The URL can be used to link to this page

City Council Packet - 01/17/2006 TIGARD CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP MEETING January 17, 2006 COUNCIL MEETING WILL NOT BE TELEVISED Agenda Item No. 3.1 ! - . T-7XX For Agenda of Q . as, oto TIGARD Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes Date: January 17, 2006 Time: 6:36 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 Agenda Item Discussion & Comments Action Items follow u Workshop 1.1 Mayor Dirksen called the City Council and the Meeting Local Contract Review Board to Order at 6:36 p.m. 1.2 Council Present: Mayor Dirksen, Councilors Harding, Sherwood, Wilson, and Woodruff. 1.3 Pledge of Allegiance 1.4 Council Communications & Liaison Reports: Councilor Sherwood announced that some public facilities projects will be funded by the Community Development Block Grant program. Requests for funding from this program far exceeded the amount available. She advised that the Garrett Street sidewalk will be funded. 1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items An Executive Session was held at the end of the meeting. Tigard City Council Minutes Page 1 January 17, 2006 Agenda Item Discussion & Comments Action Items follow u 2. Budget Budget Committee Members Present: Mayor Committee Dirksen, Councilor Harding, Councilor Sherwood, Meeting Councilor Wilson, Councilor Woodruff, Rick Parker, Katie Schwab, Jason Snider, and Susan Yesilada. Interim Finance Director Imdieke introduced this agenda item. Budget Amendments - Finance Analyst Wareing reviewed budget amendments, year to date. A copy of the list of the amendments is on file in the City Recorder's office. Financial Results - First Half of FY 2005-06 - Interim Finance Director Imdieke reviewed the City's financial status for the first half of this fiscal year. A copy of the 2005-2006 Budget to Actual summary is on file in the City Recorder's office. Revenues, including franchise fees to be received should be on target. Expenditures are less than 50% spent except for Social Services (because of timing of the release of funds after application) and the Mayor/Council budget (because League of Oregon Cities and National League of Cities dues are paid at the beginning of the fiscal year). The General Fund is "coming in on target"; in fact, there may be $1 million more at the end of the fiscal year than what was projected because more revenue is coming in and expenditures have been kept under control. Mayor Dirksen suggested that to make the summary more realistic, anticipated revenue could be shown. Interim Finance Director Imdieke said he could put together another summary, with the figures based on historical patterns. Financial Forecast for the Period FY 2006-07 through FY 2010-11- Interim Finance Director Imdieke's remarks were highlighted with a PowerPoint presentation. A copy of this presentation in on file the City Recorder's office. Interim Finance Director Imdieke and City Manager Prosser commented that the projected deficit occurs in 2009-10, which is a year later than earlier Tigard City Council Minutes Page 2 January 17, 2006 Agenda Item Discussion & Comments Action Items follow u calculations due to an optimistic economy, tighter controls and continuing efforts to push the deficit out a year. It was pointed out that the public's perception may be that, with new construction activity on large developments, the City experiences a revenue "windfall." However, under the current tax system, new construction is not taxed at 100% of its value; it is taxed at 70% which is the average of what others are paying in property taxes based on valuation. Interim Finance Director Imdieke reviewed the forecast for road funds noting that expenditures projected for capital improvements represent only what the City thought it could afford and not the total need. In his review of the parks fund, Interim Finance Director Imdieke advised there is a need to identify non-System Development Charge (SDC) revenues to fund parks since SDC's cannot be used for park improvements. The Parks and Recreation Advisory Board (DRAB) and staff are looking at non-SDC funding sources to use as leverage to purchase park properties. Interim Finance Director Imdieke reviewed the status of development funds and noted that in the urban services area a one-year operating reserve is maintained in the event there is a downturn in the economy. The last major fee increase associated with development funds was in 2000. The status of the water fund might change, depending on the City's decision on what option to pursue for a long-term water supply. Interim Finance Director Imdieke advised that the capital funds are decreasing in the sewer funds because of the sewer reimbursement program; however, that fund will start to rebuild when property owners sign on for sewer service. The challenge in this area is to make sure that Clean Water Services (CWS) continues to make rate adjustments from which the City will receive a Tigard City Council Minutes Page 3 January 17, 2006 Agenda Item Discussion & Comments Action Items follow u proportionate share for operations and capital projects. City Manager Prosser advised that after the last three or four CWS rate increases, revenues to cities were reduced as CWS is using the increases for debt service for the expansion of treatment facilities. There was discussion of the traffic impact fees, which are projected to decrease. City Manager Prosser advised that the financial forecast will continue to be updated. Financial Strategy Task Force - Interim Finance Director Imdieke advised the Task Force will receive the updated financial information to be incorporated into the report to be presented to the City Council in a February workshop meeting. The citizen members of the Budget Committee will be asked to attend that workshop meeting. Rick Parker, Sue Yesilada, Social Services - Financial Analyst Wareing noted and Nick Wilson will serve that grant applications were recently mailed out. on the Social Services The review schedule for the subcommittee for social Subcommittee. services and community events was outlined. 3. Commuter Interim Community Development Director Coffee, After lengthy discussion and Rail Station Senior Planner Nachbar, and TriMet Representative a review of the options, Enhancements Witter reviewed this agenda item with the City Council directed staff to Council. The staff report, background information prepare a resolution for and cost comparison information, which was Council's consideration reviewed and discussed by the City Council, is on which will support the file in the City Recorder's office. "Interstate Design" for the shelter and to earmark As part of the overall program for Commuter Rail needed funds in the General Station improvements, TriMet budgets and provides Fund budget. Mr. Witter funding for a set of basic improvements common to noted that three benches per all stations that includes a rail station platform, a platform were included in shelter, a park and ride facility and certain landscape TriMet's design and that improvements. TriMet could arrange to pour another footing at the time Council discussion included: the Tigard station is completed so the structure Tigard City Council Minutes Page 4 January 17, 2006 Agenda Item Discussion & Comments Action Items follow u • A review of TriMet's proposed station design could be expanded later. option. Tigard contributions to • A review of the recommendation of the design as station funding will need to originally proposed by the Downtown Task be available the latter part of Force. 2007. • TriMet now scaling back to a lower-cost prefabricated station structure to realign estimated costs and budget. As time goes by, costs escalate, which impacts what can be done with the available funding. • Review of aesthetics and available budget. • Review of commuter rail passenger comfort: benches, windscreens for protection from weather, and length of wait between trains. • TriMet's shelter design is basically a "cover." • Disappointment expressed with the reduction from the original design proposed by the Downtown Task Force. • The station is the initial project to improve the downtown, so it is important to set the tone and demonstrate the types of improvements desired. • Discussed projected commuter rail ridership. • Viewpoint expressed that the shelter design will not keep people from riding the commuter rail; keep the station functional and fund less costly aesthetic improvements. • Of the $150,000 currently allocated for the downtown, $75,000 has been earmarked by the City for the station. 4. Annexation The following staff members participated in this Policy discussion with the City Council: Interim' Community Development Director Coffee, Planning Manager Bewersdorff, and Associate Planner Pagenstecher. Discussion highlights included the following: • Overview of annexation background with previous stance by Washington County that cities should provide urban services and that the City of Tigard would expand into its urban service area. • Factors affectin annexation: Tigard City Council Minutes Page 5 January 17, 2006 Agenda Item Discussion & Comments Action Items follow u o Comprehensive Plan o Intergovernmental agreements with Washington County o State law o City of Tigard Development Code o Consents to annexation o Current administrative policy o Bull Mountain annexation vote in 2004. • Referenced two letters received from State Representative Jerry Krummel; evaluation is needed. • Reviewed options of City Council (see January 3, 2006 memorandum from Interim Community Development Director Coffee and Associate Planner Pagenstecher regarding City of Tigard annexation policy). Options were for the City of Tigard to be 1) aggressive, 2) proactive, 3) reactive, or 4) inactive. • Areas in unincorporated county that are already developed have no incentives to annex. • The City of Tigard currently annexes in the "reactive" mode; if the City continues this policy, it is unlikely the City's boundaries will ever extend to the urban services boundary. • If the City chooses a proactive policy, State law allows the City to annex islands. Initiating island annexations has not been the practice of the City. • An aggressive annexation policy, including cherry-stem annexations is not politically palatable. • A suggestion was made that the City consider its boundaries to be essentially set. • The Comprehensive Plan update is now underway. Boundaries will be a consideration. • An observation was made that it is a struggle to quantify the alternatives for annexation options. If a new City is formed on Bull Mountain - a real City that is self-sustaining with services such as a library and parks - there would be less concern. Also unknown is whether the new City would extend to the urban growth boundary. • There are positives for each of the annexation policy options. In the long-term view, the question is which is the correct decision? There was concern expressed that development might Tigard City Council Minutes Page 6 January 17, 2006 Agenda Item Discussion & Comments Action Items follow u occur that will prove to be detrimental. • There was no support expressed for cherry-stem annexations (aggressive policy) in order to facilitate potential annexation of areas 63 and 64. • The proactive annexation policy appears to be beneficial in that it would bring undeveloped parcels into the City. • A decision should be made about the City's planning area relating to the Comprehensive Plan update. It was suggested that the City plan for undeveloped areas so if these areas come into the City, the planning would be done. • Density requirements in the urban growth boundary would be no different whether the property is in or out of the City. If the property was located in the City, density could be transferred to the downtown or the Washington Square areas. • There was mention of a policy decision that would be needed on property owned outside the City (Cache Creek property). Options would include: 1) keep the area as an extra-territorial park, 2) sell the property, 3) give the property to another city. • It was noted that the Tigard constituency does not appear to support aggressive or even proactive annexations. Tigard citizens appear to be more in favor with what the City is doing now, which is a reactive policy (wait for parcels to ask to be annexed). • Interim Community Development Director Coffee suggested a systematic review of the City's boundary. • Mayor Dirksen said he supports double or triple majority annexations. • Councilor Woodruff supported the democratic process of annexing those properties where property owners have indicated they want to come into the City. • Councilor Harding suggested the City take a time out and let others explore their options. If a property owner asks to be annexed and if the property is contiguous to the current City boundaries, then she would support the annexation request. Tigard City Council Minutes Page 7 January 17, 2006 Agenda Item Discussion & Comments Action Items follow u • The Comprehensive Plan, Washington County intergovernmental agreements, and the Bull Mountain Community Plan all indicate that the City of Tigard should be the ultimate service provider for the urban services area. • There was a suggestion that it might be time to review the Washington County intergovernmental agreements. In response to the discussion, City Manager Prosser advised the funds received by the City from the County cover the costs of the services provided by the City as outlined in the intergovernmental agreements. • It was suggested that the City Council would know more in about a year, once it is known whether a new city will be formed on Bull Mountain. • Councilor Wilson pointed out that the vision established 30 years ago regarding urban services does not appear to have any possibility of working. • Interim Community Development Director Coffee suggested that Goal 14 will be addressed during the Comprehensive Plan review; the "mechanisms" have not happened. Tigard's area of interest may be redefined. The current practice for annexation will continue. • The City Council talked of annexation incentives. There was no support at this time to offer a phase-in of taxes; however, the City Council might consider waiving the fee for annexation. Meeting recessed: 9:26 p.m. Meeting reconvened: 9:35 p.m. 5. Mayor and Assistant to the City Manager Newton reviewed Council Budget with the City Council the preliminary Mayor and Council FY 06-07 Budget request as prepared by Administration Department staff. There was discussion about the majority of the Staff will prepare a cost League of Oregon Cities dues being shown as an allocation model for League expenditure in the Council's budget. of Oregon Cities dues. Tigard City Council Minutes Page 8 January 17, 2006 Agenda Item Discussion & Comments Action Items follow u The performance audit will be added to next year's At the request of Councilor Council budget. There was discussion about the Woodruff, staff will prepare scope of the audit, which will set up a review of City budget information showing policies, procedures, and operations. what was budgeted in 05-06 along with the Budget request for 06-07. 6. Executive The Tigard City Council went into Executive Session Session at 9:52 p.m. to discuss potential litigation under ORS 192.660(2)(h). 7. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 10:13 p.m. Motion by Councilor Woodruff, seconded by Councilor Wilson, to adjourn meeting. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of the City Council present: Mayor Dirksen: Yes Councilor Harding: Yes Councilor Sherwood: Yes Councilor Wilson: Yes Councilor Woodruff: Yes Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder Attest: /,9 Mayor ity of Tigard / Date: ~ • OU Tigard City Council Minutes Page 9 January 17, 2006 Revised - Added Executive Session Topic - Item 6 TTGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING January 17,, 2006 6:30 p.m. CITY OF TIGARD OREGON TIGARD CITY HALL 13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD TIGARD, OREGON 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. Upon request, the City will 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 (IDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf). SEE ATTACHED AGENDA COUNCIL AGENDA -JANUARY 17, 2006 page 1 AGENDA TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 17, 2006 0:30 PM 1. WORKSHOP MEETING 1.1 Call to Order - Tigard City Council 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 0:35 PM 2. CONDUCT JOINT MEETING WITH TIGARD BUDGET COMMITTEE • Staff Report: Finance Department 7:15 PM 3. DISCUSS COMMUTER RAIL STATION ENHANCEMENTS • Staff Report: Community Development Department 80) PM 4. DISCUSS ANNEXATION POLICY • Staff Report: Community Development Department 9:45 PM 5. DISCUSS MAYOR AND COUNCIL BUDGET • Staff Report: Administration Department 6. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session to discuss potential litigation under ORS 192.660(2)(h). 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. 9:00 PM 7. ADJOURNMENT i s\ndm\uithy\an \2(X)6\0(a)717A. COUNCIL AGENDA -JANUARY 17, 2006 page 2 AGENDA ITEM # a FOR AGENDA OF January 17, 2006 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Joint Meeting with Tigard Budget Commi e PREPARED BY: Tom Imdieke DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Quarterly informational meeting with the Budget Committee. No action required. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Receive and discuss information. No action required. INFORMATION SUMMARY The Budget Committee meets during April and May each year to review and approve the annual budget. It also meets quarterly thereafter to receive and discuss information regarding the financial affairs of the City. The January 17 meeting will be the second quarter meeting of FY 2005-06. Due to various reasons, a first quarter meeting was not held. At the January 17 meeting, staff will update the citizen members of the Committee on a variety of issues that will include: 1. Budget Amendments a. Report on actual and planned Budget Amendments in FY 2005-06. 2. Financial Results from the First Half of FY 2005-06. 3. Financial Forecast for the Period FY 2006-07 thru FY 2010-11. 4. Status Report on the Work of the Financial Strategy Task Force. Socca~ S'K~: Swb~c~w•r~,~~t,~ OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED None VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY N/A ATTACHMENT LIST Letter to Budget Committee with a draft agenda. FISCAL NOTES No impact. December 27, 2005 ««AddressBlock))«GreetingLine) The next meeting of the Tigard Budget Committee is scheduled for Tuesday, January 17, 2006 at 6:30 pm in Town Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd. This meeting will occur during a regular Council Workshop session. Enclosed with this letter is an agenda for the Budget Committee portion of this meeting. We expect the Budget Committee portion of this meeting to last approximately 40 minutes. Items to be covered include; 1. Budget Amendments a. Report on actual and planned Budget Amendments in FY 2005-06. 2. Financial Results from the First Half of FY 2005-06. 3. Financial Forecast for the Period FY 2006-07 thru FY 2010-11. 4. Status Report on the Work of the Financial Strategy Task Force. Please contact Maureen Denny at 503-718-2487 or maureen@tigard-gov.org to confirm your attendance at this meeting. I look forward to seeing you on the 17tH Sincerely, Tom Imdieke, Interim Finance Director cc: Craig Prosser, City Manager Michelle Wareing, Management Analyst V I ~C~ 1 FY 2005-06 BUDGET AMENDMENTS AS OF JANUARY 17, 2006 m 1C Ir1QL(~ J Amendment # Description Fund Amount 1 Water Projects Telemetry Upgrade Water $77,500 Water Line Replacement - Walnut St Water $58,360 Water Line Replacement - Walnut St Water SDC $58,360 ASR #2 Construction Water CIP $100,000 Lake Oswego Feasiblity Study - new project Water CIP $50,000 ASR #3 Construction Water CIP ($1,090,000) 550' Zone Improvements Res#2 Construction Water CIP ($450,000) 550' Zone Improvements 10MG Trans Pump Station Water CIP ($150,000) Secure 550' Res#1 Site Water CIP $600,000 Purchase of Res#2 Site Water CIP $1,200,000 $454,220 Several projects that were projected to be completed in FY 2004-05 were not completed and no funding was budgeted in FY 2005- 06. Also, there were several projects budgeted in FY 2005-06 that need additional funding now that the full scope of the project is known. Finally, one new project related to the long term water supply arose after the budget process. As there was not sufficient contingencies to cover the additional costs, some projects budgeted for in FY 2005-06 were delayed so their appropriations could be used for the other projects. 2 PW Vehicle Purchase Carry-Over Fleet/Property Management $25,008 Sanitary Sewer $13,247 General $22,254 $60,509 The purchase of these vehicles were budgeted for in FY 2004-05 and it was anticipated that they would be received in FY 2004-05. Due to delays, the vehicles were not received until July 2005. Per accounting rules, the expenditure must be recognized when the product was received not ordered. 3 Street Maintenance Sign. Shop Computer and Plotter General $21,000 Due to new federal rules and regulations, the materials being used to create streets signs are thicker than before. The City's current plotter was not designed to handle these new materials and was showing signs of wear. The new computer and plotter will be able to handle the new materials and allow the Street Maintenance Division to make 99% of the City's signs in-house and accomodate special sign designs. 4 GIS Coordinator Central Services $36,550 $14,040 $50,590 The need for this position was identified after an in-depth review City's Geographic Information System (GIS) needs by an external consultant who is an expert 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. 1 FY 2005-06 BUDGET AMENDMENTS AS OF JANUARY 17, 2006 Amendment # Description Fund Amount 5 Police Buffer Zone Protection Plan Grant General $41,240 The City applied for and received a grant from the Department of Homeland Security to fund the purchase of a mobile repeater and radios. This equipment will be used by Tigard Police and Washington Square Security staff at the mall. These security measures were recommend during the Washington Square Mall Buffer Zone Protection Plan process. 6 Branding/Facilitator Contract General $12,500 The Council contracted with a graphic designer to redesign Tigard's graphic identity and a facilitator to assist them in their strategic planning and team building sessions. The costs were not included in the FY 2005-06 budget, but were determined to be necessary by the Council. 7 Telecom Litigation Contribution General $6,656 The League of Oregon Cities requested that Tigard contribute 2% of its telecommunication franchise revenues to assist with legal expenses for eight Oregon cities participating in the Qwest v. Portland litigation. The contributions will help pay the intervening cities' legal fees as the remand phase of the litigation continues. The outcome of this litigation is significant because it likely will set an important precedent on the extent to which Oregon cities can collect revenue-based franchise fees or privilege taxes and manage their rights-of-way under the Act 2 i/i P.c-UQ ✓c~ ern e ffo ~ ~a~ ~ -Fnce.n ci a~ ou City of Tigard, Oregon FY 2005-2006 Budget to Actual City of Tigard 100 General Fund As of:.December'31",:2005. [AFIMFY 05-06 budget to Actual FinancialslBudget to Actual Financials 05-06 NEWxIslDecember Reports Favorable Actual Budget Units Budget Actual (Unfavorable) of Budget .'.RESOURCES" Beginning Fund Balance $8,671,679 $8,185,741 ($485,938) 94.40% Property Taxes $9,582,474 $8,992,250 ($590,224) 93.84% Other Agencies $2,916,735 $1,631,034 ($1,285,701) 55.92% Fees & Charges $1,011,695 $761,487 ($250,208) 75.27% Fines $650,827 $304,994 ($345,833) 46.86% Franchise Fees $2,822,409 $934,963 ($1,887,446) 33.13% Interest & Rentals $204,000 $61,350 ($142,650) 30.07% Other Revenues" $25,000 $10,128 ($14,872) 40.51% Subtotal'CurrentRevenues . $17,213,140 $12,696;206 $4,5:16934) 73:76.% Transfers in from Other Funds $2,677,233 $1,052,826 ($1,624,407) 39.33% Total'Resources.. $28,562052.: $21,934;773 ',:($6,627,279) 76.80%...;: '.REQUIREMENTS: Qperating 'Expenses COMMUNITY SERVICES Police $9,253,956 $4,204,590 $5,049,366 45.44% Library $2,580,733 $1,123,458 $1,457,275 43.53% Social Services $175,800 $113,675 $62,125 64.66% Total, Community 112,010,489• $5,441`;723:' $61'568;766 ,45.31,% PUBLIC WORKS Public Works Administration $759,205 $306,853 $452,352 40.42% Parks Maintenance $1,001,944 $491,478 $510,466 49.05% Street Maintenance $911,193 $415,880 $495,313 45.64% Total Public~Works ; $2,672,342 $11214;211 $1,4581131 45.44% DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Community Development Administration $275,950 $135,634 $140,316 49.15% Current Planning $622,490 $269,659 $352,831 43.32% Long Range Planning $697,412 $264,942 $432,470 37.99% Engineering $1,345,570 $602,335 $743,235 44.76% TotahDevelopmentServices $2;941,,422 $1,272,57.0. $1,668;852 43.26%, POLICY & ADMINISTRATION Mayor & City Council $118,453 $83,779 $34,674 70.73% -FL) Yy1 Administrative Services $237,132 $0 $237,132 0.00% Total,Polic `&.Admin '.$355585' $81779, $271806 23:56°0: TotafOperati6g;Expenses $1,7,,97:9;838 -48;012',283 $9;967;555 44:56%" 6 (C Transfers $4,507,732 $1,671,446 $2,836,286 37.08% Contingency $944,246 $0 $944,246 0.00% Total R646irements $23A311216 $903;729 $13,748;087 '41.33%.'; Ending'Fund'Balance $5,130;236 $12;251;044 :$7,120,808 '238:80:%` t. 0 0 City of Tigard FY 2006-11 Financial Forecast General Fund Projected Ending Fund Balances $10,000,000 $8,000,000 $6.000,000 $4,000,000 $2,000,000 $0 ($2,000,000) ($4,000,000) ($6,000,000) FY 03-04 FY 04-05 FY 05-06 FY 06-07 FY 07-08 FY 08-09 FY 09-10 FY 10-11 ■ Ending Fund Balance City of Tigard FY 2006-11 Financial Forecast Road Funds Projected Ending Fund. Balances $3,000,000 $2,500,000 $2,000,000 $1,500,000 $1,000,000 _ ~ w' gay $500,000 FY 03-04 FY 04-05 FY 05-06 FY 06-07 FY 07-08 FY 08-09 FY 09-10 FY 10-11 o Gas Tax ■ Traffic Improvement Fee o Traffic Improvement Fee US o Street Maintenance Fee .y~ City of Tigard FY 2006-11 Financial Forecast Parks Funds Projected Ending Fund Balances $10,000,000 $9,000,000 $8,000,000 $7,000,000 $6,000,000 $5,000,000 $4,000,000 $3,000,000 $2,000,000 $1,000,000 $0 FY 03-04 FY 04-05 FY 05-06 FY 06-07 FY 07-08 FY 08-09 FY 09-10 FY 10-11 ® Parks Capital a Parks SDC City of Tigard FY 2006-11 Financial Forecast Development Funds Projected Ending Fund Balances $2,000,000 $1,750,000 r $1,500,000 $1,250,000 $1,000,000 $750,000 $500,000 $250,000 : y f FY 03-04 FY 04-05 FY 05-06 FY 06-07 FY 07-08 FY 08-09 FY 09-10 FY 10-11 I D Electrical Inspection ® Building ■ Urban Seruces City of Tigard FY 2006-11 Financial Forecast Water Funds Projected Ending Fund Balances $14,000,000 $12,000,000 $10,000,000 $8,000,000 $6,000,000 $4,000,000 $2,000,000 $0 FY 03-04 FY 04-05 FY 05-06 FY 06-07 FY 07-08 FY 08-09 FY 09-10 FY 10-11 ■ Water ❑ Water SDC ■ Water CIP All-k. Ask City of Tigard FY 2006-11 Financial Forecast Sewer Funds Projected Ending Fund Balances $10,000,000 $9,000,000 $8,000,000 $7,000,000 $6,000,000 $5,000,000 $4,000,000 $3,000,000 $2,000,000 $1,000,000 ' ` r M gyn. ` ~t" : t 2r ? F .77 $0 FY 03-04 FY 04-05 FY 05-06 FY 06-07 FY 07-08 FY 08-09 FY 09-10 FY 10-11 I■ Sanitary o Storm o Water Quality/Quantity f CITY OF TIGARD SOCIAL SERVICE POLICY The City of Tigard's Social Services policy sets the criteria for agencies that provide assistance for mental health, affordable housing, low-income, seniors, youth, education, and victim's programs. CRITERIA FOR ELIGIBILITY TO RECEIVE FUNDS 1. Demonstrate that the agency has been providing service to City of Tigard residents for at least one year prior to the date of application. 2. Be registered with the Internal Revenue Service with a 501(c)(3) not for profit tax status. 3. Be run by a volunteer Board of Directors with representation from the City of Tigard that is reflective of the agency's overall geographic membership and client service. 4. Operate with a balanced budget. 5. Be incorporated in the State of Oregon and be registered to do business here. Note: For FY 2006-07, the amount available for social service grants is $115,255. The total amount of funding in FY 2006-07 for Social Services and Community Events is $164,655, which is .5% of the FY 2005-06 Adopted Operating Budget. CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON 13125 SW HALL BLVD. TIGARD, OREGON 97223 503-639-4171 FY 2006-07 SOCIAL SERVICE FUNDING REQUEST Due: February 3, 2006 Agency Name: Address: City, State, Zip: Contact Name: Telephone Number: E-Mail Address: 1. Request (express in whole dollar amounts only) Cash $ In-Kind Services (use of City property, City staff support, $ etc. Please explain the services requested on a separate sheet) Total Request $ 2. Describe the Agency's mission: 3. What group of citizens in Tigard does your organization target? 4a. What types of services will be provided in the funding request year? 4b. How many Tigard residents will be served? 4c. What percentage of your operation is dedicated to service in Tigard? 5. If you are requesting funds from Tigard and other governments in Oregon, please list them and show the amounts received/requested: Received in Budgeted in Requested in Government FY 2004-05 FY 2005-06 FY 2006-07 6. Have the financial records of the agency for the last fiscal year been audited? Yes No If no, please explain: 7. Please list any in-kind services you are requesting from the City of Tigard. Please estimate the value of these services and show the total in #1 In Kind Service: Estimated Value: 8. Please submit the following information with this request: a. Detailed budget, including FY 2004-05 actual expenditures, FY 2005-06 Adopted Budget, and FY 2006-07 Proposed Budget. The Budget should identify beginning and ending balances, major revenue sources, major expenditure categories, and number of authorized positions. b. Audited financial statements for the last fiscal year. If not available, please explain in #6. C. Names, addresses, occupations, and telephone numbers for your Board of Directors. d. A copy of your 501(c)(3) certification. If not available, please explain. e. A copy of your Articles of Incorporation or Bylaws. Social Services Sub-Committee Proposed Schedule • January 17, 2006 o Joint meeting of Budget Committee and City Council o Social Services Sub-Committee members chosen • February 3, 2006 o Social Service Grant Applications due to the City • February 24, 2006 o Copies of Grant Applications sent to Sub-Committee Members • March 21, 2006 o Joint meeting of Budget Committee and City Council o Presentation by Social Services Grant Recipients on services provided to Tigard residents with previous grant monies • March 2006 (after the 21S) o Social Services Sub-Committee meets to discuss applications and make recommendations • May 2006 o Social Services Sub-Committee reviews proposed grant amounts with Budget Committee o Budget Committee approves grant amounts as a proposed or as revised AGENDA ITEM # 3 FOR AGENDA OF January 17, 2006 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Commuter Rail Station Enhancements PREPARED BY: Phil Nachbar, Snr. Planner DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Whether to provide additional funds to enhance the Tigard Commuter Rail Station, or to accept TriMet's proposed base station and improvements as provided. Since TriMet is now 75% design complete, timing is critical in order to incorporate design modifications and avoid additional costs. Council will review options for Commuter Rail Station Enhancement, and decide which option to pursue. STAFF RECOMMENDATION That Council provide direction as to the type and level of enhancements for the Tigard Station. Direct Staff to obtain design services for conceptual design of specific improvements for further review and approval. INFORMATION SUMMARY TriMet had provided Staff with a modified shelter design that, in Staffs view, is less attractive and passenger friendly than their original design. If an improved design for this very visible Downtown location is desired, the City needs to initiate a design modification process. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Council may choose not to pursue enhancement and accept TriMet's base level of improvements for the Tigard Commuter Rail Station. VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY Goal (Central Business District): The Downtown will provide a gathering place for the community and honor the sense of a small town village. Goal (Community Aesthetics): Identify and implement projects and activities that enhance aesthetic qualities valued by those who live and work in Tigard. Strategy: Balance development and aesthetic needs. Action: Build aesthetic value in all above-ground capital improvements. Goal: Alternative modes of transportation are (will be) available and use is (shall be) maximized. ATTACHMENT LIST Attachment 1: Memo dated December 21, 2005 to Tom Coffee, Community Development Director re: Commuter Rail Station Enhancements Attachment 2: Original Shelter Attachment 3: Revised Shelter Attachment 4: Transit Station Design Elements Working Group Recommendations Attachment 5: Tualatin Example Option A (2 graphics) FISCAL NOTES Costs of improvements range from approximately $100,000 to approximately $400,000. Without identifying the type of improvements and undertaking some conceptual design, costs are uncertain. $75,000 was budgeted for FY05-06 for Downtown Improvements and were earmarked for Commuter Rail Station Enhancements. No funds have been expended to date. In addition to the $75,000, additional funds will be necessary for enhancements to the level desired by Council. 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: 503-684-7297 TO: Tom Coffee, Interim Community Development Director FROM: Phil Nachbar, Senior Planner DATE: December 21, 2005 SUBJECT: Commuter Rail Station Enhancements Background: As part of the overall program for Commuter Rail Station improvements, Tri-Mt budgets and provides funding for a set of basic improvements common to all stations which include a rail station platform, a shelter, a park and ride facility and certain landscape improvements. Any improvements beyond the base station must be funded from other than TriMet sources. Timeframes: TriMet is currently 75% design complete, and anticipates 95% completion by mid- March, with final design documents finished by May. Construction would begin in 2006 and be completed by Spring of 2008. Subsequently, there is a 6-month system test scheduled prior to the start of use by passengers in the Fall of 2008. Because TriMet is finalizing design for the Rail Stations, it is important that any proposed changes beyond the base station improvements be forwarded to TriMet as soon as possible. While TriMet has indicated their willingness to work with communities that would like to enhance their station design, there is a risk of additional costs to a community for change orders to the construction contract, if received after bidding, anticipated in May 2006. TriMet will need some lead time to incorporate community station design changes into their RFP for construction also in May 2006. Costs - Tualatin example: The City of Tualatin has chosen to modify and expand their station platform, shelter, select different materials emphasizing brick, and incorporate a clock tower into their station design. The following is a breakdown of their costs of enhancement to the base station. Additional Station Enhancement Costs: Tualatin Example Jan 24, 2005. Platform (area expanded) $50,000 Shelter 195,000 Clock / Tower 50,000 Design 50,000 Contingency (required) 45,000 $390,000* Maintenance (addt' 1 annual) $10,000 * Cost updated with TriMet Dec 22, '05. Tigard Enhancements to Base Station / Costs: The Downtown Taskforce in conjunction with TriMet and City Staff evaluated design elements for the Commuter Rail Station and provided a set of specific recommendations in February of 2003. This document was adopted by resolution of Council on March 25, 2003 to be forwarded to TriMet as guidance in designing Tigard's Rail Station. In addition, a subcommittee of the Downtown Taskforce came up with specific upgrade recommendations and an approximate budget in March of 2005. Total estimated upgrades at that time were approximately $60,000 but did not address shelter design or size as in the Tualatin example. Conclusions: The Tualatin example provides a solid basis for what Tigard could do in terms of scope and type of Commuter Rail Station enhancements. Although the specific design of the Tigard Station will reflect Tigard's unique station configuration and preferences, the cost estimate of an additional $400,000 is a documented figure for budgeting purposes. NOV-15-2005 13:33 PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION 503 962 2283 P.03 TRINCI MAS PROVIDED 1"17 ORAVINO TO THE OESIpgA AS A GASIS-OT-OC51ON 51ARI INB POINI•omyY, IN (uRN1$N1NC TNIS ORAWINC. TRIVET uAKE.R NO WARRANTY YNAI THC ORAw'NC IS SVITAQLE mp CONSTRUCTION OF THE 0A411CULAR PROjeCT IN IS". TAImET MAKES NO WARRANTY THAT TNIS ORAMINO IS SUITAMA FOR CONSTRUCTION. 11 I$ PROVIKO TO THE OCSId1ER AS A BASIS-OF-CONSTRUCTION ONLY, RIOGE CAP- TURE STEEL R STAINLESS ST ROOF DECKINI PLRL IN-~ Original Shelter STEEL PIPE E SUPPORT, TYL 0 I" PLATE STE O STATION I.D. 5 SEE SIGNAGE 01 SEE SIGNAGE ATTACHMENT NAND HOLE] INSIDE FACE EACH COLUW ELEC. R COMI CONDUIT L I IA TYPE I GUARDRAIL, CON- FRRN 1' TT'P I CAL COMPACTED CONCRETE PA AGGREGATE BASE CEOTEXTILE . EXTERIOR SAND SETTIP GRADE BEAM 71 T.O. PLATFORM SHELTER FOO T PAV ING x' I I 1 i SHELTER PERSPECTI 715MIrr suN-- ® TRI-COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTAT(C -Tmwr ---ga r - TR 1® TMiN In .A.a Acvnna ~o ~T sN1wtlTTTm 0uc AwROr<a TOTAL P.03 NUV-15-2005 13:33 PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION 503 962 2283 P.02 t SHELTER COLUMN TOP COLOR Revised Shelter SMELTER 2 SMELTER • SHELTER J a SHELTER e N ' V fV O N N O O N m d's Z G O r O n 4 D H 5 c u r w 2 N a c c u ® TRI-COUNTY METROPC a IIAL '---ter d -cac~[6' ---~,r,- 1 Transit Station Design elements working rou recommendations - Additional Considerations for local contribu on. Potential "Add" Estimated cost Timing and other considerations Recommended priority Entry Feature at Approximately $21,500 General concept needed before project i s e 1 Main street "includes artist design coordination on all art elements Art sculpture on top $16,500-26,500 depending Needs to be determined before project is scoped to ensure that design can 1 of proposed shelter on whether there is a single accommodate size and weight of sculpture sculpture or multiple interactive elements *includes artist design coordination on all art elements Upgrade pavement $9,000 Needs to be decided prior to project scope. May not be needed if artistic 2 on platform/ *includes artist design elements are colorful and coordinated. Estimated costs could go towards pathway art element coordination on all art elements other artistic elements Upgrade poles to $250 per pole upgrade x 10 = Needs to be done when station is constructed. May not be needed if 3 accommodate $2,500 artistic elements are colorful and coordinated. Tri-met has concerns about flower baskets vandalism of baskets. The sub-committee has concerns about maintenance of the baskets. Brackets for flower $300 per pole bracket pair x Can be added after station construction 4 baskets 10 = $3,000 Community display $3,000-15,000 (depending on 5 case size, lighting, etc Change of Roof NOT RECOMMENDED - Not recommended because N/A pitch for shelter estimated cost - $32,000 - . Weather protection -with a steeper pitch, the rain run-off would be more 70,000 severe and less light would enter. • Style - Photos of historic buildings in the downtown area show that the "traditional" rooflines were not steeply pitched roofs but rather more modest pitched roofs as provided in the existing plans. • Opportunities -with a lower pitched roof, there are opportunities to incorporate more art features that would make the station more of a landmark amenity. Total estimated costs for all recommended additional station elements: $55,500 - $77,500 Estimated cost for the top 2 recommended priority projects (3 projects): $47,000-$57,000 Please note that the estimates for art elements are not based on a specific design and could be reduced or increased depending on funding availability. Tualatin Example -s ~}Syti. ~4 Srd yt ~ Yw i I October 004 Tualatin Commuter Rail Tualatin Example Option A - L = yi - 7 a ~ y 1 L yrti Y a y ~ ~ 4 OS~ . COYT) COMMUTER RAIL STATION OPTIONS Option Est. Cost Additional Shelter Total Cost Comments A: Revised Shelter 0 40,000 40000 Does not meet taskforce recommendations Not "traditional" or preferred design B: Revised Shelter + 20000 40000 60000 Does not meet taskforce recommendations furniture Not "traditional" or preferred design Add benches (4) and windscreens (4) C: Original Shelter 85000 42000 / 12' 170000 Meets Taskforce Recommendations Traditional Shelter Design D: Original Shelter + 120000 42000 / 12' 205000 Meets Taskforce Recommendations modification + furniture Traditional Shelter Design Add benches (4) and windscreens (4) E: New Shelter Design + 375000 NA 375000 Would Meet Taskforce Recommendations furniture Traditional Shelter Design AGENDA ITEM # L4 FOR AGENDA OF January 17, 2006 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY a ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Annexation Policy Discussion PREPARED BY: Gary Pagenstecher DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Review staff memorandum (with attachments) on Annexation Policy and discuss issues. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Provide direction to staff on which Annexation Policy to implement or further develop for additional consideration. INFORMATION SUMMARY The City does not have an annexation plan to guide the timing and location of annexation of Tigard's Urban Service Area as called for in the City's Urban Service Agreement (11-26-02). The Comprehensive Plan policies provide for, but do not facilitate annexation. Therefore, the City is currently reactive to annexation proposals by developers and landowners. As a result, the City is unable to predictably assume its role as the urban service provider within its Urban Service Area. The attached memorandum (Attachment 1) provides the legal framework for annexation, a review of existing City policy related to annexations and related intergovernmental agreements; and four policy options for Council consideration. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED N/A VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY Growth and Growth Management Goal #2: "Urban Services are provided to all citizens within Tigard's urban growth boundary and recipients of services pay their share." Strategy #2: "Adopt criteria that outlines when and under what circumstances areas on Bull Mountain will annex." ATTACHMENT LIST Attachment #1: January 3, 2006 memo to Mayor Dirksen and City Council - City of Tigard Annexation Policy Appendices to Attachment #1 December 15, 2005, Letter from Legislative Counsel to Representative Jerry Krummel Chapter 10, Urbanization, City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan December 2005, Local Focus (LOC), Island Annexations Lawful Under Equal Protection Clause Exhibits: maps showing Annexation History and Prospective Annexation policy options FISCAL NOTES N/A e MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD TO: Mayor Dirksen and City Council rya FROM: Tom Coffee, Community Development Director (l- Gary Pagenstecher, Associate Planner DATE: January 3, 2006 SUBJECT: City Of Tigard Annexation Policy INTRODUCTION The purpose of this memo is to address the City's limited annexation policy and to propose options for the Council to consider to facilitate implementation of the City's urbanization goal. This paper looks briefly at the legal framework of annexation and summarizes the City's current policies and practices. A discussion of the issues follows with options proposed for how the City might proceed. As the City urbanizes and expands into its Urban Services Area, annexation is used to incorporate territory into the City to ensure the efficient provision of municipal services and to incorporate urbanizing lands into the City's political and civic life. The City's annexation policy is included within the Urbanization goal of its Comprehensive Plan, which is mandated by State Statute. The Urbanization goal provides a framework within which all development activities are coordinated. The goal attempts to integrate and balance available land resources in terms of the needs expressed by other goals, namely, Housing, Economy, Public Facilities and Services, Natural Features and Open Space, and Transportation. LEGAL FRAMEWORK State Law (ORS 195 and 222) ORS 195 provides for annexation plans for large unincorporated areas which must be approved by a majority of the voters in the areas to be annexed and the city annexing the area. ORS 222 provides for annexations without a vote through consent agreements from those within the area to be annexed when contiguous to a city boundary. Annexations without a vote, include: a) island annexation when territory is surrounded by the corporate boundaries of the city; consent of the affected property owners is not required; b) consents of all of the owners of land in the territory and not less than 50 percent of the electors; c) consents of owners of the majority of the territory within the area to be annexed and a majority of electors (double majority); d) consents of more than half of the owners of land in the territory, who also own more than half of the land in the contiguous territory, representing more than half of the assessed value (triple majority). 2005 Legislative Chan1jes to State Law The 2005 Legislature made a number of changes to State Annexation Law in response to property owner concern over the authority of cities to annex territory. Annexation by Annexation Plans now clearly require a majority vote of both residents of the city and the residents within the territory to be annexed. The so called "Nike" bill only applies to specific industrial properties that meet specific criteria (does not affect City of Tigard where the unannexed portions of the city contain only land designated residential). In addition, the legislature took away a city's ability to veto the incorporation of territory within three miles of city boundaries. Written Consents to Annex The procedures for annexing without a vote include obtaining: a) written consent to annex by a willing property owner, which is non transferable and valid for one year; or, b) written consent to annex by a willing property owner by contract in exchange for provision of services, which is binding on future property owners and good for a year (unless separate agreement waives the year limitation). When property owners contiguous to the city boundary apply for annexations, simple consents are sufficient. When property owners apply for development of property within the Urban Services Area, but which is not contiguous to the current city boundary, contracts and waivers are used to ensure annexation at some point in the future when the city boundary becomes contiguous (see attached 12-13-05 Ramis/Crew Annexation Consents Memo). These consents are made to fulfill the intent of the City's urbanization goal. The attached letter from Legislative Counsel to Representative Jerry Krummel, dated December 15, 2005, points out that these written consents are a legitimate form of annexation (paragraph 2, page 3). EXISTING CITY POLICY The City's policies on annexation are found in the Comprehensive Plan and are implemented through the Tigard Development Code and ordinances approving several Intergovernmental Agreements. These IGAs are primarily between the City and Washington County, but also include Metro and a number of area service provider districts. Comprehensive Plan Chapter 10 of the Comprehensive Plan (attached) includes the findings, policies and implementation strategies that address a variety of topics related to urbanization, including annexation. The annexation policies describe the process which satisfies the need for efficient, orderly and logical urbanization within the geographical limits of Tigard's Urban Service Area (attached map). These policies, summarized below, include 1) the conditions for annexation, 2) extension of services outside the City limits, and 3) annexation of land outside of the urban growth boundary. The Comprehensive Plan was adopted by ordinance and is the law of the City just as other laws of the municipal code. In Policy 10. 1, prior to annexation, the city must demonstrate that there are adequate water, sewer, drainage, streets, police, and fire protection services to serve the territory to be annexed 2 and that the annexation will not significantly reduce the level of services available to developed and undeveloped land within the city of Tigard. In addition, the City must find that the annexation eliminates an island or will not create an irregular boundary, the police department has commented, the land is located within the Tigard urban planning area and is contiguous to the city boundary, and the annexation can be accommodated by the listed services. In Policy 10.2, the city.shall not approve the extension of city or CWS sewer lines except: a) where applications for annexation for those properties have been submitted to the city; 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. In Policy 10.3, the city shall consider annexation requests outside the Tigard urban planning area and within the urban growth boundary consistent with policies 10.1 and 10.2 and amendment of the agreement between the city and the county. The city shall discourage expansion of the Tigard urban planning area in a manner which would result in an irregular planning area and inefficient provision of public facilities and services. Tigard Development Code The TDC implements the policies in the Comprehensive Plan, stipulating a Type IV approval process and approval criteria that a) require services and facilities are available to the area with sufficient capacity to provide service for the proposed annexation area, and b) that the applicable comprehensive plan policies and implementing ordinance provisions have been satisfied. Intergovernmental Agreements A series of IGAs from the mid-eighties between the City and Washington County have set the management terms for the unincorporated territory within Tigard's UGB regarding provision of urban services and the transfer of service provision upon annexation. The most recent of these agreements, the Urban Planning Area Agreement (7/8/04), identifies the Tigard Urban Service Area (TUSA) and a process for coordinating comprehensive planning and development. Section III.C.1 Annexations, states: The county and city recognize the City as the ultimate service provider of the urban services specified in the Tigard Urban Services Agreement. The County also recognizes the City as the ultimate local governance provider to all the territory in the TUSA, including unincorporated properties. So that all properties within the TUSA will be served by the City, the County and City will be supportive of annexations to the City. Section III.C.3 states: Annexations to the City shall not be limited to an annexation plan and the City and County recognize the right of the City and property owners to annex properties using the other provisions provided by the Oregon Revised Statutes. 3 Administrative Policy Currently, the City does not initiate annexations, but processes requests for annexation by developers and property owners pursuant to the provisions in the Tigard Development Code. However, the City's administrative policy includes sending a letter solicitation to owners in the vicinity of a proposed annexation to join in the annexation. The intent of the solicitation is to create a uniform boundary by including adjacent properties within the proposal to create a more efficient urban services area boundary. The City encourages participation by offering to waive the annexation application fee, which is currently $2,302. The City also advises that if an owner chooses not to participate, but a majority of the surrounding neighbors do choose to do so, their property may involuntarily be annexed by double or triple majority. Involuntary annexation has rarely, if ever, occurred. ANNEXATION POLICY OPTIONS The City does not have an annexation plan to guide the timing and location of annexation of Tigard's Urban Service Area as called for in the City's Urban Service Agreement (11-26-02). The Comprehensive Plan policies provide for, but do not facilitate annexation. Therefore, the City is currently reactive to annexation proposals by developers and landowners. As a result the City is unable to predictably assume its role as the urban service provider within its Urban Service Area. The following four options lay out a graduated approach to annexation for the Council to consider. The options range from the City annexing all of its Urban Service Area to declaring that it will not annex any more territory beyond specified limits (see attached Prospective Annexation Map). Underlying these options is the legal justification cited above for the City to annex all of its Urban Service Area. Aggressive: Develop a strategic plan to annex all of the City's Urban Service Area including Planning Areas 63 and 64. Develop a strategic plan that maps out annexation of all of Tigard's Urban Service Area. As now, rely on consents to annex and waivers of remonstrance for proposed developments. However, be aggressive with the invitations to participate by drawing the rational boundary to include parcels necessary to achieve the annexation goal. If necessary, use cherry stem annexations along key roads to include non contiguous properties. Use involuntary annexation, as allowed, for all parcels that do not participate on invitation. Annex all seven unincorporated islands within the City boundary comprised of 74 lots and totaling 42.4 acres (see attached December 2005 Issue of League of Oregon Cities Local Focus, pages 27/28). Proactive: Actively seek property owners who wish to annex. As now, rely on consents to annex and waivers of remonstrance for proposed developments. However, be proactive with the invitations to participate by drawing the rational service boundary to include a larger territory. Use involuntary annexation, as allowed, for all parcels that do not participate on invitation. Annex all islands. 4 Reactive: Respond to property owner or elector interest. As now, rely on consents to annex and waivers of remonstrance for proposed developments. Continue invitations to participate and include those consenting to annexation. To the extent annexation occurs, urban services would be provided to those seeking them. Only approximately 212 acres have been added since 2000 using the current policy. Inactive: No further annexation of Tigard's Urban Service Area. The area would continue to be served by existing service provider districts. The City would concede the Urban Service Area to other interests and revoke its urban service agreements with the County. The City could focus on developing a sustainable community with an enhanced quality of life within its current boundaries. APPENDICIES December 15, 2005, Letter from Legislative Counsel to Representative Jerry Krummel Chapter 10, Urbanization, City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan December 2005, Local Focus (LOC), Island Annexations Lawful Under Equal Protection Clause Exhibits: maps showing Annexation History and Prospective Annexation policy options 5 Y DAVID W. HEYNDERICKX 900 COURT ST NE S101 ACTING LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL SALEM 08 973014065 (803) 986.1243 FAX (503) 373.1043 a vww.Ic.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 alocal 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.' 1 Metro is assigned coordinative functions otherwise assigned to counties for the area within the metropolitan service district. z ORS 195.020. k:\oprr\07\Ic0018 bhc.doc Representative 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."4 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.' An annexation plan must be submitted to electors for approval.8 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 e 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 Buildina 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 buildin91 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 3 ORS 195.065. 4 ORS 195.020 (4)(c). 5 ORS 195.220. 6 ORS 195.205. 7 ORS 195.215. e OAS 195.235. s ORS 455.020. 10 ORS 455.040. ORS 455.148. kAoprr\07TIc0018 bhc.doc 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). Moprr\071Ic0018 bhc.doc 10. URBANIZATION This chapter addresses the concerns expressed by Statewide Planning Goal # 14: Urbanization, which is "to provide for an orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban land use." The Urbanization goal is important because it develops a framework within which all development activities have to be coordinated, and it integrates and balances all of the other available land resources in terms of the needs expressed by other goals; namely Housing, Economy, Public Facilities and Services, Natural Features and Open Space, and Transportation. The urbanization goal also requires an allocation of land for accommodation of urban expansion during the planning period (1980 - 2000), and development of plans to arrange the orderly and efficient transition from urbanizable land to urban land. The findings, policies and implementation strategies address a variety of topics related to urbanization. Policies describe the process which satisfies the need for efficient, orderly and logical urbanization within the geographical limits of Tigard's Urban Planning Area. Additional information on this topic is available in the "Comprehensive Plan Report: Urbanization." Findings • The City of Tigard grew from 5,302 people in 1970 to 14,286 people in 1980 (Census 1970 & 1980) and the City predicts that Tigard will continue to grow to more than double its current size by the year 2000. The current 1983 population is 18,379. A portion of this increase is due to annexations. • The City limits have expanded by approximately 4.4 square miles since 1970, to its present size of approximately 8.6 square miles. • All lands within the Tigard Urban Planning Area as well as the City Limits have been designated for urban land uses, and are wholly within the Portland Metropolitan Area Urban Growth Boundary. • The Tigard Comprehensive Plan is an active plan, meaning the City plans and designates land uses within the Tigard Urban Planning Area (T.U.P.A.). Washington County retains legal jurisdiction over development proposals, zoning and public improvement projects outside the City limits but within the T.U.P.A. Tigard does have right of review and comment on proposals and projects within the T.U.P.A. • The area within the Tigard Urban Planning Area, but outside the current City Limits, that is not already developed to urban intensities will be made available for urban uses via an Urban Planning Area Agreement between the City of Tigard and Washington County, annexation to the City and subsequent development proposals by the property owners. • The City is committed to providing urban level services, or the coordination of providing these services with the appropriate service districts, to all areas within the city limits boundaries. • The intent of the City is to provide for an orderly and efficient land use pattern and urban services which must be available at the time of development. • The timing, location and expansion of [the] transportation systems are important factors affecting future urbanization. • The desired development and growth pattern for the Tigard Urban Planning Area is to be defined by a growth management system, e.g., extension of services, streets and land use which will guide the timing, type and location of growth. • To assist in the financing of street facilities and improvements, Tigard has imposed a Systems Development Charge (SDC) on new housing development. • Major trunk line sewer service in the Tigard Urban Planning Area is provided by the Unified Sewerage Agency (USA) of Washington County which has assumed this responsibility for the City's as well as that of eastern Washington County; major sewage system since 1970. • 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; 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. 10.2.3 AS A PRECONDITION TO THE APPROVAL OF THE EXTENSION OF SERVICES OUTSIDE THE CITY LIMITS, THE CITY SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT OF REVIEW FOR ALL DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS OUTSIDE THE TIGARD CITY LIMITS BUT WITHIN THE TIGARD URBAN PLANNING AREA (REFERENCE TIGARD'S URBAN PLANNING AREA AGREEMENTS WITH WASHINGTON COUNTY). THE CITY SHALL REQUIRE THAT DEVELOPMENT WILL NOT: a. PRECLUDE THE FURTHER DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTIES TO URBAN DENSITIES AND STANDARDS; OR b. PRECLUDE THE SUBSEQUENT DEVELOPMENT OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES. THIS REVIEW SHALL INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING FACTORS AS SET FORTH IN THE TIGARD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND APPROPRIATE IMPLEMENTATING ORDINANCES: a. LAND USE; b. DENSITY; C. PLACEMENT OF STRUCTURES ON THE SITE; d. STREET ALIGNMENT; AND e. DRAINAGE. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES 1. The City shall encourage all of the urbanizable land within Tigard's Urban Planning Area to be within the City Limits. 2. The City shall direct its annexation policies to conform with and support the City's Comprehensive Plan. 3. The City shall phase annexations to allow for the incorporation of urbanizable land in a manner that is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and the Urban Planning Area Agreement, and to provide for orderly transition of urban services. 4. The City shall work toward establishing a workable, jointly approved growth management agreement with the Washington County. The agreement shall assure that: a. Urban development inside Tigard Urban Planning Area (T.U.P.A.) will be encouraged to annex to the City of Tigard. b. Significant differences between City/County Comprehensive Plan policies are reconciled for the unincorporated areas within the Urban Planning Area (T.U.P.A.). 5. Land use designations, if not already designated, shall be assigned to purposed annexation areas only after a thorough study addressing statewide Planning Goals, and City and neighborhood needs have been completed and adopted by the City. 6. The City shall accept, encourage, and assist in the preparation of annexation proposals of all levels within its Urban Planning Area (UPA). 7. The City shall actively seek to include all "unincorporated island" areas into the city. 8. The City shall provide a capital improvement plan (CIP) that will promote the development of services and facilities in those areas which are most productive in the ability to provide needed housing, jobs and commercial service opportunities in conformance with the policies of the Comprehensive Plan. The CIP shall emphasize the provision of needed services in established districts and those areas passed over by urban development. 9. The City shall cooperate with Washington County and all special districts share in the exchange of information on planning actions which have interjurisdictional impacts. Ample opportunity for review and comment shall be given prior to final action by a city, county or special district policy making body on a matter of mutual concern. 10. The City and County will negotiate the existing Urban Planning Area agreement which responds to the needs of both the City and County. 10.3 ANNEXATION OF LAND OUTSIDE THE URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY POLICIES 10.3.1 THE CITY SHALL CONSIDER ANNEXATION REQUESTS OUTSIDE THE TIGARD URBAN PLANNING AREA AND WITHIN THE URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY CONSISTENT WITH POLICIES 10.1 AND 10.2 AND AMENDMENT OF THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE COUNTY. 10.3.2 THE CITY SHALL DISCOURAGE EXPANSION OF THE TIGARD URBAN PLANNING AREA IN A MANNER WHICH WOULD RESULT IN AN IRREGULAR PLANNING AREA AND INEFFICIENT PROVISION OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES. i United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law; Legal Briefs nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. On appeal to the Court of Appeals, Petitioners argued that ORS 222.750 unconstitutionally denied residents and Island Annexations Lawful property owners in "islanded" territories of the fundamental under Equal Protection Clause right to vote on annexations, and that fundamental right cannot be infringed upon in the absence of a "compelling interest." The Court of Appeals disagreed. Petitioners appealed a LUBA order affirming Beaverton's Under Equal Protection caselaw, government enactments decision to conduct an "island" annexation under ORS that differentiate based on a "suspect" classification or a 222.750. The Court of Appeals rejected all of Petitioners' classification that infringes upon a fundamental right is assignments of error without discussion except one, address- subject to a higher level of judicial scrutiny. However, as ing only Petitioners' argument that ORS 222.750 violates the Court explained, government enactments that do not the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment differentiate based on a suspect class/classification that in- to the Federal Constitution. fringes upon a fundamental right is subject to what is called In this case, Beaverton had initiated proceedings to annex "rational-basis" review. Under that standard, a statute need "islanded" territory in November, 2004. ORS 222.750 not address a "compelling" interest but rather is to be upheld authorizes a city to annex such islanded areas without the as long as it is tied to a "legitimate governmental purpose." consent of residents or property owners within the area. The Court ruled that rational-basis analysis applied, and Accordingly, after providing notice and conducting hear- accordingly rejected Petitioners' argument. "Petitioners' ings, the City annexed the subject territory without holding argument stumbles from the outset, however, because there an election. Petitioners appealed the annexation decision is no fundamental right to vote on municipal annexations." to LUBA. LUBA affirmed the City's decision, and Petition- Citing Mid-County Future Alternatives v. City of Portland, 310 ers appealed to the Court of Appeals. Or. 152, 166, 795 P.2d 541 (1990), the Court found that The Fourteenth Amendment states the following, in part: there is no federal constitutional right to vote on municipal No State shall make or enforce any law which shall elections. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals held that the abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the (continued on next page) creativity integrity skill " servi~rq ectural c _ m Development o - Transportation m Public i o E 7 ti F .s rr - 0 1 c r~ •c f I 44~• v z 00 c F www.otak.com Legal Briefs an election will be held, the decision as to who may vote in continued from page 27 that election is subject to a higher level of judicial scrutiny. ORS 222.750's allowance of island annexations without a However the Court noted that it drew a distinction between vote did not implicate a fundamental right for purposes of deciding who may vote in an election and deciding whether the Equal Protection Clause. an election would be held in the first place. The Petitioners also argued that, even if the Court dis- The Court also analyzed Hussey v. City of Portland, 64 F.3d agreed that there is an absolute fundamental right to vote 1260 (9th Cir. 1995). The plaintiffs in that case challenged on annexations, once the state granted that right to some the constitutionality of a City of Portland ordinance that of- property owners the right could not be denied to other fered a subsidy to residents who signed irrevocable consents property owners. Citing ORS 222.111(5), the Petitioners to annexation. The Court of Appeals distinguished that asserted that since that statute required a vote in some case by explaining that "the Ninth Circuit agreed with the circumstances they were entitled to a right to vote on the city's position that there is no constitutional right to vote subject annexation. This argument was rejected by the on annexation" and found the holding of the case limited Court of Appeals as well. to the idea that once citizens are granted the right to vote The Court noted that it had previously rejected a similar on a matter, the exercise of that vote becomes protected by argument in Sherwood School Dist. 88J v. Washington Cry. the Constitution even though the government body was not Ed., 167 Or. App. 372, 6 P.3d 518, rev. den., 331 Or. 361, required to allow any vote at all. 19 P.3d 354 (2000). That case involved the right to vote on Returning to the Sherwood decision, the Court of Appeals local school boundary changes. The plaintiffs in that case quoted from it extensively. "`As we have noted, the legis- had conceded that they did not have a fundamental con- lature possesses the constitutional right to determine local stitutional right to vote on local school boundary changes, school boundaries with or without an election.... Simply but claimed that once the state permits anyone to vote on because the legislature determines to grant the people the school district boundary changes, it could not deny the power to vote on the issue does not mean that the legisla- right to anyone else without a "compelling" justification. ture cannot change its mind and exercise its constitutional The Court found that, in Sherwood, it had read the appli- authority to decide the matter for itself."' cable caselaw to hold simply that once it is determined that The Court went on to explain that ORS 222.750 involves a determination of whether in a particular circumstance • an election will be held. It further explained that the state a o a a 7 0 ~0 legislature had exercised its constitutional authority to .7 . determine that, in a particular geographic area (where unin- corporated territory is surrounded by a city), annexation of i z that territory may proceed without an election. Therefore, y = P the Court found that the statute treats everyone who falls within the scope of the statute identically. Therefore, because the Court found that ORS 222.750 did . • - • d 0 0 0 ` not involve a classification that infringes upon a fundamental ' right or is otherwise "suspect," it accordingly ruled. that it was subject only to rational-basis review, meaning that it must only be rationally related to a legitimate governmental interest. ry k The Court found that there were a number of rational " !h and legitimate reasons for disparate treatment of islanded i territories, and agreed with LUBA that there were ratio- i7 nal reasons for treating island territories differently than a~ non-island territories. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals concluded ORS 222.750 did not violate the Equal Protec- tion Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. a a Y: - . + f Kane v. City of Beaverton, 202 Or. App. 431, 122 P.3d 137 r. `a: (2005). • offer quality: 7376 SW • Legal • • • .to • • - Ore-don City Portland, OR 97224 Attorn eys Ass6ciatioh, (OCAA), submitted by Pam • www.amec.com Beery: (QCAA Coordinator) and Spencer Parsons • • DECEMBER 00 City offigard Annexation Historv Th;j SyvU - 1991 i hiu 2000 20'"'' Thru 2,105 Urban Sefaice Area Boundary Tigard City :emits - - 5 i et~"'k k ~✓e.~. i ie~{ Ybx'3 ple " i i.. Year Acres Change 1985 5635 1990 6722 1087 8 1995 6884 362 2000 7255 3717 2005 7492 237 1 t I i -tr ! t' j { i City of'figard Prospective Annexation Dty Owned Property j islands Wohm Cdy Ungits Signeo Consent to Wa ver Currently Not Platted Urbar, Service Area Boundary Urban Gremal.. Boundary - "I~gard C.`:ty Limits i UGH crpansmon Areas j i t • From: 503 373 1043 Page: 2/6 Date: 1/10/200066 j3:59:14 PM T ` DAVID W.14EYNDERICKX 900 COURT B7 NE $101 ACT9rKiLLQISIATIVE COtlN80. SALEM OR 97301.1098 (503) OW124 n ~ FAX (NO) OM100 JJiJ1 CC,(.S'st ~ ISO STATE OF OREGON / LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL COMMITTEE January 9, 2006 Representative Jerry Krummel 7544 SW Roanoke Drive N Wilsonville OR 97070 Re: Annexation Dear Representative Krummel: This opinion supersedes our opinion on the same topic dated December 15, 2006, Our answer to question 1 is basically unchanged. Our answer to question 2 is modified; however, we still reach a substantially similar result. You asked two questions relating to landowner consent to annexation. You and your constituents provided several documents for our review of specific concerns 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 plane 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 that a local government may require consent to annexation for providing extraterritorial services. We note, however, that building inspection is not a service generally provided extraterritorially. In unincorporated areas, the county is responsible for providing building inspection services, not a city, When 'a City operates a building inspection program in unincorporated areas pursuant to an intergovernmental agreement with the county, the city does not deliver its own services; rather, the city acts as an agent of the county, delivering services on behalf of the county to the unincorporated territory. A city may require A list of documents reviewed is attached as Appendix 1. 8 ORS 185.215 requires approval of an annexation plan by a majority of the electors of the airy and a separate majority of electors in the territory to be annexed. A majority of electors in the City of Tigard approved the annexation plan; however, the annexation plan was rejected because a majority of electors in the Bull Mountain area did not approve the plan, kAoprrMk0018 1 bhs.doe From: 503 373 1043 Page: 3/6 Date: 1/10/2006 3:59:14 PM Representet va Jerry Krummel ` J January 9, 2006 Page 2 consent to annexation only for delivering Its own services, not for acting as an agent of the appropriate service provider. tUfto Secdcg,6greements ORS chapter 195 provides generally for coordination of comprehensive planning and urban service delivery among focal governments. ORS .195.066 defines "urban services" as sanitary sewers, water, fire protection, parks, open space, recreation and streets, roads and mass transit, ' CountiW are directed to coordinate the process of establishing cooperative agreements between the county, cities and special districts that provide an urban service Pursuant to the cooperative agreement, local ?ovemments 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, parry to the agreement with respect to city or county approval of new development; O 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 availability required as a precondition of annexation and the planned schedule for providing urban services as described in the annexation plan.' An annexation plan must be submitted to electors for approval ,8 Once an annexation plan is approved by the electors, subsequent urban services annexations take effect according to the plane Urban service annexations pursuant to an annexation plan under ORS 196.205 to 195.225 are in addition to other methods of annexation.10 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. We reviewed the Tigard Urban Service Agreement, dated November 26,, 2002, and the official election results for City of Tigard Ballot Measure 3498, which proposed an annexation plan relating to Bull Mountain. Annexation by a city or a special district that provides an urban service 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 the provision of urban services consistent with the unapproved annexation plan as a legal basis for annexation. ngxat'o~ n as a Cora itio of issuange X a B ildin t2ermit 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," 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 s For the area within a metropolitan service district, ORS 195.020 assigns to the diet the coordinative functions ctherMso assigned to a county. ORS 195.020. 6 ORS 195.065. 'ORS 195.020 (4)(c). 7 ORS 185.220. e ORS 195.205. s ORS 195.215. 1°.ORS 195.235. 11 ORS 455,020. Maprr10ft= B 1 bhc.doc From: 503 373 1043 Page: 4/6 Date: 1/1012006 3:59:14 PM Representative Jerry Knnmel January 9,2008- Page 3 requirements are authorized by the director." The director may authorize a local government to administer a building. inspection program.13 As stated in ORS 455.020, the purpose of ORS chapter 455 is: 1) To °promulgate a state . building code to govern the construction, reconstruction, alteration and repair of buildings and other structures and the installation of mechanical devices and equipment therein"; 2) To "require the correction of unsafe conditions caused' by earthquakes in existing buildings"; 3) To "establish uniform performance standards providing reasonable safeguards for health, safety, welfare, comfort and security of the residents. of. this state who are occupants and users of buildings"; and , 4) To "provide for the use of modern methods, devices, materials, techniques and practicable maximum energy conservation." From this statement of purpose, it would appear that a requirement that property owners consent to annexation of property to obtain approval of a building permit for that property is beyond the scope of the building inspection program. Following discussion with your constituents, we understand the question more precisely to be whether a city can require annexation as a condition of approval for a building permit when that requirement has not been legislatively adopted as an ordinance. Setting aside the issue of whether mandated annexation is the kind of local requirement that the Director of the Department of Consumer and Business Services may authorize within the scope of a building inspection program, we note that annexation is a legislative action. By extension, we believe that a general mandate of a municipality requiring consent to annexation for providing extraterritorial services likely also requires legislative action. We do not see that either the City of Tigard or Washington • County has adopted an ordinance requiring annexation or that the director has authorized that local requirement for building permit approval. Ultimately, however, the dispositive issue in this instance appears to be the nature of the services delivered. From our review of the documents identified in Appendix 1, it appears that the City of Tigard does not deliver city services to the unincorporated areas of Washington County. Rathar, pursuant to intergovernmental agreements, the City of Tigard acts as an agent of Washington County and the Tigard Water District to provide building inspection services and water to residents of the county and district, respectively. Except for services delivered pursuant to its intergovernmental agreements to provide services on behalf of the county and the district, it does not appear that the City of Tigard provides city services to residents of Bull Mountain. ORS 222.115 expressly authorizes a city to require a landowner to consent to eventual annexation in exchange for providing extraterritorial services to property. In Bear Creek Valley Sanitary Authority V. City of Medford, the Court of Appeals concludes: In sum, reading ORS 222.115 in the context of the 1991 Act through which it was adopted, we interpret the statute to be the defining source of and limitation on city authority to obtain 12 ORS 466.040. t3 ORS 455.148. ldoprr107Vco0181 bnc.doo From: 503 373 1043 Page: 5/6 Date: 1 /1 012006 3:59:14 PM Ropmwtatlve Jerry Krummel January 9, 2008 Page 4 consents to annexation in exchange for extraterritorial services. We also interpret the statute to allow that procedure to be used by cities only when they are the providers of the services," Because the City of Tigard provides extraterritorial building inspection services to the residents of Bull Mountain pursuant to an intergovernmental agreement with Washington County, we conclude that the city may not use those services as a basis for requiring consent to annexation. 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 HEYNDERICi X Acting Legislative Counsel By B. Harrison Conley Deputy Legislative Counsel 14 130. Or. App. 24. 30-31, 880 P,2d 486, 490 (1994), Moprrt07Uc0018 f btc.ooc From: 503 373 1043 Page: 616 Date: 1/10/20e06 3:59:15 PM Representative Jerry Krummel January 9, 2006 Page 5 Appendix 1 In preparing this opinion, we reviewed documents including but not limited to: • Tigard Urban Service Agreement, dated November 26, 2002, and entered into by: o Washington County; o The City of Tigard; o The Metropolitan Service District rMetro' o Clean Water Services; o Tigard Water District; o Tri•Met: o Tualatin Hills Park and Recreation District; o Tualatin Valley, Fire and Rescue District; and o Tualatin Valley Water District. • Urban Services Intergovernmental' Agreement Between City of Tigard and Washington County, signed September 10, 2002. • Washington County~-Tigard Urban Planning Area Agreement, dated October 2003, • Washington County Bull Mountain Community Plan, Volume X, dated May 27, 2004. Intergovernmental Agreement. Between the City of Tigard and the Tigard Water District for Delivery of Water Service to Territory Within the District Boundaries, dated December 23, 1993. MoprAOM0018 1 bho.doe AGENDA ITEM # S FOR AGENDA OF January 17, 2006 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE REVIEW OF P LIMINARY COUNCIL BUDGET FOR FY 06-07 PREPARED BY Elizabeth A. Newton EPT HEAD OK_ QTY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Council review of the preliminary Mayor and Council FY 06-07 Budget request as prepared by administration staff. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Review the attached summary of the preliminary Council FY 06-07 Budget request and provide direction to staff. INFORMATION SUMMARY The administration staff prepared a preliminary FY 06-07 Council budget for Council review. A listing of the amounts for each account in which funds are requested is attached. The amount requested for most accounts is based upon past expenditure trends and include known costs for items such as Council member stipends, dues, office supplies and copies. There are some exceptions which are summarized below. In the FY 05-06 revised budget, Professional and Contract services was revised to include $10,500 for graphic design services for the City s new logo and $2,000 for a Council facilitator to assist with strategic planning and team building sessions. That cost is not included in the FY 06-07 preliminary budget. The remaining $250 is for interpreter services for the hearing impaired at a Council meeting. If requested, the City is required to provide an interpreter. The miscellaneous expense account in the FY 06-07 preliminary budget includes $8,400 for Family Fest, $5,000 of that for fireworks. That was not included in the FY 05-06 Council budget. In the last three years the adopted Council budget included funds for three (3) Council members to attend the National League of Cities Conference. The average cost for the last three years for 3 members of Council to attend has been $4,685. This year, all 5 Council members plan to attend the NLC Conference of Cities (COC) in Washington, DC The FY 06-07 Preliminary Budget request assumes the highest possible cost for all 5 members to attend the COC The cost of that is $11,435. Should all 5 Councilors choose to attend the NLC in Reno, Nevada instead, the cost would be $7,210. The computer Equipment Fund includes $16,000 for new laptop computers for all of the City Council members and $1,200 for a digital, long playing conference recorder for the City Recorder. The one outstanding issue is the Performance Audit being proposed by the Financial Strategy Task Force. The cost will depend on the scope of the audit. Staff is researching costs for budget purposes and will include the funds in the Mayor and Council budget after conferring with Council. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Provide direction to staff to modify the preliminary request. COUNCIL GOALS AND TIGARD BEYOND TOMORROW STATEMENT Council review of the mayor and council budget impacts the Council 2006 Goal: "Stabilize Financial Picture - Take appropriate action to control costs" by providing Council members the opportunity to ensure the budget request reflects their priorities. ATTACIV ENT LIST Summary of FY 2006-07 Mayor and Council Preliminary Budget Request Comparison of FY 0405, FY 05-06 Actual & Revised Budget FISCAL NOTES N/A is\adm\ciry cmmci \cmmcfl agenda item summaries\2006\ais for council budget 3110 060117.doc I/ 13/06 Mayor & City Council Budget Unit 3110 2006-07 Description Preliminary Request Personal Services Positions 0 Wages $22,500 Overtime $0 Benefits $37,306 Total Personal Services $59,806 Materials & Services Water Costs $0 Professional/ Contract Services $250 Repair & Maintenance $0 Miscellaneous Expense $9,475 Small Tools & Equipment $0 Office Supplies $4500 Advertising & Publicity $1,000 Fees/Dues/Subscriptions $37,225 Travel & Training $14,593 Fuel Expenses $0 Rents & Leases $0 Utilities $0 Insurance $0 Library Materials $0 Total Materials & Services 67,043 Captial Outlay Computer Equipment $16,000 Total Capital Outlay $16,000 Total Budget Unit $142,849 Mayor and City Council Budget Unit 3110 Comparison of FY 04-05, FY 05-06 Actual & Revised Budget and Preliminary Request for FY 06-07 2006-07 2005-06 2005-06 2004-05 3110 Preliminary Request Revised Budget Original Budget Actual Total Budget $142,849 14.2% increase $125,109 18.1% increase $105,953 5.25% increase $100,667 over revised over original over FY 04-05 FY 05-06 budget