Loading...
City Council Packet - 05/17/2005 TIGARD CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP MEETING May 17, 2005 COUNCIL MEETING WILL NOT BE TELEVISED Ii0ls\DOnna's\ccpkt2 rT x yr hr r , 771 NT7 dot = p ssa~r . , 7 a K 4 ~ r ai y °t'yt t, .7; is -64 rfFl~::L" t i. ~ 7! - c•~t a to # 4y x i a ; Jr~ 'W' M3 1 AN Y L A,t x t ,i 4 tu~ Kati SKY+~~'~` , 7cc ``hh n , r r + ~ .,J." _ _ k a. .r a Agenda Item No. 3 , For Agenda of lv. c)g, o 5 COUNCIL MINUTES TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 17, 2005 1. WORKSHOP MEETING 1.1 Council President Wilson called the City Council & Local Contract Review Board meeting to order at 6:31 p.m. 1.2 Council Present: Council President Wilson; Councilors Harding, Sherwood, and Woodruff 1.3 Pledge of Allegiance 1.4 Council Communications & Liaison Reports: None 1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items: None 2. JOINT MEETING WITH THE DOWNTOWN TASK FORCE TO HEAR AN UPDATE ON THE DOWNTOWN PLAN Downtown Task Force Members Present: Mike Marr, Chair; Task Force Members Jim Andrews, Carolyn Barkley, Martha Bishop, Judy Munro, and Jan Richardson Community Development Director Hendryx introduced this agenda item. Display boards were reviewed on the following topics: • Updated Schedule (5/9/05) - Downtown Task Force/Downtown Improvement Plan • Flow chart: Looking Ahead: Making the Plan Happen • Table: Implementation Program: Downtown Improvement Plan • Table: Urban Renewal Program • Flow chart: Developing the Urban Renewal Plan • Flow chart: Implementing the Urban Renewal Plan Chair Marr reported that the Downtown Plan process is on schedule for the most part. He anticipates the consultant will recommend some adjustments to the timeline. The final adoption of the plan is now scheduled for September. Chair Marr reviewed what remains to be accomplished including securing funding, brand Tigard development, and adoption of an implementation plan. Interviews were conducted last Friday for consultants to assist with the production of an urban renewal plan and a public involvement plan. Chair Marr advised that people in the community are asking questions. He noted the difficulty in responding to these questions since the plan is conceptual. COUNCIL MINUTES -MAY 17, 2005 page 1 Chair Marr said he hoped that funding identified in the Capital Improvements Program would be approved. Task Force Member Munro said she would like to see the City capitalize on the current impetus of the Task force and community. She noted appreciation for the support of the City Council and staff. Interim City Manager Prosser noted that, last night, the Budget Committee approved the Capital Improvements Program and also approved staff positions to support the downtown effort. Community Development Director Hendryx summarized highlights of "Making the Plan Happen," which included an outline of catalyst projects - both public and private. Smaller "brand Tigard design" projects are to be identified and implemented along with major catalyst projects such as street improvements designed to stimulate future private development. In response to an observation by Councilor Woodruff, discussion followed on "catalyst" projects. It was noted that the post office and police department have been in the downtown for years and they have not "spurred" any development activity. One idea was that the Federal government might want to relocate the post office to another downtown location and the current post office property could be redeveloped. After brief discussion, Planning Manager Shields advised the City Council will have an opportunity to explore ideas on catalyst projects. Chair Marr noted the need to acknowledge that the plan is designed to be flexible as it evolves over the next 20 years to respond to market conditions and changes in circumstances. This is a starting point - all is conceptual. Planning Manager Shields added that the plan is also based on input received during the previous public involvement process. Discussion occurred on the following: • Councilor Woodruff noted that the post office is a major component for the downtown. • When used for the downtown, is the term "brand Tigard" confusing considering the City's overall goal for "brand Tigard"? Community Development Director Hendryx noted the purpose is to identify what is unique about Tigard and that this could tie in with the larger goal. • Funding elements will also get rolled into the catalyst projects. • Continue to keep the downtown project open and visible - include all who want to participate. COUNCIL MINUTES -MAY 17, 2005 page 2 • Community Development Director Hendryx reviewed work that needed to be accomplished by the end of June. • More than 400 people have been involved in this process (dialog meetings, open house). • The State of Oregon gave a three-month extension on the TGM grant. • Consultant work on the TGM grant, public outreach, and the urban renewal plan all need to be coordinated in order to meet the May 9, 2006, deadlines for a ballot measure. • Chair Marr noted that CWS is considering addressing some environmental issues at their expense. (Note: Item No. 4 was discussed at this time, after which the Council returned to Agenda Item No. 3) 3. JOINT MEETING WITH THE PARK AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD Information was distributed to the City Council pertaining the PRAB's plans to make presentations to the community following a Park and Recreation Attitude and Interest Survey. PRAB Chair Carl Switzer spoke to the Council about the survey and the Board's desire to gain additional input from the community to determine if there is momentum for something to be done; perhaps, a ballot measure to fund parks and open spaces. Discussion followed on efforts of the PRAB with it being noted that care should be taken so the public does not think a ballot measure proposal is a "done deal." Discussion topics included the following: • Issues as outlined in the agenda item summary, which is on file with the City Recorder. • Obtaining as much feedback as possible to determine support for adding to the City's parks or recreation programs. • No properties have been designated at this time for purchase. • A draft resolution was distributed to the City Council outlining principles when considering the location and purchase of park and open space properties. • A map showing areas served (underserved) with parks was distributed and reviewed. • Reference was made to a previous City Council discussion to consider the purchase of park land outside the City limits when property is available. • Discussed that PRAB is receiving a lot of input from citizens about potential park properties. • Discussed how SDC funding works and that SDC expenditures are regulated. • Staff is currently working on a composite list of all the properties that have come in from various sources. COUNCIL MINUTES -MAY 17, 2005 page 3 • An Executive Session with the City Council has been scheduled so the City Council can review information about negotiations for potential land purchases. • Discussed that citizen members of the Budget Committee will meet with the Citizens for Community Involvement (CCI) to review the City's financial forecasts to look at needs citywide to determine "what we can do, what we can't do." Interim City Manager Prosser said he hoped the PRAB member to the CCI would be active in this discussion. • Public Works Director Koellermeier asked City Council to review the draft resolution and get back to staff with input. The resolution will be scheduled for review and consideration by the City Council at an upcoming meeting. • Discussed the issue of alcohol in the parks. A letter sent to the Tigard Times by Chair Switzer was distributed to the City Council. (A copy of this letter is on file in the City Recorder's office.) Chair Switzer advised that the public has been surprisingly quiet on this subject. • Draft presentation materials were distributed to the City Council. The consensus of the City Council was that PRAB could proceed to do their community outreach with the materials as presented. Councilor Woodruff again cautioned that it should be made clear that no decision has been made on proceeding with a ballot measure to fund parks and recreation, but he indicated he was supportive of PRAB going out to get more public input as a follow up to their survey. • Councilor Harding suggested that the survey data be coordinated with information obtained from the Vision Task Force Survey. 4. PRESENTATION ON THE TUALATIN RIVER NATIONAL REFUGE Volunteer Norm Penner representing the Tualatin River National Refuge introduced this agenda item. The Tualatin River Refuge is a developing refuge and one of ten urban refuges in the National Wildlife Refuge System. Refuge habitats consist of shrub, wetlands, riparian forests, oak and pine grassland, meadows, and mixed deciduous/coniferous forests common to Western Oregon prior to settlement. When final acquisition is completed, the refuge will total over 3,000 acres and preserve a floodplain wetland ecosystem. Kim Strassberg, Outdoor Recreation Planner for the Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge - US Fish & Wildlife Service reviewed the resources soon to be available to the public from this 3,060 wildlife refuge, established in 1992. A packet of information, including a map is on file in the City Recorder's office. Mr. Penner, President of the Friends of the Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge reviewed the accomplishments of this organization, which are summarized in the Council agenda item summary on file in the City Recorder's office. COUNCIL MINUTES -MAY 17, 2005 page 4 A letter of support to Federal officials supporting visitor center funding has been prepared. Councilor Wilson indicated he would sign the letter in the Mayor's absence due to time sensitivity. Mr. Penner said the Refuge had not been actively promoted over the last ten years because it was not open to the public. It is hoped that the refuge would be open late this year with a big celebration being planned for May 2006. Council members noted the City's support for the Refuge. One of the City Council goals is for more parks and open space. 5. BRANDING/GRAPHIC IDENTITY CONSULTANT INTERVIEWS Assistant to the City Manager Newton introduced this agenda item, noting that Juli Page and Glenn Marcusen were available to be interviewed by the City Council as the Council considers who to select to work with the City on branding and graphic identity. Juli Page - Noted she was a long-resident of Tigard. She says she teams up with a production company. She reviewed her approach would be to meet with the Council to gather information. She reviewed guidelines about how a corporate identity could be established. Ms. Page advised that what separates her apart is that she is a good project manager, is organized and detail oriented. She presented the City Council with example of the work she has done in the past. Glenn Marcusen Reviewed a book of samples showing how a concept was developed. He described his collaborative style stating that he would expect to work through numerous iterations with the City Council and with input from many people. He described the good elements of a logo and noted it should be reproducible in one color. He emphasized his teamwork approach to the project. Council meeting recessed at 8:53 p.m. Council meeting reconvened at 8:58 p.m. Council consensus was to. reflect on the presentations heard this evening and then discuss this matter again during the Study Session on May 26, 2005. 6. DISCUSSION OF MEASURE 37 DECISION-MAKING ENTITY Community Development Director Hendryx presented the staff report. In December 2004, the Tigard Municipal Code (TMC) was amended by Council to identify the process for evaluating Measure 37 claims. After an evaluation and COUNCIL MINUTES -MAY 17, 2005 page 5 staff report, a public hearing is to be held before a "Decision Maker." The Decision Maker must evaluate the claim and render a decision within 180 days of filing the claim. The TMC (1.20.090) establishes that Council had the initial responsibility to act as the Decision Maker; however, authority exists in the TMC for Council to delegate that authority to another board, commission or individual. After brief discussion, City Council consensus was to follow staff's recommendation to have the City Council initially act as the Decision Maker for Measure 37 claims and then decide at a later date if they would like to delegate it to another body, commission, or individual. 7. DISCUSSION OF AN INFORMATIONAL SUMMARY REPORT REGARDING THE URBAN SERVICES AREA (City Recorder's Note: A transcript of the audio tape was prepared for this agenda item. The transcript is on file in the City Recorder's office.) Community Development Director Hendryx facilitated the discussion on this agenda item. He gave the background of the Urban Services Agreement (referred to as "IGA" in summary below) with Washington County. The staff report materials summarized the intent of the IGA. The purpose of tonight's discussion was to ask for City Council direction on whether it wants to continue with the IGA. Community Development Director Hendryx referred to pros and cons of continuing with the agreement. The County has long recognized the City of Tigard as being the ultimate service provider for areas in Tigard's urban service boundary. The IGA has reinforced the probability of eventual annexation of the urban services area to Tigard, which is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and consistent with the County 2000 report. The County is willing to look at participating in the upcoming review of the Tigard Comprehensive Plan update. The IGA has established the foundation for designating Tigard as the ultimate service provider for urban growth areas 63 and 64. There has been a long policy of support for the IGA. Discussion followed: • What assurances are there that the City will become the service provider for Areas 63 and 64? Community Development Director Hendryx reported that there have been past discussions between the City of Tigard and Washington County wherein the County has indicated the City should become the service provider. • A review of the urban growth boundary, including the County's relationship with all jurisdictions. Also discussed was the Oregon land use planning system regulations. COUNCIL MINUTES -MAY 17, 2005 page 6 • The Washington County Comprehensive Plan identified areas that would ultimately be served by the cities of Tigard, Hillsboro, and Beaverton. • The Community Plan identifies Tigard as the ultimate service provider. • Preceding the IGA, there were cooperative agreements specifying a planning system and coordination. • The County did the planning for the area which was in Tigard's area of interest. • Reviewed that there was 'a public process when the Bull Mountain Community Plan was established. • Senate Bill 122 further recognized that "urbanizable" areas would ultimately have services provided by cities. • The IGA with Washington County identified the City of Tigard's planning area (1983). There was a public process. • Washington County indicated it was concerned that the City of Tigard might be considering terminating the IGA. • The IGA is one of several agreements. If the City was to step away from ever providing services to the identified areas in unincorporated Washington County, a series of agreements would need to be renegotiated and the ultimate service deliverer would need to be identified. (Provisions of SB 122) • Councilor Wilson noted he thought the City should continue with the IGA; however, he had concerns that because Tigard does development review for the area that this communicates that Tigard is responsible for the planning in the area. In the long run, he said he considered whether the IGA helps with the annexation issue and, in some ways, it might be better to provide no urban services. • Community Development Director Hendryx reiterated that the IGA is one of many agreements. • Councilor Woodruff noted that 69 percent of City of Tigard residents who voted on the annexation question indicated they thought the Bull Mountain Annexation should occur. • Councilor Sherwood noted there has been no objections raised by City of Tigard residents with regard to the IGA. COUNCIL MINUTES -MAY 17, 2005 page 7 • Interim City Manager Prosser advised he heard from three Councilors that they do not wish to change the IGA. He asked for comments from Councilor Harding. • Councilor Harding noted concerns about the TMC being applied to the Bull Mountain area and whether there had been a public process. She also reviewed her concerns with expenditures of TIF funds collected from the Bull Mountain area, but applied elsewhere (Gaarde, Walnut). She suggested work be done to show Bull Mountain residents "how we can work together" so they would want to annex to the City of Tigard. She also noted concerns about information she was told (prior to her taking office) that there was no way the City could get out of the IGA. She also noted issues she had about being provided (timeliness) with a copy of the IGA so she could review it; she now has a copy of the IGA. She summarized by saying research needs to be done to consider all the facts to bring this issue to closure. "...We have to look at what's going to work for both sides..." • Community Development Director Hendryx responded to some of the concerns noted by Councilor Harding: o There was a public process at the time the County adopted the City's land use regulations to be applied to the urban services area (Walnut Island, Bull Mountain, and some areas by the river). o There were public open houses. There were notices to every citizen of the pending land use decision and that the City of Tigard would be providing services (development review, building inspection, street maintenance). • There was discussion on the traffic impact fee (TIF). (Note: During this discussion there was an objection about the IGA from a member of the audience. See transcript on file in the City Recorder's office, Page 10.) Interim City Manager Prosser explained that the traffic impact fee is to be used on roads of county-wide impact. The TIF fee was collected from Walnut Island and was accounted for separately. The City of Tigard, by letter, requested authority from the County to spend money on that area that was recently annexed. The County granted this authority and recognized that improvements in the Walnut Island area would address problems that served not only Walnut Island, but also Bull Mountain. The funds were accounted for and spent appropriately. • Interim City Manager Prosser described that projects must be from the County-wide plan. Projects are approved by the County to service roads that have county-wide impact. One of the issues that has developed over time is Bull Mountain Road and the Capital Improvement Program has identified Bull Mountain and Roshak Road as a priority. "There were no loopholes." COUNCIL MINUTES -MAY 17, 2005 page 8 • Interim City Manager Prosser described the reasoning for a system development charges, whether a TIF or park SDC, which to be spent to improve the system. Funds are not required to be spent in the exact area where it is collected; funds are expended to improve the system. • In response to an observation by Councilor Harding, Community Development Director Hendryx acknowledged that the cost to the road in the Walnut Island area exceeded the amount of TIF collected from that area. • Community Development Director Hendryx clarified that the IGA has always had a provision that there is an "out" clause - either party can terminate with mutual consent. • Community Development Director Hendryx, in response to a question from Councilor Woodruff, agreed that a resident of the unincorporated area should take information to the County if the resident did not believe the City was living up to its part of the agreement or if the resident did not like the agreement. • Councilor Wilson ended the discussion noting that there was Council consensus. 8. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS Councilor Harding reported on a recent decision by the Metropolitan Area Communications Commission regarding a name change for public access television: TVCTV. (TVCT.org) 9. NON AGENDA ITEMS Administrative Items: Community Achievement - Request from Washington County Fair and Rodeo for nomination of an outstanding Tigard citizen/community volunteer for recognition at the Fair. Council consensus was to select Tigard resident Pat Biggs as the City's nominee, citing her 18 years of service on the School Board and her recent efforts for the skate park and the homeless shelter. Council Calendar: May 24 Council Business Meeting - 6:30 p.m. - Town Hall May 30 Memorial Day Holiday, City Offices Closed May 31 Fifth Tuesday Council Meeting - 7 p.m. - Library Community Room June 14 Council Business Meeting - 6:30 p.m. - Town Hall June 17-19 Tigard Festival of Balloons - Cook Park June 21 Council Workshop Meeting - 6:30 p.m. - Town Hall COUNCIL MINUTES -MAY 17, 2005 page 9 June 28 Council Business Meeting - 6:30 p.m. - Town Hall 10. EXECUTIVE SESSION: Not held. 11. ADJOURNMENT Catherine Wheatley, City -Recorder Attest: 4,'~'4elL May of, City of Tigard Date: & - a~ 0t Oadm\why\c \2005105051740c Recorder's Note: The time of meeting adjournment was inadvertently omitted above; the meeting adjourned at 9:42 p.m. COUNCIL MINUTES -MAY 17, 2005 page 10 TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING CITY OF TIGARD D MAY 17, 2005 6:30 p.m. OREGON TIGARD CITY HALL 13125 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. Citizen Communication 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 -MAY 17, 2005 page 1 AGENDA TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 17, 2005 • 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(4), 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. 6:30 PM 1. WORKSHOP MEETING 1.1 Call to Order - City Council & Local Contract Review Board 1.2 Roll Call 1.3 Pledge of Allegiance 1.4 Council Communications & Liaison Reports 1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items 6:35 PM 2. JOINT MEETING WITH THE DOWNTOWN TASK FORCE TO HEAR AN UPDATE ON THE DOWNTOWN PLAN ■ Staff Introduction: Community Development Staff 7:15 PM 3. JOINT MEETING WITH THE PARK AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD ■ Staff Introduction: Public Works Staff 7:45 PM 4. PRESENTATION ON THE TUALATIN RIVER NATIONAL REFUGE ■ Staff Introduction: Community Development Staff 8:05 PM 5. BRANDING/GRAPHIC IDENTITY CONSULTANT INTERVIEWS ■ Staff Introduction: Administration Staff COUNCIL AGENDA - MAY 1772005 page 2 8:35 PM 6. DISCUSSION OF MEASURE 37 DECISION-MAKING ENTITY ■ Staff Report: Community Development Staff 8:55 PM 7. DISCUSSION OF AN INFORMATIONAL SUMMARY REPORT REGARDING THE URBAN SERVICES AREA ■ Staff Report: Community Development Staff 9:40 PM 8. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS 9. NON AGENDA ITEMS 10. 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(4), 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 PM 11. ADJOURNMENT 1Aadm\cathy\cca\2005\050517.doc5/4/05 COUNCIL AGENDA -MAY 17, 2005 page 3 0 AGENDA ITEM # a FOR AGENDA OF 5/17/05 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Joint Meeting with Downtown Task Force,/Downtown Plan Update PREPARED BY: Jim Hendryx DEPT HEAD OK TY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Council will be updated on the Tigard Downtown Improvement Plan's progress and have the opportunity to discuss the plan with Task Force members. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Not applicable. INFORMATION SUMMARY For FY 2004-2005, the City received a Transportation and Growth Management Grant (TGM) from the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) to create the Tigard Downtown Improvement Plan. The Downtown Task Force has worked with the Tigard community and project consultants to develop the Plan, which focuses on the green "heart" of Tigard (Fanno Creek), natural and public spaces, and creating a vibrant urban village. In March and April, the Task Force met with more than 400 people to discuss the Plan and get the community's comments. More than 100 people attended the April 23`d Open House and received a Plan overview, heard from local and regional officials about making the Plan happen, and had the opportunity to ask questions and comment. When complete, the Plan will provide a short- and long-term strategy for Downtown improvements, including recommended approaches to funding. Council is scheduled to review the Plan in July 2005. The Task Force is now finalizing the Plan and looking ahead to implementation. The Task Force will. be re-appointed this summer, with three working groups focusing on making the Plan happen: CIP projects/Brand Tigard (short-term), Catalyst projects (long-term), and developing land-use regulations. Identifying long-term funding sources and implementing Downtown improvements are two key elements to maintaining the project's momentum in the near term. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED N/A VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY Community Character and Quality of Life/Central Business District Goal #1, Provide opportunities to work proactively with Tigard Central Business District Association (TCBDA) businesses and property owners and citizens of Tigard to set the course for the future of the central business district. ATTACHMENT LIST Attachment 1: Downtown Task Force/Downtown Improvement Plan Next Steps Attachment 2: Preferred Design Concept (from 4/23/05 Open House) FISCAL NOTES None. I:\LRPLN\Council Materials\5 17 05 Task Force Update AIS.doc Downtown Task Force/Downtown Improvement Plan Next Steps Date Meeting Type Topics Location/Time May S Task Force Open House results Town Hall, 6:30 Implementation focus Preparation for next steps (Plan document, implementation, next phase) May 17 Council Joint Meeting with Council - Town Hall, Time TBD Update May 26 Task Force Introduction: Land Use Town Hall, 6:30 Com onent of Plan June 9 Task Force Draft Plan presentation, Town Hall, 6:30 discussion June 28 Council/Planning Plan presentation to Planning Town Hall, Time TBD Commission Commission and City Council July 7 Task Force Placeholder meeting Town Hall, 6:30 July Council Resolutions to accept the plan, Town Hall, Time TBD Direction for Plan Implementation July Task Force TBD Recognition Event Aug-Oct. Working Groups Brand Tigard (projects and funding), Catalyst (projects and funding), Land Use Approach work with property owners Oct., Jan., Task Force Meets Quarterly April, July To get involved in Making the Plan Happen, contact downtown@ci.tigard.or.us, or visit vvww.ci.tigard.or.us/downtown. ~ ~•,~„!fit ~ ~ ~ ~ s a, rn a TP, Ono," W ON NY o h• a MAE ~,+d. 4~ as , ` ON , l b. , a 4,~ ~"r' f r x , ff ~ TV, , v' .a RE(.~WONAI_ RETAIL DOWNTOWN ASH AVE, `00 "N'TC1? Il'd~"^ ~4 Y^F"tP+z~'dd...Y t:;-Xd. ➢i.:S..'~ iMPROVEMENTS £"~k` EE- daC3RRfrX-,Y i'~2T„,x C f, i'9'i:.'F' @'.3A,.#C ,9\t''.F4 d'`t'>. # a:.:14-T"ic.:#.:. a„iRnAN C FLEE . -c^ ~`2fw-".,~a14:3kN'TY.~,"r.. ACCESS G#~E9•..N i Y$$;:'i,:'1.i T'''v. 4T.'3 B`+~"S"8 4.. =HT DPFWE MAi `T'T , T t;$' 9Ca 1 FLEX 1 ' T.., g;~n-am #:>3t~c;ka..x/fsrxxa~xwy c.eye.:'g,r@r c i~ o r:>~ueruwm W.s M s~xtesrat on MEDIUM T CSs T t#T R ML i 4€'`LOY i T' T SB r~C~' gaexa"scsdlx. _,asxfle:z 4;k43^iz.sc'#x r'a;aYexra:x vdruxa$;.#8$xx43„ }aats' a sign fan imiura y, eta'. ;a«.»rusaxa,k^: .sxsvxxEa'tt"orroY_ w, a t t z Meeting Date Z;E _ 17.OS Agenda Item Q Downtown Task Force/Downtown Improvement Plan Updated Schedule. 5/9/05 Date Meeting TyW Topics Location/Time May 17 Council Joint Meeting with Council - Town Hall, 6:30 Update May 26 T•rccsxcTVrce lfitfe Uede": T aR T se Tewn 14A439 CANCELLED June 9 Task Force Work session on Town Hall, 6:30 Implementation: Funding June 28 Council/Planning Implementationlunding Town Hall, Time TBD Commission Presentation to Planning Commission and City Council with Task Force Representatives July 7 Task Force Land Use Discussion Town Hall, 6:30 July 19 Council/Planning Review Land Use Town Hall, Time TBD Commission Recommendations Worksession Aug. 4 Task Force Review Draft Improvement Plan Town Hall, 6:30 Document Sept. 8 Task Force Finalize Improvement Plan Library Community Room 6:30 September Task Force A celebration of everyone's hard Date, Location, Time Thank-You Event work for this project! TBD Sept. 27 Council Presentation of final plan for Town Hall, Time TBD Council's acceptance Aug-Oct. Advisory Groups Brand Tigard (projects and funding), Catalyst (projects and funding), Land Use Approach work with property owners Oct., Jan., Task Force Meets Quarterly April, July For more information on meeting times or the Downtown Task Force, contact Associate Planner Beth St. Amand at 503/718-2435 (Beth@ci.tigard.or.us), or visit www.ci.tigard.or.us/downtown Looking /ahead: Malting the Plan Happen Downtown Task Force Tigard Downtown Improvement Plan Foundation for Implementation Council reviews the TDIP, provides direction for Plan Implementation. 0- :1 P U Brand Land Catalyst: Urban Renewal Q o Tigard: Use Reg. Function Advisory Design (Owners) Commission J O E Focus: Now -5 yrs Focus: 1-3 yrs. Focus: 1-20 yrs. 2 N Available govt. Comp. Plan, Committed funding e 3 funding for projects: Zoning Code sources: i.e., Urban •v appearance Amendments: Renewal: Desion Standards I ame-scale nroiects v v C July 2005 Downtown Task Force 0 Meets Quarterly U F- I IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM: DOWNTOWN IMPROVEMENT PLAN 1) Improve Downtown's appearance Create a regulatory framework which Establish committed funding structures.for Maximize available government funds; allows for new and remodeled buildings large-scale projects that spur additional grants; and other sources (arts) to and spaces that meet the Plan and investment and excitement in the fund improvements Community's vision for Downtown and is Downtown. supported by property owners and the community. Brand Tigard projects could include • Develop relationships with property Catalyst projects could include a performing arts Commuter Rail station improvements, trails, owners to identify concerns, issues center, projects to improve how the Downtown signage, sidewalk/pedestrian improvements, regarding interim uses and future functions (roads, sewer, stormwater); urban flower baskets, demonstration projects regulations creek, development . Define theme for Downtown design -Work with owners and staff to create -Develop list of priority projects for Urban improvements (work with arts, regulations/ code language that Renewal Plan proposal that identifies funding consultants, others) implement the Community and Task source, project timeline, who will make it . Explore available government funding Force's Plan vision happen, and project goals. opportunities (MTIP, CIP, CDBG; .Address the transition of uses over time -Explore new, committed funding sources economic devpt.) (EID, LIDs, others) for catalyst projects and • Explore private and non-profit grant make recommendations to Council. opportunities (arts, trails/recreation) .Identify list of priority projects that • Create priority project list that identifies funding source (not Urban identifies funding source, timeline, who Renewal), project timeline, who will make it will make it happen, and project goals. happen, and project goals. . Submit project list to competitive .Share members with the Urban Renewal funding processes. Advisory Committee to ensure the . Advocate for projects Downtown Plan priorities are represented. Get smaller-scale projects done -keep Proposed Comprehensive Plan and Propose Committed Funding Structures; momentum going and build community Zoning Code Amendments; Design Priority Project List for Urban Renewal excitement! Standards From August 2005 - July 2006 From June 2005-January 2007 June 2005-July 2006 (Shares members with CCAC) Now-5 years 1-3 years (develop amendments) 1-3 years (Set up funding mechanisms) (CIP, MTIP, are on 5-year funding cycles) L-2-0 y gars (development) 2-20 years (implement projects) Program Element Timeline Election Day Adopt Ballot Measure e Prepare Urban Renewal Plan July - Nov 05 Develop Public Involvement Program May - June 05 Establish Commission & Board May - June 05 Recruit & Select UR Plan & April - May 05 UR Outreach Consultants Developing the Urban Renewal Plan Citizens Decide May 2006 Ballot Measure City Council Reviews/Adopts Urban Renewal Plan Reviews/ Adopts Ballot Measure Asking Voters to Approve Urban Renewal as Funding Tool Planning Commission Reviews Urban Renewal Plan Makes Recommendation to City Council City Center Development Agency Reviews Urban Renewal Plan Makes Recommendation to Planning Commission and City Council City Center Advisory Commission Oversees Urban Renewal Plan Development Reviews Urban Renewal Plan Makes Recommendation to CCDA Downtown Plan Consultants Public Involvement *Catalyst + Brand *Produce Draft UR *Open Houses Tigard Projects, Plan and Public *Comment, Input Land Use Involvement Plan Implementing the Urban Renewal Plan Approvals Final Authority Implementation Pre-Requisites City Center Development Measure City Center Advisory Agency Approved Approves Allows UR Commission Expenditures to be used in Caretaker of Plan Reviews significant city _ Oversees Implementation of Projects in Plan changes to UR Plan City Council Public Meetings, Public Participates Reviews any 0 significant changes Plan to UR Plan Approved Urban Renewal Plan Planning Names Projects to be Funded URA, C, Sets up Urban Renewal District Functions Commission Guides all Expenditures Reviews Land Use Related Actions 2005-2006 2006-2026 AGENDA ITEM # 3 FOR AGENDA OF 5/17/05 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Joint Meeting Between City Council and P and Recreation Advisory Board RAB PREPARED BY: Dan Plaza 2590 'DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Jointly meet with the Park and Recreation Advisory Council. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Conduct joint meeting with Park and Recreation Advisory Board. INFORMATION SUMMARY The City Council annually meets with various Boards and Commissions. The Council last met with the PRAB on March 9, 2004. Since that time the PRAB has conducted a Park and Recreation Attitude and Interest Survey. The PRAB is now prepared to make presentations to the community. The presentations are aimed at ascertaining additional public input on: 1) land acquisition, 2) creating a Recreation Division to deliver recreation programs and activities, and 3) constructing a Community Recreation Center. The PRAB has created a power point presentation for the upcoming meetings. The PRAB has also considered the following issues since the last joint meeting: 1) drinking in the parks, 2) purchasing land inside/outside the City limits, 3) Senn property donation, 4) FY 05-06 Budget - paying particular interest to the land acquisition portion of the parks CIP, 5) Canterbury Park possibility, 6) criteria for land donations and Parks SDC credits, 7) submittal of a $150,000 State grant for the construction of the Skate Park, 8) heard presentations on the Wildlife Refuge, Down Town Plan, various land acquisition plans, 9) adoption of new Parks SDC Methodology, and 10) adoption of the Bull Mountain White Paper. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED n/a VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY 2005 Council Goal: To Address Growth - Identify and acquire parks and open space. ATTACHMENT LIST Draft Power Point presentation FISCAL NOTE n/a -d, "°►..+"y"" . 2.^'A'°"3*tty t# j, .~Q ~ 7 . lot Recreation Programs Today's Presentation.,. A Community Recreation Center & • Introduction of die - Park Land Acquisitions for Park & Recreation Adviso ry Board (PRAB) Tigard Oregon • Results of Tigard's 2004 Phone Survey - Recreation Program Parks & Recreation Advisory Board - Community Recreation Center Tigard, Oregon - Land Acquisitions 2005 • public Participation WHO is the PRAB? PRAB's Purpose? • PRAB • To be an Advisory Board for Tigard's: - Park & Recreation Advisory Board - Public Works Director - Re-established in 2003 - City Council Members - Board consists of seven (7) Tigard citizens - Additional representatives from the • To work as, and advocate for and/or against, topics • Planning Commission concerning Parks & Recreation in Tigard • Youth Advisory Council • Tigard-Tualatin School District • Alternates L 'i pord Results for Recreation Programs -Mt 2004 Phone Survey Such az cldklrcn curses, day canyn, .owner playgnmal pmg am, speeul -m, uip, ,uNau pnl naw- hikhWnek cliwhhV Aer activllic.s. aler wl-I can: pnlgraas, Wtull pmgnu .h a. Mms league ud class • Phone Survey - Conducted in the summer of 2004 - Scientifically valid • 60%a support recreation programs in order to enhance - Consisted of 383 randomly chosen Tigard residents Tigard's livability • Overall results were favorable on many issues • 57% support the creation of a recreation division • Results have assisted the PRAB in focusing its efforts •illing to pay for a City recreation division 48% L willing cost of $0.22 per $ 1,000 of assessed property value 1 Ideas for a Recreation Program Survey Results for Land Acquisition • Femibility of o City Recreation Divhhn r:r,.md ..W.r sMtio,Cxw„yry. r(sn.xz,K.si.axY......e p,m.ayv.mv) • Respondents favored a bond Incasurc to purchase: nw.,nt•t r.rer.., ontd.z. t..nw.: vmiare..t.w., d.y v..x,•.......rpuyz.•.d r.rer..,. 4-c-1.v..n., Yar•,,.~m,..prre'm.-n~u.r(T.c ammo.~Y_1..,).....n.r..m.,)..R - Wetlands & Green Space (49% favored to 38% opposed) $5 million (50.09 annually per $1,000 of asscssW pmpeny value) • Centralized Contutunity Remotion Center 52% stpp,n o $6.75M hnd ut to fwd a Gmm-riry Recreation Center • 69% of respondents supported the following statement, 25% ($0.13 per $1,OIXi of..,,-d pmpeny value) opposed the statement: u,»,.. ny. Croy R-16,. u.)..., - "I like the idea that the city is considering the protection of natural wetland & greenways. I favor tle idea that would preserve our ion.. oy,. natural resources." • Wh.14T~ Hn.x nn •Ir.nM1naWryJ.veq s -711Q, J . : i:u1~•, rut. Current Park Land in Tigard Land Acquisition Funding Sources (not meant to be all inclusive) • Park land acreage in Tigard • Park System Development Charges - Goal is I I acres per 1,000 residents • Grants - Metro - Currently just under 8 acres per 1,000 residents - Oregon Park & Recreation Depannuent - Of 351 acres of park land, 179 acres are developed - Federal Grants • As Compared to other communities: • Non-Profit Organizations - Three Rivers Land Conservancy - Portland © 44 acres per 1,000 residents - Trust for Public Land - Lake Oswego © 16 acres per 1,000 residents I • Land Acquisition Bond Levy - Tualatin © 8 acres per 1,000 • General Fund ~i~ ~~urd, e~yaw,r L,~ut+...~i+dfra i. ~i x.t(O~V!'~rKnrri We Want To Know What You Think The PRAB Encourages Public -0 Participation • Should Tigard pursue the: - Creation of a City Recreation Division? • We're Asking Residents - Building of a Community Recreation Center? - For feedback on Park & Recreation issues • Should Tigard purchase additional land? - For assistance with fund raising efforts - And if so, what types of acquisitions should be made? - To volunteer • Open Spaces - To voice your opinions Active Park Laud - To share information with neighbors and community 2 Encouraging Public Participation • Participate at PRAB meetings: Held on: 2nd Monday of each month Held at: Tigard Water Building @ 7:00 pm • Send comments to PRAB at: parkrecboard@ci.tigard.or.us 3 LettertoTi ardTimes.doc Pa e 1 Meeting Date 3 Agenda Item In recent months an issue has been brought to the attention of your Park and Recreation Advisory Board (PRAB) that may have a direct impact on your use of city parks. As your representatives, the PRAB studies relevant issues and advises City Council on policy and action. As it has been difficult to get word out on the PRAB's stance on this particular issue, I have decided to get up on the soapbox. A small number of people are convinced that the only solution to removing a handful of homeless people from our parks is to revoke Tigard residents' privilege to legally drink in their parks. Whereas at first glance this may seem to be a reasonable approach to solving a problem, the vast majority of the PRAB disagree. Let me be clear, we have nothing to personally gain to from any outcome of this issue. We carefully thought through this issue and took a stance based on what we felt was in the best interest of park users in Tigard. As some try to convince you that there is only one solution to this issue, I ask only that you give this issue some thought and think about how you and your family and your neighbors want your parks to be governed. The rest is up to you. Currently, adults can legally drink alcohol in Tigard's parks without a permit and within certain guidelines. A handful of homeless people have become an unwelcome presence on the Fanno Creek trail between downtown and the library. I. and the majority of the PRAB, do not dispute the fact that they may make people uncomfortable. What some want you to believe is that the only way this problem will go away is to make drinking in all parks by all people illegal. The majority of the PRAB feels that this is off-target and penalizes thousands of law abiding Tigard citizens unfairly. When presenting his case to the Park and Recreation Advisory Board, the Tigard Chief of Police was asked how many issue related phone calls they received last year. He answered "about 44,000". When asked how many were related to people being drunk in the park he said "maybe about a dozen". That is about .0003 of all calls. A tiny sliver of 1%. Here's what the majority of the PRAB agreed on: • It is illogical and arbitrarily punitive to revoke the privilege of tens of thousands of Tigard residents because of the actions a handful of non-resident, non-taxpaying drifters. • It's not the alcohol that makes people uncomfortable, it's the people. Alcohol is an ancillary issue. The real problem that needs to be addressed is the loitering drifters. If these drifters still gathered on the trail sans alcohol would anyone feel any safer? • There are ordinances currently in place that make being drunk in the park illegal. 7.52.100 of the Tigard Municipal Code gives police the right to cite or remove drunk people from a park. Other ordinances already exist that could be employed (disorderly conduct, menacing, etc.). This brings me to the real problem. The real problem is that the Tigard Police do not have, or do not use, the resources to roust undesirables from the park. Just as the sun evaporates a puddle, a better police presence will keep drifters out of the park. The drifters are always in the same place. The police know where they are. Proponents assume that once drinking is made illegal, the problem goes away. By that logic all cities that have outlawed drinking in the parks LettertoTi ardTimes.doc Page 2 have no problem with people drinking in the parks. Experience tells us that isn't the case. Furthermore, if police do not have the resources to deal with the issue now, how are they going to handle a couple hundred new phone calls every year that report someone drinking in the park? Do you believe that, even though hundred or thousands of calls currently go without an immediate police response, that they will now drop everything and run to the park to write a ticket for a man holding a beer? The majority of the PRAB did not believe that would happen. If a new law won't stop drifters from drinking in the park, you will have lost a personal freedom for nothing. I can't fault proponents for wanting something done to remove drifters from near their business or for others wanting to appear to be doing something proactive. Nevertheless, the PRAB felt that revoking your privilege would be nothing but a pretty panacea, a quick fix solution that misses the heart of the real issue. Even if you never plan on sipping a glass of white wine at a picnic in Summerlake Park, or having a beer with your fried chicken in Cook Park I urge you to consider if such a law would do what it was intended to do. Is revoking your privilege for the problems caused by a handful of non- resident drifters worth it? The issue of how to deal with homeless people and drifters confounds many communities. Before Tigard makes a radical step, all reasonable efforts to address the issue should be taken. The police already have tools to use to roust undesirables from the park. If you think this problem warrants more attention, encourage the Tigard Police to enforce existing ordinances, not let the quick-fixers create a new one. If the police do not have enough resources, remember that next time a funding levy appears on the ballot. The Park and Recreation Advisory Board meet at 7:00 p.m. on the second Monday of every month at the Tigard Water Building on the corner of Burnham and Hall. Our next meeting is on Monday, March 14th. Please come tell us what you think about this issue or any other parks or recreation related issue. You can also drop us a note from our webpage at http://www.ci.tigard.or.uus/city hall/boards 'committees/park rec board/de fault.asp. We're here to represent your interests. Carl Switzer Chairman, Tigard Park and Recreation Advisory Board 11120 SW 109` Avenue Tigard, OR 97223 503.201.7078 r ~ 1 C'It acli a x 11-~ w r.Z ffi - t ~ Ij X4 i r 7 ~ve r 7 t f ? ^'i;.. '"'^m r 1 / ~.,.,...yd.'.T✓ f + jj}j 41 e 1, ~ s. ~ ~ r ~r t Pl- 7j Y~ P 1 S ~ ! .w ? ,,;rn" r~ i ~f ,1' ~ j3 ~ r ~+f 1~~ ~ . wrv»~i, j r-"""'q, ~ ~ lv ~ , ~ 1 ffi [E t f Zl-v ¢J~z4y#,a h I r i Ms Zl : ~p 4 , T S f (3wCf~ 7 ri r~ t , _,-~S , ffi ~ ~ J r, . i ~ a.. 3~;a:~ .r t Meeting Date Agenda Item Criteria to be used in determining whether to recommend to Council to accept or reject an offer to receive offers of donated land, or to give a developer parks SDC credit in lieu of charging parks SDCs PROCESS: When the City is offered a land donation the property owner must provide the city with a letter setting forth what it is they are proposing to donate. The land owner must attach the following to the letter: 1) plat of the property 2) lot map 3) topographic map 4) acreage 5) document showing clear title 6) describe utilities on, or nearby the property 7) any known uniqueness of the property (cultural/trees/wetlands/floodplain/etc) 8) all pertinent information/calculations related to a request for Parks SDC credit. If donations are initiated with the Engineering or Community Development Department it is essential that the Parks Division by notified immediately so this criteria analysis can be completed and a recommendation be made to Council on whether to accept or reject the offer. NAME OF SITE: ADDRESS CONTACT: PHONE: 1) Location of property: 1 2 3 4 5 Scale = I(poor) - 5(good) 2) Acreage: 1 2 3 4 5 3) Accessibility: 1 2 3 4 5 4) Visibility: 1 2 3 4 5 5) Linkage to parks/trails/etc: 1 2 3 4 5 6) Able to be developed: 1 2 3 4 5 7) Usability when developed: 1 2 3 4 5 8) Utilities nearby: yes no 9) Clear title: yes no 10) Does the property comply with Park System Master Plan yes no (eliminate deficiencies/increase acres per 1,000 pop.) 11) Will. there be an adverse impact on parks maintenance: yes no 12) Cultural significance: yes no 13) Are there unique features: yes no 14) Does the property pose a liability: yes no 15) Is an initial intake investment necessary (FTE/$): yes no (fencing/clean-up/etc). 16) Is the land be protected by land use regulations/etc: yes no 17) Is the land involved in a mitigation situation: yes no If any criteria are marked yes, please provide a description and attach to this form. Meeting Date Agenda Item JZTL Draft Council resolution, 512105 A resolution adopting principles developed by the City Council as they consider the location and purchase of park and open space properties: Where as the Tigard City Council recognizes the need for additional park and open space properties in the Tigard Community, Where as the Tigard City Council has adopted an annual goal for 2005 of "Identify and Acquire Parks and Open Space"; Where as the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board has also been given the task to: evaluate potential park and open space needs, obtain public input and support, and make recommendations to the City Council relating to the funding of these needs Where as past City councils had elected to not purchase or secure land for parks and open spaces outside the city limits. Where as the. City Council wishes to adopt a framework and evaluation process to accept donated property, and/or to accept property offered by developers in lieu of SDCs for parks and open space, and that the framework presented by staff on April 19, 2005 is deemed adequate Where as the City Council recognizes that state law requirements se forth that development cannot be forced to pay for the current deficiencies Tigard has in its parks and open space inventory, Now there fore, the Tigard City Council directs staff to: 1) evaluate all park and open space donation requests with the attached matrix, and submit a staff recommendation to the City Council for each donation request 2) Prioritize the search and evaluation of future park sites to those areas identified as currently underserved. The City's adopted. Master Plan defines "underserved" as areas not within Y2 mile of a neighborhood park. 3) Attempt to use City Funds/SDCs/grants/etc. for parkland purchases inside the City Limits, and parks SDC revenue/grants/etc. for purchases of land outside the city limits, but within the UGB or UGB expansion areas 4) Look to serve those areas which will become park deficient over time. 5) Look to purchase or obtain parcels with some size as compared to multiple small parcels if possible. 6) Authorizes the evaluation and acquisition of suitable parcels outside the City Limits 7) Consider land banking adequate lands for future development. Meeting Date Agenda Item Recreation Programs A Community Recreation Center & Park Land Acquisitions for Tigard Oregon Parks & Recreation Advisory Board Tigard, Oregon 2005 Today's Presentation.'. . • Introduction of the Park & Recreation Advisory Board (PRAB) • Results of Tigard's 2004 Phone Survey - Recreation Program - Community Recreation Center - Land Acquisitions • Public Participation WHO is the PRAB? • PRAB - Park & Recreation Advisory Board - Re-established in 2003 - Board consists of seven (7) Tigard citizens - Additional representatives from the • Planning Commission • Youth Advisory Council • Tigard-Tualatin School District 9 Alternates PRAB'S Purpose? • To be an Advisory Board for Tigard's: - Public Works Director - City Council Members • To work as, and advocate for and/or against, topics concerning Parks & Recreation in Tigard 2004 Phone Survey • Phone Survey - Conducted in the summer of 2004 - Scientifically valid - Consisted of 383 randomly chosen Tigard residents • Overall results were favorable on many issues • Results have assisted the PRAB in focusing its efforts j ' - M i~SeA x,.. t e~ Results for Recreation Programs Such as children classes, day camps, summer playground program, special events, trips, outdoor programs - hiking/rock climbing/water activities, after school care programs, adult programs such as sports leagues and classes • 60% support recreation programs in order to enhance Tigard's livability • 57% support the creation of a recreation division • 48% willing to pay for a City recreation division - At a cost of $0.22 per $1,000 of assessed property value tin Ideas for a Recreation Program • Feasibility of a City Recreation Division - Estimated cost of $860,000 per year ($0.22 per $1,000 assessed property value) - Potential program offerings include: children classes, day camps, summer playground program, special events, trips, outdoor programs - hiking/rock climbing/water activities, after school care programs, adult programs such as sports leagues and classes • Centralized Community Recreation Center 52% support a $6.75M bond measure to fund a Community Recreation Center ($0.13 per $1,000 of assessed property value) - House programs offered by a City Recreation Division - 30,000 sq. ft. building with: • Indoor Gym • Classrooms • Mulit-Purpose Rooms for classes/meetings/events 'n Survey Results for Land Acquisition • Respondents favored a bond measure to purchase: - Wetlands & Green Space (49% favored to 38% opposed) - $5 million ($0.09 annually per $1,000 of assessed property value) • 69% of respondents supported the following statement, 25% opposed the statement: - "I like the idea that the city is considering the protection of natural wetland & greenways. I favor the idea that would preserve our natural resources." Current Park Land in Tigard • Park land acreage in Tigard - Goal is 11 acres per 1,000 residents - Currently just under 8 acres per 1,000 residents - Of 351 acres of park land, 179 acres are developed As Compared to other communities: - Portland @ 44 acres per 1,000 residents - Lake Oswego @ 16 acres per 1,000 residents - Tualatin @ 8 acres per 1,000 Land Acquisition Funding Sources (not meant to be all inclusive) • Park System Development Charges • Grants - Metro - Oregon Park & Recreation Department - Federal Grants • Non-Profit Organizations - Three Rivers Land Conservancy - Trust for Public Land • Land Acquisition Bond Levy 9 General Fund We Want To Know What You Think • Should Tigard pursue the: - Creation of a City Recreation Division? - Building of a Community Recreation Center? • Should Tigard purchase additional land? - And if so, what types of acquisitions should be made? • Open Spaces 9 Active Park Land The PRAB Encourages Public Participation • We're Asking Residents - For feedback on Park & Recreation issues - For assistance with fund raising efforts - To volunteer - To voice your opinions. - To share information with neighbors and community • f Encouraging Public Participation • Participate at PRAB meetings: Held on: 2nd Monday of each month Held at: Tigard Water Building @ 7:00 pm • Send comments to PRAB at: parkrecboard@ci.tigard.or.us How does Tigard compare with other community recreation programs? • There are no organized recreation programs offered by the City of Tigard. -Many Independent Efforts by Local Organizations/Groups (soccer, little league, July 4t", Holiday Tree Lighting, Balloon Festival) -City does not have a recreation division. to provide recreation programs How does Tigard compare to nearby community recreation program offerings Full Time Recreation city Population Recreation Staff Programs Tigard 47,000 0 NO Lake 35,500 9 YES Oswego Tualatin 24,000 1 YES Newburg 18,200 14 YES Sherwood 147000 1 YES T. Hill P & R 200,000 50 YES r . How does Tigard compare? • People have their homes here but often recreate outside the City of Tigard; paying higher out of district fees. • Lack of community, there is little central feel and/or gathering places for Tigard residents outside of Cook Park. Need for a central draw or-civic focal point. Tigard residents want more parks The 1999 Parks Master Plan calls for 11 acres of parks per 1,000 residents. Reality • Actual acreage: - less than 8 acres (7.6) per 1,000 residents. • Compared to other communities: - Portland has 44 acres per 1,000 - Lake Oswego has 16 acres per 1,000 - Tualatin and THP&RD have 8 acres per 1,000 • Of the 351 acres of park land, 179 acres are developed. • There are NO parks in Northeast or Southwest Tigard Land Acquisition Funding Sources • Park System Develop Charges • Grants - METRO - Oregon Park & Recreation Department • Non-Profit Organizations - Three Rivers Land Conservancy - Trust for Public Land • City's General Fund • City Bond Measure Levies a3 V' ,i CITY OF TIGARD - 2004 'f SURVEY RESEARCH REPORT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ' SEPTEMBER 8, 2004 The following survey research report provides some valuable information regarding F: voter's attitudes and opinions concerning a variety of proposals to enhance recreational opportunities for Tigard residents. This report should assist the city in determining what if, any, recreational projects would be supported by residents. Below, The Nelson Report has highlighted the key results of the survey research report. The final report is over 200 pages in length, with multiple tables designed to assist the client in ( n understanding and analyzing the respondents' views. S Throughout this executive summary, The Nelson Report identifies "key" demographics for many of the questions. Key demographics are those subgroups that respond at a higher percentage rate than the total sample for any given response. The key demographic groups for any given opinion are not necessarily the only subgroups in the survey who share that opinion. They are, however, the ones that hold that opinion most strongly. A total of 383 respondents were interviewed between August 23 and August 27, 2004. The margin of error for this survey is +/-4.99% at the 95% level of confidence. P r r' G Prepared By The Nelson Report 1 FINAL RESULTS (n=383) CITY OF TIGARD 2004 FINAL DRAFT Hello, my name is Pm with The Nelson Report, a public opinion research firm. We are conducting a brief survey today in your area and would like to include your household's opinions. May I please take a few minutes of your time? Let me assure you I am not selling anything. First of all, are you registered to vote in the state of Oregon? (INTERVIEWER: IF NO, POLITELY TERMINATE) The City of Tigard currently provides park services only. Park services do not include recreation programs. Many individuals and groups have come up with a variety of ideas to enhance recreational opportunities for city residents such as children's classes, day camps, summer playground programs, camps, special events, middle school programs, teen programs and adult programs such as sports leagues and classes. We are going to be presenting you several of these ideas. These ideas are not to be viewed as city proposals, but merely a way to gauge public support of the following options. The city would like your opinion on whether recreational programs should be offered to city residents. Currently park services are paid for out of the City of Tigard budget. The city has two other options they would like your opinion on. One option is for the city to create a separate Recreation Division with its own budget. This Division would be funded by the city's general fund revenues. 1. Would you FAVOR or OPPOSE the City of Tigard creating a Recreation Division of the city? 1. Favor 57 2. Oppose 31 3. Not Sure/Refused 12 Another option is for Tigard to present to voters for approval, a separate Recreation District with its own taxing authority. 2. Would you FAVOR or OPPOSE a separate Recreation District with its own taxing authority? 1. Favor 34 2. Oppose 53 3. Not Sure/Refused 13 Page 1 August 27, 2004 Prepared By The Nelson Report The creation of a Recreation Division within the city would cost $860 thousand per year. The operation of the Recreation Division would be paid for through an operating levy and would increase the property tax rate by 22-cents per thousand. The other option is for Tigard residents to vote for the creation of a Recreation District. A Recreation District would cost $1 million per year and increase the property tax rate by 26-cents per thousand. 3. If you had to choose, would you prefer the creation of a CITY RECREATION DIVISION at a cost of 22-cents per thousand, or the creation of a SPECIAL RECREATION DISTRICT at a cost of 26-cents per thousand? 1. City Recreation Division (GO TO "A") 48 2. Special Recreation District (GO TO"A") 13 3. Neither (SKIP TO #4) 28 4. Other 1 5. Not Sure/Refused (SKIP TO #4) 10 A. (RECREATION DIVISION/RECREATION DISTRICT ONLY FROM #3) Why would you prefer the (RECREATION DIVISION) (RECREATION DISTRICT)? (PROBE) 4. If you knew the Special Recreation District would be similar to Beaverton's Tualatin Hills Park and Recreation District, would you prefer the creation of a CITY RECREATION DIVISION at a cost of 22-cents per thousand, or the creation of a SPECIAL RECREATION DISTRICT at a cost of 26-cents per thousand? 1. City Recreation Division 36 2. Special Recreation District 23 3. Neither 26 4. Other 1 5. Not Sure/Refused 14 Another concept is a 20-year $6.75 million bond measure that would be used to construct a 30,000 square foot Community Recreation Center. The Community Recreation Center would include an indoor gym, classrooms, multi-purpose rooms, and meeting rooms. The construction of a Community Recreation Center would increase the property tax rate by 13-cents per thousand of assessed value. 5. If an election were held today, would you FAVOR or OPPOSE a $6.75 million bond measure for a Community Recreation Center for the City of Tigard that would increase the property tax rate by 13-cents per thousand? 1. Favor (GO TO "B") 41 2. Oppose (GO TO"B") 52 3. Not Sure/Refused 7 B. Why would you (FAVOR) (OPPOSE) the $6.75 million bond measure? Page 2 August 27, 2004 Prepared By The Nelson Report • In addition, the operation and maintenance of the Community Recreation Center would cost $400,000 per year. This concept would increase the property tax rate by an additional 11- cents per thousand. 6. If an election were held today, would you FAVOR or OPPOSE the concept that would increase property tax rate by 11-cents per thousand? 1. Favor (GO TO "C") 34 2. Oppose (GO TO "C") 55 3. Not Sure/Refused 11 C. Why would you (FAVOR) (OPPOSE) the concept? (PROBE) Another idea is a 10-year, $400,000 bond measure that would be used to construct a skate park for youth. This concept would cost property taxpayers approximately 1-cent per thousand or $2.60 per year for the owner of a $200,000 home. 7. If an election were held today, would you FAVOR or OPPOSE a $400,000 bond measure to construct a skate park that would increase property tax rate by 1-cent per thousand? 1. Favor (GO TO "D") 43 2. Oppose (GO TO "D") 49 3. Not Sure/Refused 8 D. Why would you (FAVOR) (OPPOSE) the proposed skate park? (PROBE) Now I am going to ask you a variety of questions concerning the idea of a $6.75 million bond measure to construct a Community Recreation Center. For each one, I will give you some information and ask, whether with that information, you would FAVOR or OPPOSE the idea. 8. If you knew the bond payments would be structured so that new residents who move into the community in the future would assist in the payment of the bond measure, would you FAVOR or OPPOSE the $6.75 million concept? 1. Favor 49 2. Oppose 40 3. Not Sure/Refused 11 Page 3 August 27, 2004 Prepared By The Nelson Report 9. If you knew the Community Recreation Center would enable the city to provide additional recreational opportunities for Tigard residents, such as live theatre performances, children's programs like classes, summer playground programs, camps, special events, middle school programs, teen programs, and adult programs such as sports leagues and classes, would you FAVOR or OPPOSE a bond measure? ' 1. Favor 52 2. Oppose 38 3. Not Sure/Refused 10 10. If you knew that a bond measure would cost property taxpayers 13-cents per thousand or $26 per year for an owner of a $200,000 home, would you FAVOR or OPPOSE the bond measure? 1. Favor 48 2. Oppose 43 3. Not Sure/Refused 9 11. If you knew operation and maintenance costs for the Community Recreation Center would increase property taxes by an additional 11-cents per thousand or $22 per year for an owner of a $200,000 home, would you FAVOR or OPPOSE the bond measure? 1. Favor 42 2. Oppose 47 3. Not Sure/Refused 11 Another idea includes a $5 million bond measure that would be used to purchase land to construct additional parks and athletic fields throughout the city. This idea would increase the property tax rate by 9-cents per thousand. 12. If an election were held today, would you FAVOR or OPPOSE a $5 million bond ' measure to construct additional parks and athletic fields that would increase the property tax rate by 9-cents per thousand? 1. Favor (GO TO "E") 44 2. Oppose (GO TO "E") 45 3. Not Sure/Refused 11 E. Why would you (FAVOR) (OPPOSE) a $5 million bond measure for parks and athletic fields? (PROBE) Page 4 August 27, 2004 Prepared By The Nelson Report 13. If you knew the $5 million bond measure would increase property taxes by 9-cents per thousand or $18 per year for an owner of a $200,000 home, would you FAVOR or OPPOSE the concept to construct additional parks and athletic fields? 1. Favor 44 2. Oppose 43 3. Not Sure/Refused 13 In addition, there is another idea which includes a $5 million bond measure that would be used to purchase land in order to protect wetlands and green spaces throughout the city. This idea would increase the property tax rate by 9-cents per thousand. 14. If an election were held today, would you FAVOR or OPPOSE a $5 million bond measure to purchase land for wetlands and green spaces that would increase the property tax rate by 9-cents per thousand? 1. Favor (GO TO "F") 49 2. Oppose (GO TO "F") 41 3. Not Sure/Refused 10 F. Why would you (FAVOR) (OPPOSE) a $5 million bond measure for wetlands and green spaces? (PROBE) 15. If you knew the $5 million bond measure would increase property taxes by 9-cents per thousand or $18 per year for an owner of a $200,000 home, would you FAVOR or OPPOSE the concept to protect wetlands and green spaces throughout the city? 1. Favor 49 2. Oppose 38 3. Not Sure/Refused 13 16. Thinking about four of the concepts - CONSTRUCTION OF A RECREATION CENTER, CONSTRUCTION OF A SKATE PARK, the PURCHASE OF LAND FOR PARKS AND ATHLETIC FIELDS, and the PURCHASE OF LAND FOR WETLANDS AND GREEN SPACES, which of these concepts would you be willing to vote for in one bond measure? (INTERVIEWER: COMBINATION RESPONSES WILL GO UNDER THE "OTHER" CATEGORY) 1. Recreation Center Only 24 2. Skate Park Only 8 3. Land For Parks Only 13 4. Land For Wetlands/Open Spaces Only 21 5. None 16 6. Other 16 7. Not Sure/Refused 2 Page 5 August 27, 2004 Prepared By The Nelson Report 17. How much more would you be willing to pay each year in property taxes in order to . enhance recreational opportunities and preserve green spaces throughout the City Of Tigard? 1. Nothing 23 ' 2. $1-$18 21 3. $19-$36 17 4. $37-$52 10 5. $53-$90 5 6. Over $90 8 7. Not Sure/Refused 16 Now I am going to read you several statements some people have made concerning the various recreation projects the City of Tigard is currently seeking your opinion on. For each statement, I would like you to tell me if you AGREE or DISAGREE with the statement. 1. Agree 2. Disagree 4. Not Sure/Refused AGREE - DISAGREE - NOT SURE/REFUSED 18. My taxes are already too high. I can't afford any of the recreation concepts being discussed in this survey. 38-56-6 19. I like the idea that the city is considering the protection of natural wetlands and greenways in the city. I favor the idea that would preserve our natural resources. 69-25-6 20. It's about time the City of Tigard began providing additional recreational opportunities for citizens. I favor the concept of a Community Recreation Center. 49-43-8 21. Our city already has plenty of parks and athletic fields. I oppose the $5 million bond measure for parks and fields. 42-46-12 22. I like the community just the way it is. We don't need additional recreational activities to improve livability in our area. 30-60-10 Page 6 August 27, 2004 Prepared By The Nelson Report AGREE ~ DISAGREE - NOT SURE/REFUSED 23. I would prefer to create a Recreation District similar to Beaverton's Tualatin Hills Park and Recreation District to enhance recreational opportunities for residents rather than create a Recreation Division within the city. 38-34-28 DEMOGRAPHICS 24. SEX: 1. Male 2. Female 25. AGE: Are you between the ages of.....? 1. 18-34 2. 35-44 3. 45-54 4. 55-64 5. 65+ 6. Not Sure/Refused 26. OWN/RENT: Do you own or rent your home? 1. Own 2. Rent 3. Not Sure/Refused INTERVIEWER: POLITELY END SURVEY WITH RESPONDENT, THEN COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING QUESTION: 27. VOTER HISTORY: (INTERVIEWER: RECORD THE NUMBER OF TIMES RESPONDENT HAS VOTED IN THE LAST FOUR ELECTIONS FROM THE PHONE LIST - SEE INSTRUCTION SHEET) 1. 1 Out Of 4 Elections 2. 2 Out Of 4 Elections 3. 3 Out Of 4 Elections 4. 4 Out Of 4 Elections Page 7 August 27, 2004 Prepared By The Nelson Report AGENDA ITEM # FOR AGENDA OF May 17, 2005 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Tualatin River National Refuge Discussion PREPARED BY: Barbara Shields DEPT HEAD OK 1K14WY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL The Friends of the Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge and Refuge staff will discuss the overall mission of the Friends. The May 17`h Council presentation is part of the outreach effort to build community awareness of the Refuge. STAFF RECOMMENDATION N/A. Information only. INFORMATION SUMMARY The Tualatin River Refuge is a developing refuge and one of 10 urban refuges in the National Wildlife Refuge System. Refuge habitats consist of emergent, shrub, wetlands, riparian forests, oak and pine grassland, meadows, and mixed deciduous/coniferous forests common to Western Oregon prior to settlement. When final acquisition is completed, the refuge will total over 3,000 acres and preserve a floodplain wetland ecosystem. The Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge was established in 1992, when a local citizen donated a twelve- acre parcel of land. One year later, the non-profit Friends of the Refuge (FOR) was formed to support the development of the Refuge. Friends of the Refuge's accomplishments working on behalf of the Refuge for the past decade include: • successfully advocating for two million dollars for land acquisition • planting over 10,000 trees, shrubs, and wetland plants in partnership with Friends of Trees, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Tualatin Riverkeepers • conducting monthly clean up projects on the Refuge in preparation for restoring hundreds of acres of floodplain converted to farm fields • coordinating an annual Songbird Festival which continues to grow, drawing several hundred visitors each year • assisting local school students in development of a children's guide to the Refuge and supporting the development of a school-based Refuge Club in Sherwood • conducting countless tours of the Refuge for groups to facilitate public access and awareness while the Refuge is still closed to the public • successfully advocating for funds with other partners to obtain funding for safe public access I:\CDADM\JERREE\Agenda Sum\5-17-05 Tualatin River National Refuge AIS.doc The U.S Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) manages the Refuge area. Public use facilities are not yet available on site and the Refuge remains closed to public entry. However, public facilities are being planned for future use. The Friends work closely in partnership with USFWS and other agencies to balance the natural legacy of the Refuge, educational and recreational opportunities and the rapid urban growth in the surrounding areas. The Friends planned and implemented a variety of outreach efforts which enabled the community to access the Refuge and build awareness. Highlights include Songbird Celebrations, held each year in May, National Wildlife Refuge Week open houses in October, and regular habitat restoration projects for volunteers. In 2003, FOR and the Refuge celebrated the Centennial of the National Wildlife Refuge System with a gala event which drew hundreds of visitors. The May 17`h Council presentation is part of the outreach effort to build community awareness of the Refuge. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED N/A VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY Growth and Growth Management Goal #1: Growth while protecting the character and livability of new and established areas, while providing for natural environment and open space throughout the community; Strategy # 3: Address planning and growth issues associated with Regional Center. ATTACHMENT LIST None. FISCAL NOTES N/A I:\CDADM\JERREE\Agenda Sum\5-17-05 Tualatin River National Refuge AIS.doc U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service ns siav~ic"n Kim Strassburg Outdoor Recreation Planner Mialatin River National Wildlife Refuge 16507 SW Roy Rogers Rd Sherwood, OR 97140 503/590 5811 503/590 6702 Fax kim_strassburg@fws.gov U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service ria ~g os NATIONAL ~wnout~ Y Fact Sheet SSS EM .h... Tualatin River CFd. EBRAIINC A National Wildlife Refuge ENTURY CONS[ilt~rYl":IC)N Land and Wildlife of amphibians and reptiles also use the Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Refuge. Threatened and sensitive is located within the floodplain of the species which frequent the area include Date Established Tualatin River basin near Sherwood, peregrine falcon, bald eagle, western 1992 Oregon. Its topography is pond turtle, dusky Canada goose, predominantly flat bottom land bordered northern red-legged frog and winter Refuge Size by uplands, and characterized by rivers steelhead- 3,060 acres - approved boundary and streams, wetlands, riparian History of Establishment woodlands, grasslands, and forested In the earl 1990s the U.S. Fish and 1,218 acres - acquired as of March 2005 uplands. Refuge habitats include y ' floodplain, seasonal emergent, forested Wildlife Service began studying the idea 50 acres - managed under agreement to create a National Wildlife Refuge with Metro and semb-shrub wetlands, Oregon ash along the bottomlands of the Tualatin riparian hardwood and conifer forests, River. Many local residents and leaders - and oak pine communities. They are recognized that the river and its Contact among the best representative examples floodplain had been highly modified by of these severely depleted habitats both agriculture and urbanization withni Tualatin River NWR remaining in the Willamette Valley. 16507 Roy Rogers Road Washington County. This recognition Sherwood, OR 97140 When flooded in fall and winter, the fueled a desire to preserve open 503.590.5811 Tualatin River floodplain wetlands greenspace and create an area where 503.590.6702 fax support thousands of ducks, arctic- future generations could enjoy outdoor nesting Canada geese, tundra swans, recreation and interpretation, and leave and a variety of other waterbirds. an educational legacy for children. The Dominant ducks consist of northern Service identified a need to protect and pintail, green-winged teal, mallard, and enhancefloodplains, wetlands, riparian American wigeon. Canada geese include habitats, and upland buffers for a variety dusky and cackling sub-species. Tualatin of wildlife and for the enjoyment of River NWR supports significant people. An Environmental Assessment breeding populations of wood ducks and identified several options for protection of hooded mergansers and, to a lesser the area. The study culminated in a extent, cinnamon teal, blue-winged teal, decision, issued in February of 1992, to and mallards. The Refuge is an important breeding area for neotropical migratory birds as well. Mammals that use the Refuge include deer, coyotes, beavers, river otters, and numerous small rodents. Several species The Refuge supports large numbers of wintering waterfowl. create the Tualatin River National for the acquisition program total $10.4 .t Wildlife Refuge by acquiring and million and come from a variety of managing up to 3058 acres of land by fee sources, including the Land and Water title purchase, conservation easement Conservation Fund, flood relief funds, and/or agreement. In 2004, an additional and federal hydroelectric power 2 acres were added to the acquisition mitigation funds. A total of 1792 acres boundary. remain to be protected within the Acquisition Authorities approved boundary. Migratory Bird Conservation Act of Refuge Goals 1929: for use as an inviolate 'Protect and restore a diversity of native.'! sanctuary, or for any other habitats and associated populations of management purpose, for migratory indigenous fish, wildlife, invertebrate, birds...." and plant species of the Tualatin River I( Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956: for the basin. development, advancement, 'Provide high quality opportunities for t management, conservation, and wildlands and wildlife-dependent protection of fish and wildlife recreation and environmental education ~ resources..." and for the benefit of to enhance public appreciation, the United States Fish and Wildlife understanding, and enjoyment of refuge Service, in performing its activities and fish, wildlife, habitats, and cultural Members ofSherivood Middle School services." resources with an emphasis toward Refuge Club spot wildlife in wetlands urban residents. Public Use Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986: the conservation of the 'Protect, restore, and develop a diversity The protection of fish and wildlife and wetlands of the Nation in order to of habitats for migratory birds such as - - their habitats on the Refuge will provide maintain the public benefits they provide neotropical songbirds, wading birds, and the public with wildlife-oriented and to help fulfill international shorebirds with special emphasis on recreation, education, and interpretation obligations contained in various wintering waterfowl. opportunities. This will help foster migratory bird treaties and environmental awareness to develop an conventions...: ' 'Protect and restore floodplain type informed and involved citizenry that will benefits associated with the Tualatin support fish and wildlife conservation. Acquisition Status River including water quality, flood Construction of visitor service facilities The approved acquisition boundary storage, and water recharge. on the Refuge is scheduled to begin in incorporates 3,058 acres. Acquisitions *Protect, restore, and develop habitats Summer 2005 and will include an have been and will be obtained only from entrance road and parking area, nature willing sellers. An initial 12-acre private for and otherwise support recovery of federally listed endangered and , wildlife observation overlooks, donation established the Refuge in 1993. threatened interpretive panels, photography blind From 1994 through 2004,1256 more species and help prevent the and environmental education study sites. acres have been protected for a current m~ a candidate species and species of An environmental education shelter and total of 1268 acres. Appropriated funds management concerxr a fishing platform/river overlook are also planned and will be constructed as funds s k. t are available. Additionally, a wildlife center, complete with a multi -purpose room, environmental education classrooms, interpretive exhibits, and adjoining offices is also envisioned for the Refuge. People of all ages will experience the beauty of the Tualatin River Valley, view abundant wildlife, and discover what historic landscapes looked like prior to settlement. It will be an ideal setting for the public to enjoy a variety of hands-on educational programs and to learn about wildlife management at Riparian forest habitat, along Tualatin River Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge. TUALATIN RIVER NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE Washington County, Oregon `x~?~r,3ti Land Acquisitions Status 2003 d EFUG A r • See 8e~ Scholls erwood Rd Cri°~en ~ min-sherw R Acquisition Boundary - _ Refuge Lands Acquired ® METRO Property ® METRO property managed by USFWS Meeting Date '4 Agenda IteniS , LZDs Meeting Date_ Agenda Item v May 2, 2005 Marcusendesign Joe Barrett Purchasing Agent City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Dear Mr. Barrett, Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the exciting project of redesigning the City ofTigard's identity. With over 15 years' experience in public and private sector identity and signage work, I believe Marcusen Design is ideally matched for this project. Marcusen Design's approach to the City ofTigard's identity and branding project consists of these three phases: Phase One - Programming and Preliminary Design, Phase Two - Design Development, and Phase Three - Final Design and Implementation. Phase One - Programming and Preliminary Design The Programming portion of this phase includes the following tasks: Meeting with the Vision Task Force and/or Council to develop a Design Brief, conducting an audit of existing print materials and existing signage currently being used by the City of Tigard, researching neighboring city identities, as well as adding community or internal input beyond what has been presented by the Vision Task Force. • Design Brief The Design Brief states in simple terms the objectives for a new City of Tigard identity. The Council /Vision Task Force and Marcusen Design will develop the Design Brief together to establish a consensus and to efficiently direct design efforts. The Vision Task Force has effectively involved the community in identifing the core values important to the citizens of Tigard. This work has great value and will be incorporated into the Design Brief. The design criteria laid out in the Design Brief will honor Tigard's core community values, as well as stipulate a visually interesting and timeless identity for the city. The Design Brief also serves as a checklist that measures the merits of a each logo concept and entry monument sign design. • Audit of Existing Print Materials and Signage The audit of existing print materials requires collecting the most commonly used printed pieces showing the City of Tigard identity and gathering information on their function. Photographs of common City of Tigard signs will assist in developing the appropriate typographic configurations for the new identity. • Research of Neighboring City Identities It is necessary to be familiar with the identities of adjacent communities to make informed design decisions for the City ofTigard's identity. Color choices and graphic themes should differ significantly from nearby communities. • Additional Community or Internal Input Any additional design input from the Community, Council or Vision Task Force that is pertinent to the City of Tigard identity or design of the Tigard entry monument signage. Preliminary Design Marcusen Design will present up to six identity concepts for the City of Tigard that most successfully address the design criteria set forth in the Design Brief. In addition, up to three preliminary entry monument sign designs will be presented to the Council/Vision Task Force for review. 939 SEA [der St. Unit 10 Portland Oregon 972 14 marcusen@earthlink.net Cell No. 503.475.0739 Phase Two - Design Development At the completion of Phase One, a preferred design direction will be chosen for Tigard's identity and entry monument signage. The identity will be illustratively and typographically refined and applied to test sample print pieces, stationery and signage. Up to three variations (thematically similar but visually different) of the identity will be presented for Council / Vision Task Force review. Up to three variations of the entry monument signs will also be presented for review. Phase Three - Final Design and Implementation Upon the completion of the Design Development Phase, the final direction for the Tigard identity and entry monument sign will be chosen and finalized. Electronic artwork will be created for the City of Tigard's business stationery and for the City of Tigard's identity. Scaled design intent drawings will be provided for the Tigard entry monument sign which will describe basic elevations and call out materials, finishes, possible lighting methods, and construction techniques. These deliverables will be presented for final review and any necessary revisions will be made to complete the project. The need for a City of Tigard Graphic Standards Manual should be considered upon the completion of the identity project, but has not been discussed. Estimated Design Fees City of Tigard Identity - Final Identity artwork and Business stationery $ Z 000.00 City of Tigard Entry monument signage - Design intent drawings $3,000-00 Reimbursable Expenses - Not to exceed $ 500.00 Include, but are not limited to: Laser prints, ink-jet prints, mock-ups, film, paper and printing costs. An itemized list will be provided at project completion and client will be notified if costs exceed estimated amount. Case Study Interview / Preliminary Concepts Portland Parks & Recreation : Identity Design and Sign system An intial interview was conducted to establish the objectives and requirements Park concept Portland Parks & Recreation for a new identity. After this meeting, a Historic conservatory concept (PP&R) wanted to update their Design Briefwas drafted to set forth design Recreation dominant concept 30-year-old identity in the new objectives and to judge the preliminary People in Nature concept century. I was project manager concepts against. Multiple concept City of Portland concept directions were investigated. A broad range Northwest Nature concept and lead designer for this project of designs were presented to the PP&R and guided PP&R in the process board and a thematic concept was selected. Man Sheparding Nature concept of creating a new identity that embodied the new spirit of Design Development and Second Refinement PP&R as an organization dedicated to the conservation, maintenance Selection of concept direction. Man Sheparding Nature concept and preservation of natural spaces Development of multiple solutions for the citizens of Portland. incorporating "Man Sheparding Nature" theme. ~ r VORTLANO PARKS Final Design Color studies, typographic legibility tests and symbol variations and illustrative refinement continued. PORT LAND .'ARKS .ti RIL"RL.V IJN PORTLAND PARKS N RFCRI ATION I LAND PARKS, R,LRL A. ON A Applying the Identity to Print Materials and Signage A comprehensive sign system for PP&R was designed to standardize sign shapes, sizes and colors in an attempt to realize economies of scale in signage production. Sample print pieces were mocked-up for in-house graphic designers to use as a starting point for future print work. Development of Identity Guidelines / Standards for Portland Parks & Recreation To insure consistent identity usage and effective typographic treatment for sign messages throughout the PP&R park system, the optimal final stage of producing a Graphic Standards Manual for signage was undertaken. v Work Samples Marcusendesign Tektronix o; FUSION CITY BAKING(,' ~ Flowing sullaiuns i~ 41670gle A J. o° ~•ei:11 di I - um~ Juli Page Meeting Date S y' 735 SW First Avenue, 3 Floor Agenda Item 5 -.10 (;6 x Portland, Oregon USA 97204 A P 503.226.3581 F 503.273.4277 solutions May 4, 2005 To: The Tigard City Council Re: Graphic Identity for the City of Tigard Thank you for the opportunity to submit a proposal for the new corporate identity for the City. I've been a Tigard resident for many years and would welcome the opportunity to create a logo and provide a new graphic system for the City and my community. I'd like to take a moment to briefly provide background on the printed samples I've provided in my portfolio case. Then the following two pages make-up the proposal addressing processes and estimates. Also a fact sheet about Graphic Solutions is enclosed for your reference. My business is a sole proprietorship, though I have partnered for over 10 years with another design/production firm, Grapheon, and others such as illustrators and photographers as need be to supply solutions for my clients. In almost all instances the design projects were the results of team approach. Nonprofit identity samples: The samples shown represent the projects that most closely share similarities with the City of Tigard needs. However, we have a wealth of samples that can be shared at a future opportunity, other logos, elaborate brochures, annual reports and web design, etc.. My team and I take pride in problem solving and strategic design, regard- less of the vehicle. Portland Community College: The goal was to provide the college with an updated look while maitaining the visual recognition they had established over the years with versions of a stylized "P." This was done several years ago, and implemented in several stages. The logo was created first, followed by stationary and collateral treatment, then on to viewbooks, catalogs, etc. A usage guideline was developed for the PCC publication department's use and for reference for future logo applications and associated fonts and color schemes. (a copy is provided in the PCC folder). Updated signage was being created at the same time and the facili- ties people and I worked closely with the same PCC contact to ensure a continuity in look with fonts and color usage. Mount Hood Medical Center: The logo & graphic identity system was created for the completion of the new facility and name change from the previous Gresham Hospital. Again, starting with logo and color scheme and fonts selection, I provided design and in most cases production for a large variety of materials and collateral. The new logo was applied on everything from patient forms and menus to signs, ads and brochures. In the case of the hospital signs they utilized the new logo artwork and color scheme but the facilities staff and architectural firm produced and coordinated manufacturing of the entrance and other signs. Getting Around Portland campaign for City of Portland Transportation Options: My associates at Grapheon provided some samples of work currently in progress for the City of Portland. The GAP pro- gram is a neighborhood-focused initiative. The campaign begins with a blanketing mailer designed to elicit a high rate of response from interested residents, who are asked to return a reply card to opt in to later mailings (thereby saving the pro- gram valuable funds). The logo representing this campaign must be direct, legible and recognizable, and the supporting collat- eral uncluttered and appealing. The goal is to create materials that convey the authority of a "government project" good organization, useful information while fun and compelling. As for all design and print projects for municipalities, the aim is to create a system that is effective and at the same time gives a sense of efficient use of public funds. I do welcome any questions and/or feedback from the City. hanky our time and consideration: J Page Request portfolio and all samples be returned. If someone from the City will call, I'll gladly pick it up. Thank you. Juli Page 735 SW First Avenue, 3 Floor Portland, Oregon USA 97204 P 503.226.3581 , FF f0QaL~s F 503.273.4277 solutions May 4, 2005 To: The Tigard City Council Re: Graphic Identity for the City of Tigard Proposal: Logo & stationary system with usage guidelines The process behind strategic & effective design: It is most important to do the research up front and gain as much input as possible prior to exploring design directions. Meetings with the City Council are a welcome part of that process and if avail- able a meeting during each of the first three phases of the logo/stationary process would be appropriate. Though mindful of the Council's time demands, if only two opportunities could be available I would opt for phase I and II. Phase I, Planning: Gathering information and establishing design criteria. Defining needs, objective, problems to solve, and identify any items that need to be retained in the graphic system. Meet with City designated contact for the project, and possibly meet with the Council on another occassion. This phase would also be an opportunity to survey various applications for the logo on city materials, basically a design audit. Develop a proposed timeline. And also become aware of the logo treatment of surrounding communities while establishing what sets Tigard apart from the others. Phase II, Concept Development: After the City and Graphic Solutions agree concerning the basic program (summarizing the assumptions made from the plan- ning phase) visual solutions will be pursued that meet the stated objectives. Results of Phase II is a presentation showing 3-5 options for logo design. Phase II, Design Development: Refine the accepted design, including general format, typography, color and determine integration of other element such as links to divisions or departments. Possible illustration determined. Any change in budget &/or schedule, due to change in parameters, are agreed upon at this stage. Phase IV, Design Implementation: Final print-ready artwork created and approved. Begin developing usage guidelines for logo & graphic system for City in-house production and other graphics needs. Phase V, Production/Printing: Review printer's proofs, press checks (supervise) printing of stationary materials. Project Investment: Design / production fees: $16,500. - $19,300. Miscellaneous expenses: 300. - 475. Illustration with buyout - - 3.000. Total: $16,800. - $22,775. Terms: 1/3 payment due to initiate project 1/3 payment due at halfway point in schedule Balance due once press supervision completed Alternative: Monthly billing is an option Note: All invoices are payable net thirty (30) days from date of invoice, unless otherwise noted in this document. Prices do not include printing. Prices are valid for 90 days. Estimates: The fees and expenses are estimates only. Final fees and expenses shall be shown when the final invoice is rendered. Client's approval shall be obtained for any increases in fees or expenses that exceed the original estimate. Acceptance of terms: Signatures below indicate acce tance of this ent. Q Client Signature Date e9p 'c Solutions Date luli Page 735 SW First Avenue, 3 Floor Portland, Oregon USA 97204 P 503.226.3581 UlS F 503.273.4277 solutions May 4, 2005 To: The Tigard City Council Re: Graphic Identity for the City of Tigard Proposal: Developing treatment for monuement signs, incorporating the new graphic identity The premise: Basically at this point in time, we know enough of some the signage issues, to know we don't know enough to offer design solution drawings as part of this proposal. (Also the American Institute of Graphic Arts requires designers not undertake any speculative work.) Rather we offer an estimate of the fee to research, consult, develop sketches, and work closely with the selected sig- nage company who would manufacture the signs. Initial conversations with multiple signage companies has indicated potential involve- ment can include, sign production co., landscape design & architect, and possibly a separate installation company should cranes be required. Assume work toward the signage would take place after some of the initial work is accomplished on the logo. Some of the issues to address: discussions of the limitation of materials, weather impact and general durability and desired longevity or willingness to maintain; vandalism considerations, speed and distance at which the signs would be viewed; font visibility; locations' lim- itations and opportunities; size impacting legal restrictions and installation requirements, not to mention the very important budget. Signage treatment can vary hugely in terms of cost. For instance just one of the stone monument signs of Sherwood ran $17,000 to cre- ate, not including installation. So teaming with the City of Tigard and working in an informed way, with budgets and study of locations and input on the many isuues I've mentioned and more, we can help provide high impact results. Like the logo and stationary there are components to developing the signage. Both Phase I stages could take place concurrently. Phase I, Planning/gathering information: Gathering information and establishing design criteria. Defining needs, objective, problems to solve. This phase would also be an opportunity to survey and discuss existing signage for the city and what are envisioned for the future, basically a design audit. And also become aware of the signage treatment of surrounding communities. Currently the city doesn not have a consistent look or use of materials. (see snap shots of city signs) Initially I would propose some combination of concrete, with stone or brick, but that's certainly subject to change with much more input provided by the City. Phase II, Schematic design: After the City and Graphic Solutions agree upon the stated objectives & criteria, a sign company is selected and together with the sign company design intent drawings of sign treatment options are developed for presentation. Sign company fees charged directly to the City of Tigard. A schedule and manufacturing/installation budget is determined with City input. Phase III, Design development: Working drawings and specs created for selected signage treatment with contract documentation for City approval. Phase IV, Design Implementation: Produce reproducible artwork to specs required by signage manufacturer. Phase V, Manufacturing and installation. Project Investment: Design / production fees: $3,000. - $4,000. Miscellaneous expenses: 50. - 100. Total signage design fees: $3,050. - $4,100. Terms: 1/3 payment due to initiate project 1/3 payment due at halfway point in schedule Balance due once approved design & artwork for monument signs Alternative: Monthly billing is an option Note: All invoices are payable net thirty (30) days from date of invoice, unless otherwise noted in this document. Prices do not include printing. Prices are valid for 90 days. Signage fees based on assumption work done in conjuntion with logo/graphic identity project. Estimates: The fees and expenses are estimates only. Final fees and expenses shall be shown when the final invoice is rendered. Client's approval shall be obtained for any increases in fees or expenses that exceed the original estimate. Acceptance of terms: Signatures below indicate acceptance of this agr ment. 5- -os- Client Signature Date G is Solutions Date Juli Page 735 SW First Avenue, 3 Floor Portland, Oregon USA 97204 P 503.226.3581 F 503.273.4277 solutions May 4, 2005 Signage observations: Mixed materials and degree of effectiveness. , ; Ey , \ I" I A 1 1 £ Zvi "'o Gold letters attached to brick, City Hall Appears to be powder coated mising letter currently. Gold letters attached to brick. metal, with treatment mimicking Sign has light source from above, Sign has light source from ground wood cut. Better color contrast but on cloudy day, low contrast, level, but on cloudy day, low for letters readability. low impact. contrast, low impact. 111, ~ ~ ~ ` ' \ \ URE A Dark grey letters attached to City Hall & Libray buildings County or state sign, very graphic, concrete. Modern, institutional. utilizing glass, chrome & brick. easy to read. Light source below. Signage is san serif, good contrast easy to read. 0 ,77 , v eauY~ v\t..`~ ~}~j.Juowu..w Average stone signage ranges from Smaller stone signs at 6900 SW Wooden Sherwood sign, historical $5,000 - 15,000 plus installation. Atlanta produced by same sign feel. Expect shorter life and/or This single site was $17,000. plus co. as Sherwood's welcome sign. more maintenance. installation costs. Juli Page 735 SW First Avenue, 3 Floor Portland, Oregon USA 97204 P 503.226.3581 PoF 503.273.4277 Solutions MISSION STATEMENT: The Mission of Graphic Solutions, an Oregon company, is to be a leading graphic design company servicing corporate clients in the Pacific Northwest; to be cost-effective, efficient and friendly; to represent client interests in a professional manner at all times. Striving to be recognized for technical excellence and for an innovative and effective style of communication. CAREER EXPERIENCE: 1987, Graphic Solutions resumed business after a brief hiatus in New York. Annual Reports, corporate identity and capability brochures, several of which are award winning, have been produced for a variety of corporate clients. Among them are: Northwest Natural Gas, Alaska's Carr Gostein Foods, The Laughlin Group, Precision Castparts Corp., Portland Community College, FEI Company, Planar Systems and Mentor Graphics. NEW YORK EXPERIENCE: 1986 - June 1987, Senior Designer for the American Stock Exchange in New York City. Responsible for running the studio and supervising a five-person staff. All Exchange design and publications fell under my supervision, including the annual report. 1985 -1986, Designer for Taylor & Ives in New York City. Taylor & Ives designs and produces corporate communications specializing in annual reports. While working with corporate clients like Paine Webber, Owens/Corning and Bankers Trust, responsibilities included client relations, concept development, design, comprehensive layouts, art direction and production. PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE: 1983 - 1985, Owned and operated a design business under "Graphic Solutions" in Portland, Oregon. Problem solving for a wide range of clientele and producing a variety of work from annual reports and corporate brochures to logo design and corporate identity. 1978 - 1983, Art Director for the Public Relations Department of Good Samaritan Hospital. Responsible for design and print coordination for all internal and external promotions, including the annual report. 1977 - 1978, Printing Coordinator for Good Samaritan Hospital. EDUCATION: Quark Xpress & Freehand training, U of O Continuation Center Advertising Design, School of Visual Arts (New York) Business by Design & Marketing by Design seminars Photography, Oregon School of Arts & Crafts Illustration, Portland Art Museum Bachelor of Fine Arts, Pacific Lutheran University AWARDS: The 2002 Vision Awards Annual Report Competition (LACP) - Platinum award Chosen for "Top Ten List of annual reports" Chief Executive magazine 1997, 1994, 1993, 1992; Financial World - Bronze Award 1994, 1993 & 1989; Nicholson Awards Best of Industry 1997, 1996 & 1993; The International ARC Awards Competition - Gold award: 1998, 1995, 1991 Silver: 2002/online annual, 2001/print & online annual, 1999, 1990 Bronze: 2002 Oregon Columbia IABC - 2001 Award of Merit AGENDA ITEM # D FOR AGENDA OF MU 17, 2005 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Discuss Measure 37 Decision-Making Entity PREPARED BY: Jim HendM DEPT HEAD OK //4& CITY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Discuss and provide direction on determining the Decision Maker for Measure 37 claims. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends City Council initially act as the Decision Maker for Measure 37 claims and then decide at a later date if they would like to delegate it to another body, commission, or individual. INFORMATION SUMMARY In November, 2004, the voters of the state adopted Ballot Measure 37, adding new sections to ORS Chapter 197, which provide that local governments may pay compensation to property owners for reductions in property values, or may waive restrictions as an alternative of payment resulting from land use regulations that restrict uses of the property. In December 2004, the Tigard Municipal Code (TMC) was amended by Council to identify the process for evaluating Measure 37 claims. After an evaluation and staff report, a public hearing is held before a "Decision Maker". The Decision Maker must evaluate the claim and render a decision within 180 days of filing the claim. The TMC (1.20.090) establishes that Council has the initial responsibility to act as the Decision Maker, however, authority exists in the TMC for Council to delegate that authority to another board, commission, or individual. Measure 37 requires that claims must be processed in 180 days. Council retaining authority provides the greatest latitude for processing claims within that 180 day timeframe. Appointing another board, commission, or individual as the Decision Maker is an alternative. This would free up Council from the direct responsibility to deal with the initial decision. Council would still be required to act on all claims. At the May 17`" meeting, consideration should be given as to who should act as the Decision Maker. If Council decides to initially retain its authority to act in this capacity, they could, in the future, choose to delegate it to another body, commission, or individual. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED N/A VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY N/A ATTACHMENT LIST 0 Attachment 1: April 29, 2005 Memo to Council - Measure 37 - Decision Makers FISCAL NOTES N/A CITY OF TIGARD Community Development Shaping A Better Community MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD TO: City Council FROM: Jim Hendryx DATE: April 29, 2005 SUBJECT: Measure 37 - Decision Makers Oregon municipalities, including Tigard, have developed a sound system of land use planning, which includes regulations that, in some cases, restrict the uses that can be made of property. These restrictions on use of property have both served the public interest and increased property values by allowing the City to develop a harmonious way of avoiding incompatible uses and assuring appropriate development. The voters of the state adopted Ballot Measure 37 in the November 2004 election, adding new sections to ORS Chapter 197, which provide that local governments may pay compensation to property owners for reductions in property values, or may waive restrictions as an alternative of payment resulting from land use regulations that restrict uses of the property. Some property owners may believe that existing or future land use regulations as applied to their property both restrict use of the property and reduce the fair market value of the property and consequently may bring claims under Measure 37. Ballot Measure 37 explicitly allows local governments to develop procedures for assessing claims made under Measure 37. Working in conjunction with the City Attorney's office, an ordinance was adopted to address Measure 37 claims. In December 2004, the Tigard Municipal Code (TMC) was amended by Council repealing the existing Chapter 1.20 and replacing it with a new Chapter 1.20. The TMC identifies the process for evaluating Measure 37 claims. After an evaluation and staff report, a public hearing is held before a "Decision Maker". The Decision Maker must evaluate the claim and render a decision within 180 days of filing the claim. The TMC (1.20.090) establishes that, while Council has the initial responsibility to act as the Decision Maker, they may delegate that authority to any person, board, commission, or other entity. While the City has not yet processed a Measure 37 claim, consideration must be given to the issue of who acts as the Decision Maker. Council still has the responsibility to review all the recommendations of the Decision Maker and make the final decision. This, however, can be done by holding a hearing or through the consent agenda process. Advantages exist for Council to retain the authority to act as the Decision Maker. Measure 37 requires that claims must be processed in 180 days. Council retaining authority provides the greatest latitude for processing claims within the 180 day timeframe. Should another Decision Maker be appointed, Council must still affirm the decision. Accountability is another consideration. Council is elected and accountable to the voters. Measure 37 claims will potentially be controversial and consideration should be given to whether another Decision Maker would be equipped to deal with the amount of controversy. Finally, it does not appear that there will be a significant number of claims. To date, only one claim has been filed, however, it was subsequently withdrawn. Appointing another board, commission, or individual as the Decision Maker is an alternative. This would free up Council from the direct responsibility to deal with the initial decision. Council would still be required to act on all claims. Processing time could impact this approach if a "separate" hearing was held by Council. If Council decides to appoint another board, commission, or individual as the Decision Maker, three alternatives come to mind: 1. The Planning Commission or Hearings Officer are two obvious choices. Both have backgrounds in land use, which would be beneficial with Measure 37 claims. They occasionally deal with controversial issues. 2. Another option is to appoint an independent person to solely act as the Decision Maker, such as an attorney or other professional. This has merit; however, like the Hearings Officer, hours would need to be compensated. 3. The decision to appoint another board, commission, or individual can be made at any time, provided it does not impact the 180 day processing limitation. In other words, Council could retain the authority to act as the Decision Maker, process a few claims, and then decide how to proceed. In conclusion, Council has been initially identified as the Decision Maker for Measure 37 claims. Authority exists in the TMC for Council to delegate that authority to another board, commission, or individual. Before a Measure 37 claim is filed, Council should give consideration to who acts as the Decision Maker. Should Council initially retain its authority to act in this capacity, it can be delegated to another body, commission, or individual in the future. AGENDA ITEM # FOR AGENDA OF May 17, 2005 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Informational Summa Report on the Urban Services Area p PREPARED BY: J. HendM DEPT HEAD OK VTY MGR OK #1 ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Council will discuss the intergovernmental agreement between Washington County and Tigard for providing services to unincorporated areas of Washington County (Urban Services Area). STAFF RECOMMENDATION Hear an overview on the Intergovernmental Agreement between Washington County and the City of Tigard and provide direction to staff on any course of action for providing services to the Urban Services Area (URB). INFORMATION SUMMARY The City of Tigard provides building, current planning and development related engineering services to the URB. This was the result of an intergovernmental agreement (IGA) with Washington County. This agreement has been in place since June of 1997 with an amended version in 2002. The City's Comprehensive Plan adopted in 1983 recognizes Tigard as the long term service provider of urban services. The County's comprehensive plan likewise recognizes Tigard as the long term service provider. Subsequent (IGA's) reinforced this direction. Based on comprehensive policy, an Urban Planning Area Agreement and other IGAs, the City of Tigard signed an Intergovernmental Agreement with Washington County on May 12, 1997, to provide development related services to the unincorporated area known as the Bull Mountain and Walnut Island areas. This was the result of ongoing dialogue between the City of Tigard and Washington County. Washington County has long recognized that cities are the logical providers of municipal services. The Urban Services IGA is one step toward Tigard providing municipal services to its entire Urban Services Boundary At the May 17, 2005 meeting, Council will discuss the IGA. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED N/A 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: Memo dated May 3, 2005 - Urban Services FISCAL NOTES Building and other development related costs for the URB are recovered through fees collected from applicants. 2ill , 1 1, CITY OF TIGARD Community Development Shaping A Better Community MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD TO: Mayor Dirksen and City Council FROM: James Hendryx, Director of Community Development DATE: May 3, 2005 SUBJECT: Urban Services This memorandum is being presented to the City Council as an informational summary of the inception, creation and current status of the Urban Services Area (URB). The City of Tigard provides building, current planning and development related engineering services to the URB. This was the result of an intergovernmental agreement (IGA) with Washington County. This agreement has been in place since June of 1997. 1. GENERAL OVERVIEW The City's Comprehensive Plan adopted in 1983 identified the City's ultimate service boundary and recognized Tigard as the long term service provider of urban services for the entire area which includes portions of unincorporated Bull Mountain, Metzger, etc. The County's Comprehensive Plan likewise recognizes Tigard as the long term service provider. Subsequent IGAs reinforced this direction. Based on Washington County's and Tigard's Comprehensive Plans, the Urban Planning Area Agreement (UPA), and various IGAs, the City of Tigard signed an Intergovernmental Agreement with Washington County on May 12, 1997 with a commencement date of June 2, 1997 to provide services to the unincorporated area known as the Bull Mountain and Walnut Island areas. This was the result of ongoing dialogue between the City of Tigard and Washington County. The intent of the IGA was to better serve the residents and customers of this area. The geographic location of the City offices in relation to the County offices was one of the determining factors; customers would have less travel distance to obtain requested services. Another factor was the goal of future annexation of this area and the future development of the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). The Urban Services Area is located between the City of Tigard city limits and the expected development of the UGB. It would seem logical, if the City was to expand its services to include future growth, the section of the Urban Services area should be annexed to provide a link to these properties. A direct outcome that resulted was the annexation of the area known as Walnut Island. The Urban Services Area currently consists mainly of the Bull Mountain portion. 0 t Washington County's 2000 Strategic Plan identifies cities as the logical provider of urban services. City Council had also established a goal for 1996/97 for the development for an IGA for areas within Tigard's UGB. After months of discussion by Council on the merits of entering into an intergovernmental agreement with the County to provide urban services to portions of unincorporated Washington County, the City Council approved the IGA on April 22, 1997. The original terms of the IGA were for 5 years; the IGA was renewed in 2002. The agreement may be terminated between March 1 and July 1 of any year, with 90 days written notice from either party. Mutually, the agreement may be terminated at any time. If the IGA was not beneficial to Tigard, the County is open to discussion about termination. The timeframes noted in the IGA would not stand in the way of continued cooperation between the County and the City. Originally, the scope of services included all Planning, Engineering and Building related development as well as street maintenance by the Public Works Department. This has been subsequently revised to omit services by Public Works. One of the primary objectives of proceeding with the IGA was that it would be totally self-sufficient and not require funding by the City of Tigard's general fund or other dedicated funds. In order to track activity levels, revenue, and expenses, the City created a separate fund for the Urban Services Area. The revenue fund is identified as the Urban Services Fund within the City of Tigard Fiscal Budget. All revenues and expenses to this fund are tracked through the budget via this fund. In the beginning, intergovernmental revenue was transferred from the County to the City for initial start up costs in recognition of additional service demands and to provide funds for street maintenance. Beginning in Fiscal Year 2001-02, they no longer transferred funds to the City. II. SERVICES PROVIDED • Building Division The Building Division is comprised of basically three sections: plan review, inspection, and administration. All jurisdictions within the State operate under the same building code standards adopted Statewide. The City, through the IGA, administers these standards for the County. They review plans, issue permits, perform building inspections, and maintain records. Primary Service The Building Division receives plans and applications for proposed work in the Urban Services Area as regulated by the State building codes. They provide plan review of such projects, issue permits, perform building inspections, and maintain files and microfilming of records. They do not, however, enforce the Property Maintenance Regulations (Housing Code) within this area. The Building Division provides the same level of service as customers within the City receive. • Planning Division This Division includes both Long Range Planning and Current Planning. However, Long Range Planning does not provide services to the Urban Services Area. 2 Primary Services Current Planning provides full service land use development review, and permit issuance to the Urban Services Area. Tigard administers Washington County's land use standards in the URB. Code enforcement services are not provided to this area other than those identified as land use issues by the County. An important aspect is that Washington County adopted Tigard's land use standards specifically for the area are covered by the IGA. Land use standards are basically the same for the area covered by the IGA, as they are for the area within the City. The County determined that these standards were consistent with their Comprehensive Plan policy as part of their adoption process. Since the County adopted Tigard's land use standards, the services provided are those which are found in Title 18 of the Tigard Municipal Code (TMC). The City processes all land use applications, e.g., subdivision, partitions, conditional use permits, within the area covered by the IG. This ensures that all development is consistent with all applicable sections of Title 18 of the TMC which the County adopted for the area addressed in the IGA. • Engineering Department The Engineering Department is divided into two divisions: Capital Improvement and Development Review. Primary Services The Capital Improvement Division reviews all construction documents, plans and specifications to ensure conformance to the various design standards and coordinates and schedules all projects whether designed in-house or by consultants. The Capital Improvement Division typically manages and inspects all projects using in-house personnel. Construction work is almost always contracted out and awarded through the bid process. Capital improvement work is performed in conjunction with Washington County on selected streets. These are paid for by the Countywide Traffic Impact Fee Fund. Typically, these are streets that may be partially in the County and partially in the City. Basically, Washington County and Tigard have similar engineering standards. Where there are differences, the County adopted Tigard's standards for the area addressed in the IGA. The Development Review Division is responsible for ensuring all private development projects constructed within the Urban Services area meet the adopted design standards and other local and state regulations. Services include pre-application meeting consultation, review of land use applications, inspection of sidewalks and driveways in subdivisions, inspection of lot grading for each single-family residential permit, review of construction plans for public improvements, permitting, and inspection of public improvements. III. REVENUES The Urban Services Fund tracks all revenues associated with development in this area. This fund covers the costs for the corresponding Building, Engineering, and Planning services in this area. With the exception of FY 1999-00 when the County provided additional funding because costs 3 were exceeding revenues, the URB program has been a self supporting fund. A majority of the revenue over the years has consisted of building permit revenue to the Building Division. The activities provided by Current Planning, Building, and Engineering for the area covered by the IGA are fully supported by permit fees within this program. These activities are not supported by the general fund nor other funds. The charge to provide service to this program is based on activity levels. This is monitored throughout the fiscal year and adjusted annually. 4 IV. Activity Levels As within the City, activity levels within the URB fluctuate yearly. Significant changes can occur at the program level monthly. Over the course of the IGA when activity levels have been high within the City, they have been lower in the URB and vise versa. Numerous land use applications have been processed over the last several years. Several subdivisions are nearing completion, awaiting building permits. Although the activity level through this fiscal year has dropped from previous years, there are some upcoming substantial projects. The majority of them are single-family subdivisions with the exception of the Alberta Rider School. Overall, the URB fund revenues are projected to increase next fiscal year approximately 8% over the current fiscal year. Some of the current and upcoming projects in the URB include: Projects # of Lots Annexation Status Alberta Rider Elementary School n/a Prior to Occupancy Arbor Pointe 44 Arlington Heights III 60 May - June 2005' Bull Ridge Subdivision 15 May - June 2005' Foushee Partition No. 1 3 Foushee Partition No. 2 3 French Prairie Vineyards 29 Holt Partition 2 Mountain View Estates 19 May - June 2005' Sierra Park Subdivision 24 Summit Ridge 82 65 of 82 lots are already in the City Summit Ridge (Phase IV) 5 Prior to School Ocuupancy' Trevor Ridge Subdivision 9 Valley View Subdivision 25 Total 320 Tentative Date V. Overall Policy Consideration As noted above, Washington County has long recognized cities as the ultimate provider of urban level municipal services. This is recognized in the County's Comprehensive Plan and the County's 2000 Strategic Plan. The County continues to move toward this goal. In 1983, Tigard's Comprehensive Plan established the City's ultimate Urban Services Boundary. The IGA addresses a major portion of Tigard's Urban Services Boundary. Council, at the time the IGA was signed, recognized that the IGA was one step toward eventual annexation of the area. Further, it recognized that the City was the logical provider of urban services, i.e., development related services. Several annexations have resulted from the IGA. The Walnut Island and several individual properties have been annexed since signing the IGA. 5 The IGA has laid the foundation for discussions on planning for the two Urban Growth Boundary expansion areas (63 and 64) that were recently added to the Urban Growth Boundary. Likewise, discussion is underway on how best to approach updating Tigard's Comprehensive Plan. Tigard's entire Urban Services Area, including unincorporated Bull Mountain and Metzger, should be included in the Plan update. Without doing so would not address the long term needs of the community. Discussions are underway with the County on how to incorporate these areas into the City's Comprehensive Plan update effort. Discussion includes their financial and resource commitment to assist in this effort. VI. Summary Both the County and the City have policies in place to support Tigard providing development related services within the area covered by the IGA. The services provided are fee-supported and not supported by the City's general fund nor other dedicated funds. The IGA has led to several annexations since it was signed in 1997. Likewise, it provides a foundation for further discussions between the City and County for best delivery of urban services for Tigard's Urban Services Area. 6 Note: Attached is a transcript of the discussion on Agenda Item No. 7, which occurred during the May 10, 2005, City Council meeting. This transcript is referred to in the official minutes of the meeting and should be filed with this meeting's packet materials. ne Z Catherine Wheatley June 21, 2005 Transcript -May 17, 2005 Council Meeting for Agenda Item No. 7. DISCUSSION OF AN INFORMA TIONAL SUMMAR Y REPOR T REGARDING THE URBAN SERVICES AREA Hendryx: As Council will recall the City entered into an intergovernmental agreement with Washington County in May of 97 to provide planning, building, engineering and, initially, public works services, street maintenance, right-way-maintenance for portions of unincorporated Bull Mountain and an area that actually included the Walnut Island and areas along the Tualatin River. This is, what, about eight years into the agreement. My memo leaves out a lot of the pros and cons and history with the agreement. The agreement has a provision in it that allows ...the agreement runs for five years - every year - really it can be said that the Council, that the City or Washington County can step away from the agreement at any time. There is a provision that without mutual agreement there is a window between March and July of any year to do that. The County is amenable given the long relationship with the City to work with the Council and the City if they want to terminate the agreement at any time. So, the key thing on the timeline - I don't think the timeline realistic... they'll work with us at any time. The memo outlines the services that are provided... inhere. The key component... this fund was supposed to be totally fee sufficient. It is totally fee sufficient. There was great concern, initially, - or concern that the City would be supplementing - would potentially be supplementing costs of providing services - that is not the case. The fund pays for itself. The issue for Council is really to give direction on whether you want to continue the agreement or not. There are some benefits to the agreement - or there's - well not benefits to the agreement - but there's history to this agreement. The Washington County and Tigard - Washington County has long recognized Tigard being the ultimate service provider for our whole urban services boundary... which includes not only Bull Mountain but Metzger and those pockets along the Tualatin River. The County recognizes that through their County 2000 report - the County's has worked very diligently at identifying cities as the logical service providers for municipal services and there are several intergovernmental agreements that carry that out. The agreement - I indicated some pros and cons to the agreement. The agreement has really reinforced the eventual annexation of the urban services area to Tigard consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and consistent with the County 2000. 1 think by having the agreement, it's laid the foundation for further discussions with the County. The Transcript - May 17, 2005 Council Meeting Page 1 Agenda Item No. 7 - Urban Services Area Discussion Comprehensive Plan update being one of those discussions. The County, I think with the long history we've had with Washington County, they're willing to look at participating in our Plan update. If this agreement wasn't in place would they be so willing? I don't know. I would suspect there might not be the need to do that. The agreement has laid the foundation also for designating Tigard as the ultimate provider of services to Expansion Area 63 and 64, two urban growth boundary areas. If the City stepped away from the agreement, would there be a reason or justification for the City to have a lead role in that? If the area covered by the agreement wasn't eventually going to annex, there probably wouldn't be a reason for us to do the planning for it. So, in summary, really you have the discussion. There's been a long policy of support for the agreement. The annexation whole effort this past year certainly raised questions on this ...is a good thing to have this agreement. The controversy that occurred, and that's really where this came from. And, I just look for direction from Council - how you'd like staff to proceed. Woodruff. Do you see any pros in terminating - benefits to Tigard. Hendryx: Long-term benefits, no. And I'd say long-term benefits with updating the Comprehensive Plan - eventually that area is logically going to be in the City and we need to plan for it.... Harding: what are those kind of odds, when you look at 63 and 64...looking at Tigard ...have they actually stated that it will be in our jurisdiction and that it fall into our hands? or is that still to be decided by Metro? Hendryx: The County has said we are the logical service providers. Harding: Logical, but they haven't promised it to us... Hendryx: We do...you are correct. We do not have a formal agreement saying that it is the City's responsibility. Harding: So, I mean you know to assume that I think is something that's scary ...I mean we don't know that. Hendryx: We are set and the County needs to take steps to finalize that agreement to assign those to us. Harding: Is there anything from the County that says that's set. I mean I haven't seen anything about that other than what Metro has that indicates that it could be planned by, you know, King City, Tigard or Beaverton. So, I'm wondering, you know, where you're getting the information that Tigard - Transcript - May 17, 2005 Council Meeting Page 2 Agenda Item No. 7 - Urban Services Area Discussion Tigard's logical - but what do we have from previous meetings or minutes or something that show... Hendryx: I can draw you to the minutes. I didn't come prepared tonight to do that, but I can certainly do that. There have been numerous discussions with Council prior to you being on Council where the Board of County Commissioners have stated that fact and that direction. Wilson: Can you go maybe further back to the state level and the discussions about the UGB. It's not really just about Tigard and the adjacent area. How does Washington County relate to all of the cities in the County with regard the unincorporated urban areas adjacent to their boundaries? Aren't there other agreements? Hendryx: Yes there are other agreements, the County through the County... stepping back ...the urban growth boundary was established around the metropolitan area. Some areas were adjacent to cities and others were not... Wilson: ....and that was about what 1980 79, something like that? Hendryx: I would say late 70's early 80's. There were several areas, like in the case of Tigard, where there was unincorporated urbanizable areas in the County that were outside cities. That's a pitfall of our Oregon land use planning system. There really wasn't a method to address total urbanization or the urbanization of those areas. The counties and special service districts provided services to allow urban development to occur. However, that was without recognition that eventually the areas would be annexed. So that's a pitfall, or a weakness of our program, if under Oregon's land use system, cities are the providers of urban services. Washington County, in the development of their Comprehensive Plan did identify areas that ultimately should be served by cities: Tigard, Hillsboro, Beaverton, all those areas adjacent to the jurisdictions were identified as where ultimately the cities would grow. Wilson: And so lines were drawn on the map between say Beaverton and Tigard to areas outside their... Barrows Road became sort of the...How did that work? Hendryx: There was language in the community plans. And, I can't say for certain if there was a line drawn on a map showing specifically...There were policy directions in the Bull Mountain, which I'm familiar with - community plan - there was language in the community plan identifying Tigard as being the ultimate service provider. Through the urban planning area agreements, which was originally the cooperative agreements that the whole planning system and coordination with the counties and cities Transcript - May 17, 2005 Council Meeting Page 3 Agenda Item No. 7 - Urban Services Area Discussion occurred through the urban planning area agreements, areas were designated. So, as I'm speaking, I'm visualizing lines on the maps. The urban planning area agreement for Tigard was originally signed, I want to say 1986, which identified the area that ultimately - that was in Tigard's area of interest. The County did the planning for it; however, it was in our area of interest. Our Comprehensive Plan recognized that, recognized the County was doing the planning for it, but also recognized that ultimately it be in the City's - it would annex to the City. Woodruff: Nick?... Wilson: Well, I guess I'm sort of done, but I I guess I'm just trying to respond to all of the criticisms that we've heard and, you know - we didn't have any say in this - doesn't the City have a - a choice - I mean a chance to choose their city and all that. You know - these were I'm hearing you say these were public process - part of the Bull Mountain Community Plan - it was all like, you know, decided in public meetings - somebody has to make that decision. The County Commissioners at the time made it on behalf of their citizens. Isn't that a fair thing to say? Hendryx: That's correct. Wilson: I mean, and, since there was nobody there saying, hey, let's form our own city at the time. It was, like well, you know, if these places are developing, we've got to plan for the provision of services. That's kind of the bottom line as I see it. And, I'm, just sort of thinking out loud... Hendryx: There were ...I want to point out, there were subsequent agreements. Senate Bill 122 furthered the recognition that these urbanizable areas had to be - had to be ultimately be provided services by jurisdictions by cities. And, there was a process the state established by state statute, some requirements that jurisdictions had to do - follow. Washington County went through that process, entering into an urban services agreement - I believe for all the jurisdictions in Washington County. I can speak specifically to Tigard that urban services agreement with the Washington County identified the area which was basically the city's planning area - identified in 1983 when we did our Comprehensive Plan and they did their Comprehensive Plan - reinforcing that - And then going through a specific checklist of what services would be provided by who, ultimately. And that was a public process. It certainly has been pointed out, well, the public wasn't aware of it or they weren't involved in it... Wilson: Much of the public didn't live there at the time.. Transcript - May 17, 2005 Council Meeting Page 4 Agenda Item No. 7 - Urban Services Area Discussion Sherwood: I was at these meetings and I think they were in 1986 and they were held at Fowler Junior High School. And, I think maybe 50 people came to them. Woodruff: You went to them? Do you remember them being heated, controversial? Sherwood: No. I was mad because they weren't going to take us in immediately... you know, so. And, I had two little kids so I said I'm busy, so my ex-husband went... Woodruff: We've not had any indication from Washington County that they've had any indication of terminating the agreement? Hendryx: No. Woodruff. They've never given you any hints that it's something they might want to walk away from? Hendryx: There was a lot of concern when I called them and talked about the agreement to terminate IGA - Woodruff: Concern? Hendryx: Concern that the City... Woodruff: That we might... Hendryx: that we might ...but given the history with the Bull Mountain Annexation Plan and that whole effort, the County was certainly aware of the controversy of providing services. Woodruff: And, if we were to terminate - wouldn't that be recognition - or belief that then we didn't anticipate at some point having that area be a part of the City? ...the preliminary look we don't see that in the future any more, so we don't need this agreement? Hendryx: This agreement is one of several agreements where the City has joined with Washington. It wouldn't be the final agreement to be terminated. If the City was to step away from ever providing services to unincorporated Washington County, a series of agreements would have to be renegotiated and the ultimate service deliverer would have to be identified. So, we have agreements that say Tigard is the provider of services - municipal services. If we don't do it, who does? Is it King City, is it Beaverton? The County would have to step back and renegotiate the agreements that they have that sets Beaverton city limits, Hillsboro city limits.... Transcript - May 17, 2005 Council Meeting Page 5 Agenda Item No. 7 - Urban Services Area Discussion Wilson: Is that ...I'm sorry ...is that because of the state mandate? Hendryx: Yes. Wilson: It was Senate Bill ...what was that? Hendryx: Senate Bill 122. Wilson: You know, it's kind of like the issue that Tualatin had with expanding the boundary to areas they didn't want to extend services to - isn't that what one of their issues was - or was they didn't want it zoned industrial? Hendryx: There was a zoning issue when Metro brought it in - and part of the issue was who's going to pay for the public facilities for it? So, I guess it was basically the same issue. They were assigned the responsibility of providing municipal services to it, but we don't have the interest or the capacity to do so - so that was a fundamental issue. Secondly, there was an issue with their land base. So much of their community is industrial or commercial - they want to see a greater degree of residential properties. So, it didn't meet their community's need of being a little bit more balanced community. Wilson Well I, personally, I think we should continue, but I'm really torn. I would ...mostly I'd just like to walk away from it. I just feel like, like we've because that development review is the most controversial thing that we do - it... what? Woodruff: I think we've had more controversial things than that... Wilson: Well, it's certainly an ongoing one and it's among the most controversial things we do. And, it communicates, I think, to the unincorporated area that we are somehow responsible for planning the area when we're not - and we have no authority - and, you know, that we've screwed up because of the way things are developing. And, you know, in the long run, I'm wondering whether it really helps with the annexation issue and in some ways, you know, it might be better to provide no urban services at all. Sherwood: But then, what would you do about the parks? Wilson: We're not doing that now. Sherwood: No, but I mean - tonight we said you know - look for available park land. Wilson: That's a separate issue ...I see... Harding: We still have the whole north side... Transcript - May 17, 2005 Council Meeting Page 6 Agenda Item No. 7 - Urban Services Area Discussion Wilson: I'm not saying we give up the idea of annexation, in some fashion. What I'm saying is that by doing development review, it communicates that Tigard is responsible for the lack of parks, for the lack of infrastructure, for bad planning... and all of that. If the folks, you know, every time there was a development in the neighborhood and they had to drive to Hillsboro and plead with the County Commissioners deny a subdivision - we don't look like the bad guys, you know. I don't know - I think it's a... Woodruff: You don't like looking like the bad guys? Wilson: Well, it doesn't help our cause (laughter) you know so, but, I guess I don't see any alternative... there's ...I think we need to keep... Woodruff: You say this is one of many agreements... Hendryx: Yes. Woodruff: ...communicate to all parties that eventually this area would have, would become a part of Tigard and we would provide services... Hendryx: That's correct. Woodruff: And, if given a choice, the people that elected us seem to think that they believe that should happen at some point - whether it happens or not, I don't know. Things happening at the state - things happening at the County - maybe things have changed. But, the people, when they had an opportunity to vote on it, they said we think this should be a part of Tigard. And, so I guess I feel like we shouldn't be doing anything that takes away from that overall perception from the County and from our residents that we are changing our position on that. Even though, I understand that this doesn't, in and of itself, doesn't make that change. Hendryx: When you refer to voting, you're referring the annexation vote or.. Woodruff Yes - the 69 percent of the people in the City who said we think the City should grow and that should be a part of the city. So, there was, they had an opportunity with Bull Mountain ...and that's what they told us. Sherwood: And, I don't think we've had a lot of people down here from the City of Tigard saying stop doing any kind of agreements for providing services - we haven't heard from anybody, I don't think, from the City saying don't do that. Transcript - May 17, 2005 Council Meeting Page 7 Agenda Item No. 7 - Urban Services Area Discussion Wilson: Jim, does our agreement have anything to do with the developer agreements to annex in exchange for provision of urban services? Would that still ...would they still be required if the County was processing... still require those that are adjacent to our borders to annex? . Hendryx: That would be a County choice. Since we're the ones processing the permits, the Council's direction is require annexation when immediately adjacent to the City - require the waivers of remonstrance for future annexation. It would be a choice that the policy decision that the Board of County Commissioners would have to make. Do they want to support that - continue that policy or not? Wilson: There were a lot parcels that were annexed prior to that agreement in being in force with the County, right? Hendryx: Correct. Wilson: And those were done strictly on a voluntary basis by the developers? Hendryx: I suspect so, yeah, to provide services they wanted to be inside the city. A good percent... since you said that, a good percentage of Bull Mountain did come in on the northern side of the mountain. Sherwood: So what are you looking for from us? Hendryx: I'm looking for direction... Prosser: Yes, I was going to say what I'm hearing, at least from three of you, is that you have... you don't want us to change the agreement at this point. That you want us to continue the agreement. Sally, I haven't heard from you. Harding: I was looking for something here that I highlighted ...I think it's important that even though we don't have the Bull Mountain Community Plan in front of us, that once we took over doing services, if you will, we overlaid all of Tigard's Municipal Code and other things over what they already had existing. I don't know if we ever had a process - I wasn't here - for whether the parties for Bull Mountain and Tigard got together to try to work together and how that stuff was going to be put on them, if you will. And that's what one of the big kicking and screaming matches is all about. I think the other thing that is a little bit troubling when you read the exhibits at the end of the urban services agreement is regarding some of the funding that we got in the letter from you... and from Gus and when I looked at those line items in the Budget last night on item, what, 250 and 255, and see the transfers to what's come down, you know, the traffic impact fees have been huge - that there haven't been any projects or road projects on Bull Mountain and somehow that piece was allowed to be used Transcript - May 17, 2005 Council Meeting Page 8 Agenda Item No. 7 - Urban Services Area Discussion for Walnut, Gaarde, etc. and it may have been a loophole saying we have the Walnut Island Annexation. But, I do know that most of the homes in the Walnut Island Annexation were built long before 1997 and wouldn't have had TIF fees assessed against... them. And, all those fees that were collected on the Mountain got shoved into those neighborhoods down where I live. And, you consider the trucks that have been cruising up and down Bull Mountain Road with all the development and they haven't had that road addressed even for, you know, for some maintenance that really needs to be done. And, I think if we want to hold hands with Bull Mountain and we ever have a hope of doing annexation, we should have been looking at how can we work together so they can't wait to join our city because we, you know, work really good at providing services that show them that we are the ultimate service provider and that they should want to be with us and say: See you County, get out of the business of being a City - you know act like an extension like you should be and let us annex with Tigard and work like an urbanized area. All of this area has become urbanized. And, as you know, Jim, and everybody else, in the beginning it was mostly farmland, including Tigard. So, I guess the thing that troubles me here is that, you know, also you're coming telling me that we can get out of this agreement and yet, when I was running for office and Gus took me on a tour, he had indicated to me that there was no way we could get out of that agreement - that the County would sue us and that we were bound by it and it was like an ad infinitum type of thing. And, I had asked that question of him because I had people during the campaign from Bull Mountain saying: I wish we could just cut it and be done with it...let us go. So, I'm kind of getting a mixed message here from staff about what is really, you know, what is really our responsibility involved with that agreement. And, we had it on the agenda in March, you didn't give us a copy of this urban services agreement and I called and asked for it and I was told it was in the archives. And, I did get a copy... or got a copy that night and we had to set it over because it got too late ...so I guess I'm really frustrated feeling like I'm not getting the whole picture of everything that's gone on. I know everybody has high emotions on this side of the table and over there. And, it's really hard, I mean I would like to somehow think we could work together and try to come to terms or understanding. But, I can also sense and understand why a lot of the people on the Mountain feel very hurt and I think I can also understand why Council feels that way. It's not fun to sit and listen to everybody beat you up - but sometimes I think we don't have the whole situation and we need to dig and get our facts and work at bringing some closure and moving forward and having progress - whether its terminated or to keep it in place - we have to look at what's going to work for both sides and be fair and be win-win for everyone. Hendryx: Can I respond to a couple of ...mentioned. Transcript - May 17, 2005 Council Meeting Page 9 Agenda Item No. 7 - Urban Services Area Discussion Harding: Sure. Hendryx: The land use - it was a process that Washington County and Tigard went through purposely on the land use. The County adopted the City's land use regulations for the area covered by the urban services area. That included the Walnut Island, Bull Mountain and the portions along the river. That was not done in a vacuum. Washington County had to go through their elaborate hearings process of providing notices, reading of ordinances, having the public hearings, and making a decision. That was not done by the City of Tigard, it was done by Washington County in cooperation with Tigard. We did say, going into this agreement, if we are going to administer the land use, it's going to be our standards. Because my staff, who do it, have one book of 400 pages and the County book was 400 pages. I'm using that as an example. It was not...it was an unfair expectation for us to administer two different land use regulations. It was agreed by the City Council and by the Board of County Commissioners that was a reasonable approach to provide land use regulations to unincorporated - the area covered by the agreement. So, the County went through that process. There were public open houses. There were notices to every citizen out there of the pending land use decision, of the pending service provision. Everybody was provided notice that on June I", June 151h, or whatever the date was, call City of Tigard for your services or if you have any questions, call the County. So, land use was a very deliberate process as was the street maintenance and the building codes. On the TIF process... on the loopholes and all...I'm not sure ...I can't ...I don't have a complete understanding... Harding: ....what you gave us at the budget ...and apparently, some of the Commissioners said yeah, you know, we collected some money from the Walnut Island area... Prosser The traffic impact fee is charged and it is to be used on roads of county- wide impact, whether they're located within a city or outside of the city. The Walnut Island was unincorporated and there were TIF fees collected from them... Some discussion in background from audience.... Sherwood: (to audience)... he's talking... Hamilton- Treick (audience) ...I wish you would refer to the agreement, because there's area amount that says.... (banging noise) Transcript - May 17, 2005 Council Meeting Page 10 Agenda Item No. 7 - Urban Services Area Discussion r s Prosser: The TIF fee was collected from Walnut Island, it was accounted for separately. It is appropriate to spend on areas that it was collected from. We wrote a letter to the County and we requested authority (banging noise) to... Sherwood: Don't let it hit you on the way out. Audience member: (cross-over remark made while Mr. Prosser was speaking...) Prosser: to spend that on an area that had been recently annexed. The County gave explicit authority to do that, because they recognized that those had been County residents and if they hadn't been annexed that money could have been spent there ...and it addressed problems that not only served the Walnut Island, but also served Bull Mountain. We account for those funds clearly; we spend them appropriately. Woodruff: and it's not... it's not required that those funds have to be spent in the exact area that they're collected? Prosser: No they don't. Woodruff: No matter where they are... Hendryx: The agreement did set up that for the unincorporated area that they would be accounted for and spent to serve that area. That area, and, Walnut, or Gaarde or 121 the County determined was the area and they felt that would provide services - road improvements - the County was - my understanding of the letters that Gus has that they approved of that. Prosser: The projects that it has to be spent on have to be on the County-wide plan... So, the City just doesn't go out and spend it on whatever it wants to. It has to be approved by the County to service county-wide impact. Now, one of the issues that has developed over time is Bull MountainRoad Road has become a problem. There were other areas, other roads of county-wide impact that served unincorporated and the City that were of greater priority - ok - a lot of those have now been addressed and, again, we are continuing to collect those TIF both inside the City, which we account separately from those outside the City. On the CIP, we are identifying projects in the unincorporated area, Bull Mountain - Roshak Road being one - and as those projects come forward, that's where the money will be spent. There were no loopholes. Harding: Well, you know, it said the area. It doesn't necessarily say Walnut Island ...but when I think of the TIF fee in the area ...and I think of Walnut Island - and I know what the age of houses are there and I know that this Transcript - May 17, 2005 Council Meeting Page 11 Agenda Item No. 7 - Urban Services Area Discussion was signed in 97 and Walnut Island annexed early in 2000. That was a short period of time and most of those homes in that area were built long before 1997 and the newer ones were built in 92-ish. Prosser: None of our SDC's, whether it is TIF fee, whether it is a parks SDC, whether it is a water SDC, whether it is a sewer SDC has to be spent in the exact neighborhood where it is collected. If it did, you eliminate all reason for a systems development charge. Because a systems development charge is by definition for a system. A system is a larger entity. And so, for example, with water SDC's you need to provide additional reservoirs - you're not going to provide that in each neighborhood. You have to provide pipelines and transmission lines - and the same token with roads, is you have to be able to get people from Point A to Point B. If you only spend that money - if you designate every single dollar to that particular neighborhood, it doesn't do any good for the system. Harding: Right, but these streets in that neighborhood and in the Walnut Island area were having all of their improvements once they were annexed, not during their unincorporated phase. Hendryx: Sally, actually, if I could clarify that - the, a majority of the Walnut Island was permitted under Washington County - a good portion was built inside the City after annexation - but a good portion occurred before it was annexed, so... But, you're right, the cost of the roads far exceeded the amount that the development generated the TIF. Wilson: That's also the case that most of the neighborhoods in Bull Mountain were newer the streets were... Harding: Bull Mountain Road isn't newer and that's what I'm thinking of torn up with all their trucks ...up and down... (cross conversation occurring at the same time.) Wilson: But if you remember in the Walnut Island, I mean ...those roads, some still are - they were, I think, far more substandard that Bull Mountain Road. I mean Bull Mountain Road at least had developments that were, you know, that had frontage where the frontage was improved... Anyway, I guess I just want to get back to the subject, the topic at hand here... Hendryx: There's one more point that I want to respond to if I could. And that was getting out of the agreement. The agreement has always had a provision that there is an out clause to it. Either party can terminate it with mutual consent. It can be terminated at any time during the year. If Gus made reference that - to something that wasn't in the agreement - I'm not sure Transcript - May 17, 2005 Council Meeting Page 12 Agenda Item No. 7 - Urban Services Area Discussion what that was. The agreement has always explicitly said that. If the City got out of the agreement, would there have to be some transfers of money? Like I said last night, yes, there would be funds go back to the County like the County jumpstarted the program for us when we took it on. So, I can't speak to precisely what Gus was saying, but the agreement has always said there was an out clause. And, if this wasn't provided in a timely fashion to you, Sally, I sincerely apologize for not getting it to you. We have copies of the agreement. I'm sorry the request wasn't filled in a timely fashion. Woodruff- Would it be fair to say that if you lived in an unincorporated area and you didn't like this agreement... didn't think we were living up to our part of the agreement, that you would want to take that information to the County, the elected representatives of that area and say, pull the plug on this agreement - Tigard isn't doing what they are supposed to be doing? Hendryx: The County has the is the ultimate... well both jurisdictions... Woodruff: If either side can pull the plug on it, it seems to me like that that's the side where the unincorporated area has the political connection, because those are the people that represent them. Hendryx: Those are the elected... right... Woodruff: And, if people think that this agreement isn't working or that we're somehow not using the money correctly, or whatever the concern is, it seems like that's where that concern ought to be taken and, if the County agrees with that, then they'll make the decision to unilaterally pull out of it. Hendryx: Correct. Wilson: Ok - we have a consensus. iAadmicathy\=mVmnscdpt - 050517 - Item 8 - urban services.doc Transcript - May 17, 2005 Council Meeting Page 13 Agenda Item No. 7 - Urban Services Area Discussion