The URL can be used to link to this page

City Council Packet - 12/20/2005 TIGARD CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS MEETING DECEMBER 20, 2005 COUNCIL MEETING TELEVISED (REPLAY) a Q Revised -Added Agenda Item 9 - WCCC Transportation Funding; Added Agenda item No. 10 1 i - Branding7urapnic i Design; Added Agenda Item No. 6 (12/20) - Budget Amendment No. 4/GIS Coordinator Position TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER.20, 2005 6:30 p.m. CITY OF TIGARD 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 - DECEMBER 20, 2005 page 1 Agenda Item No. 3. 1 For Agenda of I. ail - D(o Ai~ - CITY OF TIGARD OREGON Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes Date: December 20, 2005 Time: 6:30 p.m. Place: Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, Oregon Attending: Mayor Craig Dirksen Presiding Councilor Sally Harding Councilor Sydney Sherwood Councilor Nick Wilson Councilor Tom Woodruff Absent:-- enda Item Discussion & Comments Action Items follow u Study Session Update on Interim Finance Director Imdieke reviewed a Finance Staff will prepare an Potential summary of potential financial ballot measures other updated list of potential Financial- jurisdictions are planning to place before the voters financial ballot measures. Related Ballot over the next few years. Measures from Other City Council reviewed a "Financial Ballot Measure Jurisdictions Survey - December, 2005." Additional updates to this list will be needed, including several items mentioned by Councilor Harding. Interim Finance Director Imdieke reported on the work of the Financial Strategy Task Force. The Task Force has been concentrating on reviewing the mix of services that the City of Tigard is providing. The next step will be to look at alternatives and efficiencies. Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes December 20, 2005 - Page 1 1~ Agenda Item Discussion & Comments Action Items follow u Study Session Police Chief Dickinson reviewed this request for Council members indicated Continue direction from the City Council on whether or not support for the decision not Discussion on the Police Department should expend funds and to pursue accreditation. Police staff time to renew the City's current accreditation Council members noted they Department through the Oregon Accreditation Alliance (OAA) were in favor of continual Accreditation and/or the National accreditation organization, instruction on policies and CALEA (Commission on Accreditation for Law for a high-level of Enforcement Agencies.) professionalism. At Council direction from the November 15 City Council meeting, the rank and file were surveyed. Based on that information, the Department recommends that the City not pursue re- accreditation at this time due to competing time and budget issues. The Department would like to re- visit accreditation at some time in the future and use this process as an independent means of validating policies and procedures. The proposed timeline would be to seek certification again, perhaps at the National level, in 2008. Police Chief Dickinson reported on the possibility of exploring the purchase of a program which sets out a course for policy review, such as the program offered by Lexipol. In addition, Lexipol is considering making its policy review manual accredited. Study Session - Administrative FX_1 Access Easement to the Fields Property - Council concurred with the Items Revision to the "Grant of Easement" Document revision as outlined by City Engineer Duenas. City Engineer Duenas reviewed his memorandum of December 16, 2005, regarding "Access Easement to the Fields Property - Revision to the Grant of Easement Document." A copy of the memorandum is on file in the City Recorders office. A revision to the Grant of Easement document clarifies whether or not Mr. Fields can continue to cross City property north of Fanno Creek for maintenance of the Fields' property east of the Libra site. The proposed revision to Section 7 Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes December 20, 2005 - Page 2 Agenda Item Discussion & Comments Action Items follow u of the agreement makes it clear that the maintenance access is not terminated by the "Grant of Easement." ❑x Identify the resource materials for the January 6, City Council requested the 2006 City Council Goal Setting Meeting following information: 1. One- to two-page summary of status of 2005 goals. 2. Suggestions for goals from the City's Boards and Committees 3. Large map of the City. D Congress of Cities Conference ■ Topics to date from Mayor and Council for meetings with Senators and Congressman include: - Community Development Block Grant - Section 8 - Food Stamps - Transportation funding Council members will advise administrative staff if they have additional topics for the legislators. ■ Council members will advise administrative staff regarding dates of attendance at the conference. ❑D No Chamber of Commerce Representative will attend tonight's meeting. The next report from the Chamber of Commerce is scheduled for the January 24, 2006, Council agenda. D Review Process-Continuation of Sunrise Lane Annexation Hearing; Agenda Item No. 5 City Attorney Ramis advised that the hearing is at the point for City Council deliberation with regard to the annexation request. If approved, findings have been prepared for Council's Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes December 20, 2005 - Page 3 Agenda Item Discussion & Comments Action Items follow u consideration, which will be included as an exhibit to the proposed ordinance. The request for an emergency clause comes from the parties seeking annexation. ❑D Agenda Item No. 6 - Consideration of Geographic Information Systems (GIS) Coordinator Budget Amendment #4 to Add a Full-Time GIS Coordinator Position was deleted from the agenda. This agenda item had been; however, City Manager Prosser advised several City Council members said they were prepared to consider this item on tonight's agenda since their previous questions had been addressed. ❑D Agenda Item No. 8 is the joint Meeting with the IWB. An e-mail received today from TWD Board Chair Bill Scheiderich was distributed to the City Council. ❑D The following Agenda items were added per discussion from the December 13, 2005 City Council meeting: o No. 9 - Discussion and Update of the Washington County Coordinating Committee (WCCC): Transportation Funding, Projects, and Process o No. 10 -Discuss Tualatin Basin Natural Resources Committee (Goal 5) o No. 11 - Discuss Branding/ Graphic Identity Design Executive The Tigard City Council went into Executive Session Session at 7:10 p.m. to consult with legal counsel concerning current litigation and litigation likely to be filed under ORS 192.660(2) and (h). Business 1.1 Mayor Dirksen called the City Council and the Meeting Local Contract Review Board to Order at 7:30 p.m. 1.2 Council Present: Mayor Dirksen, Councilors Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes December 20, 2005 - Page 4 Agenda Item Discussion & Comments Action Items follow u Harding, Sherwood, Wilson, and Woodruff. 1.3 Pledge of Allegiance 1.4 Council Communications & Liaison Reports Councilor Harding reported on a recent Metropolitan Area Communications Committee meeting. Policies and procedures were adopted for TVCTV. A change was made so that producers of programs for public access television should live within the MACC service district. More than $100,000 in grant monies were distributed. After negotiation, agreement was reached with Comcast. There will be no increase in fees this year; in fact there will be a small decrease. Councilor Harding reported on recent activities of the Tualatin Basin Natural Resources Coordinating Committee (TBNRCC). She read language that was adopted by the TBNRCC should a bond measure be passed at the Metro level for $92 million. The Committee's role will be that of review and not to control or approve local jurisdiction money. "...legacy funds would be distributed by Metro directly to cities, the county and THPRD. Under this alternative, before funds could be committed to a natural resource acquisition or restoration project by a recipient local government, the TBNRCC would review the project for consistency with the Tualatin Basin Program and the healthy streams plan and/or the Metro's Local Natural Areas Legacy Funds Guidelines, and suggest changes or opportunities for coordination or cost sharing with projects being considered by other recipient local governments. The TBNRCC's role would only be advisory." 1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items: None Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes December 20, 2005 - Page 5 Agenda Item Discussion & Comments Action Items follow u 2. Citizen • J. C. Sherman III, 10832 SW Kable Street, Communication Tigard, OR 97224, testified. He noted he has been impressed with the City: great services, great community and a great place to raise his children. He noted his concerns about the new City logo: / He noticed there were no markings on some police vehicles, and learned the City is changing the logo. Why is the City going to the expense of changing the logo when there are so many other areas in the City that need additional funds? / People come to Tigard because of the community and as a taxpayer, he is concerned this is a waste of funds. m / He was concerned that the logo change would cost "hundreds of thousands of dollars" based on his experience in the business world. ► He asked the City Council reconsider the logo change. Councilor Sherwood responded saying that once the logo is designed, the new design will be introduced as supplies run out or need to be replaced. One of the City Council goals for 2005 was to improve the image of the City. The City Council did not feel the logo represented the City and the Council was looking for a new identity and an updated logo. Councilor Wilson said he respected Mr. Sherman's opinion, but said that others might disagree and he also disagreed. The current logo is about 20 years old and was not professionally designed. The City of Tigard, in his view, has done things inexpensively for a long time, which has projected an image of what the City was 20 years ago and as being somewhat amateurish. It is important to the City Council and to a lot of Tigard's citizens that the City does things with a certain amount of professionalism. The logo is Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes December 20, 2005 - Page 6 Agenda Item Discussion & Comments Action Items follow u one small way to project a new way of doing things. Mr. Sherman noted he was originally from the City of Los Angeles, which was founded in 1781 and this logo has not changed. He said he does not understand the value of a logo change. He noted his concerns for expenditure of funds where most needed. Councilor Wilson suggested Mr. Sherman consider serving on the City's Budget Committee. Councilor Woodruff addressed Mr. Sherman's comments about the amount of expenditure a logo change would mean when comparing the costs to the business world. He acknowledged that a business branding process could mean hundreds of thousands of dollars; however, he assured Mr. Sherman that this was not the process the City is undertaking. He agreed with Councilor Sherwood's comments that the logo would be placed on items gradually rather than a wholesale change. Mayor Dirksen noted the City Council appreciated Mr. Sherman offering his opinion. The City Council, as a whole, decided that this was the direction they wanted to go. The City Council is mindful of costs and has taken on this project at the lowest possible cost. The City Council feels the logo change is necessary and will be an improvement for the City. City Manager Prosser noted there are no Budget Committee vacancies at this time. -Budget Committee terms expire on June 30; therefore, vacancies will probably be advertised this fall. Board and Committee vacancies are posted online. • Representative Jerry Kr u mel, 7544 SW Roanoke Drive, Wilsonville, OR 97070 said he was not testifying about any specific issue on the City Council's agenda, but on the City's recent Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes December 20, 2005 - Page 7 enda Item Discussion & Comments Action Items follow u practices regarding annexation. In general, he said he believed Tigard is disrespecting and violating the spirit, intent, and letter of the law: A year ago the voters on Bull Mountain spoke loud and clear with a 9 to 1 vote against annexation to the City of Tigard. Apparently, the City did not get the message. He spoke of the intent, for a system of annexation that is fair and balanced. With regard to the letter of the law, he said that as far as he could tell, the City does not have the authority to force a property owner to annex as a condition of getting a building permit. Representative Krummel said that it was allright to have a policy that favors annexation, but the City is not authorized to mandate annexation. The City does not have any services exclusively provided by the City, which justifies a demand for annexation. He said that "we" have reviewed the codes and ordinances for the City and for Washington County and looked into Urban Services Agreement, the Intergovernmental Agreements, and the Bull Mountain Community Plan, and no language was found saying it was legal for the City to do what it is doing. He said some would call this hostage annexations or annexations by extortion; he said, "I don't know what to call it." Representative Krummel said that if the City is contracted to provide certain services and is denying the services to property owners unless they agree to annex, that could be construed as a breach of contract. He said he was extremely disappointed that the City of Tigard continues down the path of aggressive annexation despite all that has happened in the past year. He said he was hopeful that the City would take his concerns seriously and work to change these practices. For the past several months, the lawyers who work for the legislature have been looking into this issue. He resented the City Council with Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes December 20, 2005 - Page 8 Agenda Item Discussion & Comments Action Items follow u an opinion from Legislative Counsel and noted his business card was attached and asked that he be contacted if there were questions. Mayor Dirksen thanked the Representative for coming to the meeting and said he could understand why Representative Knu mel felt it needful to represent his constituents on the south side Bull Mountain. Mayor Dirksen said the City Council took these considerations into thought as annexations were considered. • Dick Franzke from Bull Mountain testified. He said there is an apparent legal issue between what Representative I rummel has told the City Council and what the Mayor has said. He asked if the City was relying on the same legal advice that it relied on when insisting on a single vote for the annexation issue. He said that if the City was relying on that same authority, he strongly suggested that the City get a second opinion. He said the City's counsel was wrong in that instance and they are wrong in this instance. 3. Consent 3.1 Appoint Two Members and One Alternate Motion by Councilor Agenda Member to the Park and Recreation Advisory Wilson, seconded by Board (DRAB) - Resolution No. 05-72 Councilor Sherwood, to approve the Consent RESOLUTION NO. 05-72 - A Agenda. RESOLUTION APPOINTING MICHAEL FREUDENTHAL AND TRISHA The motion was approved SWANSON AS MEMBERS ON THE PARK by a unanimous vote of AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD Council present. AND APPOINTING KELLY JEAN JOHNSON AS AN ALTERNATE Mayor Dirksen Yes MEMBER ON THE PARK AND Councilor Harding Yes RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD Councilor Sherwood Yes Councilor Wilson Yes 3.2 Approve the Washington County Cooperative Councilor Woodruff Yes Library Services Intergovernmental Agreement 3.3 Initiate Vacation Proceedings for an Un- Named Public Right of Way East of 74`h Avenue, Approximately 680 North of Durham Road (VAC2005-00003) - Resolution No. 05- 73 Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes December 20, 2005 - Page 9 Agenda Item Discussion & Comments Action Items follow u RESOLUTION NO. 05-73 - A RESOLUTION SETTING THE DATE OF A PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING THE VACATION OF AN APPROXIMATELY 7,845 SQUARE FOOT PORTION OF AN UNNAMED PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY WHICH LIES TO THE EAST OF SW 7e' AVENUE APPROXIMATELY 680 FEET NORTH OF DURHAM ROAD 3.4 Local Contract Review Board: a. Award Contract for General Legal Counsel Services to Ramis Crew Corrigan, LLP b. Award Contact for Labor Attorney Services to Bullard Smith Jernstedt Wilson 4. Presentation of Mayor Dirksen presented to City of Tigard Risk Bronze Safety Manager Mills the League of Oregon Cities and Award City County Insurance Services Bronze Safety Award for 2004-2005 for an injury frequency rate of 3.98 with 264 full time employees. 5. PUBLIC Associate Planner Pagenstecher presented a review Motion by Councilor HEARING of the process. The annexation proposal was Woodruff, seconded by (QUASI- before the City Council in October. The City Councilor Sherwood, to JUDICIAL) TO Council left the record opened until November 22. adopt proposed Ordinance CONSIDER The parties then agreed to allow for additional No. 05-19 with the ANNEXATION evidence and arguments until December 7. emergency clause. OF SUNRISE Associate Planner Pagenstecher noted additional LANE (ZCA information was sent to the City Council. Also, a The motion was approved 2005-00004) supplemental packet was prepared which included by a unanimous vote of (Continued from draft ordinances (with and without an emergency Council present. November 22, clause). Previous ordinances submitted to the City 2005) Council should not be considered. Mayor Dirksen Yes Councilor Harding Yes Associate Planner Pagenstecher noted the change Councilor Sherwood Yes to the proposal is that there is now a Section 2, Councilor Wilson Yes which refers to the findings and the staff report. Councilor Woodruff Yes The staff report has been revised to note statements about the continuations (the process) of the City Council hearing, additional testimony received and a statement of the issues. Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes December 20, 2005 - Page 10 Agenda Item Discussion & Comments Action Items follow u Associate Planner Pagenstecher advised that the findings in the staff report are consistent with the findings the City Council proposed. Staff recommendation to the City Council remains the same, which is to approve the annexation. City Attorney Ramis noted that the City Council also has in its record a request from one of the moving parties that the ordinance be adopted by emergency clause. The difference between a regular ordinance and one adopted by an emergency clause is that an emergency clause ordinance will be effective immediately. If the Council would proceed under the usual course, the ordinance would not be effective for 30 days. City Attorney Ramis noted there are some exigent circumstances with respect to moving the project ahead. Mayor Dirksen noted that it was time to review the ordinance and findings and asked if all City Council members had adequate time to review the testimony and findings. He also asked if the Council agreed with the findings. The Mayor then asked if the applicant, who requested the emergency clause, come forward to explain why he feels it is necessary. Michael Robinson, 1120 NW Couch Street, Portland, OR 97209-4128 asked on behalf the applicant that the City Council consider the emergency clause to allow the application process to move more quickly. He noted that they originally believed they would be heard in September. At the request of City staff, they agreed to a month's delay. An additional delay was also accepted by the applicant. Mr. Robinson noted that the findings state that it is in public interest to see this area annexed; therefore, if the ordinance is adopted by emergency, which is entirely at the discretion of the Council. The application process would go more quickly, the areas would become a developed part of the City more quickly, and the County services may be withdrawn, allowing the County to serve other areas with those resources. Mr. Robinson said the Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes December 20, 2005 - Page 11 Agenda Item Discussion & Comments Action Items follow u City Council had broad discretion in this area and asked the Council consider adopt the emergency clause language. Councilor Woodruff referred to concerns that the requested annexations were not voluntary; that the residents were making the request to annex because of some kind of threat or implied threat - that this is not something that you would do if it was totally, fully voluntary. Mr. Robinson said their application is entirely voluntary on the part of those coming into the City. He said they believed it is important to develop in the City and be part of the City for a number of reasons. There was no coercion; the City did not approach them; they came to the City voluntarily. He said his clients believe it is better to develop in the City than in the unincorporated area. A member of the audience asked if this was a public hearing. City Attorney Ram's noted the issue of whether or not to attach an emergency clause is open, now that there has been testimony. Mr. Robinson noted that the argument he just made in response to Councilor Woodruff's question was based on evidence entirely in the record. Mayor Dirksen noted that since the issue is open to testimony with regard to the emergency, he asked if anyone present would like to speak in opposition or in favor of the emergency clause being applied. Lisa Hamilton-Treick, 13565 SW Beef Bend Road, unincorporated Bull Mountain, she said the issue has come up before as to whether or not these kinds of processes are a public hearing. She said that had she been aware of an opportunity to speak on a specific topic, because in fact one has been made available, she probably would have given that some. thought and prepared some public comment. Since she just learned that she had an Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes December 20, 2005 - Page 12 Agenda Item Discussion & Comments Action Items follow u opportunity to speak on anything having to do with this very important issue, she has not had time to prepare any comments. Mayor Dirksen asked if there was anyone else who would like to speak on the emergency clause. There was no one. Mayor Dirksen closed the oral portion of the testimony under consideration. City Council considered the ordinance at this time. With regard to the emergency clause, Councilor Sherwood said this matter has carried forward for almost 90 days and that she had no objection to the emergency clause. Councilor Woodruff asked the City Attorney about the findings and the level of confidence the City Attorney has in coming to the conclusion presented in the findings. City Attorney Ramis said that while he is hesitant to describe what the outcome of litigation might be, he feels that the findings relate directly to the criteria and bring to bear and marshal the arguments to relate to the criteria. City Attorney Ramis said he agrees with the legal counsel for the applicants that the document does an excellent job of addressing the criteria. Mayor Dirksen pointed out that after the original applicant came to the City to request annexation, two or three other property owners approached the City and asked to be included in the annexation, which increased the size of annexation. As far as he knows, these additional property owners are not contemplating development at this time, but came forward on their own accord and asked to be included in the annexation because their properties are contiguous to the original property requesting annexation. Councilor Wilson said that the notion of whether annexation is coerced or not is an interesting legal issue. He noted that the City Council has considered a couple of annexations since the vote Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes December 20, 2005 - Page 13 Agenda Item Discussion & Comments Action Items follow u and, so far, the City has not had an applicant say that they were coerced. Until the City gets an applicant that says they were coerced, then it likely will not go any further than this. Councilor Wilson said that even if it is required as a condition for providing services, he thinks it is still an interesting question as whether the City is allowed to do that or not. He says that the City's legal counsel says it is allowed while there are arguments on the other side as well. With respect to the Intergovernmental Agreement with Washington County for providing development review services, he said the City of Tigard has no interest in performing those services simply as a contractor. Councilor Wilson said he thought it has always been planned, at least for the last 20 years, that Bull Mountain would come into Tigard. He said he knows this has been challenged and that most of the people present tonight for this issue oppose annexation. Nevertheless, the City of Tigard has an agreement with Washington County to perform development review services for the area that has been earmarked as Tigard's area of interest. Were that not to be the case, he did not think the City would be doing this - we do not perform these services for other jurisdictions. Councilor Wilson said he thinks Washington County has full understanding and is supportive of that requirement. ' Councilor Harding noted this vote is extremely difficult. Her position has always been to stand for the people and what the desire is by the people. As she reviewed the information from the applicant's attorney and from the Friends of Bull Mountain, she has been back and forth on the issue. With regard to this issue, she thinks the problem has been in the execution and how it has been managed. Tigard is a young City, incorporating in 1961, and has not caught up as quickly as outside cities. In some research she did regarding annexation as a precursor to development, she found that this is a common practice all over the United States without problems from the constituency. However, in man instances there were intergovernmental Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes December 20, 2005 - Page 14 Agenda Item Discussion & Comments Action Items follow u agreements with the counties. These agreements appear to serve these counties well for planning. Councilor Harding said that what troubles her, is that she does not have someone on the applicant's side saying they were coerced and that they do not feel this was fair. She said she would like to see a double majority, but the few homeowners that are in the area have asked to come in and the builder has asked to come in. She said this issue should be reviewed on a region-wide basis since the issues have been with land use - not a Tigard issue but much broader than that. Councilor Wilson said that in his view the legal requirements have been met. He advised this is really a political issue: Should we annex these properties. He said that his opinion has not changed as it is in the interests of the citizens of Tigard that these properties be annexed. Some of the arguments that were presented to the City Council during the first night of the hearing on this matter dealt with parks. This is an issue that is important to people in unincorporated Bull Mountain. If this does not come into the City, "...not one dime will go to any parks, anywhere, ever." If it does come into the City and approximately 100 homes are built, $.25 million in system development charges will be collected. In addition, funds will be collected to help maintain parks. Councilor Wilson said he does not see the logic in an argument that it is against the interests of the citizens of the City of Tigard to vote no. Councilor Woodruff said the City Council regularly hears about the Bull Mountain annexation election. He said he thinks what some people want the City Council to hear is to pay attention to the will of the people to democracy. He said it puzzles him that people are opposed to this annexation when there are property owners saying they want to come into the City. He spoke for consistency. Councilor Woodruff said he believes the applicant because there is no evidence to contrary that the people directly affected by this decision want to be a part of the City. He does not see why the City would say the would not Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes December 20, 2005 - Page 15 Agenda Item Discussion & Comments Action Items follow u allow the annexation because people, other than those directly affected, have said that area should not be a part of the city. He said he would be voting yes on this matter. Mayor Dirksen noted that it was brought up tonight that citizens of Bull Mountain voted no on the annexation a year ago. He pointed out that none of those people are being annexed tonight. He also noted that in that same election, two- thirds of the citizens of the City of Tigard, "...who are our constituents...," said yes to the annexation. Mayor Dirksen said, "...If we are going to listen to the will of the people, we should listen to the will of the people who elected us and who we represent. To me, that is a clear message." City Attorney Ramis confirmed with Mayor Dirksen, that the Mayor was speaking in terms of the testimony that exists in the record already. Council then considered Ordinance No. 05-19. (See Page 10, Action Items column) ORDINANCE NO. 05-19 - AN ORDINANCE ANNEXING 25.61 ACRES, APPROVING SUNRISE LANE ANNEXATION (ZCA2005- 00004), AND WITHDRAWING PROPERTY FROM THE TIGARD WATER DISTRICT, WASHINGTON COUNTY ENHANCED SHERIFF'S PATROL DISTRICT, WASHINGTON COUNTY URBAN ROADS MAINTENANCE DISTRICT, WASHINGTON COUNTY STREET LIGHTING DISTRICT #1, AND THE WASHINGTON&COUNTY VECTOR CONTROL DISTRICT AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY 6. Consider Interim Finance Director Imdieke presented the Motion by Councilor Budget staff report on this agenda item. Impact on the Wilson, seconded by Amendment #4 - budget and the General Fund ending fund balance Councilor Sherwood, to Adding a Full- was reviewed. Council members and staff adopt the proposed Time Geographic discussed the benefits for creating this position, Resolution No. 05-74. Information including coordinating mapping for the water Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes December 20, 2005 - Page 16 Agenda Item Discussion & Comments Action Items follow u Systems system, police department crime reports, and The motion was approved Coordinator sewer connections, assisting with the by a majority vote of Position Comprehensive Plan update and addressing needs Council present. in other departments. Councilor Harding noted her concerns about this addition in the middle of Mayor Dirksen Yes the fiscal year and suggested that another staff Councilor Harding No position could be reclassified to perform this Councilor Sherwood Yes work. Councilor Wilson Yes Councilor Woodruff Yes City Council considered Resolution No. 05-74. RESOLUTION NO. 05-74 - A RESOLUTION APPROVING BUDGET AMENDMENT #4 TO THE FY 2005-06 BUDGET TO ADD A FULL-TIME GIS COORDINATOR POSITION AND INCREASE APPROPRIATIONS ON THE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY BUDGET TO FUND THIS POSITION 7. Presentation of City Manager Prosser presented the report. A Report for the copy of the PowerPoint presentation is on file in Indonesian the City Recorder's office. He reviewed the Resource Cities Indonesian Partnership highlights sponsored Exchange through the US Agency for International Program Development (US AID) and administered by the International City Managers Association. All costs, except for gifts and entertainment, were paid for by ICMA/US AID. Tigard officials and other professional and governmental individuals successfully assisted governments of Samarinda and Balkipapan, Indonesia in the following areas: Accounting practices, drinking water treatment, recycling programs, and citizen participation. Tigard's participation made a difference. Public Works Director Koellermeier, Library Director Barnes, Interim Finance Director Imdieke, and Risk Manager Mills spoke of the value they saw and appreciated in the program. City Manager Prosser thanked the City Council for allowing Tigard to participate. Mayor Dirksen shared some of his experiences on the final trip to Indonesia and noted the lasting Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes December 20, 2005 - Page 17 enda Item Discussion & Comments Action Items follow u effects this program will have for Tigard and the Indonesian communities. Council meeting recessed at 9:03 p.m. Council reconvened into a workshop meeting at 9:13 p.m. 8. Joint Meeting Intergovernmental Water Board (IWB) members Staff will research with the present: regulations by Washington Intergovernmental County with regard to the Water Board Bev Froude County's Comprehensive Bill Scheiderich Plan as it applies to areas Dick Winn developing to an urban density (Park and A copy of the PowerPoint discussion used during Recreation District the following discussion is on file in the City annexation). Recorder's office. Public Works Director Koellermeier reviewed the question of whether the Intergovernmental Water Board has the authority to impose a moratorium on providing new connections outside of the The City Council and IWB member's city limits. And, can we require new will meet again in April so service to be provided only by a city member? Mr. they can start making Koellermeier said the City's legal counsel advised decisions on long term the answer to the above questions is "probably water supply. no." The Tigard Water District, as a member of the IWB, has a responsibility to provide service. There is a clear provision in the Intergovernmental Agreement forming the IWB that defines how assets are allocated among the partners. The assets used to deliver water service to the fringes of the city limits are owned and operated by the City of Tigard. This is in line with the City's Comprehensive Plan position that says annexation conditions can be placed on a subdivision if utilities are extended to take care of them. The City Attorney's staff recommended that it might be appropriate to go into the original intergovernmental agreement and bolster some of these issues. Mayor Dirksen noted there were a couple of issues. He said one of the issues had to do with Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes December 20, 2005 - Page 18 Agenda Item Discussion & Comments Action Items follow u finding an opportunity to create a moratorium on development in unincorporated areas for whatever reason: whether it be waiting until issues of governance are resolved or if a majority of the board members think that development should only take place inside the City limits; that it could be a requirement of development to provide water services inside the City first. This was a question that arose, so the Council asked staff to answer as to whether or not the current agreements would allow any of those scenarios. Councilor Wilson said he was not familiar with the boundaries of the Tigard Water District. Public Works Director Koellermeier said he believed that Areas 63 and 64 were not part of the Tigard Water District. Councilor Wilson asked if that if a developer were to request annexation to the Tigard Water District, what would the position of the Board be with respect to annexation and/or its relationship to the provision of other types of municipal services. Public Works Director Koellermeier said additional research is needed on the agreement. There is some specific language in the Intergovernmental Agreement that deals with annexations. City Attorney Ramis said the main point that has been made in this process is that if there are new regulatory issues or uses that need to be addressed, the agreements should be reviewed and language developed that supports what we want to do. Mayor Dirksen said he was interested in learning what the existing agreement provides. Mr. Scheirderich said that he does not represent the Tigard Water District, but said it sounds as if Councilor Wilson is asking about the prospect of these areas annexing to the Water District and thereby staying exempt from or out of the boundaries of the City of Tigard. This is "sort of forcing the issue" of water supply for fact that the City of Tigard is taking over the securing the source and distributing that source for the District boundaries. Mr. Scheiderich referred to ORS 198 and his recollection whereby the County Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes December 20, 2005 - Page 19 Agenda Item Discussion & Comments Action Items follow u Commission approves annexation for District boundaries. He discussed how annexation might be forced or annexation might be avoided with current statutes provisions. Mayor Dirksen noted that in the case of Areas 63 and 64, with the boundaries as they are, there would be no opportunity for those areas to annex into the City. If the areas were going to be developed and have Tigard Water District service, there would have to be some process whereby they can be brought into the District. The City needs to determine how, or if, this could be done. Mr. Scheiderich noted it would be interesting to find out what the County would require. Councilor Wilson said the District could have a policy for a future annexation non-remonstrance agreement be required in order to annex to the District. Mr. Scheiderich noted that cities, under state law, have no authority to force annexations to other service providers. However, he noted that Washington County's Comprehensive Plan now says a property shall not be developed to urban standards of density unless it can be shown the property is a part of the Tualatin Valley Park & Recreation District or you are capable of providing your own services of equivalent quality to the Park District. Mayor Dirksen asked how areas on Bull Mountain wanting to develop (which were not within the Recreation District and could not be connected to Tigard) would provide park services. He requested staff to check on this Washington County policy. Mr. Scheiderich noted a provision in Senate Bill 887: "One may not require consent to annexation, as a local government, as a condition of extending urban service to that area to be annexed." He noted this provision is oddly written and appears to have been added in haste without being fully thought out. He said it certainly cannot require that Tigard extend water service outside its boundaries; it would seem to be an impasse as to how this area would be able to get water. City Attorney Ramis agreed that "everyone is trying to Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes December 20, 2005 - Page 20 enda Item Discussion & Comments Action Items follow u figure out what this means and how it applies - I don't think there's an answer yet." Mr. Winn noted that King City is a customer of Tigard. He said that if you are in the water business, you should sell water. Do not use this as a "hammer." Councilor Wilson responded to Mr. Winn by saying that King City could potentially have the same problem as the City of Tigard with areas outside the city limits developing and using services such as parks and police. Mr. Winn said King City has similar issues, but a different approach. For police protection, with Tigard and others, they cover areas outside the City. If someone wants into their City, then there is a vote to determine yes or no on the annexation. The next issue reviewed was locating parks on surplus property. Two sites have been identified in Tigard's Park and Recreation Board selection process: 1. Canterbury property (approximately 1-1/2 acres and is in City limits) 2. Clute property (approximately 40-plus acres when combined with other City parcels, including the Menlor parcel; this property is outside the City limits, but owned by the City of Tigard) Negotiations are taking place for additional property adjacent to this location for an additional reservoir. Public Works Director Koellermeier reviewed the recommended steps to pursue use of the above properties for parks. Meeting participants discussed the properties, and the potential for use as parks. Ms. Froude noted if a park is sited at the Clute property, it should be an active park. The next topic reviewed was "Selecting a Long- Term Water Supply." The group reviewed the decision-making process and the water source collection criteria used previously. It appears the City of Portland is not in a "mode" to enter into Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes December 20, 2005 - Page 21 Agenda Item Discussion & Comments Action Items follow u contracts that are attractive to wholesale purchasers. Portland Commissioner Leonard accepts that the wholesalers might go to other water sources. Public Works Director Koellermeier suggested that the IWB develop criteria once City of Portland financial data is released in March. The City Council and IWB will meet again in April so they can start making decisions on long term water supply. There was discussion on issues between Portland and the Environmental Protection Agency regarding new regulations for cryptosporidium. Consensus of Council was that if this issue is litigated, monies paid to Portland from Tigard for water should not be used to help fund the legal costs. Other water sources were reviewed. It would take 2 to 2-1/2 years to complete steps necessary to complete negotiations with Lake Oswego. Item 11 was City Council reviewed some final logo drawings Another review of the discussed at this prepared by Consultant Glen Marcusen. From proposed logo will occur at time: Discuss those drawings a final design was selected. the special Council meeting Branding/ Graphic on January 6, 2006, at 3 p.m. Identity Design 9. Discussion and Mayor Dirksen referred to issues regarding project Update of the selection by the Washington County Coordinating Washington Committee that had been brought to the attention County of City Council by Councilor Harding at a Coordinating previous City Council meeting. A street had been Committee: selected as a candidate for funding in Hillsboro Transportation (near Intel), which is not a major thoroughfare and Funding, Projects there was concern about making this street a and Process priority for funding over some other streets. Councilor Wilson commented on Westside Economic Alliance's regional review of infrastructure and the shortfall in funding for projects. There are a number of businesses which are experiencing added costs because of congestion. This translates to lower Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes December 20, 2005 - Page 22 Agenda Item Discussion & Comments Action Items follow u competitiveness. Distribution facilities are locating in other cities outside the region because it is too expensive. This might be one of the things being argued by businesses such as Intel. If this is the case, then care should be taken to be cognizant of the arguments and able to counter them. Councilor Harding noted there was no statement from Intel in the documentation for the WCCC project. She reviewed information on the project including design and costs. City Engineer Duenas reviewed the Major Transportation Improvement Projects Process. He also reviewed information regarding the joint Policy Advisory Committee on Transportation QPACT). On file in the City Recorder's office is information regarding project recommendations and process from the joint Policy Advisory Committee on Transportation, which is focusing on a way to get funding for projects in this region. In order to receive Federal funding projects must be ready to go. In the Metro process, the focus is on regional and town centers. Council discussion followed on projects that are regionally viable and where the process is now in the current funding cycle for transportation dollars. Hillsboro offered a project at a time when the City of Tigard was not aware of the opportunity to suggest projects. JPACT wants to limit each jurisdiction to two projects on the list of projects that are presented in the annual trip to Washington DC. City Engineer Duenas, in response to a concern expressed by the Mayor, noted that "ready to go projects" means projects for which you are ready to accept the funding and you have a good idea of what all the costs are going to be (engineering, right-of-way acquisition). Councilor Harding noted that WCCC has made its decision with regard to the project that it is recommending; however WCCC is not the ultimate decision maker. She said another project Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes December 20, 2005 - Page 23 Agenda Item Discussion & Comments Action Items follow u does not necessarily have to be a Tigard project. She said she would like to determine if there are other projects in the region that would make more sense than the project selected by WCCC which basically serves one neighborhood. There was discussion about whether there was still an opportunity to suggest projects to JPACT. Also discussed was whether to raise the concern about the process and that the City of Tigard did not have an opportunity to identify a project. City Engineer Duenas suggested that it is most effective if an elected official testifies before JPACT. Mayor Drake is the representative to JPACT. Councilor Sherwood noted the County has told Tigard officials that because of the large amount of dollars being spent on commuter rail, that Tigard projects would be a lower priority for the next couple of years. City Manager Prosser suggested that City Engineer Duenas find out how the project supported by WCCC came about and confirm whether there was a solicitation for projects. Once this information is known, then the Mayor and another City Council member should have a conversation with Mayor Drake and Commissioner Rogers about Tigard's concerns. If it then appears to be a good idea, a member of City Council might want to go to the January JPACT meeting to express Tigard's concerns. Mayor Dirksen and Councilor Harding will contact Mayor Drake to relate Tigard's concern with the process. Councilor Harding noted there is a remaining issue with regard to the WCCC. She noted the County wants to conduct a survey on County funding mechanism. The City Council did not support sharing in the cost for the survey. Councilor Hardin noted options under Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes December 20, 2005 - Page 24 Agenda Item Discussion & Comments Action Items follow u consideration as a result of the Highway 217 Corridor Study. 10. Discuss Councilor Harding said in the near future, the City Tualatin Basin Council should consider an ordinance outlining Natural Resources how Tigard is implementing the directives for the Coordinating Tualatin Basin. Committee Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 10:49 p.m. Motion by Councilor Woodruff, seconded by Councilor Harding, to adjourn the meeting. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present. Mayor Dirksen Yes Councilor Harding Yes Councilor Sherwood Yes Councilor Wilson Yes Councilor Woodruff Yes Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder Attest: '-Z Mayor, ity of Tigard Date: o u Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes December 20, 2005 - Page 25 1 City of Tigard, Oregon Affidavit of Posting CITY OF TIGARD OREGON In the Matter of the Proposed Ordinance(s) STATE OF OREGON ) County of Washington ) ss. City of Tigard ) I, being first duly sworn (or affirmed), by oath (or affirmation), depose and say: That I posted in the following public and conspicuous places, a copy of Ordinance Number(s) p0,s' / I , which were adopted at the City Council meeting of 01- d U - D.5 , with a copy(s) of said Ordinance(s) being hereto attached and by reference made a part hereof, on the day of C e 6,-,,,o 20.05 1. Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon 2. Tigard Public Library, 13500 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon 3. Tigard Permit Center, 13500 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon Signature of Person who Performed Posting S4scribe and sworn (or affirmed) before me this day of UC~Ce-4V , 20 0!5 . OFFICIAL SEAL JILL M BYARS NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON COMMISSION NO. 3817M Signature of No ary Public for Oregon MY COMMISSION EXPIRES JUNE 14, 2008 \\TIG333\USR\DEPTS\ADM\GREER\FORMS\AFFIDAVITS\AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING - ORDINANCE.DOC AGENDA TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 20, 2005 6:30 PM • STUDY SESSION > UPDATE ON POTENTIAL FINANCIAL-RELATED BALLOT MEASURES FROM OTHER JURISDICTIONS ■ Finance Staff > CONTINUE DISCUSSION ON POLICE DEPARTMENT ACCREDITATION ■ Police Staff • 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. 7:30 PM 1. BUSINESS MEETING 1.1 Call to Order - City Council 81 Local Contract Review Board 1.2 Roll Call 1.3 Pledge of Allegiance 1.4 Council Communications 8t Liaison Reports 1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items 7:35 PM 2. CITIZEN COMMUNICATION (Two Minutes or Less, Please) Tigard- D rna C-h mbeF of rnrr merce Representative Chamber representative is unable to attend this evening. A Chamber Representative is scheduled to report to the Council on January 24, 2006 • Follow-up to Previous Citizen Communication - No follow-up from the December 13, 2005 City Council meeting. COUNCIL AGENDA - DECEMBER 20, 2005 page 2 7:40 PM 3. CONSENT AGENDA: These items are considered to be routine and may be enacted in one motion without separate discussion. Anyone may request that an item be removed by motion for discussion and separate action. Motion to: 3.1 Appoint Two Members and One Alternate Member to the Park and Recreation Advisory Board (PRAB) - Resolution No. 05-72 RESOLUTION NO. 05-72 - A RESOLUTION APPOINTING MICHAEL FREUDENTHAL AND TRISHA SWANSON AS MEMBERS ON THE PARK AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD AND APPOINTING KELLY JEAN JOHNSON AS AN ALTERNATE MEMBER ON THE PARK AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD 3.2 Approve the Washington County Cooperative Library Services Intergovernmental Agreement 3.3 Initiate Vacation Proceedings for an Un-Named Public Right of Way East of 74" Avenue, Approximately 680 North of Durham Road (VAC2005- 00003) - Resolution No. 05-73 RESOLUTION NO. 05-73 - A RESOLUTION SETTING THE DATE OF A PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING THE VACATION OF AN APPROXIMATELY 71845 SQUARE FOOT PORTION OF AN UNNAMED PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY WHICH LIES TO THE EAST OF SW 74T" AVENUE APPROXIMATELY 680 FEET NORTH OF DURHAM ROAD 3.4 Local Contract Review Board: a. Award Contract for General Legal Counsel Services to Ramis Crew Corrigan, LLP b. Award Contact for Labor Attorney Services to Bullard Smith Jernstedt Wilson • Consent Agenda - Items Removed for Separate Discussion: Any items requested to be removed from the Consent Agenda for separate discussion will be considered immediately after the Council has voted on those items which do not need discussion. COUNCIL AGENDA - DECEMBER 20, 2005 page 3 7:45 PM 4. PRESENTATION OF BRONZE SAFETY AWARD TO RISK MANAGER MILLS ■ Mayor Dirksen 8:00 PM 5. PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI-JUDICIAL) TO CONSIDER ANNEXATION OF SUNRISE LANE (ZCA 2005-00004) (Continued from November 22, 2005) REVISED REQUEST: The applicant is requesting annexation of nine (9) parcels containing 19.95 acres into the City of Tigard. An additional 5.66 acres has been included by means of consents by Patricia Marshall, Richard and Michelle Crombie, and Jennifer and Leighton Walsh. Therefore, this annexation is for twelve (12) parcels totaling 25.61 acres. LOCATION: North of Bull Mountain Road at 150`h and Sunrise Lane; WCTM 2S 105DD Tax Lots 400, 500, 600, 700, 1000, 1100, 1300, 1400, 1500, 1600, 1700 and 1800. ZONE: R-7: Medium-Density Residential District. The R-7 zoning district is designed to accommodate attached single-family homes, detached single-family homes with or without accessory residential units, at a minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet, and duplexes, at a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet. Mobile home parks and subdivisions are also permitted outright. Some civic and institutional uses are also permitted conditionally. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: The approval standards for annexations are set out in Community Development Code Chapters 18.320 and 18.390, Comprehensive Plan Policies 2 and 10; ORS Chapter 222; and Metro Code Chapter 3.09. a. Public Hearing continued from November 22, 2005 b. Staff Report: Community Development Staff C. Staff Recommendation d. Council Discussion e. Close Public Hearing f. Council Consideration: Ordinance No. 05 - 19 Councilor: 1 move for adoption of the proposed Ordinance. COUNCIL AGENDA - DECEMBER 20, 2005 page 4 Councilor: I second the motion. Mayor: Will the City Recorder please read the number and title of the Ordinance. City Recorder: (Reads as requested.) ORDINANCE NO. 05-19 - AN ORDINANCE ANNEXING 25.61 ACRES, APPROVING SUNRISE LANE ANNEXATION (ZCA2005-00004), AND WITHDRAWING PROPERTY FROM THE TIGARD WATER DISTRICT, WASHINGTON COUNTY URBAN ROADS MAINTENANCE DISTRICT, WASHINGTON COUNTY STREET LIGHTING DISTRICT #1, AND THE WASHINGTON COUNTY VECTOR CONTROL DISTRICT (add following words if Council declares an emergency) AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY Mayor: Is there any discussion? Mayor (after discussion): Will the City Recorder please conduct a roll-call vote of Council. City Recorder: Conducts roll call vote. Mayor: Ordinance No. 05-19 (is approved or fails) by a (unanimous or however votes were split) vote. Tie votes =failure to pass 8:15 PM 6. CONSIDERATION OF GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEMS (GIS) COORDINATOR BUDGET AMENDMENT #4 TO ADD A FULL-TIME GIS COORDINATOR POSITION a. Staff Report: Administration and Finance Staff b. Council Discussion C. Council Consideration: Resolution No. 05- 8:15 PM 7. PRESENTATION OF REPORT FOR THE INDONESIAN RESOURCE CITIES EXCHANGE PROGRAM a. Staff Report: Administration Staff b. Council Discussion COUNCIL AGENDA - DECEMBER 20, 2005 page 5 RECESS COUNCIL BUSINESS MEETING CONVENE COUNCIL WORKSHOP MEETING 8:45 PM 8. JOINT MEETING WITH THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL WATER BOARD ■ Staff Report: Public Works Staff Discussion Topics: a. Regulating Water Services Outside City Limits b. Locating Park Improvements on Surplus Property C. Selecting a Long-Term Water Supply 9:25 PM 9. DISCUSSION AND UPDATE OF THE WASHINGTON COUNTY COORDINATING COMMITTEE: TRANSPORTATION FUNDING, PROJECTS AND PROCESS ■ Staff Report: Engineering Department 9:35 PM 10. DISCUSS TUALATIN BASIN NATURAL RESOURCES COORDINATING COMMITTEE (GOAL 5) 9:45 PM 11. DISCUSS BRANDING/GRAPHIC IDENTITY DESIGN ■ Staff Report: Administration Staff 12. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS 13. NON AGENDA ITEMS 14. 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. 10:00 PM 15. ADJOURNMENT i:%admtcathy%-%20051051220.doc COUNCIL AGENDA - DECEMBER 20, 2005 page 6 &l- S-~"t t cry Q~tt Item No. / S 4For Council Newsletter dated - dJ AP. CITY OF TIGARD Engineering Department Shaping A Better Community MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Phone 503-639-4171 Fax: 503-624-0752 TO: Mayor and City Councilors Craig Prosser, City Manager FROM: Gus Duenas City Engineer DATE: December 16, 2005 SUBJECT: Access Easement to the Fields Property Revision to the "Grant of Easement" Document At the meeting on September 13, 2005, Council approved an amendment to the License Agreement with Fred Fields to continue maintenance of the Fields property east of the library site. The amendment added restrictions to the original agreement by prohibiting crossing during periods of wet weather or unsuitable ground conditions. At the meeting on November 8, 2005, Council approved an access easement to the Fields property along the alignment of the proposed Wall Street extension to Hunziker Street. Council authorized the City Manager to finalize and execute the documents necessary to grant the easement. I provided a copy of the draft "Grant of Easement" prepared by the City Attorney's office for your information. Since then, Mr. Fields has expressed concern that the document was not clear as to whether or not Mr. Fields could continue to cross City property north of Fanno Creek for maintenance of the Fields property east of the library site. The intent of the grant of easement is to satisfy the original License Agreement requirement to provide a permanent access to the Field property. There is a continuing need for periodic maintenance of the Fields property to minimize fire hazards during dry periods. To make it clear in the documents to be executed that the maintenance access is not terminated by the "Grant of Easement," Mr. Dominic Colletta of the City Attorney's office revised Section 7 of the document. The original Section 7 read as follows: 7. Easement in Lieu of Other Easement Easement in Lieu of Other Easement Rim. The easement granted herein is in lieu of and supercedes the easement described in that certain License Agreement between Grantor and Grantee dated , by which Grantor agreed to provide Grantee with an easement across the southerly fifty feet (50') of the Grantor Property upon circumstances described in the License Agreement. Grantee acknowledges and agrees that the easement granted herein is in lieu of the easement described in the License Agreement and the grant of easement contained herein fully satisfies Grantor's obligation to grant an easement to Grantee as described in the License Agreement. Section 7 is revised to read as follows: 7. Easement in Lieu of Other Easement Rights. The Easement granted herein is in lieu of and supercedes the easement described in that certain License Agreement between Grantor and Grantee dated , and amended , by which Grantor agreed to provide Grantee with an easement across the southerly fifty feet (50') of the Grantor Property upon circumstances described in the License Agreement. Grantee acknowledges and agrees that the easement granted herein is in lieu of the easement described in the License Agreement and the grant of easement contained herein fully satisfies Grantor's obligation to grant an easement to Grantee as described in the License Agreement. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the license set forth in the License Agreement, as amended, is not terminated by the easement granted herein, but shall remain in effect until such time as Grantee shall have actual, physical access to the Grantee Property. The revised section adds the language shown in bold text above to make clear that the amendment to the License Agreement authorizing maintenance access north of Fanno Creek is not terminated by the "Grant of Easement." It allows for termination of the maintenance access if Mr. Fields is able to access his property through the easement area, or through an alternate location (such as from Milton Court through the Metro property) if he is able to arrange for it. If you feel this is a substantive change, I will bring the matter back for Council consideration at the next available meeting. If you concur with the change and feel that it is for clarification and is not substantive, please let the City Manager know and we will finalize the documents and send them out for signature. c: Dominic Colletta, City Attorney's Office 1AEmg%CusNMemomndumsWemo to Council Regarding revision to Access Easement Document.doc Memorandum Regarding Revision to the "Grant of Easement" Document Page 2 of 2 ,S+. L4 dy AGENDA ITEM # tears 1 on FOR AGENDA OF December 20, 2005 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Update on Potential Financial Related Ball Measures from Other Jurisdictions PREPARED BY: Tom Imdieke DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Staff will present a summary of potential financial ballot measures that other local jurisdictions are planning to place before the voters over the next few years. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Information Only INFORMATION SUMMARY As the City continues the effort to develop a plan to address the financial stability of the City, the financial measures that the surrounding jurisdictions are taking to the voters could conceivably impact or compete with Tigard's ability to successfully have measures approved by voters. Therefore, it is important to monitor and assess what the impacts could be of these competing measures. At this point, this is an update of what is currently being planned by other jurisdictions. Periodic updates will be planned in the future in conjunction with any recommendations that may be forthcoming from the work of the Financial Strategy Task Force. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED N/A - Information Only VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY N/A ATTACHMENT LIST None, information will be provided at the meeting. FISCAL NOTES N/A Financial Ballot Measure Survey S-~u ~s2s-s! December, 2005 /0? 0 iming o Jurisdiction Purpose of Measure Amount Type measure Beaverton Nothing planned for nexf4-5 years. N/A N/A N/A Tualatin Serial levy to pay for the operating costs for the Library - 13 cents per Thousand Local Option Levy May, 2006 Library. Hillsboro Renewal for Police, Fire, Parks & Recreation Estimated at $1.10 per thousand, they Local Option Levy November, 2006 may decide to add for Library based on the WCCLS. Forest Grove Current 5-year Local Option Levy expires on Current rate is .99 per thousand and it Local Option Levy November, 2006 June 30, 2008, place renewal on ballot. may be increased. Nothing concrete, have discussed a bond measure for a Centennial Project in a couple of Lake Oswego years. N/A N/A N/A Metro Primarily Open Space Acquisition Up to $250 million General Obligation November, 2006 Estimated impact of $30 per year on a home asessed at $200,000 Sherwood Nothing planned N/A N/A N/A Tigard-Tualatin Nothing planned N/A N/A N/A School District (TTSD) Tualatin Valley Fire & Will probably go for renewal in 08 as current levy Unknown at this time Local Option Levy November, 2006 Rescue (TVF&R) expires. and November, Also considering an operating levy for 06 for the 2008 new stations Tualatin Hills Park & Recreation District (THPRD) Nothing planned N/A N/A I:\FIN\Financial Strategy Task Force\Survey for Measures.xls Financial Ballot Measure Survey December, 2005 im ng o Jurisdiction Purpose of Measure Amount Type measure Washington County Local Option Levy for Public Safety Unknown at this time Local Option Levy November, 2006 WCCLS - Unknown at this time Updated on November 10, 2005 Considering a Local Option Levy for Public Wilsonville Safety, Library, and Parks Maintenance. Unknown at this time Local Option Levy November, 2006 Also considering a bond measure for a new pool, recreation, and aquatic center. Unknown at this time General Obligation November, 2006 North Plains Police Levy Unknown at this time Local Option Levy November, 2006 I:\FIN\Financial Strategy Task Force\S.urvey for Measures.xls S4-ud9 AGENDA ITEM # Se55 i n FOR AGENDA OF December 20, 2005 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Discussion on Police accreditation renewal. PREPARED BY: Chief Bill Dickinson DEPT HEAD OK AGENCY MGR OKMW UP ISSUE BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL This is a request for direction from the City Council on whether or not the Police Department should expend funds and staff time to renew our current accreditation through the Oregon Accreditation Alliance (OAA) and/or the National accreditation organization, CALEA (Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies). STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Police Department enjoys the status of being professionally accredited; however, some cities are now questioning the benefit versus the costs of maintaining accreditation which must be reviewed and renewed on a three-year basis. The Police Department is in favor of accreditation, but understands fiscal realities and desires that the cost/benefit issue must be decided by the City Council. At council direction from the November 15 City Council meeting, the rank and file were surveyed. Based on that information, the Department recommends that we not pursue re-accreditation at this time due to competing time and budget issues. The Department would like to re-visit accreditation at some time in the future (perhaps a year or two), and use this process as an independent means of validating our policies and procedures. The proposed timeline would be to seek certification again, perhaps at the National level this time, in 2008. INFORMATION SUMMARY Tigard Police applied for and went through, the State-level accreditation process achieving accreditation from the Oregon Accreditation Alliance in April 2003. That accreditation expires in April 2006, and the City must decide whether to pursue re-accreditation or not to pursue re-accreditation. In the alternative, the City could consider raising its accreditation status to the national level, which is a higher (and more costly) set of standards. At issue, is whether the direct and indirect costs required of accreditation are worth the benefit received. While the Police Department is rightfully proud of having achieved accreditation at the State level, there does not appear to be a direct financial benefit to the City. Increasingly, police agencies in the United States are re-visiting the cost/benefit issue. Some are choosing to withdraw while many are choosing to pursue and/or renew their accreditation. In most cases, it comes down to a fiscal decision which is made at the city council level. In addition to the direct financial costs of maintaining accreditation, the commitment of staff time is substantial. If we choose to pursue re- accreditation at the State level, the Police Department will need to commit one Officer full time, beginning in January, in order to accomplish the task. The time commitment is even more costly in dollar terms than the direct cash outlay paid to the O.A.A. This issue was initially presented to the City Council on November 15, 2005 at which time the Council asked for input from the rank and file of the Police Department. A survey was conducted resulting in the recommendation that the time and money spent on re-accreditation would be better spent on other current Department needs. Further, the Department is significantly short handed and this is not a good time for us to invest the staff hours required to accomplish the task. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Choose not to expend the money and staff time to seek re-accreditation. 2. Seek Oregon re-accreditation through the OAA. 3. Seek National accreditation through CALEA. VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY Accreditation is not specifically addressed in Vision Task Force Goals, but it is addressed in the City's Core Values: "The City of Tigard is dedicated to setting the standard for service excellence. To that end, the organization is committed to citizens and employees working together (Participation), consideration and respect for new ideas (Innovation)........." The issue of Police Accreditation would fall under striving for "service excellence" and the notion of "Innovation". ATTACHMENT LIST Attachment A: A paper on "LAW ENFORCEMENT ACCREDITATION: THE DESIRABLE FUTURE OR JUST ANOTHER PASSING PHASE?" by James F. DuPont. Attachment B: Police Department Survey results on re-accreditation FISCAL NOTES We have already accomplished initial accreditation with OAA. The direct annual cost of State accreditation is $2,050 per year, every year, approximately $600 once every three years for the site inspection, plus staff time to maintain our accreditation based on the 147 standards to be met. The cost to achieve national accreditation is $8,650 for initial accreditation plus $4,030 per year, every year thereafter. The staff time involved in achieving national accreditation is substantially more since there are 446 standards to be met. iladmtcathyVormslagenda item summary sheet - ccda.doc , ATTACHMENT A Law Enforcement Accreditation: The Desirable Future or Just Another Passing Phase? James F. DuPont Abstract This exploratory field study sought the opinions of the chief executive officers of 228 law enforcement agencies in North America about agency accreditation. Each of these agencies have been accredited through the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies, Inc. (CALEA). Their opinions were solicited through a single mail questionnaire to determine the viability of their agencies remaining with CALEA, seeking an alternative accrediting agency, or foregoing accreditation in the future. This study found that, although there are problems with accreditation, there is overwhelming support for the process in general and for CALEA specifically. Introduction The question addressed in this study is twofold: will the trend of accreditation continue to become the "desirable future" of law enforcement agencies, and should the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies, Inc., (CALEA) continue to be the authority for that accreditation? (Morrison, Renfro, & Boucher, 1984) Law enforcement agencies in the United States and Canada have long sought the goal of professionalism. Every blue ribbon commission dealing with law enforcement has called for this professionalism. It was many years after the 1929 Wickersham Commission before concrete steps would be taken to establish the professional standards by which all law enforcement agencies in the United States and Canada could be -measured (Tafoya, 1986). The Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 created the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration (LEAA). In September, 1979, LEAA awarded a grant to the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) to develop and maintain an accreditation program for law enforcement agencies (Dean, 1980). In December of that year, IACP, working with the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives, the National Sheriffs Association, and the Police Executive Research Forum, founded the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies, Inc. (CALEA) (Cotter, 1985). In May, 1984, CALEA accredited its first law enforcement agency (Mount Dora, Florida) and, as of August, 1992, a total of 228 agencies in the United States and Canada have achieved the standards of professionalism as set out by CALEA. Literature Review Preliminary research was conducted on accreditation through extensive reading. Over 84 articles on the subject dating back to 1980 were found in such periodicals as The National Sheriff Magazine, FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, Crime Control Digest, CALEA Commission Update, The Police Chief, and Law and Order. In 1989, the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) published Making the Grade: The Benefits of Law Enforcement Accreditation, by Chief Gerald L. Williams of the Aurora, Colorado Police Department. The PERF discussion paper is an abridged version of Chief Williams' 1988 doctoral dissertation. In his dissertation, Chief Williams studied various law enforcement agencies which had. been accredited, or were in the process as of December 31, 1986: The premise of the study is that the national accreditation program, by mandating an in-depth organizational self-assessment and compliance with nationally developed standards, is addressing two of the major prerequisites of organizational professionalization. (Williams, 1989, p vii) Chief Williams designed a questionnaire to gauge the impact of accreditation in four areas: Delineation of agency goals and policies Use of deadly force Police pursuits The collection and preservation of evidence. The questionnaire also asked for information on agency characteristics, the direct and indirect costs of accreditation, the changes that had occurred as a result of accreditation, and the benefits and disadvantages of accreditation for police personnel, the agency as a whole, and the community. Finally, the chief executives were asked whether they would seek reaccreditation (Williams, 1989). Chief Williams' discoveries are interesting and enlightening, however, the concerns of this study are . mainly the "also asked" information on Chief Williams' questionnaire. A real test of the worth of any action or program is the answer to the question, "would you do it again?" Chief Williams asked the question, "Will you initiate and follow through with reaccreditation when your initial five years has expired?" One agency did not respond to the question. The remaining agencies said they would seek reaccreditation when their current five-year accreditation expired. As no agency in his study indicated that it would not seek reaccreditation, it can be inferred, except for the one who failed to answer, that the rest were committed to seek reaccreditation. However, since his survey, several of these agencies have withdrawn from CALEA. This seems fairly significant if it represents a reversal of an agency's determination to remain committed to the accreditation process. Of special significance is the withdrawal of the San Diego County, California Sheriffs Office from the process. The San Diego County Sheriffs Office participated in Chief Williams' study, and Sheriff John F. Duffy wrote the foreword to Chief Williams' PERF discussion paper. Sheriff Duffy was sheriff of San Diego County in 1986, when. the department "became the largest agency in the nation to achieve accreditation" (Williams, 1989). At the time he wrote the foreword, Sheriff Duffy was serving as chairman of the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies, Inc. In March, 1990, Wayne I. McCoy, of the Westerville Division of Police, Ohio, produced Stop the Rhetoric: Can Accreditation Really Work? for the FBI National Academy. In his study, McCoy addressed the question, "is accreditation viable for the law enforcement community?" To accomplish this, he designed a questionnaire to provide insight into the "benefits and difficulties of the accreditation process". The questionnaire was sent to 35 randomly chosen agencies involved in the accreditation process. Of the 35 agencies, 32 returned their questionnaires. Seventeen of the responding agencies were accredited at the time and 15 were not. Of the 17 accredited agencies, six have achieved reaccreditation and the remaining 11 have not reached the five year reaccreditation point as of this writing. None have withdrawn. Of the 15 agencies who were "in the process," three have been accredited, four have withdrawn from the process and no longer seek accreditation through CALEA. Eight have not achieved accreditation as of May 1992, although some have been "in the process" for over two years. In his study, McCoy discussed the "dark side" of the accreditation process. His study indicated that for every agency that identified positive benefits of accreditation, each agency also identified problem areas. Although his study highlighted a long list of difficulties with the accreditation process, he states "this list of difficulties is not insurmountable. They are realities that must be dealt with if an agency is to receive accreditation. Awareness of and preparation for known problems will decrease the number of bad surprises in the process" (McCoy, 1990). .He concluded that there are "obvious, substantial benefits to be gained" by the accreditation process...but "if. the decision is made to pursue accreditation, it must be made with adequate resources, political commitment, and great confidence in the ability and willingness of all of the agency's personnel" (McCoy, 1990). In 1990, the Florida Statistical Analysis Center of the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) conducted a survey of Florida chiefs of police who were members of the Florida Police Chiefs Association. Of the 167 agencies who replied to the survey, 129 (77.25%) were not accredited nor were they involved in the accreditation process. Of the 167 departments which responded, 63% felt that police departments should be accredited. Several mentioned problems associated with the direct (funds) and indirect (personnel) costs involved with accreditation, and the majority of respondents (70.06%) agreed that state revenue should be available to local agencies for accreditation. More than half felt that Florida should develop its own .accreditation program. In addition to this preliminary research, numerous kev people involved with law enforcement accreditation were interviewed for their input: Michael Brown, Legislative Aide to the Honorable James Moran, Democrat, Virginia, author of the Law Enforcement Responsibility Act of 1991: Captain Tony O'Brien, President of the Florida Police Accreditation Coalition; Chief Lee McGehee of the Ocala Police Department: and Sergeant Ward D. Rheintgen of the Northfield, Illinois Police Department, who is conducting similar research for a master's thesis. Methodology The goal of this study was to survey law enforcement agencies accredited by the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies, Inc. (CALEA) in order to get their opinions, experiences, and feelings on various subjects dealing with law enforcement accreditation in general, and specifically with CALEA. Table 1 To answer the two-part question of Respondents by Number of Years Accredited this study, a survey questionnaire was mailed to the chief executives of the 228 Years Accredited # Respondents organizations that had achieved 0- 1.49 .37 accreditation through CALEA between 1.50- 2.49 26 May 25, 1984 and July 1992. In addition, 2.50- 3.49 34 the results of those responding to the 3.50- 4.49 33 4.50- 5.49 26 survey were compared against existing 5.50- 6.49 20 data on accreditation, in general and 6.50- 7.49 14 CALEA specifically. 7.50+ 9 In July, 1992, a questionnaire of 57 questions was tested with members of Years accredited is based on the date of first accreditation by the Commission onAccreditabonforLawEnforcement the Charter Class of the Florida Criminal Agencies, Inc. (CALEA) to August 10, 1992 Justice Executive Institute, Senior Leadership Program; the Florida Department of Law Enforcement Statistical Analysis Center; and selected Table 2 members of the St. Johns County Respondents by Agency Size Sheriffs Office. As a result of the feedback Number of received from the pilot test mentioned Agency Size Respondents above, a final questionnaire of 59 1 9 0 questions was developed. A Likert-style 10- 24 10 25- 49 29 format was chosen due to the severe 50- 199 87 time restraints of most chief executive 200- 599 38 officers and the necessity that the 600- 999 18 questionnaire be self-administered. In 1000- 2999 14 addition, this format is much easier to 3000+ 4 code (deVaus, 1986). An attempt to overcome the disadvantages inherent with this format was made by providing space for respondents to comment. Anticipating that many chief executive officers would be reluctant to personally fill out another survey, a letter asking their cooperation and participation in the survey was sent by Sheriff Neil J. Perry to each chief executive officer. Responses were received from 200 of these agencies resulting in a respectable 87.72% response rate. (A breakdown of these agencies is given in Tables 1 - 3, at left.) Of the eight agencies listed by CALEA as withdrawn, responses were received from seven (87.50%). Their answers were included with the agencies not listed as withdrawn. It is suspected that there are more agencies who consider Table 3 themselves withdrawn than are Respondents by Agency Type shown on the CALEA list, but Agency Type # Accredited# Respondents not many more, as the Police Dept 181 155 Sheriff's Ofc 32 30 percentages of statements Other 15 15 dealing with this subject ap- pears to be between 4% and 6% which is consistent with the "withdrawn" percentage of 3.51 % shown by CALEA. The high response rate means that survey responses generally represent the attitudes of both accredited and withdrawn agencies. The distribution of responses does not indicate that a specific group is dissatisfied with accreditation or has concerns about the questions on the. survey. The questionnaire was designed to provoke response. Some of the questions were phrased in a confrontational manner in order to stir respondents' emotions. There was no hidden agenda in the survey. The sole objective of the study was to get to the honest feelings of the respondents. Honest feelings are sometimes very difficult to uncover in an area that is fraught with political pitfalls. To illustrate the dilemma, an agency which had received the survey asked if there would be any way that the respondents. could be identified in the finished study, because the agency was concerned that its governing body would be displeased if they knew how the agency really felt about accreditation. Even with personal assurances of anonymity, the agency decided not to respond. Their fear was that they might be identified during analysis by agency size or state. Other agencies refused to respond because of suspected bias contained in the survey. Of the 200 completed questionnaires received, 84 submitted comments. In many cases it was difficult to determine who had actually written the comments. The best estimate is that approximately 50 percent were written by the Chief Executive Officer and 50 percent were written either by the current accreditation manager or a senior staff assistant. In all cases, it is assumed that the comments were approved by the Chief Executive Officer prior to transmittal. It is possible that these comments, even more than the questionnaire results, indicated the "bedrock" feelings of the law enforcement accredited agencies in North America. Data Analysis Responses were analyzed by agency type and size, years accredited, and subject groups. (A complete copy of the survey and total responses is provided in Appendix A, at the end of this paper.) During analysis the two.largest agency size categories were consolidated, in order to reduce the possibility of determining the identity of a particular agency with a particular question. . The results of applicable questions of previous studies were compared to the results of like questions in this study. The sample size of the FDLE survey is somewhat similar to the sample size of this study. The FDLE survey dealt only with Florida police departments, of which most were not accredited nor involved in the accreditation process; whereas this study dealt on an national scale exclusively with agencies which had achieved accreditation. These differences notwithstanding, it is interesting to note that 138 out of 167 respondents in the FDLE survey felt that police departments should be accredited, but only 38 were actually accredited or were involved in the process. Of the 100 agencies not accredited or involved in the process, the most commonly cited reasons for not seeking accreditation were: 1. Too costly in time and money, especially for small agencies 2. Supports state accreditation 3. Benefits don't justify the costs 4. Don't believe in concept 5. Not flexible to geographical location 6. No proof it helps 7. Standards too broad By far the reason most stated for not seeking accreditation was that it was too costly in time, money, and staffing, especially for small agencies. The argument has not been substantiated by this study, as 30 of the 39 agencies (76.92%) with 10 to 49 employees reported that reaccreditation is.worth the money. In addition, 28 of these same agencies (71.79%) reported that the manpower requirements necessary to maintain accreditation status is an acceptable cost. Only 2 of the 39 (5.12%) indicated that they would be able to eliminate at least one position should they drop accreditation. The majority of the agencies (employing 10 to 49) who responded to this study disagreed with the above statements, except for number 2. The actual experiences of the smaller agencies should give some hope to these agencies that accreditation can be accomplished at an acceptable cost. The second most stated comment in the FDLE study is that many chiefs are not supportive of a national accreditation for law enforcement, but are supportive of a state run accreditation process. Of the agencies with 10 to 49 employees responding to this survey, only 13 out of 39 (33.33%) would consider a statewide accrediting body in addition to CALEA, or support a state process should CALEA fail. Also, 34 out of 39 (87.18%) agreed that for accreditation to have any real impact on the professionalization of law enforcement, it must be national in scope. Although there is little support for state control of law enforcement accreditation in this study, there is nevertheless considerable interest nationwide in state accrediting bodies. There are several statewide organizations which administer law enforcement accreditation programs, and in July 1991, the New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services announced the formation of a "National State Law Enforcement Accreditation Network." In addition, there is at least one statewide organization in Florida that has recently completed the development of standards for a statewide accrediting body. However, they are not ready to promulgate at this time. It is the author's opinion that most of the law enforcement activity at the state level is in direct response to the financial burden the accreditation fees (as opposed to the cost of maintaining accreditation) place on small law enforcement agencies. If, as this study indicated, "in order for accreditation to have any real impact on the professionalization of law enforcement, it must be national in scope," then this activity at the state level could be counterproductive to the overall goal of the professionalization of law enforcement. Possible funding source In June 1991, Dr. Betty B. Bosarge, the Managing Editor of Washington Crime News Services, published an article in Crime Control Digest in which she severely criticized a proposed funding source for law enforcement accreditation. The proposal was "The Law Enforcement Responsibility Act of 1991", H.R. 4270, which was introduced in the House of Representatives on February 19, 1992 by Congressman James Moran, Democrat, Virginia. On a survey question concerning the proposed bill, 75% of the responding agencies indicated that they were unfamiliar with it. Most of the law enforcement agencies in North America are small agencies. In the United States there are over 17,000 law enforcement agencies. It seems quite apparent to this author that the small agencies (1-49 employees) should comprise the majority of the agencies accredited by CALEA. This is not the case and it appears that the situation will not be corrected until some alternate funding mechanism can be developed for the small agencies. Hohensee (1992) might be correct when he indicated CALEA has "become available to only those fortunate agencies who have the resources to spare, both monetary and in personnel. Smaller, less well financed agencies who might benefit most from such an initiative, are precluded from participation." In this author's opinion, the defeat of any proposed funding source which might alleviate this situation would be counterproductive to law enforcement professionalization. Conclusions There were many thought-provoking and intelligent opinions offered by the respondents. The solutions to the problems of law enforcement accreditation may very well be found in these statements. In the authors opinion, the statement that best exemplifies the status of law enforcement accreditation in North America was submitted by one of the respondents: I see law enforcement accreditation as a positive step toward true professionalism in police service over and above the process itself. It is, above all, a dynamic process with far reaching potential. The current process. has fostered substantial interaction between the mid-managers at the local, regional, state, and national levels through coalitions and other help groups. These are folks who are actively and directly involved in the delivery of the service. They are also the future leaders in the law enforcement community. These interactions have provoked the ever increasing exchange of problems and ideas. This increased communication among law enforcement practitioners provides a good foundation for providing efficient and quality police service today and in the future. (anonymous) After serving in the U.S. Air Force as an aeronautical navigator and a staff intelligence officer, Director DuPont joined the St. Johns County, Florida Sheriffs Office in 1971. He was promoted to Director of Operations in 1985 and served in that capacity until his appointment as Director of Planning and Research in 1991. Director DuPont attended the FBI National Academy and the Charter Class of the Florida Criminal Justice Executive Institute's Senior Leadership Program. References Bosarge, B. (1991). Mandatory minimum standards sought by law enforcement responsibility act in Congress. Crime Control Digest, 25(23), 1-5. Cotter, J. (1985, March). Accreditation for small police departments. The Police Chief, pp. 40-49. Dean, W. (1980, September 12). Accreditation for law enforcement The Police Chief. deVaus, D. (1986). Surveys in social research. London: George Allen & Unwin. Diegelman, R. (1983, February 8). Results of field test data so far very pleasing to commission. Crime Control Digest. Hohensee, J. (1992, September). Developing cost-effective alternatives. Law and Order. McCoy, W. (1990). Stop the rhetoric: Can accreditation really work? Washington, D.C.: FBI National Academy. Morrison, J., Renfro, W., & Boucher, W. (1984). Futures research and the strategic planning process: Implications for higher education. Tafoya, W. (1986). A Delphi forecast of the future of law enforcement. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation. Williams, G. (1989). Making the -grade: The benefits of law enforcement accreditation. Washington, D.C.: Police Executive Research Forum. Appendix A Accreditation Survey Subject Question Strongly Undecide Disagre Group Agree/ d e/Strong Agree ly Disagre e 1 Accreditation was a good step toward the 93.50% 3.50% 3.00% rofessionalization of this agency. 3 My staff is committed to maintaining our 94.2 '4.2 1.6 accredited status through CALEA. (Disregard if withdrawn 6 I would consider a statewide accrediting body 37.2 22.3 40.5 in addition to CALEA. (Disregard if withdrawn 1 Creativity and progressiveness was improved 80.8 8 11.2 in this agency due to accreditation. 6 In order for accreditation to have any real 83 8 9 impact on the professionalization of law enforcement, it must be national in scope. 6 Statewide Law Enforcement Accreditation 82.4 14 3.6 Coalitions or PACS are beneficial. 3/5 The awarding of "string-free" grants to 58.7 14.3 27 agencies for accreditation and reaccreditation would strengthen my resolve to remain with CALEA. 5 The Law Enforcement Responsibility Act of 48 28 24 1991 proposed by Congressman James Moran (D-VA), "will result in massive Federal control of state and local law enforcement" (Bosarge, 1991). (If you are unfamiliar with this Act, lease do not answer this question.) 6 Any law enforcement accreditation body that 49.2 20.8 29.9 is governmentally administered (either state or federal) will most likely lead to government control of local law enforcement. 6 Governmental control (State or Federal) is 54.1 20.4 25.5 ultimate) bad for local law enforcement. 3/6 If CALEA should fail for any reason: 1. The State Police Accreditation Coalitions 28.6 30.2 41.1 (PACS) should form a private commission/ corporation and administer the accreditation process. 2. An existing national private organization 33 32 35 such as the National Sheriffs Association or Chiefs Association should take over the accreditation process. 3. An existing state private organization such 8.9 27.4 63.7 as the. Florida Sheriffs Association or some such organization should take over the accreditation process. 4. Each state government should take over 13.9 23.2 62.9 the accreditation process. 5. The federal government should establish an 23.3 23.3 53.4 independent commission to administer the accreditation process. 3 CALEA will not fail. 61.2 33.2 5.6 3 CALEA should be more responsive to the 66.3 17.9 15.8 state coalitions. ATTACHMENT B RESULTS OF RANK AND FILE SURVEY ON POLICE RE-ACCREDITATION We sent out surveys to 80 employees. There were 33 responses. 23 stated they were opposed to seeking re-accreditation at this time. 9 were in favor of pursuing re-accreditation. 1 stated he was ambivalent. The 47 who did not respond to the survey are presumed to be ambivalent, as well. Iti(CCC CI CSC From: Kathy Busse <Kathy_Busse@co.washington.or.us> a 0. To: "'gus@ci.tigard.or.us<gus@ci.tigard.or.us>, "'gus@tigard_or.gov"' <gus@tigard_or.gov> Date: 12/16/2005 1:25:29 PM Subject: 121505packet[2].pdf - Linked File.pdf Gus---staff report is on P.13. We are preparing for the annual trip back to Washington D.C. when JPACT members meet with the members of our Congressional Delegation with a list of JPACT preapproved project requests where they would like special "earmarks" . Earmarks are assigned directly by congressional reps in the Appropriations bill and come "off the top" of the budgeted amt. for the federal dept. Thus, they by-pass the competitive process or formula allocation typically administered by the Federal DOT and the competitive process by Metro (MTIP). Consequently, there has been no competitive process, nor has there been criteria for approving the project list prior to this year. They are the political cache for congress. Background: Historically, some jurisdictions lobbied our congressional delegation directly for earmarks. When Hatfield was chair of the Appropriations Committee, he insisted that individual requests come through the region, so there was some local agreement on the merit of the many project requests he was getting. Metro began coordinating the effort with TriMet. Each year, a group or "delegation" from the region go to Washington D.C. for 2 days and meet with our congressional reps to seek funding for projects on the "regional list". Heretofore, the only requirement was that it be in the RTP. However, the "list" has become so long that the Congressional reps were tempted to spread around their earmarking allocation--a little to all. The perverse effect of including all requests in the official regional list--is that no project gets adequate funding and everyone is left with no financial plan to cover the shortfall. Last year, I believe there was over $40 million in requests for an earmark in Appropriations--and about $3 million was earmarked. This is the first year we have been able to shorten the list to get more strategic with the potential federal earmarks. JPACT action on December 15: JPACT approved an approach to limit our federal earmark requests to 2 per sub region or agency. e.g; 2 per Wash County and cities of Wash. County; 2 per Clackamas County and cities of Clackamas County; etc. In addition, the Port ; City of Portland, Metro and ODOT may each submit 2. Each "sub area or agency must prioritize them as well. k The purpose is described in the staff report. CC: Clark Berry <Clark_Berry@co.washington.or.us> A G E N D A 600 NORTHEAST GRAND AVENUE PORTLAND, OREGON 97232-2736 M ETRO TEL 503-797-1916 FAX 503-797-1930 MEETING: JOINT POLICY ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION DATE: December 15, 2005 TIME: 7:30 A.M. PLACE: Council Chambers, Metro Regional Center 7:30 CALL TO ORDER AND DECLARATION OF A QUORUM Rex Burkholder, Chair 7:30 INTRODUCTIONS Rex Burkholder, Chair 7:35 CITIZEN COMMUNICATIONS 7:40 COMMENTS FROM THE CHAIR Rex Burkholder, Chair 7:45 CONSENT AGENDA Rex Burkholder, Chair Consideration of JPACT minutes for October 13, 2005 and November 10, 2005 DISCUSSION ITEMS Cost of Congestion debrief- INFORMATION Jon Coney, Metro * Direction of FY07 Appropriations Requests - DISCUSSION Andy Cotugno, Metro * RTP Update - INFORMATION Kim Ellis, Metro * Corridors Letter from Metro Council - DISCUSSION Rex Burkholder, Chair Robert Liberty, Metro * Resolution 06-3651, FOR THE PURPOSE OF AMENDING Andy Cotugno, Metro THE FY06 UNIFIED PLANNING WORK PROGRAM (UPWP) - JPACT APPROVAL REQUESTED OTHER COMMITTEE BUSINESS Rex Burkholder, Chair 9:00 ADJOURN Rex Burkholder, Chair * Material available electronically. Please call 503-797-1916 for a paper copy Material to be emailed at a later date. # Material provided at meeting. All material will be available at the meeting. M E M O R A N D U M 600 NORTHEAST GRAND AVENUE I PORTLAND, OREGON 97232 2736 TEL 503 797 1700 FAX 503 797 1794 DRAFT METRO DATE: December 8, 2005 TO: JPACT FROM: Andy Cotugno, Planning Director SUBJECT: FY '07 Appropriations Requests - Recommendation Staff is seeking policy guidance from JPACT on what to emphasize in the region's FY '07 Transportation Appropriations request. Issues surrounding this are as follows: 1. The Oregon delegation has raised concerns about the region's request for project earmarks being too long, asking the region to more aggressively set priorities. 2. Requests for earmarks for the past 3 years have been in the context of a 6-year reauthorization bill, which provides for much greater opportunity. This year's request is in the context of an annual appropriations bill providing a much smaller opportunity in the highway program categories. 3. The region must seek earmarks for the transit program categories. Conversely, most of the highway program funds are distributed through formulas and many of the highway discretionary funding categories have already been earmarked in the authorization bill. 4. While the region faired extremely well with earmarks in the authorization bill, many are partial amounts. In the criteria originally established, sponsoring jurisdictions were expected to demonstrate how they could complete a logical project with a partial earmark. 5. JPACT has not established a policy direction for seeking earmarks, thereby producing requests from project sponsors that are of a very different character. Page ] of 3 6. Projects not selected as priority for FY '07 appropriations earmark could be considered in future years or could be sought for funding through the MTIP, the STIP or through efforts to seek new funds through the legislature or ballot measure. The list of FY '07 requests compared to past earmarks are included attached. Recommendations 1. JPACT should establish a regional program for earmarking requests from the transit program. A candidate list is as follows: a. I-205/Mall LRT $40.0 million b. Milwaukie DEIS $1.0 million c. Wilsonville-Beaverton Commuter Rail $27.5 million d. TriMet Bus Replacement $8.0 million e. SMART Multimodal Facility $1.75 million 2. JPACT should endorse earmarks from non-transportation appropriations bills that help further the regional transportation agenda. A candidate list is as follows: a. TriMet Communications System $12.0 million (Dept. of Homeland Security) b. S. Waterfront Streetcar $1.0 million (HUD c. Port: Columbia River $40.0 Million (Energy & Water Channel Deepening Appropriations) 3. JPACT should set highway earmarking priorities as follows: a. All earmark requests should be in the financially constrained portion of the RTP. b. Requests should be limited to a dollar amount and category that is appropriate. Based upon historical experience, this means requests should generally be no greater than $5 million. c. Requests should be only for work that can be obligated within the timeframe of this bill, not simply requests to accumulate over multiple bills for a later date. Only ask for projects and project amounts sufficient to complete the next logical step or a finance plan to complete the phase (i.e. enough to complete PE, right-of-way acquisition or construction). Do not allow requests that are simply a partial payment toward one of these steps. d. Recognize that jurisdictions will seek earmarks outside the JPACT process but these are strictly the request of that jurisdiction and are not sanctioned as part of the regional program and any funding gap will be the responsibility of that jurisdiction, not the MTIP or STIR Page 2 of 3 e. JPACT should establish a priority list as follows: Require Portland, ODOT, Metro and the Port of Portland and each County in cooperation with the Cities of each County to submit 2 or fewer priority projects. If this is not possible, submit the list in priority order for JPACT to decide which to include. The following is a preliminary list of priorities to be considered: Portland - in the following priority order: 1. Portland: South Waterfront Access $5.0 million 2. Portland: E. Burnside/Couch $4.7 million • Portland: 1-5/1-84-Greeley $1.0 million (Not Ranked) • Portland: Going St. Bridge $1.0 million (Not Ranked) Multnomah County and Cities of Multnomah County - in the following priority order: 1. Multnomah County: Sellwood Bridge $3.0 million 2. Gresham: Springwater/US 26 Access $5.0 million 3. Gresham: Fairview Trail $1.0 million Clackamas County and Cities of Clackamas County - as follows: • Wilsonville: Kinsman Rd. $2.0 million • Clackamas Co.: Beavercreek Road $2.0 million Washington County and Cities of Washington County - in the following priority order: 1. I-5/99W Connector $2.5 million 2. Washington County: Century Blvd. Bridge $5.5 million Port of Portland - in the following priority order: 1. Port: I-205/Airport Way Interchange (PE) $1.0 million 2. Port: 1-84/257`h Interchange $1.0 million ODOT Priority: • I-5 Columbia River Crossing $5.0 million Metro Priority: • Metro TOD Revolving Fund $5.0 million Page 3 of 3 DRAFT Requests FY'06 FY'06 FY *07 Project Map Appropriations Appropriations Appropriations Congressional Number Project Type/ Name Reauthorization Request Request Earmark Request District 1`.3 i. 4 Fk. t r-c.r° d9' sv'$ i(' /k - r};- 1 Myu 4 w' t 7 , r r w' s +r s} 1 a v tr r.:.1 , Tf 'j 1 'E Iw ~I d~~i+~ al;'.b*~s'eyf f".:1{ (Rogaod~od f'ina18,ARBT~ Fli~tal'Appr s 1 }7a 61urtmo+s~°° 1., ➢ 'r : F,..,, - a~d a Srb }1.44• mont amp MtOJlCTi r,~ `FAmo1`nt Earmo'Ft.fAI _r~c - - - .x rmark a(.,:. ;R~qusetoil~A !11lOIONAL,HIOIINJIY till eoio H-1 1-5 Trade Corridor 55.000 $0.800 55.000 3 H-1 a 4-5: Delta Pads to Lombard Widening $32.800 516100 3 HA IM -Highwaylrmnsit Columbia Crossing $15.000 3 H-1 C -High v.y/rmnsit Columbia Crossing $35.000 3 H-2 1.5/99W Connector $15.000 $10.248 $2.500 $2.500 1 H-3 Hwy 217:Tualatin Valley Highway to US 26 $26.900 $8.745 1 H-4 Sunrise Project: I-205 to Rock Creek $32.000 519.000 (/ncluding Darrxucu.r Planning) 3 H-5 Sunrise Project: Unit 2 $3.000 3 Colombia lnrermadal Corridor H-6a -Ramsey Railroad Yard SI1.000 3 871.000 H-611M -Air Cargo Access Road 59.000 3 H-7 1-205 Auxiliary Lane $3.000 53.000 51.000 5 H-8• ITS Equipment (ODOT) 51.200 1/3/5 SUB-TOTAL 5176.700 $68.193 $14.700 57.500 South/North LRT Project Segments Reor d-haden T-1a -Interstate MAX Reauthorize $41.548 $18.120 518.110 3 T-1 b -South Corridor/I-205 Reauthorize drdhorizedf- sun nueion 540.000 3 T-1 c -Milwaukie Light Rail DEIS/FEIS Reauthorize S1.000 3 T-1 d -North: Expo to Clark County Reauthorize Aurhoriud for PE 3 T-2 Wilsonville-Beaverton Commuter Rail Prof. Reauthorize Aarliorizedfor C-1-ion 537.800 515.000 $27.500 and Grerrdf rhered 1 T-3' Tr Met Bus and Bus Related 541.000 58.000 $8.000 T-4a SMART Bus - Wilsonville - Maintenance Facility $1.900 $0.109 $0.500 5 T-41M SMART Bus - Wilsonville - Multimodal Facility $1.750 $1.750 5 Panland Streetcar S3.000.4a1hor$edfar PE T-5a -Segment 1: to Lloyd District Authorize 3 T-5b -Segment 2: To Central Eastside District Authorize 3 T-Se -Segment 3:To South Waterfront Authorize $2.000 (HUD Dollars) SI.000 (HUD Dollars) 3 T-5d -Segment 4:To Lake Oswego Authorize 5 SUB-TOTAL 542.900 544.757 567.670 579.250 Y =11 3 LOCAL p1OJlCT►RIORMZSI,- 4 t y v3r r(T,a 7 t G d._ S I r k r ><~t3 P 5h t" h r 1 N td. 1 Lr r :'K I r Y L-1 Wilsonville: Boecknzn Road-Urban Village $3.000 $0.800 5 L-2 CWilsonville: onnection Barber Street Urban Village $3.700 $3.700 $2.000 5 L-3 Milwaukie: Lake Road 56.000 $4.000 S1.000 SO.800 3 L-4 Gresham: Gresham Civic Neighborhood LRT Station 52.700 $1.170 3 L-5 Gresham: Rock vood Town Center $2.000 $1.000 3 L-6 Gresham: Springwater-US 26 Access $5.000 $5.000 3 L-7 Gresham: Fairview Trail $1.000 $1.000 3 L-8 Oregon City: I-205)Hwy 213 Interchange $5.600 52.300 $2.000 50.500 5 L-9 Portland: I-5/Nunh Macadam Access $15.000 $15.000 $2.000 55.000 5 L-9 Portland: North Macadam Access $9.000 $11.000 5 L-10 Portland: Gateway 102nd 54.800 $4.100 3 L-11 Portland: East Burnside Corridor Street Improvements $5.000 $5.2000 (including .Trnxrr ) 54.700 3 L-12 Portland: 1.511-405 Loop(]-84 to Greeley) 54.000 $1.000 1 L-13 Portland: Going Street Bridge 52.000 51.000 $1.000 3 L-14 Multnomah Co.: Selhvood Bridge 525.000 $7.000 54.000 $3.000 315 L-15 Washington Co.: Beaverton Hillsdale/Scholls $25.000 $3.000 1 L-16' Metro TOD Revoking Fund 510.000 $5.000 105 LA 7' Met. Regional Trail Program - Next Phase 55.000 $5.000 1/3/5 L-18e Metro Regional Culvert Retrofit-Phase 1 $5.000 1/3/5 L-19 Pon/Tmutdxle: I-84n57th Interchange $1.000 52.000 $1.000 3 L-20 Clackamas County: Beave emek Road 51.700 5 L-21 Wilsonville: Kinsman Rd. 52.000 5 L-23 Washington County: Century Blvd. Bridge 55.500 1 SUBTOTAL $126.800 150.436 $38.000 S36.700 uoPrbrH0/ruolrrr+OunJ Uwdu/grrMa rrnb.N~ rpuN/o.4obtra r/N /o uopeua w /ar/qnr, AyduDa.E a91-d.•w p.ddrw lou w, 1..fwd rrrgl3LON. • -.-..L..-.-._,... .~~.,..~....-}~,,,,.r.- 'u-~-r .c ..I.-..1,,. _ l., h.. 1..-..y -z w .r„. t 'i;,; f ''E~l'q. .M,.9. _p t v s. W ,.ti 7V101 UNYNOI) I t 1 ~l ! ,+OrF tilSl S; z l IL - I' y1 ! u A . £Z £Ll r s rOLLZMS ^ , f 1, zr v } 9 y,. tt~" k~ q " ' ~l f h I " yet nn'rs cs~ors 1Vlol-ans S P& M asi.d -TIPI!M u11e1e01-M66 "IH 9-V L Z66'OS sled sn!I-D O1 LIZ L^'H-LPMS 8u!-P!M 9Z SIl S-V 009`£85 u0gu1S uo!up SrV f 000 LS MIS Amuod!VpueSOZ-1 E-V 000 If nm=jsp..npmd6Oe0!lsawaQ ~Z-V 000'00ZS s.2pug aP!-Ims Pue S-1 . VV 000'05 099'ZSS MISS OOLTSS 'IViOl-gn5 .8-qo a8m8uv~ uedS 8u!mS yypan!X mgwnloJ 6-0 S/E/I 000,OFS 102fwd 8u!uadaaQ I-qD 9-0 009'0S OOS'Of pp!1DOZ) rseo0lsaM L-O 005IS WSW r4-1ucwsumV-.... M .9-0 000'85 OZZtff 000'05S (me4S lOOSAO,L-PwoO aperl 9-1 S-O r M-Nd -y;0 t ft,.dd.S 5 005'05 OOh'SZfS nwa:) nsuml dqu.0 Jo .(u:) 6-0 S SL£'OS OOZ'IS O0Z`S8u OOZ'IS usumlZpueSJO CJ!Z) E-O S 09FOS 009`£85 pp3s!Q1!sum1 (allelow)sowm{oulo gtnoS Z-0 p..bay p-,.Z Y10 /of p.dd.S S/E/1 MIS 000'9fS OOSZS LatuaQ yvuasay a 4j,'Nn leas Pueryod otsuBuaQ L-O ya+0araa RapoN B1 iunowylpyaanbey yaeuuea~ sssaoad u111RS1. IMdew+~2 tl313r1tlS iu~owy t No lilmols Iensuownlp.•E ,M1 sdaddyilsuldl psiaenbeaJ WHOIU JO lJAifOYd ME + r rl ,I ZO. AA 90. AA 90. AA / AGENDA TIGARD CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS MEETING December 20, 2005 - 6:30 p.m. 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon 6:30 PM • STUDY SESSION > UPDATE ON POTENTIAL FINANCIAL-RELATED BALLOT MEASURES FROM OTHER JURISDICTIONS ■ Finance Staff > CONTINUE DISCUSSION ON POLICE DEPARTMENT ACCREDITATION ■ Police Staff • 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. > ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS • Access Easement to the Fields Property - Revision to the "Grant of Easement" Document • Determine the resource materials the City Council requests for the January 6, 2006 Goal Setting Meeting • Congress of Cities Conference • Topics from Mayor and Council for Senators and Congressman ■ Determine dates (length of stay); Mayor K Council now reserved March 1 1 - 16 Business Meeting Information; changes are also noted on the attached Council Meeting Agenda: • No Chamber of Commerce Representative will attend tonight's meeting. The next report from the Chamber of Commerce is scheduled for the January 24, 2006, Council agenda. • Review Process-Continuation of Sunrise Lane Annexation Hearing; Agenda Item No. 5 • Agenda Item No. 6 - Consideration of Geographic Information Systems (GIS) Coordinator Budget Amendment #4 to Add a Full-Time GIS Coordinator Position was deleted from the agenda. This item will be considered during the 2006-07 Budget process. • Agenda Item No. 8 is the joint Meeting with the IWB. Attached is an e-mail received today from TWD Board Chair Bill Scheiderich. • O The following Agenda items were added per discussion from the December 13, 2005 City Council meeting: o No. 9 - Discussion and Update of the Washington County Coordinating Committee (WCCC): Transportation Funding, Projects, and Process o No. 10 - Discuss Tualatin Basin Natural Resources Committee (Goal 5) o No. 11 - Discuss Branding/Graphic Identity Design > COUNCIL CALENDAR December 20* Tuesday Council Business Meeting - 6:30 pm, Town Hall 26 Monday Christmas Holiday - City Offices Closed 27 Tuesday Council Business Meeting Canceled Executive Session - The Public Meetings Law authorizes governing bodies to meet in executive session in certain limited situations (ORS 192.660). An "executive session" is defined as "any meeting or part of a meeting of a governing body, which is closed to certain persons for deliberation on certain matters." Permissible Purposes for Executive Sessions: 192.660 (2) (a) - Employment of public officers, employees and agents, if the body has satisfied certain prerequisites. 192.660 (2) (b) - Discipline of public officers and employees (unless affected person requests to have an open hearing). 192.660(2) (c) - To consider matters pertaining to medical staff of a public hospital. 192.660(2) (d) - Labor negotiations. (News media can be excluded in this instance.) 192.660 (2) (e) - Real property transaction negotiations. 192.660 (2) (f) - Exempt public records - to consider records that are "exempt by law from public inspection." These records are specifically identified in the Oregon Revised Statutes. 192-660 (2) (g) - Trade negotiations - involving matters of trade or commerce in which the governing body is competing with other governing bodies. 192.660 (2) (h) - Legal counsel - for consultation with counsel concerning legal rights and duties regarding current litigation or litigation likely to be filed. 192.660 (2) (i) - To review and evaluate, pursuant to standards, criteria, and policy directives adopted by the governing body, the employment-related performance of the chief executive officer, a public officer, employee or staff member unless the affected person requests an open hearing. The standards, criteria and policy directives to be used in evaluating chief executive officers shall be adopted by the governing body in meetings open to the public in which there has been an opportunity for public comment. 192.660 (2) (j) - Public investments - to carry on negotiations under ORS Chapter 293 with private persons or businesses regarding proposed acquisition, exchange or liquidation of public investments. 192.660 (2) (k)- Relates to health professional regulatory board. 192.660 (2) (1)- Relates to State Landscape Architect Board. 192.660 (2) (m)- Relates to the review and approval of programs relating to security. i1sdmtcathytcounc0tpink sheet - study session agendast2005t051220ps.doc Q Revised - Added Agenda Item 9 - WCCC Transportation Funding; Added Agenda i - Branding/Graphic laeliffty Design; Removed Agenda Item No. 6 - Budget Amendment No. 4/GIS Coordinator Position TIGARD CITY COUNCIL I' MEETING DECEMBER 20, 2005 6:30 p.m. CITY OF TIGARD 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 - DECEMBER 20, 2005 page 1 AGENDA TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 20, 2005 6:30 PM • STUDY SESSION > UPDATE ON POTENTIAL FINANCIAL-RELATED BALLOT MEASURES FROM OTHER JURISDICTIONS ■ Finance Staff > CONTINUE DISCUSSION ON POLICE DEPARTMENT ACCREDITATION ■ Police Staff • 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. 7:30 PM 1. BUSINESS MEETING 1.1 Call to Order - City Council 9 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 7:35 PM 2. CITIZEN COMMUNICATION (Two Minutes or Less, Please) Tigardd ern_a rhar„hnr ^f (-'nmmPr-cn Qepresentati a Chamber representative is unable to attend this evening. A Chamber Representative is scheduled to report to the Council on January 24, 2006 • Follow-up to Previous Citizen Communication - No follow-up from the December 13, 2005 City Council meeting. COUNCIL AGENDA - DECEMBER 20, 2005 page 2 7:40 PM 3. CONSENT AGENDA: These items are considered to be routine and may be enacted in one motion without separate discussion. Anyone may request that an item be removed by motion for discussion and separate action. Motion to: 3.1 Appoint Two Members and One Alternate Member to the Park and Recreation Advisory Board (PRAB) - Resolution No. 05-72 RESOLUTION NO. 05-72 - A RESOLUTION APPOINTING MICHAEL FREUDENTHAL AND TRISHA SWANSON AS MEMBERS ON THE PARK AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD AND APPOINTING KELLY JEAN JOHNSON AS AN ALTERNATE MEMBER ON THE PARK AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD 3.2 Approve the Washington County Cooperative Library Services Intergovernmental Agreement 3.3 Initiate Vacation Proceedings for an Un-Named Public Right of Way East of 74`' Avenue, Approximately 680 North of Durham Road (VAC2005- 00003) - Resolution No. 05-73 RESOLUTION NO. 05-73 - A RESOLUTION SETTING THE DATE OF A PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING THE VACATION OF AN APPROXIMATELY 7,845 SQUARE FOOT PORTION OF AN UNNAMED PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY WHICH LIES TO THE EAST OF SW 74TH AVENUE APPROXIMATELY 680 FEET NORTH OF DURHAM ROAD 3.4 Local Contract Review Board: a. Award Contract for General Legal Counsel Services to Ramis Crew Corrigan, LLP b. Award Contact for Labor Attorney Services to Bullard Smith Jernstedt Wilson • Consent Agenda - Items Removed for Separate Discussion: Any items requested to be removed from the Consent Agenda for separate discussion will be considered immediately after the Council has voted on those items which do not need discussion. COUNCIL AGENDA - DECEMBER 20, 2005 page 3 7:45 PM 4. PRESENTATION OF BRONZE SAFETY AWARD TO RISK MANAGER MILLS ■ Mayor Dirksen 8:00 PM 5. PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI-JUDICIAL) TO CONSIDER ANNEXATION OF SUNRISE LANE (ZCA 2005-00004) (Continued from November 22, 2005) REVISED REQUEST: The applicant is requesting annexation of nine (9) parcels containing 19.95 acres into the City of Tigard. An additional 5.66 acres has been included by means of consents by Patricia Marshall, Richard and Michelle Crombie, and Jennifer and Leighton Walsh. Therefore, this annexation is for twelve (12) parcels totaling 25.61 acres. LOCATION: North of Bull Mountain Road at 150`h and Sunrise Lane; WCTM 2S105DD Tax Lots 400, 500, 600, 700, 1000, 1100, 1300, 1400, 1500, 1600, 1700 and 1800. ZONE: R-7: Medium-Density Residential District. The R-7 zoning district is designed to accommodate attached single-family homes, detached single-family homes with or without accessory residential units, at a minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet, and duplexes, at a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet. Mobile home parks and subdivisions are also permitted outright. Some civic and institutional uses are also permitted conditionally. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: The approval standards for annexations are set out in Community Development Code Chapters 18.320 and 18.390, Comprehensive Plan Policies 2 and 10; ORS Chapter 222; and Metro Code Chapter 3.09. a. Public Hearing continued from November 22, 2005 b. Staff Report: Community Development Staff C. Staff Recommendation d. Council Discussion e. Close Public Hearing f. Council Consideration: Ordinance No. 05 - 19 Councilor: I move for adoption of the proposed Ordinance. COUNCIL AGENDA - DECEMBER 20, 2005 page 4 Councilor: I second the motion. Mayor: Will the City Recorder please read the number and title of the Ordinance. City Recorder: (Reads as requested.) ORDINANCE NO. 05-19 - AN ORDINANCE ANNEXING 25.61 ACRES, APPROVING SUNRISE LANE ANNEXATION (ZCA2005-00004), AND WITHDRAWING PROPERTY FROM THE TIGARD WATER DISTRICT, WASHINGTON COUNTY URBAN ROADS MAINTENANCE DISTRICT, WASHINGTON COUNTY STREET LIGHTING DISTRICT #1, AND THE WASHINGTON COUNTY VECTOR CONTROL DISTRICT (add following words if Council declares an emergency) AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY Mayor: Is there any discussion? Mayor (after discussion): Will the City Recorder please conduct a roll-call vote of Council. City Recorder: Conducts roll call vote. Mayor: Ordinance No. 05-19 (is approved or fails) by a (unanimous or however votes were split) vote. Tie votes =failure to pass R- IS PM This item to be considered during the 06/07 Budget process. QRM A J10NI SYSTEMS ~ y C0 NS1g€RATjC)h1 F riOCR A Pulr IN COORDINATOR RIII)CebrFINIDMFplT~n Ann a FULL-TIME r-tc Ca)ORMl.IIATne onc1T10h' a. Staff Repon:~A`armini3tci atFon and Flnai;ce Staff 19, G-o unril Ilicr,,gdnn r retrr enrolConsider~tcign -Resdtttt*nn hfnt~- 0 ~rcrrrr~TC~crcr r, 8:15 PM 7. PRESENTATION OF REPORT FOR THE INDONESIAN RESOURCE CITIES EXCHANGE PROGRAM a. Staff Report: Administration Staff b. Council Discussion COUNCIL AGENDA - DECEMBER 20, 2005 page 5 RECESS COUNCIL BUSINESS MEETING CONVENE COUNCIL WORKSHOP MEETING 8:45 PM 8. JOINT MEETING WITH THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL WATER BOARD ■ Staff Report: Public Works Staff Discussion Topics: a. Regulating Water Services Outside City Limits b. Locating Park Improvements on Surplus Property C. Selecting a Long-Term Water Supply 9:25 PM 9. DISCUSSION AND UPDATE OF THE WASHINGTON COUNTY COORDINATING COMMITTEE: TRANSPORTATION FUNDING, PROJECTS AND PROCESS ■ Staff Report: Engineering Department 9:35 PM 10. DISCUSS TUALATIN BASIN NATURAL RESOURCES COORDINATING COMMITTEE (GOAL 5) 9:45 PM 11. DISCUSS BRANDING/GRAPHIC IDENTITY DESIGN ■ Staff Report: Administration Staff 12. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS 13. NON AGENDA ITEMS 14. 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. 10:00 PM 15. ADJOURNMENT iladm%c thy\cca\2005t051220.doc COUNCIL AGENDA - DECEMBER 20, 2005 page 6 Item No. / For Council Newsletter dated ' dJ CITY OF TIGARD Engineering Department Shaping A Better Community MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Phone 503-639-4171 Fax: 503-624-0752 TO: Mayor and City Councilors Craig Prosser, City Manager FROM: Gus Duenas #t_ City Engineer DATE: December 16, 2005 SUBJECT: Access Easement to the Fields Property Revision to the "Grant of Easement" Document At the meeting on September 13, 2005, Council approved an amendment to the License Agreement with Fred Fields to continue maintenance of the Fields property east of the library site. The amendment added restrictions to the original agreement by prohibiting crossing during periods of wet weather or unsuitable ground conditions. At the meeting on November 8, 2005, Council approved an access easement to the Fields property along the alignment of the proposed Wall Street extension to Hunziker Street. Council authorized the City Manager to finalize and execute the documents necessary to grant the easement. I provided a copy of the draft "Grant of Easement" prepared by the City Attorney's office for your information. Since then, Mr. Fields has expressed concern that the document was not clear as to whether or not Mr. Fields could continue to cross City property north of Fanno Creek for maintenance of the Fields property east of the library site. The intent of the grant of easement is to satisfy the original License Agreement requirement to provide a permanent access to the Field property. There is a continuing need for periodic maintenance of the Fields property to minimize fire hazards during dry periods. To make it clear in the documents to be executed that the maintenance access is not terminated by the "Grant of Easement," Mr. Dominic Colletta of the City Attorney's office revised Section 7 of the document. The original Section 7 read as follows: 7. Easement in Lieu of Other Easement Rights. The easement granted herein is in lieu of and supercedes the easement described in that certain License Agreement between Grantor and Grantee dated , by which Grantor agreed to provide Grantee with an easement across the southerly fifty feet (50') of the Grantor Property upon circumstances described in the License Agreement. Grantee acknowledges and agrees that the easement granted herein is in lieu of the easement described in the License Agreement and the grant of easement contained herein fully satisfies Grantor's obligation to grant an easement to Grantee as described in the License Agreement. Section 7 is revised to read as follows: 7. Easement in Lieu of Other Easement Rights. The Easement granted herein is in lieu of and supercedes the easement described in that certain License Agreement between Grantor and Grantee dated , and amended , by which Grantor agreed to provide Grantee with an easement across the southerly fifty feet (50') of the Grantor Property upon circumstances described in the License Agreement. Grantee acknowledges and agrees that the easement granted herein is in lieu of the easement described in the License Agreement and the grant of easement contained herein fully satisfies Grantor's obligation to grant an easement to Grantee as described in the License Agreement. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the license set forth in the License Agreement, as amended, is not terminated by the easement granted herein, but shall remain in effect until such time as Grantee shall have actual, physical access to the Grantee Property. The revised section adds the language shown in bold text above to make clear that the amendment to the License Agreement authorizing maintenance access north of Fanno Creek is not terminated by the "Grant of Easement." It allows for termination of the maintenance access if Mr. Fields is able to access his property through the easement area, or through an alternate location (such as from Milton Court through the Metro property) if he is able to arrange for it. If you feel this is a substantive change, I will bring the matter back for Council consideration at the next available meeting. If you concur with the change and feel that it is for clarification and is not substantive, please let the City Manager know and we will finalize the documents and send them out for signature. c: Dominic Colletta, City Attorney's Office 1AEng1GusWlemorandumsWemo to Council Regarding revision to Access Easement Document.doc Memorandum Regarding Revision to the "Grant of Easement" Document Page 2 of 2 council mail councilmail - Water Board agenda items Page 1 From: "Bill Scheiderich" <bscheiderich@ci.beaverton.or.us> To: <craigd@tigard-or.gov> Date: Tue, Dec 20, 2005 12:11 PM Subject: Water Board agenda items Craig, I'm the Chair of the Water Board but may not able to attend the joint session scheduled with the IWB tonight as Durham will hold its December Council meeting tonight (advanced from Dec 27) and as their City Attorney I give that meeting priority (Councilor Carroll will likely miss the Tigard meeting for the same reason). I'll certainly stop by after the Durham meeting. Please distribute these comments to the other Councilors and staff on the subject of a long term water supply: 1. 1 would like to see an accounting of the amounts Tigard has spent over the years for either design studies or actual capital improvements relating to connections to the Joint Water Commission supply (for example, the new pipeline and pumps along Barrows Road) and relating to a potential future dam raise at Hagg Lake. At some point if not tonight perhaps staff or a consultant can advise whether pursuing these sources with additional money is not likely to produce a return. The Hagg Lake studies in particular, for which Tigard has been a major investor, are beginning to seem pointless. I think these costs should be considered before Tigard commits large sums of money to pursuing yet another potential source in Lake Oswego/West Linn. 2. I'd like to have a ball park estimate of what it would cost to invest in added capacity at the Wilsonville Treatment Plant and in the piping needed to extend that supply north from Sherwood. I'd guess that that info won't be available at tonight's meeting - for the same reason as above. 3. It would be useful to have the city attorney's opinion as to whether the price of water to be purchased from Portland will reflect, in the future, the cost of the capital improvements that the EPA may require Portland to construct (which I for one think is inevitable). I've read the proposed new purchase agreement and have my own opinion but the Council should have its attorney give his advice. Thank you. Bill Scheiderich OU -7 CA-L f--IAna .v WASHINGTON COUNTY ~9 , -3 0j aX T~W 0 lAior IC pV"A OREGON (Aeme-n4 '~aAj'( !1q December 5, 2005 Oyl ia. a0 • os- J TO ashi gton County Coordinating Committee FROM athYL htola, Director Land Use and Transportation SUBJECT: WCCC MEETING AGENDA DATE Monday December 12, 2005 TIME : 12:00 PM - 1:00 PM PLACE: Beaverton City Hall, First Floor Conference Room 4755 SW Griffith Dr. Beaverton, OR 97005 AGENDA i• 1. Visitors comments * 2. Approval of Minutes - November 7, 2005 Action i * 3. 2007 Federal Appopriations Priorities:. Action Century Blvd. Bridge Proposal r, i Presenter: John Wiebke, City of Hillsboro * 4. JPACT Membership Issues-- Discussion Presenter: Rex Burkholder, Metro Council * 5. Hwy. 217 Corridor Study PAC Recommendations Information Presenter: Bridget W ieghart, Metro * 6. Transportation Funding Plan Information Presenter: Blair Crumpacker, Washington County 7. MPAC Agenda Information Presenter: Richard Kidd, Forest Grove 8. Other Business Information JPACT Agenda WCCC Transportation Advisory Committee Next WCCC meeting agenda, draft Date change for January WCCC meeting The next WCCC Policy Group meeting is tentatively scheduled for Monday January 17, 2006. We will confirm this date prior to the meeting. If you have any questions, please call me at 846-8740. material enclosed in packet g:\users\blairc\wpdata\wccc\plcyagen07O5.doc Department of Land Use & Transportation • Administration 155 N First Avenue, Suite 350-16, Hillsboro, OR 97124-3072 phone: (503) 846-4530 • fax: (503) 846-4412 WASHINGTON COUNTY COORDINATING COMMITTEE POLICY GROUP MINUTES November 7, 2005 Voting Members: Roy Rogers, Washington County Rob Drake, City of Beaverton Richard Kidd, City of Forest Grove Sam Locklin, City of King City Dean Gibbs, City of Durham Bob Boryska, City of Tualatin Jef Dalin, City of Cornelius Keith Mays, City of Sherwood Sally Harding, City of Tigard Cheri Olson, City of North Plains Benny Holt, City of Wilsonville Tom Hughes, City of Hillsboro Others in Attendance: Kathy Lehtola, Washington County Susan McLain, Metro Councilor John Leeper, Washington County BCC Jon Holan, City of Forest Grove Kathy Busse, Washington County Allan McDonald, ODOT Dan Brown, Washington County Michael Sykes, City of Forest Grove Andy Back, Washington County Gus Duenas, City of Tigard Blair Crumpacker, Washington County Clark Bent', Washington County Kathryn Harrington, Citizen Kathleen Gorman, The Oregonian AmyJoe Brown, Community Newspapers The meeting was called to order at 12:07 PM. Agenda Item 1 -Visitors No visitors had comments to offer. Agenda Item 2 Minutes The minutes from the October 11, 2005 meeting were approved unanimously. Agenda Item 3 - MSTIP Dan Brown requested endorsement of the list of projects proposed for the MSTIP Extended initiative. He stated that the WCCC TAC had recommended approval of the package, and he provided an overview of public feedback received by the Department, noting that most comments were supportive and that most unfavorable comments related to the impacts of specific projects. He stated that the proposed Bethany and 185th projects received the most negative comments, primarily related to project impacts. Roy Rogers stated that staff may want to get an assessment of how much has been spent in different commissioner districts or perhaps on a city by city basis since Measure 50 was approved. Rob Drake stated that city of Beaverton taxpayers are paying approximately twice what they are receiving back in the form of projects. He complim"d the county board of commissioners, noting thatNeasure 50 had conyerted._.MSTIP' }evenues into general fund revenues, and that although the county was under no-obligation to continue to spend the funds on transportation projects, the County had done so anyway. WCCC November 7, 2005 meeting minutes December 5, 2005 Page 2 Rob Drake stated that the cit~ of Beaverton's only specific concern was that the section of Walker road between 158` and 185th needs improvement more than the section east of 158th, and that the city would encourage the County to make improvements to that section the highest priority. Richard Kidd asked for the timeframe for projects in the initiative. Dan Brown stated that it is a six-year program and that projects would be built with funding generated between July 2006 and July 2012. Mayor Kidd stated that it seems likely that there will be no other projects from the MSTIP program during that time. He stated that there are a lot of other projects that will not be funded during that time and that this fact should be remembered. He stated that he .doubted most people in the room would still be around when MSTIP Extended projects are complete, and that it would be important to document this point. He stated that David Hill Road is critically important to the city of Forest Grove. He stated that the city is planning 1200 houses in the area and that people living in the homes would be using the roads to Beaverton and Hillsboro. He stated that those roads would need additional capacity as well. He stated that six years from now Forest Grove would be in serious need of some projects. He pointed out that the city was not included on the MSTIP Extended brochure. Cheri Olson agreed with Mayor Kidd's comments and stated that it would be important to remember who had and who had not benefited from MSTIP initiatives. Roy Rogers stated that JPACT regularly deals with the question of whether available resources are being fairly distributed. He noted that an alternative might be to take a look and see what the geographic dispersion of projects is. He stated that perhaps there should be some formal action to state that areas that had not benefited from recent rounds of projects should in the next. Richard Kidd stated that that should not be necessary. He stated that the County has done a lot with maintenance funds in the city areas, and that he appreciates that. Jef Dalin stated that he is concerned.that so much change is going on in western Washington County, and that six years is a long time to have to wait for necessary improvements. Richard Kidd said that the Forest Grove area is changing quickly and that he wouldn't know which projects to expect to be most important for the next round of funding. Kathy Lehtola stated that the issue of what to do about important but unfunded projects feeds into the next item, the Transportation Funding Plan. Keith Mays moved to recommend approval of the proposed MSTIP Extended package. The motion was seconded and approved unanimously. WCCC November 7, 2005 meeting minutes December 5, 2005 Page 3 Agenda Item 4 - The Transportation Funding Plan Blair Crumpacker distributed a draft of a letter to city officials that provided some background on the funding plan project and a description of a proposal to polling Washington County residents to identify a baseline of community attitudes on transportation issues. The letter was requested by the WCCC the previous month. He stated that if it appeared to be all right he would send it out later in the week, and suggested that if WCCC members had any problems with it to let him know during the next couple of days and he would defer the mailing. Clark Berry distributed an overview of the results of an analysis of transportation needs and expenditures for the cities and the county. He stated that the values had been adjusted to reflect circumstances in North Plains, Banks and Gaston, which had not been incorporated in the previous work because of an absence of data from them in the state database used in the analysis. Mr. Berry stated that all considered this added approximately $29 million to the approximately $2.5 billion in capital need already identified for county and city transportation systems. He stated that approximately $1.2 billion of that capital need is on the County's transportation system and approximately $1.3 billion is on the cities' systems. He stated that revenue trends point to approximately $1 billion being available to address those needs, leaving a $1.5 billion shortfall. Mr. Berry stated that Operations and Maintenance needs were estimated to cost approximately $745 million to address during the next 20 years, and that approximately $541 million is expected to be available to meet them, based on recent trends. This would leave a shortfall of approximately $204 million. Mr. Berry then described eight pie charts in the handout that describe where revenues are expected to come from. There was some discussion regarding the amount of specific needs and resources. Mr. Berry suggested that if WCCC members had additional questions or suggestions after reviewing the materials further to let their staff members know. Referring to the draft letter distributed by Mr. Crumpacker, Rob Drake stated that he would prefer that the letter provide city officials with some specifics about the cost and nature of proposed the polling and survey work. Andy Back stated that county staff would return with a map of the needs that were addressed in the analysis. Ms. Lehtola stated that the funding plan would be a regular item on WCCC agendas for the foreseeable future. WCCC November 7, 2005 meeting minutes December 5, 2005 Page 4 Agenda Item 5 MPAC Agenda Richard Kidd stated that proposed ordinances affecting Fanno Creek and Rock Creek would be presented, and that a visioning process was expected to take up most of the MPAC meeting. Agenda Item 6 JPACT Agenda It was noted that Roy Rogers and Rob Drake would be attending JPACT. Agenda Item 7 Other Business It was noted that an 15/99W Corridor Study PAC meeting was scheduled for the same day as the WCCC in December. Staff agreed to address the conflict. Roy Rogers stated that it was clear that the JPACT project identification process is something our representatives in Washington take seriously. He stated that the federal government is focused on activities geared toward job creation these days. Richard Kidd stated that it would be important to make sure that all of the projects get on the regional priority list for federal appropriations, even if they're not prioritized. He stated that otherwise we would be better going with an ACT or some other mechanism than JPACT. There being no other business, the meeting was adjourned at 1:04 PM. Kathy Lehto a, Secretary Washington County Coordinating Committee Pg1105 Century Blvd. Bridge N CITY OF HILLSBORO - Metro Area m Appropriation r0 Request Liberty High Future School Sunset Hwy. Century Blvd. Corridor Flyover i Existing x., \ ■ ■ ■ ■ Unimproved/Planned Hillsboro -I --1- LRT Line \ Stadium ® LRT Stop Transit Bus Line Evergr It Orenco Town Center _ Urban Growth Boundary 1:25,000 o ra ,,goo z.eroei i Intel Ronler ~ l v Acres 1_1 orenco J ~1 Z / L[D ~ C all Wall - Hill REL J 1 Isom - BRIDGE 6 Sell HIT Mpg f 0-i Noble Woods Park _1 1 1 ,tom WIN UP ~g® h 2n Century High School t,tl ell. _ - 1 L nil Witch Hazel Village Ste _ 1 7441a/atin Vaiiey hl fix, - ~.l ~ha D s d I W'• 1"MI.tn®i ~+x~u Vol t March 2005 Aerial Photography 1 k r DRAFT - Part Two: Work Plan Element - Complete this portion after the council project is approved by resolution. This element is presented to council for approval by motion. N 1) Project Manager: Kim Ellis; -S nior Ts~ portation Planner ~ and-the role of Metro councilors?) 2) Metro Role (What is IIYIe'tro' rol' • Lead agency/MetFopelftan Planning Organization responsible for coordination of update • Approve work program and public participation plan • Main steering body for policy development and coordination with 2040 New Look • Lead MPAC and JPACT discussions 3) Stakeholders (Who are the major stakeholders and implementing parties? How will stakeholders and the public participate in the project?) • Stakeholders in the expanded update will include the 25 cities, three counties, five transit districts and port district that service the Metro region; City of Vancouver and Clark Co., Wa.; citizen and business advocacy groups; and state and federal regulatory officials. • Local, state and federal government participation will be coordinated through MTAC, TPAC, MPAC, JPACT, established County Coordinating Committees and technical work teams. • A detailed public involvement plan will be developed with the help of consultants as part the scoping phase between February-March 2006. Public involvement is proposed to be targeted throughout the project, relying on Metro's website, project newsletters and other outreach strategies that could include scientific public opinion surveys, focus groups, town hall meetings, civic journalism and other public outreach strategies designed to provide a broad and measurable sampling of public priorities. Appointment of a RTP advisory panel of citizen and business representatives is proposed to help guide the policy component of the update activities, in accordance with recommendations from the scoping exercise. Opportunities for coordination with the 2040 New Look and 2008-11 Transportation Priorities processes will also be identified during the scoping phase. 4) Major Milestones See Attachment 1 - 2035 RTP Milestones Phase 1: Scoping (November 2005 - March 2006) Release of Consultant RFP Engage stakeholders and targeted public involvement • Identify key questions/issues to be resolved Publish State of Transportation in the Region report • Adopt work program and communication strategy Page '1 November 29, 2005 Phase 2: 2040 Research and Policy Development (April - December 2006) • Ongoing coordination with 2040 New Look • Develop base 2035 revenue forecast • Publish State of Transportation Finance in the Region report • 2035 base case transportation analysis • Develop and stage public opinion survey and targeted public involvement • Identify public transportation priorities • Develop transportation scenarios and policy alternatives for 2040 New Look • Adopt financial forecast • Adopt growth forecast (adopted as part of New Look activities) • Adopt 2040 New Look Policy direction for RTP (adopted as part of New Look activities) Phase 3: System Development and Policy Analysis (February - December 2007) • Identify financially constrained and illustrative project lists • Analyze transportation system networks • Update plan components (e.g., policies, project lists, performance indicators, regulations, corridor refinement plans) • Conduct conformity analysis • Adopt 2035 RTP • Financially constrained system and illustrative system project lists • Performance indicators • Regional investment strategy • New urban area and corridor planning work program guidance • State/Federal findings • Public hearings and comment opportunities on 2035 RTP document Phase 4: Post-Adoption Federal and State Consultation (January - March 2008) • Federal certification • State post-acknowledgement review process • DLCD and OTC consultation on possible OHP and TPR amendments 5) Communications (What is the communications plan? If incomplete, how and when will it be developed?) Metro's Transportation Planning Public Involvement Policy and federal regulations require development of a "Participation Plan." A communications plan will be developed with the help of consultants as part the scoping phase between February-March 2006. 6) Staff Work Products (What will be produced by Metro staff, consultants, or staff from other organizations?) Product Responsible Party Due Date Develop Project Proposal Metro staff - Kim Ellis November 9, 2005 Develop General Work Program Metro staff - Kim Ellis November 29, 2005 Release of Request for Proposal for Metro staff - Kim Ellis December 1, 2005 consultant contract Other work products to be defined following Council discussion and development of detailed work program with Contractor. Page 2 November 29, 2005 Attachment 1 r i METRO 2035 Regional Transportation Plan A New Look at Transportation MAJOR MILESTONES Phase 4: Phase 1: Phase 2: Phase 3: pp~ Post-Adoption Scoping Decision 2040 Research and Decisio System Development Decision Federal and State Now to February Policy Development January and Policy Analysis December Consultation March 2006 L 2006 April to December 2006 162007 February to December 2007 January to March hh~_ V i__.Ad 111111I.-Z _W111111 1 2008 • Engage stakeholders Adopt work . Ongoing coordination • Adopt financial • Identify financially Adopt 2035 RTP: • Federal certification • Identify key program and with 2040 New Look forecast constrained and illustrative • Project lists . State post- issues/questions to communication process • Adopt 2040 New projects . Performance acknowledgement be resolved strategy . Develop base revenue Look policy . Analyze transportation indicators review process • Draft work program forecast direction for RTP systems • Regulations • DLCD and OTC p New urban area consultation (OHP and • State of . State of Transportation (including future - Update plan components Transportation in Finance in the Region growth vision)* . policies and system and corridor TPR amendments) the Region report report • Adopt preferred maps planning work (system conditions • 2035 base case needs 2035 forecast* • modal targets program and issues) analysis - performance indicators . Regional • Targeted public • Develop and stage - corridor refinement investment involvement public opinion survey * Adopted as part of plans strategy Identify public New Look activities - regulations • State/federal transportation in December 2006 • other elements as findings priorities needed Inter-related . Develop transportation • Conformity analysis activities scenarios and policy . Targeted public • 2040 New Look alternatives for 2040 involvement Regional Freight Plan New Look . Targeted public Page 3 involvement November 29, 2005 P q Highway 217 Corridor Study jt { t, >G Phase 11 Overview Report - Study Findings" and Preliminary Recommendation ~ November 16, 2005 f z T' _ k y s~ FFF „r Sdjoll,; Fern' Road ` ea'* 3{ .y is A S :il'~';t Rutu<u;ctrd ~ a: } pgIp t- y Ok - M • • • • • Study purpose Highway 217 is the major north-south transportation route for r' the urbanized portion of Washington County. Traffic volumes m have doubled in the past 20 years as the county has grown into a h- - Portland booming high-tech and residential center. Peak corridor travel is expected to increase an additional 30 percent during the next 20 years. ; Every transportation planning effort that has looked at this part of the region has identified the need for additional capacity on Highway 217. a e~ -Re91n,~a~~a ~Study goals and objectives ~ ~ ~ T 4 'I 4-' The goal of the Highway 217 Corridor Study is to develop transportation improvements that will be implemented in the next 20 years to provide for efficient movement of people and goods through and within the corridor while supporting economically dynamic and attractive regional and town centers . u ' . and retaining the livability of nearby communities. r i Objectives: k ' e d f } 1. Provide a proactive, comprehensive and engaging public t a it` involvement effort. 2. Enhance effectiveness of the transportation system. r E 3. Provide a feasibility assessment of. each alternative. 4. Support neighborhoods, businesses and the natural environment. A n 5. Ensure that benefits and impacts associated with selected' y j x Rogional centers ' strategies are equitable to minority and low-income communities in the corridor. Industrial areas n Employment areas,, - 6. Conduct a conclusive and thorough study with results that can be Study Extent implemented.- ur The study, which began in 2003, is a cooperative effort by Metro, Washington County, the Oregon'Department of Transportation, TriMet, and the cities of Beaverton, Lake Oswego and Tigard. 2 Critical issues Study approach • Increased transportation needs have resulted from The Highway 217 Corridor Study is being completed in two phases. employment and residential growth in Washington County. Phase I developed and analyzed a wide range of multi-modal alternatives in the fall of 2004. Alternatives were evaluated as to • Highway 217 is the principal north/south access to how well they addressed the study objectives in terms of travel Beaverton and Washington Square regional centers, five town performance, environmental and neighborhood effects, financial centers, and industrial and employment areas in Kruse Way, feasibility and cost effectiveness. Based on this evaluation, the Hillsboro, Tualatin, and Wilsonville. alternatives were refined to three options that have been studied in more detail. This report summarizes the findings of the Phase II • Today's peak hours of congestion will nearly triple by 2025 evaluation, and the preliminary PAC recommendation. (from 2.5 to 8 hours).-~ Highwa617 Alternatives • Safety concerns are the result of short distances between interchanges. Phase I Phase If Option If Artedal,.transii_a d~~ Selected arterials to be • Freight traffic has doubled in the past ten years (8 percent of 6terchange improveme s\ included with all current traffic volume). options • The cities of Beaverton and Tigard have developed a series of Option 2 Six ane m" Not considered for trails, paths and bikeways which need to be linked together interchange Improvements further action to connect regional centers and community resources. • Pedestrian trails and walks in the corridor have notable gaps that need to be completed. NMI Option 4 Six lane with carpool lanes Not considered for further action Policy advisory committee (PAC) A committee comprised of 20 elected officials, business ' representatives and area residents has been providing guidance x throughout the study process. Final committee recommendations on options to move forward and other next steps will be presented / to regional elected officials later this fall. options moved forward to Phase li 3 Key study elements common to all options Interchange improvements* Arterial improvements, Transit improvements Bicycle/pedestrian Regional trails Braided Ramps: Parts of: Bus service enhancements improvements improvements Walker/Canyon Walker Road Commuter rail from Parts of: Fanno Creek Trail Beaverton-Hillsdale/Allen Cedar Hills Wilsonville to Beaverton Cedar Hills Blvd. (crossing of Hwy. 217) Scholls Ferry/Greenburg Canyon Road Watson Ave. Washington Square Greenbelt Split Diamond: 125th Ave. Beaverton Creek Greenway Allen/Denney Oleson Road Hunziker Street Allen Blvd. Hall Blvd. Other: Greenburg Road Multiuse path between Barnes Road SW 72nd Ave. 1-5 and Hwy. 217 SW 72nd Ave. Gaarde Street Hall Blvd. Dartmouth Street Highway 99W Nimbus Road Potentially preferred interchange designs • Included in the RTP Financially Constrained list uSplit diamonds Braided ramps ; address the merge/ separate exiting l.._ _ weave conflict by traffic from entering I s reducing the number traffic by creating a . V,, of interchanges and bridge for vehicles I connecting them entering the with frontage roads, freeway that does Tt. I.. This solution was not descend to the applied at Canyon freeway until it has i Road and Beaverton- crossed over the lane Hillsdale Highway on of traffic exiting the k 4 Highway 217 where freeway. In this way, ' i,.. -i access to two streets traffic engineers + . wm is combined into one "braid" ramps with ` f interchange. Drivers some traffic crossing . entering Highway over and some 217 going north crossing under to from Beaverton- prevent accidents. z Hillsdale Highway use a frontage road to enter at the Canyon - R Road entrance. .mow-wu..:~.Y, _ - 4 „ : .....:F<, ~Y:M~;~?~"'~..:••~:;?.w.4_ Base case: In the evaluation _ :r:~:::=:7;. I multi modal portions t opions of thi r < . ~ _ intersections is stud he Base Case assumed O:rrera l y + K , .:,..:r - the current 4-lane highway design and existin in gkl 9 r< evaluated of residential and em to ment .,,_:r•-° ,.:>,..:~~<..,,,.s. ,q;:,~.n„•.~rY~~;~ develo mentlt .:::;,.:-::.':,:..:,..::;:..:.~.::...;.~-a~-~::r~.<.:.;._ ~~:~..•:~M.._.;', ~~:r,.~g,....?n :.E:..:~ a, also nc udes arterial levels transit service improvements which . a are anticipated ~x~K;;,;'.' •~;~:r. ated to be built by 2025. on ceu~fers Access :to e. i, • `alt r AIJ o d' -.r. f` ,~9, ro~eacce~s;~;,t x► -1; n:,P: _.1r .~iy'.. ,1"!![': li'~.. ;Y°,F"rr:'~. _"~vr~T• :i:Y': Level of stud anal Is' ttrd:t"CdGfld"or :C ovveye~~=t} `"tstti:d`' ' - x"h Y Approximately one to three per -:Wa E~.,_~ cent of actual 'ide' . .fied a.serr' . en ineerin for each es of north south ar~enai?tm, provements ~~woaid g 9 ch option has been completed. More detailed design and 4.4 W, try environmental analysis is needed before a final alternative can be selected significantly;,enfi'anceylocal,access ,1hes2 inc[uc# irnpi4eiets;and;.,:"•.:":' extensions W p©R~ Hs o~d'r'eenl7urgE~bacj fVrr bu i a l and built. Bot~leva`fd~` r~ts~, t v cps k ~ Funding ~a s ka}~ cdk~` ~'s~ a aid SU(}~A Ue Px` considerations: Due to a lack of to trap tion fund available funding a .~r..=,.,. r....:: "=t: considerations u' u,; Tom; have been a major us of the studyState ,z., 4.~~ and regional policy requires rr' :+Y~+ IMJ,,:^i<.'i'-t'^i:• k.Y o'ect to con eve major r $'IC'',cle:edstrFtin'"```! ' r' every P J Sider tolling. In the Y. p. C it men.datV i'V..;, proposed options, tolls area "user fee" Aftier_5eueralx'rattfh Y~ charged only to people who use the tgs I'r: n ' t ~ I r new tolled lane and/or ram meter bypass. Other funding options have been _,cotnmu✓t Eyy~a _ 66 rf M- 0, and will continue to be considered. Due to the large funding gaps and the i'm:pro, ~Mj Fri s eve d;der j iGi 1M! size of th e project, a phased project is likely. `h-a`I =tTrilk ~ni st af~ J f +n a :x : d e5J _ , . Phasing .Given traditional funding amounts, a ~,:~•,.a,.~,:;n.:•,.,.r':~ ~ G;; 5 combination of interchange reconstructions and arterial street N: Z ;,z's.:~;.:-, :,.,:<<>., a ,•F.; ',r..:,.::.:,b.~r:`',; •~<s;.. improvements could be K.r made prior he construction of new through TS- •r.~t:'~. 0_ lanes on P G a its ''~.ik.~=;; ^4F Highway 217. Making these improvements first will address some Zr :d'rta x r ;L k tcTs immediate congestion and safety problems and will assist in reducing construction disruption. If ;flow:an'd sa `'r" rr:• h':: additional fund YK„Q i;g} . & I of t n' r<' s become available, the roJect r' ' 16r , r E<<t ,......;ku?, could be constructed in geographic segments. Priority interchange improvements i r x:: tf..:::,:::::.x:z;:'::.:.: include Beaverton Hillsdale, Allen and Denne _.:Y,.-..._,....._<. _ : - ,~;r~~r~r-~ti~: .x . he earliest 41'Y,: K~,:,....W+>tN' Y• 'l..'Y::RE':. A.... q,);,: ,YYj ''k,." *..L•~ - ~ - • completion ate has been calculate to be 2014, 4, however this assumes an _:~,..,,,..-.:...,r.:__,>~,....,~ immediate start to a preliminary engineering/environmental impact Frergf E.' ay~r~ a~t~>Yon~~t[`lsn~fi~~ rn w~'~{x~ statement as well as securing funding ocJs2 d~~ _!"rBen~a = ' 9., r r~e3~, iEls zi-;; 1r d?::,;t 'dsthl` re'.iri'owit for I le and t:tf cen errs aBeavef;4o~'n T°"a>d c all users: Results from other tolling projects around the .t , s, p• , , 9 . Eke Oswego1~d 1/Vaskftti :an a o tEtefw { r , • T r'- _ : s ountry indicate that all income groups use and favor an q,, express toll lane, e.aptionsp,ra!'~ee"~trre:;sa it "so~Ytii~Ecti t:Th2 eh *m,. - rs:., . Wis.;. ; Ji. ; g .'ePP31 althou h it is used more 3ei.a :;yva 9 often by those in higher income groups. With a P_:. tC fin ose ~a, corr estr o srrsprdeoueal ~ielfeira'If'e Theex' e'', everyone has travel choices including using the regular (untolled) -h;r„•ar; lane, driving on the tolled lane at a r asst~'rr%ed~;to:~ha e~ar~ ss,'tc3 ~ ~ ~•r° °FY'~'> ~~?'~~-.x:~.~,~5~;..~„F.' educed fee during less congested times =.E . e fe d i.i trrp )"V3 MOO E11a µ die T, s of the day, carpooling to share the fee and taking transit. - - . xvS-., ,,,,~Jj ~t;,-'.,,.~,_s~ Congestion is greatest during traditional co cawld; ipi tht' mmutin hours morning (early i and late x,:.` t: s•,... r afternoon). Studies of existing tolling sow t , `w~ f..;T~ t M- projects that higher _"s«L .2~ia 'd,"Y:i:?:,:"t~,.t°qs.;c` ,,-.r'„-..-,':..: income drivers tend to travel more y(• during these peak hours. Unlike a peak a } } 6`•` toll, the gas tax requires everyone to pa the same fee even if they are traveling during uncon sted hours. ~-d 's4+i:.'.u~'T.{.Y,;:1 ..0 i-- ::N~'•' ` - _ ~=1'_Y:y~.c`,Lk: SnaY.~-. ' . ..v 3_.., ....v _ - cam'-~'..,%rs ~`-Y<.: ~!•~.uja,~. ::F y.Fr..!~:ast a__..>~`~,: ;iS:'.,rxr.E _ `'Y: r~:`_- _~',~•,~=~_.::.'y% T~ 5 Option A -:Six Lanes .af._ :.r t:: h w:-,.• _.r u.~-un ?...F: _.4s:^ .~.-.s~„,.... s r.isr a~ ~.k.A......'~..:.e _ + + + Overview: This option would include an This option offers the most overall congestion relief and fastest + additional travel lane in each direction that will average drive times for all drivers on Highway 217 (saves 3 minutes E be open to all traffic on Highway 217. Like all over base case). options, includes substantial interchange Wetland impacts: approximately 2.8 acres. + + + improvements to resolve merge and weave Largest funding gap - capital cost $523 million with an estimated funding gap of conflicts which create safety and congestion $504 million (in 2014). ' + + problems. Without supplemental revenues, estimated construction completed in 2089. • Overall congestion relief benefits all trucks. • Public acceptance: prefer ease of general purpose lane but concerns about projected construction timeline with traditional funding sources. Option B, - :Six lanQS .VVJth Express Toll Lanes - + + + i Overview: This option would include a rush- Fastest travel time in toll lanes (saves 8.5 minutes over base case). + ' hour toll lane in each direction in addition to • Saves travel time in general purpose lanes (saves 1 minute). Tci+ Toil , , the existing lanes of Hwy 217. Drivers would Express trip incentive for transit and carpools.' be able to enter and leave the express lane at I- Wetland impacts: approximately 3.2 acres. Sand US 26 as well as at one intermediate Smallest funding gap - capital cost $581 million with an estimated funding + + i + point between the Washington Square and gap of $332 million (in 2014). r + Without supplemental revenues, estimated construction completed in 2028. Beaverton regional centers. Tolls would be Small trucks access toll lane and all trucks use ramp meter bypasses. collected electronically without requiring Public acceptance: more acceptable as funding mechanism but reservations stopping at a tollbooth. It also includes about complexity and feasibility of tolled facilities and about equity for all bypasses of ramp meters for toll lane users, users. Express bus service has been.provided to take advantage of time savings on toll lanes and ramps. - . Option, C Slx LaneM[th'Tolled Ka o- 0r M#ter Bypass e - J, Overview: This option would include an This option offers the most overall congestion relief and fastest average drive ' additional unrestricted travel lane in each times for all drivers on Highway 217 (saves 3 minutes over base case). -Coll i i direction on Highway 217 in addition to a new Wetland impacts: approximately 2.8 acres. + + . Drivers who Significant funding gap - capital cost $540 million with an estimated funding ti lane on the entrance ramps e ; choose to use the new express ramp lane to gap of $449 million (in 2014). + + bypass the queue at the ramp meter would pay ' All trucks can access ramp meter bypasses. c + i Without supplemental revenues, estimated construction completed in 2042. + a toll. Trucks would be allowed to use the Public acceptance: limited toll revenue and negative perception of ramp bypass lanes. Express bus service has been bypass concept reduces the attractiveness of this option. provided to take advantage of time savings on toll lanes and ramps. 6 Note: All capital costs are in 2005 dollars. Estimated Construction Costs and Funding Gap (2014) Average Auto Travel Time on Highway 217 (in minutes) Hours of Vehicle Delay on Highway 217 Phase II Alternatives Southbound from US 26 to 1-5 Iooo (BUnfunded Gap EEstimated Revenues (2014) t8 16 8% 22% 22% 600 decrease soo 14.. decrease 400 12 3 600 10 decrease 1/0 49% 300 - soo decrease Pcirpale 8 zoo 6- Q 500 4- a 100 4 2 { 0 0 Option A Option B Option C Financially Option A Option B Option B Option C Financially Option A Option B , Option C Constrained Tolled General Constrained Base Base Lane Purpose Lane Summary Transportation . ! Public optimal of key findings "feasibility: 0 pinion moderate , a4~+ ;W ~W Over-all congestion Fastest possible Potential impact to Projected funding gap Acceptance relief and drive time drive time identified wetlands in 2014 least optimal on Highway 217 *From Phase It analysis Option A Six lanes ~r Option B~, s, Six lanes with ` express toll lanes Option C~. Six lanes with tolled ramp meter bypass= F" For more detailed information on key findings, see the following reports: "Transportation Performance Report", Metro, July 17, 2005, Memo: 'Phase II - Potential Environmental Impacts-, Metro, August 26, 2005, Memo: "When Could Highway 217 Alternatives Be Built with Traditional Funding?, ECONorthwest, August 29, 1005, "Phase II Public Involvement Summary, Metro, September 2005 7 December/January: The final PAC recommendation will be forwarded to JPACT and the Metro Council for review and approval. Conclusions from corridor studies are drawn without the level of engineering analysis and detailed environmental analysis that is completed as part of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The EIS would be the next logical step for many projects identified or proposed in this document. Overall Recommendations for Regional Consideration The PAC recognizes that the region needs additional transportation funding and supports efforts to increase funding at federal, state and local levels. Due to the large funding gaps under all options, in the near term, seek higher funding priority for Highway 217 improvements at federal, state and local levels. ODOT, Metro, and local jurisdictions should seek to include priority interchanges or other appropriate elements of the Highway 217 project in any state, regional or local transportation funding measure. • ODOT, Metro, and local jurisdictions should consider seeking a federal earmark for Highway 217 in the next federal transportation reauthorization. Seek funding to commence a corridor study of the section of 1-5 between Highway 217 and Wilsonville. The Highway 217 study highlighted the severity of the future bottleneck at this location. Each of the options worsened this bottleneck, particularly Options A and C, which drew the most new traffic to the corridor. • Policy Advisory Committee Members shall advocate for the above policy recommendations as appropriate. • ODOT, Metro and local jurisdictions should seek to amend the list of Highways of Statewide Significance.to include the Highway 217 project. 8 • Corridor . Recommendation Highway 217 Traffic Lanes Summary conclusion Recommendation The evaluation found that congestion within the corridor will increase from All of the options improve transportation performance on the corridor. The three to eight hours a day if no improvements are made over the next twenty PAC recommends that the general purpose and express toll lane options be years. There is a need and support for a new through lane in each direction carried forward because of greater public acceptance and the importance south of Canyon Road on Highway 217. of keeping potential financing options open. The tolled ramp meter bypass option should not continue as a separate option due to lack of public • The general purpose lane (Option A) offers the most overall congestion acceptance, limited potential revenues and the lack of projected usage for relief and the fastest average drive time on Highway 217. However, it is many of the tolled ramp meter bypass locations. Tolled ramp meter bypass anticipated to have the largest funding gap in 2014.* locations that have potential should be evaluated further in the EIS process • The express toll lane (Option B) offers some overall congestion relief and as part of the tolled lane option. the fastest travel time on Highway 217 for toll lane travelers, it offers an incentive for carpool travel and possible transit and would have the smallest Next steps funding gap in 2014.* • The general purpose lane with ramp meter bypass (Option C) has similar Amend the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) to indicate that the third travel benefits as the general purpose lane, but projections show limited through lane in each direction could be either a general purpose or a tolled revenue potential - approximately one-third that of the express toll lane lane. Metro, ODOT, Washington County, Beaverton and Tigard should seek option in 2014.* to amend the RTP to advance the project development work of the new through lane in each direction into the Financially Constrained RTP. Public comments were much more negative about Option C (the tolled Metro, ODOT and the local jurisdictions should seek to include in the ramp meter bypasses option). There was a perception that the ramp, meter draft 2008-2011 STIP funding for the Highway 217 Environmental bypasses are unfair and that people will respond negatively to those who Impact Statements. The Highway 217 EIS is important so that ramp and travel on them. The public reaction to the general purpose and express interchange improvements on the entire facility can be implemented as toll- lane was much more positive. Many people preferred the traditional funding becomes available. Additionally, the study would determine general purpose lane to the tolled lane from a transportation perspective. whether the lane should be a general-purpose lane or an express tolled However, due to concerns about the potential timeline for improvements lane. The EIS should also further consider the revenue contribution and test for the general purpose option and the sense that tolling is a fair way to pay public acceptance of tolling selected ramp meter bypasses as part of the for improvements (i.e. those that benefit pay for it), most people expressed tolled lane option. It should also consider the advisability of allowing trucks support for further study of the toll lane. larger than 26,000 pounds on a tolled lane. Finally, the EIS should develop more detailed revenue forecasts for the tolled lane and a financing and phasing plan for the preferred alternative. * Based on currently anticipated funding sources. 9 Highway 217 Interchanges Arterials Summary conclusion Summary conclusion Due to the close spacing of interchanges and the growth in traffic volumes, The arterial improvements in proximity to the corridor in the RTP Financially major interchange improvements are needed to avoid serious congestion Constrained System are critical for access to regional centers. These are listed and safety problems on the highway and adjacent intersections. None of on page four of the Phase II overview report. The evaluation also identified a the interchanges meet current highway spacing standards and interchange series of north-south arterial improvements and extensions to Greenburg Road, improvements are necessary to meet level of service standards in 2025. Hall Boulevard, Nimbus Avenue and SW 103rd Avenue, which support the Recommendation corridor travel needs. While these are not part of the recommended Highway 217 options, the north-south arterials would significantly enhance local access to In the short term, the.PAC recommends further developing and evaluating regional and town centers, reduce congestion on Highway 217 and were better at the following interchange improvements as part of a National Environmental reducing congestion than a package that also included several east-west arterial Protection Act (NEPA) process (along with other appropriate options). The improvements. following list provides a general order of priority for the recommended Recommendation interchange improvements, but implementation of these projects should respond to funding opportunities and local transportation needs and could occur in a In the short term, design and construct the arterial improvements within the different order. Engineering and specific design of the improvements should be financially constrained plans. The PAC recommends that local jurisdictions further evaluated in the NEPA process. evaluate the priority of the following north-south improvements as part of their First Tier Priority Transportation System Plan process. These projects are; Beaverton-Hillsdale/Allen Blvd. ramp braids • Greenburg Road Improvement (RTP 6031) - widens to 5 lanes from Tiedeman to Allen/Denney Road split diamond interchange Highway 99W. Second Tier Priority Nimbus Avenue Extension (RTP 6053) - a two-lane roadway extension from Canyon/Walker Road ramp braids Nimbus to Greenburg. Scholls Ferry/Greenburg Road ramp braids • Hall Boulevard Extension (RTP "I") - a new five-lane arterial north of Center Greenburg Road (major interchange improvement possibly single point interchange) Street to connect with Jenkins Road at Cedar Hills Blvd. Third Tier Priority • 103rd Avenue (RTP 6012) _ improve existing roadway on SW 103rd and SW 72nd Avenue (additional turn lanes with major interchange improvement construct new intersection alignments to provide a connection from Western - design to be determined) Avenue to Walker Road. Barnes Road (widening with additional turn lanes) • Nimbus Road Extension (RTP 3037) - a two-lane roadway extension of Nimbus Progress Interchange (interchange improvements including widening and additional Road from Hall Boulevard to Denney Road. turn lanes) • Hall Boulevard Improvement (RTP 6013 and 6030 North) - widen to 5 lanes from Highway 99W (revised access lanes to/from Highway 217, widening and additional Scholls Ferry Road to Highway 99W. turn lanes) Nextsteps Next steps Metro and the local jurisdictions should seek to find funding for key corridor Seek to amend local and regional transportation plans to add the interchange arterial improvements already in the RTP Financially Constrained Plan as part of the improvements, ODOT, Metro and local jurisdictions should seek to include the Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program updates. As part of the next design and construction of the Beaverton-Hillsdale/Allen ramp braids or other RTP, local jurisdictions should seek to include priority north-south improvements high priority interchange improvement in the 2010-2013 State Transportation from the preliminary PAC recommendation arterial list in the Financially Constrained Improvement Plan (STIP). Plan. 10 Bicycle and pedestrian facilities Transit service Summary conclusion Summary conclusion The study found a need for a north-south route to the west of Highway 217. A series of Peak hour commuter rail service between Wilsonville and Beaverton was assumed bikeways have been planned on the west side of Highway 217 in the cities of Beaverton and in all options. This and other transit improvements in the financially constrained Tigard; however, several portions of that bikeway have not been constructed. The completion system are needed to provide travel options and reduce congestion. Express bus of the bikeway trails would provide a continuous route to the west of Highway 217. service assumed to be provided on Highway 217 in the tolled alternatives attracted Additionally, there is a recognized need to provide a route for the Fanno Creek Regional Trail good ridership and achieved significant time savings over existing planned service. where it crosses Highway 217 (between Denney Road and Allen Blvd.). Phase I considered a trail underneath Highway 217. However this is not desirable due to seasonal flooding and Recommendation safety issues. Therefore, improvements should be made to the Denney over-crossing or a separate overpass should be provided. A connection of the Washington Square Greenbelt is The PAC recommends continued increases in transit service in the corridor study also needed. Both of these projects will be included in future studies and are included in all area over the next twenty years per the RTP. Express bus service on Highway 217, alternatives considered in the Phase II evaluation. expanded commuter rail service, and other appropriate transit service increases Recommendation should be examined as part of future RTP updates and ThMet's 2005 Transit Invest- ment Plan. The PAC recommends that priority be given to the following projects that complete a north- south route: Next steps In the Financially Constrained RTP: TriMet, Metro and local jurisdictions should seek to move up the timeline for implementing planned corridor transit improvements in the next RTP. Express bus. • • Hall Cedar Blvd. Hills Blvd. Bikeway (RTP 3046) Improvement - (RTP Beaverton-Butner-Hillsdale Road Hwy. to To Cedar Walker Hills Road; Blvd.; service on Highway 217, and other appropriate transit service increases, should be • Watson Ave. Bikeway (RTP 3047) - Beaverton-Hillsdale Hwy. To Hall Blvd.; examined as part of the EIS and future Regional Transportation Plan updates. • Hall Blvd. Bikeway (RTP 3074) - gap at Allen Blvd. In the Priority RTP System: • Nimbus Ave. Extension (RTP 6053 - replacement for Cascade Blvd.; New projects (not currently in the 2000 RTP): More information is available at www.hwy217.org. • Hunziker Street - Hall Blvd. to 72nd Avenue, and; • Multi-use path - connecting 1-5 to 72nd Avenue. • and the pedestrian path/walk improvements on all improved viaducts crossing Highway Public input is important to this process. Please send comments or 217 and a bicycle/pedestrian connection over Highway 217, or associated with the overcross- requests for information by e-mail to transQmetro.dst.or.us or call ing improvements on Denney Road, to the Fanno Creek Region Trail; and a connection to the Metro Transportation Planning at (503) 797-1757. Washington Square Greenbelt trail. Next steps The bicycle and pedestrian improvements to.overcrossings and viaducts identified above should be included in the Highway 217 project. ODOT, Metro and the local jurisdictions should seek funding to construct the Financially Constrained projects identified in the PAC recommenda- tion, above. ODOT, Metro and local jurisdictions should also seek to include the new projects projects in the next RTP Financially Constrained Plan and fund them, as funds become available. 11 WASHINGTON COUNTY AL. OREGON DRAFT December 12, 2005 To: Washington County City Managers and City Councilors From: Kathy Lehtola, Director Land Use and Transportation Subject: Transportation Funding Plan; Community Attitudes Assessment on Transportation Request: Review this memo and consider participating in development and funding of the assessment of Washington County community attitudes described in Attachment A. This memo responds to a request by members of the Washington County Coordinating Committee (WCCC) to provide an overview of the funding plan initiative and the proposed community attitudes assessment for officials who have not been directly involved in discussions of these matters. Background: Most local governments in Washington County have adopted new transportation plans within the last several years. Without exception, the needs identified in these plans exceed - generally by a wide margin the resources anticipated to be available to meet them. In recognition of this, the Board of Washington County Commissioners included a strategy in the 2020 Washington County Transportation Plan calling for an initiative to develop a comprehensive strategy for addressing these needs. County staff, partnering with other local government staff, are planning to do the work necessary to develop that plan during the next eighteen months. Although we've all reviewed our funding resources as part of our local government transportation plan updates, it has been nearly two decades since a comprehensive reassessment of countywide transportation funding policy and funding mechanisms has taken place. The last effort, in the early 1980s, resulted in the establishment of the policy framework that remains in place today. That policy framework establishes linkages between funding mechanisms and cost responsibilities. Its largest local elements and their primary uses are as follows: • Gas taxes and other motor vehicle fees are used primarily to pay for maintenance of the system • Traffic Impact Fees (TIF) levied on new development are used to help pay for expansion of the major roadway system • Property taxes (MSTIP) - Property owners pay to address system deficiency problems This earlier policy framework also anticipated that state and federal funding would continue to be available to help pay for local system improvements, although this has been less the case, particularly for capital improvements. The local funding mechanisms listed above continue to provide the significant majority of our locally generated transportation-related resources today. As presently structured, however, the revenues they generate will fall significantly short of what is needed to pay for our twenty-year system improvement and maintenance needs. This anticipated outcome raises several questions: • Should local governments increase the resources available for making improvements? Department of Land Use & Transportation • Administration 155 N First Avenue, Suite 350-16, Hillsboro, OR 97124-3072 phone: (503) 846-4530 • fax: (503) 846-4412 Transportation Funding Plan December 12, 2005 Page 2 • If so, how? Should we stick with the existing funding framework? If so, should we modify mechanisms like the countywide gas tax, or the Traffic Impact Fee? Should we develop another Major Streets Transportation Improvement Program (MSTIP) measure for voters to consider? If so, how large should it be, and what types of projects should be included? • How about developing new mechanisms local vehicle registration fees, or street utility fees, for instance? In which cases should local governments coordinate toward a common funding initiative - sharing revenues from a countywide or regional funding mechanism, for instance - and in which cases should the County or a city go it alone? • What if we don't think we can raise sufficient revenues? Should we rethink the needs identified in our transportation plans and reduce our expectations somewhat? If so, what will we choose not to do? A number of difficult questions tie before us. County staff anticipates that an early assessment of community attitudes toward the policy issues and funding mechanisms mentioned above will provide solid ground from which to begin discussing how to proceed with plan development. Some funding plan work has been undertaken. Working with the WCCC Transportation Advisory Committee, County staff have developed 1) a draft work plan that outlines activities to be undertaken during the next eighteen months, including how the community will be integrated into that process, and 2) an assessment of how well city and county 20-year transportation needs would be met if recent expenditure trends continue. Both of these products have been reviewed and discussed with the Washington County Coordinating Committee (WCCC) and the WCCC Transportation Advisory Committee. An overview of the draft work plan and a summary of the findings of the Needs and Expenditures analysis are available on request. Next Steps: During the next two months we anticipate: • Reviewing and refining the work plan, including public involvement activities. This is in advance of the plan-development kick-off and initial discussions with the public, which is scheduled during the first quarter of next year. • Reconstituting a funding plan advisory committee of public and private agency communications staff. • Continuing development of materials describing existing conditions and community discussion parameters. • Completing a baseline assessment of community attitudes assessment utilizing a survey as described in Attachment A. After reviewing this memorandum, if you have questions or would like additional information, don't hesitate to call Senior Planner Blair Crumpacker at 503-846-3878. Attachment CADocuments and SettingsWairc\DesktopTunding Plan\WCCC 112905 PI memo 1.doc A ISSUE: TBNRCC Involvement in the coordination of projects funded through the local share component of Metro's proposed 2006 Nature in the Neighborhoods bond measure. Discussion: If the TBNRCC is to have a role in coordinating how local natural area legacy funds allocated to Washington County jurisdictions would be spent, there are three alternative, approaches that have been identified by the Steering Committee: Controllinz: The TBNRCC would amend its formation agreement and enter into an IGA with Metro to be the recipient of the portion of the Local Natural Area Legacy Fund that is directed to qualified Washington County cities (those within Metro's jurisdiction), the county and THPRD. (Based on assessed value, the share to County Jurisdictions is estimated to be about 113 of the regional total.) Money received by the TBNRCC would be administered by Washington County. The TBNRCC would award money for projects from a previously selected list derived from the CWS Healthy Streams Plan to the interested local government(s) deemed most qualified to carry out the project, whether for acquisition or a capital improvement. Geographic equity would be a consideration in awarding project funding. Approving: Applying__Af-etr-o-sp - e, capita" allocation principles, legacy funds would be distributed by Metro directly to cities the county and THPRD. However, before funds could be ~ -,committed to a project by a recipient local government, the TBNRCC would review and approve the project for consiste~rCy_ w-ith_tAeTualatinBassin Program, including the CWS Healthy Streams Plan. The BIVRCC could not force a local government to sp""e'n'a'-its-legacy funds on projects outside ' s jurisdiction, but a local government could be encouraged to do that." iewin : As with the second alternative, legacy funds would be distributed by Metro directly to cities, the county and THPRD. Under this alternative, before funds could be committed to a, natural resource ac uisition or restoration project by a recipient local government, the TBNRCC would review he project for consistency with the Tualatin Basin Program and the Healthy Streams and/or the Metro's Local Natural Areas Legacy Fund Guidelines, andf suggest changes or opportunities for coordination or cost sharing with projects being considered by &ther`recipient local governments. The TBNRCC's role would only be advisory. The latter two alternativ-es_would require resolution of the issue of how money for porCl'ons of the urban unincorporated area and Beaver-ton--within-THP_RD would belistrib-ff led. If money is distributed on a per capita basis (it could also be distributed based on total assessed value), one option would be for it to go to Washington County based on its urban unincorporated area population and Beaverton based on its population. The County and the City could then pass the money on to THPRD. Another option would be for THPRD to be a direct recipient, and no money would go directly to Beaverton since almost all the City is within THPRD. Only a small amount of money would go to Washington County reflecting the population of the urban unincorporated area outside THPRD (e.g., parts of Bull Mountain and Cooper Mountain). A third option would be for a fixed percentage (e.g., 50%) of the funds for the population within the overlapping areas to go to THPRD and the remaining percentage to go to Beaverton and Washington County. AGENDA ITEM NO.2 - CITIZEN COMMUNICATION DATE : DEC. 20, 2005 (Limited to 2 minutes or less, please) Please sign on the appropriate sheet for listed agenda items. The Council wishes to hear from you on other issues not on the agenda, but asks that you first try to resolve your concerns through staff. Please contact the City Manager prior to the start of the meeting. Thank you. This is a City of Tigard public meeting, subject to the State of Oregon's public meeting and records laws. " written and oral testimony become part of the public record and is openly available to all members of the public. The names and addresses of persons who attend or participate in City of Tigard public meetings will be included in the meeting minutes, which is a public record. NAME, ADDRESS & PHONE TOPIC STAFF CONTACTED ' rV -~t I ' ( . li'LC !tit sM `e I ~;Qlti r.u v~i~c~ ~I f c> ~ L~j 1, Ile el-el 970-70 CITIZEN COMMUNICATION Page 1 0 DAVID W. HEYNDERIDKX 900 COURT ST NE s1o1 ACTING LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL SALEM OR 873014085 (803)988.1243 FAX (503) 373.1043 www.tc.state.or.us STATE OF OREGON LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL COMMITTEE December 15, 2005 Representative Jerry Krummel 7544 SW Roanoke Drive N Wilsonville OR 97070 Re: Annexation Dear Representative Krummel: You asked two questions relating to landowner consent to annexation. You and your constituents provided several documents for our review of a specific situation relating to the City of Tigard and an unincorporated area known as Bull Mountain. First, you asked whether a local government may require a landowner to consent to annexation as a condition for the delivery of an.urban service. Generally, the answer is yes. Annexation is one of the planning tools addressed in ORS chapter 195, which requires local governments to enter into cooperative agreements for land use planning and urban service agreements for the delivery of urban services. However, in this specific instance, the documents show electors rejected an annexation plan that, if approved, would have authorized annexation of Bull Mountain by the City of Tigard based on the delivery of urban services to the area. Second, you asked whether a local government may require a landowner to consent to annexation as a condition for the issuance of a building permit. Generally, the answer is again yes. Approval of a building permit requires compliance with local ordinances that are consistent with the state building code and authorized by the Director of the Department of Consumer and Business Services. However, the requirement for annexation is a local legislative policy and must be contained in a local ordinance to be enforceable. Annexation may not be a condition of approval for a building permit if a local policy favoring annexation has not been formally adopted as an ordinance. Urban Service Agreements ORS chapter 195 provides generally for coordination of comprehensive planning and urban service delivery among local governments. ORS 195.065 defines "urban services" as sanitary sewers, water, fire protection, parks, open space, recreation, and streets, roads and mass transit. Counties' are directed to coordinate the process of establishing cooperative agreements between the county, cities and special districts that provide an urban service.' ' Metro is assigned coordinative functions otherwise assigned to counties for the area within the metropolitan service district. 'ORS 195.020. k:loprr\07\Ic0018 bhc.doc R2presentative Jerry Krummel December 15, 2005 Page 2 Pursuant to the cooperative agreement, local governments that provide an urban service are directed to establish urban service agreements. Local governments must establish in their cooperative agreement "the role and responsibilities of each party to the agreement with respect to city or county approval of new development." Pursuant to an urban service agreement, a city or a special district that provides an urban service may develop an annexation plan that provides for the timing and sequence of future annexations of territory, the standard of service delivery required as a precondition of annexation and the planned schedule for providing urban services as described in the annexation plan.5 An annexation plan must be submitted to electors for approval.e Once an annexation plan is approved by the electors, subsequent urban services annexations take effect according to the plan.' Urban service annexations pursuant to an annexation plan under ORS 195.205 to 195.225 are in addition to other methods of annexation.' In this instance, your question relates specifically to the City of Tigard and efforts to annex territory within the unincorporated area known as Bull Mountain. Your constituents provided this office with a copy of the Tigard Urban Service Agreement, dated November 26, 2002, and the results of a measure on the ballot in November 2004 to approve an annexation plan relating to the area. Urban service annexation pursuant to an annexation plan adopted as part of an urban service agreement and approved by electors is a part of the public policy enacted in ORS chapter 195. However, because electors rejected the annexation plan for the Bull Mountain area in November 2004, the City of Tigard may not rely on provision of urban services consistent with the unapproved annexation plan as a legal basis for annexation. Annexation as a Condition of Issuance of a Building Permit ORS chapter 455 establishes authority for the Director of the Department of Consumer and Business Services to establish building codes and other related specialty codes by administrative rule.9 The state building code preempts local ordinances, rules or regulations that relate to the same matters encompassed in the state building, code unless the different local requirements are authorized by the director of the department. ° The director of the department may authorize a local government to administer a building inspection program." After approval by the director of a set of plans and specifications for the construction of a building, an applicant: shall submit the plans and specifications to a local building official prior to application for a building permit. The local building official shall review the plan for those features required by local ordinance or by any site-specific, geographic, geologic or climatic code requirements. A local building official shall issue a building permit upon application and presentation to the local building official of such a set of plans and specifications 'ORS 195.065. 4 ORS 195.020 (4)(c). 5 ORS 195.220. ' ORS 195.205. 7 ORS 195.215. s ORS 195.235. s ORS 455.020. ORS 455.040. i " ORS 455.148. kAoprr\07Vc0018 bhc.doc r Representative Jerry Krummel December 15, 2005 Page 3 bearing the approval of the director if the requirements of all other local ordinances are satisfied. 12 The question you asked is phrased broadly as whether a city may require consent to annexation as a condition of approval for a building permit when other applicable laws and ordinances have been satisfied. In reviewing the documentation flowing between your office and your constituents, it seems that the question is more precisely whether a city can require annexation as a condition of approval for a building permit when annexation is a policy of the city that has not been formally adopted as an ordinance.13 We believe ORS 455.685 answers that question on its face. A local building official may enforce "local ordinances." We also note that ORS 222.115 expressly authorizes a city to require a landowner to consent to eventual annexation in exchange for providing extraterritorial services to property.14 However, in this instance as well, the city must formally adopt a requirement for consent to annexation as a condition of service delivery as an ordinance to enforce that policy. An ordinance prescribes a permanent rule of conduct or government, while a resolution is of a special and temporary character. 15 A local government's legislative acts, in order to have continuing force and effect, must be embodied in an ordinance, while mere ministerial acts may be in the form of a resolution. The opinions written by the Legislative Counsel and the staff of the Legislative Counsel's office are prepared solely for the purpose of assisting members of the Legislative Assembly in the development and consideration of legislative matters. In performing their duties, the Legislative Counsel and the members of the staff of the Legislative Counsel's office have no authority to provide legal advice to any other person, group or entity. For this reason, this opinion should not be considered or used as legal advice by any person other than legislators in the conduct of legislative business. Public bodies and their officers and employees should seek and rely upon the advice and opinion of the Attorney General, district attorney, county counsel, city attorney or other retained counsel. Constituents and other private persons and entities should seek and rely upon the advice and opinion of private counsel. Very truly yours, DAVID HEYNDERICKX Acting Legislative Counsel By B. Harrison Conley Deputy Legislative Counsel 12 ORS 455.685. 13 It is noteworthy that we are talking about City of Tigard officials performing building inspections in unincorporated portions of Washington County. The city performs building inspections on behalf of the county under an intergovernmental agreement. For that reason, the city is obligated to perform inspections based on county ordinances, not city ordinances. 14 Your constituents expressed some doubt as to whether any of the urban services are, in fact, provided by the City of Tigard. We did not consider that issue because of our conclusion that policies must be adopted using appropriate local legislative process. 15 Thornton v. Portland Railway, Light and Power Company, 63 Or. 478, 484; 128 P. 850, 852 (1912). k:\oprr\07\Ic0018 bhc.doc AGENDA ITEM FOR AGENDA OF 12/20/05 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA Consider a Resolution Appointing Two Members and One Alternate Member to the Park and Recreation Advisory Board PREPARED BY: Dan Plaza DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK V_~YGI ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Council is being asked to consider a resolution appointing Mr. Michael Freudenthal and Ms. Trisha Swanson to four-year terms as members on the Park and Recreation Advisory Board, and appointing Ms. Kelly Jean Johnson to a four-year term as an alternate member on the Park and Recreation Advisory Board. All three terms will begin January 1, 2006, and expire on December 31, 2009. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Council adopt the resolution and fill the vacancies on the Park and Recreation Advisory Board. INFORMATION SUMMARY Two Park and Recreation Advisory Board member vacancies will occur on December 31, 2005. Also, one alternate board member vacancy will occur on December 31, 2005. Nine applicants applied for the three vacancies. The Mayor's Appointment Advisory Committee interviewed the candidates. The committee recommends the Council appoint Michael Freudenthal, a current board member, and Trisha Swanson, a current alternate board member to fill the two board member vacancies. Kelly Jean Johnson is recommended to fill the alternate board member position. All three terms will begin January 1, 2006 and expire on December 31, 2009. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED None VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY Community Character and Quality"of Life - Volunteerism Goal #1: "The city will maximize the effectiveness of the volunteer spirit to accomplish the greatest good for our community." Community Character and Quality of Life - Volunteerism Goal #1, Strategy #2: "Reevaluate and broaden volunteer selection process for city committees and task forces." ATTACHMENT LIST 1. Resolution 2. Biographical Information on Appointees FISCAL NOTES There are no costs associated with these appointments. Biographical information on Park and Recreation Advisory Board (PRAB) appointees Trisha Swanson has served as an alternate board member on the PRAB for the past -seven months. As a member of the PRAB, she also represents the board on both the Committee for Citizen Involvement and the city's Financial Strategy Task Force. She says she has enjoyed serving on the PRAB and being involved in the various discussions and processes regarding park and green space land acquisitions. She is eager to continue to serve the city. She is especially interested in further exploring the various recreation options related to the outcomes of the 2004 community survey. She believes recreation programs can create unity within the city and can provide an improved quality of life for all citizens, including young families, teenagers, adults and seniors. From 2001 until 2003 she served as a member of the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission in Eden Prairie, Minnesota. Trisha holds a Master of Business Administration Degree and a Bachelor of Science Degree in Computer Science from the University of Victoria, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada. Michael Freudenthal has served as a board member on the PRAB for the past two years. He holds a Bachelor of Science Degree in Biology from the University of Oregon. He works as a product manager for a food manufacturing company. Mr. Freudenthal has served as a youth basketball coach and has served on the Washington Square Regional Development Task Force. He says he has enjoyed his two years on the board and he looks forward to working on building a community facility and recreation facilities. Kelly Jean Johnson has lived in Tigard for the past ten months. She holds an MBA in sports marketing from the University of Oregon and a BSBA in marketing from Creighton University. She is currently a sales director with Brainstorm NW Magazine in Lake Oswego. She feels it is important for a city to provide its residents with safe, clean, enjoyable, and effective facilities, programs, and clubs to promote general health, well- being, education, and youth experiences. She wants to apply her experiences and education to assist in developing the programs and facilities to best serve the community. She has served on advisory boards including the U.S. Olympic Committee, the Ford Gorge Games, the Boys and Girls Club of Omaha, and the Cedar Rapids (Iowa) River Raiders USBL team. AGENDA ITEM # 3, Q_ FOR AGENDA OF December 20, 2005 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Washington Count Cooperative Library Services Intergovernmental Agreement PREPARED BY: Margaret Barnes DEPT HEAD OK //Z- CITY MGR OK ~V l U ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Washington County has issued a new Washington County Cooperative Library Services Intergovernmental Agreement. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve the Washington County Cooperative Library Services Intergovernmental Agreement. INFORMATION SUMMARY The new Intergovernmental Agreement stating the newly approved governance structure becomes effective January 1, 2006. The new governance structure was briefly discussed with the City Council at the October 18, 2005 Council workshop meeting. This Agreement shall remain in effect until such time as this Agreement is wholly or partially terminated pursuant to Section 9 of this Agreement. This Agreement has been reviewed by the City Attorney's office, and no issues or concerns were identified. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED None. VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY None. ATTACHMENT LIST A. Intergovernmental Agreement, Washington County Cooperative Library Services. FISCAL NOTES None. 1:\Lib\City Council Agenda Summaries\AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY SHEET-December,;_ 2005 - WCCLS Intergovernmental Agreement.doc zo r INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT WASHINGTON COUNTY COOPERATIVE LIBRARY SERVICES This Agreement is made by and between Washington County, a home rule subdivision of the State of Oregon hereinafter referred to as "County, on behalf of Washington County Cooperative Library Services, hereinafter referred to as "WCCLS," and the cities of Banks, Beaverton, Cornelius, Forest Grove, Hillsboro, Sherwood, Tigard, and Tualatin, and the Cedar Mill Community Library Association and the Garden Home Community Library Association, hereinafter referred to as "Contractor(s)." WITNESSETH WHEREAS, Washington County has approved funding for county-wide library services including non-fee access by County residents to public libraries operated by Contractors; and WHEREAS, a Public Library Services Agreement exists to define the method for distribution of those funds and the rights and responsibilities of WCCLS and Contractors in the provision of county-wide lbirary services; and WHEREAS, the parties to this Agreement are either units of local government empowered by ORS 190.010 to enter into an intergovernmental agreement or are private non-profit agencies operating public libraries; and WHEREAS, all parties are desirous of providing residents of Washington County with access to public library services and Contractors are capable of providing such access and services; and WHEREAS the participating jurisdictions now desire to enter into another Agreement to provide, among other things, for an Executive Board and Policy Board among the participating jurisdictions and assigning responsibilities thereto in order to serve as advisors to the County regarding the provision of county-wide library service; NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. DEFINITIONS The following definitions shall be used in constructing the following phrases, terms and abbreviations in this Agreement: A. WCCLS (Washington County Cooperative Library Services) - An agency of county government which exists to coordinate, contract for or provide a full range of library and information services to all residents of the county.. B. WCCLS Network - The consortium of public, academic, special and school libraries in Washington County, which exists to provide countywide library service. Page 1 C. WILInet (Washington County Inter-Library Information Network) - An integrated, automated library system, including but not limited to WILI, which is comprised of the integrated library system software (online circulation, public access catalog,. cataloging and acquisitions software), and other databases, Internet resources, central site hardware and telecommunications equipment. D. ,Qualified Borrowers - All Washington County residents, residents of counties with which Washington County has reciprocal borrowing agreements, and other paid card holders. E. West Slope Communi Library - The public library that is a department of WCCLS and managed by the County. For purposes of funding, West Slope is treated as a Contractor, but is not a signatory to this Agreement. F: WCCLS Library Directors' Board - The executive body of the WCCLS Network; advisory to the Cooperative Library Advisory Board and the WCCLS Manager. G. Cooperative Library Advisory Board (CLAB) - The board appointed by the Washington County Board of County Commissioners to develop, review and recommend library service policies, representing Public Library Services Agreement Contractors and the West Slope Community Library. CLAB is advisory to the Board of County Commissioners and to the Cooperative Library Services Manager. 2. TERM OF AGREEMENT This Agreement shall be in effect from January 1, 2006 and shall remain in effect perpetually thereafter, until such time as this Agreement is wholly or partially terminated pursuant to Section 9 herein. 3. GOVERNING BODY WCCLS shall continue to be governed by the Washington County Board of County Commissioners. A WCCLS Executive Board, described below, shall be established to advise the Board of County Commissioners and the Cooperative Library Services Manager on matters pertaining to the funding for countywide library services, distribution of financial. resources by.WCCLS for the provision of countywide public library services, and long term governance and funding strategies. The WCCLS Executive Board shall replace the current Cooperative Library Advisory Board. A WCCLS Policy Group, also described below, shall be established to provide technical and professional support and advice to the WCCLS Executive Board, to develop and implement policies and procedures for delivery of countywide public library services, and to advise the Cooperative Library Services Manager. The WCCLS Policy Group shall replace the current Library Directors' Board. Page 2 4. WCCLS EXECUTIVE BOARD A. Membership The Executive Board shall consist of twelve (12) voting Board Members ("Members") representing the ten current Contracting library service providers, the West Slope Community Library, and Washington County. For the cities of Beaverton, Cornelius, Forest Grove, Hillsboro, Sherwood, Tigard, and Tualatin, the Members shall be the chief administrative officers of those jurisdictions or their designees. For the City of Banks, the Cedar Mill Community Library Association and the Garden Home Community Library Association, the Members shall be representatives designated by the Contractors' governing boards. For the West Slope Community.Library, the Member shall be a representative of the community appointed by the Board of County Commissioners. The Washington County Administrator (or designee) shall represent countywide services. The Executive Board will meet as needed and will convene either prior to or immediately following the city/county managers' meetings. B. Non-Voting Members The Chair and Vice-Chair of the WCCLS Policy Group shall serve as Members of the Executive Board in an ex-officio capacity. C. Appointments to the WCCLS Executive Board Except as otherwise specified herein, appointments for all Contractors and the County are continuous and Members shall serve at the pleasure of their appointing authorities., The West Slope Community Library representative shall be appointed by the Board of County Commissioners for a two year term, which can be renewed. D. Responsibilities. The Executive Board shall advise the Board of County Commissioners, the County Administrator and the Cooperative Library Services Manager on issues pertaining to funding for countywide library services, the distribution of financial resources by WCCLS for direct public library services, and long-term governance and funding strategies. This includes but is not limited to the following matters: 1. Provide recommendations regarding contracts related to the provision of centrally provided support services when Board of County Commissioner approval, is required, 2. Review Policy Group recommendations for central service plans and budget allocations, forward the Executive Board's recommendations regarding the same to the County Administrator and the Board of County Commissioners for inclusion in WCCLS annual budget requests, 3. Review recommended allocation amounts and funding distribution formulas to be included in the Public Library Services Agreement; provide jurisdictional endorsements of such Agreements and recommend to the County Administrator and the Board of County Commissioners for approval, Page 3 i 4. Consider and recommend to the .Cooperative Library Services Manager, the County Administrator and the Board of County. Commissioners any changes regarding governance of Members or membership for WCCLS or the Executive Board, 5. Recommend long term funding strategies for countywide library service to the County and Board of County Commissioners, 6. Develop recommendations for the County_and the Board of County Commissioners regarding supplemental funding strategies for countywide library services. E. Schedule of Meetings The Executive Board at its first organizational meeting or as soon thereafter as reasonable, shall adopt rules governing its procedures, and which shall include at a . minimum: 1) time and place of regular meetings; 2) the method and manner. of . calling special meetings; 3) the method, term and manner of establishing committees or sub-committees; and 4) Executive Board by-laws and rules of procedure. The Executive Board shall meet as needed to adequately execute its duties and responsibilities. The first organizational meeting shall be a joint meeting with the WCCLS Policy. Group and thereafter a joint meeting of the two boards shall be held annually. All meetings of the Executive Board and the WCCLS Policy Group shall be held in accordance with Oregon Public Meeting Laws, ORS 192.610. to 192.710. F. Election of Officers The Executive Board at its first organizational meeting or as soon thereafter as reasonable, shall elect a Chair and Vice Chair/Chair Elect. The term of the officers shall be for two years, with elections held at the Executive Board's annual meeting. The Chair, or the Vice Chair/Chair Elect in his/her absence, shall preside over all meetings of the Executive Board. The Cooperative Library Services Manager (or designee) shall serve as Clerk of the Board and be responsible for providing notices of meetings and keeping minutes, as required by Oregon Public Meeting Laws. G. Quorum A majority of the Members of the Executive Board shall constitute a quorum. All decisions of the Board, unless otherwise provided herein, shall'require the presence of a quorum and a majority vote of those representatives in attendance. No recommendation regarding a formula for allocating county funds through the Public Library Services Agreement shall be forwarded to the Board of Commissioners unless it receives the votes of a majority of the Members of the Executive Board. H. Voting Each Member of the Executive Board shall have one vote. In the event that a Member is unable, to attend a meeting in which a vote is scheduled to take place,. the Member may appoint a designee to attend and vote in his/her place. Under circumstances when neither a Member nor his/her designee can attend, a Member may, prior to the meeting, submit his/her vote to the Chair on a specific issue under signature in writing or by email that clearly identifies the sender. Page 4 I. Adding or Subtracting Members Members shall be added to the Executive Board, as needed, to represent new library service providers admitted to WCCLS through the Public Library Services Agreement (PLSA). Members shall be subtracted from the Executive Board at such time as a library service provider withdraws from membership in WCCLS and ceases to be a party to the PLSA, or when a city assumes management and fiscal responsibilities for operating a community library, or when two or more library service providers merge into one administrative entity. A library that changes its governance (EX: a city library becomes a community library, or a city or community library establishes a library district) retains its membership rights in WCCLS including membership on the Executive Board and authority to receive funds through the Public Library Services Agreement. 5. WCCLS POLICY GROUP A. Membership The WCCLS Policy Group ("Policy Group") shall consist of twelve (12) voting Members representing the ten (10) current contracting library service providers, the West Slope Community Library, and a library that is a non-public library WILInet member (either Tuality Health Information Resource Center or the Oregon College of Art and Craft library). These twelve Members shall be the library directors or their designees. The Policy Group shall replace the current Library Directors' Board. B. Responsibilities The Policy Group shall advise the WCCLS Executive Board and the Cooperative Library Services Manager on issues.pertaining to the development and implementation of policies and procedures for delivery of public library services to all county residents, and to provide technical and professional support for the WCCLS Executive Board. This includes but is not limited to the following matters: 1. Develop, approve and implement shared policies and procedures for the delivery of direct public library services by member libraries, 2. Advise the Cooperative Library Services Manager on issues related to the provision of library services to special populations, 3. Advise the Cooperative Library Services Manager on operational considerations for contracts related to the provision of centrally provided support services, 4. Recommend annual service plans and review budget allocations for centrally provided support services and library services to special populations to the Cooperative Library Services Manager and the Executive Board, 5. Advise the Cooperative Library Services Manager and the Executive Board on the .allocation of County resources for direct public library service delivery and the formula used to distribute such resources, 6. Provide technical and professional support for the Executive Board regarding governance of members and membership in WCCLS, Page 5 7. Encourage and provide a forum for positive and timely communication among library directors and staff to continuously evaluate and improve library services to county residents, 8. Develop recommendations 'for long term funding needs and strategies for the Executive Board, 9. Provide technical and professional support for the Executive Board regarding supplemental funding strategies for countywide library services, 10. Keep abreast of library trends and developments; evaluate and recommend service implementation changes as needed to the Cooperative Library Services Manager. C. Schedule of Meetings The Policy Group at its first organizational meeting or as soon thereafter as reasonable, shall adopt rules governing its procedures, and include at a minimum: 1) time and place of regular meetings; 2) method and manner of calling special meetings; 3) method of establishing committees or sub-committees; and 4) Policy Board by-laws and rules of procedure. The Policy Group shall meet monthly or as needed to execute its duties and responsibilities. The first organizational meeting shall be a joint meeting with the•WCCLS Executive Board and thereafter a joint meeting of the two boards shall be held annually. All meetings of the Policy Group and the Executive Board shall be held in accordance with Oregon Public Meeting Laws, ORS 192.610 to 192.710. D. Election of Officers The Policy Group at its first organizational meeting or as soon thereafter as reasonable, shall elect a Chair and Vice Chair/Chair Elect. The term of the officers shall be for one year, with elections held at the Policy Group's annual meeting. The Chair, or the Vice Chair/Chair Elect in his/her absence,. shall preside over all meetings of the Policy Group. The Cooperative Library Services Manager (or designee) shall serve as. Clerk of the Board and be responsible for providing notices of meetings and keeping minutes, as required by Oregon Public Meeting Laws. E. Quorum A majority of the Members of the Policy Group shall constitute a quorum. All decisions of the Group, unless otherwise provided herein, shall require the presence of a quorum and a majority vote of those representatives in attendance. No recommendation regarding a formula for allocating county funds through the Public Library Services Agreement shall be forwarded to the Executive Board unless it receives the votes of a majority of the Members of the Policy. Group. F. Voting Each voting Member of the Policy Group shall have one vote. Under circumstances when a Member cannot attend, he/she may, prior to the meeting, submit a vote to the Chair on a specific issue under signature in writing or by email that clearly identifies the sender. Page 6 G. Adding or subtracting members Member representatives shall be added to the Policy Group, as needed, to represent new library service providers admitted to WCCLS through the Public Library Services Agreement. Member representatives shall be subtracted from the Policy Group at such time as a library service provider withdraws from membership in WCCLS and ceases to be a party to the PLSA, or when a city assumes management and fiscal responsibilities for operating a community library, or when two or more library service providers merge into one administrative entity. A library that changes its governance (EX: a city library becomes a community library, or a city or . community library establishes a library district) retains its membership on the Policy Group. 6. AMENDMENTS - All changes, modifications, or amendments to this Agreement shall only be considered upon approval of three fourths (3/4) of the Member representatives of the Executive Board. Following a recommendation from the Executive Board, this Agreement may be changed, modified, or amended only in writing and upon approval of all of the parties to this Agreement. 7. SEVERABIL= The terms of this Agreement are severable and a determination by an appropriate body having jurisdiction over the subject matter of this Agreement that results in the invalidity of any part, shall not affect the remainder of the Agreement. 8. INTERPRETATION The-terms and conditions of this Agreement shall be liberally construed in accordance with the general purposes of this Agreement. 9. TERMINATION This Agreement may be terminated only pursuant to the following: A. This Agreement shall.terminate as to any individual party upon that party ceasing to be a party to the Public Library Services Agreement (PLSA) dated 1/20/04. B. This Agreement shall terminate in its entirety, as to all parties, upon execution of a declaration signed by three-fourths (3/4) of all parties to this Agreement terminating its effectiveness. Page 7 10. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS Each party agrees to comply with all local, state and federal ordinances, statutes, laws and regulations that are applicable to the services and activities provided under this Agreement. 11. LIABILITY AND INDEMNIFICATION Notwithstanding that actions by some or all of the parties to this Agreement may be undertaken on behalf of the others, each party agrees to be responsible for the consequences of any wrongful acts of the party's employee as they affect any other party or a person not a party to this Agreement. Subject to the limitations of liability for public bodies set forth in the Oregon Tort Claims Act, ORS 30.260 to 30.300, and the Oregon Constitution, each party agrees to indemnify the other parties and each of them, and hold each and all harmless from any and all claims, actions or suits arising out of a wrongful act of the first party's employee done in the course and scope of this Agreement. 12. NO BENEFITS No party or its employees is entitled to participate in a pension plan, insurance, bonus, or similar benefits provided by any other party. 13. NOTICE Any Contractor shall give immediate written notice to the County of any action or suit filed or any claim made against that party that may result in litigation and is directly related'to this Agreement. 14. INSURANCE Each party agrees to maintain insurance levels, or self-insurance in accordance with ORS 30.282, for the duration of this agreement at levels necessary to protect against public body liability as specified in ORS 30.270. Contractors which are community libraries shall provide certification of insurance upon request. 15. COUNTERPARTS This Agreement maybe executed in several counterparts, each of which shall be an original, all of which shall constitute but one'and the same instrument. 16. CAPTIONS Captions and headings used in this Agreement are for convenience only and shall not be construed or interpreted so as to enlarge or diminish the rights or obligations of the parties hereto. Page 8 FOR THE CONTRACTOR: Signature Title Date FOR WASHINGTON COUNTY: Signature Title Washington County APPROVED AS TO FORM: Sr. Assistant County Counsel Page 9 AGENDA ITEM # 3 FOR AGENDA OF December 20, 2005 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Initiate vacation proceedings for an un-named public right-of-wav east of 74 h Avenue approximately 680 feet north of Durham Road; Public right-of-wav Vacation (VAC2005-00003). PREPARED BY: James Richardson DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK *k~CL~ ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Should the City Council initiate vacation roceedings for an approximately 7,845 square foot portion of un-named public right-of-way lying east of SW 74' Avenue and adjoining tax lots 2S112DC-01200 and 2S112DC-01300 which are owned by the petitioners and which are legally and graphically described within attachments "A-1 and A-2" and "B-1 and B-2". STAFF RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council accept the petition for vacation by resolution and schedule this matter for public hearing. At the public hearing, or after due consideration, the Council may by ordinance approve, approve with conditions, or deny the vacation request. INFORMATION SUMMARY The applicants requested consideration of this Vacation on November 15, 2005 (Attachment 1, Vacation request) to consider the cited vacation petition. The next step in the process is for the City Council to hold a public hearing on February 28, 2006. The applicants are requesting the vacation of an approximate 7,845 square foot portion of an un-used portion of public road right-of-way located east of 740' Avenue approximately 680 feet north of Durham Road. The adjacent Vacation to the south was approved in 1998 and is attached for reference. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED No action. VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY Not applicable. ATTACHMENT LIST Attachment 1 - Vacation request. Attachment 2 - Vicinity Map. Attachment 3 - Ordinance 98-01 and associated map from the adjacent vacation to the south. Attachment 4 - Proposed Resolution setting the date for public hearing (exhibits A-1, A-2, B-1 and B-2). FISCAL NOTES There are no direct fiscal impacts as a result of this request, as all fees have been paid by the applicant. Attachment 1 L DC November 15, 2005 Design Group a Parati company Dick Bewersdorff, Planning Manager City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, Oregon 97223 RE: Right-of-way vacation Dear Mr. Bewersdorf£ On behalf of Mr. Akerman, Mr. Wathey and Mr. LaRusso, I am requesting that the City initiate the vacation a 30-foot wide strip of right-of-way along the east side of SW 74th Street, east of the Spokane Portand & Seattle (SP&S) railroad tracks, also known as the Oregon Electric Railway. This area was dedicated to the public in 1911 with the platting of "Fanno Creek Acre Tracks". The right-of-way is not currently used for any public purpose, and it is unlikely that there would be any public interest in the property in the future. It is apparently part of the SW 74th Street right-of-way, but it is unusable for street purposes because of the railroad tracks. Moreover, the area is landlocked. The only public access to it eliminated when the City vacated the SW Fanno Creek Place right-of-way in 1998. The City Council initiated a related right-of-way vacation eight years ago, on November 25, 1997, adjacent to tax lots 300, 500 and 700, 2S 1 13AB. The Council initiated that vacation via Resolution No. 97-48, adopted on November 25, 1997, and vacated the right-of-way via Ordinance No. 98-01, adopted on January 27th, 1998. That vacation included the SW Fanno Creek Place right-of-way, as well as the 30-foot wide right-of-way adjacent to tax lot 300 and the railroad tracks. I am enclosing documents related to that previous vacation request. This vacation request is for the next portion of the right-of-way to the north, adjacent to tax lots 1200 and 1300, 2S 1 12DC. We are making two separate requests, one for the right-of-way adjacent to tax lot 1200, owned by Akerman/Wathey, and another for the right-of-way adjacent to tax lot 1300, owned by LaRusso Concrete Company. This request is being made in conjunction with the zone change application from I-L to I-P submitted on November 1, 2005. The zoning map change, if approved, would therefore need to take this right-of-way vacation into consideration to make sure that there will not be a left-over strip of land zoned I-L. The vacation of the right-of-way will increase the area of tax lots 1200 and 1300 by HillOsboro Ta asb ~ me Drive 3849 square feet and 3996 square feet, respectively. Including these small areas in the p 503.858.4242 developable area of tax lots 1200 and 1300 will make a significant difference in the site F 503.645.5500 planning for these parcels. It will also bring this square footage back on the property E hillsboro@ldcdesign.com tax rolls, and clarify who is responsible for maintenance. www.ldcdesign.com Hillsboro. OR Tillamook, OR Vancouver, WA Bellevue, WA Coeur d'Alene, io Rocklin, CA Clermont, FL L D:C- public Based on utility maps received from the City staff, there are no existing or planned or private water, sewer or storm water utilities within the areas to be vacated. If Design Group upon further investigation it turns out that there are existing utilities within this area, arott company the City Council may require the property owners to establish a public and private utility easement within the area to be vacated, as it did with the 1998 vacation. (In that case, however, there was an existing 8" public water main in SW Fanno Creek Place.) With this application, I am submitting: ♦ A check in the amount of $2080, which is a deposit for the application fee; ♦ One copy of a title report showing ownership; ♦ Documents related to the 1998 vacation; ♦ Legal descriptions of each area to be vacated; ♦ Maps showing each area to be vacated; ♦ An aerial photograph of the site; ♦ Tax Assessor's maps showing the site. I trust that you and the engineering staff will agree that there is no public interest now and none anticipated in the future for this right-of-way, and that it would be appropriate to initiate proceedings for the requested vacation. Would you please schedule this request before the City Council at the earliest opportunity? If you need anything else in order to place this request before the Council (such as a draft Resolution), please let me know. Sincerel , Ed Murph~AI , P cc. Richard Akerman LaRusso Concrete Company, Inc. Kevin VandenBrink - Macadam Forbes, Inc. Cindy Halcumb, PLS, KC Development 0891.001/docs/plan/vacation/vacregletter/ 11/15/05 2 CITY of TIGARD 0 GEOORAPHIGINFORMATION SYSTEM JFKU F1 I VICINITY MAP Attachment 2 U 1 ' Current Vacation request (VAC2005-00003) ' JQQ .p 11111.0 r 9~ l^0 ~O~O RS F R V ~ 0~ FEaam y si SULL QP BONITA D a F BEND Tigard Area Map N 0 200 400 600 Feet Prior Vacation (Ordinance #98-01) 1"= 400 feet City of Tigard Information on this reap is for general location only and should be verged with the Development Services Division. 13125 SW Hall Blvd Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 6394171 , httpJfw .ci.tigard.or.us Plot date: Nov 30, 2005; C: magicWIAGIC03.APR Community Development Attachment 3 Las- R1ITURN RECORDED DOCUMENTID: CITY RECORDS SUC 10N, CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON C1TY OF TIQARD 13125 SW Hall Blvd, Tigard, OR 97223 ORDINANCE NO.98-L2 AN ORDINANCE CONCERNING THE VACATION OF: 1) APPROXIMATELY 16,174 SQUARE FEET OF PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY COMMONLY KNOWN AS SW FANNO CREEK PLACE; AND 2) APPROXIMATELY 4,914 SQUARE FEET OF PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY ADJACENT TO THE WESTERLY LINE OF LOT 36 OF "FANNO CREEK ACRE TRACTS". WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council initiated this vacation (Resolution No. 97.48) request pursuant to Section 15.08.040 of the Tigard Municipal Code at a public hearing held on November 25,1997; and WHEREAS, the right-of-way was previously dedicated to the public; and WHEREAS, the approximately 4,914 square foot road had been dedicated with the platting of "Fames Creek Acre Tracts" in 1911; and WHEREAS, SW Fanno Creek Place is an unimproved roadway that provides secondary access to Elmo Studd's and Northwest Landscape Industries; and WHEREAS, the approximately 4,914 square feet of public right-of-way adjacent to the westerly line of lot 36 of "Fenno Creek Acre Tracts" is also undeveloped and not used in any way; and WHEREAS, the petitioner is requesting that the City of Tigard vacate an approximately 16,174 square foot portion of SW Fanno Creek Place; and WHEREAS, the petitioner is requesting that the City of Tigard vacate an approximately 4,914 square foot portion of an unnamed roadway adjacent to lot 36 of "Fenno Creek Acre Tracts"; and, WHEREAS, the public right-of-way may no longer bo necessary; and WHEREAS, the vacation was initiated by the City Council and approval has been recommended by the Community Development Department; and WHEREAS, all affected service providers, including utility companies and emergency service providers, have had the opportunity to review the vacation proposal and have no objections; and WHEREAS, POE states that they will need easements for any facilities presently in this right-of-way to be vacated; and WHEREAS, GTE Telephone Operations has existing facilities that provide service to 15930 SW 74th Avenue that will require the granting of a utility easement; and WHEREAS, Unified Sewerage Agency states that there is an existing 8 inch sanitary sewer line within the proposed vacation area which will require the granting of a public utility easement; and ORDNANCE NO.98- 6l WMdobrd VWft*2.ad page I au WHEREAS, the 30-foot right-of-way is part of a ,65 mile (3,460 lineal foot) length tight-of-way that is contiguous to 10 parcels, ; and Ce. WHEREAS, the 30-foot right-of-way extends for an additional .b2 miles (3,290 lineal feet) beyond the area to be vacated and is contiguous to 9 parcels; and WHEREAS, in 1979 a street vacation had been approved (Ordinance No. 79.63) for an approximately .14 mile (770 lineal foot) segment of this ~J-fbot right-of-way; ad WHEREAS, that street vacation (Ordinance No.79.63) was later overturned (Ordinance No.79.115) because of notification and access issues ; and WHEREAS, the access issues associated with that 1979 vacation are no longer applicable; and WHEREAS, all of those parcels have had approved Site Development Reviews; and WHEREAS, access standards were satisfied for all of the approved Site Development Review approvals (SDR 88-08) (SDR 88.09), (SDR 90.0009), (SDR 90-0010) without use of the right-of-way; and WHEREAS, Pacific Realty Associates received site development review approval (SDR 88-08) that stated that the need for the right-of-way to be used for access appears to be highly unlikely, it is not maintained, it is a potential eyesore and it would be in the City's interest to have this area maintained in conjunction with the proposed development; and WHEREAS, Pacific Realty Associates received site development review approval (SDR 88.09) that stated that a variance was granted to allow less than the minimum landscape percentage if an arrangement can be made to use the vacant right-of-way such that the total land area would provide for the minimum landscape requirement; and WHEREAS, the City entered into an agreement with Pacific Realty Associates to lease the right-of-way to allow landscaping and other uses within a .2 mile (1,100 lineal foot) length of the right-of-way that is contiguous to 2 parcels; and 'WHEREAS, notice has been mailed to all property owners abutting said vacation area and all owners in the affected area, as required by ORS 271.080; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Tigard Municipal Code 15.08.120, the City Recorder posted notice in the area to be vacated and published notice of the public hearing; and WHEREAS, the property owners of the rn jority of the area affected have not objected in writing; and WHEREAS, the City Council having considered the request on January 27, 1998, finds that it is in the public interest to approve the request to vacate said public right-of-way as the public interest will not be prejudiced by this vacation, as provided be ORS 271,120 and TMC Section 15.08,130; and t)RDINANC£ N0.94 1:ldrywldebrdlvaC8vik2.prd Pop 2 *0 1 WHEREAS, the Council finds that the following condition is necessary to vacate said sand: 1. A public and private utility easement shall be provided within the area to be vacated. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: The Tigard City Council hereby orders the vacation of. 1) approximately 16.174 square feet of public right-of-way commonly known as SW Fanno Creek Place; and 2) approximately 4,914 square feet of public right-of-way adjacent to the westerly line of lot 36 of "Fenno Creek Acre T=&', as more particularly described in Exhibit "B" and Exhibit "C SECTION Z: The Tigard City Council fiuther orders that the vacation be subject to the following conditions: 1. A public and private utility easement shall be provided within the area to be vacated. SECTION 3: This ordinance shall be effective 30 days after its passage by the Council, approval by the Mayor, and posting by the City Recorder. PASSED: By U A i n ",'0 0, 15 vote of all Council m tubers present after being read by number and title only, this :'7 day of 1998. Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder APPROVED: By Tigard City Council this C17jay of el u 1998. ' 1, 4 4Jicoli, Mayor ' 61. Ap roved as to for : , Certified to be a Vui cop Attorne y Original on.flle a} 1 11-7 IT F Date By: ~ wl City Recor or - City of. rd oauavrwcs NO. M i ~onyWwe~oa~v,oa~,u ore Pate 3 or3 • STATE OF OREGON 1 County of Washln t n J 88 rl 1, Jorry eA M a of Aeeeee- efors orr.,, d~ r ortlly that Clerk y thewlthlryln r~iiflirl{ ,Wl ieaelved and re Me f~~ cW f said oauntyr' /rJ r , R H' o'g t7lrsotor of e6~Hht`e"gdaxa0on, Ex- AQUA V Clerk Doc 99049066 Rocts 230198 131.00 04/11/1999 02125:56pm C 1 100 t 1200 AlAe- ..f4 AG ~a .pl,te. Q yov Area TO Be N, .a i vacated .42 Aa ~ ~ ~ 11 Boa 3,? 9AC _ y 511 pAR WIWI top AGENDA ITEM # 1 44 CA- FOR AGENDA OF December 20, 2005 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON LOCAL CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD (LCRB) AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR GENERAL LEGAL COUNSEL SERVICES PREPARED BY: Joe Barrett DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK fCfVV_(y ISSUE BEFORE THE LOCAL CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD Shall the Local Contract Review Board (LCRB) award a contract for general legal counsel services to Ramis Crew Corrigan, LLP? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the LCRB award a contract for the City's general legal counsel services needs to Ramis Crew Corrigan, LLP and authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute the final agreement. INFORMATION SUMMARY The City of Tigard has contracted for general legal counsel services, including legal advice, support, and policy review, since the City was incorporated in the early 1960's. By doing so, the City is able to secure a broader level of legal expertise than if the City hired in-house Legal Counsel. This practice has served the City well over the years and continues to do so to this day. The City's current contract for general legal services expires on December 31, 2005. In response, a formal Request for Proposal (RFP) was developed by staff and City Council for the solicitation of a new general legal counsel services agreement as well as for a new labor attorney services agreement. The RFP was released to the public on October P, with advertisements running in both The Oregonian and the October edition of the Oregon State Bar's monthly publication. Responses were due on October 26`h and the City received four proposals for the general legal services portion of the RFP, with one of those proposers later withdrawing from consideration for business reasons. An evaluation team consisting of the City Council and Executive staff members reviewed and scored the proposals and conducted interviews with the three proposing firms on November 15`h. After the scoring and discussing the proposals, the evaluation team's conclusion was that Ramis Crew Corrigan best meets the needs and interests of the City and recommends that the LCRB award the contract for the City's general legal counsel services to Ramis Crew Corrigan, LLP. The contract period is for two years with three additional one-year option years. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Do not award a contract to Ramis Crew Corrigan, LLP and direct staff to conduct a further evaluation of the firms responding to the RFP. 2. Do not award a contract to Ramis Crew Corrigan, LLP and direct staff to develop and release a new Request for Proposal. VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY None. ATTACHMENT LIST None. FISCAL NOTES For the 2005-2006 Fiscal Year, the City has $144,800 budgeted in the City Attorney Division for general legal counsel services. a AGENDA ITEM # 3. 44 b, FOR AGENDA OF December 20, 2005 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON LOCAL CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD (LCRB) AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR LABOR ATTORNEY SERVICES PREPARED BY: Joe Barrett DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE LOCAL CONTRAC REVIEW BOARD Shall the Local Contract Review Board (LCRB) award a contract for labor attorney services to Bullard Smith Jernstedt Wilson? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the LCRB award a contract for the City's labor attorney services needs to Bullard Smith Jernstedt Wilson and authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute the final agreement. INFORMATION SUMMARY The City's current contract for labor attorney services expires on December 31, 2005 through an amendment signed in October. In response, a formal Request for Proposal (RFP) was developed by staff and City Council for the solicitation of a new labor attorney services agreement as well as for a new general legal counsel services agreement. The RFP was released to the public on October P, with advertisements running in both The Oregonian and the October edition of the Oregon State Bar's monthly publication. Responses were due on October 26th and the City received four proposals for the labor attorney portion of the RFP. An evaluation team consisting of five Executive staff members reviewed and scored the proposals and conducted interviews with the four proposing firms. After the scoring and discussing the proposals, the evaluation team's conclusion was that Bullard Smith Jernstedt Wilson best meets the needs and interests of the City and recommends that the LCRB award the contract for the City's labor attorney services to Bullard Smith Jernstedt Wilson. The contract period shall be for two years with three additional one-year option periods. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Do not award a contract to Bullard Smith Jernstedt Wilson and direct staff to conduct a further evaluation of the firms responding to the RFP. 2. Do not award a contract to Bullard Smith Jernstedt Wilson and direct staff to develop and release a new Request for Proposal. VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY None. ATTACHMENT LIST None. FISCAL NOTES For the 2005-2006 Fiscal Year, the City has $89,000 budgeted in the City Attorney Division for labor attorney services. AGENDA ITEM # Ll FOR AGENDA OF December 13, 2005 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE PRESENTATION OF BRONZE SAFETY AWARD CITY MGR OK PREPARED BY: Elizabeth Ann Newton DEPT HEAD OK ~ C ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Presentation of the League of Oregon Cities (LOC) and City County Insurance Services (CCIS) Bronze Safety Award. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Present the award to Loreen Mills, Risk Manager. INFORMATION SUMMARY The City of Tigard values a safe working environment for employees and is proud of its safety record. The LOC and CCIS acknowledged the City's safety record with the Bronze Safety Award for 2004-2005 for an injury frequency rate of 3.98 with 264 full time employees. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED N/A VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY N/A ATTACHMENT LIST N/A FISCAL NOTES N/A i:\adm\city councilkouncil agenda item summaries\2005\ais for bronze safety award 051213.docl2/9/05 AGENDA ITEM # 5 FOR AGENDA OF December 20, 2005 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Public hearing (Quasi-Judicial) to consider annexation of Sunrise Lane/ ZCA2005-00004 Continued from October 25, 2005 PREPARED BY: Gary Pagenstecher DEPT HEAD O l ' CITY MGR OK l~ G ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Should the Council approve the proposed Sunrise Lane Annexation? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Adopt the attached Ordinance annexing the subject properties. INFORMATION SUMMARY This item is a continuance from the October 25, 2005 and November 22, 2005 Council meetings to consider an annexation request by twelve land owners and electors that have petitioned for and consented to annexation to the City of Tigard. On November 22, 2005, the parties agreed to reopen the record to allow additional written argument and evidence (Attachment 2) on the Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policies 10.1. La and 10.1.2.e and Community Development Code Section 18.320.020.13 (Attachment 3), due 5 p.m. on December 7, 2005. Additionally, the parties agreed to a schedule for Applicant Rebuttal, due December 14, 2005, 5 p.m.; Applicant Statement, due December 15, 2005, 5 p.m.; a revised staff report due December 19, 2005, 5 p.m.; and continuation of the public hearing before the City Council on December 20, 2005, 7:30 p.m. The applicant's rebuttal and statement received by the City between December 7th and December 15th will be forwarded to the Council on December 16th' 2005. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Deny the request. 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- Option 1: Proposed Ordinance approving the annexation. Exhibit A: Legal descriptions of the subject properties. Exhibit B: Assessor's map of the subject properties. Exhibit C: Vicinity map of the subject properties. Attachment 1- Option 2: Proposed Ordinance approving the annexation and declaring an emergency. Exhibit A: Legal descriptions of the subject properties. Exhibit B: Assessor's map of the subject properties. Exhibit C: Vicinity map of the subject properties. Attachment 2: Written Testimony from Michael Robinson, Lawrence Derr, and Lisa Hamilton-Treick received during the continuation period (through December 7, 2005). Attachment 3: Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policies 10.1.1.a and 10.1.2.e and Community Development Code Section 18.320.020.13 FISCAL NOTES The applicant is responsible for paying the Metro processing fee and has already paid the fees necessary to administer the application by planning staff. CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ORDINANCE NO. 2005- AN ORDINANCE ANNEXING 25.61 ACRES, APPROVING SUNRISE LANE ANNEXATION (ZCA2005-00004), AND WITHDRAWING PROPERTY FROM THE TIGARD WATER DISTRICT, WASHINGTON COUNTY ENHANCED SHERIFF'S PATROL DISTRICT, WASHINGTON COUNTY URBAN ROADS MAINTENANCE DISTRICT, WASHINGTON COUNTY STREET LIGHTING DISTRICT #1, AND THE WASHINGTON COUNTY VECTOR CONTROL DISTRICT. WHEREAS, the City of Tigard is authorized by ORS 222.120(4)(B) and 222.170 to initiate an annexation upon receiving consent in writing from a majority of the electors registered in the territory proposed to be annexed and written consent from owners of more than half the land in the territory proposed to be annexed; and WHEREAS, the City of Tigard is authorized by ORS 222.120(5) and 222.520 to withdraw properties which currently lie within the boundary of the Tigard Water District, the Washington County Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol District, Washington County Urban Roads Maintenance District, Washington County Street Lighting District #1, and the Washington County Vector Control District upon completion of the annexation; and WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council held a public hearing on October 25, 2005 to consider the annexation of twelve (12) parcels of land consisting of 25.61 acres and withdrawal of said property from the Tigard Water District, the Washington County Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol District, Washington County Urban Roads Maintenance District, Washington County Street Lighting District #1, and the Washington County Vector Control District; and WHEREAS, pursuant to ORS 222.520(2) the City is liable to the Water District for certain debt obligations, however, in this instance the Water District has no debt for the City to assume, therefore, no option regarding the assumption of debt needs to be made; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Metro 3.09, ORS 222.120 and 222.524, notice was given and the City held a public hearing on October 25, 2005 on the issue of the annexation into the City and withdrawal of the annexed property from the Tigard Water District, the Washington County Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol District, Washington County Urban Roads Maintenance District, Washington County Street Lighting District #l, and the Washington County Vector Control District; and WHEREAS, pursuant to ORS 222.524, the City must declare the withdrawal of annexed properties from the Tigard Water District, the Washington County Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol District, Washington County Urban Roads Maintenance District, Washington County Street Lighting District #1, and the Washington County Vector Control District by Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the Tigard Development Code states that upon annexation, the zone is automatically changed to the City zoning most closely conforming to the County zoning; and WHEREAS, the current zoning district is R-7, an existing City zone that has been adopted by the County and the zoning after annexation would remain R-7 so that no zone change is necessary, and by annexation the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Tigard goes into effect; and ORDINANCE NO. 2005- ZCA2005-00004 Sunrise Lane Annexation Page 1 of 2 WHEREAS, the annexation has been processed in accordance with the requirements of Metro 3.09 and has been reviewed for compliance with the Tigard Community Development Code and the Comprehensive Plan and the annexation substantially addresses the standards in Metro 3.09 regulating annexations; and WHEREAS, the City Council has carefully considered the testimony at the public hearing and determined that withdrawal of the annexed properties from the applicable service districts is in the best interest of the City of Tigard. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: The Tigard City Council hereby annexes the parcels described in the attached Exhibit "A" and shown in Exhibit "B" and withdraws said parcels from the Tigard Water District, the Washington County Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol District, Washington County Urban Roads Maintenance District, Washington County Street Lighting District #1, and the Washington County Vector Control District. SECTION 2: This ordinance shall be effective 30 days after it passage by the Council, signature by the Mayor and posting the City Recorder. SECTION 3: City staff is directed to take all necessary measures to implement the annexation, including filing certified copies of the Ordinance with Metro for administrative processing, filing with state and county agencies as required by law, and providing notice to utilities. SECTION 4: Pursuant to ORS 222.120(5), the effective date of the withdrawal of the property from the Washington County Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol District, Washington County Urban Roads Maintenance District, Washington County Street Lighting District #1, and the Washington County Vector Control District shall be the effective date of this annexation. SECTION 5: Pursuant to ORS 222.465, the effective date of the withdrawal of this property from the Tigard Water District shall be July 1, 2006. SECTION 6: In accordance with ORS 222.180, the annexation shall be effective upon filing with the Secretary of State. PASSED: By vote of all Council members present after being read by number and title only, this day of , 2005. Cathy Wheatley, City Recorder APPROVED: By Tigard City Council this day of 52005. Craig Dirksen, Mayor Approved as to form: City Attorney Date ORDINANCE NO. 2005- ZCA2005-00004 Sunrise Lane Annexation Page 2 of 2 r EXHIBIT A (Page I of 4) BEING TRACTS OF.LAND . AS DESCRIBED IN THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS: 98-070527, 2003-020130,2000-061432, 2004-107939, BOOK 1151, PAGE 113,2004-082311, 2004- 082312, AND 97-084282 ALL WASHINGTON COUNTY DEED RECORDS, SITUA'T'ED IN THE SOUTHEAST ONE-QUARTER OF SECTIONS, TOWNSHIP 2 SOUTH, RANGE 1 WEST, I WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN, IN COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, STATE OF OREGON, MORE j PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED. AS FOLLOWS:, BEGINNING AT A POINT AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THAT TRACT OF LAND AS DESCRIBED IN DOCUMENT NO. 97-084282 OF SAID COUNTY, SAID SOUTHEAST CORNER BEARS NORTH 890.50'44" WEST, 571.41 FEET ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 5 AND NORTH 00°41`42" EAST, 20.00 FEET FROM THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SECTION'5 MARKED WITH AN ALUMINUM DISC IN CONCRETE; THENCE ALONG A LINE 20.00 FEET PARALLEL WITH THE SAID SOUTH SECTION LINE NORTH 89° 50' 44" WEST, 212.89 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 00° 41'42" WEST, 20.00 FEET TO A POINT ON SAID, SOUTHERLY SECTION LINE;. THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTH SECTION LINE NORTH 89° 50' . 44" WEST, 233.64 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID SECTION LINE RECORDS NORTH 00" 43'- 00" EAST, 200.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID TRACT NORTH 89° 50' 44" WEST, 124.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID TRACT SOUTH 00'43'00" WEST, 180.00. FEET TO A POINT (20.00 FEET NORTHERLY OF, WHEN MEASURED PERPENDICULAR TO SAID SECTION LINE); THENCE ALONG A LINE PARALLEL WITH THE SAID SECTION LINE NORTH 89° 50' 44" WEST; 180.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 00°43' 00" EAST, 20.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89° 50' 44" WEST, 23.33 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 00° 43'00" WEST, 40.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH SECTION LINE; THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTH SECTION LINE NORTH 89° 50'44" WEST, 107.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH. 00° 41' 34" EAST, 240.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF THAT TRACT DESCRIBED IN DEED BOOK 397, PAGE 547, WASHINGTON COUNTY DEED RECORDS; THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE SOUTH 89° 50'44" EAST, 42.89 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER.OF SAID TRACT; THENCE ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID TRACT OF NORTH 000 40'00" EAST, 399.80 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST" CORNER OF SAID TRACT; THENCE LEAVING SAID NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID TRACT SOUTH 89° 50'28" EAST,. 85.62 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THAT TRACT OF LAND AS DESCRIBED IN DOCUMENT NO. I 2004-046173 OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID TRACT, NORTH 00'43'00" EAST, 161.26 FEET TO A 5/8 INCH IRON ROD; THENCE NORTH 79° 30'00" WEST, 243.12 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF SUNRISE LANE (BEING 20.00 FROM THE CENTERLINE THEREOF, WHEN MEASURED ! PERPENDICULAR THERETO); THENCE ALONG SAID RIGHT=OF-WAY LINE THE t FOLLOWING FOUR (4) CALLS: NORTH 14° 15' 05" WEST, 98.41 FEET; THENCE NORTH 17° 04' 55" EAST, 72.15 FEET; THENCE NORTH 43° 11'55" EAST, 116.47 FEET; THENCE NORTH 04° 35'55" EAST, 84.20 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THAT TRACT DESCRIBED IN DEED RECORD BOOK 186,.PAGE 307; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF THAT TRACT DESCRIBED IN DEED DOCUMENT NUMBER 2002-019693, WASHINGTON COUNTY DEED RECORDS SOUTH.89° 28'42" EAST, 699.75 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THAT TRACT DESCRIBED IN DEED RECORD BOOK 861, PAGE 211; THENCE ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF THAT CERTAIN TRACT OF LAND AS DESCRIBED IN DOCUMENT NO. 2001-085039 ALONG THE FOLLOWING FIVE (5) COURSES: SOUTH 00° 41'42" WEST, 393.64 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89° 50'44" EAST, 100.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 00° 41'42" WEST, 480.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89° 50,44" EAST, 112.90 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 00° 41'42" WEST, 280.00 FEET TO SAID POINT OF BEGINNING. GISTERED CONTAINS 19.638 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. FESSIONAL LLANDSURVEYOR 9 ~ OREGON NOV. 18, 1898 E. I MICHAEL D. FRANK 53854 EXHIBIT A. (Page 2.of 4) Including Tax Lot 600 Escrow No. 08-838878AFE4B Tide order No. 008388781 Beginning at a point orth 89049' West, 1409.7 feet and 640 feet North-0°43' East of the Southeast corder of Section 5, Township South; Range 7 West, Willamette Meridian, Washington County, Oregon, being the Northeast corner of a tract cony ed to Fletcher Rockwood, et ux, by Deed recorded September 7, 1957, in Book 397, Page 547, Deed Records; thenc South 89°44' 17" East along the Easterly projection of the North line of. said Rockwood Tract. 85.83 feet; thence N rth 0143' East. 160 feet; thence North 79030'. West 225:74 feet to the 4asterly-right-of-way line of Sunrise Lane; ence South 14° 18' East, 90 feet and South 4° 14'45" West, 119.8 feet to the North line of said, Rockwood Tract, thence South 89 °44' 17' East, 142.17 feet to the place of beginning. EXHIBIT A (Page 3 of 4) Order No: 267915" Including Tax Lot 700 A tract of land in the southeast one-quarter of section 5,-Township 2 South, Range 1 Rest of the Willamette meridian, in the County of Washington and State of Oregon, described as follows BEGINNING at an iron pipe set North 89°49' West 1409.7 feet and North 0°43' East 449.57 feet from the Southeast corner of Section 5, Township 2 South, Range 1-West of the Willamette Meridian; *-++*+n g thence North 89°49' West a distance of 171.09 feet to a point on the center line of a 40 foot roadway described on Page 81 of Book 147, Washi.ngton-County, Oregon, Deed Records, from which an iron pipe bears south 89049' East, a distance of 20.05 feet;.thence North- 40121 East along the center line of said 40 foot-vide roadway a distance of 190.9o feet to the Northwest corner of tract described in Deed to Elton C.. Phillips, et ux, recorded in Book 473, Page'227, Deed Records of Washington County, Oregon, from which an iron rod bears. South 89°49' East a distance of 20.00 feet; thence South 89049' East a distance of-159.5 feet to an iron rod; thence South 0043' West a distance of 190.43 feet to the point of beginning, except that portion-lying in.Sunrise.Lane. ' - ti EXHIBIT A (Page 4 of 4) Including Tax Lot 1800 A tract of land located within the southeast one-quarter of Section 5, Township 2 South, Range 1 West, Willamette Meridian, Washington County,.Oregon, being more particularly described as follows:. . Commencing at the corner to section 4,5,8,and 9, Township 2 South, Range 1 West W.M.; thence N 89"50' 44" W a distance of 451.8 feet; thence N 00° 56' 42" E a distance of 20.00 feet to the True point of Beginning; thence N 00° 56' 42 E a distance of 530 to the center of the ravine;, thence N 22°25' 19" W, along the center of the ravine, a distance of 750 more or less; thence N 89° 28' 42" a distance of 70 feet more or less; thence S 00° 4142" W a distance of 393.64 feet; thence S 89° 50' 44" E a distance of 100 feet; thence S 00° 41' 42" W a distance of 480 feet; thence S 89° 50' 44" E a distance of 112.90 feet; S 00° 41'42" W a distance of 280 feet; thence S 89° 50' 4V E a distance of 120 feet to the true point of beginning. 2S 1 05DD 2S 1 05DD """"M+~t«.:' ):as,'~" , SW KLIPSAN ' LANEt, a.•- na., ""ii,`i!""'M^niruire~.•".M^1e.r.:n1, 7070 4' Tan couRr ' /yr~ ; r; co z I I Y {~°9800 ~ a7ao • ''~~'''(J~.:" , • f`. ,4 ,3 8 Z m I 7000 g 6800 B cf) va.p Y 3900 9600 D a y ;t •a • # 15 tx .>,psN .r7M ~1!9~; :IteM~. . ~2 y • ) SEMI 6900 67 300 .3 0 _ ygpK $YI LJ,1 a 4000 0 3500 x01 11 f F 1• i:•-, „ I aunt Soo 42 3400 ,r, waaeee 6500 U) i *W7 10 ~•*y $ 4200 7200 ~F V•l A)K 6440 ~8 • 18 1MR ' WASHINGTON COUNTY OREGON 4J00 t e~ 14 SECTION 05 T2S R1W W.M. 6a561~3 3800. ~7~ SE1/4 SEt SCALE 11' - 100' 100 3 - r +nee 4400 Ll{ f 62oO'~a D ~ .3. ; 36 ue°t a r?4.: 6100 L.) 8 5 4600 8 3100 ~ti 8 ) 37 2~ e 7 8 :.,'f'• L4C 6000 -,:~8 m b 460 41 0 3D600 `~7 ~8. 400 1900 36 i • d 22 i G} zwec u74c 4. 5900 ~+g 3SW SEAVIEW LANE: max: 31 23- 73 4700 { 2900 v 4 23-78 seoo 8 xa c 5 yJ g 4800 B '°,y', • Iu xeA7a) _ 6330 8 24 d 24~ $ FOR ADDITIONAL MAPS VISIT OUR WEBSITEAT ,•)g-•`,y.' ~N „ 4900 gg NMM.CO.wLih6)B10R0/.ua Bec:. 6800 L 26 y 2700 32 ''~lfst+#?ta.a•'', tae OnC 55 1600 ,a n .u 6000 8 2600 '•'Z''•..' 19`'~',:..' 5500 2g L 2 1~: 'r`. 600 ' •>;~S1Q'~ ' r(D~_; W a4c II 31 uu. eev v . , . i ~Q 14500 5t00 _ `••Y. 30 ,'s Z 6 27 Y 2~ao m .CBS:' ~.)G,`'4.'l~;~s .,•DR;~• . .~iu.o'. 3 6 Vie, :,%x .~;..C~.~•:LC>y>: DD O 70 0 S 7 5200 Boo (uasw B .Ae 78300 760o @ Ca-IledTa)do6 For. 2SIOSDO ''i0s iuaW 1 Ke °.6811 2tt O 2 7400 4 101MG1,2002.2000, koom 1700 2,01 ' Boo a` 1'•. - .70A0 1100 1f~.8 p}eT) ]AOIIC 2200 YY S18NC ' 2 Ica aew ~ '':.J. K8esn 1300 ASS®S'Seveen9 1 n~ni~ m7~ .'w :ClAf370GlL4PkIV:.'::.' Kea6w I I - ' 23-73:- K6 a802) PLOT DATE: January 22, 2004 K81aA9n X'0 I . I ' ,1s1aw, i • ,.e,,,,,,, ,s-••).-' FOR ASSESSMENT PURPOSES aoo . 1 I fulaAeay" i- e6 ! w ONLY- DO NOT RELYON A°K a 1600 FOROTHER USE I >20o fooK 4d. a,~enndieeMEgMere+YeWy>. oeamrw I I $ A,gC $ $ ~ 2100 ~ ,tlm,,.n bnh,er,o aro'.vTer,we,srr. Tenor 2300 ',L n!f 0~°P'~O~"OnnEer4s Ph.s. mnudTe WeP,~^'^D 24K 1 I 0 bMmmtonntbMnrtn S a 3 e ^ ` ~W ' ~ I b. Wn,aaet Keep11 6 •~t F4 ,,a SUNRISE 23 78 e rowouc ,wu . LANE _ •a~« - TIGARD 2S 1 05DD 2S 1 05DD m.2s1w05 • , " LIMA" ~ . F REE DR GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM V NLOR VICINITY M" H GO _ F K A - - - - - - W ZCA2005-00004. K S N SUNRISE LANE of af W ANNEXATION 0 0 Z Q co 1i •SFEY._ Nn EaP'r L -P1 ly ET E 1) SON- Pa. Z BEEF ` J KENO GGnH r P,0 Tigard Area Map S HILLSHIRE DR N T 0) C 0 200 400 600 Feet a 11412 feet w City of Tigard Q Information on this map is for general location onty and should be verified W th the Development Services Division. 13125 SW Hall Blvd Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 http:1h -cUgard.or.us Community Development Plot date: Oct 7, 2005; C:\magic\MAGIC03.APR CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ORDINANCE NO. 2005- AN ORDINANCE ANNEXING 25.61 ACRES, APPROVING SUNRISE LANE ANNEXATION (ZCA2005-00004), AND WITHDRAWING PROPERTY FROM THE TIGARD WATER DISTRICT, WASHINGTON COUNTY ENHANCED SHERIFF'S PATROL DISTRICT, WASHINGTON COUNTY URBAN ROADS MAINTENANCE DISTRICT, WASHINGTON COUNTY STREET LIGHTING DISTRICT #1, AND THE WASHINGTON COUNTY VECTOR CONTROL DISTRICT AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. WHEREAS, the City of Tigard is authorized by ORS 222.120(4)(B) and 222.170 to initiate an annexation upon receiving consent in writing from a majority of the electors registered in the territory proposed to be annexed and written consent from owners of more than half the land in the territory proposed to be annexed; and WHEREAS, the City of Tigard is authorized by ORS 222.120(5) and 222.520 to withdraw properties which currently lie within the boundary of the Tigard Water District, the Washington County Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol District, Washington County Urban Roads Maintenance District, Washington County Street Lighting District #l, and the Washington County Vector Control District upon completion of the annexation; and WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council held a public hearing on October 25, 2005 to consider the annexation of twelve (12) parcels of land consisting of 25.61 acres and withdrawal of said property from the Tigard Water District, the Washington County Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol District, Washington County Urban Roads Maintenance District, Washington County Street Lighting District #1, and the Washington County Vector Control District; and WHEREAS, pursuant to ORS 222.520(2) the City is liable to the Water District for certain debt obligations, however, in this instance the Water District has no debt for the City to assume, therefore, no option regarding the assumption of debt needs to be made; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Metro 3.09, ORS 222.120 and 222.524, notice was given and the City held a public hearing on October 25, 2005 on the issue of the annexation into the City and withdrawal of the annexed property from the Tigard Water District, the Washington County Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol District, Washington County Urban Roads Maintenance District, Washington County Street Lighting District #1, and the Washington County Vector Control District; and WHEREAS, pursuant to ORS 222.524, the City must declare the withdrawal of annexed properties from the Tigard Water District, the Washington County Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol District, Washington County Urban Roads Maintenance District, Washington County Street Lighting District #1, and the Washington County Vector Control District by Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the Tigard Development Code states that upon annexation, the zone is automatically changed to the City zoning most closely conforming to the County zoning; and WHEREAS, the current zoning district is R-7, an existing City zone that has been adopted by the County and the zoning after annexation would remain R-7 so that no zone change is necessary, and by annexation the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Tigard goes into effect; and ORDINANCE NO. 2005- ZCA2005-00004 Sunrise Lane Annexation Page] of 2 WHEREAS, the annexation has been processed in accordance with the requirements of Metro 3.09 and has been reviewed for compliance with the Tigard Community Development Code and the Comprehensive Plan and the annexation substantially addresses the standards in Metro 3.09 regulating annexations; and WHEREAS, the City Council has carefully considered the testimony at the public hearing and determined that withdrawal of the annexed properties from the applicable service districts is in the best interest of the City of Tigard. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: The Tigard City Council hereby annexes the parcels described in the attached Exhibit "A" and shown in Exhibit "B" and withdraws said parcels from the Tigard Water District, the Washington County Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol District, Washington County Urban Roads Maintenance District, Washington County Street Lighting District #1, and the Washington County Vector Control District. SECTION 2: Council finds adoption of this ordinance is necessary for the peace, health and safety of the City; therefore, an emergency is declared and this ordinance shall take effect immediately upon passage. SECTION 3: City staff is directed to take all necessary measures to implement the annexation, including filing certified copies of the Ordinance with Metro for administrative processing, filing with state and county agencies as required by law, and providing notice to utilities. SECTION 4: Pursuant to ORS 222.120(5), the effective date of the withdrawal of the property from the Washington County Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol District, Washington County Urban Roads Maintenance District, Washington County Street Lighting District #1, and the Washington County Vector Control District shall be the effective date of this annexation. SECTION 5: Pursuant to ORS 222.465, the effective date of the withdrawal of this property from the Tigard Water District shall be July 1, 2006. SECTION 6: In accordance with ORS 222.180, the annexation shall be effective upon filing with the Secretary of State. PASSED: By vote of all Council members present after being read by number and title only, this day of 52005. Cathy Wheatley, City Recorder APPROVED: By Tigard City Council this day of )2005. Craig Dirksen, Mayor Approved as to form: City Attorney Date ORDINANCE NO. 2005- ZCA2005-00004 Sunrise Lane Annexation Page 2 of 2 EXHIBIT A (Page I of 4) BEING TRACTS OF LAND AS DESCRIBED IN THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS: 98-070527, 2003-020130, 2000-061432, 2004-107939, BOOK 1151, PAGE 113, 2004-082311, 2004- 082312, AND 97-084282 ALL WASHINGTON COUNTY DEED RECORDS, SITUATED IN THE SOUTHEAST ONE-QUARTER OF SECTION 5, TOWNSHIP 2 SOUTH, RANGE 1 WEST, WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN, IN COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, STATE OF OREGON, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THAT TRACT OF LAND AS DESCRIBED IN DOCUMENT NO. 97-084282 OF SAID COUNTY, SAID SOUTHEAST CORNER BEARS NORTH 89° 50' 44" WEST, 571.41 FEET ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 5 AND NORTH 00°41'42" EAST, 20.00 FEET FROM THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 5 MARKED WITH AN ALUMINUM DISC IN CONCRETE; THENCE ALONG A LINE 20.00 FEET PARALLEL WITH THE SAID SOUTH SECTION LINE NORTH 89° 50'44" WEST, 212.89 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 00° 41' 42" WEST, 20.00 FEET TO A POINT ON SAID SOUTHERLY SECTION LINE; THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTH SECTION LINE NORTH 89° 50' 44" WEST, 233.64 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID SECTION LINE RECORDS NORTH 00° 43' 00" EAST, 200.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID TRACT NORTH 89° 50'44" WEST, 124.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID TRACT SOUTH 00° 43'00" WEST, 180.00 FEET TO A POINT (20.00 FEET NORTHERLY OF, WHEN MEASURED PERPENDICULAR TO SAID SECTION LINE); THENCE ALONG A LINE PARALLEL WITH THE SAID SECTION LINE NORTH 89° 50'44" WEST, 180.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 00° 43' 00" EAST, 20.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89° 50'44" WEST, 23.33 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 00° 43'00" WEST, 40.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH SECTION LINE; THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTH SECTION LINE NORTH 89° 50'44" WEST, 107.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 00° 41'34" EAST, 240.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE I SOUTHERLY LINE OF THAT TRACT DESCRIBED IN DEED BOOK 397, PAGE 547, WASHINGTON COUNTY DEED RECORDS; THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE SOUTH 89° 50'44" EAST, 42.89 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID TRACT; THENCE ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID TRACT OF NORTH 00° 40'00" EAST, 399.80 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID TRACT; THENCE LEAVING SAID NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID TRACT SOUTH 89° 50'28" EAST, 85.62 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THAT TRACT OF LAND AS DESCRIBED IN DOCUMENT NO. 2004-046173 OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID TRACT, NORTH 00° 43'00" EAST, 161.26 FEET TO A 5/8 INCH IRON ROD; THENCE NORTH 79° 30'00" WEST, 243.12 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF SUNRISE LANE (BEING 20.00 FROM THE CENTERLINE THEREOF, WHEN MEASURED PERPENDICULAR THERETO); THENCE ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE THE FOLLOWING FOUR (4) CALLS: NORTH 14° 15'05" WEST, 98.41 FEET; THENCE NORTH 17° 04' 55" EAST, 72.15 FEET; THENCE NORTH 43° 11'55" EAST, 116.47 FEET; THENCE NORTH 04° 35'55" EAST, 84.20 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THAT TRACT DESCRIBED IN DEED RECORD BOOK 186, PAGE 307; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF THAT TRACT DESCRIBED IN DEED DOCUMENT NUMBER 2002-019693, WASHINGTON COUNTY DEED RECORDS SOUTH 89* 28'42" EAST, 699.75 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THAT TRACT DESCRIBED IN DEED RECORD BOOK 861, PAGE 211; THENCE ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF THAT CERTAIN TRACT OF LAND AS DESCRIBED IN DOCUMENT NO. 2001-085039 ALONG THE FOLLOWING FIVE (5) COURSES: SOUTH 00° 41'42" WEST, 393.64 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89° 50'44" EAST, 100.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 00° 41'42" WEST, 480.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89° 50,44" EAST, 112.90 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 00° 41'42" WEST, 280.00 FEET TO SAID POINT OF I BEGINNING. L REGISTERID CONTAINS 19.638 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR OREGON F. I NOV. 16, IM MICHAEL D. FRANK 53854 . /X./^e EXHIBIT A (Page 2 of 4) Including Tax Lot 600 Escrow No. 08-838878-&28 Tide Order No. 008388781 Beginning at a point orth 89049' West, 1409.7 feet and 640 feet North 0°43' East of the Southeast corner of Section 5, Township South; Range 1 West, Willamette Meridian, Washington County, Oregon, being the Northeast corner of a tract conv ed to Fletcher Rockwood, et ux, by Deed recorded September 7, 1957, in Book 397, Page 547, Deed Records; thenc South 89044'17" East along the Easterly projection of the North line of said Rockwood Tract, 85.83 feet; thence N rth 0043' East, 160 feet; thence North 79030' West 225.74 feet to the Easterly righvof-way line of Sunrise Lane; ence South 14° 18' East, 90 feet and South V 14'45" West, 119.8 feet to the North line of said, Rockwood Tract, thence South 89044'17" East, 142.17 feet to the place of beginning. EXHIBIT A (Page 3 of 4) Order No: 267915Including Tax Lot 700 A tract of land in the Southeast one-quarter of Section 5,•Township 2 South, Ranged West of the Willamette Meridian, in the County of Washington and State of Oregon, described as follows:. BEGINNING at.an iron pipe set North 89°49' West 1409.7 feet and North 0043' East 449.57 feet from the Southeast corner of Section 5, Township 2 South, Range 1•West of the Willamette Meridian; running thence North 89°49' West a distance of 171.09 feet to a point on the center line of a 40 foot roadway described on Page 81 of Book 147, Washington•County, Oregon, Deed Records, from which an iron pipe bears South 89049' East, a distance of 20.05 feet;.thence North-4°12! East along the center line of said 40 foot-wide roadway a distance of 190.90 feet to the Northwest corner of tract described in Deed to Elton C. Phillips, et ux, recorded in Book 473, Page'227, Deed Records of Washington County, Oregon, from which an iron rod bears. South 89049' East a distance.of 20.00 feet;, thence South 89049' East a distance of -159.5 feet to ari iron rod; thence south 00431 West a distance of 190.43 feet to the point of beginning except that portion-lying in.Sunrise.Lane. ' i EXHIBIT A (Page 4 of 4) Including Tax Lot 1800 A tract of land located within the southeast one-quarter of Section 5, Township 2 South, Range 1 West, Willamette Meridian, Washington County, Oregon, being more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the corner to section 4,5,8,and 9, Township 2 South, Range 1 West W.M.; thence N 89' 50' 44" W a distance of 451.8 feet; thence N 00° 56' 42" E a distance of 20.00 feet to the True point of Beginning; thence N 00° 56' 42 E a distance of 530 to the center of the ravine; thence N 22°25' 19" W, along the center of the ravine, a distance of 750 more or less; thence N 89° 28' 42" a distance of 70 feet more or less; thence S 00° 4142" W a distance 'of 393.64 feet; thence S 89° 50' 44" E a distance of 100 feet; thence S 00° 41' 42" W a distance of 480 feet; thence S 89° 50' 44" E a distance of 112.90 feet; S 00° 41' 42" W a distance of 280 feet; thence S 89° 50' 44" E a distance of 120 feet to the true point of beginning. 2S 1 05DD 2S 1 05DD a h »nu wa *,W+.Y » naf» t=nY f' :4sr,"a SW KLIPSAN' LANEb W fnr auc I 'a,sx.:,nrxxu"nmyl,°t 7070 a ?7 'COIA7f r 4a mo • '.:+1aM'- Z ' n4, ' g b 31~ 3700 ~b° W 1T7 I 76g 8 2 a 68µ00 s C m Im13 . 8 Z,' V"<` ~,ry"N•~''~ ^i~gti,• C 66 << 3800 8 35 8 D , #I •8800 8 6700 B 15 X 300 ppS' 46 W - ]-tAAC 3 i'AI tun 1, 4000 $ 3600 g ^ R 101 6800 8 mm S I 4m 4c 42 a ' l?lL ~jym':^ 4100 I 3.00 L) 0 Y 6500 n 1-78 $ fsrs.,4 m:, mm +m°. < ',•9?w ssfr 400 v _ y S )4C BM100-1s i 41200 Y 11720 Yf F ,•a .l ffrie»N,s.[,xf.fnrtxMewwf, w'+xErxxexwxr..wwflx '.Iwny ' `1xx»n.fixxWxxtHwxx.xw.ef,w1(.;Sa•+'11xnu10r.,tlnx, WASHINGTON COUNTY OREGON iL C 4i50 SEI 14 SE1/4 SCALE 06 T2S R1W W.M. zw nc - 3 LE1 100 100 83001': B00 _ ~ ,qPo - , •r 4,2aoo ltd ¢ 3200 e s Z. 3100 1 1 6100 21 7 37 603060 =5$ m = Q 4822 3" 400 Isoo £ • R. tb, J u>4[ a i 4> 5900 I'9 SSW SEAVIEW LANES 77 ;Te 23-78 23 73 ' 6800 23 - ' 4 77`77: 34 a 63~ E 4800 t~zos»t 5 ow 2goo a FOR ADDITIONAL NAGS VISIT OUR WEBSITEAT a>4,• ?a~, n•a ' ro. vwmw"naahNgtOno>.uD A6'K.•, 8 4800 8 2700 rt 5600 26 3 12 Sao ',(CSt;xu} t~ "F F tsoo p ° wa 'y 5000 s 2600 a ,!2 ' •B", fy~: , 29140 6500 R 28 2 S ';D..•. s• _ a 600 LU 94404c S Qls u.« A4o 0 ;i . ,BE;•'> B4, co :,:A r' Z 415K 5400 ' 6100 c ;iiY,'a ir 1400 _x ',~4 27 f 2600 C Z R7 " {/j', :;CB• '.G4:'.~11.'~ •:':DA: 26 s Rid 700 D Y 6200 28 -•we lr;r DD 1800 7600 : a mfiasln a we 3 x]600 'z ..v Car-llee Twdds FOr, 2S105DD 'T'ICS tia401•:; 1cs D,fieD 21t A 2 ^7400 S ' 1 101A01M022J00. Ir9400D ]00 2101 • ~ 1m4c 600 n00 $Y 2 a .>e ♦c ,r91D9411 2200 . R54fi1D 1]BAC Rela•3fin `1 n 20060 .J,!~, I cs DAen 130o q i. 6 '"1.=2. •w Assessment 40 ICS 0.121 - lac - cfi aA.7) PLOT DATE: January 22, 2004 I I 1r9 µ.e041 YON fioo ,ooo § c313••* I _ .31 ,,.aK,.' w• FOAASSESSMENT NOIRELON ~ s I ,-a=I~..>p.:~,-~..++'""Fy'.~ ~ ONLY- DONOT RE AfiK of ~q 1200 3 FOR OTHER USE 1 I 1 2300 2400 0mifpttaeyExvWrws PWSS wmtdfim 4ga'0➢'bf4 msy 11 X13 SW $ f f I G --23 ! 7~^( V g6aD 6 SUNRISE ml.fms 1 LANE ° 1--_ TIGARD ela2s1 v05 2S1 05DD 2S 1 05DD R I I I I LINP GEOGRAPHIC f INFORMATI R SYSTEM F RTREE DR V NLOR VICINITY M" 1-- m _ = F K A x C ZCA2005-00004 K IPSAN SUNRISE LANE w W ANNEXATION 0 0 z W All-(its /fEpµV ~ Y C... 'S~ T I MjS71 E D eonnA .o eEw Rot ararwM • =i eo Tgard Area Map SW HILLSHIRE DR N g 200 400 600 Feel KC 1"= 412feet y E"'( City of Tigard w Q Information on this map is far general location only and Should be verified with the Development Services Division. 13125 SW Hall Blvd Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 6334171 http:lh n -ci.tigard.of.us Plot date: Oct 7, 2005; C:\magicWIAGIC03.APR Community Development t ATTACHMENT 2 Perkins Coie 112o N.W. Couch Street, Tenth Floor Michael C. Robinson Portland, OR 97209-4128 PHONE: 503.727.2264 _ PHONE: 503.727.2000 EMAIL: mrobinson@perkinscoie.Com EAx: 503.727.2222 www.perkinscoie.com December 6, 2005 VIA EMAIL Mayor Craig Dirksen and Members of the Tigard City Council City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Re: City of Tigard Zone Change Annexation Application; File No. ZCA 2005-00004 Dear Mayor Dirksen and Members of the City Council: This office represents the applicant. The City Council held the written record open until December 6 at 5:00 p.m. for all parties to submit argument and evidence regarding the following: • Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policies 10.1.1.a(1)-(6) and 10.1.2.e. • Tigard Community Development Code ("TCDC") Section 18.320.020.B. • The circumstances under which the affected property owners and applicant agreed to annex. This letter constitutes the applicant's submittal during the first open record period. 1. Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policies 10.1.1.a(1)-(6) and 10.1.2.e. These policies require as follows: 1110.1.1 Prior to the annexation of land to the City of Tigard: [37891-0029/PA053400.059] ANCHORAGE - BEIJING - BELLEVUE BOISE - CHICAGO • DENVER HONG KONG - LOS ANGELES MENLO PARK • OLYMPIA • PHOENIX • PORTLAND • SAN FRANCISCO SEATTLE • WASHINGTON, D.C. Perkins Coie LLP and Affiliates Mayor Craig Dirksen and Members of the Tigard City Council December 6, 2005 Page 2 a. The City shall review each of the following services as to adequate capacity, or such services to be made available, to serve the parcel if developed to the most intense use allowed*, and will not significantly reduce the level of the services available to developed and undeveloped land within the City of Tigard. The services are: 1. water; 2. sewer; 3. drainage; 4. streets; 5. police; and 6. fire protection. * The most intense use allowed by the conditions of approval, the zone or the Comprehensive Plan." 1110.1.2 Approval of proposed annexations of land by the City shall be based on findings with respect to the following: (e) the annexation can be accommodated by the services listed in 10.1.1(a)." The City Council is required to find that it has reviewed each of the six services found in Plan Section 10.1.1.a(1)-(6), that they have adequate capacity, or such services are to be made available, to serve the parcel if developed to the most intense use allowed. Intense use allowed means by conditions of approval, the zone or the comprehensive plan. (Exhibit 1) The zone to be applied upon annexation is the R-7, "Medium Density Residential District." (Exhibit 2) The staff report at page 4 of 6 notes that the site is currently zoned R-7 Medium Density Residential pursuant to the Urban Services Intergovernmental Agreement between the City and Washington County. The staff report notes that the R-7 zoning designation is consistent with the original Washington County R-6 zoning designation as shown in Table 320.1. (Exhibit 3) Page 1 of 6 of the staff report notes that the R-7 zoning district is designed to accommodate attached single-family homes, detached single-family homes with or without accessory residential units, at a maximum lot size of 5,000 sq. ft. and [37891-0029/PA053400.059] 12/06105 Mayor Craig Dirksen and Members of the Tigard City Council December 6, 2005 Page 3 duplexes at a minimum lot size of 10,000 sq. ft. Mobile home parks and subdivisions are also permitted outright. Some civic and institutional uses are also permitted conditionally. Applicant has requested that the service providers for the services listed in Plan Section 10.1.1.a(1)-(6) provide information as to whether services are satisfactory. A. Water. Exhibit 4 is a December 6, 2005 letter signed by Agustin Duenas, City Engineer for the City of Tigard. Mr. Duenas' letter states: "The City will provide water service to the area to be annexed. The City has an adequate water supply and the overall infrastructure to provide water service to the area to be annexed without significant reduction in the level of service to existing customers. It also has the capacity to provide any additional lines that may be needed to provide service when the annexed properties are developed. The water system does have adequate capacity to serve the property to be annexed to the most intense use allowed without significantly reducing the level of services available to developed and undeveloped land within Tigard." Exhibit 5 is a December 6, 2005 letter from Rich Boyle, Project Manager for the applicant with WRG Design, Inc. Mr. Boyle's letter states in part: "The City has determined that it can provide services to this site and doing so will not significantly reduce the level of services to developed and undeveloped land within the City of Tigard." The City can find that there is adequate water service to serve the parcel if developed to the most intense use allowed. The most intense use allowed is a residential use at the density allowed in the R-7 zoning district. Table 320.1 shows this density to be a range of 6-12 units per acre. B. Sewer. Exhibit 6 is a December 5, 2005 letter from Terry Keyes, Development Services Manager for Clean Water Services. Mr. Keyes notes that once a parcel is annexed, [37891.0029/PA053400.059] 12/06/05 Mayor Craig Dirksen and Members of the Tigard City Council December 6, 2005 Page 4 service is transferred from CWS to the applicable City. Mr. Keyes' letter further notes the relevant sanitary sewer's capacity to serve the annexation site under the proposed zoning district. Mr. Duenas' letter states that: The City is capable of determining what additional facilities will be required and of administering all portions of the retail sanitary sewer system, both existing and future additions in the area to be annexed, without significant reduction to the level of services provided to properties in the City." C. Drainage. Mr. Keyes' letter states that capacity of drainage systems serving the site should not be an issue for the proposed annexation. Mr. Duenas' letter states that: "The retail system has the capacity to provide adequate storm drainage without significant reduction to the level of services provided to developed and undeveloped properties in the City." Mr. Boyle's letter states: capacity of the drainage system serving the site should not be an issue for this proposed annexation." D. Streets. Exhibit 7 is a December 2, 2005 memorandum from Julia Kuhn of Kittelson & Associates. Ms. Kuhn's letter states: "There is sufficient infrastructure to accommodate the proposed parcel at maximum buildout and the annexed parcel will not create degrade the level of service provided at any impacted intersection." E. Police. Exhibit 8 is a December 2, 2005 letter from Chief William Dickinson. Chief Dickinson's letter states in part: "The City of Tigard Police Department has determined that it has adequate services to serve the most intense use allowed and that providing services will not significantly reduce the level of services available to developed and undeveloped land within the City of Tigard." F. Fire Protection. Exhibit 9 is a November 21, 2005 letter from Eric T. McMullen, Deputy Fire Marshal with the Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue District. Mr. McMullen's letter states that the District currently provides services to the entire Bull Mountain area, both inside and [37891-0029/PA053400.059] 12/06/05 Mayor Craig Dirksen and Members of the Tigard City Council December 6, 2005 Page 5 outside of the City of Tigard and that they have sufficient personnel and equipment to provide services to developed and undeveloped land within the City. The City can also find the most intense use allowed are the permitted uses allowed in the R-7 zoning district. The only permitted uses, in addition to household living, detached single-family units, duplexes, manufactured units, mobile home parks and subdivisions, public support facilities, agricultural uses and wireless communication facilities. Other uses are not allowed because they require subsequent review. Alternatively, the City can also find that Plan Policy 10. allows the uses to be limited by conditions of approval. The applicant respectfully requests that if the City Council approves this annexation application, that it limit the uses to residential uses and accessory uses to residential uses, public facilities and other facilities necessary to serve the residential uses. It is not necessary to allow other uses allowed as conditional uses on this site. Further, TCDC Section 18.390.060.H.4.a permits the City Council to approve the application with conditions. For these reasons, the City Council can find that this policy is satisfied. 2. TCDC Section 18.320.020.B. This criterion provides as follows: "The decision to approve, approve a modification, or deny an application to annex property to the City shall be based on the following criteria: 1. All services and facilities are available to the area and have sufficient capacity to provide service for the proposed annexation area; and 2. The applicable comprehensive plan policies and implementing ordinance provisions have been satisfied." The evidence contained with this letter demonstrates that the requirement of subsection (1) has been satisfied. The applicant has previously demonstrated that applicable comprehensive plan policies and other implementing ordinance provisions have been satisfied. [37891-0029/PA053400.0591 12/06/05 Mayor Craig Dirksen and Members of the Tigard City Council December 6, 2005 Page 6 For these reasons, the applicant respectfully requests that the Tigard City Council approve the annexation request with appropriate conditions of approval as requested herein. Very truly yo r , LJ Michae . Robinson MCR:lt Enclosures cc: Ms. Julie Journeay (w/encls.) (via email) Mr. Andrew Tull (w/encls.) (via email) Ms. Mimi Doukas (w/encls.) (via email) Mr. Rich Boyle (w/encls.) (via email) Mr. Tim Ramis (w/encls.) (via email) Mr. Gary Firestone (w/encls.) (via email) Mr. Gary Pagenstecher (w/encls.) (via email) [37891-0029/PA053400.059) 12/06/05 • Water in the Tigard area is provided by the Metzger and Tigard Water Districts. These districts purchase their water from Portland, Lake Oswego and other sources. • An Urban Planning Area Agreement (UPAA) between Tigard and Washington County regarding land use planning and annexation was adopted in 1983. The intent of this agreement is to: a. Identify the urbanizable land within each jurisdiction surrounding Tigard; b. Provide for orderly and efficient transition from urbanizable land to urban land; C. Provide a process for reviewing the land use designations between the City and County; d. Provide for a process to extend existing services; and e. Provide a process for annexations of land to the City. • The agreement requires that the parties resolve various issues, otherwise the agreement will lapse on January 1, 1984 (or a later date if the parties extend the agreement) and the 1980 agreement between the parties is revived. • The City does not have an UPAA with the school districts (Tigard and Beaverton), but the districts do work with the City's Planning and Development Department to estimate the enrollment impact of new residential development in the City. • The City has made a significant effort in the past to manage the location and type of growth, and to coordinate this growth with the extension of services and expansion of facilities. • The City is currently in the process of including all of the "unincorporated islands" within the city limits. 10.1 ANNEXATION OF LAND POLICIES 10.1.1 PRIOR TO THE ANNEXATION OF LAND TO THE CITY OF TIGARD: a. THE CITY SHALL REVIEW EACH OF THE FOLLOWING SERVICES AS TO ADEQUATE CAPACITY, OR SUCH SERVICES TO BE MADE AVAILABLE, TO SERVE THE PARCEL IF DEVELOPED TO THE MOST INTENSE USE ALLOWED`, AND WILL NOT SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCE THE LEVEL OF SERVICES AVAILABLE TO DEVELOPED AND UNDEVELOPED LAND WITHIN THE CITY OF TIGARD. THE SERVICES ARE: 1. WATER; 2. SEWER; 3. DRAINAGE; 4. STREETS; 5. POLICE; AND 6. FIRE PROTECTION. Most intense use allowed by the conditions of approval, the zone or the Comprehensive Plan. b. IF REQUIRED BY AN ADOPTED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM ORDINANCE, THE APPLICANT SHALL SIGN AND RECORD WITH WASHINGTON COUNTY A NONREMONSTRANCE AGREEMENT REGARDING THE FOLLOWING: 1. THE FORMATION OF A LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (L.I.D.) FOR ANY OF THE FOLLOWING SERVICES THAT COULD BE PROVIDED THROUGH SUCH A DISTRICT. THE EXTENSION OR IMPROVEMENT OF THE FOLLOWING: a) WATER; Vol. II, Policy 10-2 EXHIBIT I b) SEWER; c) DRAINAGE; AND d) STREETS. 2. THE FORMATION OF A SPECIAL DISTRICT FOR ANY OF THE ABOVE SERVICES OR THE INCLUSION OF THE PROPERTY INTO A SPECIAL SERVICE DISTRICT FOR ANY OF THE ABOVE SERVICES. C. THE CITY SHALL PROVIDE URBAN SERVICES TO AREAS WITHIN THE TIGARD URBAN PLANNING AREA OR WITH THE URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY UPON ANNEXATION. 10.1.2 APPROVAL OF PROPOSED ANNEXATIONS OF LAND BY THE CITY SHALL BE BASED ON FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO THE FOLLOWING: a. THE ANNEXATION ELIMINATES AN EXISTING "POCKET" OR "ISLAND" OF UNINCORPORATED TERRITORY; OR b. THE ANNEXATION WILL NOT CREATE AN IRREGULAR BOUNDARY THAT MAKES IT DIFFICULT FOR THE POLICE IN AN EMERGENCY SITUATION TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE PARCEL IS WITHIN OR OUTSIDE THE CITY; C. THE POLICE DEPARTMENT HAS COMMENTED UPON THE ANNEXATION; d. THE LAND IS LOCATED WITHIN THE TIGARD URBAN PLANNING AREA AND IS CONTIGUOUS TO THE CITY BOUNDARY; e. THE ANNEXATION CAN BE ACCOMMODATED BY THE SERVICES LISTED IN 10.1.1(a). 10.1.3 UPON ANNEXATION OF LAND INTO THE CITY WHICH CARRIES A WASHINGTON COUNTY ZONING DESIGNATION, THE CITY OF TIGARD SHALL ASSIGN THE CITY OF TIGARD ZONING DISTRICT DESIGNATION WHICH MOST CLOSELY CONFORMS TO THE COUNTY ZONING DESIGNATION. (Rev. Ord. 84-21) 10.2 EXTENSION OF SERVICES OUTSIDE THE CITY LIMITS POLICIES 10.2.1 THE CITY SHALL NOT APPROVE THE EXTENSION OF CITY OR UNIFIED SEWERAGE AGENCY (USA) LINES EXCEPT: a. WHERE APPLICATIONS FOR ANNEXATION FOR THOSE PROPERTIES HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE CITY; OR b. WHERE A NONREMONSTRANCE AGREEMENT TO ANNEX THOSE PROPERTIES HAS BEEN SIGNED AND RECORDED WITH WASHINGTON COUNTY AND SUBMITTED TO THE CITY; OR C. WHERE THE APPLICABLE STATE OR COUNTY HEALTH AGENCY HAS DECLARED THAT THERE IS A POTENTIAL OR IMMINENT HEALTH HAZARD. 10.2.2 IN ADDITION TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF POLICY 10.2.1, THE EXTENSION OF SEWER LINES OUTSIDE OF THE CITY LIMITS SHALL NOT REDUCE THE CAPACITY BELOW THE REQUIRED LEVEL FOR AREAS WITHIN THE CITY. Vol. 11, Policy 10-3 Chapter 18.510 RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS Sections: 18.510.010 Purpose 18.510.020 List of Zoning Districts 18.510.030 Uses 18.510.040 Minimum and Maximum Densities 18.510.050 Development Standards 18.510.060 Accessory Structures 18.510.010 Purpose A. Preserve neiphborhood livability. One of the major purposes of the regulations governing development in residential zoning districts is to protect the livability of existing and future residential neighborhoods, by encouraging primarily residential development with compatible non-residential development schools, churches, parks and recreation facilities, day care centers, neighborhood commercial uses and other services at appropriate locations and at an appropriate scale. B. Encourage construction of affordable housing. Another purpose of these regulations is to create the environment in which construction of a full range of owner-occupied and rental housing at affordable prices is encouraged. This can be accomplished by providing residential zoning districts of varying densities and developing flexible design and development standards to encourage innovation and reduce housing costs. 18.510.020 List of Zoning Districts A. R-1: Low-Density Residential District. The R-1 zoning district is designed to accommodate detached single-family homes with or without accessory residential units at a minimum lot size of 30,000 square feet. Some civic and institutional uses are also permitted conditionally. B. R-2: Low-Density Residential District. The R-2 zoning district is designed to accommodate detached single-family homes with or without accessory residential units at a minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet. Some civic and institutional uses are also permitted conditionally. C. R-3.5: Low-Density Residential District. The R-3.5 zoning district is designed to accommodate detached single-family homes with or without accessory residential units at a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet. Duplexes are permitted conditionally. Some civic and institutional uses are also permitted conditionally. D. R-4.5: Low-Density Residential District. The R-4.5 zoning district is designed to accommodate detached single-family homes with or without accessory residential units at a minimum lot size of 7,500 square feet. Duplexes and attached single-family units are permitted conditionally. Some civic and institutional uses are also permitted conditionally. E. R-7: Medium-Density Residential District. The R-7 zoning district is designed to accommodate attached single-family homes, detached single-family homes with or without accessory residential units, at a minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet, and duplexes, at a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet. Mobile home parks and subdivisions are also permitted outright. Some civic and institutional uses are also permitted conditionally. Residential Zoning Districts 18.510-1 Code Update. 06102 EXHIBIT 2 F. R-12: Medium-Density Residential District. The R-12 zoning district is designed to accommodate a full range of housing types at a minimum lot size of 3,050 square feet. A wide range of civic and institutional uses are also permitted conditionally. G. R-25: Medium High-Density Residential District. The R-25 zoning district is designed to accommodate existing housing of all types and new attached single-family and multi-family housing units at a minimum lot size of 1,480 square feet. A limited amount of neighborhood commercial uses is permitted outright and a wide range of civic and institutional uses are permitted conditionally. H. R-40: Medium High-Density Residential District. The R-40 zoning district is designed to accommodate existing housing of all types and new attached single-family and multi-family housing units with no minimum lot size or maximum density. A limited amount of neighborhood commercial uses is permitted outright and a wide range of civic and institutional uses are permitted conditionally. 18.510.030 Uses A. Taes of uses. For the purposes of this chapter, there are four kinds of use: 1. A permitted (P) use is a use which is permitted outright, but subject to all of the applicable provisions of this title. If a use is not listed as a permitted use, it may be held to be a similar unlisted used under the provisions of Chapter 18.230; 2. A restricted (R) use is permitted outright providing it is in compliance with special requirements, exceptions or restrictions; 3. A conditional use (C) is a use the approval of which is discretionary with the Hearings Officer. The approval process and criteria are set forth in Chapters 18.310 and 18.320. If a use is not listed as a conditional use, it may be held to be a similar unlisted used under the provisions of Chapter 18.230; 4. A prohibited (N) use is one which is not permitted in a zoning district under any circumstances. B. Use table. A list of permitted, limited, conditional and prohibited uses in residential zones is presented in Table 18.510.1. Residential Zoning Districts 18.310-2 Code Update. 06102 TABLE 18.510.1 USE TABLE USE CATEGORY R-1 R-2 R-3.5 R4.5 R-7 R-12 R-25 R-40 RESIDENTIAL Household Living P P P P P P P P Group Living R'/C R'/C R'/C R'/C, R'/C. R'/C R'/C R'/C Transitional Housing N N N N N C C C Home Occupation RZ R2 RZ RZ R2 RZ R2 R2 HOUSING TYPES Single Units, Attached N N N R$ R9/C P P P Single Units, Detached P P P P P P P P Accessory Units R3 R3 W W R3 W R3 W Duplexes N N C C P P P P Multi-Family Units N N N N N P P P Manufactured Units P P P P P P P P Mobile Home Parks/Subdivisions N N C C P P P P CIVIC (INSTITUTIONAL) Basic Utilities C° C4 C° C4 C4 C4 C4 C° Colleges C C C C C C C C Community Recreation C C C C C C C C Cultural Institutions N N C C C C N N Day Care P/CS P/CS P/CS P/C' P/CS P/CS P/CS P/CS Emergency Services C C C C C N N N Medical Centers N N C C C C C C Postal Service N N N N N N N N Public Support Facilities P P P P P P P P Religious Institutions C C C C C C C C Schools C C C C C C C C Social/Fraternal Clubs/Lodges N N N N N C C C COMMERCIAL Commercial Lodging N N N N N N N N Eating and Drinking Establishments N N N N N N N N Entertainment-Oriented - Major Event Entertainment N N N N N N N N Outdoor Entertainment N N N N N N N N - Indoor Entertainment N N N N N N N N - Adult Entertainment N N N N N N N N General Retail - Sales-Oriented N N N N N N R" R" - Personal Services N N N N N N R" R" - Repair-Oriented N N N N N N R" R" - Bulk Sales N N N N N N N N - Outdoor Sales N N N N N N N N - Animal-Related N N N N N N N N Residential Zoning Districts 18.510-3 Code Update: 06/02 TABLE 18.510.1(CON'T) USE CATEGORY R-1 R-2 R-3.5 R-4.5 R-7 R-12 R-25 R-40 Motor Vehicle Related - Motor Vehicle Sales/Rental N N N N N N N N - Motor Vehicle Servicing/Repair N N N N N N N N - Vehicle Fuel Sales N N N N N N N N Office N N N N N N N N Self-Service Storage N N N N N N N N Non-Accessory Parking N N N N N CIO CIO C'0 INDUSTRIAL Industrial Services N N N N N N N N Manufacturing and Production - Light Industrial N N N N N N N N - General Industrial N N N N N N N N - Heavy Industrial N N N N N N N N Railroad Yards N N N N N N N N Research and Development N N N N N N N N Warehouse/Freight Movement N N N N N N N N Waste-Related N N N N N N N N Wholesale Sales N N N N N N N N OTHER Agriculture/Horticulture P6 P6 P6 P6 P6 N N N Cemeteries N N C C C N N N Detention Facilities N N N N N N N N Heliports N N N N N N N N Mining N N N N N N N N Wireless Communication Facilities P/R' P/R1 P/R7 P/R' P/R7 P/R7 P/R7 P/R7 Rail Lines/Utility Corridors C C C C C C C C P=Permitted R=Restricted C=Conditional Use N=Not Permitted 'Group living with five or fewer residents permitted by right; group living with six or more residents permitted as conditional use. 2Permitted subject to requirements Chapter 18.742. 3Permitted subject to compliance with requirements in 18.710. °Except water and storm and sanitary sewers, which are allowed by right. 51n-home day care which meets all state requirements permitted by right; freestanding day care centers which meet all state requirements permitted conditionally. 6When an agricultural use is adjacent to a residential use, no poultry or livestock, other than normal household pets, may be housed or provided use of a fenced run within 100 feet of any nearby residence except a dwelling on the same lot. Residential Zoning Districts 19510-4 Code Update. 06102 7See Chapter 18.798, Wireless Communication Facilities, for requirements for permitted and restricted facilities. BAttached single-family units permitted only as part of an approved planned development. 9Permitted by right if no more than five units in a grouping; permitted conditionally if six or more units per grouping. 1OOnly park-and-ride and other transit-related facilities permitted conditionally. "Limited to ground-floor level of multi-family projects, not to exceed 10% of total gross square feet of the building. 18.510.040 Minimum and Maximum Densities A. Purpose. The purpose of this section is to establish minimum and maximum densities in each residential zoning district. To ensure the quality and density of development envisioned, the maximum density establishes the ceiling for development in each zoning district based on minimum lot size. To ensure that property develops at or near the density envisioned for the zone, the minimum density for each zoning district has been established at 80% of maximum density. B. Calculating minimum and maximum densities. The calculation of minimum and maximums densities is governed by the formulas in Chapter 18.715, Density Computations. C. Adiustments. Applicants may request an adjustment when, because of the size of the site or other constraint, it is not possible to accommodate the proportional minimum density as required by Section 18.715020C and still comply with all of the development standards in the underlying zoning district, as contained in Table 18.510.2 below. Such an adjustment may be granted by means of a Type I procedure, as governed by Chapter 18.390, using approval criteria in Section 18.370.020.C.2. 18.510.050 Development Standards A. Compliance reouired. All development must comply with: 1. All of the applicable development standards contained in the underlying zoning district, except where the applicant has obtained variances or adjustments in accordance with Chapters 18.370; 2. All other applicable standards and requirements contained in this title. B. Development Standards. Development standards in residential zoning districts are contained in Table 18.510.2. Residential Zoning Districts 19510-5 Code Update: 06102 TABLE 18.510.2 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS IN RESIDENTIAL ZONES STANDARD R-1 R-2 R-3.5 R4.5 R-7 Minimum Lot Size Detached unit 30,000 sq.ft. 20,000 sq.ft. 10,000 sq.ft. 7,500 sq. ft. 5,000 sq. ft. Duplexes 10,000 sq. ft. 10,000 sq. ft. Attached unit 1 5,000 .ft. Average Minimum Lot Width Detached unit lots 100 ft. 100 ft. 65 ft. 50 ft. 50 ft. Duplex lots 90 ft 90 ft. 50 ft. Attached unit lots 40 ft. Maximum Lot Coverage 80% 2 Minimum Setbacks Front yard 30 ft. 30 ft. 20 ft 20 ft. 15 ft. Side facing street on comer through lots 20 ft. 20 ft. 20 R 15 ft. 10 ft. Side yard 5 ft. 5 ft. 5 ft. 5 ft. 5 ft. Rear yard 25 ft 25 ft. 15 ft. 15 ft. 15 ft. Side or rear yard abutting more restrictive zoning district 30 ft. Distance between property line and front of a 20 ft. 20 ft. 20 ft. 20 ft. 20 ft. Maximum Height 30 ft. 30 ft. 30 it 30 ft. 35 ft. Minimum Landscape Requirement 200/a [ I ] Single-family attached residential units permitted at one dwelling per lot with no more that five attached units in one grouping. [2] Lot coverage includes all buildings and impervious surfaces. TABLE 18.510.2 - (Cont'd.) DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS IN RESIDENTIAL ZONES R-12 R-25 R-40 STANDARD MF DU* SF DU** MF DU* SF DU** MF DU* SF DU** Minimum Lot Size Detached unit 3,050 sq.ft.per unit 3,050 sq.ft. per unit 1.480 sq.ft. 3,050 sq.ft per unit None None Attached unit 1,480 sq.ft None Duplexes 6,100 sq.ft or 3,050 sq.ft. per unit None Boarding, lod in rooming house 6100 .ft. Average Lot Width None None None None None None Minimum Setbacks Front yard 20 ft. 15 ft. 20 ft. 15 ft 20 ft. 15 ft. Side facing street on corner & through lots 20 ft. 10 ft. 20 ft. 10 ft. 20 ft. 10 ft. Side yard loft. 5ft.[I] to ft. 5ft.[1] 10 ft. 5ft.[1] - Rear yard 20 ft. 15 ft. 20 ft. is ft. 20 ft. 15 ft. Side or rear yard abutting more restrictive zoning district 30 ft. 30 ft. 30 ft 30 ft. 35 ft. 35 ft. Distance between property line and garage entrance 20 ft 20 ft. 20 ft 20 ft 20 ft 20 ft. Maximum Hei t 35 ft. 35 ft. 45 ft 45 ft. 60 ft. 60 ft. Maximum Lot Coverage 2 800/0 80% 800/0 800/0 80% 80% Mimimum Landscape Requirement 200/a 200/6 20% 20% 900/0 200/a [1] Except this shall not apply to attached units on the lot line on which the units are attached, [2] Lot coverage includes all buildings and impervious surfaces. • Multiple-family dwelling unit Single-family dwelling unit Residential Zoning Districts 18.510-6 Code Update: 06102 18.510.060 Accessory Structures A. Permitted uses. Accessory structures are permitted by right in all residential zones subject to the following: 1. Dimensional requirements: a.. On sites containing less than 2.5 acres, an accessory structure may not exceed 528 square feet. On sites 2.5 acres or larger, an accessory structure may not exceed 1,000 square feet; b. An accessory structure may not exceed 15 feet in height; c. In no case shall the primary structure and accessory structure(s) exceed the maximum lot coverage allowed in the base zone; d. An accessory structure may not be located within the front yard setback; e. An accessory structure must maintain a minimum side and rear yard setback of five feet; 2. Non-dimensional requirements: a. No accessory structure shall encroach upon or interfere with the use of any adjoining property or public right-of-way including but not limited to streets, alleys and public and private easements; b. An accessory structure shall comply with all of the requirements of the Uniform Building Code. All accessory structures except those less than 120 square feet in size require a building permit; c. An accessory structure which is non-conforming is subject to the provisions of Chapter 18.760, Non-Conforming Situations, when an alternation, expansion or reconstruction is requested; d. The erection of television receiving dishes on the roof of a structure is not permitted in any residential zone. 3. All freestanding and detached towers, antennas, wind-generating devices and TV receiving dishes, except as otherwise regulated by Wireless Communication Facilities (Chapter 18.798), shall have setbacks equal to or greater than the height of the proposed structure. Suitable protective anti-climb fencing and a landscaped planting screen, in accordance with Chapter 18.745, Landscaping and Screening, shall be provided and maintained around these structures and accessory attachments.■ Residential Zoning Districts 18.510-7 Code Update. 06102 TABLE 320.1 CONVERSION TABLE FOR COUNTY AND CITY PLAN AND ZONING DESIGNATIONS Washington County Land Use City of Tigard Zoning City of Tigard Districts/Plan Designation Plan Designation R-5 Res. 5 units/acre R-4.5 SFR 7,500 sq. ft. Low density 1-5 units/acre R-6 Res. 6 units/acre R-7 SFR 5,000 sq. ft. Med. density 6-12 units/acre R-9 Res. 9 units/acre R-12 Multi-family 12 units/acre Med. density 6-12 units/acre R-12 Res. 12 units/acre R-12 Multi-family 12 units/acre Med. density 6-12 units/acre R-15 Res. 15 units/acre R-25 Multi-family 25 units/acre Medium-High density 13-25 units/acre R-24 Res. 24 units/acres R-25 Multi-family 25 units/acre Medium-High density 13-25 units/acre Office Commercial C-P Commercial Professional CP Commercial Professional NC Neighborhood Commercial CN Neighborhood Commercial CN Neighborhood Commercial CBD Commercial Business CBD Commercial Business CBD Commercial Business District District District GC General Commercial CG General Commercial CG General Commercial IND Industrial I-L Light Industrial Light Industrials Annexations 18.320-2 11126198 EXMBIT 3 December 6, 2005 CITY OF TIGARD Andrew Tull OREGON Planner, WRG Design 5415 SW Westgate Drive, Suite 100 Portland, Oregon 97221 Re: City of Tigard Zone Change Annexation Application; File No. ZCA 2005-00004 on Sunrise Lane (north of Bull Mountain Road at 150th and Sunrise Lane); WCTM 2S105DD Tax lots 400, 500, 1000, 1100, 1300, 1400, 1500, 1600,1700 and 1800 Dear Mr. Tull: The City is a provider of water service, sanitary sewer service, storm drainage services and streets. The referenced application requests annexation of 19.95 acres to the City of Tigard and application of the R-7 zoning district. The most intense uses allowed in the City of Tigard R-7 Medium Density Residential zoning district are attached single-family homes, detached single- family homes with or without accessory residential units at a minimum lot size of 5,000 square 7 feet, and duplexes at a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet. Mobile home parks and subdivisions are also permitted outright. Some civic and institutional uses are also permitted conditionally. Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policy 10.1. La requires that the City review and determine the City's capacity to provide services to the area upon annexation and development. I The following are services that the City will provide to the annexed area: ! Water: The City will provide water service to the area to be annexed. The City has an adequate water supply and the overall infrastructure to provide water service to the area to be annexed without significant reduction in the level of service to existing customers. It also has the capacity to provide any additional lines that may be needed to provide service when the annexed properties are developed. As with any development, improvements to local portions of the water system needed to provide service to the development will be required of the developer at the time of development. The City has the ability and capacity to determine what specific improvements may be needed and the ability and capacity to provide service through its existing I system and any additional infrastructure that will be required when development occurs. The City anticipates that the Developer will be required to upsize the water lines along Sunrise Lane and on 150 h and to provide local distribution lines. Providing service through required upsizing and additional distribution lines is within the capacity of the system. The water system does have adequate capacity to serve the property to be annexed at the most intense use allowed without significantly reducing the level of services available to developed and undeveloped land within Tigard. I Sanitary Sewer: Sanitary sewer service is provided at the retail level by the City and at the i wholesale level by Clean Water Services. As to the capacity of the City's system, the City is ' I 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772 ,I i EXHIBIT 4 I capable of providing retail level sewer service without significant reduction in the level of services provided to developed and undeveloped properties in the City. As with the water system, some local lines will be required to be provided by the developer at the time of the development. The City is prepared to accept, operate and maintain public sewers constructed within the annexed area. The City is capable of determining what additional facilities will be required and of administering all portions of the retail sanitary sewer system, both existing and future additions in the area to be annexed, without significant reduction in the level of services provided to properties in the City. I Storm Drainage: Storm drainage service, like sanitary sewer service, is provided jointly by the City and CWS. An existing drainageway connects the site to Summer Creek. The drainageway crosses land that will continue to be within an unincorporated area following the proposed annexation and is within CWS's jurisdiction. Site specific drainage facilities will be required at the time of development. The retail system has the capacity to provide adequate storm drainage j without significant reduction in the level of services provided to developed and undeveloped properties in the City. Streets: The site is served by Bull Mountain Road and SW 150th Avenue, county roads designated as major collectors, by SW Grandview Lane, a county road designated as a minor i collector, and by SW Sunrise Lane, a county road designated as a local road. Some improvements to these roads may be required as part of the development of the annexed area. However, the City has determined that it can provide services to this site and doing so will not significantly reduce the level of services to developed and undeveloped land within the. City of Tigard. } i Sincerely, i i i USTIN P. DUENAS, P.E. Engineer c: Tom Coffee, Interim CD Director Gary Pagenstecher, Associate Planner V enftOlkUa OOF to merew tal . CRY Wflou for cuMaa lane ennaa Won 1240.e9o 'I i 1 t 1 I Letter to Andrew Tull - Sunrise Lane Annexation Page 2 of 2 i i i D E S I G N I N C. it' December 6, 2005 i i City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd, Tigard, OR 97223 RE: Sunrise Lane Annexation City of Tigard Zone Change Annexation Application; File No. ZCA 2005-00004 on Sunrise Lane (north of Bull Mountain Road at 150th and Sunrise Lane; WCTM 2S105DD Tax lots 400, 500, 1000, 1100, 1300, 1400, 1500, 1600, and 1700 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES To the City of Tigard, 1 am writing in regard to the above referenced application to the City of Tigard. This application requests annexation of 19.95 acres to the City of Tigard and application of the R- 7 zoning district. LAND PLANNING I Clean Water Services (CWS) is the service provider for sanitary sewer and surface water management in the unincorporated urban areas of Washington County. Once a parcel becomes annexed, service is transferred from CWS to the City of Tigard. The proposed ! annexation area will be served by an existing 8" sanitary sewer on Menlor Lane at SW Fern i Street. The connection point to this sewer will likely be on Menlor, dust south of Fern Street CIVIL or at the southern end of 148th Avenue, south of Falkland Ct. We are unaware of any major ENGINEERING capacity constraints in the sewer system downstream of the connection points. The attached letter from CWS concurs with our position therefore; these sanitary sewers have ~I capacity to serve the annexation site under the proposed zoning density. `u The site in question is traversed by two drainage corridors. Runoff from site development LANDSCAPE will be treated in accordance with CWS standards and released into these drainage ways. ARCNITCCTURE Although there are no known capacity issues associated with the site, if any capacity issues are identified within the aforementioned drainage ways, the applicant will be required to detain site runoff in accordance with CWS standards. The City of Tigard implements the CWS standards within their boundary and if the area is annexed, the ability of the City to serve the site with adequate method of controlling storm drainage will not be affected. LAND Therefore, capacity of the drainage system serving the site should not be an issue for this SURVEY proposed annexation. I A six inch and eight inch water lines are located in SW Sunrise Lane adjacent to the subject parcels. The City has determined that it can provide services to this site and doing so will not significantly reduce the level of services to developed and undeveloped land within the City of Tigard. Therefore, capacity of the water system serving the site should not be an issue for this proposed annexation. 5415 SW Westgate Dr. Attached to this document is a traffic impact letter prepared by Kittelson & Associates which Suite 100 demonstrates that road capacity in the area will be sufficient to serve the most intense use Portland, OR allowed and that providing services will not significantly reduce the level of services. 97221 j Additionally, the applicant has attach letters from Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue, The City of Tigard's Police Department, and a letter from Clean Water Services as evidence of the PH 5031419-2500 ability of service providers' capacity. FX 503/419-2600 i I www.wrgd.com EXHIBIT 5 I The City has been provided with sufficient materials to review the available levels of service as referenced by The City's Comprehensive Plan section 10.1.1(A). The commentary contained in this letter in concert with the attached letters addressing Sanitary Sewer, Drainage, Police Protection, Fire Protection, and Traffic Capacity have demonstrated that the City will be able to provide services to the parcels if developed to the most intense use allowed under the R-7 zoning designation. Additionally, if annexed, the City would be able to provide said services without a significant reduction to the level of services available to developed and undeveloped land within the City of Tigard. Sincerely, WRG Design, Inc. Rich Boyle, Project Manager cc: Julie Journeay, JT Smith Properties Mike Robinson, Perkins Coie 0 E S I G N I N C. .Q/ CleanWater Services Our commitment is clear. December 5; 2005 Mr. Andrew Tull, Planner WRG Design 5415 SW Westgate Drive, Suite 100 Portland, Oregon 97221 Dear Mr. Tull: Subject: City of Tigard Zone Change Annexation Application (File No. ZCA 2005-00004) on Sunrise Lane at 1500 (TL# 2SI05DD00400, 500, 1000, 1100, 1300, 1400, 1500, 1600, 1700 and 1800) I am writing in regard to the above referenced application to the City of Tigard. This application requests annexation of 19.95 acres to the City of Tigard and application of the R-7 zoning district. Clean Water Services (CWS) is the service provider for sanitary sewer and surface water management in the unincorporated urban areas of Washington County. Once a parcel becomes annexed, service is transferred from CWS to the applicable City within the boundaries of Washington County. The proposed annexation area will be served by an existing 8" sanitary sewer on Menlor Lane at SW Fern Street. The connection point to this sewer will likely be on Menlor, just south of Fern Street or at the southern end of 148th Avenue, south of Falkland Ct. We are unaware of any major capacity constraints in the sewer system downstream of the connection points. Therefore, these sanitary sewers have capacity to serve the annexation site under the proposed zoning density. The site in question is traversed by two drainage corridors. Runoff from site development will be treated in accordance with CWS standards and released into these drainage ways. Although there are no know capacity issues associated with the site, if any capacity issues are identified within th6-afoze ienttorled, drainage ways, the applicant will be required to detain site runoff in accordance with CWS standards. Therefore, capacity of the drainage system serving the site should not be an issue for this proposed annexation. Finally, the City of Tigard implements the CWS standards within their boundary. Therefore, if the area is annexed, the ability of the City to serve the site with sanitary sewer and storm drainage will not be affected. If you have any questions as please feel free to email or call me. Sincerely, t~ / ! J ~k l 11 erry . Keyes, P.E. .D elopment Services Manager c: Mike Robinson, Perkins-Coic Kim McMillan, City of Tigard 2550 SW Hillsboro Highway - Hillsboro, Oregon 97123 Phone: (503) 681.3600 - Fax: (503) 681-3603 - www.CleanWaterServices.org EXHIBIT 6 KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC. TRANSPORTATION PLANNING/TRAFFIC ENGINEERING 610 SW ALDER, SUITE 700 • PORTLAND, OR 97205 • (603) 228.5230 FAX(603)273-8169 MEMORANDUM Date: December 2, 2005 Project 7540 To: Mike Robinson, Perkins Coie Julie Joumeay, JT Smith From: Julia Kuhn, P.E. Project: Sunrise Lane Subject: Compliance with Tigard Comprehensive Plan Per your request, this memorandum addresses compliance of the Sunrise Lane project with the City of Tigard's Comprehensive Plan Policy 10.1.1. This policy states that the city should ensure that the infrastructure, including streets, has adequate capacity to serve maximum buildout of the parcel that is under consideration for annexation. Further, the policy requires that the annexed parcel will not significantly reduce the level of service available to serve other developed and undeveloped land within the City of Tigard. The Sunrise Lane residential project is proposed to be developed as an 86-lot residential subdivision. This development is consistent with the Medium-Density Residential zoning designation (R-7). Per the city's code, the minimum lot size under R-7 zoning is 5,000 square feet. This minimum lot size is the average lot size proposed as part of the Sunrise Lane project; therefore, the proposed development reflects the most intense use allowed under the code. In September 2005, we prepared a traffic impact analysis for the proposed Sunrise Lane subdivision. This impact analysis demonstrates that the critical movements at all affected intersections within the vicinity of the property operate at level of service "C" or better. Other intersections within the City of Tigard that are outside of the affected study area will not be significantly affected by the proposed subdivision. For these reasons, Policy 10.1.1 can be met. There is sufficient infrastructure to accommodate the proposed parcel at maximum buildout and the annexed parcel will not create degrade the level of service provided at any impacted intersection. Please let us know if you have any questions regarding our analysis. FILENAME: C:1Docun=U and Sddnp\rob'un\1oca1 Sesdnp\Tenporary Internet Fula\0LK4\e0mp pLm nx=.doc EXHIBIT 7 12/08/05 12:48 PAX 503 870 1581 TIGARD PD (~►002 KcIml C. Robinson I mmm 303.727.2244 a►an_ mcotilAlon~palcipscoie.a~m ijecedveT 2, 2005 Chief of Police City of T;&,nrd Poling, nenAltment " Re: City of Tigard Zone Change Annexation Application; F11e No. ZCA 2005-00004 on Sunrise Lane (north of Bull Mountain Road at 150th and Sunrise Lane; WCTM 2S105DD Tax lots 400, 500, 1000, and 1800 Dear Jim: You are the provider of police services. This application requests annexation of 19.95 acres to the City of Tigard and application of the R-7 zoning district, The most intense use allowed in the City of Tigard R-7 Medium Density Residential zoning dishier ar P. attached single-family homes, detached single-family homes with or without accessory residential units at a minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet and duplexes at a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet. Mobile home parks and :bdi~~isiors are also permitted outri ght. Some civic and ins#tutional uses are also permitted conditionally (a copy of the R-7 zoning district is attached). According to records of property ownership and Washington County Voter information, approximately 14 people reside on the subject parcels in 7 homes. Development of the. ruihject parcels under the R-7 zoning district may allow for as ansirv ac 96 homes to be constructed on the site. The City of Tigard Police Department has determined that it has adequate services to serve the most intense use allowed and that providing services will not significantly reduce the level of services available to developed and undeveloped land within the City of Tigard. SIGNATURE TITLE 100000.0000lCiW Police Unel`2005-12-02,DOG) EXHIBIT 8 12/06/05 12;49 FAX 509 670 1561 TIGARD PD ~I009 City of Tigard Police Department December 6, 2005 Page 2 PRINTED NAME DATE Very truly Yom, Michael C. Robinson MCRAt izo~os 100000-00001Chy Fo6ce Lcmer 2005-1 z.oaAOC) r ARM TUALATIN VALLEY FIRE & RESCUE • SOUTH DIVISION COMMUNITY SERVICES • OPERATIONS • FIRE PREVENTION Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue November 21, 2005 Mr. Andrew Tull Planner, WRG Design 5415 SW Westgate Drive, Suite 100 Portland, Oregon 97221 Re: City of Tigard Zone Change Annexation Application; File No. ZCA 2005-00004 on Sunrise Lane (north of Bull Mountain Road at 150th and Sunrise Lane; WCTM 2S105DD Tax lots 400, 500, 1000, 1100, 1300, 1400, 1600, and 1800 Dear Mr. Tull, Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue is the provider of fire and emergency services. This application requests annexation of 19.95 acres to the City of Tigard and application of the R-7 zoning district. The most intense use allowed in the City of Tigard R-7 Medium Density Residential zoning district are attached single-family homes, detached single-family homes with or without accessory residential units at a minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet and duplexes at a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet. Mobile home parks and subdivisions are also permitted outright. Some civic and institutional uses are also permitted conditionally. Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue District currently provides services to the entire Bull Mountain area, both inside and outside of the City of Tigard. The Fire District has personnel and equipment in the area that can respond to an emergency incident and implement such actions as may be necessary for fire and/or rescue operations to developed and undeveloped land within the City of Tigard. For planning purposes, access and firefighting water supply complying with fire code • requirements shall be included on plans submitted to the City of Tigard for their approval. Please contact me at (503) 612-7010 with any additional questions. Sincerely, Eric T. McMullen Eric T. McMullen Deputy Fire Marshal 7401 SW Washo Court, Suite 101 • Tualatin, Oregon 97062 • Tel. (603) 612-7000 • Fax (603) 612-7003 • www.tvfr.com EXHIBIT 9 ADDITIONAL RECORD SUBMITTAL FORCED ANNEXATION ISSUE The City has asserted that it supplies land use regulation services to the unincorporated property included in this annexation proposal and may withhold those services unless the properties agree to annex. That may be true in appropriate instances of a request of an unincorporated area property to the City to receive extra territorial extension of City services. But the land use regulation services required by these properties for subdivision and development are services within the jurisdiction of Washington County. The City provides them as an agent of the County pursuant to an intergovernmental agreement between the City and the County. The City is contractually bound to the County to provide the services to unincorporated Washington County property. The property owners are third party beneficiaries of that contract. The City may not withhold those services in order to obtain the agreement of the owners to annex. The City may assert that it supplies water service to the property and that gives it a similar basis to withhold service until a property agrees to annex. The proposed annexation property is within the jurisdiction of the Tigard Water District. The District and the City are parties to an intergovernmental agreement whereby the City operates the District's facilities to provide the water service in this unincorporated area. Just as with the County IGA, the City is contractually committed to provide water service to this property and cannonlwithhold that service in order to obtain the agreement of the owners to annex. re ce R Derr December 6, 2005 c~ Page I ofl Subj: Zoning 0nd Permitting Dace: 10/28/2005 12:17:51 PM Pacific Standard Time From: To: CC: Hi Dan, City staff sent the following information to me this morning. I am copying it and sending it to you for your information. I hope this clears up your questions. If not, I would call the city and set. up an appointment and go in so that you can have a complete meeting without interruptions and have your questions answered. Unfortunately, a lot of the information has been miscontrued since the failed annexation ballot measure. The process we have has been happening for years and has now come under a microscope. Please let me know if this clears up some of your concerns. Sincerely, Sydney Dear Sydney: In response to your email from Mr. Bushnell, this is what I have found: Mr. Bushnell apparently is interested in a partition. The conversation with counter staff did not get into what he was proposing because they 'were tied up with other customers at the time. The City has not required a consent to annex for a partition (3 or less lots) before and Mr. Bushnell does not need to provide one unless he intends to Wp,divide. Copies of the consent to annex are kept with the Current Planning Procedures rinanual for annexations. 'Sirice this is handled as part of a subdivision application, the copies have not been available to the reception personnel and planning/engineering techs. They now have copies along with the other annexation handouts that they have. In regard to the authority and coercion issues, I provide the following which is directly quoted from the City Attorney's office as part of the findings for the last four annexations. The consent form was prepared by the City Attorney's office. "ORS 222.115 specifiepily authorizes contracts between a city and a landowner relating to extraterritorial provision of service in which the landowner consents to annexation. The fact that the City requires a consent to annexation in rgturn for a contract for exterritorial provision of service is explicity authorized by statute and does not constitute coercion. The City provides planning and building inspection services exterritorialy and may require consents to annexation in order to. provide these, services." "ORS 222.175 resrognizes that citie$ may solicit consents to annexaliori. Saturday, October 29, 2005_\i Rerica Onlin~ DRushnell44 After recording return to: City Hall Records Department City of Tigard 13125 SW Halt Boulevard Tigard, Oregon 97223 City File No. ANNEXATION CONTRACT (CONSENT TO ANNEXATION AND WAIVER OF REMONSTRANCE) 1. ("Owner") is the owner of the real property (the "Property") located at and more particularly described as: (Legal Description) 2. Owner has applied to the City of Tigard for a land use approval (or other approval) for the Property, which is located outside the City limits of the City of Tigard. The City of Tigard agrees to process the application (provide water services) for the Property. 3. In exchange for the City's provision of the services described in Section 2, Owner consents to annexation of the Property to the City of Tigard. Owner understands that this consent to annexation is irrevocable and may be used by the City at anytime. 4. Owner understands that Owner may request information on the City of Tigard's ad valorem tax and a description of services the City generally provides its residents. 51 Owner waives any right to remonstrate against annexation of the Property to the City of Tigard. 6. This agreement, consent and waiver is binding on Owner and Owner's successors, heirs and assigns. This agreement shall run with the land and be recorded in the Deed Records of Washington County. Failure to record this contract may result in the City of Tigard withdrawing its consent to connect to or use the City's public facilities or the provision of City services. 7. If any provision of this document is held to be invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction or preempted by federal or state regulations or taw, such provision shall be deemed separate and independent of the document and such holding or preemption shall not affect the validity of the remaining provisions. Page 1 of 2 After recording return to: City Hall Records Department City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, Oregon 97223 City File No. ANNEXATION CONTRACT (WAIVER OF TIME PERIOD) 1. ("Owner') is the owner of the real properly (the "Property") located at _ and more particularly described as: (Legal Description) 2. By written agreement of even date, owner is entering into a written annexation contract and consent to annexation with the City of Tigard, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit 1. 3. Pursuant to ORS 223.173(1), Owner hereby waives the one year period for effectiveness of the annexation contract and consent to annexation, and agrees that the consent to annexation may be used at any time by the City of Tigard in conjunction with any and all other consents that the City has received or will receive. 4. This waiver is a material inducement to the City to enter into the Annexation Contract and Consent to Annexation. 5. This contract shalt run with the land and shell be recorded in the Deed Records of Washington County and all terms and conditions contained herein shall be binding on all heirs, executors, administrators, assigns, and other successors-in-interest to the above-described property pursuant to ORS 222.115. Failure to record this contract may result in the City of Tigard withdrawing its consent to connect to or use the City's public facilities or the provision of City services. 6. If any provision of this document is held to be invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction or preempted by federal or state regulations or law, such provision shall be deemed separate and independent of the document and such holding or preemption shall not affect the validity of the remaining provisions. Page 1 of 2 7. This agreement is not intended as any limit on the City of Tigard's lawful authority candor its adopted regulations to take action on Owner's application by approval, denial, on approval with conditions, or to take any other lawful action relating to the application. DATED this _ day of . 20 Owner Owner Owner _ owner Mailing Address: Telephone NO.: STATE OF OREGON ) S5. Washington County ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on , 20 , by Notary Public for Oregon My commission expires; City manager, City of Tigard STATE OF OREGON ) Washington County The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on , 20 , by Notary Public for Oregon My commission expires: y?- _ .-'.'tom "J . t"' 'i x`}`"F- >Ttx f'.,' 13 e'.,.., . _ - _ F; ' , . •a'°• . t5 ?si P'_ yy~~q .'J-%•i. •-.Na.- ~a•{F+,...•'.,,; .t:_'. r~ A$~ 7 -•'k'' rE ' • XY" a. S4 r s 3T A s - { 3 ..3 S: 77! bpi R I': 'd'k rX - "3`> Vii` . t':J%•!' • ~r y ~~..r :'.a +YL y. " -•?C_r Via" - _ 1: y, p :,TJ'.:r^n: ..~yu...-ay~..L-Li:'_.N .•3`xw,^S ..q:.. - - ~'ef•-'~'~r'~ ~ ,+a.. yr-" _ 1 3`.' K-' ' - ....'..4"°~.: ~•w'-yz[' _ - '_~",'%d. 'G :-'t'L2 vC! _ J -•y.' '"•~..,,Y" r.x.` - -7r'.- -'-"^c. `.;~'^--t`^~t :ai'•.;'" -r..WZ}',"':'L:x.__,x-....rw->:-.,:,:.:.'~'si'="' - --"~:~°~-:._....-a.-' .=-x:•a,: - - - k.....,. ...y-:1.' - _ „ .yr,s": c.,.cy~-,£6. ..w~, .,j~r,.^-.+-:'e+• r::i. ,..:c;.,:y,rrc« d - I .."aa- .....-t?ri` N=P ,crn:'.r`✓."--5_',Yr=-x=.FGSxr«;lz"a#..au.:"''aw- !.'.r:-=`: ..........'=u_~3_=•r':~a.':'_ .S.+ya.°Y_av w~.'~-°:.wtf'..' .s.1 :.'i,.,, '~,tw'"•a". yf,. ,a+ J 3' rt Y Jrt . 3 tom,. _ i-%v' e :.°'ri ".i,. ,S. C`'~,.•' G'"• ^ Iwo •.iF-.. ..~y4 >S=. .r v t= - art' V- U. L1{:t,'iLr ,r uJ. S„{l. Ie tr~r a..- Nag f mm "Q ':.u• Y-- Y`, 4 Tr "~~n p 5 ltt••~ M~ ~.F z y. >.r+~. _r y i . - ?x .W'/-yam.' - f of s ta:- x ' fy'' t-.. ~ _~Rr' Fr _ -q r ' Via, _ zr" 7.'Y:e_ `'%~+'t '"k:':: s ~ `^r~'yi•~'r' ,.r-, ~3X ~ rte', tE.:~i. .X. ;;i`~`.: ,n ir. _2. k>„,1 'kt ,43 rY::'-.'3'^-,L}, .p-F! ."cA%. 4^..:c,i.._. '°:'h ~~,,-r~ - +k - 3 •t" ' :h ~,..'^r- ,Y, E. ?t ft -„6u'::_v.'f .i1''S J '~M' j„ ' i ?iNA'r a:~"~s'.,2, ~~:jn. I ':h,so ~1. '+.•d~"~'': `r,-- W'41 mow ,.r •y- 3" 5'`ut-z•~ ,?~F. _ :~yy';'n_aw'r". .S-. rok" - s'~ 3 . vieE asr"loo - - aA- Eft N ~m1n' y+ ,'MM u'~>.N ~ 1 I r 1 , 1 1 1 1 1 ' 1 1 1 1 vt~'•+x%C ~•~r,''.YS" :,arr. s°`::,-s✓Y:s✓~ _.:i3„TM .-SS -i..v.w., ~i. s« .,t^- , <"b y-~. .°v. ?h$H..:: i :E;': .y'^ lu ;'f)b~:<' - 'T=14.. r-':c:r, _ _ _ _ " ro>'••. , [ma .4 . N x 1 _Ya,34 a.t: - : 7e'= - - '.gS=~ +3 z ,4•` D .rr-- 2~" B '8 B 1170+ 2A2°500 1~' - - ti--: 71. 8 .-4 133- 4 ""`_-`.-.-`z=r - - 7:,"- ,kric;.r. - : sa.,~• :1ra?a~ 1~. ~,K - z"v`' ;.'tom' C"n' ¢ ~ 3"•i r. $'20 .11!' s 2-'~. 59'00" ` lr2A9°~". ~t6 ' e G c w .m :1 r.;a , :Z:''s Y' r ,F .a.~'. J+! / ~F, "'ra27 0 'n a`" 1 ~ 8n'-` .,~N^,t x-I,':r~ 'r aid' ..~1~ ,y~G, 9. ."r-x 4b'5 _ ` ^ %w'. s-'r• ~<zr s,- '{,re ~ ~~``tt : ; ^ '.t d+,.• . ~ r'~ar~fg„ ;'r','•.',°' - ,,c A; 'YaSfi= a„y,t3 i~ar:a?.-.i^Y., ,rtks' ' .r ,y' d.. .van YR~4F, rti:' -f.}i"w"- • ,5(, ' rya'. r'f EE ! S' 3~2'~' - _ fresh f 6555`=- L•79'50 r,: i`` x.90.2 t OS . •0T 7- Wit' - .:rf--_ ~ 6 154 ,'r'Y~ eta ,,.sue :.ate - v.~ , . 4 Y . -Yi - "s h - 4 '.5 bo o~ 3~00I1~• - vMt-•.,,-,':^v limo • e ' _ ~q i~-.;s,~. ;p1~H¢. ,:3;~94t .~22:5t-•....52. ,133 .37 -'~;,~,~q =:a. =,,.t; r r~. r:~.: n fi'~~, ~6''- 455pf.3;75:9• '54•-~.'."-2~ s^22 ..~.1;''- w'.:. •s ft~.~r 'I'~'-Y,;g~ s, =~'Pe'FT .'r~E- ^'f. __-,.n'::. .r~y ".s• s- Y_. ..Y.,., •_-'~r',; -a,:,d"rr:t+.s>r J .3 ' 4 ,f keFO'sw ~'29Dt000'' ii 0 a B" "4~ 2-:.;,:,25 M3~ °s., 9 2'78:• _3• • 0!'t ` 9~ ~ s' 4s ti'.ur 4 7 ~ z' 5 824 23 Lr" ~ 1 58 'r'' 15 4 t ✓ - ' 1i 'ukie~: '4.78:70 ~b'~'r000 .1, - nt. ~t'-=w r~~m• 'z, ~a dJ a$t74.500.',~t>i~';;~..42••at~B/Cr.'Ce=1:8/eP {34'9 ~f'.; r,~s, c'~f``Y= - o+a' .x?.ic x _ ~ .Di":•••'.4257 :s';9.0 •i:•31's:tK-L48.;. ':1^079' ~`~s v',~}~'S00' h5'. '~.~'.d - ''E..,'': •r- f.s. ;r •t, w.. --a ``tX:r 's *"'s,.'',sa;•.L }31X•; ;,r° .ri'-. (~•t+.' "r,.t?t :Y`'_- -021 t _'YF 3 x'o J ING fi cF x . L. .Yr' _ t 7 3;•16 8.6 '6'6- 36" <14 1 p 4• ..d s ` !'"S=•',f a,+.. .r,,, .;:a „r,'a~',. - .iar ~Y+,°I ?S. .~J~, _ ::i :d °i 5-. ;a 2:~=.7"246'=, r48 .3'%360!' :28' i Fs~'`•' `'v t'i?`w 'i: h <4'Y'i ..:t, n .G% ~;;c~ o(''I. , ix!?. , r7x~.`w _ „~,;..'•al~:»,.s; ~I.!r~,:- :~s'~rY~. s? - ,FI,.. , a n`*1F:;, . „"s -..:';•3+ w i --5''' ' ~ " _ L,;.<'~. ,h a, Xr : _ - _ _ n•W'%?fi'~t at.~`~~' •t 9 J l'a •KVbP Sr ~ , St,:Heten6r ta„ so-. ~s'-;' -s _ :~a•' - ~ ~ -x$...OdO..=~D~420~10,.IJSi1554800 .1~%3 #r$Oi' a16/. =Ce 00.91. m `~.,.:tv7,3: 2; na..~r yy s p gg ~ x :x'.%,,^ai';'' - - - - °r•~:"~!.• ",!'n -x'v aa• r•e,-`2#~^r°~ir, - _ _'z~,_a. ys'Jii:},. 1*"~, .;~y..... ,•7 ~rt:"p-•~. rc`~' Y. ,,,,~'a,._ ,.3N}„+ _ ood' 0`4.0• t• ~ . ~ . 'i. ''c~::'; $'9 .2 2.24=D00 2' 9 900 at £'q/B..:a" c : _ t?='' {BL -1t 79.1: e.k W _x ~k•::., r' ''3r2i846„ 7.6 . ~Z9.r~e'rj a' r i e nr il~.f':. :J,..6 _9,..:.'T",t8i.,.C. i>~':.h uP,,.t .._r x': ,.•f .4 :.F•°TE_rs; is ,9 _,$,t, * yy, ~,*r~i ys S'• - `'K',"' rt:, ~,a';' rrk ' _ caS-.r - r}•: A ~'••,r':''+`', :~*z,`,.:U„F"'.°~:•'Y'~ - ,:A. '~',A~" Y, - y'i•H artit.~+;,..?. 1t854Q5, "2~1'. u}50~h 2 00_:" .117°h:~ .'~A/6.~t.,.C,..~~.22 -379,5=-~n'°74!6~'? :.59,r ~ :Y'•.:, < r, r - } : . . # . 6 f z '.ta: 'C _t : 3r... : ae tfi 68 ,w288 e 7 B7 2 442: s.~:°~i" s x - t . _ , Gam=,;; '-r._ .'a."' ,r.r,, ~Srs"~' • -r. C~ a 5'. N .'1-E:: '::•Yi:,a fir. . - JZ' J ataUn 285?P 6 ~.=40 1'e e.q - t, :r -%2~92A•` F1'3if=..,:5 r': t 4~~'"?•~~~, " _ tr-• x028 5< _,68 '~20'' 'N`'Ss:' " - -.a:•. ~ s•_ . ~:biz . ~r: ~.jo„.• _ 1'.• ..1~••,r,i->!..':;- . . 7.•. <c.... 5 i-ov - af• :r "a,i.,q~2 ~ 52000 - 3~i a/ e'F', • - g.: .k .'y.. .<~1~7 " ' ate- •,N +a- o~,•:.,_ >"r a. ~1 484'> ,22:s 2~i•<' `'tJC+"`r. 't. Yf. .~.=i~ : . s .-»:,s%_ s'i-'o i _ "a R, ,,.•v n:;s•a..ta^' o-. S+~ 3, Y w~~, ''r,'".' ,a~s_ r.r<. .s ~ _1 ~.i'F~',?t!xP.`'?'F,.Y1✓~ _''~i:•G,;, ~-.r.t 4:r~:'{-;-_ :~r -d.-+.~' 35-~"~?3,..:k2:.3~~' ;~6'%'.~ ~rd";*"~<F`--~.. `s - ry - .5 of oo' 2 aooo: ~s~<• are:•, `e~'.:.':c:. 4 3 9 `•'n •.sit' - :a -'E - .,<sa" 23_:- ~':tJ~ ''Y,"•';-fit. ':'S;" q- .w r , f - P -k - - - - - s•7.• T • 1. _ - - :.:a. - ...5,-c.,,i:'. .a•y:'' .4=i, Him: Camas k' s• 208 00, 2491400:w 4.Qp0 t `<na a•- .'o v?+ `r.`-I' sr =y ,$2$ v39%. h•69. 1.. ,•n/ 3}2.534 logo an, b"Lo na.-.'1 i,. i.. < h<:. c,n., -.--rJ.. .:P~✓:-'-' ^;-7"L°""'~~„`+ _ ..r:.: rs'-s ,Vce:__ aa.-r'.<~° :a.^€'.t4 uver $139'900=.,$1.54400 I, L76.500_ 'r26%'= 8:-= nC 507 F „a,.•b5 ~ ,~3,,," ,--1:_.3,560 3,355,,, t5.2.- "'53,a,.377="r>a_1,1.46~'~"r856i3/773 ''54`.•< 52 ~I.'%' :r' a- r. - r}I~., _ .tbT:l• ,1. (j-,,; ..y1.8'-~~ -N'', .,N"t 6.:_:°:25"_ .5,;_"`=°' E~ERJifiJNJNG;fit#E-Dt1T,~: ~s~<'. - - - - e! t-t `-ter-= r r a-,ax--' •~~S^. ,-,tp ,'0 ~~,~°-~.1, -i~, yF ~ - - _red~}.t rAfe(emtAei-fiboi-~~pmv~s'e ""S cell '_'apdinla A~'~,'~ta etn9ed4,~usi n'a ~ hao~ P AJ~ES :4TE'Paf •°5'r _y "'a~ _ s~k??~"~ i~p need; at ,abtca~Man-t~tRMt~I ' `,y+ `{~r~ "ea a't-e in'fix5°m~IXq" y~ to tssta 7~- pYc~ cJks~~'IYte;`p``e~!f'ive~n~~tiD~o ~~hn'T,a gs~ eeel~sef I _c~"u~°att n'cite O'Stto ~`ei n . o ~ N''suhur t a ' fld are 4n~? s biz s epa !~f;fe c ~ .shaittd'cpl c Y a't =EIS19£ - Q =p - ~ _ ' a -'jp a ~ ~ UNFUNDED STREET SYSITM PROGRAM PROJECT'S The following unfunded projects are some of the major reconstruction and widening projects that are needed to accommodate the existing and future traffic on the City's arterials, collectors, and neighborhood routes: Street Major Reconstruction and Expansion Projects Category Project Project Cost Collectors and Arterials Walnut Street- Tiedeman to 121st $1,600,000 121st Avenue - Gaarde to Walnut $1,800,000 121 st Avenuc - Walnut to North Dakota $2,000,000 Burnham Street - Main to Hall $2,000,000 'nedeman Ave. Greenburg to Tigard St. $900,000 Greenburg Road Construction (Shady Lane to Tiedeman Avenue) $3,700,000 Hall Blvd/ScoffinslHunziker Intersection Realignment $1,800,000 ,~Rull Mountain Road/Highway 99W Improvements $500,000 Greenburg Road/Highway 99W/Main Street Intersection Improvements* $2,000,000 ,/13ecf Bend Road/klighway 99W Improvements $400,000 72"d Avenue - Hampton to Dartmouth $2,000,000 72"d Avenue - Dartmouth to Highway 99W' $2,500,000 68'h Avenue/Dartmouth Signalization (Excluding Street Improvements) $200,000 Subtotal $21,400,000 Neighborhood )Routes Fortner Street - Walnut to 115th Avenue $1,800,000 Tigard Street--Main to Tiedeman (south side) $1,000,000 79`x' Avenue - Gentle Woods Subdivision to Durham Road $1,500,000 98'x' Avenue Greenberg Road to Pihat Court $250,000 Commercial Street (South side, Main St. to 95°i Avenue) $450,000 North Dakota Street (Greenburg Road to 95`' Avenue) $200,000 Subtotal $5,200,000 Totals $26,600,000 *Tbe current project in the Transportation System Plan calls for adding a dedicated left-turn lane on Grccnbwg Road, which requires widening of the intuas.ection. The proposed Greenburg Road/Bighway 99W Study in FY 2005-06 will perform an alternatives analysis to determine the best solution for this intersection- The d~ project scope and estimated amount may change based on the results of this study. ~4..t< kMnN9~-'aDSO6d~NunnodaM~rym~mDmS~- \C Appendix C U~ Unfunded Strcct System Program Projects A r Page 1 of 1 August 17, 2005 rxr •4". .rah„ Lester R Carlson CITY OF TIGARD 14905 SW Sunrise Ln OREGON Tigard, OR 97224 RE: Annexation of Neighboring Properties Dear Property Owner: Owners of the properties located north of Sunrise Lane and east of SW 150th Street including Tax Lots 400, 500, 1000, 1100. 1300, 1400, 1500, 1600, and A'Yrkn WAI/NR'PA nC1erlr-r%n yC q~L.. :.:~•.}.•.l r1•nii'•,.. f,~ 11 VV, v11C//.V. LV IVVVV, IICZ. u. Yip.,:, •/L..i ~i"~. 7 I..,Vi4I~.• / facilitate the development of single-famiiy detached homes. The. applicants have petitioned that the properties be annexed into the City of Tigard. As part of our process, we are contacting you to see if you would be interested in being included in this annexation proposal. If you choose to participate, the City will waive its filing fee of $2,302 as the two requests can be processed simultaneously. Please note that the City is unable to waive the separate Metro filing fee. Also, if you choose not to participate, but a majority of the surrounding neighbors do choose to do so, your property may involuntarily be annexed (although this is uncommon, it is a possibility that should be considered). The intent of this request is to create a uniform boundary by including your property within the proposal. Annexing into the City affords you the right to City services such as City police, sewer, and water. If you are interested in being included with this application, please fill out the enclosed Petition/Consent to Annex form and provide the necessary information no later than August 31, 2005. Your response is needed by this date in order to prepare the necessary notification documents. 1 ;.VU :/a.qvG any .a r/ i 1-4: „aG..Vw4 . ..o . 4,171 .~•ua~i d=". u.~ntna a~. i .~i' Gv..•-n. . .+Ov . X . x 2434, or stop by our offices located at 13125 SW Hall Boulevard in City Hall. Sincerely, Gary Pa ensteler Associate Planner Enc: Annexation Contract forms (Waiver of Time Period, Consent to Annexation and Waiver of Remonstrance) c: 7CA2005-00004 Land Use File 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772 Tue, Dec 6, 2005 2:16 PM Subject: Mapping Vacancy Date: Tuesday, December 6, 2005 12:25 PM From: Lisa Hamilton-Treick <Lisa@Hamilton RealtyGroup.com> Reply-To: "Lisa Hamilton-Treick" <Lisa@HamiltonRealtyGroup.com> To: Larry Derr <larry@jprlaw.com> Original Message From: "Jim Hendryx" <JIMH@ci.tigard.or.us> To: <Lisa@HamiltonRealtyGroup.com> Cc: "Craig Prosser" <CRAIG@ci.tigard.or.us> Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2005 3:20 PM Subject: Re: Map of Beef Bend and Bull Mountain Rd. >I am sorry I di.d not get back to you sooner. For detailed information > on what is included in the four proposed annexations, detailed maps are > included in the packet materials, posted on the City's Web Page. Those > materials have also been included in the official file for each > annexation proposal. These have been available for viewing for several > weeks. > You asked for a map that clearly indicates the areas of Bull Mountain > Rd. and Beef Bend Rd. that are in Tigard's city limits. The City does > not have an up to date map with the details you are requesting. > Generally, our zoning and land use maps provide that information. Our > mapping position has been vacant for several months and, as a result, > recent annexations are not reflected on our maps. The good news is that > we have hired a person and he will start in September. An accurate city > limits map will be on his work program. However, I would recommend that > you view individual tax maps to determine actual city limits. Page 1 of 3 > I don't have a map that shows "what portion(s) of each road Tigard has > expressed be included in their future jurisdiction (i.e., the line down > the middle of Beef Bend Rd)." It is assumed that Bull Mt Road would be > totally within the City at some time in the future. > I am sorry I can't provide a detailed map that includes the information > you are requesting. If you want us to create a map that does not > currently exist, it will be necessary for you pay for the costs of > developing the information. Please let me know how you would like to > proceed and I will provide the costs and time frame to create the map. > I would also suggest you contact Washington County to see what mapping > information they may have. > Thank you > Jim Hendryx > Phone 503 639-4171 ext. 2443 > Direct dial 503 718-2443 > Fax 503 684-7297 "Lisa Hamilton-Treick" <Lisa@HamiltonRealtyGroup..com> 08/23-10: 18 > AM > Jim, > Two weeks ago at the annexation public hearing I requested a map that > clearly indicates the areas of Bull Mountain Rd. and Beef Bend Rd. that > are in Tigard's city limits. Also, I would like to be able to see what > portion(s) of each road Tigard has expressed be included in their future i > jurisdiction (i.e., the line down the middle of Beef Bend Rd. and Page 2 of 3 your > earlier memo referencing Tigard's area of interest up to SW 150th Ave. > and King City's future jurisdiction). > Thanks for your help in providing it. > Regards, > Lisa Hamilton-Treick I Page 3of3 Tue, Dec 6, 2005 2:12 PM Subject: Lack of Construction Capacity at 99W/Bull Mtn. Rd. Date: Tuesday, December 6, 2005 11:44 AM From: Lisa Hamilton-Treick <Lisa@HamiltonRealtyGroup.com> Reply-To: "Lisa Hamilton-Treick" <Lisa@HamiltonRealtyGroup.com> To: Larry Derr <larry@jprlaw.com> From: Gus Duenas [mailto:Gus@ci.tigard.or.us] Sent: Monday, September 12, 2005 4:01 PM To: schouten@aranet.com; Craig Dirksen; Jim Hendryx; Nick wilson; Sydney sherwood; Tom Woodruff; cao@co.wash ington.or.us; john_leeper@co.wash ington.or.us; tom_brian@co.wash ington.or.us; jarusse1159@comcast. net Cc: Craig Prosser; Liz Newton Subject: Re: FW: Arbor Summit Julie, Mike White, our Senior Inspector on the street improvement project, is responding to your concerns about the debris. Regarding the right-turn lane from Bull Mountain Road to southbound Highway 99W, we are aware of the difficulties large trucks have had making the turn and have included a project in the City's Capital Improvement Program to widen the lane this fiscal year. This involves relocation of some significant storm drainage facilities at that area. Until the lane is widened to allow for truck-turning movements, there is not much we can do about the situation. There is a significant drop-off immediately behind the curb on that lane with the storm drainage facilities at the bottom of that drop-off. We are in the preliminary stages of design and plan to construct the project in the spring of 2006. Because Highway 99W is an ODOT facility and Bull Mountain is under Washington County jurisdiction, we have to work with both ODOT and Washington County to obtain their approvals on the project. The County TIF is the funding source for this widening. I have to get approval from Page 1 of 3 the Washington County Transportation Advisory Committee and the County Coordinating Committee for this project to move ahead to construction. I will be making that request after the project design is far enough along so that we can know the full extent of the improvements and the estimated cost of construction. Agustin P. Duenas, P.E. City Engineer City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223 Phone: (503) 718-2470 Fax: (503) 624-0752 gus@ci.tigard.or.us "Julie Russell" <jarussel159@corn cast.net> 09/09 4:26 PM Hit This is now the third e-mail with no response from Tigard. Not only are there large chunks of cement and gravel and dirt left on Bull Mountain Rd, but the Stop sign at Bull Mountain Rd and Hwy 99 has been broken off again due to the large construction trucks that have a hard time navigating that turn. This is at least the 2nd time the stop sign has been broken off and several trucks have gotten stuck and fallen off the road at this intersection. A friend of mine did have their windshield shattered due to the rocks that are all over Bull Mountain Rd. Who do we turn to help with this situation? Thanks, Julie Russell From: Julie Russell [mailto:jarusse1159@comcast.net] Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2005 8:51 AM Page 2 of 3 I To: 'Jim Hendryx'; 'gus@ci.tigard.or.us' Subject: FW: Arbor Summit Hi Jim & Gus, i I sent this e-mail a while ago and have not received any response. I have heard that someone recently had their truck windshield broken due to all of the gravel and rocks on Bull Mountain Rd. I am requesting that the developers be required to sweep the street and clean it up. Thanks for your response. Jim, Good Luck in Central Oregon. That is a beautiful area. We will miss you!! Julie Russell I i i I I Page 3of3 1 KM i I I 0 E S 1 0 N I N C. 1 May 18, 2005 City of Tigard Planning Department 13125 SW Hall Blvd Tigard, OR 97223 RE: DRH.999 Request for Pro-Application Conference • •w.i~ I Dear Planning Staff, DCVELormuNT On behalf of J.T. Smith Properties, Inc. we would like to request a pre-application conference. i please find and accept the attached preliminary development plans, tax maps, and check as payment of fees. The applicant is proposing to subdivide 15.66± acres along Sunrise Lane and SW 150th. Lol The parcels involved in the proposed subdivision are listed below. LwNp ! tti l•'If. :Ix .~D, SjTj~,r+r P~ANNIhO ; 2S105DD 00400 2.941 2S105DD 00500 1.28 ! 2S105DD 01300 0.71 2S105DO 01400 4.35 ,~f1 ! ,y { 2SJ050D 01500 2.91 CIVIL 2S105DD 01600 1,0 r.r+clNee"ANC I 2S105DD 01700 2.47 Total: 15.66 n~ 1 The following is a list of questions for consideration by staff. LANUS~Ar _ annexation, what are the benefits to annexation, could we develop without? Can we submit a ARCNITCr-TURE ! development application concurrently? I Bull Mountain Community Plan, Which portions of this are considered by staff. Which 'tl provisions have been adopted by the City? LAND 1 , ,We have concerns about improvements to Sunrise Lane/ Bull Mountain Road. What improvements might be necessary, can sight distance, vision clearances be met? SURVCY I I ✓ Sanitary Sewer, nearest gravity is where? How would staff recommend that we connect? 1 ✓ Domestic Water, service elevation, line up-sizing? Preliminary investigations have indicated that improvements may be required? Please confirm. Sensitive Lands Permits; Will a Type II or a Type 111 permit be required? For Trees, Slopes, Wetlands buffers? I 1415 SW We5lyate Or. i Suite 100 PolllanO, OR yr221 I PH 5031419-2500 FX 503/419.2600 www.wrgdxom l Thank you for your consideration and please feel free to contact us with any questions, comments, or concerns. Sincerely, Andre ull, Planner WRG Design, Inc. cc: Jeff Smith, J.T. Smith Companies, Inc. Joe Schiewe, J.T. Smith Companies, Inc. Mimi Doukas, WRG Design Randy Oyer, WRG Design Rich Boyle, WRG Design i I I D E 3 1 G N I N C. F,.T1 GARD crriaraa a P pa RE•-APPLI:CATI4N r CONFERENCE:: NOTESr ; • rCo»mtunity 2)etk(uprrttrtR :Sfii;,niig~l ?%itetCprrunurrily Pre'-A Iication Meetiri ::Notes are Valid for Si:* 6 Moiitlis. ' r PRE-APP. MTG. DATE z D STAFF AT PR E-APP.: rn RESIDENTIAL APPLICANT: AGENT: - Phone: ) Phone: toss _ JSz3p PROPERTY LOCATION: cell ADDRESS/GENERAL LOCATION: e Sp TAX MAP(S)/I,0T #(S): Sire oU yoo jSat; /3a~ /y1a0 /~/G~~ l ?moo . NECESSARY APPLICATIONS: C~~ ~rlS/vYv Sub zrW5171110 2 47v*g SL Tree, 9-"o T~k POIZ 0m i.2/1 PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION: ~a7 ~~r~~.u o•, / S : 66 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION: gyp! vs-u 1J~ yt®t ZONING MAP DESIGNATION:--'7 ZONING DISTRICT DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS (Refer to Code Section 18.-5'/0 1 MINIMUM LOT SIZE: sq. ft. Average Min. lot width: 5'0 ft. Max. building height: 3.S- ft- Setbacks: Front ft. Side _ ft. Rear /S ft. Corner /0 ft. from street. MAXIMUM SITE COVERAGE:. A?0% Minimum landscaped or natural vegetation area:_,p GARAGES: 2D ft. NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING (Refer to the Neighborhood Meeting Randout)i THE APPLICANT SHALL NOTIFY ALL PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 500 FEET, INTERESTED PARTIES, AN,D_7HE CITY QF TIGARD PLANNING DJVLSIdI~( of their proposal. A minimum of two (2) weeks between the mailing date and the meeting date is required. Please review the Land Use Notification handout concerning site posting and the meeting notice. Meeting is to be held prior to submitting Your application or the application will not be accepted NOTE: In order to also preliminarily address building code standards, a meeting with a Plans Examiner is encouraged prior to submittal of a land use application. CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 1 of 9 Rasidenteg AppligoliosOllonning nIviwn &iacflan g NARRATIVE (Refer to Code Chapter 18.3901 The APPLICANT SHALL SUBMIT A NARRATIVE which provides findings based on the applicable approval standards. Failure to provide a narrative or adequately address criteria would be reason to consider an application incomplete and delay review of the proposal. The applicant should review the code for applicable criteria. IMPACT STUDY (Refer to Code Sections 18.390.040 and 18.390.0501 f As a part of the APPLICATION SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS, applicants are required to INCLUDE AN IMPACT STUDY with their submittal package. The impact study shall quantify the a e-cf~ t of the development on public facilities and services. The study shall address, at a minimum, the tram o-p rtation system, including bikeways, the draina a system, the parks system, the water system, ` the s~ system and the noise Impacts of the eve opment. For eac"l`Tpubllc facility sysfe-rn and type of impact, the study shall propose improvements necessary to meet City standards, and to minimize the impact of the developm _ e public facilities systems, and affected prlva e proper y usersry sitII3lCons wire the Community Development Code requires the dedication of real property interests, the applicant shall either specifically concur with the dedication requirement, or provide evidence which supports the conclusion that the real property dedication requirement is not roughly proportional to the projected impacts of the development. ~ ACCESS (Refer to Chapters 18305 and 18365) Minimum number of accesses: Minimum access width: Minimum pavement width: I ❑ WALKWAY REQUIREMENTS [Refer to Code Chapter 183051 Within all ATTACHED HOUSING (except two-family dwellings) and multi-family developments, each residential dwelling SHALL BE CONNECTED BY WALKWAY TO THE VEHICULAR PARKING AREA, COMMON OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION FACILITIES. RESIDENM DENSITY CAkCULATION [Refer to Code Chapter 18.7151- SEE FXAMPLE BELOW. The NET RESIDENTIAL UNITS ALLOWED on a particular site may be calculated by dividing the net area of the developable -land by the minimum number of square feet required per dwelling unit as specified by the applicable zoning designation. Net development area is calculated by subtracting the following land area(s) from the gross site area: All sensitive lands areas including- > Land within the 100-year floodplain; ➢ Slopes exceeding 25%; . Y Drainageways; and ➢ Wetlands for the R-1, R-2, R-3.5, R-4.5 and R-7 zoning districts. te 20% of gross acres for public facilities; or rsam~nf tion: 15% of gross acres for public facilities; or Y If available, the actual public facility square footage can be used for deduction. EXAMPLE OF RESIDENTIAL DENSITY CALCULATIONS: EXAMPLE: USING A ONE ACRE SITE IN THE R-12 ZONE (3,050 MINIMUM LOT SIZE) WITH NO DEDUCTION FOR SENsrrIVE LANDS Single-Family MU111-Fare ly 43,560 sq. ft. of gross site area 43,560 sq. ft. of gross site area 8.712 sq. ft, (20%) for public right-of-way _6 534 sq. ft. (15%) for public right-of_-wad NET: 34,848 square feet Nf. . 37,026 square feet 3,050 (MioitrvmJ ttiarea) 3}05Q,.(minjmurn lot a[e. 11A Units Per Acre = 12.1 !Units Per Acre The Development Code renuires mat the net site area exist for the next whole Owelling unIL NO ROUNDING UP IS PERMITTED. * Minimum Project Donslty is eo% of Ule maximum allowed density, TO DETERMIHE THIS STANDARD, MUITIPLY THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF UNITS OY A CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 2 of 9 Residential Application/RinnIng Division Section ❑ SPECIAL SETBACKS (Refer tM ; Section 18.7301 > STREETS: feet from the centerline of FLAG LOT: A TEN (10)-FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK applies to all primary structures. > ZERO LOT LINE LOTS: A minimum of a ten (10)-foot separation shall be maintained between each dwelling unit or garage. > MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL building separation standards apply within multiple-family residential developments. ACCESSORY STRUCTURES UP TO 528 SQUARE FEET in size may be permitted on lots less than 2.5 acres in size. Five (5)-foot minimum setback from side and rear lot lines. ACCESSORY STRUCTURE UP TO 1,000 SQUARE FEET on parcels of at least 2.5 acres in size. (See applicable zoning district for the primary st etures'sethack requirements ) FLAG LOT BUILDING HEIGHT PROVISIONS (Refer to Code Chapter 18.730) MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF VX2 STORIES or 25 feet, whichever is less in most zones: 2'/Z stories, or 35 feet in R-7, R-12, R-25 or R-40 zones provided that the standards of Section 18.730.010.C.2 are satisfied. } BUFFERING AND SCREENING (Refer to Code Chapter 18.745) In order TO INCREASE PRIVACY AND TO EITHER REDUCE OR ELIMINATE ADVERSE NOISE OR VISUAL IMPACTS between adjacent developments, especially between different land uses, the CITY REQUIRES LANDSCAPED BUFFER AREAS along certain site perimeters. Required buffer areas are described by the Code in terms of width. Buffer areas must be occupied by a mixture of deciduous and evergreen trees and shrubs and must also achieve a balance between vertical and horizontal plantings. Site obscuring screens or fences may also be required; these are often advisable even if not required by the Code. The required buffer areas may on be occupied by vegetation, fences, utilities, and walkways. Additional information on required buffer area materials and sizes may be found in the Development Code. The ESTIMATED REQUIRED BUFFERS applicable to your proposal area is: Buffer Level along north boundary. Buffer Level along east boundary. Buffer Level along north boundary. Buffer Level along east boundary. IN ADDITION, SIGHT OBSCURING SCREENING IS REQUIRED ALONG: LANDSCAPING (Refer to Code Chapters 18.745,18.765 and 183051 STREET TREES ARE REQUIRED FOR ALL DEVELOPMENTS FRONTING ON A PUBLIC OR PRIVATE STREET as well as driveways which are more than 100 feet in length. Street trees must be placed either within the public right-of-way or on private property within six (6) feet of the right-of- way boundary. Street trees must have a minimum caliper of at least two (2) inches when measured four (4) feet above grade. Street trees should be spaced 20 to 40 feet apart depending on the branching width of the proposed tree species at maturity. Further information on regulations affecting street trees may be obtained from the Planning Division. A MINIMUM OF ONE (1) TREE FOR EVERY SEVEN (7) PARKING SPACES MUST BE PLANTED in and around all parking areas in order to provide a vegetative canopy effect. Landscaped parking areas shall include special design features which effectively screen the parking lot areas from view. ❑ R>ECYCtING (Refer to Code Chapter 18.7551 Applicant should CONTACT FRANCHISE HAULER FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF SITE SERVICING COMPATIBILITY, Locating a trash/recycling enclosure within a clear vision area such as at the intersection of two (2) driveways within a parking lot is prohibited. Much of Tigard is within Pride Disposal's Service area. Lenny Hing is the contact person and can be reached at (503) 625-6177. CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 3 of 9 ReAfunfi d ApphudordRanning DIVrsion Goclk)n PARKING (Refer to Code Chapt 18365&18305) ALL PARKING AREAS AND DRIVEWAYS MUST BE PAVED. 3- Single-family............ Requires: One off-street parking space per dwelling unit; and One ~1~ 1space per unit less than 500 square feet. ➢ Multiple-family......... Requires: 1.25 spaces per unit for 1 bedroom; 1.5 spaces per unit for 2 bedrooms; and 1.75 spaces per unit for 3 bedrooms. Multi-family dwelling units with more than ten (10) required spaces shall. provide parking for the use of guests and shall consist of 15% of the total required parking. NO MORE THAN 50% OF REQUIRED SPACES MAY BE DESIGNATED AND/OR DIMENSIONED ATMMPA?,r''_SPA(MS. Parking stalls shall be dimensioned as follows: > Standard parking space dimensions: 8 feet. 6 inches X 18 feet. 6 inches. Compact parking space dimensions: 7 feet. 6 inches X 16 feet, 6 inches. > Handicapped parking: All parking areas shall provide appropriately-located and dimensioned disabled person parking spaces. The minimum number of disabled person parking spaces to be provided, as well as the parking stall dimensions, are mandated by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). A handout is available upon request. A handicapped parking space symbol shall be painted on the parking space surface and an appropriate sign shall be posted. ❑ BICYCLE RACKS (Refer to Code Section 18.165) BICYCLE RACKS are required FOR MULTI-FAMILY, COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENTS. Bicycle racks shall be located in areas protected from automobile traffic and in convenient locations. SENSMVE LANDS [Refer to Code Chapter 18.7151 The Code provides REGULATIONS FOR LANDS WHICH ARE POTENTIALLY UNSUITABLE FOR DEVELOPMENT DUE TO AREAS WITHIN THE 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN, NATURAL DRAINAGEWAYS, WETLAND AREAS, ON SLOPES IN EXCESS OF 25 PERCENT, OR ON UNSTABL ND. Staff will attempt to pre lminary identity sensr ive ands areas at the pre- / application conference based on available information. HOWEVER, the responsibility toprecisely identify sensitive land areas and their boundaries is the responsibility of the applicant Areas meeting the definitions of sensitive lands must be clearly indicated on plans submitted with the development application. Chapter 18.775 also provides regulations for the use, protection, or modification of sensitive lands areas. RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IS PROHIBITED WITHIN FLOODPLAINS. ~l STEEP SLOPES [Refer to Code Section 18.715.070.0 When STEEP SLOPES exist, prior to issuance of a final order, a geotechnicareport must be submitted which addresses the approval standards of the Tigard Community Development Code Section 18.775.080.C. The report shall be based upon field exploration and investigation and shall include specific recommendations for achieving the requirements of Section 18.775.080.C. CLEANWATER SERVICES (CWS) BUFFER STANDARDS (Refer to R a 0 96-44/USA Regulations - Chapter 3) LAND DEVELOPMENT ADJACENT TO SENSITIVE AREAS shall preserve and maintain or create a vegetated corridor for a buffer wide enough to protect the water quality functioning of the sensitive area. Design Criteria: The VEGETATED CORRIDOR WIDTH is dependent on the sensitive area. The following table identifies the required widths: CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes ` ~hr J Pago 4 of 9 Kos doniid AppricaEordPlanning DivWon Section J ME 3.1 VEGETATED CORRIDOR WIDTHS SOURCE: CWS DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS MANUAL/RESOLUTION & ORDER 96-44 SLOPE ADJACENT WIDTIi?DE'VEGETATED SENSITIVE AREA DEFINITION. TO SENSITIVE ARIwAf CORRIDOR PERSIDE2 ' + Streams with intermittent flow draining: <25% 10 to <50 acres 15 feet ~I >50 to <100 acres 25 feet ,6 Existing or created wetlands <0.5 acre 25 feet +~Existing or created wetlands >0.5 acre <25% 50 feet + Rivers, streams, and springs with year-round flow + Streams with intermittent flow draining >100 acres + Natural lakes and onds + Streams with intermittent flow draining: >25% 10 to <50 acres 30 feet 1) >50 to <100 acres 50 feet + Existing or created wetlands >25% Variable from 50-200 feet Measure + Rivers, streams, and springs with year-round flow in 25-foot increments from the starting + Streams with intermittent flow draining >11 00 acres point to the top of ravine (break in + Natural lakes and ponds <25% slope), add 35 feet past the top of ravine' Starting point for measuroment = edge of the defined channel (bankful flow) for streams/rivers, delineated wetland boundary, delineated spring boundary, and/or average high water for lakes or ponds, whichever offers greatest resource protection. Intermittent springs, located a minimum of 15 'feet within the river/stroam or wetland vegetated corridor, shall not serve as a starting point for measurement. Vegetated corridor averaging or reduction is allowed only when the vegetated corridor is certified to be in a marginal or degraded condition. 3The vegetated corridor extends 35 feet from the top of the ravine and sets the outer boundary of the vegetated corridor. The 35 feet may be reduced to 15 feet, if a stamped gootechnical report confirms slope stability shall be maintained with the reduced setback from the top of ravine. Restrictions in the Vegetate Corridor: NO structures, development, construction activities, gardens, lawns, application of chemicals, dumping of any materials of any kind, or other activities shall be permitted which otherwise detract from the water quality protection provided by the vegetated corridor, except as provided for in the USA Design and Construction Standards. Location of Vegetated Corridor: IN ANY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WHICH CREATES MULTIPLE PARCELS or lots intended for separate ownership, such as a subdivision, the vegetated corridor shall be contained in a separate tract, and shall not be a part of any parcel to be used for the construction of a dwelling unit. 4*---iP CWS Service Provider Letter: PRIOR TO SUBMITTAL of any land use applications, the applicant must obtain a CWS Service Provider Letter which will outline the conditions necessary to comply with the R&O 96-44 sensitive area requirements. If there are no sensitive areas, CWS must still issue a letter stating a CWS Service Provider Letter is not required. SIGNS [Refer to Code Chaptell18.7801 SIGN PERMITS MUST BE OBTAINED PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF ANY SIGN in the City of Tigard, A "Guidelines for Sign Permits" handout is available upon request. Additional sign area or height beyond Code standards may be permitted if the sign proposal is reviewed as part of a development review application. Alternatively, a Sign Code Exception application may be fled for Director's review. TREE REMOVAL PUN REQUIREMENTS [Refer to Code Section 18390.030.0.] A TREE PLAN FOR THE PLANTING, REMOVAL AND PROTECTION OF TREES prepared by a certified arborist shall be provided for any lot, parcel or combination of lots or parcels for which a development application for a subdivision, partition, site development review, planned development, or conditional use is fled. Protection is preferred over removal where possible. CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 5 of 9 Residential Application/Planning Division Suclion THE TREE PLAN SHALL I -LUDE the following: Identification of the location, size, species, and condition of all existing trees greater than 6- inch caliper. Identification of a program to save existing trees or mitigate tree removal over 12 inches in caliper. Mitigation must follow the replacement guidelines of Section 18.790.060.D according to the following standards and shall be exclusive of trees required by other development code provisions for landscaping, streets and parking lots: • Retainage of less than 25% of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires a mitigation program according to Section 18.150.070.D. of no net loss of trees; Retainage of from 25 to 50% of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires that two-thirds of the trees to be removed be mitigated according to Section 18.790.060.D.; Retainage of from 50 to 75% of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires that 50% of the trees to be removed be mitigated according to Section 18.790.060.0.; Retain age of 75% or greater of existing trees over 12 inches in caliper requires no mitigation; > Identification of all trees which are proposed to be removed; and ➢ A protection program defining standards and methods that will be used by the applicant to protect trees during and after construction. TREES REMOVED WITHIN THE PERIOD OF ONE (1) YEAR PRIOR TO A DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION LISTED ABOVE will be inventoried as part of the tree plan above and will be replaced according to Section 18.790.060.D. ® MMUTION (Beier to Code Section 18390.060.0 REPLACEMENT OF A TREE shall take place according to the following guidelines: A A replacement tree shall be a substantially similar species considering site characteristics. If a replacement tree of the species of the tree removed or damages is not reasonably available, the Director may allow replacement with a different species of equivalent natural resource value. ➢ If a replacement tree of the size cut is not reasonably available on the local market or would not be viable, the Director shall require replacement with more than one tree in accordance with the following formula: The number of replacement trees required shall be determined by dividing the estimated caliper size of the tree removed or damaged, by the caliper size of the largest reasonably available replacement trees. If this number of trees cannot be viably located on the subject property, the Director may require one (1) or more replacement trees to be planted on other property within the city, either public property or, with the consent of the owner, private property. > The planting of a replacement tree shall take place in a manner reasonably calculated to allow growth to maturity. IN LIEU OF TREE REPLACEMENT under Subsection D of this section, a party may, with the consent of the Director, elect to compensate the City for its costs in performing such tree replacement. CLEAR VISION AREA (Refer to Code Chapter 18.795) The City requires that CLEAR VISION AREAS BE MAINTAINED BETWEEN THREE (3) AND EIGHT (8) FEET IN HEIGHT at road/driveway, road/railroad, and road/road intersections. The size of the required clear vision area depends upon the abutting street's functional classification and any existing obstructions within the clear vision area. The applicant shall show the clear vision areas on the site plan, and identify any obstructions in these areas. CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 6 of 9 <e.idential ApplitaWntRunil np rx*ion $er: on FUTURE STREET PLAN AND EXTEN€ .I OF STR>E>ETS (Refer to Code Section 1b... d0.030.F.1 A FUTURE STREET PLAN shall: Be filed by the applicant in conjunction with an application for a subdivision or partition. The plan shall show the pattern of existing and proposed future streets from the boundaries of the proposed land division and shall include boundaries of the proposed land division and shall include other parcels within 200 feet surrounding and adjacent to the proposed land division. > Identify existing or proposed bus routes, pullouts or other transit facilities, bicycle routes and pedestrian facilities on or within 500 feet of the site. Where necessary to give access or permit a satisfactory future division of adjoining land, streets shall be extended to the boundary lines of the tract to be develo e ADDITIONAL LOT DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS (Refer to Code Section 18.810.0601 MINIMUM LOT FRONTAGE: 25 feet unless lot is created through the minor land partition process. Lots created as part of a partition must have a minimum of 15 feet of frontage or have a minimum 15-foot wide access easement. The DEPTH OF ALL LOTS SHALL NOT EXCEED 2Y;t TIMES THE AVERAGE WIDTH, unless the parcel is less than 1 "/Z times the minimum lot size of the applicable zoning district. P4 BLOCKS (Beier to Code Section 18.810.0901 The perimeter of BLOCKS FORMED BY STREETS SHALL NOT EXCEED 1,800 FEET measured along the right-of-way center line except where street location is precluded by natural topography, wetlands or other bodies of water or, pre-existing development. When block lengths greater than 330 feet are permitted, pedestrian/bikeways shall be provided through the block. CODE CHAPTERS 18.330 (Conditional use) 18.620 Rard Triangle Design Standards) _1~~ 18.765 (OMtreet PnMn9A ooding Requirements) _ 18.340 (Directors Iniorpretation) 18.630 (Washington Squmo Regional Center) _ 18.775 (Sensitive Lands Review) 18.350 (Planned Development) ~-,--18.705 (AccemdEgrerdarcukation) 8.780 (Signs) 18.360 (Site Development Revlow) 18.710 (Accessory Residontial Units) $.785 (Temporary Use Pormits) '7- 18.370 (variancWAd)ustrnonts) _k 18.715 (Donsity Computations) 18.790 (Tree Romoval) 18.380 (Zoning Mapdrext Amendments) 18.720 (Design Compabb;Tity Standards) 18.795 (Visual Clearance Areas) _ 18.385 (Miscellaneous Permits) V- 18.725 (Wmnmental Performance Standards) x,8.798 (Wirelem Communication Faalities) k 18.390 (Decision Making Proo duresllmpaet Study) 18.730 (Exceptions To Development Standards) . f 10.810 (Street & uoty improvement Standar 18.410 (Lon Line Adjustments) 18.740 (Historic overlay) 6dp~l /M1 18.420 (Land Partitions) 18,742 (Homo Occupatlon Permits) ✓~18.430 (subdivisions) 18.745 (Landscaping & screening Standards) -j,--18.51 0 (Residential zoning Districts) 18.750 (Manufactured/Mobil Home Regulations) _ 18.520 (Commercial Zoning Districts) 18.755 (Mixed Solid WastelRMchng Storage) 18.530 (Industrial zoning Disstricts) 18.760 (Nonconforming Situations) CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 7 7 9 RosideriUdApplir*,Ilonlf'Ignning Division Sm ion ADDITIONAL CONCERNS 08 COMMENT. /u1e4 -=JC S 41-142 a ' i v u <u ~ ti ~B ~P nriv~ -7Ll ti . i / wi ~s Wi A,(,~ 4y dg e 5-4 ru 7y,, 2r-z a•-~... war . n4 4~i s ~zat L GCJ ~!G nu r 3 d - D ~ ~ LG tr~a~ , vv~xo. c G ^Z4 PROCEDURE - Administrative Staff Review. Public hearing before the Land Use Hearings Officer. l~ Public hearing before the Planning Commission. Public hearing before the Planning Commission with the Commission making a recommendation on the proposal to the City Council. An additional public hearing shall be held by the City Council. APPLICATION SUBMITTAL PROCESS All APPLICATIONS MUST BE ACCEPTED BY A PLANNING DIVISION STAFF MEMBER of the Community Development Department at Tigard City Hall offices. PLEASE NOTE: Applications submitted b mail or dropped off at the counter without Plannin~6ivision acceptance may be .returned. The anninq counter closes at 5:00 PM. Ma s submitted with an a lication shall be folded IN ADVANCE to 8'/2' x 11". One 8'/Z" x 11" ma o a ro ose project s ha also be submitted or attachment tote sta report or administrative decision. Applications with unfolded maps--s-hall not a accepted. The Planning Division and Engineering Department will perform a preliminary review of the application and will determine whether an application is complete within 30 days of the counter submittal. Staff will notify the applicant if additional information or additional copies of the submitted materials are required. , CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 8 of 9 Re:identi3l Apprication/Planning D yLim sectian The administrative decisior. public hearing will typically occur ap,.iximately 45 to 60 days after an application is accepted as being complete by the Planning Division. Applications involving.difficult or protracted issues or requiring review by other jurisdictions may take additional time to review. Written recommendations from the Planning staff are issued seven (7) days prior to the public hearing A 10-day public appeal period follo s. all land use decisions. An appeal on this matter would be heard by the Tigard . A basic flowchart which illustrates the review process is aria rom the' Planning Division upon request. Land use applications requiring a public hearing must have notice posted on-site by the applicant no less than 10 days prior to the public hearing. This PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE AND THE NOTES OF THE CONFERENCE ARE INTENDED TO INFORM the prospective applicant of the primary Community Development Code requirements applicable to the potential development of a particular site and to allow the City staff and prospective applicant to discuss the opportunities and constraints affecting development of the site. SUBDIVISION PLAT NAME RESERVATION (County Surveuoes Office: 503-648-8884) PRIOR TO SUBMITTING A SUBDIVISION LAND USE APPLICATION with the City of Tigard, applicants are required to complete and file a subdivision plat naming request with the Washington County Surveyor's Office in order to obtain approval/reservation for any subdivision name. Applications will not be accepted as complete until the City receives the faxed confirmation of approval from the County of the Subdivision Name Reservation. BULtDIN6 PERMITS PLANS FOR BUILDING AND OTHER RELATED PERMITS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW UNTIL A LAND USE APPROVAL HAS BEEN ISSUED. Final inspection approvals by the Building Division will not be granted until there is compliance with all conditions of development approval. These pre-application notes do not include comments from the Building Division. For proposed buildings or modifications to existing buildings, it is recommended to contact a Building Division Plans Examiner to determine if there are building code issues that would prevent the structure from being constructed, as proposed. Additionally, with regard to Subdivisions and Minor Land Partitions where any structure to be demolished has system development charge (SDC) credits and the underlying parcel for that structure will be eliminated when the new plat is recorded, the City's policy is to ap_pl those sy~ste~~m develo ment credits to the first buildin ermit issued in the development (UNLES OTHERWISE DIF~ CTE~D.B THE DEVELOPER AT THE TIME THE DEMOLITION PERMIT IS OBTAINED). The conference an notes cannot cover a o e requirements an aspects related to site planning that should appply to the development of your site plan. Failure of the staff to provide information required by the node shall not constitute a waiver of the applicable standards or requirements. It is recommended that a prospective applicant either obtain and read the Community Development Code or ask an questions of City staff relative to Code requirements prior to submittin an application. AN ADDITIONAL PRE-APPLICATION FEE AND CONFERENCE WILL BE REQUIRED IF AN APPLICATION PERTAINING TO THIS PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE IS SUBMITTED AFTER A PERIOD OF MORE THAN SIX (6) MONTHS FOLLOWING THIS CONFERENCE (unless deemed as unnecessary by the Planning Division). • G 4~p PREPARED BY. CITY OF TIGARD LANNIN IVISION - STAFF PERSON HOLDING PRE-APP, MEETING PHONE: 503-639-4171 FAX: 503-684.1297 EMAIL; Gtarrs tint oamel@eUlprd.or.us Rik 18 (CITY OF TIGARD'S COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE) INTERNET ADDRESS: www.cf.Iigard.or.us H'.\patty\mastcrs\Pre-App Notes Residential.doc updated: 15-Dec-04 (Engineering section, preapp.eng) CITY OF TIGARD Pre-Application Conference Notes Page 9 of 9 Rosidenlial Applica5on/PlanoI N DhAtion Section PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE NOTES Y ENGINEERING SECTION 4 Comty mun offlgargL Oren SAC011g X (BCttcrCommunity PUBLIC FACILITIES Tax MOM; 2510500 Tax Lotts): 4_0,1 k, 13 0 0.14 0 0 - 17 0 0 Useme. SU0 The extent of necessary public improvements and dedications which shall be required of the applicant will be recommended by City staff and subject to approval by the appropriate authority. There will be no final recommendation to the decision making authority on behalf of the City staff until all concerned commenting agencies, City staff and the public have had an opportunity to review and comment on the application. The following comments are a proiection of public improvement related requirements that may be required as a condition of development approval for your proposed project. Right-of-way dedication: The City of Tigard requires that land area be dedicated to the public: (1.) To increase abutting public rights-of-way to the ultimate functional street classification right-of-way width as specified by the Community Development Code: or (2.) For the creation of new streets. Approval of a development application for this site will require right-of-way dedication for: SW Sunrise lane to 27 feet from centerline (Local Street) ® SW 15dh Avenue to 27 feet from centerline (Neighborhood Route) ® SW interior Streets to 54 feet total ❑ SW to feet Street improvements, Z Half street improvements will be necessary along SW Sunrise Laneg, to include: ® 16 feet of pavement from centerline, 24 feet of pavement minimum ® concrete curb ® storm sewers and other underground utilities ® 5-foot concrete sidewalk with 5 foot planter strip Z street trees sized and spaced per TDC ® street signs, traffic control devices, streetlights and a two-year streetlight fee. ❑ Other: 'M OFTIGARD Pro-Aapllcatlon Conlerenca Notes Page 1 of 6 noineerlnB Department Section Z' Half street improvements will be necessary along SW 150" Avenue, to include: Z 16 feet of pavement from centerline, 24 feet of pavement minimum to BMR 23 concrete curb ® storm sewers and other underground utilities ® 5-foot concrete sidewalk with 5 foot planter strip ® street trees sized and spaced per TDC street signs, traffic control devices, streetlights and a two-year streetlight fee. ❑ Other: ® Full street improvements will be necessary along SW Interior streets, to include: ® 32 feet of pavement from curb to curb ® concrete curb ® storm sewers and other underground utilities ® 5-foot concrete sidewalk with 5 foot planter strip street trees sized and spaced per TDC street signs, traffic control devices, streetlights and a two-year streetlight fee. ❑ Other: ❑ street improvements will be necessary along SW , to include: ❑ feet of pavement ❑ concrete curb ❑ storm sewers and other underground utilities ❑ -foot concrete sidewalk ❑ street trees ❑ street signs, traffic control devices, streetlights and a two-year streetlight fee. ❑ Other: ❑ street improvements will be necessary along SW , to include: ❑ feet of pavement ❑ concrete curb ❑ storm sewers and other underground utilities ❑ -foot concrete sidewalk ❑ street trees ❑ street signs, traffic control devices, streetlights and a two-year streetlight fee. :IiY OF TIGARD Pre-AuPllcatlon Conference Notes Pago 2 016 rolntoringDwirtmoutSee lon ❑ Other: Agreement for Future Street Improvements: In some cases, where street improvements or other necessary public improvements are not currently practical, the improvements may be deferred. In such cases, a condition of development approval may be specified which requires the property owner(s) to provide a future improvement guarantee. The City Engineer will determine the form of this guarantee. The following street improvements may be eligible for such a future improvement guarantee: (1.) (2•) Overhead Utility Lines: ® Section 18.810.120 of the Tigard Municipal Code (TMC) requires all overhead utility lines adjacent to a development to be placed underground or, at the election of the developer, a fee in-lieu of undergrounding can be paid. This requirement is valid even if the utility lines are on the opposite side of the street from the site- If the fee in-lieu is proposed, it is equal to $ 35.00 per lineal foot of street frontage that contains the overhead lines. There are existing overhead utility lines which run adjacent to this site along SW Sunrise Lane and 150th Avenue. Prior to final plat approval, the applicant shall either place these utilities underground, or pay the fee in-lieu described above. Sanitary Sewers: The nearest sanitary sewer line to this property is a(n) inch line which is located The proposed development must be connected to a public sanitary sewer. It is the developer's responsibility to Applicant must contact CWS for design requirements. ~~t Water Supply: The City of Tigard (Phone:(503) 639-4171 provides public water service in the area of this site. This service provider should be contacted for information regarding water supply for your proposed development. Fire Protection: Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue District (South Division) [Contact: Eric McMullen, (503) 6127010) provides fire protection services within the City of Tigard. The District should be contacted for information regarding the adequacy of circulation systems, the need for fire hydrants, or other questions related to fire protection. Storm Sewer Improvements: All proposed development within the City shall be designed such that storm water runoff is conveyed X to an approved public drainage system. The applicant will be required to submit a proposed storm :IYY OFTICA60 Pre-Appocauon Conference Mates page 3of 6 ngineering Dovanmentsacann drainage plan for the site, and may be required to prepare a sub-h,sin drainage analysis to ensure that the proposed system will, :ommodate runoff from upstream pi .,erties when fully developed. The applicant must contact CWS for design requirements. Detention maybe required. Storm Water Quality: The City has agreed to enforce Surface Water Management (SWM) regulations established by the Unified Sewerage Agency (USA) (Resolution and Order No. 00-7) which requires the construction of on-site water quality facilities. The facilities shall be designed to remove 65 percent of the phosphorus contained in 100 percent of the storm water runoff generated from impervious surfaces. The resolution contains a provision that would allow an applicant to pay a fee in-lieu of constructing an on- site facility provided specific criteria are met. The City will use discretion in determining whether or not the fee in-lieu will be offered. If the fee is allowed, it will be based upon the amount of impervious surfaces created; for every 2,640 square feet, or portion thereof, the fee shall be $210. Preliminary sizing calculations for any proposed water quality facility shall be submitted with the development application. It is anticipated that this project will require: ® Construction of an on-site water quality facility. ❑ Payment of the fee in-lieu. Water Quality facilities must be designed per CWS standards. Other Comments: All proposed sanitary sewer and storm drainage systems shall be designed such that City maintenance vehicles will have unobstructed access to critical manholes in the systems. Maintenance access roadways may be required if existing or proposed facilities are not otherwise readily accessible. 1) The boundary between the 713' gravity zone and the 713' high pressure zone crosses through this site. The boundary is at elevation 600'. There are two water lines in Sunrise Lane adjacent to this site. The Water Department is requiring the developer to upsize the 8" gravity line in Sunrise Lane to upsized to a 12" line. The Water Department is also .requiring the developer to upsize the 6" High pressure main from BMR to the east of the development along Sunrise Lane to an 8" High pressure line- Contact: Rob Murchison, 639-4171 X2699. 2) The applicant's engineer must provide a traffic analysis, which includes at a minimum, the intersection of 1 501h Avenue and BMR. Preliminary Sight Distance Certification is required for this intersection along with a list of improvements required to achieve adequate sight distance. The traffic analysis shall also address left-turn warrants at 15elSMR. This must be submitted with the Land Use application for completeness. 3) The applicant's engineer must provide Preliminary Sight Distance Certification for all intersections, existing and proposed, that are impacted by this development, along with a list of improvements required to achieve adequate sight distance. The intersections included should be 150t"/Sunrise, Sunrise-1147"' Terrace, Proposed streetlSunrise and all interior street intersections. This information must be included in the land use application for completeness. ITY OFTIGARD Pre-bBllcallon Conference Holes Page4 aI b 1111eerl4B Deoartmenl3aeUon 4) Attached are the requirements for a Traffic Impact Study. 5) If the interior streets are proposed to be less than 54' ROW/32' paved, the applicant must submit the trip data to support the lesser section. 6) Future streets plan must be included with the land use application. Profiles for all proposed streets within the development and future streets must be included with the land use application (extending a minimum of 300 feet beyond the project boundaries). 7) Water Quality and Quantity calculations are required to be included with the Land Use application for completeness. 8) Provide CWS requirements for sewer and storm pertaining to the development with the land use application. Their requirements will be incorporated into the Land Use decision. 9) Must provide 2 access points for development- RAFFIC IMPACT FEES In 1990, Washington County adopted a county-wide Traffic Impact Fee (FIF) ordinance. The Traffic Impact Fee program collects fees from new development based on the development's projected impact upon the City's transportation system. The applicant shall be required to pay a fee based upon the number of trips which are projected to result from the proposed development. The calculation of the TIF is based on the proposed use of the land, the size of the project, and a general use based fee j category. The TIF shall be calculated at the time of building permit issuance. In limited circumstances, payment of the TIF may be allowed to be deferred until the issuance of an occupancy permit- Deferral of the payment until occupancy is permissible only when the TIF is greater than $5,000.00. Pay the TIF_ ERMITS Public Facility Improvement (PFI)Permit: Any work within a public right-of-way in the City of Tigard requires a PFI permit from the Engineering Department. A PFI permit application is available at the Planning/Engineering counter in City Hall_ For more extensive work such as street widening improvements, main utility line extensions or subdivision infrastructure, plans prepared by a registered professional engineer must be submitted for review and approval. The Engineering Department fee structure for this permit is considered a cost recovery system. A deposit is collected with the application, and the City will track its costs throughout the life of the permit, and will either refund any remaining portion of the deposit, or invoice the Permittee in cases where City costs exceeds the deposit amount. NOTE: Engineering Staff time will also be tracked for any final design-related assistance provided to a Permittee or their engineer prior to submittal of a PFI permit application. This time will be considered part of the administration of the eventual PFI permit. rY OF TIGAAD Pre-Apullcatlon Conference Notes page 5 of 6 pnee"ag geDertmenl3ecUon -The Permittee will also be required to post a performance bond. or other such suitable security. Where professional engineer( Mans are required, the Permittee m . execute a Developer/Engineer Agreement, which will obligate the design engineer to perform the primary inspection of the public improvement construction work. The PFI permit fee structure is as follows: NOTE: If an PH Permit is required, the applicant must obtain that permit prior to release of any permits from the Building Division. Building Division Permits: The following is a brief overview of the type of permits issued by the Building Division. For a more detailed explanation of these permits, please contact the Development Services Counter at 503-639-4171, ext. 304. Site Improvement Permit (SIT). This permit is generally issued for all new commercial, industrial and multi-farnily projects. This permit will also be required for land partitions where lot grading and private utility work is required. This permit covers all on-site preparation, grading and utility work. Home builders will also be required to obtain a SIT permit for grading work in cases where the lot they are working on has slopes in excess of 20% and foundation excavation material is not to be hauled from the site. Building Permit (BUP)_ This permit covers only the construction of the building and is issued after, or concurrently with, the SIT permit. Master Permit (MST). This permit is issued for all single and multi-family buildings. It covers all work necessary for building construction, including sub-trades (excludes grading, etc.). This permit can not be issued in a subdivision until the public improvements are substantially complete and a mylar copy of the recorded plat has been returned by the applicant to the City. For a land partition, the applicant must obtain an Engineering Permit, if required, and return a mylar copy of the recorded plat to the City prior to issuance of this permit, Other Permits. There are other special permits, such as mechanical, electrical and plumbing that may also be required. Contact the Development Services Counter for more information. RADING P1AN REQUIREMENTS FOR SUBDIVISIONS All subdivision projects shall require a proposed grading plan prepared by the design engineer. The engineer will also be required to indicate which lots have natural slopes between 10% and 20%, as well as lots that have natural slopes in excess of 20%. This information will be necessary in determining if special grading inspections will be required when the lots develop. The design engineer will also be required to shade all structural fill areas on the construction plans. In addition, each homebuilder will be required to submit a specific site and floor plan for each lot. The site plan shall include topographical contours and indicate the elevations of the corners of the lot. The builder shall also indicate the proposed elevations at the four corners of the building, TY OFTIGARD Pre-1WD11catlon Conference Notes Page 6 of 6 tleeering Department section PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE REQUEST CITY OF TIGARD 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 FAX (503) 684-7297 GENERAL INFORMATION FOR STAFF USE ONLY Applicant: J.T. Smith Companies (Contact Joe Shiewe) Address: 4386 SW Macadam, Suitc 102 Phone: 503-657-3402 Case No.: EREaooS- O_UU (tS City: Portland, OR Zip: 97201 Receipt No.: DOS Application Accepte 13y: Contact Person: Mimi Doukac or Andrew Tull Phone: 503-419-2500 r Date: Property Owner/Deed Holder(s): An elo & Rosins Cortese. Nancy Yo~mpcr DATE OF PRE-APP,; o? e~~ KarneDarniano, RichardCromie,l,ieghnm VAI,Dwight Cash, Jmmnn1..iviny. Tnat. Steven Nelson TIME OF PREAPP,: I! Ot/ Address: Various along Sunrisc Lane Phone: PRE-APP. HELD WITH; City_ Tigard, OR Zip: 97223 Rev. lrsios 1;lcurpinVnasters%rovi5edxpre•APPReQuest.doc Property Address/Location(s): Property is located in the Bull Mountain area, along SW Sunrise Lane REQUIRED SUBMITTAL ELEMENTS (Note: applications will not be accepted without the required submittal elements) Tax Map & Tax Lot #(s): 2.13105DD - 400, 500, 1300, 1400. IS00, 1600, and 1700 Zoning: R-7 ® Pre-Application Conf. Request Form 4 COPIES EACH OF THE FOLLOWING: Site Size: 15.66 Acres 19 Brief Description of the Proposal and PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE INFORMATION any site-specific questions/issues that you would like to have staff research prior to the meeting. All of the information identified on this form are required to be submitted by the applicant and received by the Planning Division a Site Plan. The site plan must show the minimum of one (1) week prior to officially scheduling a proposed lots and/or building layouts Pre-a lication conference dateltime to allow staff ample time to drawn to scale. Also, show the location prepare for the meeting. of the subject property in relation to the nearest streets; and the locations of A conference can usually be scheduled within 1-2 driveways the subject property and pre-application Y across the street. weeks of the Planning Division's receipt of the request for either Tuesday- or Thursday mornings. Pre-application conferences are The Proposed Uses. one (1) hour long and are typically held between the hours of ® Topographic Information. Include 9:00-11:00 AM, Contour Lines if Possible. PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCES MUST BE SCHEDULED IN ❑ If the Pre-Application Conference is for PERSON AT THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COUNTER FROM a MONpPOLE project, the applicant 8:00-4:00/MONDAY-FRIDAY. must attach a copy of the letter and proof in the form of an affidavit of IF MORE THAN 4 PEOPLE ARE EXPECTED TO ATTEND THE mailing, that the collocation protocol was PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE IN YOUR GROUP, PLEASE completed (see Section 18.798.080 of INFORM THE CITY IN ADVANCE SO THAT ALTERNATE ROOM the Tigard Community Development ARRANGEMENTS CAN BE MADE TO ACCOMMODATE THE Code). GROUP. Filing Fee $340,00 Traffic Impact Fee Fund #210 Actual Actual Revised Proposed Approved Adopted Description 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 200546 2005-o6 2005-06 RESOURCES 300000 Beginning Fund Balance 32,194,954 $2,564,861 $981,273 $1,187,867 $1,187,867 $1,187,867 Revenue 404000 Federal Grants $0 s0 $660,000 $660,000 $660,000 $660,000 416000 Intergovcmmerdal Revenue 301,804 748,518 0 O 0 0 Total Other Agencies $301,804 $748,518 $660,000 56010,000 $660,000 $660,000 448000 SDC Reimbursement $917,347 $479,311 $731,328 $735,000 $735,000 $735,000 Total Fees 9 Charges $917,347 $479,311 $%31,328 $735,000 $735,000 $735,000 470000 Interest Earnings $88,156 $102,020 $26,705 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 Total Interest & Rentals $88,156 $102,020 $26,705 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 478000 Other Revenue $264,317 $245,128 $0 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 479000 Recovered expenditures 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Other Revenue $2(54,317 $245,128 $0 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 Total Revenue $1,571,624 $1,574,977 $1,418,033 $1,585,000 $1,585,000 $1,585,000 Transfer in from other funds Facility Fund s0 50 $568,000 $0 $0 $0 Total transfer in from other funds $0 $0 $568,000 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL RESOURCES $3,766,578 $4,139,838 $2,967,306 $2,772,867 $2,772,867 $2,772,867 REQUIREMENTS Program Expenditures Total Expenditures $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Debt Service $0 $0 $0 $0 $O $0 Capital Improvements $967,223 $2,915,083 $2,500,000 $2,051,364 $2,051,364 $2,051,364 Transfer out to other funds Central Services Fund $19,357 $12,524 $16,218 $29,297 $29,298 $29,298 Rect/Property Management Fund 3,114 2,300 2,328 3,635 3,522 3,522 General Fund 81,715 70,369 82,206 134,372 133,977 133,977 Wall Street LID Fund 130,308 107,908 50,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 Total transfer out to other funds $234,494 $193,101 $150,752 $207,304 $200,797 $2061,797 Contingency General Contingency $0 $0 $315,000 $325,000 $325,000 $325,000 Total Contingency 3o $0 $315,000 $325,000 $325,000 $325,000 Total Budget $1,201,717 $3,108,184 $2,965,752 $2,583,668 $2,583,161 $2,58.9,1611 Ending Fund Balance Undosignated Fund Balance $2,564,861 $1,031,654 $1,554 $189,199 $189,706 $189,706 Total Ending Fund Balance $2,5614,861 $1,031,654 $1,554 $189,199 $1$9,706 $189.106 TOTAL REQUIREMENTS $3,766,578 $4,139,838 $2,967,306 $2,772,867 $2,772,867 $2,772,857 Page 294 -City of Tigard Parks Capital Fund #225 Actual Actual Revised Proposed Approved Adopted Description 2002-M 2003.04 2004-05 2005-06 2005-06 2005-06 RESOURCES 300000 Beginning Fund Balance $826,245 $1,925,618 $2,134,000 $2,211,721 $2,211,721 $2,211,721 Revenue 401000 Pnor Year Taxes $0 $2 $0 $0 so Total Property Taxes $0 $2 $0 $0 $0 $0 404000 Federal Grants $0 $161,449 $0 $578,451 $57(3,451 $578,451 414000 State Grants 0 O 146,093 287,243 287,243 287,243 Total Other Agencies $0 $181,449 $146,093 $865,694 $865,694 $865,694 417000 Tree Replacement Revenue $9,375 $10,750 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 450000 System Covelopment Chargo 407,578 418,062 500,080 0 0 0 Total Fees & Charges $416,953 $428,812 $510.080 $10,000 $10,000 S10,000 470000 Interest Earnings $64,102 $31,219 $42,600 $51,000 $51,000 $51,000 Total Interest & Rentals $64,102 $31,219 $42,600 $51,000 $51,000 $51,000 474000 Bond Proceeds $1,509,175 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Bond and Note Proceeds $1,509,175 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 477000 Donations/Gifts $152 $0 $40'-,000 $105,000 $105,000 $105,000 478000 Other Revenue 0 51,489 0 0 0 O 479000 Recovered expenditures 55,000 1,5,000 O O 0 O Total Other Revenue $55,152 $W,489 $405,000 $105,000 $105,000 $105,000 Total Revenue $2,045,382 $707,971 $1,103,773 $1,031,694 $1,031,694 $1,031,694 Transfer in from other funds Facility Fund $0 $0 $0 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 Gas Tax Fund 0 17,044 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 General Fund 0 0 0 769,670 769,670 769,670 Metro Greenspaces Fund 56,464 O 0 0 O 0 Park Levy Improvement Fund 122,806 0 0 0 0 0 Parks 3DC Fund 0 O 0 1,909,917 1,909,917 1,909,917 Tree Replacement Fund 200,000 22,663 0 0 0 0 Water Quality/Quantity Fund 0 0 0 75,400 75,400 75,400 Total transfer in from other funds $379,270 $39,707 $25,000 $2,804,987 $2,804,987 $2,1304,987 TOTAL RESOURCES $3,250,897 $2,673,296 $3,262,773 $6,048,402 $6,048,402 $6,048,402 REQUIREMENTS Program Expenditures Total Expenditures $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Debt Service $277,861 $278,075 $283,126 $282,876 $282,876 $282,876 Capital Improvements $1,047,418 $315,874 $844,016 $3,714,565 $3,714,566 $3,714,566 Transfer out to other funds Parks SDC Fund $0 $0 $0 $1,900,000 $1,900,000 $1,900.000 Total transfer out to other funds $0 $0 $0 $1,900,000 $1,900,000 $1,900,000 Contingency General Contingency $A $.0 $167,571 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 Total Contingency $0 $O $167,571 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 Page 304 - Glty of Tigard Parks Capital Fund #225 Actual Actual Revised Proposed Approved Adopted Description 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2005.06 2005-06 REQUIREMENTS Total Budget $1,325,279 $593,949 $1,294,713 $6,047,442 $6,047,442 $6,047,442 Ending Fund Balance Undesignated Fund r3alance $1,925,618 $2,079,347 $1,968,060 $960 $960 $960 Total Ending Fund Balance $1,925,618 $2,079,347 $1,966,060 $960 $960 $960 TOTAL REQUIREMENTS $3,250,897 $2,673,296 $3,262,773 $6,048,402 $6,048,402 $6,048,402 Fund revenues include grants for the Fanno Creek Trail from Hall Blvd to Wall Street, Skate Park, Cook Park Trail from the garden to bridge, and the Washington Square Regional Center Trail. In addition, donation revenue of $105,000 has been budgeted to cover any costs associated with the development and construction of a Skate Park. In FY 2005-06, Park System Development Charge (SDC) revenues will be accounted for in the Park SDC Fund, Park SDCs are charged when a building permit is issued for any new, residential,. multi-family or commercial construction, additions, alterations, or change in use. Park SDC revenues will be transferred from the Park SDC Fund into the Parks Capital Fund to pay a portion of the capital projects that are SDC eligible. Expenditures from this fund are dependent upon the City's five year Capital Improvement Program (CIP). C IP expenditures vary from year to year depending upon the projects budgeted. For FY 2005-06, funds are budgeted to extend and improve Fanno Creek Trail, develop and construct the Skate Park, install picnic shelters at Jack Park, install playground and soccer facilities at Northview Park, build a pedestrian bridge over the Tualatin River, and purchase additional park land. Funds are also budgeted for tree replacement activities using funds from that revonue source and to pay debt service for the loan from Oregon Economic Community Development Department for the Cook Park Expansion Project. Fund Sum►»arles -Page 305 Parks SDC Fund #270 Actual Actual Actual Revised Proposed Approved Adopted Description 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 200546 2005-06 200546 RESOURCE5 300000 Beginning Fund Balance $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Revenue 450000 System Development Charge 0 0 0 0 1,608,286 1,608,286 1,608,286 Total Fees 8, Charges $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,608,286 $1,608,286 $1,608,286 470000 Interest Earnings so $0 $0 $0 $61,380 $61,380 $61,380 Total Interest& Rentals $o $0 $0 $0 $61,380 $51,380 $61,380 Total Revenue $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,669,666 $1,669,666 $1,669,666 Transfer in from other funds Parks Capital Fund $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,900,000 $1,900,000 $1 900000 Total transfer in from other funds $A $o $0 $0 $1,900,000 $1,900,000 $1,90o,000 TOTAL RESOURCES $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,569,666 $3,$69,666 $3,569,655 REQUIREMENTS Program Expenditures Total Expenditures $0 To $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Debt Service 3A $0 $0 $O 30 $0 $0 Capital Improvements $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $O Transfer out to other funds Parks Capital Fund $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,909,917 $1,909,917 $1.909.917 Total transfer out to other funds $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,909,917 $1,909,917 $1 909 91 Contingency General Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $O $o $o Total Budget $0 $0 $O $0 $1,909,917 $1,909,917 $1,909917 Ending Fund Balance UndcsianatcdFund Balance $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,669,749 $1,659,749 $1659749 Total Ending Fund Balance $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,659,749 $1,659,749 $1,659,749 TOTAL REQUIREMENTS $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,.5169,666 $3,569,666 $3,569,5;66 This fund is being established in FY 200506 to track the revenues associated with the collection of Parks System Development Charges (SDCs). Park SDC: are charged when a building permit is issued for any new residential, multi-family, or commercial construction, additions, alterations, or change in use, Funds collected are used to fund the acquisition, development, and expansion of additional recreation spaces and facilities that are included in the City's Park Master Plan. As projects are scheduled to be included in the City's capital improvement budget, funds are transferred to the Parks Capital Fund for the SDC portion of the project funding. A new methodology and fee was established by the City Council that wont into effect January 1, 2005. Page 292 -City of Tigard L~ h t %Contmued from `A1 hTigard,,; Woodruff said 3 4 7r sry'y V as d 'ia, 'rrs y,lt.~ it s Y'y. , „pia .FC t O 111~i 'However on`Au 22 a local Councilor Sydney Sherwood re d , ~ g ` said ..I concur .There is no . ! reszdent asked 'to leave the wnt reason > ~t0 St0 r We're hot, Creating ; annex-'k,; i ten record open,for another seven £ v,; ; • p~ F It + atlons Theser~ ro erttes asked' t0 ` days Ito; ,vespondr to comments p p ` comer m s tare were not, ~ , r a e; y t e city s ff cttyr, ~ Fy a tl 4ttorney,m response to testimony coerced" + offered `at the Aug 9 meerirrg Councilor Nick.Wilsonpointed; t n , U i r ' 'a t t Ollt rthe el, was: folio' ORS, <1 i The, council agreed: Ito Elie tY request; puttuig the decision off 222, wlucli calls fox the consent of ll` the roe owners int1ie.'< a r P r until last week. because it~ only , P I? h' 4 f' , holdsNtwo~busiriess meetings per affected area to be annexe d plus 50 ercent of the electors F 5 month on the second and fourth P r i z t _ 1 Tuesda f j girth this'case, we have 100 per The properties on "Est to:be ,cent of''tioth;" Wilson said "It:; i tit included two parcels of clearly meets the•, cntena', It is m land totaling 6 94 `acres m. the , the best interest of the citizens of r r > Mountain View Estates subdiyi Tigard to-ar►►nex >'t's always about:• i fir.! a " y son; three' parcels cbntalnlllg T 97 , acres in the Arlington (Annexatrtin) has: been Heighis subdivision, two parcels ' totaluigv2 68 acres )mthe Wilson+ ; suChv:a Contcoverslal Ridge subdivision and56 parcels _ comprising 20:75 acres ` inthe thing $IpCe the Bullr a ` ummit Rid' a -subdivision plu ;S mountain ~r vote. # I I" r Alberta Rider' Elementary h1.1 S.f L Y ' 3 r t.. al + t ♦ h,' x t SC (1() All„ four annexations comprise 1` r The CtW,~COUnCll votes td ann6k, ! 63 parcels totaling 4734 acres: COUIICIIO(TOro Woodruff ores, thaf: include A`Iberta'!Rtdel l T$e city" requires a;consent.'to annex from developer's. to, satisfy rt Elementary arJd folly sltbdi'vtstons a condition of approval'that areas (pioviding) urban services arid,- . ` of Washih' County.wrthrn the how they•get paid; for. I liken the., By BARBARA SHERMAPI Jga 11- urbamplanning area must ty to a. arge. omeoners' also t Of The e:§ » ciatlon , a be annexed prior to`,final subdivi He countered " arumentS b" WARD l g y,r ' WARD The City Councjlsf 8ecision sion plat approva Sept ,13:; to annex ,nearly 50-, acres on Bull A small area adjacent to the Bull Mountainresidents who say YI School did riot gef., annexed they pay."their own way and' that l ounta m: was almost: anti ch`mactic after tfiei s, because it was retained by the city does not.;subsidize them Ong, and win ding road that led-up tort _ L b. rvin an exam le" from the x~ r ; The council originally heard public tpshmon E =Alberta Rider = as a 'life estate Y $ g p Y when she soIdfier property'to the city 's budget Oil the issue at its Aug 9 meeting and agreed to hold the, written, record' open for seven da s Tigard-;Tualatin School District "We take in roughly'$10 mil y for the school that ;bears lies lion in property taxes, and spend-`,_ _fj before voting on the issue Aug 23 police, $ I miIhon on' iii i See ANNEX, A3 name She hues on, t e property $9 millions and did not:., consent to be parks and $25 million on the 4 s m u h i {operarioris) the. hbrary.s annexed library ~i "(Annexation) has been~such aR budget is paid half by the county.; ■ d half by city ,property taxes, •;r TT r controversial flan since the. Bull an The. Times '✓~":1 Mountain vote (when is resid nts Wilson said { i t i e' 77' defeated an attempt by the city in "The citizens of every county. PY T ! l~ovein er 200_ to anex nearly pay, for the sheriff s patrol, which ~ ; v1 t x 1;3r00 acreS)," said CitytCouncilor d'oe`sn't patrol in'the+city. So we:: ' lead meets om . T Woo , he deci subsidize. the countyWe could drdf Formet • ! ) • . sions need to' meet-. certain legal cut our, propert~i:• taxes by one i to rlterla criteria consistent with precedents third~if we didn't: have fo`pay for. l l f aldt Will on and be beneficial to tlie;citizens of that E Tigard These. (requests) meet'`all ` the criteria" He :added,thatpeopleshouldn't - con§id the additional' anise Ca' •~T 6'.5ir;,el hon's`ra15`c640uacy" proced6 rr e wouldf do the•} game if wasr this a& St rr i -rr0,A21v'~Sli3 Jb' `arceY tS ay n the 12/07/2005 WED 15:44 FAX iR6800 191001/027 12/01/2005 THU 14:43 PAX IR6800 Cdj002/028 1s 1 1zl7/off. CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON RESOLUTION NO. 43-(41 "J A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON, APPROVING THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD WATER DISTRICT, AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO SIGN THE AGREEMENT, AND APPOINTING THE TBR PTSTRIGT' ^ MEMBER AND ALTERNATE TO THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL/WATER BOARD CREATED UNDER SECTION 3 OF THE AGREEMENT. Ctz`y'5 ~vo~r~ by (scriveyfeat'S BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF TIGARD THAT: SECTION 1: The Intergovernmental Agreement for water services between the City and Tigard Water District, attached hereto as Exhibit A, is approved. The Mayor is'hereby authorized and directed to execute the Agreement. SECTION 2: The City Recorder is authorized to do all things necessary to secure signatures from the Tigard Water District and to deliver a copy of the signed Agreement to the City of King City and the City of Durham. SECTION 3: oh o SC btxyA. r4~ is designated as the City"s member on the Intergovernmental Water B9ard created under Section 3 of the Agreement. Ro-u l !,!«vk is designated as the City's alternate member on the Intergovernmental Water Board. PASSED: By lJ. r0,yX.i mtx c/J vote of all Council members present after being read by number and title only, this da of ~PCCenb.Pti> , 1993. i . Cathy Wheatley, City R4 order APPROVED : This gtG~ day o 993. 'Gerald R. Edwards, Mayor Approved as t'o/ f V C y Atto y Date: Jot/ak/4r schk0gaW\jm\igzt&twd.res 12/07/2005 WED 15:44 FAX iR6800 LO 002/027 12/01/2005 THU 14:44 FAX i.R6800 @003/028 .a as EXHIBM A DR1:GTNAL INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD WATER DISTRICT FOR DELIVERY OF WATER SERVICE TO TERRITORY WITHIN THE DISTRICT BOUNDARIES This Agreement is made and entered into by the City of Tigard, an Oregon municipal corporation, (hereinafter "Tigard") and the a domestic are jointly referred to herein as "the Parties." Unless identified as "original," District refers to the remnant district. RECITALS: 1. The cities of Tigard, King City and Durham (collectively the "Cities") withdrew from the original District effective July 1, 1993. 2. Pursuant to ORS 222.540, the District is obligated to turn over to the Cities its water mains, service installations, structures, facilities, improvements and other property in the area withdrawn from the District as it existed on June 30, 1993, (original District) that are not necessary for the operation of the remainder of the water supply system of the District. ..Tbe_a-re0 wjttLdro-wn,by Ti_lar19 As portion of the original District's infrastructure pursuant to ORS 222.540. King City and Durham are entitled to smaller portions of the original District's infrastructure. Furthermore pursuant to ORS 222.550, should the District dissolve, Tigard will be in a position to obtain all of the District's remaining assets which have not been distributed under ORS 222.540. 4. With the assets and infrastructure obtained by its withdrawal from the original District, Tigard is creating a city water department. 5. The Cities and District agree that it is in their best interest if King City, Durham and the District were to be an integrated part of a water supply network receiving water service from Tigard's city water department. Tigard will receive revenue from water users in Tigard, King City, Durham, and the District, and with that revenue Tigard will provide the funds to pay for expenses incurred in providing water service. 6. The Cities and District agree that it is in their best interest to share authority for decision-making regarding the long- term water supply and capital improvement planning to serve present and future water customers of the original District. INTERGOVERNMENTAI, AGREEMENT TIGARD/WATER DISTRICT - 1 (12/23/93 - FINAL) 12/07/2005 WED 15:45 FAX iR6800 i0003/U21 1.2/01/2005 THU 1.4:45 FAX i.R6800 I~J004/028 7. The Parties shall continue to prepare independent tax coordination plans. 8. Tigard and the District acknowledge that they have authority to enter into this Intergovernmental Agreement pursuant to the powers contained in Tigard's Charter, ORS 264.210 and ORS 190.010. NOW, THEREFORE, the premises being in general as stated in the foregoing recitals, it is agreed by and between the Parties hereto as follows: 1. Mission Statement. The Cities withdrew from the original District with intent to take a more active role in planning and operating a domestic water supply system for the Southeast Washington County area in order to provide the residents of that area with the highest quality water service at the lowest possible cost. In keeping with that intention, the Parties to this Intergovernmental Agreement commit to working together to provide all of the residents and undeveloped property in the original District with a clean, economical water supply. The Parties further commit to working together and with other agencies and jurisdictions in a cooperative effort to plan for the future long term water supply needs of the area. 2. Term. This Agreement will be in full force and effect until December 31, 2018, unless sooner terminated by one or both of the Parties. Either party may terminate this Agreement by providing written notice to the other party a minimum of ten years prior to the effective date of termination. Tigard recognizes that by this Agreement, it is assuming the responsibility to provide water to the inhabitants of the District for the duration of this Agreement unless a reasonable alternative domestic water supply is available to the District and the Agreement is terminated. 3. Intergovernmental Water Board. A. Tigard will establish an Intergovernmental Water Board (IWB). The Intergovernmental Water Board will consist of five members. Members of the Board will be appointed by the respective governing bodies as follows: INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT TIGARD/WATER DISTRICT - 2 (12/23/93 - FINAL) ar. vr. - ncy l.J.,ty rAA 1A00VV tQUV4/V41 12/01/2005 THU 14:46 FAX i1t6800 Q005/028 I 1 dMEL ~t Tigard - One Member King City - one Member Durham - One Member District/Unincorporated Area - One Member At Large - One Member selected by a majority vote of the Other Members B. Intergovernmental Water Board Terms. (1) Initially, three Board members shall be appointed for a term of three years (from January 1, 1994 to December 31, 1996) and two Board members shall be appointed for a term of two years (from January 1, 1994 to December 31, 1995). There shall be a drawing of lots to determine which Board members will serve two years and which will serve three years. Thereafter, Board members shall have two year terms. (2) Board members shall be appointed in December for the following two year term. Each term will begin on January 1. Each term will end on December 31 and each Board member shall serve until a successor has been appointed. Members may be re-appointed to succeeding terms. Vacancies may be filled in the same manner as a regular appointment. (3) Board members shall be an elected official serving on the respective governing body except for that member selected by a majority vote of the other members. Each respective governing body may appoint an alternate to attend meetings in the place of a regularly appointed Board member. The alternate shall be appointed in the same manner and must meet the same qualifications as the regularly appointed Board member. C. Tigard may appoint city officials as ex officio members of the Intergovernmental Water Board to assist the Board in its duties. They shall serve at the pleasure of the Tigard City Council and shall have no voting privileges. D. A quorum of the Board shall be three (3) members. All actions of the Board shall require at least three (3) votes, excluding abstentions. E. The Intergovernmental Water Board will make recommendations to the Tigard City Council on water service issues and will have the following responsibilities: (1) to make a continuing study of the rate structure of the water system. INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT TIGARD/WATER DISTRICT - 3 (12/23/93 - FINAL) 12/07/2005 PEED 15:46 FAX iR6800 19005/027 12/01/2005 THU 14:47 M 1R6800 @006/028 d. (2) to consider and prepare plans for and make recommendations to the Council for a long-range operation and management program. (3) to investigate and study means of effecting economies in operation and management. (4) to review and make recommendations to the Budget Committee and Council on all budget requests for operation and maintenance. (5) to study and consider ways and means of improving the water system and services which it provides. (6) to study and make recommendations on Tigard's program for providing insurance for system assets and operations. (7) to make a continuing review of any and all rules and regulations regarding the water system which may be adopted by the Council and periodically to make recommendations to the council for additions or amendments of such rules and regulations. (8) to work with other agencies and jurisdictions in a cooperative effort to plan for the future water supply needs of the area. (9) to make recommendations to the Council relative to all of the above-mentioned matters and as to any other matters which the Intergovernmental Water Board may feel to be for the good of the water system, the overall public interest and for the benefit of the consumer. F. Power to Grant Variances (1) Except when prohibited by subsection 2 of this section, upon application, the Intergovernmental Water Board may grant variances from the water system rules and regulations enacted by the City of Tigard when it finds that: a) strict application of the rules and regulations create undue economic hardship for the applicant with no significant benefit to the water system; b) the variance requested has no material adverse effect upon the water system and it is consistent with established policies of the Tigard City Council. (2) The Intergovernmental Water Board may not grant variances relating to annexation of property, fire protection requirements, cross-connection requirements, fees, rates and charges. INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT TIGARD/WATER DISTRICT - 4 (12/23/93 - FINAL) 12/07/2005 WED 15:47 FAX IR6800 LQUU /UZI 12/01/2005 THU 14:48 FAX 06800 f~J007/028 Ai 4. Division of Original District Assets. A. Pursuant to ORS 222.540(4), the District agrees that the division of assets after withdrawal from the original District by the Cities shall be consistent with the following concepts: (1) Assets include real, personal and intangible property. "Intangible property" includes but is not limited to: moneys, checks, drafts, deposits, interest, dividends and income. (2) Assets will be divided into two groups: a. System Assets: Assets necessary for the operation of Tigard's water supply system throughout the original District, not including those "other assets" of Tigard. Personal and intangible property are system assets. Water mains, service installations, structures, facilities, improvements or other property necessary for operation of the City of Tigard's water supply system throughout the original District are system assets. b. Other Assets: Assets not necessary for the operation of the City of Tigard's water supply system throughout the original District. Other assets shall become the property of the jurisdiction in which the asset is located. water mains, service installations, structures, facilities, improvements or other property not necessary for the operation of the City of Tigard's water supply system throughout the original District are other assets. B. All system assets and other assets shall be pledged by the Cities and the District to Tigard. All system assets and other assets shall be managed by Tigard and shall be utilized by Tigard in order to provide water services to properties, residences and businesses in the original District. C. Should one of the Cities or the District terminate its water service agreement with Tigard, the Cities' and the District's proportionate interest in a system asset shall be determined based upon the following formula: Jurisdiction's Proportionate Interest = (A + B + C)/3 A = Jurisdiction's Percentage of. Current Consumption in original District B = Jurisdiction's Percentage of Current Real Market Value in original District INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT TIGARD/WATER DISTRICT - 5 (12/23/93 - FINAL) 12/07/2005 WED 16:06 FAX iR6800 0002/002 12/01/2005 TR11 14:49 FAT 1.R6800 9008/028 C = Jurisdiction's Percentage of Current Meters in original District The Cities' and the District's proportionate interest in a system asset capital improvement shall be based upon the capital improvement's depreciated value. The depreciated value shall be based upon the useful life of the capital improvement under generally accepted accounting principles using a straight line method of depreciation. D. Upon termination of this Agreement, other assets shall become the property of the jurisdiction in which the asset is located. 5. Asset Ownership/Water Rates/Revenues. A. Tigard's Utilization of Assets. (1) The Parties agree that all system assets in which the Parties have an undetermined proportionate interest and all other assets received as.a result of the division of assets after withdrawal from the original District by the Cities shall be utilized by Tigard in order to provide water services to properties, residences and businesses in the original District. The District's ownership interest in the assets shall remain though the assets are being utilized by Tigard, unless and until transferred to Tigard by agreement or operation of law. Tigard will maintain and insure the real and personal property assets it utilizes. The Parties agree to execute all documents necessary to allow utilization of the assets by Tigard. (2) Tigard agrees that it will maintain, preserve and keep the assets it utilizes in good repair and working order. Tigard may appropriate from the water fund all moneys necessary to meet this obligation. (3) Tigard shall keep the assets free of all levies, liens and encumbrances except those created by this Agreement or consented to by the governing body of the District in writing. The Parties to this Agreement contemplate that the assets will be used for a governmental or proprietary purpose by Tigard and, therefore, that the assets will be exempt from all property taxes. Nevertheless, if the use, possession or acquisition of the assets are determined to be subject to taxation, Tigard shall pay when due all taxes and governmental charges lawfully assessed or levied against or with respect to the assets. Tigard shall pay all gas, water, steam, electricity, heat, power, telephone, utility and other charges incurred in the operation, maintenance, use, occupancy and upkeep of the assets. Where there is shared use of the INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT TIGARD/WATER DISTRICT - 6 (12/23/93 - FINAL) 12/07/2005 WED 15:48 FAX iR6800 19008/027 12/01/2005 THU 14:50 F.A% 1R6800 Q009/028 4 AM assets, these costs will be shared in an equitable manner. (4) Tigard shall maintain (i) casualty insurance insuring the 1nnn*n nan i nn+- 1 nnn nr A- M a~ 4.1r fi inn -q n11 n4-1- --1.- covered by the standard extended coverage endorsement then in use in the State of Oregon and any other risks reasonably required by District in an amount equal to at least the replacement value of the assets and, (ii) liability insurance that protects District, including its officers and commissioners, from liability arising from Tigard's operation of the water supply system in an amount satisfactory to District and (iii) worker's compensation insurance covering all employees working on, in, near or about the assets as required under the laws of the State of Oregon. Tigard shall furnish to District, certificates evidencing such coverage. All such insurance shall be with insurers that are authorized to issue such insurance in the State of Oregon, shall name Lf i.~i..~-i - ..I.A-&--l d ..w.1 -1-3.3. n- - r_- to the effect that such insurance shall not be canceled or modified materially and adversely to the interest of District without first giving written notice thereof to District at least ten (10) days in advance of such cancellation or modification. All such casualty insurance shall contain a provision making any losses payable to Tigard and District as their respective interests may appear. Tigard may meet any of these requirements through a self-insurance program. Such insurance requirements may be waived in writing by the governing body of the District. (5) To the extent permitted by law, Tigard shall indemnify, protect, hold harmless, save and keep harmless District from and against any and all liability, obligation, loss, claim and damage whatsoever, regardless of cause thereof, and all expenses in connection therewith, including, without limitation, counsel fees and expenses, penalties and interest arising out of or as the result of the entering into of this Agreement, the ownership of any asset or any accident in connection with the operation, use, condition, possession, storage or return of any asset resulting in damage to property or injury to or death to any person; provided, however, that Tigard shall not be deemed to be indemnifying District for claims arising from its own conduct. The indemnification arising under this paragraph shall continue in full force and effect notwithstanding the termination of this Agreement for any reason. B. The fees, rates and charges charged by Tigard for providing water services to properties, residences and businesses in District shall be the same as those charged within Tigard. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Tigard may impose higher fees, rates and charges for providing water service to properties, residences INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT TIGARD/WATER DISTRICT - 7 (12/23/93 - FINAL) lz/U1/LUU0 "hu 13:4U MA Imuouu qYuuaiuzr 12/01/2005 THU 14:51 FAX IR6800 9010/028 i and businesses when the cost of providing such service is greater due to unusual circumstances, including, but not limited to additional cost to pump water up hill to reach customers. Any higher fees, rates and charges imposed for providing water service shall be reviewed by the Intergovernmental Water Board prior to taking effect and shall be limited to covering the actual additional costs of providing such service. When higher fees, rates and charges are imposed, they shall be consistently applied in both Tigard and the remainder of the original District, except that at the request of the District, Tigard will collect on behalf of the District additional charges imposed by the District on District customers. C. Moneys/Revenues. (1) Moneys and revenues for system capital improvement shall be held by Tigard in a fund dedicated solely for this purpose. (2) Moneys transferred to Tigard as a result of the division of assets after withdrawal from the original District by Tigard which were previously dedicated by the District to system capital improvement shall be used solely for system capital improvement by Tigard in accordance with subsection S.D. (3) Moneys deposited in a reserve fund for revenue bonds of the water system are not a system asset and are not subject to the system asset distribution formula in Section 4 of this Agreement. (4) The Parties agree to develop a methodology for system development charges and to impose and collect such charges in their respective jurisdictions. If any of the Cities or District fail to impose system development charges as contemplated herein, then the other parties may elect to terminate collecting system development charges within their jurisdictions. The Parties agree that Tigard should collect the system development charges imposed by the District until such time as Tigard imposes its own charge. D. Capital Improvements. (1) (a) Capital projects shall be implemented in accord with a long-range capital improvement program supported by sound engineering analysis, in the best interests of water customers within the original District, ignoring city boundaries. INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT TIGARD/WATER DISTRICT - 8 (12/23/93 - FINAL) 12/07/2005 WED 15:49 FAX iR6800 IA010/027 12/01/2005 1TU 1.4:52 FAX IR6800 011/028 i t (b) The capital improvement program must be approved by the governing bodies of one less than the number of jurisdictions holding an ownership interest in the water system. A governing body may not unreasonably withhold consent if the program is supported by sound engineering analysis, is in the best interests of water customers within the original District and consistent with the goal of working together to provide all of the residents and property in the original District with a clean, economical water supply. If a proposed capital improvement program is not approved as provided for in this subsection, then the governing bodies of any two jurisdictions may request mediation under the provisions of ORS Chapter 36 to determine if approval of the program has been unreasonably withheld. (c) Tigard shall prepare and deliver to the District a proposed Capital Improvement Plan no later than June 30, 1994 for consideration by the Cities and the District. The District's Capital Improvement Plan dated June, 1993, will guide Tigard's spending on capital projects until a capital improvement program is adopted pursuant to subsection (b). (2) The capital improvement program shall establish the location of a capital improvement whether within Tigard, Icing City, Durham or the District and shall distinguish whether a capital improvement qualifies as a system asset or other asset. (3) Capital improvements made subsequent to entering into this Agreement that are determined to be other assets shall become the property of the jurisdiction in which the improvement is located. For capital improvements made subsequent to entering into this Agreement that are determined to be system assets, the Cities and the District each shall have a proportionate interest in such "system asset" capital improvement's depreciated value. The depreciated value shall be based upon the useful life of the capital improvement under generally accepted accounting principles using a straight line method of depreciation. The Cities' and the District's proportionate interest in such "system asset" capital improvement's depreciated value shall be determined based upon the formula in Section 4.D. of this Agreement. (4) Should one of the Cities or the District terminate its water service agreement with Tigard, such jurisdiction shall have rights to the use of all system assets equal to its Jurisdiction's Proportionate Interest as INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT TIGARD/WATER DIS`TUCT - 9 (12/23/93 - FINAL) 12/07/2005 WED 15:50 FAX iR6800 [A011/027 12/01/2005 THU 14:53 FAX 1R6800 901.2/028 i .a r. determined above. Tigard shall be provided reasonable compensation for any use of its water system necessary for the continued reasonable use of a system asset by a jurisdiction. If the asset is not essential to the operation of such jurisdiction's water system, Tigard may terminate such jurisdiction's rights in the system asset capital improvement by payment of a sum equal to the Jurisdiction's Proportionate Interest in the depreciated value of such system asset. (5) The Parties acknowledge that the water system currently serving the original District is an integrated system. To the extent that either Party should terminate this Agreement, the Parties agree to cooperate with each other and to enter into such agreements necessary for the continued reasonable operation of the resulting water systems. E. Long-term water supply contracts shall be entered into in accord with the best interests of water customers within the original District, ignoring city boundaries. Long-term water supply contracts must be approved by the governing bodies of one less than the number of jurisdictions holding an ownership interest in the water system. A governing body may not unreasonably withhold consent to a contract if the contract is supported by sound engineering analysis, is in the best interests of water customers within the original District and consistent with the goal of working together to provide all of the residents and property in the original District with a clean, economical water supply. If a proposed long-term water supply contract is not approved as provided for in this subsection, then the governing bodies of any two jurisdictions may request mediation under the provisions of ORS Chapter 36 to determine if approval of the contract has been unreasonably withheld. F. The District shall receive an annual rebate equal to 1% of the previous year's water sale revenue within the District for District expenses. In addition, Tigard, at the District's request, will appropriate and deliver an amount not to exceed $40,000 from Tigard's initial (1/94 to 6/94) water fund budget for District operating expenses for the period from January 1, 1994 through June 30, 1995. Tigard will reimburse the District from water system revenues the cost of the District's Division of Assets study undertaken to fulfill the District's obligations pursuant to ORS 222.540. G. Accounting (1) Water activities will be accounted for in the same manner as other enterprise activities currently under the jurisdiction of. Tigard. Expenditures directly linked to INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT TIGARD/WATER DISTRICT - 10 (12/23/93 - FINAL) 121WIZOU0 Whll 10:51 VAA lxbauu touiz/uL! 12/01/2005 THU 14:54 FAX 1R8800 16013/028 i v a water activities will be recorded in the water fund. Applicable indirect charges will be apportioned to the water fund in the same manner as such charges are apportioned to other enterprise funds to properly reflect the costs associated with each activity. Tigard shall use generally accepted accounting principles applicable to utility enterprises for the recording and identifying of all revenues and expenditures made for the water system. The Intergovernmental Water Board shall review such allocation and methodology. (2) The accounting method used by Tigard shall, to the extent possible, document the use of assets by Tigard for non- water system activities. Use of assets by Tigard for non-water activities shall be funded from resources other than the water fund. H. The Parties to this Agreement shall not have the right to transfer ownership of or remove system assets or any interest therein received or kept as a result of the Cities' withdrawal from the original District or any interest in system assets acquired during the term of this Agreement without -written consent of the other Party. Neither the benefits received by the District nor the obligations incurred under the terms of this Agreement are assignable or in any manner transferrable by the District without the written consent of the City. I. No part of this Agreement shall be interpreted as a waiver of either Parity's statutory rights upon annexation of territory. 6. Indebtedness. A. Each of the Parties shall be liable for their respective share of the debt, if any, acquired or retained as a result of the Cities' withdrawal from the original District. B. Tigard may incur, without the consent of the District, debt relating to the water supply system, provided payment of the debt is fee, rate or charge based. If the debt is to be paid for by means other than fees, rates or charges, Tigard must have approval and consent of the governing body of the District in writing prior to incurring such debt. The District shall be liable for its proportionate share of any debt for which it has given its written approval and consent. C. Tigard is authorized to perform the function and activity of incurring water revenue bond indebtedness for the water system by authorizing the issuance of water revenue bonds pursuant to ORS 288.805 to 288.945, as amended, for the financing of water system capital improvements. Such debt may be secured by a pledge of INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT TIGARD/WATER DISTRICT - 11 (].2/23/93 - FINAL) 12/07/2005 WED 15:52 FAX iR6800 U U.LJ/V41 .1.2/01/2005 TRU 14:55 rAX s.R6800 9014/028 .m, water system revenues, appropriate rate covenants, and mortgaging of water system assets. Tigard may not mortgage water system assets without first receiving the written consent of the cities' and District's governing bodies. D. If this lgreement is terminated by either Party and indebtedness remains under section 6.A. or has been incurred and approved by the District in manner described in Section 6.B., District shall. either: 1. Pay in full, within 60 days of the effective date of termination, its proportionate share of the indebtedness; or 2. Pay annually its proportionate share of the indebtedness as payment is due. 7. services Provided By Tigard. A. Tigard will provide water to properties and customers in all jurisdictions equally. If circumstances require water restrictions, each jurisdiction shall share equally. The District may not sell water provided through this Agreement to a third party without the prior written consent of Tigard. B. Tigard will provide equally and in a manner consistent with the terms of this Agreement all services required for delivery of potable domestic crater to properties and customers within the cities of King City and Durham as well as the territory of the District, including but not limited to system repair and maintenance, water distribution, new installations, system upgrades, and billing functions. Tigard is under no obligation to provide such water services to areas annexed to the District subsequent to this Agreement. C. District agrees that Tigard is empowered to use any right of condemnation possessed by the District that is necessary to provide water services consistent with the terms of this Agreement, and will take any action necessary for Tigard to exercise that right on the request of Tigard. D. To the extent that such agreements or contracts are transferrable, the District agrees to take the necessary action to transfer its water supply agreements or contracts with the City of Portland and the City of Lake Oswego to Tigard in order to facilitate the provision of water services consistent with the terms of this Agreement. INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREVF_ENT TIGARD/WATER DISTRICT - 12 (12/23/93 - FINAL) 1L/UI/9000 nrl) 10:09 rAA 1MOOVV ~y+ 12/01/2005 THU 14:56 FAX iR6800 f~ 015/028 saw E. The District may use the former Tigard Water District office building for meetings of the District Board and for receipt of the Board's correspondence. To the extent that Tigard charges other governmental entities for use of the building, the District agrees to compensate Tigard a reasonable amount for use of the building. F. Tigard agrees to assist the District in preparation of budgets, organization and noticing of meetings and other administrative duties at the request of the District. The District agrees to compensate Tigard a reasonable amount for such assistance. 8. Rules and Regulations. A. The Rules, Rates and Regulations for Water Service Handbook, (November, 1992), adopted by the Board of Commissioners Tigard Water District is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and shall be deemed a part of this Agreement. B. The Tigard City Council may modify, alter or repeal the rules, rates and regulations in Exhibit "A." Rules and regulations will be modified, altered or repealed only after the Intergovernmental Water Board has had the opportunity to study the proposed rules and regulations. The Intergovernmental Water Board is empowered to make a continuing review of any and all rules and regulations regarding the water system which may be adopted by the Council and periodically to make recommendations to the Council for additions or amendments of such rules and regulations. The Parties agree to comply with the rules and regulations currently in effect and as hereafter adopted by the Tigard City Council, and water service to the District shall be governed thereby. 9. Extension of Service. A. Extension or modification of District's water distribution system shall be done only with prior written approval of District. Furthermore, Tigard will. not make any extensions or service connections within King City's or Durham's Urban Growth Boundary without permission from the King City or Durham City Council. B. For the unincorporated area within the District, it is the governing body of the District which, subject to the rules and regulations specified in Section 8, has the authority to allow connections to the crater supply system. C. Residents located within the District shall not be responsible for any expenses associated with efforts of the City of Tigard to withdraw from the Tualatin Valley Water District to reach the goal of having a single water purveyor for the City. INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGRE-EMENT TIGARD/WATER DISTRICT - 13 (12/23/93 - FINAL) 1L/U1/ZUU0 WkV 10:OJ VA1 1K05 UU 4Y015/027 12/01/2005 THU 14:57 FAX iR6800 9016/028 .a► .am. 10. Employee Benefits/Personnel. All employees of the Southeast Washington County Joint Water Agency shall become employees of the City. The City shall accept such employees with all existing benefits and salary, including, but not limited to, health, retirement, disability insurance, wages, vacation and compensatory time. Nothing in this subsection is intended to limit the City's authority to alter benefits or salary except as such authority is otherwise limited by this Agreement or by the provisions of ORS 236.605 to 236.650. 11. Annual Meeting. The governing bodies of the Parties to this Agreement shall meet annually with the Intergovernmental Water Board to discuss and consider issues related to this Agreement. The Intergovernmental Water Board and the Tigard Water Department shall issue an annual report on its activities to the Parties at this meeting. 12. Attorneys Fees. In the event any suit, action or other proceeding is brought with regard to this Agreement, or to enforce any of the provisions hereof, the prevailing party in any such suit, action or other proceeding, or any appeal therefrom, shall be entitled to reasonable attorneys fees. Attorney fees which are awarded pursuant to this Section may not be paid from the fees, rates and charges collected by Tigard for water services. 13. Applicable Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Oregon. 14. Ratification of this Agreement. Prior to the effective date of this Agreement, each Party shall enact a resolution ratifying the Agreement. This Agreement may be simultaneously executed in several counterparts, each of which shall be an original and all of which shall constitute but one and the same instrument. 15. Amendments. Any amendment to this Agreement must be approved by the governing bodies of the District and Tigard. INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT TIGARD/WATER DISTRICT - 14 (12/23/93 - FINAL) 12/07/2005 WED 15:54 FAX iR6800 9016/027 12/01/2005 THU 14:58 FAX IR8800 t~ 017/028 16. Effective Date. This Agreement shall be effective January 1, 1994. CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON Attest : By: TIGARD WATER DISTRICT, OREGON Attest: By: vi :Tlt tigard\VprdWD.iga(12/23/93 - final) INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT TIGARD/WATER DISTRICT - 15 (12/23/93 - FINAL) ti Y ° N EXHIBIT "A" RULES, ' RATES,: AND REGULATIONS For Water Service, . '<'::;.,i' is : ...-...,-.-a November, 1992 i fir,, Adopted by the BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS TIGARD WATER DISTRICT Phone 503/639-1554 TIGARD WATER DISTRICT 8777 SW Burnham PO BOX 230000 a NOVEMBER 1992 O Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard, OR 97281-.1999• N - ~1 u o 00 N { TIGARD TO THE PATRONS OF WATER DISTRICT TIG_ ARD WATER DISTRICT BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS This Water District is a municipal corporation, incorporated under the laws of the State of Position Terni Oregon, and its operations are governed by law. It No.. Expires is governed by a Board of Commissioners, duly- June 30 elected by the qualified voters of the District:.- Robert Wyffeis, Chair`:* 1993 Audrey Castile, Secretary 5 1995 The water supply and distribution system is the • • • Clarence Nicoli,.Treasurer:.; -_4 . 1 X95 property of the people of the District. - Jon Kvistad ...1 f 1993 , John T. Haunsperger 2 1993 Tho Commissioners ask the cooperation of all ' patrons to insure observance of rules, protection' of the system; and prompt payment of water bills. Administrative Director Notify the District immediately of any condition' Jeri L. Chenelle needing correction. - , Superintendent;;:'':'-- The Board of Commissioners meets regularly on , _ . • Randy J. Volk. the second Tuesday of each month at 7:30 p.m. at e the District office... ~ iii. - ' ••i p c . j`{rt~• RULES, RATES, AND REGULATIONS charges for these are shown in Appendix: i .The of the size of meter shall be determined by management. 1 TIGARD WATER DISTRICT District shall prescribe the number of buildings to be served from one meter and such determination J shall be final. No user shall furnish water to any.: ! The Board of Commissioners has adopted the family, business, institution, or premises other than - ;i following rules' rates, and regulations for service those occupied by that user; provided, however; in the Tigard Water District. that the Board may permit a user to supply others - through user's service connection, in which event = Section 1. Application for Service. No service- such user will be charged an additional monthly will be supplied or water furnished to any premises minimum for each additional user so supplied. except upon the written application of the legal Such permit may be revoked and separate service owner of the premises, or his duly authorized connections required at any time. agent, upon the printed forms of the District. Such , owner shall be responsible for all charges for Section 5. Furnishing Water. The District shall service to said premises, whether supplied to not be obligated to furnish and install, at its himself or to a renter. or occupant thereof, and for expense, system facilities for all property within the I' the, compliance of any occupant with all rules of District. The District shall, so far as reasonable the District, and practicable and within its financial means,. however, provide adequate source of supply,- Section 2. Use of Water. Water will be furnished necessary primary feeder mains, storage facilities for ordinary domestic, business and community - and other improvements necessary to make water' purposes, and fire protection, only. No water will service generally available to all areas within the be furnished for the direct operation of steam District. Extensions to furnish water to areas not boilers, machinery or golf courses, except on an now served by the District will be made at the interruptible basis, and the District will assume no expense of those persons requesting service. . responsibility therein. Such extensions will be made by the District or by those expressly authorized by the District. All Section 3. Service Size. A standard service applications for line extensions to provide new connection, with 5/ 8' x 3/4" meter, will be service are subject to review by the Board of } installed from the main to the street curb or Commissioners. Consideration will be given to the property line. (See charges in Appendix I.) The District's ability to serve and to eligibility for o amount of the meter installation charge shall annexation to the District of the property to be ; accompany all applications. Larger meters may served. be required for some services. The additional N u o 5 N Section 6. Private Service Pipes. All pipes from Plumbing should be bf high test and first class; the meter to the premises must be installed in and where pressures may become high, on 5/8" x 'i accordance with good engineering practice, and 3/4" and 1" meters, a pressure regulator may be maintained in good order by the user Pipes must installed at the meter by the District to control be laid 24 inches deep and provided with a stop varying pressures. (On meters 1 1/2" and larger, and waste valve for drainage, and all standpipes user is responsible for installing a pressure 4 or fittings of any kind must be so located, regulator.) The District will not be responsible for anchored and installed as not to interfere with or damage from varying pressures. The Administrator endanger the meter- All pipes must be well or authorized person may inspect pipes and protected from freezing. plumbing at proper times.' Section 7. Credit for Water Leaks. When a water Section 10. Physical Connections with other leak occurs on the customer's side of the water Water Supplies or Systems. Neither cross meter resulting in an unusually high water bill, connections nor physical connections of any kind customers can apply for a credit to their water bill shall be made to any other water supply, whether equal to 112 the cost of the leak (above the - private or public, without the written consent and normal bill), up to a maximum of $150. Customers approval of the Board of Commissioners, and the must apply for credit in writing, to the Water written approval of the Oregon State Board of District, and forward proof of the leak being fixed Health. (Included in this category are all pipe lines, in a timely manner. appurtenances and facilities of the District system and all pipes, appurtenances, pumps, tanks; Section 8. Jurisdiction. All service connections, storage reservoirs, facilities, equipment, appli- meters, mains and parts of the system through anhes, etc., of other systems whether located O o ( which water is served, except the pipes beyond within or on public or private property, or the a the meter, are the property of the District, and premises of a water user.) under its exclusive control. No person other than ' the Administrator or authorized person shall install The District's Administrator or other authorized any service, make any extension, turn the water representative shall have the right without being on or off, or otherwise tamper or interfere with the deemed guilty of trespass or unlawful act to check water or the system, the premises of users for physical connections with other water supplies. Any such connection Section 9. Waste-Plumbing-inspection, shall be removed by the customer within ten days o I Water will not be furnished to premises where it is after written notice to remove is given by the allowed to run or waste to prevent freezing, or District. If not removed within the time specified, o 0 through defective plumbing, or otherwise. the District may remove or discontinue any ~ N N - ' N ° connection which it may have for servicing the lion or pollution due to cross connections. ' property. Water service to any premises shall be contingent upon the customer providing cross connection 1 Section. i 1. Cross Connection Control control in a manner approved by Tigard Water Program. Be it resolved that the Board of District. Backflow devices required to be installed Commissioners, Tigard Water District, hereby shall be a model approved by the Oregon State adopts a cross connection control program as Health Division. i described below, effective May 13,1986: Authorized employees of Tigard Water District with The purpose of this resolution is to protect the proper identification shall have free access at - water supply of Tigard Water District from reasonable hours of the day to those parts of a contamination or pollution from potential cross premise or within buildings to which water is connections; and to assure that approved supplied. Water service may be refused or backflow devices are tested annually. tgrminated to any premise for failure to allow • necessary inspections. • The installation or maintenance of any cross . connection which would endanger the water ADOPTED by the Board of Commissioners, Tigard 'y supply of Tigard Water District is prohibited. Any Water District, on May 13,1986. such cross connection now existing or hereafter installed is hereby declared unlawful and shall be These requirements must be strictly observed as a rectified as directed by the Board of Commission- matter of public health and to prevent any possible ers or its authorized representative(s). contamination of the water system. o g The control or elimination of cross connections Section 12. Reading= Billing. Meters will be read a @: ~t shall be in accordance with the regulation's of on or about the 20th day of each month for the Oregon State Health Division. The policies, preceding two months. Fifteen days or less will be procedures, and criteria for determining appropri- billed as a half-month. Over 45 days will be billed ate levels of protection shall be in accordance with as two full months. o i the Accepted Procedure and Practice in Cross ' Connection Control Manual, Amer. Water Works Section 13. Payment-Delinquency, All bills are Association, Pacific Northwest Section, current due on the 12th day of the calendar month ..edition (OR Admin. Rules, Ch. 333-61.070). following billing. The amount due must be paid to ° an authorized agent of the District. Unpaid bills ° It shall be the objective of Tigard Water District to become delinquent after the 12th of the month. N o protect the potable water system from contamina- When a delinquent bill is not paid, or a rule is o N .-i 12/07/2005 WED 15:58 FAA 1X68UU gjU«iuer 12/01/2005 THU 15:04 M 1R6800 ~j023/028 c 1 - . +e.~•.e-.:.4.. ~.,;a.,+x'-'-`.''".•-7QC~rr~-,.`-.•,-"•";.. .:~~-'.'-'._'..':&7i.•.'°'~-ci~:4t ~1^"~~a.'~a ti N O ° I violated, the water will be shut off and service Section 18. Main Extensions, designed and f disconnected until payment is received in full, and installed by the District. All extensions of mains. compliance With all rules is made. 1 and laterals of the District, and installed by the I District, shall be paid for by the person or their. Section 14. Water Rates. See Appendix ll. assigns who desire such extensions, at cost plus Charge for turning off'and on when water service 10% for overhead and supervision, and 8% for. is discontinued for non-payment of bill: $5.00 for V engineering. The estimated cost thereof, together the first two times; $10.00 thereafter. with such 181A, shall be deposited with the District when application for such main extensions is _ Section 15. Discontinuance of Service for 30 made. iJ days or more will be made upon written applica-' tion, without charge, provided all bills are paid. Designed by others, Installed by the District. When design or supervision of installation of Section 16. interrupted Service-Changes in improvements is performed by licensed engineers, Pressure. The water may be shut off at any time subject to approval by the Water District,and for repairs or other necessary work with or without installed by the District, a fee shall be paid of 10% notice. Conditions may cause a variation of the for administration, inspections, water loss, pressure. The District will not be responsible for sampling, etc., and 2% for engineering review. any damage caused by interruption of service or The estimated cost therof, together with such varying pressure. When service is interrupted, hot 12%, shall be deposited with the District when e water faucets should be kept closed to prevent application for such main extentions is made. i back flow of hot water or steam. 0 0 ; Designed and installed by others.Whenfdesign, Section 17. Service Connection Maintenance. I or supervision of installation of improvements is The Water District will maintain all standard performed by licensed engineers, and installation service connections in good repair without is performed and paid for by others, subject to expense to the users. Each user is required to use approval by the District, a fee of 12% of construc- w ' reasonable care and diligence to protect the water tion costs shall be imposed for development fk meter and meter box from loss or damage by charges. ;1. freezing, hot water, traffic hazards, and other F causes, in default of which, such user shall pay to Size of such extensions, type of pipe, location, the Water District the full amount of the resulting gate valves, fixtures, fire hydrants and other o j . damage. fittings shall be under District specifications and ` o ► subject to District approval, and such mains shall N N j be laid from the end of the existing main to the far. N ~I f V 10 CV end of thei property to be served. No lines or and approved by District personnl to ensure laterals shall be laid until the estimated cost compliance with plans and specifiations. thereof, as hereinabove set forth, shall have been Back-filling of trenches prior to Disict approval is deposited with the District. All such extensions of unauthorized. mains and laterals, and installation of fire hydrants !!F shall be the sole property of the District, without If water main extension is necess. y to serve an . Is right of immediate refund on the part of the person ; existing single family dwelling anche main size or persons paying for such extension or on the required by the Tigard Water Distct is larger than part of any person or persons whomsoever. No • a 6" line, then that single family dolling will pay extension of main will be permitted, accepted or the cost of a 6" installation acrosshe front of their served by the District unless such line be at least a property, plus the cost of the mete. 6-inch diameter pipe. Short extensions, such as (i cul-de-sacs, can be of smaller diameter upon Applicant(s) will agree to be bouncby and comply approval of the District. with the District's main extension plicy and rules and regulations and any subsequet revisions or When a person is required to pay the cost of amendments to same which may b made from extending a water main adjacent to property other time to time. than that person's own so that water service for domestic use is provided for such other property Section 19. Limitation on the us of water as to without further extension of the water main, the hours, purpose, or manner, may b prescribed District shall require the owner of the other ` from time to time by the Board. property, prior to providing water service to that property, to refund to the person required to pay Section 20. Temporary or Transint Service. the cost of extending the water main, a pro rata Temporary or transient service for onstruction a portion of the cost of extension. The right to work will be rendered upon deposiin advance of x require such refund shall not continue for more 1 connection charge and one month estimated < than 10 years after the date of installation of the water bill, and payment on the firsbf each month s i extension of the water main. The amount to be of all accrued charges. Upon discetinuance of refunded shall be determined by the District and service, refund will be made for all onnection such determination shall be final. materials usable by the District at teir depreciated ! value, less the cost of removal ancbll charges for Each construction contractor shall he approved by due. No temporary service shall benstalled o I competent District authority prior to installing pipe any residence or building where a prmanent LO Z N line's; pumps, etc. Those installations made by service connection may later be inmiled. N \ private contractors will be thoroughly inspected i \ N I . N rr-1 V n ! 'H - 12 Section 21. Construction Water. Water used via Section 26:.Amendments Special Rules---. a permanent meter installation for construction Contracts. The Board may at any time amend, . purposes will be billed at the one month's rate change or modify any rule; rate. or charge, or make (See Appendix II) at completion of construction, any special rule, rate or contract, and all water but not to exceed a period of 6 months, unless service is subject to such power. authorized by the District. ` Section 27. Grievances. Any unresolved grievances as to service or complaint shall be Section 22. Meter Out-of-Order-Test. If a meter reported and will be considered by the Board at shall fail to measure accurately, the bill shall be 5 the next regular monthly meeting. the average for the same periods in prior years. r Tests will be made periodically without charge to Section 28. The Administrator and Employees: the user. A user may demand a test upon payment are not authorized to make-any changes in these of a $5.00 charge for such test. If the meter reads rules, rates, or regulations. 5% or more over, such charge shall be.rebated to , i the user. Section 23. Fire Hydrants. Fire hydrants will be Approved November 28,1972 installed by the Water District upon receipt of Revised November, 1992, payment in advance of the estimated cost of the BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS hydrant, fittings, and installation, plus 10% for I . overhead. i Section 24. Fire Hydrant---Temporary Use. Any person who desires to use a fire hydrant for temporary water supply must obtain permission of the District. The user will be charged $25.00 for hook-up service plus the effective user rate as shown in Appendix II plus $25.00/month for o continued use. User is responsible 'for repair and/ or replacement of damaged meter, Section 25. Illegal Use of Fire Hydrant or Meter. The penalty for connection to a fire hydrant or :meter without proper authority is a $100 fine.. i - 15' r CIA APPENDIX 1-=Meter Ins tailation•Charges 1,~,•. APPENDIX II-Water Rates Copper Service, including P-R Valve Monthly Minimum' Out of District if required, Connection Fee Meter Size (400 cubic feet) (Additional) Size of Meter Charge Schedule 518"x3/4" $ 6.50 $ 2.50 1 " 10.50 4.00 System 1 1/2" 16.50 6.00 _ Development Installation Total Meter Size Charge Fees Charges 2" 33.50 10.00 1 3" 61.50 15.00 518"x314" $ 845' $250 $1095 I 4" 103.50 i 9.00 1". 1690 + 350 = 2040 6" 144.50 28.00 11/2" 4225. + 715 = 4940 8" 201.00 38.00 2" 6760 + 945 7705 Rate over 400 cubic feet: $1.20 per 100 cubic feet. 3" 13,520 + cost plus 10% 4"• 21,125. • + cost plus 10% Fire Rates (Sprinklers) will be based on the size of- • 42,250 + cost plus 10% the service going into the building or vault: 8" 67,600 + cost'plus 10% $15 a mo.- 6" & smaller 10" 97,175 + cost plus 10% $20 a mo.- 8" & larger Bull Mountain Meter Rates Booster Pumps: For areas served by District ' 5/8"x314" $1000 + $250 = $1250owned and operated booster pumps, either to ti 1" 2000 + 350 = 2350 storage or direct to the system, an* dditional minimum of $1.50 -per month per meter (regard- . i 1 1/2" 5000 + 715 5715 less of meter size) shall be made. This charge is w 2" 8000 + 945 8945 . .3 16,000 + cost plus 10% not applicable to the booster pumps located at SW 4" 25,000 + cost plus 100% 72nd and Hunziker Road and SW Bonita Road : . 6" 50,000 + cost plus 10% near 1-5. 80,000 + cost plus 10% a F 10" 115,000 + cost plus 10% N Fire Service Connection: s;..;;.: • Note: Billing is bi-monthly so amounts above Fee $1,250 per Fire Service Tap + 12% Fee _ . ' should be multiplied by 2 to compute bill for each " ~ based on Construction Costs. r period. % ATTENTION Correclions to Rules, Rates and Regulations, January 1993. These changes to the Rules, Rates and Regulations for Water Service occurred after printing. Please insert the following in the appropriate places. Wording changes within paragraphs are underlined. We apologize for any problems this may have caused. Section 4. Separate Connection. (Add the entire section.) A separate service connection will be required for each dwelling, apartment or motel, place of business, and ins:ilulion. All outlying buildings and premises used as a part of such dwelling place or business or institution may be served from such connection, as well as all buildings on such premises operated under the one management- District shall prescribe the number of buildings to be served from one meter and such determination shall be final. No user shall furnish water to any family, business, institution or premises other than those occupied by that user; provided, however, that the Board may permit a user to supply others through users' service connection in which event such user will be charged an additional monthly minimum for each additional user so supplied. Such permit may be revoked and separate service connections required at any time. Section 9: (Change second senlence to read) ' Plumbic g should be of high :esl and first class an in conformance with IM appropriate codgS of the iurisdiction issuin9lh~building permit and where pressures may become high, on 5113'x314" and 1" meters, a pressure regulator maybe Installed at the meter by the District to control varying pressures... Section 12: Reading--Billing. (Eliminate the entire section.) Section 18: (Add sentence at the beginning of the last paragraph In Section 18.) The 0evelooer or owner reogeslin9 thp, gr;nstr>tion project shall -liable for any added coal due to design dilli"Ifie;:. Section 22: (Delete $5.00.) (Add) ' . _ ,A user may demand a test upon payment of a $25.00 charge for such test. . . o _ - a 0 1 j R• - , ATTACHMENT 3 CITY OF TIGARD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 10.1 ANNEXATION OF LAND POLICIES 10.1.1 PRIOR TO THE ANNEXATION OF LAND TO THE CITY OF TIGARD: a. THE CITY SHALL REVIEW EACH OF THE FOLLOWING SERVICES AS TO ADEQUATE CAPACITY, OR SUCH SERVICES TO BE MADE AVAILABLE, TO SERVE THE PARCEL IF DEVELOPED TO THE MOST INTENSE USE ALLOWED, AND WILL NOT SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCE THE LEVEL OF SERVICES AVAILABLE TO DEVELOPED AND UNDEVELOPED LAND WITHIN THE CITY OF TIGARD. THE SERVICES ARE: 1. WATER; 2. SEWER; 3. DRAINAGE; 4. STREETS; 5. POLICE; AND 6. FIRE PROTECTION. Most intense use allowed by the conditions of approval, the zone or the Comprehensive Plan. b. IF REQUIRED BY AN ADOPTED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM ORDINANCE, THE APPLICANT SHALL SIGN AND RECORD WITH WASHINGTON COUNTY A NONREMONSTRANCE AGREEMENT REGARDING THE FOLLOWING: 1. THE FORMATION OF A LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (L.I.D.) FOR ANY OF THE FOLLOWING SERVICES THAT COULD BE PROVIDED THROUGH SUCH A DISTRICT. THE EXTENSION OR IMPROVEMENT OF THE FOLLOWING: a) WATER; b) SEWER; c) DRAINAGE; AND d) STREETS. 2. THE FORMATION OF A SPECIAL DISTRICT FOR ANY OF THE ABOVE SERVICES OR THE INCLUSION OF THE PROPERTY INTO A SPECIAL SERVICE DISTRICT FOR ANY OF THE ABOVE SERVICES. C. THE CITY SHALL PROVIDE URBAN SERVICES TO AREAS WITHIN THE TIGARD URBAN PLANNING AREA OR WITH THE URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY UPON ANNEXATION. 10.1.2 APPROVAL OF PROPOSED ANNEXATIONS OF LAND BY THE CITY SHALL BE BASED ON FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO THE FOLLOWING: a. THE ANNEXATION ELIMINATES AN EXISTING "POCKET" OR "ISLAND" OF UNINCORPORATED TERRITORY; OR b. THE ANNEXATION WILL NOT CREATE AN IRREGULAR BOUNDARY THAT MAKES IT DIFFICULT FOR THE POLICE IN AN EMERGENCY SITUATION TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE PARCEL IS WITHIN OR OUTSIDE THE CITY; C. THE POLICE DEPARTMENT HAS COMMENTED UPON THE ANNEXATION; d. THE LAND IS LOCATED WITHIN THE TIGARD URBAN PLANNING AREA AND IS CONTIGUOUS TO THE CITY BOUNDARY; e. THE ANNEXATION CAN BE ACCOMMODATED BY THE SERVICES LISTED IN 10.1.1(a). 10.1.3 UPON ANNEXATION OF LAND INTO THE CITY WHICH CARRIES A WASHINGTON COUNTY ZONING DESIGNATION, THE CITY OF TIGARD SHALL ASSIGN THE CITY OF TIGARD ZONING DISTRICT DESIGNATION WHICH MOST CLOSELY CONFORMS TO THE COUNTY ZONING DESIGNATION. Chapter 18.320 ANNEXATIONS Sections: 18.320.010 Purpose 18.320.020 Approval Process and Standards 18.320.010 Purpose A. Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to: 1. Implement the policies of the comprehensive plan; 2. Provide for City review of all annexation requests for a determination of the availability of facilities and services as related to the proposal; 3. Provide for City and County coordination of annexation requests; and 4. Provide for an expedited process by establishing procedures whereby the annexation and rezoning may be considered concurrently. 18.320.020 Approval Process and Standards A. Approval Process. Annexations shall be processed by means of a Type IV procedure, as governed by Chapter 18.390 using standards of approval contained in Subsection B2 below. B. Approval Criteria. The decision to approve, approve with modification, or deny an application to annex property to the City shall be based on the following criteria: 1. All services and facilities are available to the area and have sufficient capacity to provide service for the proposed annexation area; and 2. The applicable comprehensive plan policies and implementing ordinance provisions have been satisfied. C. Assignment of comprehensive plan and zoning designations. The comprehensive plan designation and the zoning designation placed on the property shall be the City's zoning district which most closely implements the City's or County's comprehensive plan map designation. The assignment of these designations shall occur automatically and concurrently with the annexation. In the case of land which carries County designations, the City shall convert the County's comprehensive plan map and zoning designations to the City designations which are the most similar. A zone change is required if the applicant requests a comprehensive plan map and/or zoning map designation other than the existing designations. (See Chapter 18.380). A request for a zone change can be processed concurrently with an annexation application or after the annexation has been approved. D. Conversion table. Table 320.1 summarizes the conversion of the County's plan and zoning designations to City designations which are most similar. Annexations 18.320-1 11126198 1 MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Cathy Wheatley, City Recorder CCjVVU\ DATE: December 19, 2005 SUBJECT: Supplemental Packet - Sunrise Annexation Material for December 20, 2005 City Council Meeting; Agenda Item No. 5 Attached are the following materials for the above-referenced Council agenda item: • Draft ordinance - without an emergency clause o Exhibit A - Legal Description o Exhibit B - Map o Exhibit C - Map o Exhibit D - Staff Report with Findings attached 0 Draft ordinance - with an emergency clause o Exhibit A -Legal Description o Exhibit B - Map o Exhibit C - Map o Exhibit D - Staff Report with Findings attached • December 14, 2005 Letter from Applicant's Attorney Michael Robinson constituting the applicant's submittal prior to the close of the second open record period ending on December 14, 2005 at 5 p.m. • December 15, 2005 Letter from Applicant's Attorney Michael Robinson as the applicant's final argument in support of the annexation proposal. iAadmtpacket'05\051220Vnemo - supplemental packet.doc CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ORDINANCE NO.2005- U >1 AN ORDINANCE ANNEXING 25.61 ACRES, APPROVING SUNRISE LANE ANNEXATION (ZCA2005-00004), AND WITHDRAWING PROPERTY FROM THE TIGARD WATER Cr4 DISTRICT, WASHINGTON COUNTY ENHANCED SHERIFF'S PATROL DISTRICT, WASHINGTON COUNTY URBAN ROADS MAINTENANCE DISTRICT, WASHINGTON COUNTY STREET LIGHTING DISTRICT #1, AND THE WASHINGTON COUNTY VECTOR - CONTROL DISTRICT. WHEREAS, the City of Tigard is authorized by ORS 222.120(4)(B) and 222.170 to initiate an annexation upon receiving consent in writing from a majority of the electors registered in the territory proposed to be annexed and written consent from owners of more than half the land in the territory proposed to be annexed; and WHEREAS, the City of Tigard is authorized by ORS 222.120(5) and 222.520 to withdraw properties which currently lie within the boundary of the Tigard Water District, the Washington County Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol District, Washington County Urban Roads Maintenance District, Washington County Street Lighting District #1, and the Washington County Vector Control District upon completion of the annexation; and WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council held a public hearing on October 25, 2005 to consider the annexation of twelve (12) parcels of land consisting of 25.61 acres and withdrawal of said property from the Tigard Water District, the Washington County Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol District, Washington County Urban Roads Maintenance District, Washington County Street Lighting District #1, and the Washington County Vector Control District; and WHEREAS, pursuant to ORS 222.520(2) the City is liable to the Water District for certain debt obligations, however, in this instance the Water District has no debt for the City to assume, therefore, no option regarding the assumption of debt needs to be made; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Metro 3.09, ORS 222.120 and 222.524, notice was given and the City held a public hearing on October 25, 2005 on the issue of the annexation into the City and withdrawal of the annexed property from the Tigard Water District, the Washington County Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol District, Washington County Urban Roads Maintenance District, Washington County Street Lighting District #1, and the Washington County Vector Control District; and WHEREAS, pursuant to ORS 222.524, the City must declare the withdrawal of annexed properties from the Tigard Water District, the Washington County Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol District, Washington County Urban Roads Maintenance District, Washington County Street Lighting District #1, and the Washington County Vector Control District by Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the Tigard Development Code states that upon annexation, the zone is automatically changed to the City zoning most closely conforming to the County zoning; and WHEREAS, the current zoning district is R-7, an existing City zone that has been adopted by the County and the zoning after annexation would remain R-7 so that no zone change is necessary, and by annexation the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Tigard goes into effect; and ORDINANCE NO. 2005- ZCA2005-00004 Sunrise Lane Annexation Page] of 2 WHEREAS, the annexation has been processed in accordance with the requirements of Metro 3.09 and has been reviewed for compliance with the Tigard Community Development Code and the Comprehensive Plan and the annexation substantially addresses the standards in Metro 3.09 regulating annexations; and WHEREAS, the City Council has carefully considered the testimony at the public hearing and determined that withdrawal of the annexed properties from the applicable service districts is in the best interest of the City of Tigard. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: The Tigard City Council hereby annexes the parcels described in the attached Exhibit "A" and shown in Exhibits "B" and "C" and withdraws said parcels from the Tigard Water District, the Washington County Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol District, Washington County Urban Roads Maintenance District, Washington County Street Lighting District #1, and the Washington County Vector Control District. SECTION 2: The City adopts the Findings in the Revised Staff Report (December 19, 2005) and the City Council Findings Regarding Annexation Proposal ZCA2005-00004 (Exhibit "D"). SECTION 3: This ordinance shall be effective 30 days after it passage by the Council, signature by the Mayor and posting the City Recorder. SECTION 4: City staff is directed to take all necessary measures to implement the annexation, including filing, certified copies of the Ordinance with Metro for administrative processing, filing with state and county agencies as required by law, and providing notice to utilities. SECTION 5: Pursuant to ORS 222.120(5), the effective date of the withdrawal of the property from the Washington County Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol District, Washington County Urban Roads Maintenance District, Washington County Street Lighting District #1, and the Washington County Vector Control District shall be the effective date of this annexation. SECTION 6: Pursuant to ORS 222.465, the effective date of the withdrawal of this property from the Tigard Water District shall be July 1, 2006. SECTION 7: In accordance with ORS 222.180, the annexation shall be effective upon filing with the Secretary of State. PASSED: By vote of all Council members present after being read by number and title only, this day of , 2005. Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder APPROVED: By Tigard City Council this day of , 2005. Craig Dirksen, Mayor Approved as to form: City Attorney Date ORDINANCE NO. 2005- ZCA2005-00004 Sunrise Lane Annexation Page 2 of 2 r EXHIBIT A .(Page .1 of 4) BEING TRACTS OF.LAND AS DESCRIBED IN THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS: 98-070527, 2003-020130, 2000-061432, 2004-107939, BOOK 1151, PAGE 113, 2004-082311, 2004- 082312, AND 97-084282 ALL WASHINGTON COUNTY DEED RECORDS, SITUATED IN THE SOUTHEAST ONE-QUARTER OF SECTION 5, TOWNSHIP 2 SOUTH, RANGE 1 WEST, I WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN, IN COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, STATE OF OREGON, MORE j PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED. AS FOLLOWS. BEGINNING Al A POINT AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THAT TRACT OF LAND AS DESCRIBED IN DOCUMENT NO. 97-084282 OF SAID ;COUNTY, SAID SOUTHEAST CORNER BEARS NORTH 89° 50'44" WEST, 571.41 FEET ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 5 AND NORTH 00°41'42" EAST, 20.00 FEET FROM THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SECTION5 MARKED WITH AN ALUMINUM DISC IN CONCRETE; THENCE ALONG A LINE 20.00 FEET PARALLEL WITH THE SAID SOUTH SECTION LINE NORTH 89° 50'44" WEST, 212.89 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 00'41'42" WEST, 20.00 FEET TO A POINT ON SAID . SOUTHERLY SECTION LINE,-THENCE ALONG SiSID SOUTH SECTION LINE NORTH 89'.50- 44" WEST, 233.64 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID SECTION LINE RECORDS NORTH 00° 43' 00" EAST, 200.00 FEET- .THENCE 'ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID TRACT NORTH 89° 50' 44" WEST, 124.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID TRACT SOUTH 00° 43'00" WEST; 180.00. FEET TO A POINT (20.00 FEET NORTHERLY OF, WHEN MEASURED PERPENDICULAR TO SAID SECTION LINE); THENCE ALONG A LINE PARALLEL WITH THE SAID SECTION LINE NORTH 89° 50'44" WEST; 180.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 00° 43'00" EAST, 20.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89° 5014411 WEST, 23.33 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 00° 43'00" WEST, 40.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH SECTION LINE; THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTH SECTION LINE NORTH 89° 50'44" WEST, 107.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH. 00° 41'34" EAST, 240.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF THAT TRACT DESCRIBED IN DEED BOOK 397, PAGE 547, WASHINGTON COUNTY DEED RECORDS; THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE SOUTH 89° 50'. 44" EAST, 42.89 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER.OF SAID TRACT; THENCE ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID TRACT OF NORTH 00° 40' 00" EAST, 399.80 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID TRACT; THENCE LEAVING SAID NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID TRACT SOUTH 89° 50'28" EAST; 85.62 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF'THATTRACT OF LAND AS DESCRIBED IN DOCUMENT NO. 2004-046173 OF SAID COUNTY;' THENCE ALONG THE EAST. LINE OF SAID TRACT, NORTH 00° 43'00" EAST, 161.26 FEET TO A 5/8 INCH IRON ROD; THENCE NORTH .790 30'0011 WEST, 243.12 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EASTERLY RIGHT=OF-WAY LINE OF SUNRISE LANE (BEING 20.00. FROMTHE CENTERLINE THEREOF, WHEN MEASURED PERPENDICULAR THERETO); THENCE ALONG SAID RIGHT=OF-WAY LINE THE FOLLOWING FOUR (4) CALLS: NORTH 14° 15'05" WEST, 98.41 FEET; THENCE NORTH 17° 04'55" EAST, 72.15 FEET-,.THENCE NORTH 43° 11' 55" EAST, 116.47 FEET; THENCE NORTH 04° 35'55" EAST, 84.20 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER.OF THAT TRACT DESCRIBED IN DEED RECORD BOOK 186,.PAGE 307; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF THAT TRACT DESCRIBED IN DEED DOCUMENT NUMBER 2002-01969 3, WASHINGTON COUNTY DEED RECORDS SOUTH .89° 28'42" EAST, 699.75 FEET TO THE I NORTHEAST CORNER OF THAT TRACT DESCRIBED IN DEED RECORD BOOK 861, PAGE I 211, THENCE ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF THAT CERTAIN TRACT OF LAND AS DESCRIBED IN DOCUMENT NO. 2001-085039 ALONG THE FOLLOWING FIVE (5) : COURSES: SOUTH 00° 41'42" WEST, 393.64 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89° 50'44" EAST, 100.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 00° 41'42" WEST, 480.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89° 50'44" EAST, 112.90 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 00° 41'42" WEST, 280.00 FEET TO SAID POINT OF' BEGINNING. 4 REGISTERED I CONTAINS 19.638 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. LAND SURVEYOR OREGON NOV. 16, 1998 MICHAEL D. FRANK 53854 . EXHIBIT A. (Page 2. of 4) Including Tax Lot 600 Escrow No. 08-838878-4-5-72 Title Order No. 00838878 , Beginning at a point orth 89049' West, 1409.7 feet and. 640 feet North-0°43' East of the 'Southeast corner of Section 5, Township South; -Ran4e 1 West, Willamette Meridian, Washington County, Oregon, being the Northeast corner of a tract conv ed to Fletcher Rockwood, et ux, by Deed recorded September 7, 1957, in Book 397, Page 547, "Deed Records; thence South 89°44' 17" East along the Easterly -projection of the North line of -said Rockwood Tract, 85.83 feet; thence Mirth 0043' East, 160 feet; thence North 79130'. West 225.74 feet to the Easteriy•right of-way fine of Sunrise Lane; ence South 14° 18' East, 90 feet and South 4°14'45." West, 119.8 feet to the North line of said, Rockwood Tract, thence South 89 °44' 17" East, 142.17 feet to the place of beginning. 1 EXHIBIT A (Page 3 of 4) Order No: 267915 * Including Tax Lot 700 A tract of land in the Southeast one-quarter of Section 5, Township 2 Soutli, Range i West of the villamette meridian, in the County of Washington and State of Oregon, described as follows: BEGINNING at.an iron pipe set North 89649' West 1409.7 feet and North 0043' East 449.57 feet jErom the Southeast corner of Section 5, Township 2 South, Range 1-West of the Willamette Meridian; xunn;ng thence North 89049' West a distance of 171.09 feet to a point on the center line of a 40 foot roadway described on Page 81 of Book 147, Washington-County, Oregon, Deed Records, from which an iron pipe bears South 89049' East, a distance of "20.05 feet;. thence Worth-4°12' East along the center lime of said 40 foot-wide roadway a distance of 190.90 feet to the Northwest corner of tract described in Deed to Elton C.. Phillips, et ux, recorded in Book 473, Page'227, Deed Records of Washington County, Oregon; from which an iron rod bears. South 89°49' East a distance of 20.00 feet;. thence South 89.49' East a distance of -159.5 feet to all iron rod; thence South 0*431 vest a distance of 190.43 feet to the point of beginning except that portion-lying in -Sunrise.Lane. j ' EXHIBIT A (Page 4 of 4) Including Tax Lot 1800 A tract of land located within the southeast one-quarter of Section 5, Township 2 South, Range 1 West, Willamette Meridian, Washington County, Oregon, being more particularly described as follows: . Commencing at the comer to section-4,5,8, and 9, Township 2'S outh, Range 1 West W.M.; thence N 89"50' 44" W a distance of 451.8 feet; thence N 00° 56' 42" E a distance of 20.00 feet to the True point of Beginning; thence N 00° 56' 42 E a distance of 530 to the center of the . ravine; thence N 22°25' 19"W, along the center of the ravine,. a-distance of 750 more or less; thence N 89° 28' 42" a distance of 70 feet more or less; thence S 00° 4142" W a distance 'of 393.64 feet, thence.S 89° 50' 44" E a distance of 100-feet; thence S 00° 41' 42" W a distance of 480 feet; thence S 89° 50' 44" E a distance of 112.90 feet; S 00° 41'42" W a distance of 280 feet; thence S 89° 50' 44" E a distance of 120 feet to the true point of beginning. 2S 1 05DD 2S 1 05DD '•t7i 45 •'f ' °;46',! SW KLIPSAN'LANEy .,.i!`',,, _ - r.Y°• ca'r.:i•~jy~R:rw.im;xee-ninin:Mx.iw«tG..,iinawl..«.iar.''• ,T,~ ~ S 7700 • l °A Y.a 1 ; ' - ° { ~ tm 4r q +'3800 3700 w t ` 14 13' 6µ Z 7QW M { 3600 H 3600 a : . Imr ,5 u 2 6 = iiRl!Y :~:rjM; • i!71N, .titd4:h 090460 6700 ! '•c iI 9 6 4W0 300 i 101 a 1e a 11 t --I ~}ni ..;sa•' i jai snr;:t X ~a,t a 8600 ; D { ua4c 12 W 3 ' 8 4110 8 3400 6600 51-781 n'a m'•~ 4200 720D 9 ' ' • r i 200 6440 11 nvtT 4 WASHINGTON COUNTY OREGON 'y,F1•' 2741 g E t~g SE114S£114SECTION(15TZSR1WW.M_ 7 Y u 3 - SCALE 1' ~C) "n 631* L'Ll. D 419 100 = 1 L T• l 9 - _ to 1 4400 !are 1113e tau 8 6206 z 33 wu 1 i03100 37 10 - 6 . y' xw m . 4110 30fi00 U) • a , e . ' 6000' 7 38 % b r9: +f 4aD u;K eeeo~+~ bSW SWIEW'LANE - q"r aw.c 36 our uar 9 1.700 a 2900. 23.78 23-73 goo 534 1.. m . 8 2600 a S ~casaAOal .8700 8 i 14 d FOR ADOMONAl WAPS VISIT OUA WEBSRE AT t{ {0000?Tal 33 i www.GO.washNptn,tol.us F 6000 1 4800 1 1700 - ^'fY'' r ,-A':,. 32 m 6600 •601060 7 2 •LL~f. ;$C,': <~~Q';~..',:AC':. ;`.i1bi`. •`:c. - 7fs„-~~ WAG FIK' °n4aaw' 31 IC. 600 _ 31 V~j':.•:•: %C$:T ?.,f,.~A.,: !i,29:• :i, y W .w.c ,eoo 6400 17 6 3600 M 30 4]640 .M j:. O~'1`Fi ' .,x. i ` Ci'>• OO . •.i .a.a 6100 3 6~ O~ - Q 1Y> 251050D i~ry~ Gscs0aDT3'dDb For .'h,m'• 1600 7 7600 z $ to1,20o,.a102.2000, ' 70~ is : as aala eau `;•LJj:C ,a4D § tuu '~,"4` ..K+%°' - o.ara 17M e ica 0660 7I1C _ • . e ] ' w:~wa ; h 1200 J' ,•,j y e a°°wc _ G Assessment Sao 1300 C Z ;1 1c36.e60 ,7140 ; „a• i 'tZ;, Y 1~ n'a 8 b O P9 23-73 Qj(: •;'W PLOT DATE: January 22. 2004 t c FO'ASSESSMENTPUAPOSES N ca anm w two :'°m" ; • ?t ; _ ONLFOA OTHER USE ON °urar,6+aaw._.=d t<6 saaaa >I 1 ~ am✓v^w0'~°"°eh" Pw,. mawemr4O1~ 1200 3400 y i'Q^` bhmwtam2Y.6•wraaa too s t y 10040 R 1 K I yy t ■ 1 3306 2040 3~-' ' ..]6 23r78 01G A 5[) D sw a ° SUNRISE b LANE um nn 2S 1 '05DD 4L 2S 1 0101!, w05 1 . W F REE DR v LINK Li CITY NLOR - GEOGRAPHIC. INFORMATION SYSTEM VICINITY MAP F K A W C K S ZCA200S-00004. SUNRISE LANE . a ANNEXATION X o z LET ED RBA. N • 9EfF SEND RO. RO Tigard Area Map / ' SW HILLSHIRE DR' A N N c 0 200 400 600 Feel a 11412 feet o City of Tigard ' Inrorma4an on tht. map I. for g.n.ral 1OCatk--.1y and should be verified with the Development Services Division. 13125 SW Hall Blvd J Tigard, OR 97223 Community Development (503)639-4171 htlplAvww.ti.Oga d.or,us Plot date: Oct 7, 2005; CAma9icWIAGIC03.APR Exhibit D Agenda Item No. 5 Hearing Date: December 20, 2005 7:30 PM REVISED STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ComuniyO°epment Shaping,4 Better Community SECTION I. APPLICATION SUMMARY FILE NAME: SUNRISE LANE ANNEXATION CASE NO.: Zone Change Annexation (ZCA) ZCA2005-00004 APPLICANT: DR Horton, Inc, - Portland APPLICANT'S WRG Design, Inc. c/o J/T Smith Companies REP.: 5415 SW Westgate Drive 4386 SW Macadam, Suite 102 Portland, OR 97221 Portland, OR 97239 OWNER: Angelo and Rosina Cortese OWNER: Dwight and Paula Cash 15175 SW Sunrise Lane 14885 SW Sunrise Lane Tigard, OR 97224 Tigard, OR 97224 OWNER: James L Corliss OWNER: Leslie and Carol Inman PO Box 23970 15630 SW Greens Way Tigard, OR 97224 Tigard, OR 97224 OWNER: Providence Newberg Health OWNER: Steven and Joan Nelson Foundation 14775 SW Sunrise Lane 25300 Lone Oak Street Tigard, OR 97224 Hillsboro, OR 97123 OWNER: Patricia Marshall OWNER: Richard & Michelle Crombie 14765 SW Sunrise Lane 15165 SW Sunrise Lane Tigard, OR 97224 Tigard, OR 97224 OWNER: Jennifer & Leighton Walsh 15169 SW Sunrise Lane Tigard, OR 97224 PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting annexation of nine (9) parcels containing 19.95 acres into the City of Tigard. An additional adjacent 5.66 acres has been included by means of consent by Patricia Marshall, Michelle Crombie and Leighton Walsh. Therefore, this annexation is for twelve CURRENT (12) parcels totaling 25.61 acres. ZONING DESIGNATION: R-7, Medium Density Residential. The R-7 zoning district is designed to accommodate attached single-family homes, detached single-family homes with or without accessory residential units, at a minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet, and duplexes, at a minimum lot size of 10.000 square feet. Mobile home parks and subdivisions are also permitted outright. Some civic and institutional uses are also permitted conditionally. LOCATION: North of Bull Mountain Road at 150th and Sunrise Lane; WCTM 2S105DD Tax Lots 400, 500, 600, 700, 1000, 1100, 1300, 1400, 1500, 1600, 1700 and 1800. STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL PAGE 1 OF 6 ZCA2005-00004 - SUNRISE LANE ANNEXATION 10/25/05 PUBLIC HEARING APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.320 and 18.390; Comprehensive Plan Policies 2 and 10; Metro Code Chapter 3.09; and ORS Chapter 222. NOTE: In this revised staff report, deletions are indicated by tFulLethm.rh and additions are highlighted. SECTION II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Council find that the proposed annexation will not adversely affect the health, safety and welfare of the City. Therefore, staff recommends APPROVAL of the annexation by adoption of the attached ordinance of the 9 nrmse Lane Fight of way where it abuts the subje4laafGe4s. SECTION III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Site Information and Proposal Descri tion: parcel that is Contigguous tot the city limits may apply for annexation at any time. The City requires that an applicant or property owner annex the property before submitting a land use application. The applicant/owner, DR Horton, has not applied for subdivision review at this time, ending approval of the proposed annexation. The total area represented in the applicants annexation request is 19.95 acres comprised of nine (9) parcels, three of which are contiguous to the present city limits along their northern boundaries. Three additional parcels, totaling 5.66 acres, located adjacent to the lots in the proposed annexation have been included by means of consents by Patricia Marshall, Michelle Crombie and Leighton Walsh. Therefore, this annexation is for twelve (12) parcels totaling 25.61 acres. NOTE; it is the City's pr GtiGe te aRRex all rights Of aFGels be* _r ALt*,6 In the Fight of way of SURFic a LaRe wheFe it abuts the subjeG+ paFG lc Vicinit Information: The subject properties are located North of Bull Mountain Road at 150th and Sunrise Lane; including Tax Lots 400, 500, 600, 700, 1000, 1100, 1300, 1400, 1500, 1600, 1700 and 1800, WCTM 2S105DD. CONTINUATION OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING At their October 25, 2005 Council meeting, at the request of opponents of the proposed annexation, City Council agreed to continue the hearing until November 22, 2005 and accept additional testimony. At the November 22, 2005 Council meeting, at the request of the parties, Council agreed to reopen the record to allow additional argument and evidence on the Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policies 10.1.1.a and 10.1.2.e and Community Development Code 18.320.020.B. Additionally, the parties agreed to a schedule for Arguments by December 7th, Rebuttal by December 14th, Applicant's Statement by December 15th, a revised staff report by December 19th, and continuation of the public hearing on December 20, 2005. Staff has reviewed the additional testimony, argument and evidence submitted by the applicant and opponents. Additionally, staff has reviewed the City Council Findings Regarding Annexation Proposal ZCA2005-00004 (attached) provided by the applicant and finds that they are consistent with the findings in this staff report. STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL PAGE 2 OF 6 ZCA2005-00004 - SUNRISE LANE ANNEXATION 10/25/05 PUBLIC HEARING The issues raised by the opponents, as itemized in the November 1, 2005 letter to the Council from Lawrence Derr, attorney for the opponents, include the inability of the City to provided services to the subject property, the applicability of the Bull Mountain Community Plan to annexed territory, and the legitimacy of the property owner consents to annex. Staff finds that these issues have been satisfactorily addressed in the materials submitted by the applicant including the City Council Find gs Regarding Annexation Proposal ZCA2005-00004. SECTION IV. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA AND FINDINGS The relevant criteria in this case are Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policies 2.1.1, 10.1.1, 10.1.2, and; Tigard Community Development Code Chapter 18.320. Staff has determined that the proposal is consistent with the relevant policies of the Comprehensive Plan based on the following findings: Comprehensive Plan Policy The City shall maintain an ongoing citizen involvement program and shall assure that citizens will be provided an opportunity to be involved in all phases of the planning process. This Policy requires an ongoing citizen involvement program. Interested parties and surrounding property owners within 500 feet have been notified of the public hearing and notice of the hearing has been published in a newspaper of general circulation. The site has been posted since September 9, 2005. Policy 10.1.1: The City shall review each of the following services as to adequate capacity, or such services to be made available, to serve the parcel if developed to the most intense use allowed, and will not significantly reduce the level of services available to developed and undeveloped land within the City of Tigard. The services are: water, sewer, drainage, streets, police, and fire protection. This policy requires adequate service capacity delivery to annexed parcels. The City of Tigard Police, Engineering and Water Departments, NW Natural Gas, Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue, have all reviewed the annexation request and have offered no objections. Stall finds that there are two roads to the subject property (SW 147 Terrace and SW 150 Avenue), a 6" water line in SW 150th Avenue to Sunrise Lane, no sewer lines to the subject parcels, and drainage on the site presently provided by two natural drainageways. Before the land is developed at its designated capacity of 7 units to the gross acre, the subdivision review will require that adequate facilities are available and upsized if necessary to handle the development. By providing this infrastructure, the site will have adequate service capacity. This policy is satisfied. If required by an adopted capital improvements program ordinance, the applicant shall sign and record with Washington County a non-remonstrance agreement regarding the following: The formation of a local improvement district (L.I.D.) for any of the following services that could be provided through such a district. The extension or improvement of the following: water, sewer, drainage and streets. The formation of a special district for any of the above services or the inclusion of the property into a special service district for any of the above services. Staff finds that no L.I.D's currently encumber the subject parcels. All public infrastructure listed above will have to be completed before the land is subdivided by a subdivision plat. The costs of providing such services will be borne by the applicant. Since there are no capital improvements identified for this site, no non-remonstrance agreement is necessary. The City shall provide urban services to areas within the Tigard urban planning area or with the urban growth boundary upon annexation. STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL PAGE 3 OF 6 ZCA2005-00004 - SUNRISE LANE ANNEXATION 10/25/05 PUBLIC HEARING The City of Tigard has an urban services agreement with Washington County for those areas within the City's urban growth boundary. This policy has been complied with. Policy 10.1.2: approval of proposed annexations of land by the city shall be based on findings with respect to the following: the annexation eliminates an existing "pocket" or "island" of unincorporated territory; or the annexation will not create an irregular boundary that makes it difficult for the police in an emergency situation to determine whether the parcel is within or outside the city; the police department has commented upon the annexation; the land is located within the Tigard urban planning area and is boundary; the annexation can be accommodated by the contiguous to the M(a). services listed in 10.This Policy pertains to boundary criteria for annexations. The proposed annexation will not eliminate an existing "pocket" or "island" of unincorporated territory; however the annexation will also not create an irregular boundary making it difficult for police to determine whether a particular parcel is in or outside the city. The proposed annexation will incorporate the entire subdivision boundary for Sunrise Lane. All future lots within the subdivision will be inside city limits. The police department has commented on the proposed annexation request and did not voice any objections. The land is within the Urban Services Area inside the Urban Growth Boundary and is bordered by the city limits on the northern side. Services to the subject property are addressed above. This policy is met. Community Development Code Section 13.320.020: This Siction addresses approval standards for annexation proposals: All services and facilities are available to the area and have sufficient capacity to provide service for the proposed annexation area; Adequate service (water, sewer, drainage, streets, police, and fire protection) capacity is available to serve the annexed parcels. The City of Tigard Police, Engineering and Water Departments, NW Natural Gas, Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue, have all reviewed the annexation request and have offered no objections. Additionally, the adequacy and availability of services to serve the intended R-7 Medium Density residential development will be reviewed and conditioned as necessary as part of the Sunrise Lane subdivision review. Therefore, this policy is satisfied. The applicable comprehensive plan policies and implementing ordinance provisions have been satisfied. Applicable Comprehensive Plan policies have been addressed above. The implementing ordinance provisions of ORS 222, TCDC 18.390, and Metro Code 3.09 were followed in processing this annexation request. Conformance with other development code provisions will be addressed at the time the property develops. This standard has been met. Assignment of comprehensive plan and zoning designations. The comprehensive plan designation an the zoning es na ion placed on the prope shall be the City's zoning district which most closely implements the City's or Coun 's comprehensive plan map designation. The assignment of these designa ions shall occur automatically and concurrently with the annexation. In the case of land which carries County designations, the City shall convert the County's comprehensive plan map and zoning designations to the City designations which are the most similar. A zone change is required if the applicant requests a comprehensive plan map and/or/zoning map designation other than the existing designations. (See Chapter 18.380). request for a zone change can be processed concurrently with an annexation application or after the annexation has been approved. The subject property is in the Urban Service Area and is zoned R-7 medium density residential, pursuant to the City of Tigard's Urban Services Intergovernmental Agreement. (The R-7 zoning designation is consistent with the original Washington County's R-6 zoning STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL PAGE 4 OF 6 ZCA2005-00004 -SUNRISE LANE ANNEXATION 10/25/05 PUBLIC HEARING designation as shown in the table below. The City's zoning was adopted by the County with the City's R-7 zoning district when the Intergovernmental Agreement was signed between the county and the city to provide city planning services to this area. Therefore, the property does not need to be rezoned upon annexation. According to Section 18.320.020.C, the City's Comprehensive plan and zoning designations occur automatically and concurrently with the annexation. Conversion table. Table 320.1 summarizes the conversion of the County's plan and zoning designations to City designations which are most similar. (See table on the following page) STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL PAGE 5 OF 6 ZCA2005-00004 -SUNRISE LANE ANNEXATION 10/25/05 PUBLIC HEARING TABLE 320.1 CONVERSION TABLE FOR COUNTY AND CITY PLAN AND ZONING DESIGNATIONS Washington County Land Use City of Tigard Zoning City of Tigard Districts/Plan Designation Plan Designation R-5 Res. 5 units/acre R-4.5 SFR 7,500 sq. ft. Low density 1-5 units/acre R-6 Res. 6 units/acre R-7 SFR 5,000 sq. ft. Med. density 6-12 units/acre R-9 Res. 9 units/acre R-12 Multi-family 12 units/acre Med. density 6-12 units/acre R-12 Res. 12 units/acre R-12 Multi-family 12 units/acre Med. density 6-12 units/acre R-15 Res. 15 units/acre ' R-25 Multi-family 25 units/acre Medium-High density 13-25 units/acre R-24 Res. 24 units/acres R-25 Multi-family 25 units/acre Medium-High density 13-25 units/acre Office Commercial C-P Commercial Professional CP Commercial Professional NC Neighborhood Commercial CN Neighborhood Commercial CN Neighborhood Commercial CBD Commercial Business CBD Commercial Business District CBD Commercial Business District District GC General Commercial CG General Commercial CG General Commercial IND Industrial I-L Light Industrial Light Industrial. Metro Me ro 3.09 requires the additional standards to be addressed in annexation decisions, in addition to the local and state review standards. These are addressed and satisfied as discussed below: Consistency with the directly applicable provisions in an urban service provider agreement or annexation plan adopted pursuant to ORS 195.065; The processing has been done consistent with applicable Urban Service Provider agreements. Consistency with directly applicable provisions of urban planning or other agreement, other than agreements adopted pursuant to ORS 195.065, between the affected entity and a necessary party; The process required by the Development Code and Comprehensive Plan is consistent with the Urban Planning Agreement for annexations. Consistency with specific directly applicable standards or criteria for boundary changes contained in comprehensive land use plans and public facility plans; This has been discussed previously in this report and, as discussed, this criterion is satisfied. STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL PAGE 6 OF 6 ZCA2005-00004 -SUNRISE LANE ANNEXATION 10/25/05 PUBLIC HEARING Consistency with specific directly applicable standards or criteria for boundary changes contained in the Regional Framework Plan or any functional plans; Because the Development Code has been amended to comply with applicable Metro functional plan requirements, by comp) ingg with the Development Code and Comprehensive Plan, the annexation is consistent wi h fhe applicable Functional Plan and the Regional Framework plan. Whether the. proposed changes will promote or not interfere with the timely, orderly and economic provisions of public facilities and services; The proposed annexation will not interfere with the provision of public facilities or services because it is adjacent to existing city limits and services, and the delivery of those services was anticipated as part of the urban services agreement which is intended to promote the timely, orderly, and economic delivery of those public facilities and services. If the proposed boundary change is for annexation of territory to Metro, a determination by Metro Council that the territory should be included in the Urban Growth Boundary shall be the primary criterion for approval; The subject property is already within the Metro boundaries. Consistency with other applicable criteria for the boundary change in question under state and local law. Consistency with other applicable criteria has been discussed previously in this report. SECTION V. AGENCY COMMENTS Washington County Department Of Land Use & Transportation, Verizon, Qwest Communications, Northwest Natural Gas, Beaverton School District #48, Comcast Cable Corporation, Portland General Electric, Metro Area Communications, Cleanwater Services, Metro Land Use & Planning, Tualatin Hills Park & Rec. District, Tualatin Valley Water District, Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue, and Tigard/Tualatin School District 23J have had the opportunity to review the proposal and have offered no objections. BASED ON THE FINDINGS INDICATED ABOVE, PLANNING STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF ZONE CHANGE ANNEXATION (ZCA) 2005-00004 - SUNRISE LANE ANNEXATION. 64.1 December 19, 2005 PREPTRED BY: ary agenstec er DATE Associate Planner s7-f f- December 19, 2005 BY: is ar ewer. o Planning Manager STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL PAGE 7 OF 6 ZCA2005-00004 - SUNRISE LANE ANNEXATION 10/25/05 PUBLIC HEARING CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON CITY COUNCIL FINDINGS REGARDING ANNEXATION PROPOSAL ZCA2005-00004 1. Introduction DR Horton, Inc. (the "Applicant") applied to the City of Tigard (the "City") requesting that the City annex nine (9) parcels totaling 19.95 acres. An additional three (3) parcels were added to the application based on the consent of the property owners, bringing the total annexation area, including abutting right of ways, to twelve (12) parcels totaling 25.61 acres (the "Property"). The Property abuts the current city limits and already carries the City's R-7 zoning designation pursuant to Washington County Development Code Section (WCCDC) 801-7.4 and the Tigard Urban Services Agreement with the County (the "TUSA"). All of the owners in fee of the Property, as well as all of the electors on the Property but one, have voluntarily consented to the proposed annexation (the "Annexation"). The Property consists of Tax Lots 400, 500, 600, 700, 1000, 1100, 1300, 1400, 1500, 1600, 1700 and 1800 on Washington County Tax Map 2S 105DD. These parcels are located north of Bull Mountain Road at 150th and Sunrise Lane. II. Approval Criteria and Findings The City Council hereby incorporates by reference the proposed findings contained in the Staff Report to the City Council for the City of Tigard, Oregon re: Sunrise Lane Annexation, dated October 25, 2005, and the Revised Staff Report, dated December 19, 2005, except to the extent that those proposed findings are inconsistent with the findings set out below. Where there is a conflict, these findings shall control. A. Tigard Community Development Code Section 18.320.020 B. Approval Criteria. The decision to approve, approve with modification, or deny an application to annex property to the City shall be based on the following criteria: 1. All services and facilities are available to the area and have sufficient capacity to provide service for the proposed annexation area; and Findings - ZCA2005-00004 Page 1 of 15 Finding: City Council finds that this criterion is satisfied. There is substantial evidence in the record that all services and facilities are available to the area and have sufficient capacity to provide service to the Property. The evidence is summarized below in Section H.C. 2. The applicable comprehensive plan policies and implementing ordinance provisions have been satisfied. Finding: City Council finds that this criterion is satisfied. The analysis and evidence referenced in Section II.C. below are incorporated into this finding by reference. 3. Assignment of comprehensive plan and zoning designations. The comprehensive plan designation and the zoning designation placed on the property shall be the City's zoning district which most closely implements the City's or County's comprehensive plan map designation. The assignment of these designations shall occur automatically and concurrently with the annexation. In the case of land which carries County designations, the City shall convert the County's comprehensive plan map and zoning designations to the City designations which are the most similar. A zone change is required if the applicant requests a comprehensive plan map and/or zoning map designation other than the existing designations. (See Chapter 18.380). A request for a zone change can be processed concurrently with an annexation application or after the annexation has been approved. Finding: The Council finds that this criterion is satisfied. The Property is currently subject to Article VIII of the WCCDC, which replaced the County's comprehensive plan and zoning designations with the "functionally equivalent zoning districts and plan designations of the City of Tigard" for property in the Bull Mountain Community Plan area. WCCDC 801-7.4. The Property thus already carries the City of Tigard's comprehensive plan and R-7 zoning designations, and Applicant has not proposed to modify either designation. Therefore, this annexation will not involve a change in the comprehensive plan or zoning designation of the Property. The conversion required by this criterion has, therefore, already occurred and the criterion is satisfied. Findings ZCA2005-00004 Page 2 of 15 B. METRO Code Section 3.09.050(d) An approving entity's final decision on a boundary change shall include findings and conclusions addressing the following criteria: 1. (1) Consistency with directly applicable provisions in an urban service provider agreement or annexation plan adopted pursuant to ORS 195.065; Finding: City Council finds that this criterion is satisfied. The City of Tigard is a party to the Tigard Urban Services Agreement dated November 26, 2002 (the "TUSA"), which was adopted pursuant to ORS 195.065. The record contains a copy of the TUSA. The Property lies within the Urban Services Area defined in that agreement on Map A. Section I.D. of the TUSA provides that: "The CITY and COUNTY will be supportive of annexations to the CITY over time. The CITY shall endeavor to annex the unincorporated areas shown on Map A, in keeping with the following schedule: 1. Near to mid-term (3 to 5 years): Bull Mountain area and unincorporated lands north of the Tualatin River and South of Durham Road, and..." The Property to be annexed abuts the City of Tigard, is unincorporated area shown on Map A, and is part of the Bull Mountain area. The Annexation is thus entirely consistent with, and anticipated by, the directly applicable provisions of the TUSA. 2. (2) Consistency with directly applicable provisions of urban planning or other agreements, other than agreements adopted pursuant to ORS 195.065 between the affected entity and a necessary party; Finding: City Council finds that this criterion is satisfied. The City of Tigard and Washington County are parties to an Urban Planning Area Agreement which was fully executed on July 8, 2004 (the "UPAA"). The UPAA implements the requirement of the TUSA that the City and County coordinate and make consistent their comprehensive plan. UPAA Section III. C. sets out the policies governing annexations in the TUSA. Specifically, the UPAA recognizes the City of Tigard as the "ultimate local governance provider to all of the territory in the [TUSA]." It expresses the City and County's desire to transfer County services to the City in an orderly fashion in order to avoid interruption or diminishment of services. Section III. Findings ZCA2005-00004 Page 3 of 15 C. 2. As set out in Section II.C. below, to the extent services are not already being provided to the Property by the City, all necessary services are available to meet the needs of the Property and to provide orderly transitions without interruption or reduction in service. The UPAA also expresses a preference for annexations conducted pursuant to annexations plans, but expressly allows the "CITY and property owners to annex properties using the other provisions provided by the Oregon Revised Statutes." Section III. C. 3. This Annexation is proceeding consistent with the requirements of ORS 222.170. See below in Section II.D. The Annexation is, therefore, consistent with the UPAA. There are no other urban planning agreements or agreements with applicable criteria, other than perhaps the City's Comprehensive Plan and the TCDC, and their requirements are satisfied by this Annexation. See Sections II.A. and II.C. 3. (3) Consistency with specific directly applicable standards or criteria for boundary changes contained in comprehensive land use plans and public facility plans; Finding: City Council finds that this criterion is satisfied. The Annexation complies with all applicable standards and criteria for boundary changes contained in the Comprehensive Plan and any public facility plans. The arguments and evidence contained in Section II.C. are incorporated into this finding by reference. 4. (4) Consistency with specific directly applicable standards or criteria for boundary changes contained in the Regional Framework Plan or any functional plan; Finding: City Council finds that this criterion is satisfied. The City of Tigard has amended its development code to comply with all applicable Metro Functional Plan requirements. Therefore, because the annexation complies with the TCDC and Comprehensive Plan requirements for annexations, the annexation is consistent with the Regional Framework Plan and Functional Plan. 5. (5) Whether the proposed change will promote or interfere with the timely, or orderly and economic provision of public facilities and services; Finding: City Council finds that the Annexation will promote the orderly and economic provision of public facilities and services. As expressly recognized by the parties to the TUSA and UPAA, the City of Tigard is the preferred provider of urban services to the Property. The TUSA calls for Washington County to "focus its energies on those services that provide county-wide benefit and [to] transition out of providing municipal services," and recognizes that those services are property provided by "cities and special services districts." TUSA Section I.F. The City of Findings ZCA2005-00004 Page 4 of 15 Tigard already provides certain services to the Property, including planning and permitting services, and as demonstrated below in Section II.C., the City can efficiently and effectively provide the remaining public facilities and services to the Property. 6. (6) The territory lies within the Urban Growth Boundary; and Finding: City Council finds that this criterion is satisfied. The Property lies within the City of Tigard's Urban Growth Boundary (the "UGB"). 7. (7) Consistency with other applicable criteria for the boundary change in question under state and local law. Finding: City Council finds that this criterion is satisfied. Compliance with all local annexation requirements is demonstrated in Sections II.A. and II.C. Compliance with state law governing annexations is demonstrated n Section II.D. 8. (e) When there is no urban service agreement adopted pursuant to ORS 195.065 that is applicable, and a boundary change decision is contested by a necessary party, the approving entity shall also address and consider, information on the following factors in determining whether the proposed boundary change meets the criteria of Section 3.09.050(d) and (g). Finding: City Council finds that this criterion is not applicable to the annexation because the Property is subject to an urban services agreement adopted pursuant to ORS 195.065. C. Tigard Comprehensive Plan Section 10.1.1 and 10.1.2 10. Prior to the annexation of land to the City of Tigard: a. The City shall review each of the following services as to adequate capacity, or such services to be made available, to serve the parcel if developed to the most intense use allowed*, and will not significantly reduce the level of the services available to developed and undeveloped land within the City of Tigard. The services are: Findings ZCA2005-00004 Page 5 of 15 * The most intense use allowed by the conditions of approval, the zone or the Comprehensive Plan. " Interpretation: As a preliminary matter, City Council interprets the term "capacity" as used in this Policy to mean that the system of providing the services at issue is capable of providing the services. In some cases, this may mean that some components of the service are not presently in place but can and will be added before development. For example, local distribution lines and local streets throughout an area to be annexed do not need to be in place to determine that the water or transportation system is adequate. What is needed is that the overall system is adequate and that the addition of local lines or any necessary upgrades will occur before development and will not burden the overall system to the point that the level of service to other properties is significantly reduced. This interpretation is consistent with the rest of the sentence, which refers to "such services to be made available." This makes it clear that additional portions of the service system may be added and do not have to be presently in place, so long as the system is expected to be in place by the time of development. To interpret this policy as requiring that all portions of every system be physically in place at the time of development would be inconsistent with the overall approach to annexation demonstrated in the comprehensive plan. That overall approach is that urbanization is to occur in an orderly fashion, with development occurring in annexed areas, not in unincorporated areas. Requiring all portions of all systems to be in place would preclude annexation, contrary to the overall intent of the Comprehensive Plan, which is to provide for orderly annexation. This interpretation is consistent with the other provisions of the Comprehensive Plan. Policy 10.1. Lb provides that annexation applicants may be required to agree to local improvement districts. This policy anticipates that some portions of the required systems will be provided after annexation but before development. Interpreting Policy 10.1. La to require all portions of service systems to be in place prior to annexation would make Policy 10.1. Lb meaningless. 1. Water, Finding: City Council has reviewed the evidence and finds that, with respect to the capacity to provide water, this criterion is satisfied, subject to the condition that only the permitted residential uses in an R-7 zone shall be allowed on the Property. The Property is now and will continue to be zoned R-7, medium-density residential, with 5,000 square foot minimum lot sizes. In a December 6, 2005 letter signed by Findings ZCA2005-00004 Page 6 of 15 Agustin Duenas (the "Duenas Letter"), City Engineer for the City of Tigard, Mr. Duenas states: "The City will provide water service to the area to be annexed. The City has an adequate water supply and the overall infrastructure to provide water service to the area to be annexed without significant reduction in the level of service to existing customers. It also has the capacity to provide any additional lines that may be needed to provide service when the annexed properties are developed. The water system does have adequate capacity to serve the property to be annexed to the most intense use allowed without significantly reducing the level of services available to developed and undeveloped land within Tigard." In addition, the record contains a December 6, 2005 letter from Rich Boyle, Project Manager for the applicant with WRG Design, Inc. (the "Boyle Letter"). Mr. Boyle's letter states in part: "The City has determined that it can provide services to this site and doing so will not significantly reduce the level of services to developed and undeveloped land within the City of Tigard." 2. Sewer; Finding: City Council has reviewed the evidence and finds that, with respect to the capacity to provide sewer services to the Property, this criterion is satisfied, subject to the condition that only the permitted residential uses in an R-7 zone shall be allowed on the Property. In a December 5, 2005 letter from Terry Keyes (the "Keyes Letter"), Development Services Manager for Clean Water Services ("CWS"), Mr. Keyes notes that once a parcel is annexed, service is transferred from CWS to the applicable City. The Keyes Letter further notes the relevant sanitary sewer's capacity to serve the annexation site under. the proposed zoning district. The Duenas letter states that: The City is capable of determining what additional facilities will be required and of administering all portions of the retail sanitary sewer system, both existing and future additions in the area to be annexed, without significant reduction to the level of services provided to properties in the City." 3. Drainage; Finding: The City Council has reviewed the evidence and finds that, with respect to the capacity to meet drainage needs for the Property, this criterion is satisfied, subject to the condition that only the permitted residential uses in an R-7 zone shall be allowed on the Property. The Keys Letter states that capacity of drainage systems serving the site should not be an issue for the proposed annexation. The Duenas Letter states that: "The retail system has the capacity to provide. adequate storm drainage without significant reduction to the level of services provided to Findings ZCA2005-00004 Page 7 of 15 developed and undeveloped properties in the City." The Boyle Letter states: capacity of the drainage system serving the site should not be an issue for this proposed annexation." 4. Streets; Finding: The City Council has reviewed the evidence and finds that, with respect to the capacity to meet street services for the Property, this criterion is satisfied, subject to the condition that only the permitted residential uses in an R-7 shall be allowed on the Property. In a December 2, 2005 memorandum from Julia Kuhn of Kittelson & Associates (the "Kittelson Memorandum"), Ms. Kuhn evaluates the traffic capacity of the area surrounding the Property and concludes that: "There is sufficient infrastructure to accommodate the proposed parcel at maximum buildout and the annexed parcel will not create degrade the level of service provided at any impacted intersection." It is also the case that prior to the development of the Property, subdivision review will require a demonstration that adequate transportation facilities are available or will be made available if necessary to handle the development. 5. Police; and Finding: The City Council has reviewed the evidence and finds that, with respect to the capacity to meet the policing needs of the Property, this criterion is satisfied, subject to the condition that only the permitted residential uses in the R-7 zone shall be allowed on the Property. In a December 2, 2005 letter from Chief William Dickinson (the "Dickinson Letter"), Chief Dickinson's states in part: "The City of Tigard Police Department has determined that it has adequate services to serve the most intense use allowed and that providing services will not significantly reduce the level of services available to developed and undeveloped land within the City of Tigard." 6. Fire Protection. Finding: The City Council has reviewed the evidence and finds that, with respect to the capacity to meet the fire protection needs of the Property, this criterion is satisfied, subject to the condition that only the permitted residential uses in the R-7 zone shall be allowed on the Property. In a November 21, 2005 letter from Eric T. McMullen, Deputy Fire Marshal with the Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue District, Mr. McMullen's states that the District currently provides services to the entire Bull Mountain area, both inside and outside of the City of Tigard and that they have sufficient personnel and equipment to provide services to developed and undeveloped land within the City. Findings ZCA2005-00004 Page 8 of 15 10.1.2 Approval of proposed annexations of land by the City shall be based on findings with respect to the following: 7. a. The annexation eliminates an existing "Pocket" or "Island" of unincorporated territory; or Finding: City Council finds that the annexation does not eliminate an existing "Pocket" or "Island" of unincorporated territory, but that the annexation satisfies the requirements of b-e below and therefore is consistent with Comprehensive Plan Section 10.1.2. 8. b. The annexation will not create an irregular boundary that makes it difficult for the police in an emergency situation to determine whether the parcel is within or outside the City; Finding: City Council has reviewed the map of the proposed annexation area and finds that annexing the Property to the City of Tigard will not create an irregular boundary that makes it difficult for the police in an emergency situation to determine whether the parcel is within or outside the City. The Dickinson Letter evidences the Tigard Police Department's conclusion that it has adequate capacity to serve the Property. This criterion is satisfied. 9. c. The police department has commented on the annexation; Finding: City Council finds on the basis of the Dickinson letter that this criterion is satisfied. 10. d. The land is located within the Tigard Urban Planning Area and is contiguous to the City boundary; Finding: City Council finds, based on the maps of the Property included in the record, and the City's planning documents, that the Property is contiguous to the City's current boundary and that it is within the Tigard Urban Planning Area. 11. e. The annexation can be accommodated by the services listed in 10.1.1(a). Finding: City Council finds that this criterion is satisfied and incorporates by reference the evidence cited in findings C 1-6 above. Findings ZCA2005-00004 Page 9 of 15 D. Compliance with State Law 1. Consistency with the statewide planning goals; Finding: City Council finds that this Annexation is consistent with the Statewide Planning Goals (the "SPGs"), as implemented through the Comprehensive Plan and TCDC. OAR 660-014-0060 provides that "[a] city annexation made in compliance with a comprehensive plan acknowledged pursuant to ORS 197.251(1) or 197.625 shall be considered by the commission to have been made in accordance with the goals unless the acknowledged comprehensive plan and implementing ordinances do not control the annexation." The City's Comprehensive Plan has been acknowledged by the Department of Land Conservation and Development. As the criteria set out in these findings demonstrate, the Annexation is controlled by the Comprehensive Plan and TCDC. And, as further demonstrated by these findings, the Annexation complies with the criteria set out in the Comprehensive Plan. See Sections H.A. and H.C. 2. Consistency with the state statutes governing consents to annexation. Finding: City Council finds that the Annexation has occurred in compliance with all applicable consent provisions of the Oregon Revised Statutes. The City Council elected not to submit the Annexation to the electorate, as permitted by ORS 222.120 and ORS 222.170, because, as the record reveals, a majority of the electors registered in the territory proposed to be annexed consented in writing to annexation and the owners of more than half the land comprising the Property consented as well, in accordance with the requirements of ORS 222.170(2). City Council also notes that based on the evidence in the record, this annexation satisfies both forms of double majority annexation and the triple majority annexation provision contained in ORS 222.170(1). III. Response to Opposition Arguments A. The Bull Mountain Community Plan Opponents have objected that the proposed annexation is inconsistent with and amounts to a repeal of the Bull Mountain Community Plan (the "BMCP"), which currently imposes certain development and use restrictions on the Property. They contend that the Washington County Development Code expressly makes the BMCP applicable to the Property, notwithstanding the fact that it otherwise adopts the City of Findings ZCA2005-00004 Page 10 of 15 Tigard's comprehensive plan and zoning designations for the area. They contend that the terms of the annexation must be consistent with the requirements of the BMCP. Finding: City Council finds that these objections are not well taken. The City of Tigard has not adopted the BMCP. There are no criteria in the Comprehensive Plan, the TCDC, or the TUSA that require the annexation to occur subject to the BMCP. While the WCCDC does currently make the BMCP applicable to the Property, upon annexation this provision of the WCCDC will no longer have any relevance to the Property. From that point forward, all development will be approved or denied based upon its consistency with the City's Comprehensive Plan and the TCDC. Even if the annexation were required to be consistent with the BMCP, there are no annexation criteria in the BMCP. B. Failure to Demonstrate the Adequacy of Services Opponents have objected that the City has failed to meet its burden under Comprehensive Plan Section 10. to demonstrate that there are adequate services to meet the needs of the Property. Finding: City Council finds that this objection is not well taken. As demonstrated above in Section II.C., the record contains substantial evidence in the form of testimony from all of the relevant service providers and a traffic engineering firm that demonstrates that all necessary service capacity exists to serve the Property. In addition, City Council will limit the potential service impact created by development of the property by restricting its use to residential uses permitted in the R-7 zone. Finally, during the subdivision review process, the Property owners will be required to demonstrate the adequacy of all services to meet the needs of their proposed development. C. Consent to Annexation Opponents have objected that the Annexation is impermissible because the consents to annexation were not given voluntarily, but instead were acquired as a condition of providing planning and permitting services to the unincorporated areas. Opponents contend that this practice violates the terms of the TUSA and UPAA. Opponents have also suggested that the City has offered applicants waivers from the BMCP if they consented to annexation. Finding: City Council finds that these objections are not well taken. First, even if the City's policy of requiring applicants for planning and development services in unincorporated areas to agree to annexation could give an owner or elector who did not wish to be annexed a basis to object, that is not the situation in this case. No property owner or elector affected by this annexation has objected to it. All of the Findings ZCA2005-00004 Page 11 of 15 owners of the affected parcels have affirmatively expressed their consent, as have all but one of the electors. Second, the practice of requiring consent to annexation as a condition of extending urban services extraterritorially is allowed by the state statutes and has been recognized by the Court of Appeals. Specifically, ORS 222.115 provides that "[a] contract between a city and a landowner relating to extraterritorial provision of service and consent to eventual annexation of the property of the landowner shall be recorded and, when recorded, shall be binding on all successors with an interest in that property." See also, ORS 198.869 and Bear Creek Valley Sanitary v. City of Medford, 130 Or. App. 24 (1994) (ORS 222.115 confers upon the city the ability to require a consent to annexation prior to the extraterritorial provision of city services)). Finally, contrary to Opponents' suggestions, there is nothing in the TUSA or UPAA between the City of Tigard and Washington County that prevents the City from exercising its authority under ORS 222.115 to condition the extension of its services upon consent to annexation. On the contrary, in the UPAA the County expressly recognizes the desirability of the City annexing the property within the Urban Services Area and affirms that the UPAA does not limit "the rights of the CITY and property owners to annex properties using provisions provided by the Oregon Revised Statutes." UPAA Sect. C.3. Therefore, Opponents' claim that requiring consents to annexation is in some form a breach of the City's obligations to the County and to County residents is simply mistaken. With respect to Opponents' claim that applicants for development permits are offered "waivers" from the BMCP if they consent to annexation, there is no evidence in the record of any such waiver and certainly no evidence that any of the consents to this Annexation were obtained through such a waiver. D. Comprehensive Plan Amendment & Statewide Planning Goals One opponent suggested that annexation was not consistent with the statewide planning goals and specifically referenced Goal 5. Other than to allege that the City had not done Goal 5 planning for the Property and had failed to give the Department of Land Conservation and Development the required notice of a post- acknowledgment comprehensive plan amendment, he did not explain the basis of his objection. Finding: City Council finds that the Opponent's objections regarding the SPGs are insufficiently developed to permit the City to adequately respond. In the interest of avoiding any dispute, however, to the extent that the Opponent was asserting that the annexation involved a substantive Comprehensive Plan amendment that required a demonstration of compliance with the SPGs, he was mistaken. As explained in Findings ZCA2005-00004 Page 12 of 15 Section 2.A. above, the annexation does not involve a substantive comprehensive plan amendment or a zone change because the Property already carries the City's comprehensive plan map designation and the City's R-7 zone designation. For the same reasons, the City is not required to find that the other criteria for a comprehensive plan amendment contained in the City's Comprehensive Plan are satisfied. Furthermore, as explained in Section II.D.1. above, to the extent that the Opponent is objecting that the Annexation itself does not meet the SPGs, he is mistaken. The Annexation is consistent with the SPGs because it is controlled by, and consistent with all the applicable criteria contained in, Tigard's acknowledged Comprehensive Plan and the TCDC. See OAR 660-014-0060; ORS 197.175(2) (SPGs directly applicable only if comprehensive plan and applicable land use regulations have not been acknowledged by the commission). F. Fairness of the Annexation Proceedings Opponents have argued that because this annexation is occurring prior to a land use or limited land use application, it creates a "different standard for different annexations" and deprives interested parties of their legal right to due process. Finding: City Council finds that this objection is not developed with sufficient specificity. In addition, the objection fails to address any of the applicable approval criteria. Opponents fail to specify what process is lacking. The City has provided all of the process required by the TCDC and state law. The property owners and electors seeking annexation are not opposed to the process used by the City. Any person opposing annexation has an opportunity to object to the annexation based on approval criteria before the City Council. The City Council finds that, in the absence of developed argument by Opponents, and given the compliance with all applicable procedural ordinance and statutes, the Opponents have received all the process to which they are entitled. G. Use of Park System Development Charges and Traffic Impact Fees Opponents have argued that because the City has failed to use parks system development charges and traffic impact fees to serve the areas being developed, the City is violating the UPAA, which creates an "unfair situation" for developers and future residents. Finding: City Council finds that this objection is not well taken. First, the payment of system for development charges is neither an applicable approval criterion nor a requirement of annexation. Such payment occurs at the time a property owner applies for a building permit. Second, because the Property will be inside the City of Tigard at the time system development charge payments are made, those funds will be used to improve parks and roads inside the City of Tigard consistent with local and Findings ZCA2005-00004 Page 13 of 15 state law governing the application and use of system development charges. The opponents fail to explain how this is either relevant to this annexation application or how it violates the UPAA. H. Adequacy of Park Land Opponents have argued that the Annexation should be denied because of the lack of availability of park land or because the City has failed to purchase park land on Bull Mountain. Finding: City Council finds that this objection to the Annexation is not well taken. Tigard's Comprehensive Plan Policy 10. requires that the City review certain services for adequate capacity and whether such capacity can be made available if necessary. The relevant services are limited to water, sewer, drainage, streets, police and fire protection. No applicable policy requires the City to consider the adequacy of park or open space in an annexation application. Open space requirements are properly addressed at the subsequent land division stage. I. Adequacy of Street Capacity One Opponent argued that the annexation should be denied because of its traffic impact. Finding: City Council finds that this objection is not well taken. The Staff Report at page 3 addressing Plan Policy 10. finds that there are roads available to serve the Property (SW 147th Terrace and SW 150th Avenue). In addition, the Kittelson Memorandum establishes that the street system is adequate to serve the Property. See Section II.C. Finally, the City will require internal streets to be constructed and will require that off-site improvements be made, if necessary, at the land division stage. As explained in the annexation application, "at the time of development, a traffic impact analysis will be prepared to measure the additional traffic volume in the proposed development and the capacity of the existing street network. All proposed streets pertaining to the development of the parcels will be improved to provide an adequate level of service concurrent with the Subdivision Review." J. Harm and Delay Opponents have argued that the Annexation is causing "irrevocable harm and stress" to the Bull Mountain community and is imposing lengthy delays on developers. Findings ZCA2005-00004 Page 14 of 15 Finding: City Council finds that these objections are without merit. Neither of these concerns addresses applicable approval criteria. In addition, the allegation of "irrevocable harm and stress" is too vague to permit the City to respond and there is no evidence that any developers have experienced delays as a result of this Annexation. IV. Conclusion For all of the reasons stated herein, the City Council finds that the Annexation is approved, subject to the condition set out above. Findings ZCA2005-00004 Page 15 of 15 Perkins Coie RECEIVED PLANNING 112o N.W. Couch Street, Tenth Floor Michael C. Robinson Portland, OR 97209-4128 PH%m: 503.727.2264 uEC 1 4 2005 PHONE: 503.727.2000 EMAIL: mrobnnson®perkinscoie.com FAX: 503.727.2222 CITY OF TIGARD Www.perkinscoie.com December 14, 2005 Via Email Mayor Craig Dirksen and Members of the Tigard City Council City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Re: City of Tigard Zone Change Annexation Application; File No. ZCA 2005-00004 Dear Mayor Dirksen and Members of the City Council: This office represents the applicant. This letter constitutes the applicant's submittal prior to the close of the second open record period on December 14, 2005 at 5:00 p.m. The opponents submitted the following documents prior to the close of the first open record: • City of Tigard, Oregon Resolution No. 93-64, a resolution of the City Council approving an intergovernmental agreement between the City and the Tigard Water District. • "Rules, Rates and Regulations for Water Service" dated November, 1992 adopted by the Board of Commissioners for the Tigard Water District. • A one-page submittal by Larry Derr entitled "Additional Record Submittal Fourth Annexation Issue." • An email dated October 28, 2005 concerning consents to annexation. • An annexation contract. [37891-0029/PA053480.078] ANCHORAGE BEIJING • BELLEVUE - BOISE • CHICAGO - DENVER HONG KONG - LOS ANGELES MENLO PARK - OLYMPIA • PORTLAND - SAN FRANCISCO • SEATTLE • WASHINGTON, D.C. Perkins Coie LLP and Affiliates December 14, 2005 Page 2 • One page from an article in the Portland Monthly dated March, 2005. • One sheet entitled "Unfunded Street System Program Projects." • A letter from Planner Gary Pagenstecher to Lester Carlson dated August 17, 2005 inquiring as to Mr. Carlson's interest in annexing to the City. • An email from Lisa Hamilton-Treick to Larry Derr entitled "Mapping Vacancy" dated December 6, 2005 and containing an email from Jim Hendryx to Lisa Hamilton-Treick dated August 23, 2005. • An email from Lisa Hamilton-Treick to Larry Derr dated December 6, 2005 and containing her email to Gus Duenas dated September 12, 2005. • May 18, 2005 letter from Andrew Tull to the City of Tigard requesting a pre- application conference. • City of Tigard pre-application conference notes with Andrew Tull dated June 2, 2005. • Pre-application conference notes from the City of Tigard Engineering Section. • A pre-application conference request form. • Page 294 from the City of Tigard entitled "Traffic Impact Fee Fund No. 210" and subsequent pages. • A newspaper article dated September 22, 2005. The City Council held the record open at the opponents' request to allow them to address evidence concerning the availability of services pursuant to Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policies 10.1.1.a(1)-(6) and 10.1.2.c and Tigard Community Development Code Section 18.320.020.13. In addition, the City Council left the record open at the opponents' request to allow them to submit argument and evidence regarding the circumstances under which the affected property owners and applicant agreed to annexation. In response to this open record period, the opponents have submitted a substantial amount of irrelevant information without any information about how it is relevant to any applicable approval criterion or to the basis upon which the City Council left the record open. [37891-0029/PA053480.078] 12/14/05 December 14, 2005 Page 3 Mr. Derr's one-page submittal contains no argument regarding the applicable Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policy or the applicable Tigard Community Development Code section which Mr. Derr requested the opportunity to address. Mr. Derr's argument boils down to the contention that the City may not withhold certain services in order to obtain the agreement of owners to annex. That may be an interesting argument in a case where involuntary annexation is required, but in this case, the substantial evidence in the whole record before the City Council is that the applicants want to annex to the City of Tigard. The City Council can find that the argument in evidence, such as it is, submitted by opponents is irrelevant to the applicable approval criteria and does not warrant City Council agreeing with the opponents. The applicant respectfully requests that the City approve the annexation application. Very truly yours Michael obinson MCR:sv cc: Mr. Gary Pagenstecher Mr. Gary Firestone Ms. Julie Journeay Ms. Mimi Doukas Mr. Andrew Tull Marc E. John, Esq. [37891-0029/PA053480.0781 12/14/05 Perldns Coile 112o N.W. Couch Street, Tenth Floor Michael C. Robinson RECEIVED PLANNING Portland, OR 97209-4128 PHONE: 503.727.2264 PHONE: 503.727.2000 EMAIL, mrobinson@perkinscoie.com DEC 1 5 2005 FAX: 503.]2].2222 www.perkinscoie.com December 15, 2005 CITY OF TIGARD VIA EMAIL Mayor Craig Dirksen Members of the City Council City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, Oregon 97223 Re: Applicant's Final Argument in Support of City of Tigard Annexation Application, File No. 2005-00004 Dear Mayor Dirksen and Members of the City Council: This office represents the Applicant and offers this letter as the Applicant's final argument in support of the above captioned annexation proposal. The Applicant inquired with the City of Tigard's Planning Department today and was informed that the opponents did not submit any argument or evidence in rebuttal to the Applicant's submissions during the First Open Records Period. The evidence contained in those submissions is thus uncontroverted and Applicant will limit its final argument to two important points that are supported by substantial evidence in the record. First, all of the required public services have adequate capacity to serve the annexation area. Tigard Comprehensive Plan policies 10.1.1a(1)-(6) and 10.1.2.e require a demonstration that there is adequate water, sewer, drainage, street, police and fire protection service available. Applicant has placed service provider letters and/or professional reports into the record demonstrating that each service has adequate capacity to serve the annexation area. There is not substantial evidence in the record to the contrary. Therefore, the City Council may find that these policies are satisfied. [37891-0029/PA053490.0611 ANC HORAGF BEIJING BE LLEVUE BOISE CHICAGO - DENVER HONG KONG • LOS ANGELES MENIO PARK - OLYMPIA - PHOEN-X - PORTLAND SAN FRANCISCO - SEATTLE - WASHINGTON, D.C. Perkins We LLP and Affiliates Mayor Craig Dirksen Members of the City Council City of Tigard December 15, 2005 Page 2 Second, the opponents' repeated objections to the consents to this annexation are simply without merit. The owners of the property to be annexed have all expressed their desire to be annexed to the City of Tigard. None have objected that their consent was involuntary or somehow coerced. Moreover, even if those affected by this annexation were not unanimously in favor of it, opponents' contention that the City's policy of conditioning the provision of extraterritorial services on consent to annexation is somehow a violation of the intergovernmental agreement between Washington County and the City of Tigard (the "IGA") is mistaken. Their argument rests on a misreading of that agreement and amounts to an impermissible collateral attack on its terms; the time for challenging the IGA's provision expressly permitting the City of Tigard to use all means allowed under the Oregon Revised Statutes to annex the Bull Mountain area expired long ago. The Applicant appreciates very much the time that City Council, City Staff, and residents of the Bull Mountain community have dedicated to this annexation proposal. The record before the City Council contains substantial evidence that all of the applicable criteria for annexation have been satisfied. We therefore respectfully request that you approve the annexation. Very truly your , 1Vlichael obinson cc: Ms. Julie Journeay (via email) Mr. Andrew Tull (via email) Ms Mimi Doukas (via email) Mr. Rich Boyle (via email) Mr. Tim Ramis (via email) Mr. Gary Firestone (via email) Mr. Gary Pagenstecher (via email) MCR:mj [37891-0029/PA053490.0611 12/15/05 I AGENDA ITEM # ~1J FOR AGENDA OF December 20, 2005 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE A Resolution Approving Budget Amendment #4 to the FY 2005-06 Budget to Add a Full-Time GIS Coordinator Position and Increase Appropriations in the Information Technology Division Budget to Fund this Position PREPARED BY: Tom Imdieke/Gary Ehrenfeld DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Shall the City Council approve Budget Amendment #4 to add a full-time GIS Coordinator position to the Information Technology Division and increase appropriations in this Division to fund the new position and the associated materials and services costs? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of Budget Amendment #4. INFORMATION SUMMARY On October 25, 2005, Gary Ehrenfeld, IT Director, presented information to Council regarding the need to create a new Geographic Information Systems (GIS) Coordinator position. The need for this position was identified after an in depth review of the City's GIS needs by a person with expertise in this field. This position will be responsible for building, developing, and maintaining all GIS applications in the City. The position will also be responsible for integrating GIS with other business systems in City departments, training City staff, and managing the GIS system. During the discussion with Council, questions were raised as to the specific funding sources for the position. The information outlined below, address those questions. Based on current usage trends and level of future development that is needed in the City's utility programs, the cost of this position has been allocated to recover the development costs as wells as recovering current usage from various City funds. The development effort over the next couple of years will need to concentrate on establishing data layers that will be used by the utility programs. The utility programs include sanitary sewer, storm sewer, and water. Data layers consist of geographical information that can be displayed in a mapping type of format. This information is then used by various sources including City staff and citizens in various applications and projects. This budget amendment will increase the authorized positions in the Information Technology Division by one position. Also, it will transfer funds from the Central Services Fund Contingency to the Information Technology budget to fund this new position. Although a transfer from the contingency in the Central Services Fund needs to occur to establish the spending authority, the actual funding of the position will be from seven different funding sources. The chart below shows how the position and support costs would be allocated between City funds. This would also be case for FY 2006-07. 1 Fund % of Funding FY 2005-06 Cost General Fund 29.79% $15,068 Building Fund 6.90% $3,490 Sanitary Sewer Fund 9.00% $4,554 Storm Sewer Fund 8.16% $4,131 Water Fund 39.57% $20,020 Gas Tax 3.96% $2,003 Urban Services 2.62% $1,324 The funding for future years would also be determined in a similar manner through the City's cost allocation plan. The total amount to be transferred is $50,590. This amount includes $36,550 for salary and benefits assuming the position begins in December 2005 and $14,040 for associated materials and services costs including new desk setup, computer setup, and software licenses. The City Council at its meeting on November 22, decided to carry this item over to a meeting in January 2006. In a subsequent conversation between the City Manager and some Council members, it was decided to place this item on the Council's agenda for December 20. At that time, the Interim Finance Director will report back on the initial financial projections for future years. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Do not approve Budget Amendment #4. VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY None ATTACHMENT LIST Resolution Approving Budget Amendment #4 FISCAL NOTES This resolution will transfer $50,590 from the Central Services Contingency to the Information Technology (IT) Division budget. Of this total, $36,550 is for salary and benefits assuming the position will begin in December 2005 and benefits are based on the average benefit rate for the IT Division. The remaining $14,040 is for a new desk set up, a new computer set up, and necessary software licenses. Agenda Item No.: 7 Meeting of: December 20, 2005 Materials for PRESENTATION INDONESIAN RESOURCE CITIES EXCHANGE PROGRAM are not available electronically. A hard copy of the presentation slides will be available after the December 20, 2005 Council meeting. Contact the City Recorder's Office at 503-639-4171 for more information. Indonesian Partnership HighlighLts Tigard, Oregon arnarinda Indonesia Resource Cities Program Partnerships were sponsored through the us Agency for International Developmerif (US AID) and administered by the International Managers Association All • (except • gifts and were paid for by ICMA/US AID) • s • Partnerships 2/02-12/03 2/04-12/05 • . Balikpapan 1 r rA.7 ~IETNAM yANM PHILIPt•WFB Pacific th China Ocean CASou Sea R BRUNEI MALAYSIA " Mjde 'B pIPCA PORE iµ Celebes See PometeriygllltMr; Menetlo _Nelmehera qN 6 PAPUA Pehnblru Ponllerrk[. arya ,,Sem•rlyn~de ,NEW CU NE PedenMbl Born e~ OJ. ~`-i !•IemY•np jermesfi, Ce rarp Sea Jeyegxe B.API'SAN MT$` c Pur1C"yr "le'/e~^~ 1 ✓at`a Sea Ujurgp•nOQen0 MolucceWla. MA`dRE "^.TC, i JAKARTA Mounf M°d1Banda Sea I °s n"'°-o"y • M reW Flores yea J BiMUi1~p5 -a lomboF Floret INC- f •r~e &imh~'a®Y/•fenm. GUlffi?Jere gel I Kupmpo EAST TIMOR Arafura Sumbewe rumor 111. "1 Sea INDONESIA z5mor Sea Indian Oman AUSTRALIA eoeerer aT KAUna MAN 14, "M A k A Y Population Samarind ~ . 550,000 Primary industries • • Gas • Agriculture • Gold and other mining X r • Handicrafts • Trading 2 f r J~~y 'r`„•'x? .Si. h W y . Sc~' 1 3 Balikpapan Population: 547,000 (April 00 t Primary Industry: m Oil refineries supports oil and gas industry a wholesale and retail trade m service industries. --t 1 0 4 i7w • Great, • • • ea ee e • • oov's f a S!-= • • iscoveref payroll y• cash ~I • y. l Great ~Need Was City's . Recycling Program i Done In The Mahakam River ■ Great Need Was • • - • • • ease Citizen Unrest With New Democracy 6 w • uccesses • Prtnershi of, Orst adopted the • ••e • succ; based • inda •e o 0 00. Samar I to ao• • • sysleM • its ar-r- • r • coun, Of F cesses Suc 'Its • March (2()04, a 1000/', cast) from t. Vstern • ^ • „0 r • to system Monosson moo NEW NORM . • • Successes ^ and • • • • ~R • ' )r clean / AW, J \ need • rather than the • river ~M M 'First 9artnership successes Of a ice' y.. Schook Education - . • Citizen • Curriculum ^ • • ^ • owns,,," rn ■ II ■ G • s ty 10 • ' s • ' • • • • • • ' • • ' • • • • ' • • • cmn • • y • • • I i 1 i i • • • " • • • eMOries • aind ~wr R "v 11 t..J e. ,ti a5 t 4, _ a ►f 1 r~ ~I }s ✓ ~~Y \ a, .:R i I C> ~ r t iL a i r 13 9 o 7 .r. ~P by t t 1 sr on mED PUBLIC SERVICE P~ NO 9th AL! NT pARTNERSHIRS lUC ma I vV1` gas" - - - - - - - - - - r.` } roar sq >o tr;_ {Mdr,QJ~:,. If c ~~yRt •f. Ns ya~~ai;~. oG S w ap 15 i. rs i ♦a. \t t i • i • • ` i r, ~ i • i i • \ Y J • µ • Local Relationships Also Strengthened School Tigard-Tualatin ■ Tigard's WATER ! . per . made a difference! 17 AGENDA ITEM # FOR AGENDA OF December 20, 2005 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Joint Meeting with the Intergovernmental Water Board (IWB) PREPARED BY: Dennis Koellermeierr DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL No action is required. The Council is being asked to review and provide direction on three water-related items. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff is requesting the Council review, discuss and provide direction on three water-related topics. INFORMATION SUMMARY The City Council and the IWB will discuss the following three water-related topics: 1. Regulating Water Service Outside City Limits The Council received a confidential, privileged memorandum from the City Attorney dated December 5, 2005, pertaining to this issue. The following two questions will be addressed in open session at the December 20, 2005 meeting: ■ Does the Tigard Water District have the authority to impose a moratorium on providing service and . require any new or expanded service be provided by the City of Tigard? ■ Are there other possible means of obtaining consents to annexation in the area currently served by the Tigard Water District? 2. Locating Park Improvements on Surplus Property The Tigard Water District and the City of Tigard own the Canterbury and Clute properties respectively. The Canterbury property is located at the southwest corner of Canterbury Lane and 103rd Avenue. The Clute property is located south of Barrow's Road at the southern terminus of 154th Avenue and lies just north of Tigard Water District's Menlor Reservoir. Access to the reservoir is through the Clute property. Each of these properties contains surplus land that is not being used by the city's water system facilities. It has been proposed this surplus property be used for park improvements and Staff would like the Council to provide direction. 3. Selecting a Long-term Water Supply On September 20, 2005, the City Council and IWB met to discuss the city's long-term water supply options. At that time, four supply options were discussed: ■ Lake Oswego option ■ Willamette River option ■ Joint Water Commission/dam raising option ■ Portland water option In spring 2006, the city will have to make some decisions about its long-term water supply. With many factors to consider, and the desire to reach an objective, justifiable conclusion, Tigard has employed evaluation criteria to assess its water supply options in the past. Other cities, such as Sherwood and Tualatin, have also employed this evaluation method. With regard to upcoming decisions, does the Council wish to use criteria-based decision-making again? If so, a table showing selection criteria used by Tigard, as well as Sherwood and Tualatin, is attached for review and discussion. If selection criteria are identified at the December 20, 2005, meeting, Staff will create a matrix designed to assist the Council in their future evaluation of long-term water supply options. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED With regard to how the Council wishes to select the city's long-term water supply, instead of using a criteria- based decision making method, the Council could decide upon some other method of arriving at a decision. VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY Urban & Public Services - Water & Storm Water Goal #2: "Equity position in a regional water system by 2007." Urban & Public Services - Water & Storm Water Goal #2, Strategy #1: "Continue to explore all options open to Tigard where the City can buy into the source and the associated infrastructure and become a part owner of the source/system." ATTACHMENT LIST 1. Table - Tigard Water Service Area (TWSA), Review of Water Source Selection Criteria FISCAL NOTES N/A Tigard Water Service Area (TWSA) Review of Water Source Selection Criteria Criteria/Sub-Criteria Tigard Tigard Sherwood Tualatin 1994 2000 2004 2002 Opportunity for city ownership of supply x x x Water supply agreements & contract provisions x x Required improvements & estimated project costs x x Estimated cost of water x x x x Water rights x x x Timing of availability x Water Quality x x - Relative Quality of raw water x - Performance of supply (Pass /Fail x Supply Implimentation Timing x x Certainty of supply x x Environmental impacts x Diversifacation of supply X x Construction feasibility - B TWSA individual) x - B TWSA as art of a group x - Ability to im liment in increments x Financial impacts - CIP within TWSA bond capacity x - Cost saving w/ partners x - Financed b others, a in rates x Reliability x - Relative predictability x - Distance & route to TWSA short & hazard-free x Public acceptance/ political environment x Permanent supply (es/no X Security of source - Physical SDC eligible x Tigard and the Intergovernmental Water Board Joint Meeting December 2005 Dennis Koellerme'er, Director of Public Works Regulating Water Service Outside City Limits D• the Intergovernmental Water Board (IWB) have the authority to: moratorium on providing new connections • - require new service be provided • member~ 1 ~l r ' Regulating Water Service Outside City Limits • n Are there • possible means • • • consents to annexation in the unincorporated served areas currendv bv the Tigard Water District (T\XD)? Locating Park Improvements on Surplus Property s Canterbury • at the southwest corner of property, south of Barrows Road at the southern tern'linus • Both sites identified as potential park sites in Park & • • • selection process 2 Canterbury property 3 • park Imments Lo p rove catIng property surplus ended ActiOn Steps Canterbury Recomm a, resolution declaring needs to Pas rty as surplus portion of Canterbury PrOPe t• and • resolution tlIe • • 3 no Clute Property Menlor Reservoir Locating Park Improvements on Surplus Property Clute Recommended Action Steps m TWB declared the Clute property as surplus 4 Selecting Long-Term Water Supply The Decision-Making Process Who makes the decision? m What assessment criteria should be used? m Are some assessment criteria weighted? Who must approve the decision? Selecting Long-Term Water Supply Water • Selection Criteria Used Previously m Opportunity for ownership, • & contract provisions Improvements & project costs m Cost of water m Water rights • of availabihty 5 Selecting Long-Term Water Supply Water • Selection Criteria Used Previously - raw water - performance of supply m Implementation timing m Certainty of supply n Environmental impacts Selecting Long-Term Water Supply Water • Selection Criteria Used Previously m Diversification of supply Construction - individually - part • group - -irnplement in increments 6 Selecting Long-Term Water Supply Water Source Selection Criteria Used Previously m Financial impacts - CIP within service area bond capacity - cost savings with partners - financed by others, pay in rates Selecting Long-Term Water Supply Water Source Selection Criteria Used Previously m Reliability - predictability., - distance & route • political environment m Public acceptance m Permanent supply m Security of source physical 7 e Recommended Next Steps m I%XIB continues to develop criteria and weighting system • meeting with the IWB to review financial analysis of all sources in April • • Portland contractm' NWT 8