689 Water $1,474,345 $1,032,967 $441,378 Table 6b Projected Revenues and Costs by Fund for the Bull Mountain Area, Total Area One-Time Capital Costs Fund Fund Balance/ One-Time Capital Balance Ca itaI Revenue Cost General $2,997,842 $272,811 $2,725,031 Gas Tax $402,101 $3,747,070 $4,149,171 Sanitary Sewer $2,148,336 $1,275,229 $873,107 Storm Sewer $417,311 $0 $417,311 Water $441,378 $1,337,510 $896,132 Traffic Impact Fee $2,328,320 $7,943,380 $5,615,060 Parks CIP $1,495,432 $10,024,995 $8,529,563 Appendix B Water SDC $2,493,607 $9,759,841 $7,266,234 The results of these analyses show that the Bull Mountain annexation area will generally more than pay for direct general governmental operational services (primarily police and planning) and for direct operations of the two primary governmental utilities serving the area (water and sanitary sewer). The major exception to this trend is the operation of the street system. The operation of the street system is funded primarily from state and county gas taxes. Gas tax revenues attributable to the Bull Mountain area are insufficient to cover operating costs of street in that area. One-time capital costs are paid for by a combination of operating fund balances and dedicated capital revenues. A comparison of available resources versus identified capital needs reveals major revenue shortfalls for most service areas. Simply put, the Bull Mountain area by itself will not produce enough revenues to build the capital facilities it needs for streets, parks, and water. It is important to note that when looked at from a City perspective, this analysis can be misleading. The City operates a number of systems that serve the entire City (including in some cases the Bull Mountain area whether or not it is annexed), not discrete geographical areas. These systems include those covered in this analysis: Police, Streets, Water, Sanitary Sewer, Storm Sewer, Parks, and Planning services. Any one discrete geographical area in the City or adjacent to the City may or may not produce sufficient revenues to serve that area, but what is important is that the system as a whole can provide services to the entire area. The City's systems are financially strong, and these services can be provided to the entire area, including Bull Mountain should it be annexed to ° the City. Conversely, this analysis can be very instructive when looked at from the perspective of an area being considered annexation. If the area were to attempt to obtain these same services at the level provided by the City of Tigard as a stand alone district, it may or may not be able to cover operating costs. It would be unable to pay for needed capital improvements without a substantial influx of additional revenues. Appendix B Tigard Water District August 28, 2003 Bull Mountain Accounts Route # 2, 10, 12, 36, 37, 38, 39, 42, 3, 41 (000-0860, 8023-9999) Water Sales (Previous Customer Type # Active Accounts # Suspended Accounts 12 Months) Residential 2,880 69 $837,838.05 Commercial 2 0 $1,554.71 Irrigation 26 7 $27,314.56 Multi-Family 27 0 $30,508.58 Total 2,935 76 $897,215.90 All Other TWD Accounts Route # 92, 98, 86, 84, 41 (0851-8022) Residential 459 12 $101,340.91 Commercial 4 3 $3,996.64 Irrigation 7 0 $4,949.84 Multi-Family 38 1 $834,844.73 Total 508 16 $945,132.12 L 11: Mote: Given the water sales for the previous twelve month period, the Tigard Water District would receive $8,972.16 in revenue. A J J Appendix C July 1, 2003 - June 30 2004 Estimated Property Tax for a House With an Assessed Value' of $250,000 City of Tigard Unincorporated Washington County [crease or, (Decrea Unincorporated Washington County ~crease or (Decrea Tax Area 23.74 Tax Area 23.78 With Annexation Tax Area 5138 With Annexation Taxing District Rate Amount Rate Amount Amount Rate Amount Amount Schools Ed. Service Dist. - NW Regional 0.1538 $38.45 0.1538 $38.45 $0.00 0.1538 $38.45 $0.00 Portland Community College 0.2828 $70.70 0.2828 $70.70 $0.00 0.2826 $70.70 $0.00 Tigard School District -23J2 5.9892 $1,497.30 5.9892 $1,497.30 $0.00 0.0000 $0.00 $0.00 Beaverton School District - 482 0.0000 $0.00 0.0000 $0.00 $0.00 6.1930 $1,548.25 $0.00 Total Education Taxes 6.4258 $1,606.45 6.4258 $1,606.45 $0.00 6.6296 $1,657.40 $0.00 General Government Washington County" 2.6576 $664.40 2.6576 $664.40 $0.00 2.6576 $664.40 $0.00 Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue3 1.7752 $443.80 1.7752 $443.80 $0.00 1.7752 $443.80 $0.00 Port of Portland3 0.0701 $17.53 0.0701 $17.53 $0.00 0.0701 $17.53 $0.00 City of Tigard' 2.5131 $628.28 0.0000 $0.00 $628.28 0.0000 $0.00 $62828 Metro 0.0966 $24.15 0.0966 $24.15 $0.00 0.0966 $24.15 $0.00 Washington County Enhanced Patrol 0.0000 $0.00 1.1650 $291.25 1.1650 $291.25 2 t Washington County Road Maintenance 0.0000 $0.00 0.2456 $61.40 0.2456 $61.40 Se I I Wash. County Street Light Assessments $0.00 $35.00 _ - = $35.00 Total General Government 7.1126 $1,778.15 6.0101 $1,537.53 $240.63 6.0101 51,537.53 $240.63 General Obligation Bonds Washington County 0.2377 $59.43 0.2377 $59.43 $0.00 0.2377 $59.43 $0.00 Portland Community College 0.2290 $57.25 0.2290 $57.25 $0.00 0.2290 $57.25 $0.00 Tigard School District - 23J 1.1280 $282.00 1.1280 $282.00 $0.00 0.0000 $0.00 $0.00 Beaverton School District - 48 0.0000 $0.00 0.0000 $0.00 $0.00 1.8172 $454.30 50.00 Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue 0.0513 $12.83 0.0513 $12.83 $0.00 0.0513 $12.83 $0.00 Port of Portland 0.0000 $0.00 0.0000 $0.00 $0.00 0.0000 $0.00 $0.00 City of Tigard 0.1650 $41.25 0.0000 $0.00 $41.25 0.0000 $0.00 $41.25 Metro 0.1934 $48.35 0.1934 $48.35 $0.00 0.1934 $48.35 $0.00 Tri•Met 0.1080 $27.00 0.1080 $27.00 $0.00 0.1080 $27.00 $0.00 Total General Obligation Bonds 2.1124 $528.10 1.9474 $486.85 $41.25 2.6366 $659.15 $41.25 Grand Total 15.6508 $3,912.70 14.3833 $3,630.83 $281.88 15.2763 $3,854.08 $281.88 Perecent Change 7.6% 7.3% Notes 1 Assessed Value no longer equals Market Value 2 Annexation to a city does not change the school district that serves the area 3 Permanent rate set by Measure 50 4 Education Taxes are limited by Measure 5 to no more than $5 per $1,000 of Real Market Value, but Measure 50 established permanent rates per $1,000 of Assessed Value. The data presented is from the Washington County Assessors Office which is resonsible for monitoring tax rates. 5 Those areas that are served by Street Lighting Districts pay for the cost of operating and maintaining the street lights. Washington County reports that the average annual assessment per household is $35. Actual assessments will vary by district. Appendix D TIGARD URBAN SERVICE AGREEMENT November 26, 2002 This AGREEMENT is made and entered into by and between Washington County, a municipal corporation of the State of Oregon, hereinafter "COUNTY," the City of Tigard, a municipal corporation of the State of Oregon, hereinafter "CITY," Metro, a metropolitan service district of the State of Oregon, hereinafter "METRO," and the following Special Districts of the State of Oregon, hereinafter "DISTRICT(S);" Clean Water Services; Tigard Water District; Tri-Met; Tualatin Hills Park and Recreation District; Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue District; and Tualatin Valley Water District RECITALS WHEREAS, ORS 195.025(1) requires METRO, through its regional coordination responsibilities, to review urban service agreements affecting land use, including planning activities of the counties, cities, special districts, state agencies; and WHEREAS, ORS 195.020(4)(e) requires cooperative agreements to specify the units of local government which shall be parties to an urban service agreement under ORS 195.065; and WHEREAS, ORS 195.065(1) requires units of local government that provide an urban service within an urban growth boundary to enter into an urban service agreement that specifies the unit of government that: will deliver the services, sets forth the functional role of each service provider, determines the future service area, and assigns responsibilities for planning and coordination of services; and WHEREAS, ORS 195.065(1) and (2) require that the COUNTY shall be responsible for: 1. Convening representatives of all cities and special districts that provide or declare an interest in providing an urban service inside an urban growth boundary within the county that has a population greater than 2,500 persons for the purpose of negotiating an urban service agreement; i 2. Consulting with recognized community planning organizations within the area affected by the urban service agreement; and 1 I 3. Notifying Metro in advance of meetings to negotiate an urban service agreement to enable Metro's review; and Tigard Urban Service Agreement November 26, 2002 Page 1 WHEREAS, ORS 195.075(1) requires urban service agreements to provide for the continuation of an adequate level of urban services to the entire area that each provider serves and to specify if there is a significant reduction in the territory of a special service district; and WHEREAS, ORS 195.075(1) requires that if there is a significant reduction in territory, the agreement shall specify how the remaining portion of the district is to receive services in an affordable manner; and WHEREAS, ORS 195.205 TO 195.235 grant authority to cities and districts (as defined by ORS 198.010) to annex lands within an urban growth boundary, subject to voter approval, if the city or district enacts an annexation plan adopted pursuant to ORS 195.020, 195.060 to 195.085, 195.145 to 195.235, 197.005, 197.319, 197.320, 197.335, and 223.304, and if the city or district has entered into urban service agreements with the county, cities and special districts which provide urban services within the affected area; and WHEREAS, ORS 197.175 requires cities and counties to prepare, adopt, amend, and revise their comprehensive plans in compliance with statewide planning goals, and enact land use regulations to implement their comprehensive plans; and WHEREAS, Statewide Planning Goals 2, 11, and 14 require cities and counties to plan, in cooperation with all affected agencies and special districts, for the urbanization of lands within an urban growth boundary, and ensure the timely, orderly, and efficient extension of public facilities and urban services. NOW, THEREFORE, the premises being in general as stated in the foregoing recitals, it is agreed by and between the parties hereto as follows: I. ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES A. Parties to this AGREEMENT shall provide land use planning notice to each other in accordance with the provision of the "Cooperative Agreements," developed per ORS 195.020(4)(e). B. The parties to this AGREEMENT are designated as the appropriate provider of services to the citizens residing within their boundaries as specified in this AGREEMENT. C. The CITY is designated as the appropriate provider of services to citizens residing within its boundaries and to adjacent unincorporated areas subject to this AGREEMENT as shown on Map A, except for those services that are to be provided by another party as specified in this AGREEMENT. D. The CITY and COUNTY will be supportive of annexations to the CITY over time. The CITY shall endeavor to annex the unincorporated areas shown on Map A, in keeping with the following schedule: t I I 1. Near to mid-term (3 to 5 years): Bull Mountain area and unincorporated lands north of the Tualatin River and south of Durham Road and Tigard Urban Service Agreement November 26, 2002 Page 2 2. Far-term (10 years or later): Metzger area. E. Pursuant to ORS 195.205, the CITY and DISTRICTS reserve the right and may, subsequent to the enactment of this AGREEMENT, develop an annexation plan or plans in reliance upon this AGREEMENT in accordance with ORS 195.205 to 220. F. In keeping with the County 2000 Strategic Plan or its successor, the COUNTY will focus its energies on those services that provide county-wide benefit and transition out of providing municipal services that may benefit specific geographic areas or districts. The COUNTY recognizes cities and special service districts as the ultimate municipal service providers as specified in this AGREEMENT. The COUNTY also recognizes cities as the ultimate local governance provider to the urban area. G. Within twelve months of the effective date of this AGREEMENT and prior to any consolidation or transfer of duties or any single or multiple annexations totaling twenty acres, the parties shall identify any duties performed by the parties that will or may be assumed or transferred from one party to another party by annexation, consolidation or agreement. The affected parties shall identify how the duties will be transferred or assumed, including the transfer of employees and equipment. The process to transfer duties, employees and equipment shall account for the cumulative effects of annexation, consolidation and transfer by agreement. This process shall also address large scale annexations and the large scale transfer of duties by consolidation or agreement. In the event the affected parties cannot agree upon the processes to transfer duties, employees and equipment, the provisions of Section VII of this AGREEMENT shall be used to resolve the dispute. H. The COUNTY shall have the responsibility for convening representatives for the purpose of amending this AGREEMENT, pursuant to ORS 195.065(2)(a). JI. AGREEMENT COORDINATION A. Existing intergovernmental agreements that are consistent with this AGREEMENT shall remain in force. This AGREEMENT shall control provisions of existing intergovernmental agreements that are inconsistent with the terms of this AGREEMENT. This AGREEMENT does not preclude any party from amending an existing inter-governmental agreement or entering into a new inter-governmental agreement with one or more parties for a service addressed in this AGREEMENT, provided such an agreement is consistent with the provisions of this AGREEMENT. B. The CITY and COUNTY have entered into an intergovernmental agreement for the CITY provision of building, land development and specific road services on behalf of the COUNTY to the unincorporated lands in the Bull Mountain area. C. CITY and COUNTY shall endeavor to take all action necessary to cause their comprehensive plans to be amended to be consistent with this AGREEMENT within twelve months of execution of this AGREEMENT, but no later than sixteen months from the date of execution. Tigard Urban Service Agreement November 26, 2002 Page 3 u III. AREA AFFECTED BY AGREEMENT This AGREEMENT applies to the Tigard Urban Service Area (TUSA) as shown on Map A and properties added to the Regional Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) that are to be annexed to the CITY in the future as described below in Section VIII. IV. URBAN SERVICE PROVIDERS A. The service provisions of this AGREEMENT, as described in Exhibits A through G, establish the providers and elements of urban services for the geographic area covered in this AGREEMENT; and B. The following urban services are addressed in this AGREEMENT: 1. Fire Protection and Emergency Services (Exhibit A); 2. Public Transit (Exhibit B); 3. Law Enforcement (Exhibit C); 4. Parks, Recreation, and Open Space (Exhibit D); 5. Roads and Streets (Exhibit E); 6. Sanitary Sewer and Storm Water (Exhibit F); and 7. Water Service (Exhibit G). V. ASSIGNABILITY No assignment of any party's rights or obligations under this AGREEMENT to a different, new or consolidated or merged entity shall be effective without the prior consent of the other parties affected thereby. Any party to this AGREEMENT who proposes a formation, merger, consolidation, dissolution, or other major boundary change shall notify all other parties of the availability of the reports or studies required by Oregon State Statutes to be prepared as part of the proposal. VI. EFFECTIVE DATE OF AGREEMENT This AGREEMENT shall become effective upon full execution by all parties. R' VII. TERM OF THE AGREEMENT 6- This AGREEMENT shall continue to be in effect as long as required under state law. The COUNTY shall be responsible for convening the parties to this AGREEMENT for r the review or modification of this AGREEMENT, pursuant to Section VIII. D Tigard Urban Service Agreement November 26, 2002 Page 4 mwm~ VIII. PROCESS FOR REVIEW AND MODIFICATION OF THE AGREEMENT A. Parties shall periodically review the provisions of this AGREEMENT in order to evaluate the effectiveness of the processes set forth herein and to propose any necessary or beneficial amendments to address considerations of ORS 195.070 and ORS 195.075. B. Any party may propose modifications to this agreement to address concerns or changes in circumstances. C. The body of this AGREEMENT (Recitals and Sections I through IX) may only be changed by written consent of all affected parties. Amendments to the exhibits of this AGREEMENT may be made upon written consent of the parties identified in each exhibit. D. The periodic review of this AGREEMENT and all proposed modifications to this AGREEMENT shall be coordinated by the COUNTY. All requests for the periodic review of this AGREEMENT and all proposed modifications shall be considered in a timely manner and all parties shall receive notice of any proposed amendment. Only those parties affected by an amendment shall sign the amended agreement. All amendments that include boundary changes shall comply with Chapter 3.09 of the METRO Code or its successor. E. Lands added to the Regional Urban Growth Boundary that are determined to be annexed to the CITY in the future by separate process, such an Urban Reserve Plan, shall be subject to this AGREEMENT. The appropriate service providers to new urban lands for the services addressed in this AGREEMENT shall be determined through the provisions of this Section unless those determinations are made through the development of an Urban Reserve Plan and all affected parties agree to the service determinations. This AGREEMENT shall be amended to address new urban lands and reflect the service provider determinations consistent with the provisions of this Section. IX. DISPUTE RESOLUTION If a dispute arises between or among the parties regarding breach of this AGREEMENT or interpretation of any term thereof, those parties shall first attempt to resolve the dispute by negotiation prior to any other contested case process. If negotiation fails to resolve the dispute, the parties agree to submit the matter to non-binding mediation. Only after these steps have been exhausted will the matter be submitted to arbitration. Step I - Negotiation. The managers or other persons designated by each of the disputing parties will negotiate on behalf of the entities they represent. The issues of the dispute shall be reduced to writing and each manager shall then meet and attempt to resolve the issue. If the dispute is resolved with this step, there shall be a written determination of such resolution signed by each manager, which shall be binding upon the parties. Tigard Urban Service Agreement November 26, 2002 Page 5 Step 2 - Mediation. If the dispute cannot be resolved within 30 days of initiation of Step 1, a party shall request in writing that the matter be submitted to non-binding mediation. The parties shall use good-faith efforts to agree on a mediator. If they cannot agree, the parties shall request a list of five mediators from an entity or firm providing mediation services. The parties will attempt to mutually agree on a mediator from the list provided, but if they cannot agree, each party shall select one name and the two mediators shall jointly select a third mediator. The dispute shall be heard by the third mediator and any common costs of mediation shall be borne equally by the parties, who shall each bear their own costs and fees therefore. If the issue is resolved at this Step, then a written determination of such resolution shall be signed by each manager and shall be binding upon the parties. Step 3 - Arbitration. After exhaustion of Steps 1 and 2 above, the matter shall be settled by binding arbitration in Washington County, Oregon, in accordance with the Commercial Arbitration Rules of the American Arbitration Association, the rules of the Arbitration Service of Portland, or any other rules mutually agreed to, pursuant to ORS 190.710-790. The arbitration shall be before a single arbitrator; nothing shall prevent the parties from mutually selecting an arbitrator or panel thereof who is not part of the AAA panel and agreeing upon arbitration rules and procedures. The cost of arbitration shall be shared equally. The arbitration shall be held within 60 days of selection of the arbitrator unless otherwise agreed to by the parties. The decision shall be issued within 60 days of arbitration. X. SEVERABILITY CLAUSE If any portion of this AGREEMENT is declared invalid, or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct, and independent provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this AGREEMENT. XI. SIGNATURES OF PARTIES TO AGREEMENT In witness whereof, this AGREEMENT is executed by the authorized representatives of the COUNTY, CITY, DISTRICTS, and METRO. The parties, by their representative's signatures to this AGREEMENT, signify that each has read the AGREEMENT, understands its terms, and agrees to be bound thereby. i Tigard Urban Service Agreement November 26, 2002 Page 6 CITY OF TIGARD By: James E. Griffith, Mayor Date Approved as to Form: By: City Attorney 1 I 1 I I Tigard Urban Service Agreement November 26, 2002 Page 7 TUALATIN VALLEY FIRE AND RESCUE DISTRICT By: Chairman, Board of Directors Date Approved as to Form: By: District Counsel Tigard Urban Service Agreement November 26, 2002 Page 8 TUALATIN HILLS PARK AND RECREATION DISTRICT By: President, Board of Directors Date Approved as to Form: By: District Counsel Tigard Urban Service Agreement November 26, 2002 Page 9 TRI-MET By: General Manager Date Approved as to Form: By: District Counsel Tigard Urban Service Agreement November 26, 2002 Page 10 CLEAN WATER SERVICES By: Tom Brian, Chair Date Board of Directors Approved as to Form: By: District Counsel I I Tigard Urban Service Agreement November 26, 2002 Page 1 I TIGARD WATER DISTRICT By: Chairman, Board of Directors Date Approved as to Form: By: District Counsel Tigard Urban Service Agreement November 26, 2002 Page 12 TUALATIN VALLEY WATER DISTRICT By: Chairman, Board of Directors Date Approved as to Form: By: District Counsel Tigard Urban Service Agreement November 26, 2002 Page 13 MMM~ WASHINGTON COUNTY By: Tom Brian, Chair Date Board of Commissioners Approved as to Form: By: County Counsel i Tigard Urban Service Agreement November 26, 2002 Page 14 METRO By: Presiding Officer Date Approved as to Form: By: Legal Counsel i Tigard Urban Service Agreement November 26, 2002 Page 15 EXHIBIT A PROVISIONS OF AGREEMENT FOR FIRE PROTECTION AND PUBLIC EMERGENCY SERVICES TUALATIN VALLEY FIRE AND RESCUE DISTRICT, CITY and COUNTY agree: 1. That the TUALATIN VALLEY FIRE AND RESCUE DISTRICT (TVFR) is and shall continue to be the sole provider of fire protection services to the Tigard Urban Service Area (TUSA) shown on Map A. 2. That TVFR, CITY and COUNTY are and shall continue to provide emergency management response services to the TUSA. 3. That TVFR is and shall continue to be the sole provider of all other public emergency services to the TUSA, excluding law enforcement services. Tigard Urban Service Agreement November 26, 2002 Page 16 EXHIBIT B PROVISIONS OF AGREEMENT FOR PUBLIC TRANSIT SERVICE TRI-MET, CITY, COUNTY and METRO agree: 1. That TRI-MET, pursuant to ORS Chapter 267, is currently the sole provider of public mass transit to the Tigard Urban Service Area (TUSA) shown on Map A. Future options for public mass transit services to the TUSA may include public/private partnerships to provide rail or other transit service, CITY operated transit service, and transit service by one or more public agency to all or part of the area. 2. That TRI-MET shall work with the COUNTY, CITY, and METRO to provide efficient and effective public mass transit services to the TUSA. "r i i i i Tigard Urban Service Agreement November 26, 2002 Page 17 EXHIBIT C PROVISIONS OF AGREEMENT FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT COUNTY and CITY agree: 1. That as annexations occur within the Tigard Urban Service Area shown on Map A, the CITY will assume law enforcement services and the area will be withdrawn from the Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol District. The Sheriff's Office will continue to provide law enforcement services identified through the Cogan Law Enforcement Project and those services mandated by state law. Eventually, the Enhanced Sheriff's Patrol District, consistent with its conditions of formation, will be eliminated when annexations on a county-wide basis reach a point where the function of the District is no longer economically feasible. 2. That over time as annexations occur within the urban unincorporated area, the primary focus of the Sheriffs office will be to provide programs that are county-wide in nature or serve the rural areas of the COUNTY. The Sheriffs office will continue to maintain needed service levels and programs to ensure the proper functioning of the justice system in the COUNTY. The Sheriffs Office will also continue to provide available aid to smaller cities (e.g., Banks and North Plains) for services specified in the COUNTY'S mutual aid agreement with those cities upon their request. The Sheriffs Office will also consider requests to provide law enforcement services to cities on a contractual basis consistent with the COUNTY's law enforcement contracting policy. 3. That the COUNTY and CITY and other Washington County cities, through the Cogan Law Enforcement Project, shall determine the ultimate functions of the Sheriff s Office that are not mandated by state law. 4. That the COUNTY and CITY shall utilize comparable measures of staffing that accurately depict the level of service being provided to residents of all local jurisdictions in the COUNTY. i Tigard Urban Service Agreement November 26, 2002 Page 18 EXHIBIT D PROVISIONS OF AGREEMENT FOR PARKS, RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE CITY, TUALATIN HILLS PARK AND RECREATION DISTRICT (THPRD), COUNTY, and METRO agree: 1. That the CITY shall be the designated provider of park, recreation and open spaces services to the Tigard Urban Service Area (TUSA) shown on Map A. Actual provision of these services by the CITY to lands within the TUSA is dependent upon lands being annexed to the CITY. Within the Metzger Park Local Improvement District (LID), the CITY will be a joint provider of services. The CITY and THPRD, however, may also enter into inter- governmental agreements for the provision of park, recreation and open space services to residents within each other' boundaries, such as the joint use of facilities or programs. This provision does not preclude future amendments to this AGREEMENT concerning how park, recreation and open space services may be provided within the TUSA. 2. That the CITY and the COUNTY should further examine the feasibility of creating a park and recreation district for the TUSA. 3. That standards for park, recreation, and open space services within the TUSA will be as described in the CITY'S park master plan. 4. That the CITY and COUNTY are supportive of the concept of a parks systems development charge as a method for the future acquisition and development of parks lands in the TUSA that are outside of the CITY. The CITY and COUNTY agree to study the feasibility of adopting such a systems development charge for lands outside of the CITY. 5. That at the next update of its parks master plan, the CITY shall address all the lands within the TUSA. 6. That the Metzger Park LID shall remain as a special purpose park provider for as long as a majority of property owners within the LID wish to continue to pay annual levies for the operation and maintenance of Metzger Park. The CITY and COUNTY also agree to the continuation of the Metzger Park Advisory Board. However, the COUNTY as administrator of the LID, may consider contracting operation and maintenance services to another provider if that option proves to be more efficient and cost-effective. This option would be presented and discussed with the Park Advisory Board before the COUNTY makes a decision. 7. That continuation of the Metzger Park LID shall not impede provision of parks, and eventually recreation services, to the Metzger Park neighborhood by the CITY. Continuation of the Metzger Park LID will be considered as providing an additional level of service to the neighborhood above and beyond that provided by the CITY. 1 r Tigard Urban Service Agreement November 26, 2002 Page 19 8. That the CITY and COUNTY will coordinate with Metro to investigate funding sources for acquisition and management of parks which serve a regional function. 9. That Metro may own and be the provider of region-wide parks, recreation and open space facilities within the TUSA. Metro Greenspace and Parks facilities typically are to serve a broader population base than services provided to residents of the TUSA by the CITY. Where applicable, the CITY, COUNTY, and METRO will aspire to coordinate facility development, management and services. L n s- .J 9 u a Tigard Urban Service Agreement November 26, 2002 Page 20 EXHIBIT E PROVISIONS OF AGREEMENT FOR ROADS AND STREETS CITY and COUNTY agree: 1. Existing Conditions and Agreements A. The COUNTY shall continue to retain jurisdiction over the network of arterials and collectors within the Tigard Urban Service Area (TUSA) that are specified on the COUNTY-wide roadway system in the Washington County Transportation Plan. The CITY shall accept responsibility for public streets, local streets, neighborhood routes and collectors and other streets and roads that are not part of the COUNTY-wide road system within its boundaries upon annexation if the street or road meets the agreed upon standards described in Section 2.C.(2) below. B. The COUNTY and CITY agree to continue sharing equipment and services with renewed emphasis on tracking of traded services and sharing of equipment without resorting to a billing system, and improved scheduling of services. Additionally, the COUNTY and CITY shall work to improve coordination between the jurisdictions so that the sharing of equipment and services is not dependent on specific individuals within each jurisdiction. The COUNTY and CITY shall also work to establish a more uniform accounting system to track the sharing and provision of services. C. Upon annexation to the CITY, the annexed area shall be automatically withdrawn from the Urban Road Maintenance District (URMD). D. Upon annexation to the CITY, an annexed area that is part of the Washington County Service District For Street Lighting No. 1 shall be automatically withdrawn from the District. The CITY shall assume responsibility for street lighting on the effective date of annexation of public streets and COUNTY streets and roads that will be transferred to the CITY. The COUNTY shall inform PGE when there is a change in road jurisdiction or when annexation occurs and the annexed area is no longer a part of the street lighting district. 2. Road Transfers Transfer of jurisdiction may be initiated by a request from the CITY or the COUNTY. A. Road transfers shall include the entire right-of-way (e.g., a boundary cannot be set down the middle of a road) and proceed in a logical manner that prevents the creation of segments of COUNTY roads within the CITY'S boundaries. Tigard Urban Service Agreement November 26, 2002 Page 21 B. Within thirty days of annexation, the CITY will initiate the process to transfer jurisdiction of COUNTY and public streets and roads within the annexed area, including local streets, neighborhood routes, collectors and other roads that are not of county-wide significance. The transfer of roads should take no more than one year from the effective date'of annexation. C. The COUNTY: (1) To facilitate the road transfer process, the COUNTY will prepare the exhibits that document the location and condition of streets to be transferred upon receipt of a transfer request from the CITY. (2) Prior to final transfer, the COUNTY: (a) Shall complete any maintenance or improvement projects that have been planned for the current fiscal year or transfer funds for same to the CITY. (b) Shall provide the CITY with any information it may have about any neighborhood or other concerns about streets or other traffic issues within the annexed area. This may be done by providing copies of COUNTY project files or other documents or through joint meetings of CITY and COUNTY staff members. (c) Shall make needed roadway improvements so that all individual roads or streets within the area to be annexed have a pavement condition index (PCI) of more than 40 and so that the average PCI of streets and roads in the annexed area is 75 or higher. As an alternative to COUNTY-made improvements, the COUNTY may pay the CITY'S costs to make the necessary improvements. (d) Shall inform the CITY of existing maintenance agreements, Local Improvement Districts established for road maintenance purposes, and of plans for maintenance of transferred roads. The COUNTY shall withdraw the affected territory from any road maintenance LIDS formed by the COUNTY. D. The CITY: (1) Agrees to accept all COUNTY roads and streets as defined by ORS 368.001(1) and all public roads within the annexed area that are not of county-wide significance or are not identified in the COUNTY'S Transportation Plan as part of the county-wide road system provided the average PCI of all COUNTY and public roads and streets that the CITY is to accept in the annexed area is 75 or higher as defined by the COUNTY'S pavement management system. If any individual COUNTY or public street or road that the CITY is to accept within the area has an average PCI of 40 or less at the time of annexation, the CITY shall assume jurisdiction of the road or street only after the COUNTY has complied with Section 2.C.(2) of this exhibit. (2) Shall, in the event the transfer of roads does not occur soon after annexation, inform the newly annexed residents of this fact and describe when and under what Tigard Urban Service Agreement November 26, 2002 Page 22 conditions the transfer will occur and how maintenance will be provided until the transfer is complete. E. The CITY shall be responsible for the operation, maintenance and construction of roads and streets transferred to the CITY as well as public streets annexed into the CITY. CITY road standards shall be applicable to transferred and annexed streets. The CITY shall also be responsible for the issuance of access permits and other permits to work within the right-of-way of those streets. 3. Road Design Standards and Review Procedures and Storm Drainage The CITY and COUNTY shall agree on: A. The CITY and COUNTY urban road standards and Clean Water Service standards that will be applicable to the construction of new streets and roads and for improvements to existing streets and roads that eventually are to be transferred to the CITY, and streets and roads to be transferred from the CITY to the COUNTY; B. The development review process and development review standards for COUNTY and public streets and roads within the TUSA, including COUNTY streets and roads and public streets that will become CITY streets, and streets and roads that are or will become part of the COUNTY-wide road system; and C. Maintenance responsibility for the storm drainage on COUNTY streets and roads within the TUSA in cooperation with Clean Water Services. 4. Review of Development Applications and Plan Amendments A. The COUNTY and CITY, in conjunction with other Washington County cities and the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT), shall agree on a process(es) and review criteria (e.g., types and levels of analysis) to analyze and condition development applications and plan amendments for impacts to COUNTY and state roads. B. The review process(es), review criteria, and criteria to condition development and plan amendment applications shall be consistent with the Oregon Highway Plan, the Regional Transportation System Plan, COUNTY and CITY Transportation Plans and Title 6 of METRO'S Urban Growth Management Functional Plan. 5. Maintenance Cooperation A. The COUNTY and CITY, in conjunction with ODOT, shall consider developing an Urban Road Maintenance Agreement within the TUSA area for the maintenance of COUNTY, CITY, and state facilities, such as separately owned sections of arterial streets and to supplement the 1984 League of Oregon Cities Policy regarding traffic lights. Tigard Urban Service Agreement November 26, 2002 Page 23 A. The COUNTY and CITY, in conjunction with other Washington County cities, shall develop a set of minimum right-of-way maintenance standards and levels of activity to be used in performance of services provided under the exchange of services agreement described above in S. a. C. The COUNTY may contract with the CITY for the maintenance of COUNTY streets and roads within the TUSA utilizing an agreed upon billing system. D. The COUNTY, CITY and ODOT, in conjunction with other Washington County cities, will study opportunities for co-locating maintenance facilities. 6. Implementation Within one year of the effective date of this AGREEMENT, the CITY and COUNTY agree to develop a schedule that describes when the provisions of this exhibit shall be implemented. C i 1 I I I Tigard Urban Service Agreement November 26, 2002 Page 24 NOW EXHIBIT F PROVISIONS OF AGREEMENT FOR SANITARY SEWER AND STORM WATER MANAGEMENT CLEAN WATER SERVICES, (CWS), CITY and COUNTY agree: 1. As a county service district organized under ORS 451, CWS has the legal authority for the sanitary sewage and storm water (surface water) management within the CITY and the urban unincorporated area. CWS develops standards and work programs, is the permit holder, and operates the sanitary sewage treatment plants. 2. The CITY performs a portion of the local sanitary sewer and storm water management programs as defined in the operating agreement between the CITY and CWS. This agreement shall be modified on an as-needed basis by entities to the agreement. 3. At the time of this AGREEMENT, the following are specific issues that the parties have addressed as part of this process and agree to resolve through changes to current intergovernmental agreements. A. Rehabilitation of Sewer Lines with Basins Identified with High Levels of Infiltration and Inflow (I & I). B. For lines that are cost-effective to do rehabilitation, CWS and the CITY will consider cost-sharing regardless of line size under a formula and using fund sources to be agreed on between CITY and CWS. The cost-share is to be determined through specific project intergovernmental agreements. Following the evaluation of program funding methods, CWS, in cooperation with the CITY, will determine the long-term funding for I & I and other rehabilitation projects. C. CWS, with assistance from the CITY and other Washington County cities, shall undertake periodic rate studies of monthly service charges to determine whether they are adequate to cover costs, including costs of maintenance and rehabilitation of sewer lines. The rate study shall consider sewer line deterioration and related maintenance and repair issues. L `r 4. Master and Watershed Planning: A. Primary responsibility for master and watershed planning will remain with CWS, but the CITY will be permitted to conduct such planning as long as these plans meet CWS standards. CWS and the CITY shall use uniform standards, such as computer modeling, to conduct these studies. CWS and the CITY shall determine their respective cost- sharing responsibility for conducting these studies. Tigard Urban Service Agreement November 26, 2002 Page 25 B. CWS and the CITY, in conjunction with other Washington County cities using the City/District Committee established by CWS, shall develop uniform procedures for the coordination and participation between CWS, the CITY and other cities when doing master and watershed planning. 5. Sanitary Sewer Systems Development Charges CWS and the CITY, in conjunction with other Washington County cities, shall use the results of the CWS Conveyance System Management Study, or updates, for options for collection and expenditure of SDC funds to address current disparities between where funds are collected and where needs are for projects based on an agreed upon CITY/CWS master plan. 6. Storm Water Management System Development Charges A. CWS and the CITY shall use the results of the CWS Surface Water Management Plan Update Project to address all aspects of storm water management and to provide more direction to CWS and the CITY. B. Watershed plans being prepared by CWS for storm water management shall address the major collection system as well as the open-channel system to identify projects for funding. 7. Maintenance CWS, in cooperation with the CITY and other Washington County cities, shall use the results of the CWS'Conveyance System Management Study for guidance to resolve issues related to roles of the DISTRICT and the cities in order to provide more cost effective maintenance of the collection systems. 1 I 1 I I Tigard Urban Service Agreement November 26, 2002 Page 26 EXHIBIT G PROVISIONS OF AGREEMENT FOR WATER SERVICE TUALATIN VALLEY WATER DISTRICT (TVWD), TIGARD WATER DISTRICT (TWD), CITY and COUNTY agree: 1. Supply: A. Supply generally will not impact service boundaries, given that a limited number of sources provide all the water in the study area and the number of interconnections between providers are increasing and are encouraged to continue in the future. B. Future supply and conservation issues may be addressed through the Regional Water Consortium to the extent reasonable and practicable for water providers in Washington County. Service providers in the TUSA shall continue to participate in the Consortium and use it as the forum for raising, discussing and addressing supply issues. C. The Consortium may also serve as a forum to discuss and resolve water political issues to the extent reasonable and practicable for water providers in Washington County. The Consortium is an appropriate forum to bring elected officials together and for promoting more efficient working relationships on water supply and conservation issues. D. Intergovernmental agreements shall address ownership of interconnections between CITY and Districts' sources, whether for the purpose of wholesale provision of water from one entity to the other or for emergency use, in the case of a boundary change that involves the site of the interconnection. 2. Maintenance/Distribution: A. TVWD, TWD and the CITY do not anticipate any events in the foreseeable future that would necessitate maintenance, rehabilitation or replacement beyond the financial reach of any of the water providers in the TUSA. Each provider will continue to be responsible for providing the financial revenue stream through rates and charges and to accrue adequate reserves to meet foreseeable major maintenance needs. B. TVWD, TWD, CITY, and COUNTY agree to maintain and participate in the Cooperative Public Agencies of Washington County in order to efficiently share and exchange equipment and services. C. To the extent reasonable and practicable, TVWD, TWD and the CITY shall coordinate mandated (under Oregon law) underground utility locating services to efficiently provide service within the urban service areas. D. TVWD, TWD and CITY agree to provide to one another copies of as-builts of existing and new facilities and other types of water system maps for the purposes of facilitating Tigard Urban Service Agreement November 26, 2002 Page 27 planning, engineering and design of other utilities or structures that may connect, intersect or be built in proximity to CITY facilities. The CITY agrees to incorporate such mapping into its GIS mapping system of utilities and other facilities. TVWD, TWD and CITY agree to develop and maintain a common, on-going, up to date GIS mapping system showing facilities of each water provider within the TUSA. 3. Customer Service/Water Rates: A. Price of supply and bonded indebtedness will most likely have the greatest impact on rates. B. TVWD, TWD, and the CITY believe that rates are equitable within the TUSA. C. Given adequate water pressure, level and quality of service should not vary significantly among different water providers in the TUSA and does not appear to be an issue for most customers. 4. Withdrawal/Annexation/Merger: A. Notwithstanding Section I of this AGREEMENT - Roles and Responsibilities, or existing agreements between the providers, future annexations may lead to changes in service provision arrangements. Modifications to any service area boundary shall comply with METRO Code Chapter 3.09 and provisions identified under Section IV. If necessary, the Metro Boundary Appeals process shall be employed to resolve conflicts between parties as they arise. TVWD, TWD, and the CITY shall continue to work together to adjust boundaries as appropriate to improve the cost-effectiveness and efficiency of providing service. B. In the event that the entire service area of any DISTRICT is annexed in the future, that district shall be dissolved. No attempt shall be made to maintain the district by delaying annexation of a token portion of the district (e.g., the district office). • C. The area of TVWD known as the Metzger service area shall remain in TVWD, except those portions agreed to by both TVWD and CITY that may be withdrawn from TVWD upon annexation to the CITY. In exchange, TVWD will support the CITY joining as a partner of the Joint Water Commission. D. Providers that propose a merger, major annexation or dissolution shall give all providers in the study area an opportunity to influence the decision as well as plan for the consequences. None of the parties waives its right to contest a major or minor boundary ' change by any of the other parties on the issue of the appropriate service provider for the area encompassed by the boundary change except when the party has expressly waived that right as to a described service area in an agreement executed subsequent to this agreement. wpsharc\Sb122\Tigard USAWinal Agreement I I-26-02.doc Tigard Urban Service Agreement November 26, 2002 Page 28 _ ~ ~ 7!r^ it I ~ Lifl I R~IfIItGA"''1~ IbENNEY 76~' i ' I ~ . r 1 tit tititilll- mllim~'I('"~il~' li' ! ( ~p 2{yy;~~J`{{l' 1 1 L'yI . A5 ~r Wig nu r'i I i f.. t ,:Ni.l I ',Mll II" !~I+ µ hYNr I ~~llml L„ ~ ~ : ~`i"`y r ~ I~ ' ti k7~?'.~ 'ti t. ~II~'' `tl.4ff•~' t rf+ L+1 im ' • ~ ,U~ ~ - ! u ~ ~ ~ C- b. i 'T i ! pl 1h1G14.;➢:H'iF' ]1FLn:+Ff . . dr; + n 1 ~Ro 9xlllil +ilg{}I(+12U~Itf f 1~ r • M° f,• r}11~I~~IDW!!~.{IIUf~ y~yl ,1~FL~ I tic f-r - ef~ if _ a DU qC 6 / 1IMN ~ ~ , _ sw ' J c . +!d{ `~F•` - , 'fir`/`'±(;+~ • CO) - - UiLae I-X' Isw ~1. 1 + , i~11 FJtc...e m I % - G sa~rt"n'u1~ l=sr E°`(,trt:l_._l MAP A N Tigard Urban Service Area Boundapry November 2 N ® Tigard Urban Service Area Boundary c city of Tigard 2000 0 2000 4000 Feet APper'"r^ S&W All N&S S~`E Yes °uth east twy Yes Yes S N°~h W St Yes Yes criteria ("GO pts) Yes Yes Evaluation Im act 30 pis Yes No Ti and Service provision p raft limits can it be fully Aa aCentto Cexed alone, g area is ann n►►'tcarilly decreasin served without Vie leVels Immediately Yes Sewer and Yes current City seN Water. Sanitary a this Y es NO upon annexation theyalreu$ema}or Yes No 54% not evacuated since wilt no be Yes No 40o storm sewer are is nom nto the an Na d Yes g0% area, Road maintenanceamm UoPaeKs maintenance is Yes No 67% ecis have to be RTO9 n annexa a ed parks Yes Yes 45% RToBedtmmediatecy use upo there are no develop Yes Yes 60 N YeS °/0 No Pforsctu+estdoma fain. Y0S Cj9% Pad. police 18°I° No Part. enance PW g9% Street maint of gas No Pad. lighte ghat ,over gas Part Yes- Street 2 vIP' Yes es -2 tax re No Yes-2 taI needs of this area Yes- Yes-1 445 ice provision that is Would sere an area Yes No -1 672,967 ' require crossing area (20 pis) o 356,926 766,822 orated? B eXpansion Yes -1 N 386,11 5°l0 g' unincoC ship to G 380 711 9.70/0 Relation to UG5 area 64, .4% Provides 670 3% link 45 pis) 292, 256 0 9 6% g 8. 1210 a ues ctsL Ding 9.9% Financial imp for orf9 424 Total Tax Revers n-g oing costs - 10 6% 8.6010 488 seNices) vs• Total o covered 7.8% 800 . bY revenues 549 410 2015 ds 251 0/0 of capital nee ia► fund5)-,20 05 173 No Yes (includes all cap 237 Yes ann Yes Be exation tential (dif emncunits roWth PO welling Yes 65 1061 g baseline) units Yes TZ betNeen extstl .1 t dweilin No 13 and ro ected bud -ou No 65 Yes 58 Appendix Page 55 and nai lactorsd with some park 25 ublicly owned tan 55 p otential Total Points Tech Document B - Assessment Report D PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES ASSESSMENT REPORT FOR THE BULL MOUNTAIN AREA CITY OF TIGARD Community Development Shaping A Better Community Community Development Department Long-Range Planning Draft - updated July 2003 Table of Contents Page 1 I. Executive Summary 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 ' Appendices Appendix A. Study Area Profile Appendix B. On-Going Service Costs and Revenues Appendix C. Growth Based Fund Descriptions Appendix D. Tigard Service Provision Impacts summaries by Department r 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 Public Facilities and Services Assessmeiinn eport 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, OR97223 503/639-4171 L 3 a 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. Onc7oinp 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. Service 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 Drat 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 Tiigard'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 L delivery due to increased staffing and equipment needs. However, options are r available to eliminate or reduce impacts. • The two UGB expansions adjacent to Bull Mountain offer Tigard the ability to plan for the delivery of urban levels of service and capital facilities before these i areas develop. 1 e 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 5. 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 a uthorizing 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. CL C a 9 u j Page 4 c' 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 withi n 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. In 2001, the Tigard Council established a goal to develop an annexation policy/strategy for non-island areas, such as Bull Mountain. In 2001, Tigard developed a Bull Mountain i 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 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. Report Scope and Objectives The analysis 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. Page 6 Y 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. Range 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 that 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 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. 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 indipate that this area could develop much sooner than projected. Page 7 s ' g a6ed r IT r P -o V? cn co is- c o ° - L1 l1✓~ a" f~iz i ro O V MA ;-r ~ti~ - I-]~~ ~--ice--- . 150TH AVE ~IW r.~•.~ YI~`~~ iLj~ LIL~g-,~ vT---J~-~(I~"- Tr 3c rT I~-Fri .~V_i(-'+~,1!~-.R_•• _I.-l_f `Ic•" 9t ifi f d`t "i: A. =-T - -~L 03 r4;'~" .;N':. ~ .':`mil ° L -tryEam6i~ 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 ongoing services and capital. • 2015 population estimates from the 2001 Bull Mountain Annexation Study were used for on-going services L • All cost estimates are in 2002 dollars C • It is assumed that the entire area would, at some point, annex • 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. i i 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 - Analvsis 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 or-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, Maste r Plans and/or known or anticipated capital needs. The capital needs are mostly medium to long term needs (6 plus years). Revenues for capital improvements come from the one-time costs associated with new development such as park SDCs, traffic impact fees and 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 replacement costs for equipment. 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 Qualit 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 for equipment. 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 for equipment. 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 i 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 a 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 $100 $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. 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. 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 ongoing services for all areas evaluated. ■ There would also be sufficient revenue to provide ongoing 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. ii. 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 deficit; and/or • 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 versus maintain. 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 tota I 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. System Development Charges (SDCs) are collected at the time of development for parks, 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 revenues will not be available to Tigard to provide for the needs in this area. While 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 replace existing 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 overtime. In addition, the Sanitary sewer 190,200 0 0 majority of capital improvements needed Water 161,200 0 0 in each area are projected to be needed TIF 178,500 0 0 in the medium to long term (6 plus Park SDCs 129,600 0 0 years). At issue is whether the City will WACO street (12,500) (12,500) (12,500) have the capital funds necessary to 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 Park SDCs 177,100 0 0 WACO street (12,500) (12,500) (12,500) a + CIP cost sharing • Storm Sewer 54,000 0 0 West 2005 2010 2015 f i Sanitary sewer 363,500 262,400 151,700 Water 308,200 222,500 128,600 i 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 MINE! 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. 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 i n Gas Tax Funds ($1,200 deficit), and West has the largest deficit ($236,400). b. Proximityto 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 - North & West/South & West, and - West b. Council Policy Choice n 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 Q the efficiency of service issues: a 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 MMMM Draft C. Relationship to the Urban Growth Boundary Expansion 9. 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 necessaryso that they can be planned to complement and enhance the Bull Mountain communityand 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. The south sub-area provides a connection to the southern most UGB expansion area. b. Policy choices • Should the UGB expansion areas develop as two distinct, separate communities? • Should the UGB expansion areas be integrated with Bull Mountain? • How does the City provide efficient and effective services to these areas? Page 20 vigure 2 r~ T i' ~ • t 1 t t Cam' t.a 2 _ ~ ,t ~ , ~ ~ r-- ~ 7,r J, 11 ~ , ' ~ _ _ . ~ I ~ 111 .(1 1 1 y`' ~ ~ 4f J „I ' t~ yam. ••a~l ~ h' 1 i'~ir 'y•~• _ -r '1 `✓"lye-7 r y - ri t t•J / lot IZ Ift s F $ l_; ` i page 3 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) pts is (25 pts) East (30 pts) North (tied 10 pts each) (tied 5 pts each) (60 pts) South 20 is South 28 is East North and South North and East 58 is East (15 pts) West (25 pts) South (tied 0 pts each) (tied 0 pts each) (55 pts) North (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 pts 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 E. (25 pts) (tied 20 pts each) (tied 65 pts each) Y South & West North & West and North & West and co t(20 pts) South & West (10 pts) (0 pts) South & West • North & West South & East South & West i i The following is a summary of how the alternative "All areas" combined ranked Table 8 i 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 - Use other funding source to off-set capital needs. • Immediate policy action is needed to help ensure as much growth based revenue ! is collected as possible 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? `r 3 5 i r 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 i i i 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 SenaLq 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 Intergoymunental Agrement 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 MaaauinA rv xxa6bn Surly. Nov., 2001 Cityfinalizes Bu//Mountain Annexation Studx. Jan., 2002 Sturdy conclusions presented to a group of Bull 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 byphone. August2002 Tigard Council examines the survey results and considers three annexation policyaltematives. 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 develo ed for Council to assist in making annexation policy ions 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 area, the last decade brought Bvovcrt additional home developments to the area. Today, both farms and subdivisions co-exist here. Although the identified area is now outside the T, City limits, the City of Tigard provides many urban services to residents. In 1997, the City of Tigard and Washington County entered into an Bull Mt Study Area Urban Services Agreement, which transferred responsibility for land use decisions, building and development- T~~•+ related engineering to the City of 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. L The sub-area descriptions below represent the sub-area development assumptions utilized for this plan. North i 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 i 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 purchases in this area and initial discussions with developers indicate that this area will develop much sooner than projected. Appendix Page 4 On-Going Service Costs and Revenues Draft Appendix C 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 1$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 1$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 2001 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- oin services Table 2 North East South West Sanitary sewer $88,800 $22,200 $101,600 $33600 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 • Police • Community Development Storm Sewer $42,700 $10,700 $48,900 $16,200 Appendix Page 5 • i 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 tha n 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 i i Impact of providing services immediately upon annexation: The City of i 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 a 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 Tigarct 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 maintenance includes things like overlay or slurry seal on roads with poor pavement condition, pavement widening, etc. Many roads in the Bull Mountain 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 have a pavement condition index (PCI) of 40 or greater and the average PC[ 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 $5,600 per month for the a ntire Bull Mountain area. Street lights are funded through gas tax. Because street light costs are paid to PGE, there is no ability to reduce service levels (short of turning off lights) however, the need to fund this service will reduce Gas Tax Funds that could be used for other Gas Tax Funded services. Appendix Page 8 &S S&W All East N&~ S$"S N Yes th Yes Yes Noah West sow Yes Yes 100 Pts) Yes criteria C No Yes E~aiuatio a provision Impact 30 pis Yes ?1gard ServCt limits fully Ad acent to d alone, tla it be decreasing if area is annexe fican Is Y Yes ediately without sign, imrm Yes 0 N ed leve and Yes u nt G*1W Service sanitary sewer ae 05 54% Y2S NO ,Ltfr e a(lnexatl0n * d sence they ahead a ma or Y 2S NO 40% not evaluated . the e P an d *111 not be `j es No storm sewer are rammedcnto ed s maintenance is N0 67% 8Q% upon Road ma+ntenan~ Lion. Park Yes ~(eS P 45% NO atea. 10 be rol~ts av ediately upon a are no developed parks Y2S YeS 60% use there YeS Yes part no~uded beta Yes 69% part. proPed'es to maintain. NN 180/0 No police ante P 990/0 part. Street mainten % of gas 140 pad. Yes 2 • ht maim' over gas Streetlig that c Yes Yes 2 tax revenues No Yes 2 x,123 748 tax needs area Yes-1 445 381 of this Yes ice pr0vi a ea that is No 672,967 would seN is Yes -1 356,926 766,$2~ wire crossing an area 20 p 1 No 386,A 11 9 5° on s - g 7% req orated{ UGB eX pans! Ye AAA 380 711 9 40/0 30/0 tionship g area 8. 56 64,670 g 6% Rel nk to 1210 a U s l45 pis) 292,2 9 li provides o", 9% ° 424 cial impact Finsn Revenues tlor - costs - 1.6% 8.6l0 488 'total Tax vs Total ongoing 7.8% 0 410 800 services) b revenues 549 2015 Beds covered 2005 251 Yes of capital n . funds) - 237 173 No (Includes all cap Yes annCkY . n list (di{ference Yes 65 Sa 1 r0wth poten dwelling units N Yes 73 Yes 17 Additionsg baselin Wellin units 65 o between exist,n-%I d-outd No and to ected Yes 58 Appendix Page 9 an ► factors a park 55 Additions ed land with som 25 55 publicly own otent►ai Total P°iats s&W All N&s N&W s&E 10 est south East ro 10 10 Nosh W 0 10 A sheet 140 pts) 10 point GralloCation t,a ( ts1 0 1 E~a~uation it acts (30 P 10 $eNioe provision 1mP 10 pis total li Tigard Cihl mits - . Ad~ace, e °_Ao Pis prof 190 --0 ed alone, can be fully sing is annex tl decrea . ►f ar ed without s►gnifican yimmediate" 5 serv rvice leNjels sewer and 5 5 0 rrent City se ? 7 water, sanitary e 0 uporl anneXaWn they already s 0 2 ted -51 me be 5 2 1P and sewer are n°t evanance is not incWn ot e Cus 5 0 4 storrn• Road maintebe programmed nexation. Fa 5 2 this area have to edratety up°n an e no 5 5 mat°r prOJ~ t uded bemuse there ar 5 5 needed • . 2 wiU not be 5 2 rs no to mamtan. 2 ntena;Ice rks 4roPertres 5 developed p ice - is -5 t5 4 0 pol aintenance Street m aint. Street light rrt funds are collected n ,Points 6 when spento this depends on revenues because 3 gas tax to pay 3 Ise the gas tax neetie o~~m be • g and what a based o will there b rnoneY B 3 will be d asntaxt needs tA~' i 6 to pay gas 0 3 bills)• o- O Pt - t the G9 0.255- 25-75% ° 2 is 6 23 75%+ = 4 of this area 20 ice provision that is 23 22 would serv area 20 reAuire crossing an is total 28 20 unincorporateds 6 p 25 20 20 Yes= d P 10 10 part. = 3 Pts 30 20 No= 6 is 10 0 20 20 20 0 Subt is otal uGB ex ansion area 20 P 10 10 20 pis 20 Pppendlx Page 10 ship to \3 area- 0 Relation s link too Pts 10 . Provid `(es- - 1o pis Yes 1 = 10 0 is No = Subtotal 05) rth West South East N8~W S8~E N&S S8aW All Evaluation criteria (100 10 10 20 20 15 25 Financial impacts 45 pt-% 10 5 10 . Total Tax Revenues (for on-going services) vs. Total on-going costs - 2015 - 25 pts total >800,000 = 25 pts 600,000-800,000 = 20 pts 400,000-600,000 = 15 pts 200,000-400,000 -10 Pts 5 5 5 5 <200,000 = 5 is 0 10 5 5 5 . % of capital needs covered by revenues (includes all capital funds) - 2005 annexation - 10 pts <8%=Opts 8.1 %-10% = 5 pts 10 5 10 5 5 10 >10.1%= 10 is O 0 5 Additional growth potential (difference between existing(baseline) dwelling units and projected build-out dwelling units- 10 pts < 250 d.u. = 0 pts 250-500 d.u = 5 pts > 500 d.u = 10 pts based on 2.5% growth projections - if areas build out sooner than projected, the actual lost revenue will 20 35 30 25 40 different Subtotal 10 15 20 25 S Additional factors (5 pts) 5 5 5 0 5 0 0 5 Publicly owned land with some park potential 5 Yes = 5 pts No = 0 pts 65 88 60 58 65 73 77 55 25 Total points Appendix Page 11 Appendix F Change in Service Levels Between County and City SANIC9 !l, ProWder Todav llf ~ UnderAnnexatJon i 1V Change in 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 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 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 not assessed 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 Tech Document B - Bull Mountain Annexation Study THE BULL MOUNTAIN ANNEXATION STUDY CITY OF TIGARD Community Development Shaping A Better Community COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT LONG-RANGE PLANNING NOVEMBER 2001 THE BULL MOUNTAIN ANNEXATION STUDY PRODUCED BY: THE CITY OF TIGARD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR, JAMES N.P. HENDRYX 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 L C NOVEMBER 27, 2001 i CITY OF TIGARD ! 13125 SW HALL BLVD. TIGARD, OR 97223 503/639-4171 r THE BULL MOUNTAIN ANNEXATION STUDY TABLE OF C O N T E N T S 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 APPENDIX F. BULL MOUNTAIN ANNEXATION QUESTION AND ANSWER PACKET APPENDIX G: RESIDENTIAL GARBAGE COLLECTION RATES FOR THE BULL MOUNTAIN STUDY AREA 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 I 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 G of the report: • 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. NON • 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. I N T R O D U C T I O N 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." I I _'1001 w, m 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, Oswego building and development-related Bull Mt Study Area engineering to the City of Tigard. The County adopted the City of Tigard ® Tualatin - V Community Development Code for the cm or no~ao -t.d m Oda., Mh 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 County under different standards, and (3) smaller lots that are built to the minimum density allowed under the current zoning regulations. 1 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). I ' Section 2 of this report further discusses current and anticipated service provisions for the Study Area. No \ r\I1i1 IZ 2001 I'l11.1 M 1.1. `lO1 \ I'\1\ \t.\'h:\ \'l tt i\ ti i'1'f \ i~ MQ s Er Lt. is rs K s ' ~ 1t 1~- _~r;,~;~~ii,-~]~'`•".14~~?±5;~ I i€ _ ' 14i -AI_1_~~~~1 sE € 1 Boo f ~~t D 800 I ~ k' 1 l ti l k; ~t111, \(1\ L:,~lllk -Mogan North This subarea 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 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`h, 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 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 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. ~O~ I ~1i;i.l( .!11111 I'll). fit 1.1. 11(WN Y\I\ I1W~ ~;I f i 1 Table 1, Bull Mountain Study Area Profile Bull 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 Arrea a 383.8 259 507. 282.31 1432.5 Total Population 2000 Census 2813 944 307 434 726 Median Average Household Size 2.85 3.00 3.0 1.881 2.92 Number of Housing Units 948 331 110 16 254 Total Assessed Value (Bldg and land)' T-98,668,803.00 02 772 030.00 261 492 712.00 61 350 130.0 624 283 675.0 Median Assessed Value bld and land 174 440.00 215,960.0 239,550.0 283,760.0 227,755.00 % Remaining for Development 10.0% 15.3% 10.6°/ 39.9% n.a Projected Rate of Population Growth 2.0% 2.0% 2.0°/ 2.0% 2.0% Projected 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 rellects 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;'' • "Redevelopable land" refers to partially developed lots; these large lots are not built to minimum density, and could potentially be subdivided for "infill." 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 population forecasts, and 2.2% for future housing units. \()\'1.\miI,_001 FI11:ill1.1 '\lt~l\'1'V\A,< \\1'I(1.,SI'11)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 ' "r i \n\ Itatlti.r 2001 Ti IF: fit 1J. Mill \1'11\ A\NIAA I"111\ ti I'I M Table 2: Service Provision in the Bull Mountain Study Area -Seryfce Provider Today ` _ Under Annex tlon iChataSexl ` `Service a . on , P ' - -annezaflon? 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. _ No \'L.*,wi li 2001 '1'1II I)[ LL NIOI \ VAI' .\\\I.XA I WN S l I W: P -o" 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. 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. \ci`, l.,11;! !t .'11111 1111: lit I.I. `lc't \ I I It?\ S i I I,~ MMM 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 L fund for the entire Study Area. "r 9 a 1 I No vICJInI-It 2001 tl U. M-U. N'I(li \ I'11.\ :\~\i.\ \ fl~)1 11I I)\ 1'', ,1 e 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 I5"'." I I 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 One-time Capital Costs Fund Fund Balance/ Capital Improvements Balance Capital Revenues General $863,353 0 $863,353 State Gas Tax 1,, -;I 1 0 I ' 1 ' Sanitary Sewer $394,830 0 $394,830 Storm Sewer $82,000 0 $82,000 vuater $1,075,891 $322,854 $753,037 Traffic Impact Fee $370,640 0 $370,640 Parks SDC $268,960 $13,105,000 111 i Water SDC $334,724 0 $334,724 L Based on the above table, the following is a summary of issues that need to be addressed in Y considering annexation of the Bull Mountain area: n • with the exception of the State Gas Tax Fund, the operating costs are significantly less than the respective revenues for all funds; 13 • annexing the study area in the near future would create a significant need for land and park u improvements to meet the City's current level of services for parks; the projected park 1 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; ,,)\I `;1l 1 It 11MI ),II111it I.I.NIOI <I \1\ AI \111O"~ it s e Scenario 1 does not assume 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 be needed with Scenario 1. Scenario 1 does not reflect capital improvements for transportation. 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. However, 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 are 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. 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 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. 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 I'~` 1 State Gas Tax $535,816 S628,011 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 1 I 1 $252,500 , ; l -t.nv` 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 n 1!1 Parks SDC $3,737,560 $22,033,000 Water SDC $4,651,439 $816,400 $3,835,039 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: I e with the exception of the State Gas Tax Fund, the operating costs are significantly less than the j respective revenues for all funds; e 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 I increase; e 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; \1,11 \Ifi! 1 'U!)1 'I'm. l-t l.!. MOl \ I \1\ \1111\ ~ I ! 1 I''' 1 r • 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. Noy 1._Nl i r'001 TI II: B1 1.1 "1ui N' VAIN ;~~~i.N%1i(~~:~11 1 i' i i i Scenario 3: Moderate Growth Introduction This scenario assumes that development will occur at a lower density, or 50% of the new growth in Scenario 2. Scenario 3 allows for current land-use patterns on Bull Mountain, which includes the follotiving: 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 O eratin Costs Fund Revenue Operating Balance Cost General $2,974,309 $1,843,752 $1,130,557 State Gas Tax $424,978 $509,303 Sanitary Sewer $281,324 $114,005 $167,319 Storm 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 Ca vital Revenues General $1,130,557 $267,200 $863,357 State Gas Tax 68 4.3 25 ! $252,500 1 ti Sanitary Sewer $2,917,890 $1,510,100 $1,407,790 Storm Sewer $606,000 0 $606,000 Water $1,432,925 $429,996 $1,002,929 Traffic Impact Fee $2,739,120 $12,718,600 ~I 1) Parks SDC $1,987,680 $17,482,500 I I ~,4 )4, a ,11) Water SDC $2,473,692 $816,400 $1,657,292 ;\O\ I.."II;i is 'oM T111 ;it i,l \lm \ 1'\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. ~it)\ i:.\Ifil H ?11(11 "1*111: lil"I.I. ~Iu! N I' u'\ I'1()\ I'i lr~ 11\4 1 f 5. ANNEXATION AND TAXATION 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 Count)' 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. For a 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. N<>vit 301) 1 1'!!!: ttt-t.[."'d ~s!~ r~iti' .A~~!:~~ i!~~~ tirit~~ P i ` 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 and roads. • Delay improvement of streets until funding sources are available. • Obtain grant funding to address portions of capital improvements. j • Identify the effective sequence of annexing specific subareas of Bull Mountain. I I Appendix E identifies the various methods of annexation available to the City of Tigard. 1 "Illi !Z .'11111 I I If. BI 1.!. \1t)I'\ I:\I\ .~'.:\1A I'it t\ .'I Ir1 !r1i ! I Appendix A West Sub-Area Scenario 1 Ongoing O eratin 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 (513.329) $0 (S 1:x.329) Sanitary Sewer $0 $0 $0 Storm Sewer $0 $0 $0 Water $132,160 $39,669 $92,491 Traffic Impact Fee $0 $0 $0 Parks SDC $0 $1,675,000 (S1,675.000) Water SDC $0 $0 $0 Page A - 1 d Appendix A West Sub-Area Scenario 2 _ ongoing Operating Costs :T_ Fund Revenue Operating Cost Balance General $574,613 $364,571 $210,042 State Gas Tax $82,293 $98,183 (S15.890) 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 Casts Fund Fund Balance/Capital Capital Improvements Balance Revenues General Fund $210,042 $0 $210,042 State Gas Tax (S15,890) $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 (S1,146.040) Parks SDC $567,440 $3,375,000 (S2.807.560) Water SDC $706,186 $195,700 $510,486 Page A - 2 Appendix A West Sub-Area Scenario 3 Ongoing Operating Costs Fund T Revenue Operating Cost Balance General $447,059 $261,864 $185,194 State Gas Tax $60,744 $76,404 (S15.669) 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 (S15,660) $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) L Parks SDC $283,720 $2,497,500 (32.213.780) C Water SDC $353,093 $195,700 $157,393 i 1 1 I I 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 (S32.066) $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 Parks SDC $63,960 $5,400,000 (S5.336.040) ? Water SDC $79,599 $0 $79,599 i 't i i 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 (567,262) $42,900 (5110.162) 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 (S4.350.160) Parks SDC $793,760 $7,768,000 (S6.974,240) Water SDC $987,844 $365,600 $622,244 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 (S48,373) $42,900 (S91.273) 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 (54.876.740) Parks SDC $411,640 $6,570,000 (S6.158,360) Water SDC $512,291 $365,600 $146,691 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 (520.049) 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 (S20,049) $0 ($20.049) s 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 Parks SDC $108,240 $5,175,000 (S5.066.760) Water SIX $134,706 $0 $134,706 Page A - 7 t. ~ 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 (523.055) 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 Capital Costs Fund Fund Balance/Capital Capital Improvements Balance Revenues General Fund $237,550 $0 $237,550 State Gas Tax (S23,055) $42,900 (S(35,955) 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 (S1.922.260) Parks SDC $670,760 $6,795,000 (56.124.240) Water SDC $834,769 $189,200 $645,569 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- I General Fund $206,844 $0 $206,844 State Gas Tax (S21.895) $42,900 (564,795) Sanitary Sewer $572,985 $575,400 (S2,415) Storm Sewer $119,000 $0 $119,000 Water $484,680 $145,425 $339,255 Traffic Impact Fee $537,880 $2,846,600 (S2,308.720) Parks SDC $390,320 $5,917,500 (S5,527,180) Water SDC $485,758 $189,200 $296,558 Page A - 9 Appendix A East Sub-Area Scenario 1 Ongoing Operating Costs Fund Revenue Operating Cost Balance General $231,537 $102,946 $128,591 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 Ca ital Costs Fund Fund Balance/Capital Capital Improvements Balance Revenues General Fund $128,591 $0 $128,591 State Gas Tax (S7.406) $0 (S7,406) 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 Parks SDC $96,760 $855,000 ($758.240) Water SDC $120,419 $0 $120,419 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) Parks SDC $1,705,600 $4,095,000 (S2.389.400) Water SDC $2,122,640 $65,900 $2,056,740 Page A - 11 Appendix A East Sub-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 (S1.257,000) Parks SDC $902,000 $2,497,500 (51.595.500) Water SDC $1,122,550 $65,900 $1,056,650 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 Page B - 1 Appendix B CIP Assumptions: Assumptions are that Bull Mountain Road, Beef Bend Road, 150th 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 Menlor Street - From existing pavement across ravine to Scholls Meadow #2 (2,500') Sunrise Lane - North to existing paved area (1000') 1501h Avenue - Bull Mountain Road to Sunrise Lane (1,150') West Bull Mountain Road -Beef Bend Road to 1501h Avenue (3,450 South Beef Bend Road - 131" Avenue to 1501h Avenue (5,085') Bull Mountain Road - 1501h 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 Operating 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 Capital 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 1 t a Pane C - 1 Appendix C Total All Areas State Gas Tax Fund Ongoing Operating Costs Fund Revenue Operating Balance Cost Scenario 1 $319,081 $391,932 ( 72.~, iI Scenario 2 $535,816 $628,011 Scenario 3 $424,978 $509,303 One-time Capital Costs Fund Fund Balance/ Capital Improvements Balance Capital Revenues Scenario 1 t5 I $0 t ti' 2.•~ I i ~ Scenario 2 $252,500 4 1.61 Scenario 3 (tip t. 2 1 $252,500 ;i,.a Page C - 2 Appendix C Total All Areas Sanitary Sewer Fund Ongoing Operating Costs 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 • Page C - 3 Appendix C Total All Areas Storm Sewer Fund Ongoing Operating Costs Fund Revenue Operating Balance Cost Scenario 1 $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 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 Page C - 5 Appendix C Total All Areas Traffic Impact Fee Fund One-time Capital Costs Fund Fund Balance/ Capital Improvements Balance Capital Revenues Scenario 1 $370,640 $0 $370,640 Scenario2 $5,150,540 $12,718,600 1"-.5W OO Scenario 3 $2,739,120 $12,718,600 w.9-9. tNO I ' 1 I Page C - 6 Appendix C Total All Areas Parks SDC Fund One-time Ca ital Costs Fund Fund Balance/ Capital Improvements Balance Ca ital Revenues Scenario 1 $268,960 $13,105,000 Scenario2 $3,737,560 $22,033,000 Scenario 3 $1,987,680 $17,482,500 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 Page C - 8 Appendix D APPENDIX D: ANNEXATION AND TAXATION: ESTIMATED PROPERTY TAX TABLE AVAILABLE AS A SEPARATE ATTACHMENT ON THE CITY'S WEBSITE i Page D - 1 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 1 1(2)] (requires public hearing 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 (if 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 Maiority 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 Maiority - 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)] Island annexation - When territory not within a city is NO NO (City charter does NO 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. [ORS 222.7501 Subject to referendum Page E - 1 Appendix F APPENDIX F: BULL MOUNTAIN ANNEXATION QUESTION AND ANSWER PACKET ANSWERS TO THE JULY 2001 FOCUS GROUP QUESTIONS AVAILABLE AS A SEPARATE ATTACHMENT ON THE CITY'S WEBSITE Page F - 1 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. Page G - 1 D 8p p$8 p8 p8 $pp 8pp $pp e^{yy, p8p ma $uNj 8p8 $p 8p 8p 8p ~$p pg~ V N N M N N H M N N N N N H M N M M y N M N N C ~ ~ Y1I 0 ggg g gggggg gg ~S~ 888~So~ h 888888$$8$ N ~ ~ T~ 0 0 0 O O C O C N C ~ O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SO 3 t~ 12 m < » M N ~ ~ O N G L eo rR .R O O O f N N- 0 0 0 0 N O O O. O O O O O N $$s;$a~g'„ $$$$p$Os~$p$p~ e ~St5C3~.4 ~i.9i.9i~.~r~~NN ~~'SiMNMyNN» ~ < N 8 0 P"R e OOCOO cOONO~o OcOCO0000o - 89G ~ cg e ~ 9 ~~~YNNf pr CC F3~p~op8tupt8.~^mpp88S'm8pS~' 7CpR,~=p$8S'~p8i`:'~~n ,~yq 3 RNt?~V»yN ~!'j, MMNyHNyt''ly In L N a`~ ~ N » M MMM N N Q .4~ ((((JJJJ ~ N T ~ ~ a3yRt ~Q$ }Q$ !~~i ~q ~p ~Q$ t~ ~y $Q$ q q?App A ry Omi O O U O ry Oi NaY0 0 Ory^ O R C O O N G I G f V G G O o 0 1! f C O O O G G O O N 0 '9- v ~ m ~ a $e~$vi gym, a~~yi$g p$p$ia 1OD~~$o~B'i, ~~~y von, e m ~ ~y ~N~ ~~yN~NMNy ~OM~N»N»HN~ ~ ~ 8Q _ 1Ea H N N O_ ~~r11.~ ~ ^ a y {qO Y g ~p g 6 ` y~~ NO 8O N ~b<S~8N~~t0 N N r 9NO~yN I m OF 4-1 m{~o Nryo 2 @ 0 o- G 10 f V O N G G G l z G O C O G G G O l V ^ e E so i ~ a_9 m S$~ cam ,4 ogoy~..jv pe mgm °yJ~ ~g v N,~j 6 ~0 m:2 ¢ rn t y 1E YA1 S F ~ §w~ .gg~o~4 q g'~~ y= "a1 G~~Sc -c4 y c~c4§m $~E~Jj '~'~sq+ .q+ >g~hO§~ f ~~R cpps E8$g ~g'c4~ .$g~~~>a F_ ~Ay SggAv tpj b$ oogs2tm ~H~d~$e°g~m ~ °~~~a~a Sz~BaFo~i~ 0.~~333~ Tech Document B Appendix F Appendix F BULL MOUNTAIN ANNEXATION QUESTION AND ANSWER PACKET ANSWERS TO THE JULY 2001 FOCUS GROUP QUESTIONS CITY OF TIGARD NOVEMBER 27, 2001 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 Cowuy 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 I 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), Juvenile Services, Housing Services, Health and Human Services (health clinics, child and family welfare, public health, restaurant 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 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 Sheriffs 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 1 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 land 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 I and July 1 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 j 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 i PGE. PGE owns the lights and will continue to own them upon annexation. • 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 b1 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 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 j 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 intergovernmental 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 1 and July 1 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 t issues? (Answer provided by Washington County) r 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 i Communications Officer, 593-846-2013, or Anne Madden, Sr. Program Educator, Department of Land Use and Transportation, 503-846-4963. 1 6. 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 1/3 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? (Answer 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. J 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 CEP 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 C adopted a revised LID ordinance that does provide financial incentives, under certain conditions, for the sanitary sewer projects. i i i e e 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) Q, B. SEWER/WATER/STREETS Y ' n 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 j much will it cost to do so? (Answer provided by City of Tigard) 0 Once sanitary sewer is available in proximity to a property, the property owner has the option 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. C. DEVELOPMENT TRENDS 1 1. Will development trends on Bull Mountain change if annexed? (Answer provided by City of Tigard) i i The County developed its comprehensive plan for Bull Mountain in 1983. It established development standards which guided development. Tigard and Washington County have an 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 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 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 Growth Plan) (Answer provided by City of Tigard) 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? (Anstiver 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 development 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 (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 and the less vacant land is available to begin to meet the area's park needs. In addition, 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 maintenance funds secured. E. LAW ENFORCEMENT 1. How will Law Enforcement service differ between County and City? (Answer provided by City of Tigard) 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 (still 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. 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 222.1 11(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 terr itory 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 L constitutional) r c. Double Majority - 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 j more than half the land area in the territory. 1 [ORS 222.170(2)] 1 1 Island annexation - When territory not within a city is NO NO (City charter does NO 1 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 1999. 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) L 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 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: Q u Page 14 Table 2 - Com arison 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 l Opm or and 7 am Monday-Saturday and not at all 40db between the hours of IOpm and lam. on Sundays or holidays. Between 7pm and Construction activity is prohibited between the IOpm no excessive people noises such as hours of 9pm and lam Monday through yelling, etc. After I Opm 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 11- 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 undercurrent City standards). 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 for up to 10 employees to $220 per year for 51 or more employees. Accessory Covered in City of Tigard Title 18 so there Detached accessory structures may not exceed 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 I 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 Tigard's land-use code standards. There are additional County code issues relative to home 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 various standards themselves. 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 County recently adopted similar standards. H. OTHER QUESTIONS 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 resident 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 Annexation Chaneein Service upon annexation? 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. 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 6.7411000. 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. 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. 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% 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 'r i 'r I Page 20 I. 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)? 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. 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. 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 (572.X51 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 Table 4-11 - One-time Capital Costs Fund Fund Balance/ Capital Improvements Balance Capital Revenues Traffic Impact Fee $370,640 0 $370,640 Parks SDC $268,960 $13,105,000 (S 12.810.040 ) 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 S-A - On oin 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 1 k)~ ) Sanitary Sewer $361,318 $143,739 $217,579 Storm Sewer $173,664 $131,300 $42,364 Water $1,767,550 691,659 $1,075,891 Page 23 Table 5-13 - One-time Ca ital Costs Fund Fund Balance/ Capital Improvements Balance Capital Revenues Traffic Impact Fee $5,150,540 $12,718,600 c S7.508'.000 Parks SDC $3,737,560 $22,033,000 c S 18.21)S.4-1u c 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. 4. 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, 4B, 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. 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? The Federal Government offers the Entitlement City Program to those cities with a 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 MMN 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. Lirplan/julia/annexation/Draft answers to the qucstions.doc 11/7/01 3:24 PM Page 25 EXHIBIT "B" Hearing Date: December 2, 2003 7:30 PM STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OFTIGARD FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD, Community Development OREGON ShapingA Better Community SECTION I. APPLICATION SUMMARY FILE NAME: BULL MOUNTAIN ANNEXATION PLAN CASE NOS.: Zone Change Annexation (ZCA) ZCA2003-00003, ZCA2003-00004, ZCA2003-00005, ZCA2003-00006 APPLICANT: City of Tigard OWNER: Multiple owners. List is 13125 SW Hall Blvd. available for review at Tigard, OR 97223 City Hall. PROPOSAL: The City of Tigard is proposing to annex 1,378 acres of Washington County known as Bull Mountain through the annexation plan process. State law ORS 195.205 allows the City to annex territory within an urban growth boundary (UGB) pursuant to a detailed annexation plan, subject to voter approval. If the Tigard City Council approves The Bull Mountain Annexation Plan, it could place the proposal on the March 9'h ballot. The Bull Mountain Annexation Plan proposal states that the City of Tigard can serve the Bull Mountain area without a significant reduction in service to Tigard residents. Due to size, the proposal divides the area into four subareas: East (276.95 acres), South (492.18 acres), North (357.35 acres), and West (251.23). To allow acquisition time for additional staff and equipment and maintain current service standards to City residents, the Plan proposes a three-phase approach: East, 2004; South, 2005; North and West, 2006. CURRENT ZONING DESIGNATION: The area includes R-4.5 (Low-Density Residential District; minimum lot size 7,500 square feet), R-7 (Medium-Density Residential District; minimum lot C size 5,000 square feet), R-12 (Medium-Density Residential District; minimum lot size 3,050 square feet) and R-25 (Medium High-Density Residential District; minimum lot size 1,480 square feet). i EQUIVALENT CITY ZONING i DESIGNATION: R-4.5 (Low-Density Residential District; minimum lot size 7,500 square feet), R-7 (Medium-Density Residential District; minimum lot size 5,000 square feet), R-12 (Medium-Density Residential District; minimum lot size 3,050 square feet) and R-25 (Medium High-Density Residential District; minimum lot size 1,480 square feet). STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL PAGE 1 OF25 ZCA2003-00003, -00004, -00005, -000006 - BULL MOUNTAIN ANNEXATION PLAN 12/2/03 PUBLIC HEARING LOCATION: The unincorporated area is within the UGB. It is generally bounded on the north by Barrows Road, on the east by Tigard City limits, on the south by Beef Bend Road, and on the west partially by 150th Avenue and near Roy Rogers Road. For specific boundary, see vicinity map. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: ORS Chapters 195 and 222; Metro Code Chapter 3.09; Community Development Code Chapter 18, sections 18.320 and 18.390. SECTION II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Council find that The Bull Mountain Annexation Plan proposal meets all the approval criteria as identified in ORS Chapters 195 and 222; Metro Code Chapter 3.09; Community Development Code Chapter 18, sections 18.320 and 18.390. Therefore, staff recommends APPROVAL of The Bull Mountain Annexation Plan. SECTION fll. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Site Boundaries The Bull Mountain Annexation Plan area consists of approximately 1,378 acres. Map 1 on p. 3 of The Bull Mountain Annexation Plan denotes the specific boundaries. Due to size, the proposal divides the area into four subareas: East (276.95 acres), South (492.18 acres), North (357.35 acres), and West (251.23). These subarea boundaries were based on development patterns, topography, and major roads. Each subarea is generally located as follows: East - Generally located north of Beef Bend Road; east of the Mountain Gate subdivision; south of Bull Mountain Road including unincorporated parcels north of Bull Mountain Road; and west of Aspen Ridge and Helm Heights subdivisions. South - Generally located north of Beef Bend Road; east of SW 150th; south of Sunrise Lane extended east to, and including, the High Tor subdivisions, continuing south to Bull Mountain Road (including two parcels north of Bull Mountain Estates); and west of the Mountain Gate subdivision. North - Generally bounded by Barrows on the north to Kerron's Crest subdivision, continuing south to the southern boundary of Tuscany subdivision, continuing east and north to Roshack, following Roshack east, then following the boundaries of the Stanhurst and Wonderview subdivisions, continuing east until Sunrise Lane, heading east until a point just south of the Pacific Crest subdivision, continuing north, then along the east boundary of Hillshire Creek Estates, then north to the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) easement to Barrows. Includes unincorporated Fern Street parcels. West - Generally bounded on the north beginning at the intersection of SW 150"' Ave. and Sunrise Lane, continuing west along Sunrise Lane, following the boundaries of the Wonderview and Stanhurst subdivisions until Roshack, following Roshack northwest then south along the southerly boundary of the Heights subdivision, continuing west along the southerly boundary of Tuscany subdivision to its southwest corner, then continuing south to a point about 630 ft. west of Meyer's Farm subdivision; i continuing east to SW 150th; continuing north along SW 150th to Sunrise Lane. i Site information and proposal description: State law ORS195.205 allows the City to annex territory within an urban growth boundary pursuant to a detailed annexation plan. The Bull Mountain Annexation Plan proposes to annex 1,378 acres, which includes approximately 7,600 residents living in 2,600 homes. The Plan Area is located to the west of Tigard City Limits and within the Urban Growth Boundary. The Plan Area includes development at different densities, but single-family homes predominate. STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL PAGE 2 OF25 ZCA2003-00003, -00004, -00005, -000006 - BULL MOUNTAIN ANNEXATION PLAN 12/2/03 PUBLIC HEARING The Bull Mountain Annexation Plan proposes to annex approximately 1,378 acres of land into the City of Tigard with an assessed value of $605,857,310 (North: $193,411,910; East: $52,016,420; South: $251,261,770; West: $109,167,210). The Plan proposes a three-phased annexation, employing the following sequence: East, 2004; South, 2005; North and West, 2006. Although there are other methods of annexation, the City chose the annexation plan method because it requires the creation of a long-term annexation strategy. The Tigard Urban Service Agreement (TUSA- Appendix D) names the City of Tigard as the ultimate service provider for the Plan Area, for most services. Without annexation, the City has limited ability to plan for, provide for, and manage growth outside its City limits to ensure that efficient and effective public facilities and services are available when needed. The TUSA contains a provision that the City shall endeavor to annex the Bull Mountain area in the near to mid-term (3 to 5 years). Lastly, if The Bull Mountain Annexation Plan is approved by the Council, ORS195.205 allows both the territory to be annexed and the annexing city to vote on the annexation plan proposal. SECTION IV. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA AND FINDINGS ORS Chapters 195 and 222; Metro Code Chapter 3.09; Community Development Code Chapter 18, sections 18.320 and 18.390. A. STATE LAW PROVISIONS 1. ORS195.205: Annexation by Provider Staff has determined that the proposal is consistent with state law ORS 195.205 based on the following findings: 195.205 Annexation by provider,• prerequisites to vote: public hearing. (1) A city or district that provides an urban service may annex territory under ORS 195.020. 195.060 to 195.085, 195.145 to 195.235, 197.005. 197.319, 197.320, 197.335 and 223.304 that: (a) Is situated within an urban growth boundary: and The proposed annexation territory addressed in The Bull Mountain Annexation Plan lies within the Portland Metropolitan Urban Growth Boundary in its entirety. (b) Is contained within an annexation plan adopted pursuant to ORS 195.020, 195.060 to 195.085 195.145 to 195.235, 197.005, 197.319, 197.320, 197.335 and 223.304. The proposed annexation territory is contained in The Bull Mountain Annexation Plan (Map 1, p. 3). The Tigard City Council will consider for adoption the land-use application for the proposed The Bull Mountain Annexation Plan on December 2, 2003. (2) A city or district may submit an annexation plan to a vote under subsection (5) of this section only if, prior to the submission of the annexation plan to a vote: (a) The territory contained in the annexation plan is subiect to urban service agreements among all appropriate counties and cities and the providers of urban services within the territory, as required by ORS 195.065 and 195.070. and: (A) Such urban service agreements were in effect on November 4, 1993: or (B) They expressly state that they may be relied upon as a prerequisite of the annexation method authorized by ORS 195.020, 195.060 to 195.085, 195.145 to 195.235 197.005, 197.319, 197.320, 197.335 and 223.304: and The Tigard Urban Service Agreement (TUSA) was signed in February 2003 (Appendix D of The Bull Mountain Annexation Plan). The City of Tigard and Washington County entered into this agreement with the following urban service providers: Clean Water Services, Tigard Water District, TriMet, Tualatin Hills Park and Recreation District, Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue District, and Tualatin Valley Water District. The territory contained in The Bull Mountain Annexation Plan is subject to the TUSA (Map A of TUSA). The TUSA expressly states that the City may "develop an annexation plan STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL PAGE 3 OF25 ZCA2003-00003, -00004, -00005, -000006 -BULL MOUNTAIN ANNEXATION PLAN 1212/03 PUBLIC HEARING or plans in reliance upon [the TUSA] in accordance with ORS 195.205 to .220" (TUSA, Section I.E., p. 3). (b) The territory contained in the annexation plan is subiect to an agreement between the city and county addressing fiscal impacts, if the annexation is by a city and will cause reductions in the countv property tax revenues by operation of section 11b Article Xl of the Oregon Constitution. The Bull Mountain Annexation Plan states that Section 11 b, Article XI of the Oregon Constitution (commonly known as Measure 5) limits total non-school property tax rates to no more than $10 per $1,000 of assessed valuation (The Bull Mountain Annexation Plan, p. 18). If the tax rates of all non- school taxing jurisdictions exceed $10 per $1,000, the rates of each district are proportionately reduced to bring the total under the $10 limit. This process is called compression. The Bull Mountain Annexation Plan contains a map on p. 18 that shows the proposed Bull Mountain annexation area makes up the majority of tax code area 23.78 and 51.78. The government tax rate in both code areas for FY 2002-03 was $5.8878 per $1,000. The Bull Mountain Annexation Plan calculated that with tax rate adjustments in both codes due to the proposed annexation, the estimated resulting rate will be $7.1318 per $1,000. The Plan concluded that this rate is well below the $10 Measure 5 cap and therefore compression is not likely to occur in the near future (The Bull Mountain Annexation Plan, p. 18). The Plan Area would continue to pay County taxes after annexation, as all Tigard areas do. Therefore, The Bull Mountain Annexation Plan proposal demonstrated that the annexation of the proposed territory will not cause reductions in the county property tax revenues (compression). Therefore, no fiscal agreement between the City and the County is required. (3) Prior to adopting an annexation plan the governing body of a city or district shall hold a public hearing at which time interested persons may appear and be heard on the question of establishing the annexation plan. The Tigard City Council will hold a public hearing on December 2, 2003, to consider the proposed The Bull Mountain Annexation Plan land-use application for adoption. (4) The governing body of the city or district shall cause notice of the hearing to be published once each week for two successive weeks prior to the day of the hearing in a newspaper of general circulation in the citv or district. The City of Tigard submitted a notice for the December 2, 2003, pubiic hearing to two newspapers of general circulation in the Tigard and Bull Mountain area. The notice was scheduled to be published on the following dates: November 20 and 27 in the Tigard Times, and November 18 and 25 in The Oregonian. (5) If after the public hearing required under subsection (3) of this section the governinq bodv of the city or district decides to proceed with the annexation plan if shall cause the annexation plan to be submitted to the electors of the city or district and to the electors of the territory proposed to be annexed under the annexation plan. The proposed annexation plan may be voted upon at a general election or at a special election to be held for that purpose. f1993 c 804.-$131 If the Tigard City Council approves The Bull Mountain Annexation Plan at the December 2, 2003, public hearing, it may choose to place the Plan on the March 9, 2004, ballot. 3. ORS 195.220: Annexation plan provisions. (1) An annexation plan adopted under ORS 195.205 shall include: (a) The timing and sequence of annexation. The Bull Mountain Annexation Plan dedicates Section IIC (beginning on p. 10) to examine the timing and sequence of annexation. Based on supporting analysis from the Public Facilities and Assessment Report (Technical Document B), The Bull Mountain Annexation Plan concluded that 1) STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL PAGE 4 OF25 ZCA2003-00003, -00004, -00005, -000006 - BULL MOUNTAIN ANNEXATION PLAN 12/2/03 PUBLIC HEARING the annexation should be phased to allow time for acquisition of new staff and equipment; and 2) the annexation should take place by 2005 to maximize Parks systems development charge (SDC) contributions, or have Washington County institute a Parks SDC in the interim of a longer annexation. Based on these conclusions and a Council recommendation, The Bull Mountain Annexation Plan proposes a three-phase annexation (p. 12): 1. East, 2004. This area is the closest in proximity to the City and the least developed, and with the least service needs (according to the Public Facilities and Assessment Report, Technical Document B). By annexing prior to 2005, it maximizes potential financial contributions by new development toward parks capital improvements. 2. South, 2005; Adjacent to East. Annexing second allows additional acquisition time for equipment and staff. 3. West and North, 2006. Allows the City to develop its parkland. The Bull Mountain Annexation Plan proposal addresses provision ORS195.220.1.a. (b) Local standards of urban service availability required as a precondition of annexation ORS195 defines urban services as sanitary sewers, water, fire protection, parks, open space, recreation, streets, roads and mass transit. The Bull Mountain Annexation Plan considers four additional services: police, storm sewer, building and development services, and street light maintenance. The Bull Mountain Annexation Plan addresses all of these urban services in Table 3 (p. 7) and identifies local standards of urban service availability. The Bull Mountain Annexation Plan concludes in Section II.A. (p. 6) that all services except recreation are available to the Plan Area. All urban services providers are established, per the Tigard Urban Service Agreement (TUSA, Appendix D). The Bull Mountain Annexation Plan identifies two steps needed by the County to meet local standards prior to annexation: improve roads to a pavement condition index of 40 or greater, for an average of 75 or higher; institute parks system development charges (SDCs) for new development prior to annexation. The Bull Mountain Annexation Plan proposal addresses ORS195.220.1.b. (c) The planned schedule for providing urban services to the annexed territory. The Public Facilities and Assessment Report (Technical Document B) applied City of Tigard service standards to the Bull Mountain subareas to evaluate the City's ability to serve the area upon annexation. It projected start-up costs, needs, and ability to serve the entire Bull Mountain area or individual areas upon annexation. The analysis was based upon current population and housing unit estimates, future service needs at build-out, and service standards. All departments - except for Public Works (Streets Division) and Police - concluded that they could absorb any or all subareas using current resources, and without significantly reducing services to existing residents. The Public Works - Street Division could not absorb more than one subarea at a time without existing resources, and the Police division could serve all areas upon annexation but with a reduction in Priority Three (lowest priority calls, no one in danger) calls. Based on this analysis, The Bull Mountain Annexation Plan concluded that the City of Tigard can serve the Bull Mountain area without a significant reduction in service to Tigard residents (Section IIB, p. 10). To maintain these service standards, the Plan proposes the following (Table 4, p. 10): The Bull Mountain Annexation Plan states that those services transferring to Tigard, per the TUSA (Appendix D), would be transferred "upon annexation": building and development services, parks and open spaces (Bull Mountain residents receive resident privileges at City parks), police, sanitary and storm sewer (provided by Tigard effective July 1, 2004), street light maintenance, and water. This is consistent with the TUSA. The Bull Mountain Annexation Plan also states that three services would have the following schedules: Road Quality and Maintenance, the transfer of which would be initiated within 30 days of annexation and serving the area within one year, as the TUSA allows; STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL PAGE 5 OF25 ZCA2003-00003, -00004, -00005, -000006 -BULL MOUNTAIN ANNEXATION PLAN 1212/03 PUBLIC HEARING parks and open space capital project planning would be initiated within the first year, and the Comprehensive Plan update would be initiated within the first year. The Bull Mountain Annexation Plan proposal addresses provision ORS195.220.1.c. (d) The effects on existing urban services providers The Bull Mountain Annexation Plan quantified the effect on Washington County's services (Section IID, p. 14). The Bull Mountain Annexation Plan calculated how much the Enhanced Sheriff's Patrol District, Urban Road Maintenance District, gas tax, cable franchise fees would lose in revenues, and concluded that Washington County's services or the services of its special districts would not be significantly impacted by the annexation. The Bull Mountain Annexation Plan also quantified the effect on the Tigard Water District (TWD), and concluded that the TWD would lose 83% of current accounts and 48.6% of current annual revenue. However, it does not cause the district to dissolve, as it can continue to serve its remaining customers. The Bull Mountain Annexation Plan also concluded that other service providers would not be significantly impacted: There would be no effect on Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue since it already serves the area; and the City is already scheduled to provide sanitary and storm sewer services on July 1, 2004, regardless of annexation, thus, the annexation is anticipated to have no effect on Clean Water Services. The Bull Mountain Annexation Plan proposal addresses provision ORS195.220.1.d. fe) The long-term benefits of the annexation plan. The Bull Mountain Annexation Plan lists nine benefits of the Plan in Section IIE, pp. 17-18: certainty, efficiency, making a smooth transition, more capital improvement dollars, urban services by an urban provider, quantifying the costs and benefits, equity, parks and unifying the community. The Bull Mountain Annexation Plan proposal addresses provision ORS195.220.1.e. (2) An annexation plan shall be consistent with all applicable comprehensive plans [1993 c 804 616 1997 c.541 $3411 Staff has determined that The Bull Mountain Annexation Plan is consistent with the relevant policies of the Comprehensive Plan based on the findings contained in Section IV.C. of this report. 1. ORS222: City Boundary Changes; Mergers; Consolidations; Withdrawals. This chapter typically guides annexation decisions and the approval process. However, the City has selected an annexation method that is allowed by ORS 195. ORS 195.235 states that the method of annexing territory to cities or districts set forth in ORS 195.205 to 195.225 is in addition to and does not affect or prohibit other methods of annexation authorized by law. [1993 c.804 §18]195.235]. While ORS 222 does not apply to the current proposal, it also is not precluded by ORS195. B. METRO CODE STANDARDS Metro 3.09 requires additional standards to be addressed in annexation decisions, in addition to the local and state review standards. These are addressed and satisfied as discussed below: 1. Metro Code 3.09.040 (a): A petition for a boundary change shall be deemed complete if it includes the following information: (1) The jurisdiction of the approving entity to act on the petition: (2) A narrative legal and graphical description of the affected territory in the form prescribed by the Metro Chief Operating Officer (3) For minor boundary changes the names and mailing addresses of all persons owning property and all electors within the affected territory as shown in the records of the tax assessor and county clerk; (4) A listing of the present providers of urban services to the affected territory; (5) A listing of the proposed providers of urban services to the affected territory following the proposed boundary change; (6) The current tax assessed value of the affected territory; and (7) Any other information required by state or local law. STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL PAGE 6 OF25 ZCA2003-00003, -00004, -00005, -000006 - BULL MOUNTAIN ANNEXATION PLAN 12/2/03 PUBLIC HEARING The City's land-use application for The Bull Mountain Annexation Plan includes all of the information required by Metro Code 3.09.040 (a) and has been deemed complete. 2. Metro Code 3.09.050 (b) (b) Not later than 15 days prior to the date set for a change decision, the approving entity shall make available to the public a report that addresses the criteria in subsections (d) and (g) below, and that includes at a minimum the following: This report addresses Metro Code 3.09.50 (b) criteria. The report is available 15 days before the hearing (November 17, 2003, for a Dec. 2, 2003, hearing). (1) The extent to which urban services presently are available to serve the affected territory including any extra territorial extensions of service: ORS195 defines urban services as sanitary sewers, water, fire protection, parks, open space, recreation, streets, roads and mass transit. The Bull Mountain Annexation Plan considers four additional services: police, storm sewer, building and development services, and street light maintenance. The Bull Mountain Annexation Plan addresses all of these urban services in Table 3 (p. 7) and identifies local standards of urban service availability. The Bull Mountain Annexation Plan concludes in Section II.A. (p. 6) that all services except recreation are available to the Plan Area. All urban services providers are established, per the Tigard Urban Service Agreement (TUSA, Appendix D). The Bull Mountain Annexation Plan identifies two steps needed by the County to meet local standards prior to annexation: improve roads to a pavement condition index of 40 or greater, for an average of 75 or higher; institute parks system development charges (SDCs) for new development prior to annexation. The Bull Mountain Annexation Plan proposal addresses Metro Code 3.09.050 (b)1. (2) A description of how the proposed boundary change complies with any urban service provider agreements adopted pursuant to ORS 995.065 between the affected entity and all necessary parties; The Bull Mountain Annexation Plan proposal complies with the Tigard Urban Service Agreement (TUSA- Appendix D). The TUSA names the City of Tigard as the ultimate service provider for the Plan Area, except for services provided by special districts and agencies. The Bull Mountain Annexation Plan follows the terms for road transfer, initiating the transfer 30 days following annexation and completing the process within one year. The Bull Mountain Annexation Plan also complies with the provision that the City shall endeavor to annex the Bull Mountain area in the near to mid-term (3 to 5 years). All parties to the TUSA were notified of The Bull Mountain Annexation Plan proposal 45 days prior to the public hearing date. The Bull Mountain Annexation Plan proposal addresses Metro Code 3.09.050 (b) 2. (3) A description of how the proposed boundary change is consistent with the comprehensive land use,olans public facility plans regional framework and functional plans regional urban growth goals and objectives, urban planning agreements and similar agreements of the affected entity and of al! necessary parties: The area is within the Urban Growth Boundary; therefore, regional plans and goals currently apply to this area. The annexation Plan Area is currently under the jurisdiction of Washington County, and is subject to the County's Comprehensive Plan policies. There are no specific applicable standards or criteria for boundary changes in the Regional Framework Plan or the Urban Growth Management Functional Plan. The regional policies listed in the Functional Plan recommend and require changes to city and county comprehensive plans and implementing ordinances, but do not apply directly to annexations. STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL PAGE 7 OF25 ZCA2003-00003, -00004, -00005,-000006 -BULL MOUNTAIN ANNEXATION PLAN 12/2/03 PUBLIC HEARING 11 pli, Section N.C. of this report addresses the City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan. For the basis of its analysis, The Bull Mountain Annexation Plan used the Public Facilities and Assessment Report (Technical Document 8). Section 3.09.050 (b) 2, above, addresses urban planning agreements; the Tigard Urban Service Agreement (Appendix D) applies to the proposed annexation Plan Area . The Bull Mountain Annexation Plan proposal addresses Metro Code 3.09.050 (b) 3. (4) Whether the proposed boundary change will result in the withdrawal of the affected territory from the legal boundary of any necessary party; The area remains within Washington County; however, implementation of The Bull Mountain Annexation Plan proposal would require the Plan Area territory to be withdrawn from the Tigard Water District. and 5 The proposed effective date of the decision. The public hearing will take place on December 2, 2003. If the Council adopts findings to approve The Bull Mountain Annexation Plan, the effective date of the decision approving the Plan would be determined by the ordinance. 3. Metro Code 3.09.050 (d) (d) An approving entity's final decision on a boundary change shall include findings and conclusions addressing the following criteria: The City Council may adopt the following facts and conclusions in its final decision: (1) Consistency with directly applicable provisions in an urban service provider agreement or annexation plan adopted pursuant to ORS 195.065; The previous sections of this report showed that the proposal is consistent with the Tigard Urban Service Agreement. The proposed annexation area is the same as The Bull Mountain Annexation Plan area. (2) Consistency with directly applicable provisions of urban planning or other agreements, other than agreements adopted pursuant to ORS 195.065, between the affected entity and a necessary party, The Bull Mountain Annexation Plan proposal complies with the Tigard Urban Service Agreement (TUSA- Appendix D). The TUSA names the City of Tigard as the ultimate service provider for the Plan Area, except for services provided by special districts and agencies. The Bull Mountain Annexation Plan follows the terms for road transfer, initiating the transfer 30 days following annexation and completing the process within one year. The Bull Mountain Annexation Plan also complies with the provision that the City shall endeavor to annex the Bull Mountain area in the near to mid-term (3 to 5 years). All parties to the agreement were notified of The Bull Mountain Annexation Plan proposal 45 days prior to the public hearing date. (3) Consistency with specific directly applicable standards or criteria for boundary changes contained in comprehensive land use plans and public facility plans: Section N.C. of this report shows that The Bull Mountain Annexation Plan proposal is consistent with the Tigard Comprehensive Plan and applicable sections of the Community Development Code. For the basis of its analysis, The Bull Mountain Annexation Plan used the Public Facilities and Assessment Report (Technical Document B). The report examined public facility plans for the Bull Mountain area to determine future capital improvement needs and their costs. (4) Consistency with specific directly applicable standards or criteria for boundary changes contained in the Regional Framework Plan or any functional plan; STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL PAGE 8 OF25 ZCA2003-00003, -00004, -00005, -000006 - BULL MOUNTAIN ANNEXATION PLAN 12/2/03 PUBLIC HEARING The area is within the Urban Growth Boundary; therefore, regional plans and goals currently apply to this area. The annexation Plan Area is currently under the jurisdiction of Washington County, and is subject to the County's Comprehensive Plan policies. There are no specific applicable standards or criteria for boundary changes in the Regional Framework Plan or the Urban Growth Management Functional Plan. The regional policies listed in the Functional Plan recommend and require changes to city and county comprehensive plans and implementing ordinances, but do not apply directly to annexations. (5) Whether the proposed change will promote or not interfere with the timely, orderly and economic provisions of public facilities and services: The Bull Mountain Annexation Plan proposal provides a phased annexation approach to provide a timely and orderly provision of public facilities and services without significantly reducing service standards to existing residents or causing a disruption in service provision. All providers have the ability to provide services to the area. This is consistent with the TUSA provisions for public facilities and services in the Plan Area . (6) The territory lies within the Urban Growth Boundary: and The entire proposed annexation territory area is already within the Portland Metro UGB. (7) Consistency with other applicable criteria for the boundary change in question under state and local law. This staff report finds that The Bull Mountain Annexation Plan proposal is consistent with ORS 195.205 and 195.220, the Tigard Community Development Code, and the Tigard Comprehensive Plan. The Oregon Dept. of Revenue has verified the boundary dimensions of the proposed annexation area. C. CITY OF TIGARD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (TITLE 18) POLICIES Staff has determined that the proposal is consistent with the relevant portions of the Community Development Code based on the following findings: 1. Section 18.320.020: Approval Criteria. A. Approval Process. Annexations shall be processed by means of a Type IV procedure, as governed by Chapter 18.390 using standards of approval contained in Subsection B2 below. The Bull Mountain Annexation Plan application is being processed as a Type IV procedure. B. The decision to approve, approve with modification, or deny an application to annex property to the City shall be based on the following criteria: 1. All services and facilities are available to the area and have sufficient capacity to provide service for the proposed annexation area: and Section A.3 of this report concluded that The Bull Mountain Annexation Plan proposal shows that all services and facilities are available to the area and have sufficient capacity to provide service to the proposed annexation area. 2. The applicable Comprehensive Plan policies and implementing ordinance provisions have been satisfied. Section N.C. demonstrates how all applicable Comprehensive Plan policies have been satisfied by the City. C. Assignment of comprehensive plan and zoning designations. The comprehensive plan designation and the zoning designation placed on the property shall be the City's zoning district which most closely implements the City's or County's comprehensive plan man designation. The assignment of these designations shall occur automatically and concurrently with the annexation. In the case of land which carries County designations, the City shall convert the County's comprehensive plan map and zoning designations to the City designations which are the most similar. A zone change is STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL PAGE 9 OF25 ZCA2003-00003, -00004, -00005, -000006 - BULL MOUNTAIN ANNEXATION PLAN 12/2103 PUBLIC HEARING required if the applicant requests a comprehensive plan map and/or zoning map designation other than the existing designations (See Chapter 18 380) A request for a zone change can be processed concurrently with an annexation application or after the annexation has been approved. Washington County previously adopted City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan and zoning designations for the area. Therefore no changes are required in the comprehensive plan and zoning designations for the Plan Area, as the current designations reflect City of Tigard designations. D Conversion table. Table 320.1 summarizes the conversion of the County's plan and zoning designations to City designations which are most similar. Washington County has already adopted the City's zoning designations and the City will maintain these designations. 2. Section 18.390.060 Type IV Procedure Section 18.390.060 includes the decision-making considerations in a Type IV procedure. This report will address each of the five considerations. G. Decision-making considerations. The recommendation by the Commission and the decision by the Council shall be based on consideration of the following factors: 1 The Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines adopted under Oregon Revised Statutes Chapter 197; GOAL 1: CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT To develop a citizen involvement program that insures the opportunity for citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process. The governing body charged with preparing and adopting a comprehensive plan shall adopt and publicize a program for citizen involvement that clearly defines the procedures by which the general public will be involved in the on-going land-use planning process. The citizen involvement program shall be appropriate to the scale of the planning effort. The program shall provide for continuity of citizen participation and of information that enables citizens to identify and comprehend the issues. Federal, state and regional agencies, and special- purpose districts shall coordinate their planning efforts with the affected governing bodies and make use of existing local citizen involvement programs established by counties and cities. Response: The City's existing Comprehensive Plan and implementing regulations are in compliance with Goal 1 by providing a comprehensive public process for development and application of all land use regulations. The Bull Mountain Annexation Plan does not alter those provisions and the City's regulations therefore remain in compliance with Goal 1. In regard to the Bull Mountain Annexation Plan specifically, the City established opportunities for public involvement. The City established a communications plan prior to finalizing the Plan, submitting the land-use application and mailing of the public notice. To involve the public prior to the formal land-use process, the City established a Bull Mountain hotline and dedicated E-mail address on September 23, 2003, for comments and questions regarding the Plan. Notice of the public hearing was mailed to all CIT facilitators, the Washington County CPO coordinator, affected property owners, and surrounding property owners within 500 feet of the Plan Area . Notice of the public hearing was scheduled to be published in two newspapers of general circuation: The Tigard Times on November 20 and November 27, 2003; and The Oregonian on November 18 and November 25, 2003. The Plan Area has been posted in 13 locations since October 16, 2003. STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL PAGE 10 OF25 ZCA2003-00003, -00004, -00005, -000006 - BULL MOUNTAIN ANNEXATION PLAN 12/2/03 PUBLIC HEARING There also will be a public hearing during the Type IV processing of this application and petition. GOAL 2: LAND USE PLANNING PART I PLANNING To establish a land use planning process and policy framework as a basis for all decision and actions related to use of land and to assure an adequate factual base for such decisions and actions. City, county, state and federal agency and special district plans and actions related to land use shall be consistent with the comprehensive plans of cities and counties and regional plans adopted under ORS Chapter 268. All land use plans shall include identification of issues and problems, inventories and other factual information for each applicable statewide planning goal, evaluation of alternative courses of action and ultimate policy choices, taking into consideration social, economic, energy and environmental needs. The required information shall be contained in the plan document or in supporting documents. The plans, supporting documents and implementation ordinances shall be filed in a public office or other place easily accessible to the public. The plans shall be the basis for specific implementation measures. These measures shall be consistent with and adequate to carry out the plans. Each plan and related implementation measure shall be coordinated with the plans of affected governmental units. All land-use plans and implementation ordinances shall be adopted by the governing body after public hearing and shall be reviewed and, as needed, revised on a periodic cycle to take into account changing public policies and circumstances, in accord with a schedule set forth in the plan. Opportunities shall be provided for review and comment by citizens and affected governmental units during preparation, review and revision of plans and implementation ordinances. Response: The City is currently in compliance with Goal 2 because it has an acknowledged Comprehensive Plan and regulations implementing the Plan. The Bull Mountain Annexation Plan is being processed consistently with the planning policies in the Comprehensive Plan. GOAL 3: AGRICULTURAL LANDS To preserve and maintain agricultural lands. Response: The territory to be annexed does not include designated agricultural land, so this goal does not apply. GOAL 4: FOREST LANDS To conserve forest lands by maintaining the forest land base and to protect the state's forest economy by making possible economically efficient forest practices that assure the continuous growing and harvesting of forest tree species as the leading use on forest land consistent with sound management of soil, air, water, and fish and wildlife resources and to provide for recreational opportunities and agriculture. STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL PAGE 11 OF25 ZCA2003-00003, -00004, -00005, -000006 - BULL MOUNTAIN ANNEXATION PLAN 12/2/03 PUBLIC HEARING Response: The territory to be annexed does not include any designated forest lands, so this goal does not apply. GOAL 5- NATURAL RESOURCES SCENIC AND HISTORIC AREAS, AND OPEN SPACES To protect natural resources and conserve scenic and historic areas and open spaces. Local governments shall adopt programs that will protect natural resources and conserve scenic, historic, and open space resources for present and future generations. These resources promote a healthy environment and natural landscape that contribute to Oregon's livability. The following resources shall be inventoried., a. Riparian corridors, including water and riparian areas and fish habitat; b. Wetlands; c. Wildlife Habitat, d. Federal Wild and Scenic Rivers, e. State Scenic Waterways; f. Groundwater Resources; g. Approved Oregon Recreation Trails, h. Natural Areas; i. Wilderness Areas, j. Mineral and Aggregate Resources; k. Energy sources; 1. Cultural areas. Local governments and state agencies are encouraged to maintain current inventories of the following resources: a. Historic Resources; b. Open Space; c. Scenic Views and Sites. Following procedures, standards, and definitions contained in commission rules, local governments shall determine significant sites for inventoried resources and develop programs to achieve the goal. Response: This Goal does not directly apply to annexations. The City is already in compliance with Goal 5 as I to all required inventories. However, the City has been working with Metro, Washington County and other partners to identify regionally significant riparian and wildlife resources both in the City i and on Bull Mountain, and to develop a program to enhance and protect those resources. The Bull Mountain Annexation Plan includes open space projects such as the Cache Creek Nature Park. (See Annexation Plan Table 4, p. 9.). As part of the City's Comprehensive Plan update process, the City would update the existing Comprehensive Plan and address this goal. GOAL 6• AIR WATER AND LAND RESOURCES QUALITY To maintain and improve the quality of the air, water and land resources of the state. All waste and process discharges from future development, when combined with such discharges from existing developments shall not threaten to violate, or violate applicable state or federal STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL PAGE 12 OF25 ZCA2003-00003, -00004, -00005, -000006 - BULL MOUNTAIN ANNEXATION PLAN 12/2/03 PUBLIC HEARING P s environmental quality statutes, rules and standards. With respect to the air, water and land resources of the applicable air sheds and river basins described or included in state environmental quality statutes, rules, standards and implementation plans, such discharges shall not (1) exceed the carrying capacity of such resources, considering long range needs; (2) degrade such resources; or (3) threaten the availability of such resources. Response: This Goal does not directly apply to annexations. The City's Comprehensive Plan has been acknowledged as being in compliance with Goal 6. Any development proposed after annexation would have to be approved under the City's implementing regulations. GOAL 7: AREAS SUBJECT TO NATURAL DISASTERS AND HAZARDS To protect life and property from natural disasters and hazards. A. NATURAL HAZARD PLANNING 1. Local governments shall adopt comprehensive plans (inventories, policies and implementing measures) to reduce risk to people and property from natural hazards. 2. Natural hazards for purposes of this goal are: floods (coastal and riverine), landslides, earthquakes and related hazards, tsunamis, coastal erosion, and wildfires. Local governments may identify and plan for other natural hazards. B. RESPONSE TO NEW HAZARD INFORMATION 1. New hazard inventory information provided by federal and state agencies shall be reviewed by the Department in consultation with affected state and local government representatives. 2. After such consultation, the Department shall notify local governments if the new hazard information requires a local response. 3. Local governments shall respond to new inventory information on natural hazards within 36 months after being notified by the Department of Land Conservation and Development, unless extended by the Department. C. IMPLEMENTATION Upon receiving notice from the Department, a local government shall: 1. Evaluate the risk to people and property based on the new inventory information and an assessment of.• a. the frequency, severity and location of the hazard; b. the effects of the hazard on existing and future development; c. the potential for development in the hazard area to increase the frequency and severity of the hazard, and d. the types and intensities of land uses to be allowed in the hazard area. 2. Allow an opportunity for citizen review and comment on the new inventory information and the results of the evaluation and incorporate such information into the comprehensive plan, as necessary. 3. Adopt or amend, as necessary, based on the evaluation of risk, plan policies and implementing measures consistent with the following principles: STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL PAGE 13 OF25 ZCA2003-00003, -00004, -00005, -000006 - BULL MOUNTAIN ANNEXATION PLAN 12/2/03 PUBLIC HEARING a. avoiding development in hazard areas where the risk to people and property cannot be mitigated, and b. prohibiting the siting of essential facilities, major structures, hazardous facilities and special occupancy structures, as defined in the state building code (ORS 455.447(1) (a)(b)(c) and (e)), in identified hazard areas, where the risk to public safety cannot be mitigated, unless an essential facility is needed within a hazard area in order to provide essential emergency response services in a timely manner. 4. Local governments will be deemed to comply with Goal 7 for coastal and riverine flood hazards by adopting and implementing local floodplain regulations that meet the minimum National Flood Insurance Program (NF1P) requirements. D. COORDINATION 1. In accordance with ORS 197.180 and Goal 2, state agencies shall coordinate their natural hazard plans and programs with local governments and provide local governments with hazard inventory information and technical assistance including development of model ordinances and risk evaluation methodologies. 2. Local governments and state agencies shall follow such procedures, standards and definitions as may be contained in statewide planning goals and commission rules in developing programs to achieve this goal. Response: This Goal does not directly apply to annexations. The City's Comprehensive Plan is acknowledged to be in compliance with this Goal. The proposed annexation is consistent with Comprehensive Plan policies. Any development in the annexation Plan Area must follow the City's acknowledged implementing regulations relating to natural hazards. As part of the City's Comprehensive Plan update process, the City would update the existing Comprehensive Plan and address this goal. GOAL 8: RECREATIONAL NEEDS To satisfy the recreational needs of the citizens of the state and visitors and, where appropriate, to provide for the siting of necessary recreational facilities including destination resorts. RECREATION PLANNING The requirements for meeting such needs, now and in the future, shall be planned for by governmental agencies having responsibility for recreation areas, facilities and opportunities: (1) in coordination with private enterprise; (2) in appropriate proportions; and (3) in such quantity, quality and locations as is consistent with the availability of the resources to meet such requirements. State and federal agency recreation plans shall be coordinated with local and regional recreational needs and plans. I DESTINATION RESORT SITING Comprehensive plans may provide for the siting of destination resorts on rural lands subject to the provisions of the Goal and without a Goal 2 exception to Goals 3, 4, 11, or 14. STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL PAGE 14 OF25 ZCA2003-00003, -00004, -00005, -000006 - BULL MOUNTAIN ANNEXATION PLAN 1212/03 PUBLIC HEARING Response: This Goal does not directly apply to annexations. The Comprehensive Plan has been acknowledged to be consistent with Goal 8, and the proposed annexation is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed Bull Mountain Annexation Plan includes Parks and Open Space planning, which would be initiated within the first year as part of the Comprehensive Plan update. (See Annexation Plan Table 4, page 9.) The City's Comprehensive Plan update would address recreational needs. The Destination Resort provisions of this Goal are not applicable. GOAL 9: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT To provide adequate opportunities throughout the state for a variety of economic activities vital to the health, welfare, and prosperity of Oregon's citizens. Comprehensive plans and policies shall contribute to a stable and healthy economy in all regions of the state. Such plans shall be based on inventories of areas suitable for increased economic growth and activity after taking into consideration the health of the current economic base; materials and energy availability and cost; labor market factors; educational and technical training programs; availability of key public facilities; necessary support facilities, current market forces; location relative to markets; availability of renewable and non-renewable resources; availability of land, and pollution control requirements. Comprehensive plans for urban areas shall: 1. Include an analysis of the community's economic patterns, potentialities, strengths, and deficiencies as they relate to state and national trends; 2. Contain policies concerning the economic development opportunities in the community, 3. Provide for at least an adequate supply of sites of suitable sizes, types, locations, and service levels for a variety of industrial and commercial uses consistent with plan policies; 4. Limit uses on or near sites zoned for specific industrial and commercial uses to those which are compatible with proposed uses. In accordance with ORS 997.180 and Goal 2, state agencies that issue permits affecting land use shall identify in their coordination programs how they will coordinate permit issuance with other state agencies, cities and counties. Response: L This Goal does not directly apply to annexations. The Comprehensive Plan has been r acknowledged to be consistent with Goal 9, and the annexation is consistent with Comprehensive Plan policies. As part of the City's Comprehensive Plan update process, the City would update the existing Comprehensive Plan and address this goal. i i GOAL 10: HOUSING 1 t I To provide for the housing needs of citizens of the state. Buildable lands for residential use shall be inventoried and plans shall encourage the availability of adequate numbers of needed housing units at price ranges and rent levels which are commensurate with the financial capabilities of Oregon households and allow for flexibility of housing location, type and density. STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL PAGE 15 OF25 ZCA2003-00003, -00004, -00005, -000006 - BULL MOUNTAIN ANNEXATION PLAN 12/2/03 PUBLIC HEARING Response: This Goal does not directly apply to annexations. The Comprehensive Plan has been acknowledged to be consistent with Goal 10, and the proposed annexation is consistent with Comprehensive Plan. The proposed annexation would bring 1,378 acres of residential land and approximately 2,600 homes into the City. The Plan Area includes a diversity of residential zoning, from R-4.5 to R-25, offering housing at different densities. Washington County previously adopted City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan and zoning designations for the area. Therefore no changes are required in the comprehensive plan and zoning designations for the Plan Area, as the current designations reflect City of Tigard designations. As part of the City's Comprehensive Plan update process, the City would update the existing Comprehensive Plan and address this goal. GOAL 11: PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES To plan and develop a timely, orderly and efficient arrangement of public facilities and services to serve as a framework for urban and rural development. Urban and rural development shall be guided and supported by types and levels of urban and rural public facilities and services appropriate for, but limited to, the needs and requirements of the urban, urbanizable, and rural areas to be served. A provision for key facilities shall be included in each plan. Cities or counties shall develop and adopt a public facility plan for areas within an urban growth boundary containing a population greater than 2,500 persons. To meet current and long- range needs, a provision for solid waste disposal sites, including sites for inert waste, shall be included in each plan. Counties shall develop and adopt community public facility plans regulating facilities and services for certain unincorporated communities outside urban growth boundaries as specified by Commission rules. Counties Local Governments shall not allow the establishment or extension of new sewer systems outside urban growth boundaries or unincorporated community boundaries, or allow new extensions of sewer lines from within urban growth boundaries or unincorporated community boundaries to serve land outside those boundaries, except where the new or extended system is the only practicable alternative to mitigate a public health hazard and will not adversely affect farm or forest land. For land that is outside urban growth boundaries and unincorporated community boundaries, county land use regulations shall not rely upon the establishment or extension of a water system to authorize a higher residential density than would be authorized without a water system. Local governments shall not rely upon the presence, establishment, or extension of a water or sewer system to allow residential development of land outside urban growth boundaries or unincorporated community boundaries at a density higher than authorized without service from such a system. In accordance with ORS 197.180 and Goal 2, state agencies that provide funding for transportation, water supply, sewage and solid waste facilities shall identify in their coordination programs how they will coordinate that funding with other state agencies and with the public facility plans of cities and counties. Response: The Tigard Comprehensive Plan has been acknowledged to be consistent with Goal 11, and the proposed annexation is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan (see Section W.C.). STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL PAGE 16 OF25 ZCA2003-00003, -00004, -00005,-000006 -BULL MOUNTAIN ANNEXATION PLAN 12/2/03 PUBLIC HEARING ORS195 defines urban services as sanitary sewers, water, fire protection, parks, open space, recreation, streets, roads and mass transit. The Bull Mountain Annexation Plan considers four additional services: police, storm sewer, building and development services, and street light maintenance. The Bull Mountain Annexation Plan addresses all of these urban services in Table 3 (p. 7) and identifies local standards of urban service availability. The Bull Mountain Annexation Plan concludes in Section II.A. (p. 6) that all services except recreation are available to the Plan Area. All urban services providers are established, per the Tigard Urban Service Agreement (TUSA, Appendix D). The TUSA provides a plan for public services and facilities for the Bull Mountain area. The Bull Mountain Annexation Plan identifies two steps needed by the County to meet local standards prior to annexation: improve roads to a pavement condition index of 40 or greater, for an average of 75 or higher; institute parks system development charges (SDCs) for new development prior to annexation. The Public Facilities and Assessment Report (Technical Document B) applied City of Tigard service standards to the Bull Mountain subareas to evaluate the City's ability to serve the area upon annexation. It projected start-up costs, needs, and ability to serve the entire Bull Mountain area or individual areas upon annexation. The analysis was based upon current population and housing unit estimates, future service needs at build-out, and service standards. All departments - except for Public Works (Streets Division) and Police - concluded that they could absorb any or all subareas using current resources, and without significantly reducing services to existing residents. The Public Works - Street Division could not absorb more than one subarea at a time without existing resources, and the Police division could serve all areas upon annexation but with a reduction in Priority Three (lowest priority calls, no one in danger) calls. Based on this analysis, The Bull Mountain Annexation Plan concluded that the City of Tigard can serve the Bull Mountain area without a significant reduction in service to Tigard residents (Section IIB, p. 10). To maintain these service standards, the Plan proposes the following (Table 4, p. 10): The Bull Mountain Annexation Plan states that those services transferring to Tigard, per the TUSA (Appendix D), would be transferred "upon annexation": building and development services, parks and open spaces (Bull Mountain residents receive resident privileges at City parks), police, sanitary and storm sewer (provided by Tigard effective July 1, 2004), street light maintenance, and water. This is consistent with the TUSA. The Bull Mountain Annexation Plan also states that three services would have the following schedules: Road Quality and Maintenance, the transfer of which would be initiated within 30 days of annexation and serving the area within one year, as the TUSA allows; parks and open space capital project planning would be initiated within the first year, and the Comprehensive Plan update would be initiated. The City and other service providers who would continue to provide services after annexation have the capacity to provide services in the proposed annexation area, assuring a timely, orderly and efficient arrangement of public facilities and services. Those services would serve as a framework for urban development of Bull Mountain. GOAL 12: TRANSPORTATION To provide and encourage a safe, convenient and economic transportation system. A transportation plan shall (1) consider all modes of transportation including mass transit, air, water, pipeline, rail, highway, bicycle and pedestrian; (2) be based upon an inventory of local, regional and state transportation needs; (3) consider the differences in social consequences that would result from utilizing differing combinations of transportation modes; (4) avoid principal reliance upon any one mode of transportation; (5) minimize adverse social, economic and environmental impacts and costs; (6) conserve energy; (7) meet the needs of the transportation disadvantaged by improving transportation services; (8) facilitate the flow of goods and services so STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL PAGE 17 OF25 ZCA2003-00003, -00004, -00005, -000006 - BULL MOUNTAIN ANNEXATION PLAN 12/2/03 PUBLIC HEARING The results of the above considerations shall be included in the comprehensive plan. In the case of a change of a boundary, a governing body proposing such change in the boundary separating urbanizable lands from rural land, shall follow the procedures and requirements as set forth in the Land Use Planning goal (Goal 2) for goal exceptions. Any urban growth boundary established prior to January 1, 1975, which includes rural lands that have not been built upon shall be reviewed by the governing body, utilizing the same factors applicable to the establishment or change of urban growth boundaries. Establishment and change of the boundaries shall be a cooperative process between a city and the county or counties that surround it. Land within the boundaries separating urbanizable land from rural land shall be considered available over time for urban uses. Conversion of urbanizable land to urban uses shall be based on consideration of: (1) Orderly, economic provision for public facilities and services; (2) Availability of sufficient land for the various uses to insure choices in the market place; (3) LCDC goals or the acknowledged comprehensive plan; and, (4) Encouragement of development within urban areas before conversion of urbanizable areas. In unincorporated communities outside urban growth boundaries counties may approve uses, public facilities and services more intensive than allowed on rural lands by Goal 11 and 14, either by exception to those goals, or as provided by Commission rules which ensure such uses do not: (1) adversely affect agricultural and forest operations, and (2) interfere with the efficient functioning of urban growth boundaries. Notwithstanding the other provisions of this goal, the commission may by rule provide that this goal does not prohibit the development and use of one single-family dwelling on a lot or parcel that (a) was lawfully created, (b) lies outside any acknowledged urban growth boundary or unincorporated community boundary, (c) is within an area for which an exception to Statewide Planning Goal 3 or 4 has been acknowledged, and (d) is planned and zoned primarily for residential use. Response: The Comprehensive Plan has been acknowledged to be consistent with Goal 14, and the annexation is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan (see Section IV.C). The proposed annexation into the City is an important step in the orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban land use in the Bull Mountain area. State land-use planning goals require the UGB to contain a 20-year supply of land, and, when conditions warrant, lands within the boundary must be available for urban uses. Washington County and Bull Mountain residents developed the 1983 Bull Mountain Community Plan, which assigned urban densities to the area but did not provide for all urban services. However, Goal 14 directs local governments to have a plan in place to allow for an orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban uses. In 1983, the County and City signed the Urban Planning Area Agreement (UPAA). The UPAA established Bull Mountain as part of the City's planning area. Over the last 20 years, the area has become urbanized with streets, sidewalks, and urban service needs. (See Annexation Plan Introduction, page 1.) The territory to be annexed is entirely inside the UGB. (See Mapl, Annexation Plan, page 3.) The City and other service providers who would STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL PAGE 1 OOF25 ZCA2003-00003, -00004, -00005, -000006 -BULL MOUNTAIN ANNEXATION PLAN 1212/03 PUBLIC HEARING IIIIIIIIIIM~ continue to provide services after annexation have the capacity to provide services in the proposed annexation area, based on the Tigard Urban Service Agreement (TUSA) (See Appendix D to the Annexation Plan.) The TUSA provides a plan for public services and facilities for the Bull Mountain area. There are approximately 7,600 residents living in 2,600 homes on the mountain's 1,378 unincorporated acres. Development of the remaining land to existing zoning standards would raise the overall population to just under 10,000. This additional growth would require additional facilities and services. Without annexation, the City has limited ability to plan for, provide for, and manage growth outside its City limits to ensure that efficient and effective public facilities and services are available when needed, as it cannot do comprehensive planning outside its City limits. State law created the annexation plan process as a growth management tool for jurisdictions: the plan must address criteria related to urban service provision to the Plan Area, and is a pre- requisite for an annexation vote by the annexing city and Plan Area. Using existing service agreements among agencies, cost-benefit analyses, and the 2003 Public Facilities and Services Assessment Report, the Plan addresses all criteria set forth by state law ORS195: the provision (how and when) of urban services, annexation's impact on existing providers, the timing and sequence of annexation, and the Plan's long-term benefits. The Plan also follows Tigard Comprehensive Plan policies, which require a review to determine that services can be provided to the annexed area and their provision would not significantly reduce service levels to the City of Tigard. Based on these criteria and previous research, the Plan provides a proposal for transferring services and households to Tigard in an organized and efficient manner. The Bull Mountain Annexation Plan would complete the last phase in the Goal 14 urbanization process by providing urban services to areas built at urban densities. GOAL 15: WILLAMETTE RIVER GREENWAY To protect, conserve, enhance and maintain the natural, scenic, historical, agricultural, economic and recreational qualities of lands along the Willamette River as the Willamette River Greenway. Response: This Goal is not applicable to this proposed annexation because the area being annexed is not within the Willamette River Greenway area. GOAL 16. ESTUARINE RESOURCES To recognize and protect the unique environmental, economic, and social values of each estuary and associated wetlands, and To protect, maintain, where appropriate develop, and where appropriate restore the long-term environmental, economic, and social values, diversity and benefits of Oregon's estuaries. Response: This Goal is not applicable to this proposed annexation because the area to be annexed is not in or near an estuary. GOAL 17. COASTAL SHORELANDS To conserve, protect, where appropriate, develop and where appropriate restore the resources and benefits of all coastal shorelands, recognizing their value for protection and maintenance of water quality, fish and wildlife habitat, water-dependent uses, economic resources and recreation and aesthetics. The management of these shoreland areas shall be compatible with the STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL PAGE 20 OF25 ZCA2003-00003, -00004, -00005, -000006 - BULL MOUNTAIN ANNEXATION PLAN 1212103 PUBLIC HEARING characteristics of the adjacent coastal waters; and To reduce the hazard to human life and property, and the adverse effects upon water quality and fish and wildlife habitat, resulting from the use and enjoyment of Oregon 's coastal shorelands. Response: This Goal is not applicable to this proposed annexation because the area to be annexed is not in or near a coastal shoreland. GOAL 18: BEACHES AND DUNES To conserve, protect, where appropriate develop, and where appropriate restore the resources and benefits of coastal beach and dune areas; and To reduce the hazard to human life and property from natural or man-induced actions associated with these areas. Response: This Goal is not applicable to this proposed annexation because the area being annexed is not within a coastal beach or dune area. GOAL 19:OCEAN RESOURCES To conserve marine resources and ecological functions for the purpose of providing long-term ecological, economic, and social value and benefits to future generations. Response: This Goal is not applicable to this proposed annexation because it is not in or near the ocean. 2. Section 18.390.060 Type IV Procedure G. Decision-making considerations. 2. Any federal or state statutes or regulations found applicable: The Bull Mountain Annexation Plan meets state statute ORS 195.205 and .220, as detailed in Section IV.A of this report. No federal statutes apply to annexations. 2. Section 18.390.060 Type IV Procedure G. Decision-making considerations. 3. Any applicable METRO regulations: The Bull Mountain Annexation Plan meets Metro Code Chapter 3.09 provisions, as detailed in Section IV.B of this report. 2. Section 18.390.060 Type IV Procedure G. Decision-making considerations. 4. Any applicable comprehensive plan policies; 1. Policy 2.1.1: The City shall maintain an ongoing citizen involvement program and shall assure that citizens will be provided an opportunity to be involved in all phases of the planning process. This policy requires an ongoing citizen involvement program. Notice of the public hearing was mailed to all CIT facilitators, the Washington County CPO coordinator, affected property owners, and surrounding property owners within 500 feet of the Plan Area . Notice of the public hearing was scheduled to be published in two newspapers of general circulation: The Tigard Times on November 20 and November 27, 2003; and The Oregonian on November 18 and November 25, 2003. The Plan Area has been posted in 13 locations since October 16, 2003. STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL PAGE 21 OF25 ZCA2003-00003, -00004, -00005, -000006 - BULL MOUNTAIN ANNEXATION PLAN 12/2/03 PUBLIC HEARING The City established a communications plan prior to finalizing the Plan, submitting the land-use application and mailing of the public notice. To involve the public prior to the formal land-use process, the City established a Bull Mountain hotline and dedicated E-mail address on September 23, 2003, for comments and questions regarding the Plan. The Bull Mountain Annexation Plan meets policy 2.1.1. 2. Policy 10.1.1: Prior to the annexation of land to the City of Tigard, a) The City shall review each of the following services as to adequate capacity, or such services to be made available to serve the parcel if developed to the most intense use allowed" (most intense use allowed by the conditions of approval the zone or the Comprehensive Plan), and will not significantly reduce the level of services available to developed and undeveloped land within the City of Tigard. The services are: 1. Water 2. Sewer 3. Drainage 4. Streets 5. Police, and 6. Fire Protection. This policy requires that there is adequate capacity to serve the annexed parcels if developed to the most intense use allowed, and without significantly reducing the level of services available to the existing City. The Bull Mountain Annexation Plan proposal addresses all six services above. The City has reviewed these six services, along with additional urban services to be provided to the area (The Bull Mountain Annexation Plan, Table 3). Currently, all urban services are available to the Plan Area except for parks and recreation. Upon annexation, The Bull Mountain Annexation Plan proposal states that all urban services - including parks and open space - would continue to be available to the Plan Area, per the Tigard Urban Service Agreement (TUSA-2003) with all providers. TNe Bull Mountain Annexation Plan proposal also states that the City of Tigard can serve the Bull Mountain area without a significant reduction in service to Tigard residents. It proposes a three- phase approach over three years to allow acquisition time for additional staff and equipment prior to each annexation, in order to maintain current service standards to City residents. The Plan based its conclusions upon City projections of start-up costs and service needs for the total number of estimated homes and population in 2015. It assumed residential designations, which is the current zoning, and its accordant growth to reach the most intense use standard. All current and future service providers for this area received notice of The Bull Mountain Annexation Plan proposal, as well as parties to the Tigard Urban Service Agreement, which includes the City of Tigard Police, Engineering, Public Works and Water Departments, Tigard Water District, Metro Area Communications, NW Natural Gas, AT&T Cable, TriMet, PGE, Verizon, Qwest, Comcast Cable, the Beaverton School District, the Tigard-Tualatin School District, Tualatin Valley Water District, Tualatin Hills Park and Recreation District, Clean Water Services, and Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue. None of the providers offered objections or indicated that there would be a lack of service capacity for this proposal. The Bull Mountain Annexation Plan complies with Policy 10.1.1. (a). 3. Policy 10.1.1 (b): !f required by an adopted capital improvements program ordinance the applicant shall sign and record with Washington County a nonremonstrance agreement regarding the following: STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL PAGE 22 OF25 ZCA2003-00003, -00004, -00005, -000006 - BULL MOUNTAIN ANNEXATION PLAN 12/2/03 PUBLIC HEARING I. The formation of a local improvement district (L.I.D.) for any of the following services that could be provided through such a district. The extension or improvement of the following: a) Water, b) sewer, c) drainage, and d) streets. 2. The formation of a special district for any of the above services or the inclusion of the Property into a special service district for any of the above services. This criterion does not apply: No capital improvements program requires a nonremonstrance agreement under these circumstances. 4. Policy 10.1.1. (c) The City shall provide urban services to areas within the Tigard Urban Planning Area or within the Urban Growth Boundary upon annexation. Under The Bull Mountain Annexation Plan proposal, the City would provide urban services to the Plan Area upon annexation. This is consistent with the Tigard Urban Service Agreement (TUSA- 2003, Appendix D). All services would be provided upon annexation, and the majority would be provided immediately. The proposal states that the City would initiate transfer of roads and streets within 30 days of annexation, serving each subarea within one year of the effective annexation date. Following annexation, Tigard would initiate capital project planning for Parks and Open Space for the Plan Area. The planning would take place as part of the City's Comprehensive Plan update process, which would be initiated after annexation. The Bull Mountain Annexation Plan complies with Policy 10.1.1. (c). 5. Policy 10.1.2 Approval of proposed annexations of land by the City shall be based on findings with respect to the following: a) The annexation eliminates an existing "pocket" or "island" of unincorporated territory. The City's map shows that the annexation of the north subarea would eliminate three islands of unincorporated territory (Map 1, p. 3). The Bull Mountain Annexation Plan complies with Policy 10.1.2. (a). b) The annexation will not create an it-regular boundary that makes it difficult for the police in an emergency situation to determine whether the parcel is within or outside the City The Bull Mountain Annexation Plan proposes a three-phase annexation, beginning from the East area (the area closest to the City) and continues west. It does not skip over areas or create irregular boundaries. Currently, there are several irregular boundaries with the City limits due to individual annexations. The Bull Mountain Annexation Plan would remove those irregular boundaries. In addition, the subarea boundaries are clearly delineated to reduce confusion. The Bull Mountain Annexation Plan complies with Policy 10.1.2. (b). c) The Police Department has commented upon the annexation. The Police Department contributed its analysis to The Bull Mountain Annexation Plan, concluding that it could absorb any or all subareas using current resources, and without significantly reducing services to existing residents. The Bull Mountain Annexation Plan complies with Policy 10.1.2. (c). d) The land is located within the Tigard Urban Planning Area and is contiguous to the city boundary The Plan Area is located within the Tigard Urban Service Area, per The Bull Mountain Annexation Plan and verified by the Tigard Urban Service Agreement (TUSA-Appendix D, Map A). With the three-phase annexation, each subarea is contiguous to the City limits at the time of annexation. The Bull Mountain Annexation Plan complies with Policy 10.1.2. (d). e) The annexation can be accommodated by the services listed in 10. (A) The Bull Mountain Annexation Plan states that all urban services are available and would be provided to the Plan Area, per the Tigard Urban Service Agreement (TUSA-2003). Water, sewer, STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL PAGE 23 OF25 ZCA2003-00003, -00004, -00005, -000006 - BULL MOUNTAIN ANNEXATION PLAN 12/2/03 PUBLIC HEARING drainage, streets, police, and fire protection would all be provided upon annexation, and street maintenance would be initiated 30 days following annexation and completed within one year. The Plan proposes a three-phase approach over three years to allow acquisition time for additional staff and equipment prior to each annexation, in order to maintain current service standards to City residents. The Bull Mountain Annexation Plan complies with Policy 10.1.2. (e). The Bull Mountain Annexation Plan proposal complies with Policy 10.1.2. 6. Policy 10.1.3 Upon annexation of land into the City which carries a Washington County Zoning Designation, the City of Tigard shall assign the City of Tigard zoning district designation which most closely conforms to the County zoning designation. Washington County previously adopted City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan and zoning designations for the area. Because the proposed annexation territory is in the Urban Services Area, the equivalent zoning has already been attached to the property, therefore, the property does not need to be rezoned upon annexation. Therefore no changes are required in the comprehensive plan and zoning designations for the Plan Area, as the current designations reflect City of Tigard designations. The Bull Mountain Annexation Plan proposal complies with Policy 10.1.3. 2. Section 18.390.060 Type IV Procedure G. Decision-making considerations. 5 Any applicable provisions of the City's implementing ordinances. There are no specific implementing ordinances that apply to The Bull Mountain Annexation Plan. SECTION V. OTHER STAFF COMMENTS The City of Tigard Engineering, Building, Police Department, Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue, Public Works, and the Water Department have all received this proposal and have offered no objections to the annexation proposal. SECTION VI. AGENCY COMMENTS Metro Area Communications, NW Natural Gas, AT&T Cable, Tri-Met, PGE, Verizon, Qwest, Comcast Cable, the Beaverton School District, the Tigard Tualatin School District, Tualatin Valley Water District, and the Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue all received the annexation request and did not object to the proposal. The US Army Corps of Engineers indicated that acres of buildable land should not include areas of wetlands or streams. The capacity estimates did not include those areas. The Tigard-Tualatin School District emphasized that the annexation proposal would not affect school district boundaries. TriMet indicated that annexation does not change the difficulty of providing public transit to this area due to low densities and street patterns. BASED ON THE FINDINGS INDICATED ABOVE, PLANNING STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF ZONE CHANGE ANNEXATION (ZCA) 2003-00003, 2003-00004, 2003-00005, 2003-00006 - BULL MOUNTAIN ANNEXATION PLAN. ..Zk~ November 17, 2003 PREPARED BY: Beth St. Amand DATE Assistant Planner STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL PAGE 24 OF25 ZCA2003-00003, -00004, -00005, -000006 - BULL MOUNTAIN ANNEXATION PLAN 12/2103 PUBLIC HEARING c r~ Dl1JY, IJ November 17, 2003 APPROVED BY: Barbara Shields DATE Long-Range Planning Manager STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL PAGE 25 OF25 ZCA2003-00003, -00004, -00005, -000006 - BULL MOUNTAIN ANNEXATION PLAN 12/2/03 PUBLIC HEARING rur Attachment 2 Bu ment Log oases on An Mountain Annexation Plan °m ' Summary nexation Plan of Pubic Comments and Res • • Yes - ' ' Jerree informed fsha ess he ill be edutedcontacte 11/18/2003 • once the coffee See • Wants to host 50 ome aowners in logged Jerree 9-19-03 approximately hone originally comments rioi 1 Julie Russell P Gaynor Arftn ton Bel hts rw rded a mil J4-23 Also received agers.aThe questions in the sent to Roy 2 e-mail have not been responded to and not on the 21 study because they were not directed to us and they are based he will be may ed a copY of current data. fan and a coffee talk will Yes 9130 the annexation p ment proposals on Bull be scheduled with her to address a l -Tigard reviews develop intergovernmental na uestions she ma Mountain as pad of With he County, the additio ontinues to allow 3103 Concern that and c agreement (IGA) with the C, County 912 Tig or open council development on Bu11aMeuntain without area is still under County de for park urisdiction. land 3 Mike e-mall arksp In members considering p regulations do not p Merrick space as a precondit►do0es not provpide development. Park addition, the County services. Yes 9130 Tigard more than willing please see response above to help developers Yes 9130 « "carve up" Bull Mountain with little interest By law, once an application has been in rovidin arks the City must review it for the date an 4 rope1tYs which just want on submitted, Gooley p offer potential completeness within 30 days. fete, From the City must " rket (6 acres) may d by application . deemed comp time for all local M" (including therefore, 5 solutions to traffic ment 'snWar,t planning to rovide a decision The City, proposed develop more Y development in appeals) within 120 days: development postpone approving until the can not postpone approving ro ert the area d he C onaklin r sale of the a lications that have been submitte Yes 9130 potent of impact an can be evaluated law, There are Goole pro ert era moratorium on Moratoriums are re utated " Want Council to consi 11118103 6 page 1 7 I:~LRPLN~gu~~ Mountain Communications\Comment Lo9•d°c Tigard gull Mountain Annexation Comment Log City of Tigard No. Where/Who. :Source Received .'Date Su'mma :of Comment esponse ~R I y:, • • • behind 16g) given. any developments in the Bull mountain specific processes that must be followed and area that have potential io be a City park specific timelines for the moratorium to be until the annexation issue can be decided. granted. While Tigard has authority through the IGA to review development proposals in the Bull Mountain area, it is still a County regulated area and only the County could activate a moratorium 8 Lisa e-mail Mayor, cc 8/30/03 Shocked to learn of fast paced decision on The issue of annexation of the Bull Mountain Yes 9/30 Hamilton- to Council moving forward before the community area has been identified for over 20 years. The Treick could gather 2 strong voice one way or the recent actions and discussions by the City other. Feels the decision is too important Council have been occurring for over 2 years, for such a fast pace. therefore the decision to move forward has not been fast paced. In addition, there are many avenues for public participation planned including small scale "Coffee Talks" with Council members, presentations to civic groups, presentations on the Tualatin Valley Cable station, open houses, flyers, City Hall lobby displays, and published public notices. Watch the City's web site for detailed information (www.ci.tigard.or.us). 9 Figures annexation is inevitable but would The development code requires all new Yes 9/30 like to see more benefits like wide walkable development to underground utilities or pay a sidewalks, underground utilities, fee-in-lieu of undergrounding. Sidewalk widths landscaping (that is watered), pedestrian vary depending on the classification of the road, friendly street lighting, landscaped the widths are specified in the development medians and safe bike lanes. code. Also required are setback sidewalks with landscape strips and bike lanes. After the Annexation Plan decision is made, the City will begin developing an updated comprehensive plan for the entire community. By participation in this process, you can voice your views on how to make the community more livable. ho Questions about what the City would do for Beef Bend was designed and constructed b Yes 9130 Tigard Bull Mountain Annexation Comment Log Page 2 11/18/03 City of Tigard I:\LRPLN\Bull Mountain Communications\Comment Log.doc ' ' • - and this road are in . OnCe this area is for additional the County' men of the • a as g ad • beef Tegand jurisdiction, wel ro ram Ihnnin rocess Yes 9130 blight alon ents are are orly designed imPCOVem rovement P roved and you • the "P° Ca ital Im plan is app ard, Y°u will . bend." If the Annexation munity of Ti9 in the as in the com art.1cipatwn Plan and t corridors are included oPortunity to omprehensive P how to leMunity asant stra COM1 ton have the U date the our views on " peels that as parks as altenfion to this Process to ou can voice your Yes 9130 " important ests more to Tigard" time Y ore livable 11 " Sugg Welcome at that munit m to a amenity s a com routes will be added on the " and erhap of go to create make the ation 11 detail an P end Additional postal ve inform mon ent at each that ha um n1b n• big scaPe issue rn cat. is a city annexation. more comrr+u recd that communi a Bull Mountain Yes Concerned Cityscape as eoPle on her name to " Problem. Using when P it is ould add communication veh icle receive and told her we w ready to dorit even Called when we were e-mail, 12 " gull mountain ee Tale -Bull list and call her talks we did not not first d from since wron 565 schedule coffee -mail that °n$e sai us osting COat 13 Interested h lives promptly sent reply ea resp to the Board of g-27-03 Lain resi dent, 579-1203 been she expected of ale tter j geedulia Mend, work one ail had not realize s a copy he had indicated 13 1jsa the e-mail wa and s Informed her UPsetthprevious a- m issionC and thee. that we nd at ed to let- County Comomhost a resp promptly now Hamilton- er 9126!03 o she wanted Julialoth would respond Treick e-mail that we uss s • 14 Julie R ell were aware comment from PD Waiting for we feel would decline. ices Washing ton County only police services the W ntain area " According the Bull MouThe Tigard " Sheriffs office, year. 500 calls Per Y er year So 15 " generates 16,440 calls P • . the police would be subsid+Zln~ d Po1iCe, basicallyo Tigard. As to the Tt er 1,000 on they oo not have 1.5 would the additional they staff • Where train addiftonal current required to hire and , Gordon feels money e from? Sheriff definitely be officers C me from services would f+on. I like our police a+nst the annexa and is a 11118!03 lowered municat~ons\COmment Log•doc page 3 CO om mment Log 1::\, RQL~\Bup Mountain C Mountain Annexation Tigard City of T Buliigard ~rv.wm I F a I nor No. Where/Wh6 Source Received.. Date..!~ ~.S*um'rnary of Comment Response.: • . behind have a report to back up this information if you would like to receive it. 16 " " Tigard has a budget deficient of several Tigard does not currently have a deficit in any Yes million dollars, why would be want to be fund. The City has projected that several funds annexed into a City with those kind of have the potential of going into a deficit within problems? We do not want to be just an the next 5 years, however, the City is constantly answer to their budget problems. reviewing the budget and looking at ways to decrease expenditures and maximize revenues. 17 Tigard does not even have the funds to Although Tigard's Parks Division budget has Yes operate the current existing parks. So been decreased in the past two-years, it currently we are looking at no additional currently has $844,806 appropriated for parks, and decreased services to the operations of its existing parks. Additionally, existing parks. last year we collected $407,578 in park SDCs from development which can only be used for capital expenditures. Further, the acquisition and development of additional parks relies on the Park Division's ability to operate its existing parks as well as any new parks that may come on line. 18 Tigard says it will only cost about $488 per The estimate on additional costs for Bull Yes year per household. This is based on Mountain residents is based on the ASSESSED homes with a value of $300,000. Most all value, not the market value. Please refer to of the homes in our neighborhood are your property tax statement to determine your worth almost twice that amount. So we are assessed value. To calculate the additional looking at a tax increase of $800 - $1000 property taxes: take assessed value divided by per year, per household. The additional 1,000. Multiply by 1.6259. Subtract the street services we would be getting are none, if light assessment (also on your tax statement). anything a major portion of our services This number is the net increase in your 02-03 would be lowered. tax bill. In regard to service changes, below is an excerpt from the draft Annexation Plan that will be presented to the City Council and County Board of Commissioners on October 7t'. included table 3 from Annexation Plan 19 The Thornwood Development is next to A developer is required to follow the conditions Yes our neighborhood and we have had of their land use approval. The City can and numerous problems with the developer, does enforce the development code and Tigard Bull Mountain Annexation Comment Log Page 4 11/18/03 City of Tigard IALRPLN\Bu1I Mountain Communications\Comment Log.doc son . • • royal. The City can aP . • ~ ' ' nts that we are no o conditions of vate use agree jurisdiction, City of Tigard' The not enforce p • a party to, Ti~is is the case in any 1 • contractor and the County developer cut down all kinds of trees that including were n Washington ot allowed, he did not even have told comPleteemre Yee t wa not even by a city P before cutting complete) filed with the city The city fined the deveip o f a them down. ocket change deal, small amount thH`S espouse was big he dot the trees removed that he e{thea. Now those 100 year old trees are d or dead, he move five old pe`ous. gone, dead and dang trees that are now down the barrier on The developer took havehad construction and we through the Winterview trucks using our streets drivinarbage on neighborhood and throwing 9 When we the lawns in our neighborhoo Ut up a complained to the City, they P temporary barricade, and the developer and contractors still drive {h onto neighborhood. the lawn onswe and sidew all siin Otj ns beenquite unresp city of Tig 1 was told by a city to our concerns. veloper can say • hbors employee that Wait and promise neighbors whatever they and then do w all kinds of things the development is Will Yes they want, once hb Bull and orhood Mou0 the approved. So much for the neig . The annexation e vote were the Tigard communityare meetin sl Mountain have impact munity should be ut to .1 our teat Bull Therefore, the onentire com If th l entiere included in the decision. residents It w to of ote including the that the u City wIII put it ens, it will most 20 u City of Tigard. If this happens, of likely pass. Why wouldn't the and want all of Bull Mountain helping to Tig I have spoken with pay their bills . As en Ridge, resr neon Neil hts Brad le Woods on 11118103 Barri rie Page 5 meet Lo9.doc ation Comment Log {:\LRPLtV3U1{ M°untain Communicattons\Com Tigard Buil Mountain Annex City of Tigard No~ Where[Who' -'Source Received Date Summary of Comment Response Respon~ • • • • 133",-Myers Farm, Pleasant View, Mountain Gate, none of these residents are for the annexation 21 " The residents of our neighborhood feel like Financial projections show that, due to rapid Yes this is bad timing, and bad public policy. growth, opportunities to provide effective and There is no evidence to show this is efficient service decrease over time, which is beneficial to the residents of Bull Mountain, why timing is critical. The draft Bull Mountain only the City of Tigard. We are a wealthy Annexation Plan identifies the following long- area, so of course they want our money. term benefits for annexation of the Bull But what would we be receiving in return? Mountain area (inserted long term benefits from Annexation Plan 22 The citizens of Tigard believe we do not The Washington County Cooperative Library Yes pay our fare share of the library and parks. system (WCCLS) is paid for by all citizens of Sixty-two percent of the library funds Washington County, including citizens of Tigard. comes from the county, and Cook Park, This tax only pays 53% towards the operation of which is the only park I currently use if five Tigard's library, as well as all the other libraries miles away. I'm not sure if the City in Washington County. In addition, the receives any county funds for the operation remaining 47% is paid for by Tigard residents of the parks? through their property taxes. WCCLS does not pay for capital improvement projects such as the construction of the new library. Cook park maintenance and operations is solely paid for by Tigard's general fund. The main revenue source of the general fund is property taxes. No County money is received or used for Tigard Parks. Capital improvements are paid for by SDC's collected for new development within the City. Non-residents who utilize the parks are not paying for park operation or maintenance costs or the cost for improvements to he ark facilities. 23 Traffic, Traffic, Traffic is a problem on Bull The City of Tigard, through Intergovernmental Yes Mountain Road. The Thornwood Agreement with Washington County, Development and Alberta Rider administers development in the Bull Mountain Elementary School, and the three area. Developments adjacent to major streets additional developments that are in the are usually required to construct half-street tannin ages are going to add a terrific improvements along those streets. However, Tigard Bull Mountain Annexation Comment Log Page 6 11/18/03 City of Tigard I:\LRPLN\Bull Mountain Communications\Comment Log.doc ource -.Receive (letters in entirety • behind • • given? problem to our small two lane road. There the extent of the improvements depends on the does not seem to be any concern for the size of the development and on the additional 1,000 - 2,000 or more trips per proportionate impact that development has on day. The City of Tigard does not want to the transportation system. There are many answer any of those questions or how this areas that developed many years ago along is going to be addressed. It just seems Bull Mountain Road that were not required to they want to tax dollars and we will deal construct improvements along that street. with the problem at some time in the Because development occurs at random, Bull distant future. We are not confident that Mountain Road is not fully improved throughout the City will take care of this problem. its entire length. The City is aware of transportation needs throughout the City and unincorporated areas and prioritizes projects based on funding availability and need. There are several available funding sources that may be able to be used for transportation system improvements including county, state and federal funding. 24 " What does the annexation do to the county The City has worked closely with the County on Yes budget? the development of the Annexation Plan and the impacts to the County are included in the draft F Annexation Plan. 25 Carl Koster Phone Julia 9-29-03 Questions about tax rate changes, parks Provided information on the tax rate changes Yes 590-5090 (what were planned and where), whether a based on the 2002-2003 tax table. Told him special parks assessment was proposed, what was planned for parks in the draft and what the Tigard bond included annexation plan and that the parks system master plan includes parks facilities in the Bull mountain area. A special assessment is not planned but may be discussed as part of a comprehensive plan update after the decision on annexation is made - will include extensive public involvement. The Tigard bond covers the library. Bond is 13 million with a 20 year debt schedule. 26 Patricia E-mail Julia 9/29103 Question about whether annexation would Informed her that annexation would not affect Yes Swanson affect school district boundaries boundaries 27 Stu Byron Phone Jim H 9/29/03 E-mail from Jim "Called about the None- Jim spoke with him direct) on the hone N/A Tigard Bull Mountain Annexation Comment Log Page 7 11/18/03 City of Tigard I:\LRPLN\Bull Mountain Communications\Comment Log.doc t Annexation • • on the Bull M biased C;tyscapev aS upset abouttfd it should plan. He rticle. He state City council nature of the a before the 7th. He e appeared on October not hav the Plan to the had revtewe as also Con" wanted to know stated this w lan. tinted. Also munication P it was com P it before active SOUP 01 ies who reviewed tan obj liar a pointing should review all si a me not to do citizens o out. He ask objective group before they g unless He wnted to talk and Yes anymore articles call him back Ti9 is review first. aN follow was provided to of citizen I had Cathy ber. o scaPa timelY hone num fhe pcdNov City stdents to insure to the MMorayors P Lain re iss C+tYf Portion and Bull Moun e with the sa orated P f3 TO'0 don the the U is neces unincorp plan anon was P ation in fo and t of the Annexation inform -the inform ovin9 As a residen I find the a ands d annexation.about why I %gard is m 9130103 of Bull Mountain Prop 9 s,s. E_rnail Julia obvious revenue d are article was roces YOU update to be all about tax clone and what the P ount of increase Y Don device. This is an $ervices men oath l follow- an larify the am is apprOVe • 28 else. The aying $`t00 a m like to c nexation nothing that h the Wallace worth P e was aware ould anticipate WI the an sad on the arket e, not the m hardly firmed onthl y) Irn;ght taxes are based up a-mail con early, not monthly)- The PVOPertY of your hom erty 00 cost would be Y ASSESSED value additionaePd by 1 A To calcul tvalue livid t light value' take assessed fact the stree '""s taxes' 1 by 16259. Sub tax statement. b-111 Multip Y Our our 02-03 tax Yes ant talso on Y in assessm . net increase in patro remaining ere number is the 60°!° of the libraIts. Th roximately and City lira Ci limits- Yes Ti9 actually from within the o i de the ater sew opulation s come from lean W er of the P atron nderstanding thaed that sanitary " What portion It is our u fined a ne existi the Library• to pay Services determ e3 a reto address and uses n " in o " forced eeded We are already bung a $ewer was n ockets for ant, l find it 29 $18,000 out of don,t need or w 11118103 " connection we " 30 page C0mmu6,C60nS\o0mmet t Log.doc 8 PlN~Ruii Mountain Tigard Bull Mountain Annexation Comment Log 1LR City of Tigard • • • e .1 • Qate, • Comment • • • behind r '(letters in'entirety laughable that now the city and county are health and environmental problem (it is taking credit for "providing" us with that assumed, from your e-mail I am assuming this service. What other "service" that we don't is your area). want will we be forced to pay for? With annexation, you would receive the following services (attached table 3 from Annexation Plan 31 " What right do the people of Tigard have to The annexation of the Bull Mountain area will Yes tell me the house I bought in have impacts on the Tigard community. unincorporated Washington county should Therefore, the entire community should be belong in the city Tigard, subject to its rule included in the decision. and taxation? 32 Stu Byron e-mail Julia/Coup 9/29/03 Upset that the city council has already The Cityscape article was intended to provide Yes cil proceeded with public outreach program people with information on what the City was when the information is not even available doing with factual data. There were already to the public, several articles in the local newspaper on the subject. 33 Plan in place that talked about the The Communications Plan presented to Council Yes availability of the Annexation plan to the states as one of its Goals "to ensure all public on October 7th or 8th. Why is this stakeholders are informed about the issues and happening when this information is not yet process involved in an annexation of the available to those to which it concerns the unincorporated Bull Mountain area." The most Oct/Nov Cityscape was provided to Tigard and Bull Mountain residents to insure timely information was provided on the issue of annexation. The information in the Cityscape article was about why Tigard is moving forward and what the process is. The focus of the Cityscape insert was about why Tigard is moving forward and what the process is. There will be many opportunities for the public to review and comment on the Annexation Plan itself. The draft plan is now available. Please refer to the City's web site (www.ci.tigard.or.us) for up-to-date information, including the draft Annexation Plan. 34 Cityscape appears very biased toward the The information that was provided is accurate Yes annexation. No public involvement - the and provides the back round as to why the City Tigard Bull Mountain Annexation Comment Log Page 9 11/18103 City of Tigard I:ILRPLN16uII Mountain Communications\Comment Log.doc . • oVe forward at this ti uplic . lot ' has dectded t many Opportunitieo ess. A copy of • • anyone other There will be hout this P Council and viewed by. objectjve ent throne {orwarded to Yes _ but - will article was not re can 1t be cted involvem ail will b edule than t`1 so ho hose thatare alle your e-m ideration. d Jerree • ci staff, into cons been back review by taken s have already 1017 and get call again without a The meeting Council on after 1017 by this? ee talk - wants we wall e t ke k Yes s to be held to tedin h her n w ere and ost'ng Cmeet'ng School w Interoes munity Elementary lain what those group the annexatton• 10I1103 one f the com e~ hts Elem to exP her name and H g , CIT , Called were not involved in 3rd if her Jerree at the Schoils abo NP 0 that theed her that 1 would foold her to call back pot Defiler more ut the Newton 35 Wants to learn Tigard soap nd 1~ ~ bet to Liz esCions Connectors. Cityscape her and 1012103 Commupity d to the were she had additional 4u Julia tomorrow mention that these group She talked tOa Co{{ee one read 00d and Liz indicated N!A Thought she as 10110103 - with her about hosting Cashmeta neXation groups {,~cVey involved i th t~volved in those had Jim speak 579-56$8 wanted -talk well. None annexatton upset with bull Mhe ~3w en{orcement 1012103 VeN Feels that are par waY ks proposal. artment has Phone Julia services are horrible. de tar too yes rnous Complains that road , sends 37 AnonY too many employees ao go o gull Hall is 0 m on 1017103 at City s an Yes much money • te l themwhy they 6:0 P fund sources of Ti 3rd. The challenge mountain and (County riety of fund va cts. SHOULDN,T be art e of City There are a mplete 9101e more Calling to fin1017 t tim after initial from wh'ch to co . that there are availability 1013103 Calling n 0n uesCjons urisdiction made, with Julia rnentslq {0r anY 1 there is funding are m tons AddW10nal com than rlort[►za the Phone list of funded ived: projects 0f this, p Norma Julia 1013103 respon$e f eCe 0untain Because ent, to balance Because Pull fish { gull M ublic involvem available. 35 grad ell E-mail residents o fgard could p with the f nfd ard, we have not Russ most of the City roads, projects or road 39 Julie that if the rade theds t0 be prov kAounta'n'S not in Seeded park rocess. if agree rks and uP9 l included n ous Y rtoritizat~on ide Pa {a1n road n to a11ow more previ in gull Mo he light need gull im rovements an mainly atatimeto enter twould be 11115103 widened land cars 99.1 than seven ca d from Hw Mountain Roa 10 ain Commun'~t~ons~Comrnent Log•doc page t;~LRPLN~gult Mount entLog ntain Annexation Comm Tigard Bull M ou City of Tigard e • . • LEGIBILITY STRIP snow woo -_.moo + • ro ect needs for this area • . . • the area is annexe,In P 1 addition, the Draft • - roved, would commit to out taxes. 1 still did not see will be considered. Cache Creek • - en hen could Annexation Plan, ►f for the • . fair to increas apP e ital pr°ject planning ortunities for a time line for this to h the capital to explore oPP Cache the residents expect th+s? propeftY parks adjacent to the additional Creek site within the 151 Year of annexation. Russell Follow- See attached document tleleeS osne State Yes u res onse" for com from the S 6 million Gas tax funds sufficient to addr tax rate has not Draft shows $3 are typically In fact, the gas from gull Mountain PI arks and to upgrade the improvements. dude and the net revenue not kept Pace with the rise in u needed for the p increased in a otential gas tax Wriere would this addit►onal move those funds has The P µ roads. materials costs. would 40 come from? labor and the Bull Mountain area revenue from be limited therefore be directedhe projects wards street would b maintenance only. lurry seals, striping, and Ide to crack sealing, s s Widening tO Would not be pavement li gull Mounding ntain Road capacity on source' Possible from that fu art of Fee (TIF) collected as p The Traffic Impact development is sufficient to pay for close approx imately 20°0 of the anticipated d t nd does not come development impact and funding to construct aintlh C to p ity. roviding the ents nee added' ortation improvem renals acre transp addition, any improvements Co In from the TIF developers on the collectors and allocated partially deducted fhe TIF credit funds can b artial land as TIF payments owed. ossibl for roadway y for p design and p modate the acquisition needed to accom by another widening. However, the TIF emented funds collected com lete a would have to be supP fund in source to undertake and 11!18103 page 11 ment log.doc Comment Log 1:\tRPIN\8u11 Mountain Com+~un~cai,ons\Gom ull Mountain Annexation Tigard B City of Tigard • • of Bull Mountain • • • major project for widening • Road. therefore • source ovements and need. pin outside funding den • With -eet to tie in thehalRoad to tits ultimate width the Bull Mountain on both sides w of sidewalks and bike lanes ould be the road. That outside source c e T ansportation Stre MSTIP 4 ( 1 which would most likely county s ' ram), . the next few Improvement program), • . a given begin project selection sometime and the This project would ha toe to n be County years. b both Washing make the high priority y rovements to City of Tigard for the imp lementation• That could be a final list for imo nt with the County prior to could be a l source negotiation p otentia celerate annexation. Another p issue to ac ide transportation bond throughout the maC~j~ or transportation proj ould ects be used to design The TIF funding c bond proceeds for City the project suPP u. -tionlemented by and construction. rights-of-way acq sources show the most Those two funding dealing with thwithin a impr0 nts to Bull Mountain Road veme impf reasonable time frame- ristruction s for park acquisition d and C-0 charges Will not p, more limit ark lands r options are rn for all of the p other be sufficientto pay . Districts 8u11 Mountain area. needed in the e an options include hborhood parks. ps) to pay for Local lmprOVem the in costs of benefiting properties pay fora those Llp(Li' neig 10 improvements and are allowed ( pusually costs over an extended period ethod could work for ropriide ate met years). This hborhood parks but would bones ap i neig for re Tonal arks. Another o 11118103 Page 12 mmun;cations~Comment LOOM Comment 609 1.\LRPLN\8u11 Mountain Co up Mountain Annexation Tigard B City of Tigard • . eneral obligation bond. Suvoters of Tigard and g roved by the have to be apad from a special property tax would iT rep levy, (This method was of the new t'figardd to most finance the construction City would also Library-) pursue grants that could be used aggressively for park acquisition and construction. given in no No last name or ce. Unable to respond. opposed to annexation. CitYs retarded messag Duane 1017103 Totally service levels is bogus. She phone claim of high available police 41 Shirley is satisfied with presently (no last and library services. She is a Bull Mt. d iven) According ci has rate the condition of yes to Gus, tY name g resident who cannot afford hi her taxes. ed an improvement plan rovements roads, but not develop roads as yet. An 1017103 Information an road should it be annexed. or upgrading tion is the Roshak curve on Bull Mt Road . Phone Duane proposed for area, for widening 2004 41 Greg _ excep of the curve is set for spring McMurry 692 Straightening 1122 under an IGA with the count • a coffee talk - yes Told him the deteit W dnesdays and how many peop community 1017103 Asked about the coffee talks. Said he Thursdays -and about the larger phone Jerreei wanted to have a coffee talk some him the 42 643- (Duane) Saturday at a McMenamin's. how meetings- Jim 5065 details about having a coffee talk - many people, on Wednesdays and Shs832 0@yah Thursdays -and about the larger How can you community meetings. " oo.com before Council makes up schedule things -sided, you've their minds? This is just one-sided, already made up your mind. to know who wasscheduled their name and first coffee talk - were a City address, ask en it 9 give him any information). employee (d secret meetings; Accused us of holding suspicious to only have thought it was very nights. talks on Wednesday and Thursday "This is not democratic - it s not the wa we 11!18103 page 13 Tigard Bull Mountain Annexation Comment Log l.\LRpLN\gutl Mountain Communications\Commenl Log•doc City of Tigard • in Bull ~ . if eveN°ne Tigard is to City yes ' merica. in en o • do things ► v s no and e veN°ne • ountain will be to {onward his comm Mounta+n then bull M promised votes Yea:, county. Council. no destro with ices provided r . ravel caller. sere „ 1017103 Satisfied to offer . F ~tov►de nearby in rovided by thing ►11 P formation p n C~tY has along B w No contact Duane no arrows phone Piark services- 11 the time. Its 43 Florian 643- to the public a Metro area petters, 1p17103 Tigard lies worst in the refuse to help 5065 police are the rude, and tax is phone Duane They are arrogant, proposed road le. The s stand around 44 Anon. p I Road crew being yes „ridiculous" • an work. Trees are knock S oke to and and don't d° Y „1 will persona y not to eats. P cut eveNwhere door and tell them { prr for his comet more detailed bull M • Called A will Provide onse times on eveN Cl „ ountY med caller w ated resP with new1Y o with the rned about c anon on Later, caller will be 'dent cone be inforinform rr called data reside time, which can , Al . This Bull Mtrespon$e to be assured tomorrow. related data Ce arin • y police es 1018103 slow ur. ~ Iishe s response, a & A flier he is back to Duane resp°nSe time gather d n the new etf►n9 Phone UP to one ho include a and with anneXation, city ize for the delay In. 9 45 Christina that, {aster. ched We apolo9 e, staff is talna who are Stimpson would be le a this lim le toff talk. 579-0107 at the city to s~ heard YOU. At. ormation from people ee a small-sca d 10 Jerree ven' glN4hm@st 1've called 1 still ha contact assem k ►n my home' 3-603-9A52- interested in hosting bled an arlin -net 10!9103 coffee tal ussell 50 informat1on will be Council wishes to . hout the Duane anyone. Julie R contact me This Council from please email hts. forwarded to talks throu9 on specific ffee cil decides Julie Russel h 503-312-9163-c ton Heig co up 46 312-9163 asap I live in Arlin9 distribute the once co community • will get back to you locations, we ication tool are one commun laps to The coffee talks Council also plans council. Large group prop open house tYPe'tentative schedule schedule nths ahead. Thet meetin s is in the m° of s ai commun r of the $e 11118103 muni( a3fons\CommentLo940C page 14 Comment Log is\LRPLN1BUItMountainCom Annexation Tigard Bull Mountain C i t y of Tigard No. Wheire[M6 Source Received Date' Summary'of.Comment • • • • (letters in entirety • - Novemberl9 at Twality Middle School, January 21St at Fowler Middle School, and February 18"' at Tigard High School. 47 Jim Cape email Duane 1019/03 HI, At this time, staff is taking names and contact yes ARE YOU REALLY PLANNING TO information from people who are interested in DRAG THE CITY'S NAME THROUGH THE hosting a small-scale coffee talk. This MUD, SPOTLIGHT WHAT A BAD DEAL information will be assembled and forwarded to ANNEXATION IS, AND HURT PROPERTY Council. Council wishes to distribute the coffee VAKUES AND MARKETING FOR THE talks throughout the community. Once Council ENTIRE AREA BY DOING A FORCED decides on specific locations, we will get back to ANNEXATION? IF EVERY BULL you regarding your request. MOUNTAIN RESIDENT VOTES NO, BUT 51 % OF THE MUCH LARGER CITY OF In order for your request to be considered, you TIGARD VOTES YES, THEN BULL will need to change the location to a Tigard-area MOUNTAIN 1S DESTROYED. THAT IS residence. Also for your information, Council NOT A VOTE, AN ELECTION, OR has decided to schedule the small group coffee DEMOCRACY - IT 1S FORCED meetings on Wednesday or Thursday evenings, ANNEXATION. TIGARD WAS with the group size not to exceed twelve INCORPORATED IN THE MID-20TH residents. CENTURY TO AVOID FORCED ANNEXATION. I REQUEST A COFFEE ON The coffee talks are one communication tool A SATURDAY LATE MORNING/EARLY proposed by Council. In the months ahead AFTERNOON AT A MCMENAMINS/BAR Council also plans to hold open house type, IN THE AREA. IT WOULD LOOK BAD large group meetings. The tentative schedule FOR THE CITY TO REFUSE A COFFEE of these informal community meetings is AND JUST HOLD SECRET COFFEES WITH Novemberl9'h at Twality Middle School, RIGGED AUDIENCES. TRY TO LIVE UP January 21St at Fowler Middle School, and THE IDEALS OF AMERICA. THANKS! February 18"' at Tigard High School. JIM 48 Rama Naidu e-mail Julia 10/13/0 The draft The intent of the annexation plan is to insure Yes (per e-mail 3 annexation plan on the city web site appear to have deliberately not that services are provided to this area in an address) orderly and efficient manner. Financial included the Appendix C(tax rate table). This whole exercise by the City of Tigard is projections show that, due to rapid growth, an effort to further increase taxes on opportunities to provide effective and efficient residents of Bull Mountain and to subsidize service decrease over time, which is why timing Tigard City. is critical. I am attaching a copy of Appendix C the tax table Tigard Bull Mountain Annexation Comment Log Page 15 11/18/03 City of Tigard I:\LRPLN\Bull Mountain Communications\Comment Log.doc • lanned Yes , it was • lease let me know Annexation was not mandoate of the Citizens • If it is otherwise, document} is Question #1-; am curious to know why we for in 1997, o ne of the Visioning to vote on the Bull Task Force (throu es are provided to all citizens Julia 1011303 are spending money when according to that Urban Serv Boundary in and 3, 49 Randle Reed a-mail Mountain annexation annexation was within Tigard's Urban Growth it share. 200 & Susan Hay everything I've read, This seems of services pay the ears ago. are recipients reement was mandated over 2x er dollars. Why the Tigard Urban Service A and special service like a waste of tap Y by the City, County, ro riate distsigned Tigard as the app p through this process7 we going residents nd ricts recognizin9 to provider of urban wi inet bounldaries anda faate business owne orated areas to meet state adjacent unincor Tigard is moving law. The reason thatTigard and Washington this issue now opportunities county have identified that opp the Bull provide effective andecease as time goes °n' tVlountamof Tigard would like to take advantage and The City Of opportunities to locate and deve op le land and spaces on Bull Mountain w hi open here is also financial tools auitstconcernb or example, an identified equity r orated Bull Mountain enjoy residents of uninco P in the Tig aibrary, many of the benefits of bei and the City community, such as parks operty taxes. Although without paying City p a for countywide Bull Mountain residents Washington county library services throuServices (WCCt-S) levy, Cooperative Ureceives only 53% of the the City of Tigard from WCCLS funding. The funding for its library the City's remaining 47%u Comes from the have not had taxpayers. In the event that y v Cityscape an opportunity to evie amen CClud ding a copy for insert on this subject, for the Yes our convenience. ert Public a encies ma condemn TO Can the C; OLD and force u Question #2 - 11h8103 50 page 16 Comment Los I:\LRPLN~Bul► mountain Communications\Commenl LOOM Tigard Bull Mountain Annexation City of Tigard .r ~ r r.n there are Because the vet, . ubiic good, how must be followed td,s Iurls. t1me. • or processes that is not in Ctga at this Time. gull Mountain area ndemn pros a cho1ce ' to sell their homesAnd ►t Policy homeowners arks or green Cerra for the 'Tigard could nctondemnatlon or considered at property for Pal diate con ett~n9 access Furthermore, S not addressed Of the so, why the a means of 9 ? that Counc►s for the W011" ~ fairly ks • occurred at a t annexation as eas tot Pal this time . A . area has devlloPmen to undeveloped at mountain arks system gull ,Never, n° en Charged to new Lain rate, no have be orated Bull Moro ess to development in unincor e, not haves e Solt , since develop County do , As the t these fees to assess and dolled otential revenue lost. beet' 12 million of p ark landau ItY to collect 1997 , ~Se and develoP P ew ih to Pay purc ha t►me passes, for n ri In additiodevaloPment dhne edevelopme system fe'S Charge . elimd to inated ent►rel not included Yes parks l or . areas are be dec ,ease ijGB exPa°si maan new -these areas e hod and 6he xed at at date, but tee m otenC+al in the an later ed the area of P luded the anne wri yet. P0 inc ° will be 1011310 Questwn and whether s Also raised tlmeis not kn of vote annexatio expansion areas, Issue of rats about fairness Yes Julia 3 S t the ta►rne Comore UG Yes A6 esP° $esen, but also ate case her Mthe Isse td o main area forwvea her that al #sell 'i 1 Roger Kadel Phone condor `ee ~i y vote on 51 Roger ha nving of the B ed to Into orig►n dames. anexation attached the et thtou h o1 distract boun dare ati Scat istrict an e have not resPond e" d mail did not of the will n set by raes, frustrated teat w annexaC~on 3fie 1011410 meat #46 °ged SVAO chool district ected by ~'tyiCoun~ Julia 3 door about the bout how not directly a ding ell e"mail i haVe been tea cur►oup a 52 Julie Russ 1011610 annexation and Iam children 010 Julia 3 will a#ectwherthe proposed currently e -all -mail tSchool. \rJe are i and tray district is e malte area anon on 53 Johnson annexation 'f he web sited 11 Is a big on geaverton• this issue and Ed and is cia~ not address ~ Son is In Spe',ith his curtent 11 f 18103 for us a bon developing strong page 1 r7itain communications\Comment t.o9.doc 1;\tRPI-N\Bull Mou tain Annexation Comment Log Tigard Bull Moun City of 31gard ..cv.vur > > ~ ~ Rrr . . , elfweare • Ito assum Tigard ofity. • . teachers. my children 111 It so the would date will be a top Pri annexed, informed her that web site up School District. anne Tualatin xation take affect after the this change is approved? response Responded back after -initial res n her area HOT issue Strongly Yes - left saying that this is a concemed. message and many people are ation on the et that inform ORS 135.220 with wife suggested we 9 1;24 web s+te. now the OR that allows the Yes - 1011610 Wanted to plan. !n the during Greer) 3 annexation The lJGB sites are not inclnone of the initlal Carl Koster phone Julia tan because contact. subdivision"level Jean Stanley annexation P la' 54 (590-5090) Wanted to know if the art of the mechanisms lace. This incluude the 1012110 in area 63 wasp ttorney. development are it place. those Beth Property he is her a met with ents (service a9 . However, 3 phone (direct Annexation Plan t included; agreem uired by Metro lace for 55 Randy it wash' ncept plan red are all p that in his mechanisms eats and the plan rocee. Living o' who said co ston call) Wondered why would involve to p Jim two months ag roach agreem allowing porwarde view, the realistic 3Mr* L PPivingston Said he gull Mountain, the tJG6 areas. to conclusionsthatit d message must have jumped to Cheryl would be included- fist of Caines for Wanted to know the and gull er fees for city that a response 1012210 builderldevelop the costs phone Beth (v for coup Lisa mail on 3 Mtn. area would pay to the Clalfference is 55 my ext.) develop Assumes only Yes Hamilton- in each case . the Treick Email com fax; 579- it is not Tigard, S I SDCs• roup• ed him that, because i s o call to Lisa@hamtltonrealtYg Inform ent would be through 0862; home 57g- has had 2 Sewer umber at GW arket and of sewer provided him with the n 846-$521). informat10n Has use on1e back out because about) Julia 1012310 different peo .ch he didn't know going get additional es d!d phone 3 assessm ent ( really g find 57 Louie et (last _ wanted to out what was not g . name) on had two uestions that I said w 11118103 1012310 L+sa email Duane page 18 nications\Comment Log.doc 58 LisalJim Buii Mountain Annexation Camrpent Log !;\LRPLN\8u+! Mountain Commu Tigard City of Tigard r•.V.Y.{d. . v. IVr, No:, Wh6re/Wh6 Source -'R66'ei' d'. ba e S f Comment Response 3 would follow up on. 1. Library 1. What is the $ amount on average Bull Mt residents pay towards the library. By Bull Mountain property owners pay a portion of comparison what do Tigard residents pay. County property taxes used to support the She did not ask the second part of the Washington County Cooperative Library Service question but I think we should know. (WCCLS). WCCLS provides funding for about 53% of the Tigard Library's operating costs. 2. Exactly what are Bull Mt residents going However, because unincorporated Bull to get for their 10% increase in taxes. Mountain represents only a small portion of total Washington County assessed value, Bull Mountain property owners pay only a small portion of the WCCLS funding that comes to the Tigard Library. Bull Mountain's contribution to the Tigard Library is less than I% of total operating costs. Bull Mountain property owners pay nothing for debt service on the bonds issued to construct the new Tigard Library. By comparison, existing City residents and property owners pay to support the Tigard Library not only through City taxes and fees, but also through the County property taxes they pay. The total share of Tigard Library operating costs existing Tigard residents and property owners pay is over 53%. Tigard property owners also pay the full costs of the debt service on the bonds issued to build the new Tigard Library. 2. City Services Should the voters approve Bull Mountain annexation, the City would begin to address park needs within the unincorporated Bull Mountain area. This would include opening the Cache Creek Nature Park to public use, after needed upgrades were carried out, and beginning to plan for other much-needed ark Tigard Bull Mountain Annexation Comment Log Page 19 11118/03 City of Tigard I:\LRPLN\BUII Mountain Communications\Comment Log.doc LEGIBILITY STRIP ••q • • • improvements through an open public process. Additional roadside maintenance, including grass and brush mowing, and more frequent road pavement maintenance, also would be seen. Another change important to many residents is that, following an interim staffing-up period to accommodate annexation, additional police officers (1.5 as compared with the present ratio of 1.1 officers per thousand residents) would be assigned to the Bull Mountain area. Citizens also would see more visible patrols due to the higher density of officers per square mile. Specifically, Tigard P.D. has 5 officers per square mile versus the County's one-third of a deputy per square mile. Because Tigard is geographically closer to Bull Mountain, police response time would be reduced as well. Lastly, annexation will allow the city to plan for growth on Bull Mountain with an updated comprehensive plan for the entire community. The existing county-prepared plan was adopted in 1983 and is outdated. 59 Julie Russell email Duane 10/23 Could you please answer what the c17en d to parks, the City's adopted goal is yes ratio of parks and open spaces? Th11 acres of parks and green way to its annexation plan states that you will pThe existing ratio of City-owned or 8 acres/1,000people, but I don't belipark and greenway acreage is 7.52 you have that for the current population, so acres pethousand population. The City's how would that be provided if we are current park and greenway inventory is 332 annexed? acres. The current population is 44,070. The park service standard, or ratio of parkland to Could you please provide what the current population, is derived by dividing park acreage police standard? You say you will provide by population. Should Bull Mountain be 1.5 officers per 1,000, but you don't even annexed, the City would go through an open have that staff for the current population. process to identify the needs of the area and Again how will you provide that if you don't develop a plan to address those needs over even provide these services for the current time. population? I would like current, correct information, not misleadin numbers. The Ti and Police current) operate at a staffin Pa a 20 11118103 Tigard Bull Mountain Annexation Comment Log I:\LRPLN\Bul Mountain Communications\Comment Log.doc City of Tigard uates to 1.3 officers. This e4 • ' ' Additi ANW~ level of 57 sworn residents. Additionally, • ► officers per thousand art ment employs four full ovide crime • the dep Service Officers, chronic nuisance abatement, and Community prevention, Bull Mountain ices. Should b the voters, other sere roved by Quid be hired to annexation be apofficers w er thousand additional pol increase the officers p Annexation maintain and The Bull Mountain ardin9 residents ratio. dditional information regarding plan provides a ices. Yes police and other urban uN Mountain e $2 Za per Fee would be paid by aced to b ropoSed The fee is antlcip payable with ation on the p annexed. properties, vote on the re inform how that would month fot residential ected to with the 1012410 Wanted MO fee and tility bill. Council isspa 2004resolution not Gathyl street maintenance the u ber and P3 T phone he fee is 3 mountain residents. on t4ovem ount in early 60 Carl Koster Julia affect Bull fee those actuai fee am a asWa result Of O the the hang anticipated 10 C Uld annexation because w ented yes maintain as Well- d wa roads to email sent by You We received an were aware that it didn't message. City to make sure you please contact us again with no include .,,,Sage. annexation 1012510 -related Email r s e ame back four times you have an Duane 3 response cam should Y -hanks email uestion. 61 Cherieruben stien ail text - obtain uld like to d " e-mail text wo " 1012710 "foun RBA Julia Being a Lines in the Bull information about"Ley ine, concerned fora client of m round of 62 Mtn. area, ical fields in the 9 yes about the electr steer me in the nrhs Bull Mountain ll Mtn can you regarding of the ears The B! The issue of annexation for over 20 Y City direction to find answers at the has been identified sub' ect? Cess my dismay area ha and discussions by the ears, like to exp vexation of Bull current for over 2 1 would osed an h We actions bee n occurr in council 1012910 way the prop throng Council have railroaded 1 live in the e"mail MaillJulia 3 Mountain is being husband and 11118103 6,3 "Carolyn who live here m Penner" .carolynpen 1 ment tog•doc net comca Pag communications \Com Tigard Bull Mountain Annexation Comment Log 1:\1_RPLN\11u1i Mountain city of Tigard LEGIBILITY STRIP - - • decision to move forward has not _ ~ ~ therefore the 1 pill ve little say In the been fast paced, 111 Iffi • seem to ha been forwarded to • South area) house • Your current a-mail hthere is an oPen matter, 2003 atTwality 19 st.net7 Council. In addition, n obtain more scheduled forhe e You ca . be holding a Middle school council will b and the lic comments on information to get public whether to public hearin 2003 prior to deciding the December 2, Ian on the ballot. In th place the annexation P to lace the the Council decides ttwo additional event on the s' at open for January 21st at annexation Plan are planned Middle School and February chool Fowler houses -Tigard High S. yes ou would receive table 3 from of With annexation , Y (attache hat it would be d following services continually told t Annexation plan) 1012910 great Weat are benefit to be included in Y that Julia being made are ourCity having 3 u limits. The claims us by 64 in the Gity wool services, getting being and budding planning rotection, better roads, roviding parks, better po11C si alks, P We already sewers and to ring true. etc., do not seem sewers, and srdew closts have new roads, nd utilitles, the der rou into the gulf yes as well a are certainly factored a Ing for proposals on of which our homes and pa Y development ental price of buying -Tigard reviewsa~ of an intergoVerr however the the ever increa, webs, claims Mountain asIGA) with the County' County ore, Your City and agreement ( urisdiction. or open 1012910 Fu,thermton County contracted with the TV.land Julia Washing to provide planning area is still under not provide for pa ment. u 3 not P f develop in 1997 orated regulations do City In services to the unincorporated or space as a Precondition s not provide park 65 buildinWhy then do we have no P Just County area. now in 2003q . addition, the lace to put them rove this situation? services. any how p would you Imp make our lives in the Ci 11118103 How would bein Page 22 mentLog.doc I:\tRPLN\aull Mountain Communications\Com ountain Annexation comment Log Tigard Bull M City of -Tigard • any better? Because Bull Mountain is not in Tigard, we have not previously included needed park or road improvements in any prioritization process. If the area is annexed, project needs for this area will be considered. In addition, the Draft Annexation Plan, if approved, would commit to for Creek the capital project planning forthe Cache property and to explore opportunities additional parks adjacent to the Cache Creek site within the 1st year of annexation. es Lib exed doesn't if ary. into the Julia 1013 9/0 Mention is made of trt ofrthe cotmmunity res dull ets woulld be nnthe same posit on,ase y May 21, 66 3 make feel like a pan after to be required to pay for the construction of anyone else who moved nod h ve voted on the 2002. That is, they may ion a library when I had no choice in the of th ir taxes building size, location, or ultimate cost. paydforr the bonds,tas well as Tigard Lib ary'slps annual operating expenses. They may not have been involved in the construction of the building, but they may benefit from the new building for decades to come. Tigard has been fortunate to have received strong support from the community over the years---through active use, as well as funding. By sharing the costs of operating the library, taxpayers ensure that library resources and services remain available to the entire communi . Julia 10/30/0 And why would you want to annex the The Tigard City Council decided the annexation yes 67 3 South area first, skipping over the East plan sequence at its November 4, 2003 area which is closer in all respects to meeting. The plan will propose annexing East first 2004), followed by South (2005), and West Tigard? Could it be that the highly and North (2006). developed South area with its above as a average priced homes will bring in much it scored revenue and will require few services and Tlaceho der based sopely on South improvements? This really makes my p better. I'm so ha that I will be able to based on the evaluation criteria from the Jul 11/18/03 Page 23 Tigard Bull Mountain Annexation Comment Log I:\LRPLN\Bull Mountain Communications\Comment Log.doc City of Tigard in- e given.. pay for improvements needed in poorer 2003 Public Facilities and Services Assessment and older sections of your city which have Report. The evaluation criteria included: service been allowed to languish for years impact (considers adjacency to City, ability to serve the area without reducing services), financial impacts (do potential taxes pay for service needs), remaining growth, proximity to new Urban Growth Expansion areas, and presence of City-owned parkland. With these criteria, the South ranked the highest due to its size and ability to cover its needs. However, that did not take into account other factors, such as the service provision needs. The Council has determined that the East area should be annexed first in part because it has a smaller population and less service needs. This gives departments more time to acquire staff and equipment to serve the more populated areas without a significant reduction in service levels. Now that Council has made the sequencing policy decision, the annexation plan will be finalized. It is anticipated that the annexation plan will be completed b November 18th. 68 Julia 10/29/0 In conclusion, I would vote a vigorous no to Your comments will be forwarded to Council. yes 3 annexation, unless Tigard can come up with some real benefit to me. 69 "Kerry e-mail Julia 10/30/0 The following are a few comments Additional methods of communication is Yes Koopman" 3 regarding the proposed annexation of the currently occurring and is planned. These <k2@winnin Bull Mountain area by the City of Tigard: include: small scale "Coffee Talks" with Council g.com> members, presentations to civic groups, 1. Using the Cityscape newsletter that is presentations on the Tualatin Valley Cable enclosed in the water bill is an inadequate station, open houses, flyers, City Hall lobby means of communication. Most folks throw displays, published public notices and mailed it away since it comes as part of the water public notice to all Bull Mountain residents. bill. 70 Julia 10/30/0 2. Your meetings to inform the pub=lic are at There are current) 5 coffee talks scheduled in Yes Tigard Bull Mountain Annexation Comment Log Page 24 11/18/03 City of Tigard I:\LRPLN\Bull Mountain Communications\Comment Log.doc lull Ltv1511.ITY 57RIP - • • • • • When en mammascheduli Bullp WO- • • ° ull Mountain area. the B on the • and not houses we looked were at sch nof a Closer . ° ~ . - ~r Tigard , held Doesn't Mountain but they • 3 this time alou want to annexation: Paton by dates we needed. Yes the area Y h want paa%c'p in the Washington as thong you le library developed an seem ~n guU Mountain As the largest sing on has the past those west s stem, Beavers During eople in the north and do not County Y 3 Many p o osed annexations o excellent busing bard public LQfrspaces limited 1013010 of the pr p -Tigard bu 9 few years, the igard s s because with " Julia 3 areas uch better new acquisition use the public library In has a m its ne in the current library- atrons " to BeaVerton.nd as search and instead limitations to assist p to help are happy uest 71 business a 1 librarians and •ob search q library for J business an laterals from other library loan activities them obtain rn take Through the +nterountry necessary. resident. the county can service, any s collections andthe advantage of other library' other library receive materials mfrom e library county at their home staff will and Library opens' When the new Ttg and our business ore room to eX How much the collections have n' others. on receiving collempr ed and will depend uP and the are improve from both the City adequate funding Yes County. school district boundaries will not change as osed area if result of annexation. people in the PrOpr the Beaverton 1013010 `t many • have children to Conestoga Julia 3 annexation wi11 be going High " Schools who Southridga School72 " Middle School and involved with is These familithe THPRO which with . ~ put on by o01 for d Yes program ng the P S plain doesri t work for w ORS citati ► of Ti and conven ient to t and HUsiigh him ith the af{ected instance atTig Road provided ion ows the ORS that that the annexat those b the Barr on Asked for in `o Li osed on method of vote. 1013010 1111BI03 Julia 3 allows the 73 W. Franzke Counte r page 25 unicat+ons\CommentLo9-doc Tigard gull meet Log i;\LRPLN\Sul, Mountain Co~'R' Mountain Annexation Cam City of Tigard (letters in entirety • • behind-log). • egiven. Questioned whether it was fair to allow the residents, not just the Bull Mountain residents City to vote on the matter. and, therefore, they should be included in the vote. 74 "Ron Stark" e-mail Cathy/ 10/31/0 Cathy would you please e-mail me the Council will review the annexation plan on Yes <rfstark@co Julia 3 dates and locations where the Bull November 4th (City Hall - 7:30pm) and advise mcast.net> Mountain Annexation plans will be staff of its preferred timing and sequencing discussed. Many Thanks, - Ron Stark option for the Bull Mountain Annexation Plan. On December 2nd, Council will conduct a public hearing (City Hall - 7:30 pm) on the plan and will determine whether to place the plan on the ballot. December 16th is being held as a placeholder in the event Council wants an additional meeting prior to making the final decision about whether to place the plan on the ballot. There is also one open house prior to Council's December decision being held at Twality Middle School on November 19th from 6:30-8:30 pm. Additional open houses are tentatively scheduled for January 21st and February 18th if Council votes to place the annexation on the ballot. Mr. Dick Counte Julia 10/31/0 Wanted to know if there had been any Called on 11/3 and explained that ORS Yes Franzke r 3 legal interpretations on whether the specifically states that a CITY or district can use 692-1350 or annexation plan process is the appropriate the annexation plan method. He followed up by 294-9531 method of annexation for the Bull Mountain stating that the ORS language regarding how to (office) area. count the votes was vague and he asked if there had been any interpretation that we really count the total majority vs both. Told him this is the interpretation we have been operating under and the City attorney has been participating throughout this process. 75 Julie Russell email Duane 10/31 Tigard traffic is a problem everywhere. Development within the Bull Mountain area is yes Currently my understanding regarding the guided by the land use plan and development development on Bull Mountain, is that each code adopted by Washington County. Tigard, new development is only considered for through a 1997 intra-governmental agreement, the traffic it will generate. If that is less administers the County's development code than 1,000 car trips per day, it is not standards within unincorporated Bull Mountain. Tigard Bull Mountain Annexation Comment Log Page 26 11/18/03 City of Tigard I:\LRPLN\Bull Mountain Communications\Comment Log.doc • considered signficant. This is very wrong, These County standards are the same as those the entire development of Bull mountain reused ferred to within your email ,000 trips d these is not of and Tigard should be taken into consideration. Traffic on Hwy. 99 and 1-5 standards.) In general, these standards require e improvements is already a terrible problem. Metro has that each ldvelopment ofdthe development. said there are no plans to increase the p oPortiona capacity of Hwy 99 in our lifetimes. So how are they expected to handle an Property can be developed within a range from additional 11,000 people, in the next few the minimum a majority of land in unincorporated years of development. We want the development stopped until the roads are at Bull Mountain noted zoned above, R-7 (R esid ty through an a ty to handle those additional iper nter-governmental agreement administers the 20,,000 000 - 50,000 car trips per day. County's standards. The development The development needs to be considered restrictions in place can be changed only with a as a whole not by each individual change of the comprehensive plan policies. development. How is Bull Mountain road Regulating development based on standards going to handle six new developments and tied to an adopted land use plan is similar to the ,000 a school, which will generate 5 - regulatory approaches used in all Oregon cities. 10,000 new car trips per day. There are no plans on the county or city plans to fix We understand the issues of traffic very we11- the road from Alberta Rider Elementary we all travel the same streets. The City cannot, 99, down to Hwy or how Hwy 99 will however, penalize the most recent or last handle this inccre reased capacti. development for the impacts of all the previous developments. The City does not and legally Sherwood, West Linn, Wilsonville, Lake cannot deny projects because neighbors do not Oswego all have limits on development, want to see additional development. why doesn't the City of Tigard, and Washington County. As stated in a response to an earlier question emailed by you, developments adjacent to Metro has also said cities and counties major streets usually are required to construct have a lot of flexibility on density. We don't half-street improvements along those streets. have to allow the maximum density. We The extent of the improvements depends on the can demand the minimum. size of the development and on the proportionate impact that the development has Please respond! on the transportation system. There are many areas along Bull Mountain Road that developed i man ears ago that were not re wired to Tigard Bull Mountain Annexation Comment Log Page 27 11118103 I:\LRPLN\Bull Mountain Communications\Comment Log.doc City of Tigard ~.cvioo~.s x a i Mir • ' • ' that street. construct improvements along Because development occurs at random, Bull Mountain Road is not fully improved throughout its length. As also indicated in an earlier response, because of the high cost involved, an outside funding source is needed to tie in the half-street improvements and widen Bull Mountain Road to its ultimate width with sidewalks and bike lanes on both sides of the road. That outside source could be the County's MSTIP 4 (Major Street which Transportation Improvement Program), would most likely begin project This project sometime in the next few yjectb would have to be given a high priority in Washington County and the City of Tigard order for the improve Another potential sourcest make the final for implementatio could be a City-wide transportation projects bond issue to accelerate major two transportation projects throughout the City. These funding sources hold the most proto at this time for dealing with improvements Bull Mountain within a reasonable time frame. With regard to HW 99, the Tigard Transportation System Plan recommends the dsl99W widening 99W to 7 lanes, supports othrough connector as a method of alleviating th throtraffic, and focuses on improving travel alternative 99W. routes to reduce unnecessary Tonal The widening of 99 is identified in the Reg Transportation Plan. However, funding is dependant on availability and regional priorities. request I'm sorry, but I do not believe your remarks reThe adily res available for a variety ed are, in fact, of yes email Duane 1112 you ha 76 Lisa H.-T. t my first question regarding have done our best, however, to rovide the of . We the libra direct) answer m uestion. I Page 28 Tigard Bull Mountain Annexation Comment Log 11118103 I:\LRPLN\8u11 Mountain Communications\Comment Log.doc City of Tigard ~~N now feel certain those numbers are information you have requested. available and feel strongly the public should receive clear, concrete The County no longer has a separate property information. tax levy for WCCLS. That levy was folded into the County's permanent property tax rate by Please sign your response so I know who I Measure 50 in 1997. According to Washington am communicating with. Thanks for your County, the amount of property taxes that used time and I look forward hearing back with a to go to WCCLS was $0.36 per $1,000 of real figure. assessed valuation. The County has attempted to maintain funding ratios, so for the following Additionally, how will the bond revenue be calculations, we assume that this is still a valid adjusted when a collection comes from all figure. of Bull Mtn.? (I have the impression those are "bonus" dollars) WCCLS funds all public libraries in Washington County, so that $0.36 per $1,000 is spent in Lisa Hamilton-Treick Tigard, as well as Beaverton, Hillsboro, Banks, Sherwood, and all other Cities and also at three independent libraries. In FY 2003-04, Tigard is receiving 11% of the WCCLS funding. (This amount varies from year to year according to a complex formula used by WCCLS.) 11 % of $0.36 per $1,000 is approximately $0.04 per $1,000 of Assessed Valuation. The average Assessed Valuation (which is separate and distinct from Market Value) on Bull Mountain is about $195,000. To calculate the average tax bill on Bull Mountain for the Tigard Library, divide $195,000 by $1,000, which equals $195. Multiply $195 by $0.04, and you get $7.80. If your home has an Assessed Value different than the average on Bull Mountain, just substitute your Assessed Value (shown on the property tax statement you should have received recently) and run the calculation. The amount paid by the average Tigard property owner for the Tigard Library is also not readil available. Again, we have made some Tigard Bull Mountain Annexation Comment Log Page 29 11118/03 City of Tigard hLRPLNOull Mountain CommunicationslComment Log.doc LtUIMILITY STRIP 01 son " assumptions to try to answer your question. - are paid out of costs of the Tigard Library In addition to the The the General Fund of he City. for police, Library, the General Fund pays municipal court, parks, planning, Bn9ineeitsingand a variety of some capital improvemen, rations, The General Fund r bus ce ness other oper; property taxes, franchise fees, include p P of fees, charges, grants, taxes, and a variety We do not track a specific and other sources. operation in the revenue source to a General Fund- we will For the purposes of this analysis, assume that the full cost of the Tigard Library aid by brary budget (less the amours The aid by total Tigard WCCLS) Li is p property taxes. Tigard receives for FY 2003-04 isWCCLS8o help pay those $1,068,455 fro 967,427 to be paid by City costs, leaving $ eted to receive property taxes. Tigard bud9 $8,115,977 from property taxes in theuGements Fund in FY 2003-04. The Library reqe are 10.5% of that amount. • prope~Y tax rate is $2.51 Tigard's permanent 10.5°I° of per $1,000 of Assessed Valluratio . on, Tigard addift is $0.26 per $1,000. property $2.51 residents pay Washington County ke all other res taxes just 11 idents ofWe he a ore those on Bull Moutrfor the portion of havetoincludingadd the $0•4 that pays ard, for a V I ia d propel payment for the Tigard t total T9 $1,000 . Library of $0.30 Per essed value Runnin r he The average Ass same Ti and is closer to $175,000. 11118103 Page 30 'on Comment Log r,~~Rp~ty\Bu11 Mountain Communications\Comment Log. ~ Tigard Bull Mountain Annexatr City of Tigard L.EGIBIf►.1SY gT~1P , . Vea1s thatTigard wn above, re 5Q for the now • • ' alculation as S on average X52 in additi►o debt c • • ptapert1es o t the Tigard Li f ayes for thenew Operation ert I owners P d to build the • Tigard Prop bonds issue rate to be $0.1e t the tax s • service on ate that bills ave been ide 1:03ri• We e plth ugh tax not YetprO d per $ , noun,, Assessor) FOr our aVeVerage out, jhe the actual tax rauals $28 TheaY11 s a tota► usw►e1ty owner tax Pq er therefore 0f the -Tigard 50 p eflea' for the oP of the new libraN of $8oand the constNctJon t differen l'►brar`I wish to assume ou want to sin, if You luat~on, or rf Y n to puce aAssessed _a 1es coo gull Mountain average n apples-ttax Pers a different ake aY s mifaw►t S, he C►vNrits he$eecalculaCions and in M value and d assesse . m e fro re-run them' a ive anY bo 1usus follow 9 th -Tigard will not rece debt servtc or other tam anY to collect the bibraN of d Bull Moun the CM, ice on exat►0n thorized aY dbt serv ► ann Voters au ssaN tern ery taxes nece more. Sach lea', th borlds and On jbe he bones ire a bt set o the C~ nw hs~eeds to ntrf oun m within ow ide rr►its that am roes h aYers sub Assessor deterrn ertY tax P oneY j j City The from all Pr°p oust of m ount is be collec`od ollect that ded that am oneY the C AY expan additional m boundanesat wider base No spread tOver ee a the City is collec eveloped bWe refer that atlon was d . pros$eC. This inform r Cra► Finance pirecto 11118!03 o9•dOc page 31tam Con'mun'~uons~Commeotl r:~t.Rp1.P1~6u11 in Annexation Comment LOg Moen Tigard Bull Mounts City 01 Tigard LEGIBILITY STRIP - - se e given? • - ° N hin -1 we all communications on this subject be routed through our existing e-mail address and . process, however, so that we can track the responses to your enquiries to make sure we respond in a timely manner and to make sure that any information is readily available to other people who might raise the same questions. Centralizing these communications allows us to build a file of questions and responses. Provided a copy Yes 77 Keshmira 1n- Jim/Jerree 1113/03 Requested copy of the TUSA MdJey person 78 Dick Phone/i Counter/J 11/3/03 Requested copy of TUSA and fiscal impact Called and to at the fro t counter and that pie of Yes Franske n- ulia agreement between County and City Athe TUSA nnexation Plan explains why the fiscal impact person a reement is not required. Email Duane 11/4/03 My Bull Mtn. neighborhood is already The general government taxes of homeowners yes 79 Ellen annexed into city of Tigard. How will this already located within the city would not be Kaeding affect my taxes? Have I been paying for affected by the annexation of Bull Mountain, parks all these years? should it occur. The library bond measure portion of property taxes would go down in the event of annexation. This is because the debt service on the bonds issued to build the new Tigard Library would be spread among more taxpayers. Park maintenance and operations are support by the City General Fund. The main revenue source is the City property tax. The City tax rate is 2.5131 per $1,000 of assessed value. The primary funding source for developing and improving parks is the Park System Development Charge (SDC) imposed on new development. It is collected when a building permit is issued. The current amount of the park SDC imposed on a new single family house is $1,747. By law, the City can collect the ark SDC on new develop occurring within Page 32 11/18/03 Tigard Bull Mountain Annexation Comment Log l:\LRPLN\Bull Mountain Communications\Comment Log.doc City of Tigard LEGIBILITY STRIP •e Respons _7777777e. 7777777777, Response e given? • e e • the city limits only. The City would begin to collect the park SDC on new development within the unincorporated Bull Area, if it were to become part of the City. SDCs collected within the area would be used to finance future Bull Mountain park improvements. 80 Mrs. Miner Phone Julia 11/10/0 Opposed to hnexation. She is a senior Responded to questions using comment log yes 3 on a fixed income. Questioned increase in data previously supplied. taxes to make sure she had calculated correctly. Had many questions about the Tigard library. Doesn't feel that Tigard has much to offer - she goes out of her way to avoid shopping and driving in Tigard, es eciall along 99W. 81 Allie Draper e-mail Julia 11/10/0 1 will not be able to attend the meeting on Probably the best way to get all the information yes <allie.d@att.n 3 November 19, Th regarding annexation of you may want is to go to the City web site at et> BuIL mountain (to which I armn opposed) Is www.ci.tigard.or.us and click on the Bull there any info you can email to me Mountain annexation site (towards the top of the regarding this proposal page) - from this site, you can get answers to frequently asked questions, obtain a copy of the draft annexation plan, read press releases with updates, etc. If you have problems getting information from this site, e-mail back and we can attach any requested information. Thank ou for our in ui ! 82 Charles F. e-mail Jerree Would like to participate in any upcoming Jerree informed him that coffee talks were Radley and "Coffee Talks" about the annexation, invitation only, however she contact the hostess telephone phone Please inform me times and places, thanks for 11 /13 and indicated that he would tike to attend. The hostess agreed and he was (503)-579- informed. 4686 83 <RONBAK@a e-mail Julia 11/12/0 What is the assessed value of the property ol.com> 3 that would be annexed within the bull mountain area. What added millage would be applied to that tax base the first year, and what improvements within the bull Mt. area would be forthcoming from that added revenue to the city.??? Page 33 11118!03 Tigard Bull Mountain Annexation Comment Log is\LRPLN\Bul Mountain Communications\Comment Log.doc City of Tigard ccv~®oce ~ t ~ ~ user Resns e e e e Respo ee nse e W 'e eiiJ4 e e• hind e e e 84 Anonymous Phone Julia _ 11/12/0 Very upset with Bull Mountain annexation None N/A (same lady 3 proposal. Feels that the law enforcement - and services are horrible, as are parks. message as Complains that road department has way comment # too many employees and spends far too 37 and #44) much money. Wants to go to Bull Mountain and tell them why they SHOULDN'T be art of Tigard. 85 Jamie and phone Julia 11/13/0 Wanted to know when next coffee talk was Called to inform them of Coffee Talk process, Yes Tim Meyer 3 told them I would forward their name and 524-9503 Also wanted to respond to quote in paper number to Jerree to see if they could attend the from Councilor Sherwood - they are happy December 10th coffee talk or to offer to host to give up library card or pay additional their own. Also told them about the open house fees if it means they will not have next week. increased property taxes. Comment to Council will be forwarded in weekly activi re ort. 86 Ernie Phone Duane 11/17/0 What is the city's bonded tax rate? The bonds issued to build the new library are yes Plucade 3 the only bonded portion of the city's tax rate. In 579-7929 FY 03/04 the amount is $0.16 per $1,000 of assessed value. For an average property owner with an assess value in the City of Tigard of $175,000 this equals $28. The rate changes yearly based on the bond debt schedule and assessed values. If annexecation were to occur, the bonded indebtedness would be spread-over a wider base. Lisa e-mail Jim 11/9/03 Jim, To follow up on your e-mail, the City of Tigard Yes Hamilton- I just want to express some frustration and along with Washington County, are actively Treick maybe a misunderstanding I had regarding attempting to involve the whole community in "How" Bull Mtn. would be annexed. When the discussions on the Bull Mountain Keshmira and I met with you and Liz last Annexation Plan. The direction City of Tigard Monday we expressed a sincere desire to Council has set leading to the December 2, give the citizens a voice in how the area 2003 public hearing necessitates an ambitious would be brought in, if annexation were to schedule. occur (ie, all at once, or one or two areas at a time). You seemed to acknowledge Council's direction on November 4, 2003 was that it was an issue that was important to necessary to allow time for the staff report to be Tigard Bull Mountain Annexation Comment Log Page 34 11/18/03 City of Tigard I:\LRPLN\Buli Mountain Communications\Comment Log.doc - `rvloi6~ i r %-P t F%lr e • • • • Rec' e • - given? d6d.behijnd log) b ii, entire Y" H 11 bring up at the Nov. 19th public meeting. completed, notice prepared and mailed, However, you didn't mention that the vote preparation of the ballot title, etc. This was to be taken by the City Council the preparation is all leading to the December 2, next evening on that very decision. I'm 2003 public hearing at which time Council, after confused. Why didn't you mention it was considering public testimony, will determine going to vote the next day and why was it whether to adopt the Annexation Plan and so important that a decision be made proceed with an election on the issue. I am for the staff report that evening. Was that a sorry for any oversight on my part. You legal requirement? Don't you see where attended the November 4, 2003 Council those of us impacted' by the Council's meeting and were present for their discussion decision should be contributing to that and direction, which were necessary to process? Brian Moore didn't seem to mind complete the steps mentioned above. how it happened, but trust me, it makes a huge difference to those making 18% The issue of an 18% property tax increase higher property tax payments next year. resulting from annexation was mentioned in your e-mail. The accurate increase is 7-3% for Also, it seems very contirved that the two properties within the Beaverton School District week notice to Bull Mtn. residents and 7.8% for properties within the regarding the upcoming 12/2 Council Tigard/Tualatin School District. decision won't go out in the mail in time for residents to attend the only public meeting State law is clear on what notices must be held prior to the 1212 Council meeting. It provided. In addition to the public hearing seems only appropriate that those notices notices that were mailed on November 13, 2003 would go out in time for people to attend and area postings, considerable press has on 11/19 and would also receive notice of occurred. Notice has been given in the those dates in their mailing. I ask you to Cityscape, Focus on Tigard, and announced at please see that those notices are mailed in numerous meetings.. Also, legal notices will be time for residents to attend the 11/19 published in the Oregonian (November 189 and public meeting. 27 h) and Tigard Times (November 20'' and Please confirm the format for the meeting. As we discussed, there very much needs The format for the open house on November to be an open forum with a large amount of 19th will basically your suggestion, with one question and answer time. I firmly believe short presentation occurring at 7:00 p.m. the City needs to prepare to hear Elected officials from Washington County and questions they have not even considered. the City of Tigard along with various staff How can they possibily prepare answers... members will be attending the open house. they have not yet even heard the questions. The table set-ups around As an involved citizen, ou have the right to ask Tigard Bull Mountain Annexation Comment Log Page 35 11/18/03 City of Tigard I:\LRPLN\Bull Mountain Communications\Comment Log.doc • • • • D. • • • • • behind the room should be information areas, but questions and we need to respond. Neither my secondary to an opportunity for citizens to staff nor I find your questions annoying. The be heard and have their questions dialogue is important; when it stops, something answered, or receive an assurance that is amiss. someone will be back to them with an answer. At our meeting last Monday I left with the impression you and Liz agreed to this format. The annexation notices are in the weeds under the powerlines on Bull Mtn. They blew down shortly after being installed. There is inadequate notification happening here. Jim, I can imagine you find the inquiries from myself and the Bull Mtn. advocacy group an annoyance. Our concerns for the future of Tigard and Bull Mtn. are sincere and well founded. I ask for your genuine attention to these very serious issues as part of your responsibility to the citizens of my community. Tigard Bull Mountain Annexation Comment Log Page 36 11/18/03 City of Tigard I:\LRPLN\Bull Mountain Communications\Comment Log.doc AGENDA ITEM No. 5 Date: December 2, 2003 PLEASE PRINT Proponent - (Speaking In Favor O onent - S eakin Against) Neutral Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. /~')g~chrxs5h~rn~ra r11 c V~ 1 ~P~~ ~ 16i-f, ~ 13 s2s- sw ~e~ F ~ 5-1411 TU Vir Name, Address & Phone No. %ameAddress & Phone No Name, Address & Phone No. S 1 a Q s-b3 Ito 9--Sw a Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Addr ss & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. 15ca✓ SG~G P, 7ACXL/ ,So 30- Name, Address & Phone No. Name Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone No. Vx y os) c S9o -111(o Name, Address & Phone No. Name, Address & Phone Nt~o'".^~ ame, Address & Phone No. ,DIG/< FY'GI, h ZRU: 1it 98D -sw t3 ~"a3 -39 -V J; S- Name, Address & Phone No. ame, Address & Phone Name, Address & Phone No. not Sh Iy'S3 Oe O/Z AGENDA ITEM # FOR AGENDA OF December 2, 2003 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Conduct a Public Hearing on a Proposed Ballot Measure for the March 9, 2004, Election Regarding the Bull Mountain Annexation Plan PREPARED BY: Cathy Wheatley DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Shall the City Council approve the Ballot Measure for the March 9, 2004, election for voters to consider the Bull Mountain Annexation Plan? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Conduct the public hearing on whether to forward the proposed ballot measure to voters on March 9, 2004 as set forth in the proposed resolution. INFORMATION SUMMARY The City Council will conduct a public hearing on the Bull Mountain Annexation Plan on December 2, 2003. If the Council approves the Bull Mountain Annexation Plan, then a second hearing will be conducted on the proposed ballot measure that would be forwarded to voters for their consideration of the Annexation Plan. The attached resolution, if approved, would direct the City Recorder and other staff to take the necessary steps to place the measure on the March 9, 2004, ballot for consideration by voters in the City of Tigard and voters in the area proposed for annexation. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Deny the resolution. 2. Amend the resolution. 3. Delay consideration of the resolution. 4~,i VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY Growth and Growth Management - Goal #2 - Urban services are provided to all citizens within Tigard's urban growth boundary and recipients of services pay their share. Strategy #1 - Adopt criteria that outlines when and under what circumstances areas on Bull Mountain will annex. ATTACHMENT LIST 1. Proposed Resolution Exhibit A - Map of the area proposed for annexation. Exhibit B - Explanatory statement to be submitted to Washington County for the Voter's Pamphlet FISCAL NOTES City of Tigard will need to pay for its proportionate share of the costs for this election, which will be determined by the number of measures filed by other jurisdictions in Washington County. i:\adm\packet 03\ballat title ais CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON RESOLUTION NO. 03- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TIGARD SUBMITTING TO THE VOTERS OF THE CITY OF TIGARD AND TO VOTERS IN THE AREA PROPOSED FOR ANNEXATION BY THE BULL MOUNTAIN ANNEXATION PLAN A PROPOSAL TO ANNEX THE BULL MOUNTAIN AREA IN PHASES AS PROVIDED IN THE BULL MOUNTAIN ANNEXATION PLAN WHEREAS, a public hearing was held December 2, 2003, to receive public input on a proposed Bull Mountain Annexation Plan; and WHEREAS, the City Council has approved the Bull Mountain Annexation Plan; and WHEREAS, the area proposed for annexation is within the Urban Growth Boundary of the City of Tigard; WHEREAS, after due consideration, the Tigard City Council decided to forward a proposed ballot measure to the voters. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that: SECTION 1: An election is hereby called in and for the City of Tigard and the area proposed for annexation in the Bull Mountain Annexation Plan for the purpose of submitting to the legal voters the following question: Shall the City of Tigard annex the Bull Mountain area in phases as provided in the Bull Mountain Annexation Plan? SECTION 2: Tuesday, March 9, 2004, is hereby designated as the date for holding the election for the purpose of voting on the measure as stated in the above paragraph. SECTION 3: The election will be conducted by the Washington County Elections Department. SECTION 4: The precincts for said election shall be and constitute all of the territory included within the corporate limits of the City of Tigard and within the area proposed for annexation in the Bull Mountain Annexation Plan as shown in the attached map (Exhibit A) SECTION 5: The ballot title to appear on the ballots shall be: CAPTION I A measure expanding the Tigard City limits by phased annexation. RESOLUTION NO. 03 - Page 1 QUESTION Shall the City of Tigard annex the Bull Mountain area in phases as provided in the Bull Mountain Annexation Plan? SUMMARY Approval would annex territory to Tigard in phases: Phase 1 (East) - Effective July 1, 2004: Generally north of Beef Bend Road; east of Mountain Gate subdivision; south of existing City limits. Phase 2 (South) - Effective July 1, 2005: Generally west of the eastern edge of Mountain Gate subdivision, north of Beef Bend Road; east of SW 150'x'; south of Sunrise Lane and existing City Limits. Phase 3 (North/West) - Effective July 1, 2006: Generally south of Barrows, east of the western edge of Kerron's Crest subdivision, north of the southern edge of Meyer's Farm subdivision; east of City limits (existing plus Phase 2). Includes islands within existing City. Also including an area west of Meyer's Farm subdivision to line extended south from western edge of Kerron's Crest subdivision. SECTION 6: The Council adopts the Explanatory Statement for the measure that is attached to this Resolution (Exhibit B). SECTION 7: The City Recorder and other staff shall take all necessary steps to effectuate this resolution. SECTION 8: This resolution is effective immediately upon passage. PASSED: This day of 2003. v.. Mayor - City of Tigard ATTEST: J_ _D u City Recorder - City of Tigard RESOLUTION NO. 03 - Page 2 . 1 ' _ W ttt GEp D..pN" INF DYU/,,,ON w AP < f rJWY N ~w t = Ar ~ MTN. w vvrnc~ Q 'ON v AT ~CO E~, N r;~ gyp, w t, - T~gar of > c e .0 cv r .4' s,. i u :`4. 6s ` `'mgr vI c~ ~ v ~ s`'e en c U M0 N , :t E r L e, n° .d ' T S i x , ro 4c a n .re AS j a ~s.I J r b w •r E 'w ~ tDDO 1500 2000 25D0 fed vrtwul _ 0 500 v"h' r ~ i t•c 16D4kd 9,y➢D ILLN « r :e I s~ ~E. ~ ms0 ie 1u t~ 5erncas s r; a ~~ynthis aON w Y „<s~",s, _ ~ yryypdba ve~edvA3 ~ OR 9 ~ ,rem ~ ~ TiW~d' 63gy171 s _ ° w X5031 m M ^ datedcallan°r~~Q\11 40301 ~ ~ ~ , c ulY ~p3 °nWP / ~ 2pD3; i:Urptnlhethtannexafwn I plot date' tyov 2Q. veloPment community Qe Exhibit B EXPLANATORY STATEMENT (500 Words) This measure, if a majority of all of the votes cast in the territory and the city favor the annexation plan, would annex the Bull Mountain area into Tigard in phases as provided in the Bull Mountain Annexation Plan. The area is within the Urban Growth Boundary. On annexation, the annexed area would be withdrawn from the Tigard Water Districts and police and street services would be provided by Tigard rather than the County. Annexation, if approved, would be in the following three phases: Phase 1 (East) - Effective July 1, 2004: Generally located north of Beef Bend Road; east of the Mountain Gate subdivision; south of Bull Mountain Road including parcels north of Bull Mountain Road; west of Aspen Ridge and Helm Heights subdivisions. Phase 2 (South) - Effective July 1, 2005: Generally located north of Beef Bend Road; east of SW 150`h; south of Sunrise Lane extended east to, and including, the High Tor subdivisions, south to Bull Mountain Road (including two parcels north of Bull Mountain Estates); and west of the Mountain Gate subdivision. Phase 3 (North/West) - Effective July 1, 2006: Generally bounded by Barrows on the north to Kerron's Crest subdivision, south to about 630 ft. west of Meyer's Farm subdivision; east to SW 150`h; north along SW 150`h to Sunrise Lane; east until just south of Pacific Crest subdivision; north along the east boundary of Hillshire Creek Estates; north to Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) easement to Barrows. Includes unincorporated Fern Street parcels. Annexation would result in a property tax increase of approximately 6% to 8.5% within the area to be annexed. For example for a property with an assessed value of $250,000 would experience a property tax increase of $282. Other charges may also increase. The annexation would create an increase in revenue to the City of Tigard, but the City would have higher operating costs. Increased revenue to the city includes additional state shared revenues, system development charges, traffic impact fees, franchise fees and property L taxes. C Annexation of the Bull Mountain area would not impact service levels for existing city residents. Newly annexed residents would receive: i 1. A higher standard for police services. The City Council has traditionally i authorized our staffing at 1.5 officers per 1,000 (currently it is 1.3 officers per 1,000), compared to the current 1 officer per 1,000 provided by the County in the Bull Mountain area. 2. Broader civic participation and voting power in the affairs of the City of Tigard. 3. A process to provide more traffic calming. 4. Road maintenance improvements including roadside mowing and more frequent maintenance on roads where jurisdiction is transferred from Washington County to the City of Tigard. 5. Park system planning, land acquisition and park development.