The URL can be used to link to this page

08/04/2008 - Packet • • Tigard Planning Commission - Roll Call Hearing/Workshop Date: Starting Time: , (> COMMISSIONERS: Jodie Inman (President) VTom Anderson• ✓ Rex Caffall- Margaret Doherty. Karen Fishel, Smart Hasman• v.. Matthew Muldoon Jeremy Vermilyear David Walsh STAFF PRESENT: Dick Bewersdorff Tom Coffee Gary Pagenstecher Ron Bunch Cheryl Caines John Floyd Emily Eng Duane Roberts Kim McMillan Sean Farrelly Gus Duenas 7yrren Wyss Phil Nachbar Marissa Daniels Todd Prager • • 1114 Ill City of Tigard TIGARD Planning Commission — Agenda MEETING DATE: August 4, 2008, 7:00 p.m. MEETING LOCATION: City of Tigard —Town Hall 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 1. CALL TO ORDER 7:00 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL 7:00 p.m. 3. COMMUNICATIONS 7:02 p.m. 4. APPROVE MINUTES 7:10 p.m. 5. WORKSHOP CONTINUED — Goal 14 Urbanization 7:15 p.m. Policy Interest Team 6. OTHER BUSINESS 9:15 p.m. 7. ADJOURNMENT 9:20p.m. PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA—A_ UGUS_T 4, 2008 City of Tigard I 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 I 503-639-4171 I www.tigard-or.gov I Page 1 of 1 • • CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION Meeting Minutes August 4,2008 1. CALL TO ORDER Acting President,Jeremy Vermilyea, called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. The meeting was held in the Tigard Civic Center,Town Hall, at 13125 SW Hall Blvd. 2. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Acting President Vermilyea; Commissioners Anderson, Caffall, Doherty, Fishel, and Hasman. Commissioners Absent: President Inman, Commissioners Muldoon, and Walsh Staff Present: Darren Wyss, Senior Planner;Marissa Daniels,Assistant Planner;Doreen Laughlin,Administrative Specialist II 3. COMMUNICATIONS Doreen Laughlin reported that Councilor Gretchen Buehner will be attending the next meeting and, during the "Communications" time,will talk a bit about her role as Planning Commission Liaison and take any questions the Commissioners may have. Commissioner Caffall reported he is back on Gus Duenas'Transportation Committee. The following run-down of the upcoming Planning Commission schedule was given by staff: • August 18: A Public Hearing on Goal 14—"Urbanization" as well as a workshop on "Introduction/Definitions." • September 15: A Public Hearing on "Introduction/Definitions." • Also noted- the Transportation System Plan will be updated through the course of the next 10 months and out of that will come goals,policies, and recommended action measures that will then be adopted into the Comprehensive Plan. 4. APPROVE MEETING MINUTES Minutes from the 7-21-08 meeting were not yet complete, so two sets of minutes will be up for approval at the next meeting—7-21-08 and 8-4-08. PLANNING COMNIISSION MEETING MINUTES—August 4,2008—Page 1 I:\LRPLN\Doreen\PC\PC Packets for 2008\8-408 Workshop-Urbanization\tpc minutes 8-4-08.doc • • 5. WORKSHOP CONTINUED—Goal 14 Urbanization Vermilyea opened the meeting to continuation of the workshop held on 7-21-08. He said they'd already worked through Goals 14.1 & 14.2, but had not gotten to Goal 14.3, thus it was carried forward to this meeting. He suggested they work through 14.3 and then circle back through 14.1 & 14.2 to see if there's anything they'd like to revisit. The other Commissioners agreed this would be a good plan. The Commissioners reviewed the draft language and made the following recommended changes: Goal 14.3 Change the word residents to "citizens." Policy 1—Reworded to read: "Tigards' policy shall be that cities are the best building blocks of an efficient, stable, & compact urban region, while supporting regional& state growth management, processes, and decisions." Commissioner Vermilyea said that's basically what they are wanting it to say but that at the next meeting they may "clean it up a bit." Policy 2—Put the positive first, negative last—reword to: "The City shall support regional Urban Growth Boundary management decisions that promote the development of an efficient and compact urban form, prevent future unincorporated urban development, and prevent urban sprawl." Policy 3—Change te-be to "that are." Policy 4— Change "The City shall not provide municipal services outside its city limits" to "The City shall fiat only provide municipal services outside within its city limits in the absence of a signed intergovernmental agreement." At this point, Lisa Hamilton-Treick, unincorporated Bull Mountain resident, said she wanted to speak. She had a question regarding the intergovernmental agreement with regard to areas 63 & 64. Staff explained that the policy they're talking about does not refer to any one area specifically—just anything outside City limits. She had general complaints that she believed information coming from the City of Tigard appeared to be scattered and inefficient, as well as disjointed. She said she wished Tigard would stop piecemeal annexations. After Hamilton-Treick spoke, the Commissioners continued reviewing the policies where they'd left off: Policy 5 —Change the approach from negative to positive... change to: "The City shall net only support the formation or expansion of service districts or special county funding levies PLANNING COMNIISSION MEETING MINUTES—August 4,2008—Page 2 I:\LRPLN\Doreen\PC\PC Packets for 2008\8-4-08 Workshop-Urbanization\tpc minutes 8-4-08.doc • • if these actions will not cause the expansion/or intensification of unincorporated urban areas." Recommended Action Measures: i. No changes ii. Capitalize Urban Growth Boundary. iii. Take off first part of sentence: If there arc to be new cities in the Portland e-Encourage the state and Metro to establish criteria for the formation of new municipal governments to ensure they be fiscally sustainable and consistent with state and regional growth management objectives. iv. a. No changes. b. "quality of life needs and-desires of both incorporated and unincorporated residents; and" Strike from measure (Note from the Commissioners to Council: "Should you decide to add `b' back in, please give it some definition so it can be better measured and defined." c. No changes. v. No changes. Having finished with Goal 14.3,Vermilyea called for a short break and said they would go back over the previously looked at Goals 14.1 & 14.2 to see if any further changes needed to be made, and to decide upon the "potential alternatives." Goal 14.1 Policy 1—No changes. Policy 2—No changes. Policy 3 —No changes. Policy 4—The Commissioners like the alternative because they believe it flows better (with a few changes.) The suggestion is to make the following changes: eppese only support & eetld to will not so it would read: The City shall protect the existing and future delivery of City services and oppose only support the formation of any new service district, or expansion of existing districts, that could will not create a conflict within the Tigard Urban Services Area. Policy 5 — (see C & D) A. No changes. B. No changes. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—August 4,2008—Page 3 I:\LRPLN\Doreen\PC\PC Packets for 2008\8-4-08 Workshop-Urbanization\tpc minutes 8-4-08.doc • • C. Provide for coordination of plans and programsto eliminate duplicity and minimize conflict; D. Change rye to ensure that Recommended Action Measures: i. No change ii. Coordinate the review of land use proposals in the Tigard Urban Services Area with Washington County and require mandate annexation of development that requires City services. iii. Capitalize Urban Growth Boundary in second reference. iv. No change v. No change vi. No change Goal 14.2 The Commissioners prefer the first alternative: "Implement the Tigard Urban Services Agreement through all reasonable and necessary steps, including the appropriate annexation of unincorporated properties." Policy 1—Use "for" instead of"on"...zoning designation en for that property. Policy 2—recommended changes: The City shall ensure the that capacity exists, or can be developed, to provide needed urban level services to the an area when approving an annexation. Policy 3—The City shall approve proposed annexations based on findings that the request: can be accommodated by City's public facilities and services; and A. Eliminates an island of unincorporated territory within the City; or B. Is continguous to current City limits and is located within the Tigard Urban Services area. Policy 4—The City shall evaluate and may require, , that parcels adjacent to proposed annexations be included to: Policy 5 —No changes. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—August 4,2008—Page 4 I:\LRPLN\Doreen\PC\PC Packets for 2008\8-4-08 Workshop-Urbanization\tpc minutes 8-4-08.doc • • Recommended Action Measures i. No changes. ii. No changes. iii. No changes. iv. Change "possible" to "necessary" —remove comma after encourage, add comma after "and." "Develop criteria and procedures to encourage,—and,when possible necessary, require owners of adjacent parcels to also annex to the City when neighboring parcel(s) annex." 6. OTHER BUSINESS -None 7. ADJOURNMENT Vermilyea adjourned the meeting at 8:57 p.m. Doreen Laughlin,Administrative tive S. .cialist II LA • L i• ATTES : Acting Pres •ent Jeremy '•e • yea PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES—August 4,2008—Page 5 I:\LRPLN\Doreen\PC\PC Packets for 2008\8-4-08 Workshop-Urbanization\tpc minutes 8-4-08.doc • • R �. f� • MEMORANDUM TIGARD 2027 TO: Planning Commission, Urbanization Policy Interest Team FROM: Darren Wyss, Senior Planner T)50 RE: Urbanization Policy Interest Team Meeting DATE: July 28, 2008 On Monday, August 4th, the Planning Commission will host the next Policy Interest Team (PIT) meeting relating to Statewide Planning Goal 14: Urbanization. Community members will work in collaboration with the Commission to review, edit, and finalize draft goals, policies, and recommended action measures that will be taken through the legislative process. The Commission previously hosted an Urbanization PIT meeting on July 21st. At this meeting, the first two goals of the chapter and their associated policies and recommended action measures were reviewed and edited. The changes made to the language can be found in Attachment 1. At the August 4th meeting, the PIT will be asked to confirm the language in the first two goals, and will also review and edit the language related to the third and final goal of the chapter. Staff is confident that all draft goals, policies, and recommended action measures can be finalized at this meeting. If the PIT is comfortable with final draft language, it will be brought back before the Commission for public hearing on August 18th. Staff has also provided current Comprehensive Plan policies (Attachment 2), a map showing Tigard's planning boundaries (Attachment 3), Statewide Planning Goal 14 language (Attachment 4), and annexation rules/positions (Attachment 5) to give everyone more information relating to the draft language. If you have any questions, please be sure to contact me at darren(a tigard-or.gov or 503-718- _ 2442. See you on Monday the 4th. 1 • • I. TIGARD 2027 City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan Urbanization Policy Interest Team August 4,2008 7:15—9:15 pm Agenda for Meeting#3 7:15—7:25 Welcome Darren Wyss Meeting Objectives Introductions All Roles and Responsibilities 7:25—7:35 Comprehensive Planning Overview Darren Wyss - schedule - role of interest teams - goals/policies/action items 7:35 —8:55 Overview of Draft Language and Commentary Darren Wyss Discussion: All - additions - changes - deletions 8:55—9:15 Overview of Next Meeting Agenda: Darren Wyss Public Hearing for Goal 14 • • r. ., TIGARD 2027 Policy Interest Team Roles and Responsibilities May 22, 2007 Thank you for volunteering to help the City of Tigard define important aspects of our draft Comprehensive Plan policies. When adopted, the Comprehensive Plan will guide our community's planning, actions and investments over the next 20 years. The Comprehensive Plan sets policy direction for the City and should reflect the community's values. As you will see by our agenda, we have a lot to cover in the meetings we have scheduled. The meetings will be facilitated by City staff. We are eager to hear from all of you. Through the course of our work, please adhere to the following: ♦ Attend all meetings. If you are unable to attend, send your comments to staff in advance of the meeting. ♦ Review material provided in advance of the meeting. ♦ Ask questions for information or clarification, not to challenge or intimidate. ♦ Consider all opinions as valid and worthy of respect. ♦ Be willing to learn, compromise, and/or negotiate. ♦ Aim for a consensus that is fair and in the best interest of the community. • • ATTACHMENT 1 Policy Interest Team Meeting #3 Urbanization — Draft Goals, Policies, and Recommended Action Measures Goal: 14.1. Provide and/or coordinate the full range of urban level services to lands and the residents citizens within the Tigard City limits. Goal 14.2 Commentary: The City has an obligation to its citizens to ensure the provision of the best facilities and services the community can fund. Providing services outside of the city limits hinders the City's ability to meet its obligation to its citizens. Policies: 1. The City shall not only approve the extension of City services except: A. where applications for annexation for those properties have been approved; or B. in circumstances where applicable state and county health agencies have declared a potential or imminent health hazard pursuant to ORS 431.705 to 431.760 (Health Hazard Annexation or Service District Formation). Note: This policy was adopted by City Council in November 2007 Policy 1 Commentary: The City of Tigard's position is to not supply urban services outside of its city limits. The simple application for subdivision and/or annexation should not be enough to approve the extension of services,but the approval of the applications must happen first. An exception to the policy is that when it can be proven that a health hazard exists that will be eliminated by the extension of the service. Criteria for identifying a health hazard are located in the Oregon Revised Statutes. However,providing services in the case of a Health Hazard annexation also means that the affected properties must annex to the jurisdiction/agency providing such services. 2. The City shall maintain,and amend when necessary, agreements an Urban Service Amt with Washington County that recognize the City as the ultimate provider of governance and identified services within the Tigard Urban Services Area. Policy 2 Commentary: The City has operated under an Urban Planning Area Agreement with Washington County since 1983 that recognizes Tigard as the ultimate governance provider within the Urban Planning Area (UPA). The current UPA contains the city limits as well as unincorporated areas of Bull Mountain and Metzger. The City also has entered into the Tigard Urban Service Draft Language 1 Goal 14 PIT Meeting#3 7/28/2008 • • Agreement with Washington County. The agreement outlines the role,provision, area, and planning/coordination responsibilities for service providers operating with the Tigard Urban Service Area (TUSA). The Agreement was last updated in July 2006 and again identifies Tigard as the ultimate governance provider to the TUSA,which coincides with the UPA. These agreements have been put into place because of the recognition that cities are better suited to provide urban level services than county government (Oregon Administrative Rules). Maintaining the City's agreements provides the possibility that Tigard may eventually govern new UGB expansions. 3. The City shall, as needed,coordinate and/or participate in planning activities or development decisions within the Tigard Urban Services Area. Policy 3 Commentary: The City needs to be involved in decisions related to growth planning or development applications within the TUSA. This will help to ensure that if the unincorporated lands within the TUSA are annexed, the public facilities and services will be available to serve the planned growth or existing development. Conformance with adopted plans and agreements will also be checked during this process. 4. The City shall oppose formation of any new service district, or expansion of existing districts,within the Tigard Urban Services Area that could conflict with the existing and future delivery of City services. Potential Alternatives The City shall protect the existing and future delivery of City services and oppose the formation of any new service district, or expansion of existing districts, that could create a conflict within the Tigard Urban Services Area. Policy 4 Commentary: The City has a need to protect its rights as an identified urban services provider within the TUSA. The City commits significant staff resources to plan for capital improvement needs and then finances these improvements to better serve its residents. If the plans and facilities are weakened by new or expanded districts, the City and its residents bear any associated financial burdens. Cities already bear inequitable/non-assignable costs imposed by underserved unincorporated urban areas when their residents use city services such as parks, libraries, transportation facilities,public safety, etc. Expanding/creating districts to promote additional unincorporated urban development damages the integrity of intergovernmental service provision and planning agreements and interferes with the City's ability to be efficient and effective in its own services. 5. The City shall enter into and maintain intergovernmental agreements with service districts operating within the Tigard Urban Service Area to: A. Define short and long term service provision roles; Draft Language 2 Goal 14 PIT Meeting#3 7/28/2008 i • B. Specify the terms and conditions of withdrawal of territory from service districts and the transition of capital facility ownership and administration to the City; C. Provide for coordination of plans and programs; and D. Require services are provided consistent with the City's adopted Public Facility Plan. Policy 5 Commentary: It is in the interest of the City to enter into agreements with any service provider operating within the TUSA to ensure everyone is receiving adequate, efficient, and effective services. This includes the planning of services, the need to eliminate duplicity of services thru coordination, and defining the role of the providers. As importantly, the long term service role must also be well defined. This includes the transition of facility ownership and management,when these transfers should take place, and coordination to require service provision is consistent with adopted plans. Recommended Action Measures: i. Regularly review the Tigard Urban Services Agreement with Washington County and amend it as necessary. ii. Coordinate the review of land use proposals in the Tigard Urban Services Area with Washington County and require annexation of development that requires City services. iii. Ensure the City is represented in planning efforts for unincorporated urban lands within the Urban Growth Boundary and in Metro decisions to expand the urban growth boundary. iv. Regularly review existing intergovernmental agreements with service providers operating within the Tigard Urban Services Area and propose amendments as needed. v. Encourage the City, County and service districts to adopt compatible facility design standards. vi. Coordinate the development and implementation of the City's Public Facilities and Capital Improvement Plans with Washington County, service districts and other service providers within the Tigard Urban Services Area. Draft Language 3 Goal 14 PIT Meeting#3 7/28/2008 • • Goal: 14.2. Annex unincorporated properties as opportunities arise in order to implement the Tigard Urban Services Agreement. Potential Alternatives Implement the Tigard Urban Services Agreement through all reasonable and necessary steps, including the appropriate annexation of unincorporated properties. Take all reasonable and necessary steps to implement the Tigard Urban Services Agreement, including annexation of unincorporated properties as opportunities arise. Goal 14.2 Commentary: Tigard has been identified as the ultimate provider of certain urban services with the TUSA. Tigard's position is that cities are better suited to provide urban level services and will welcome voluntary annexations as property owners inquire about the process and services that will be received. Policies: 1. The City shall assign a Tigard zoning district designation to annexed property that most closely conforms to the existing Washington County zoning designation on that property. Policy 1 Commentary: Metro and its regional partners have invested greatly in the planning of the region. This ranges from solid waste removal to transportation planning. In order for these planning efforts to realize their intended outcomes,jurisdictions must cooperate in implementing the assumptions of the efforts. Washington County has adopted a comprehensive plan for its unincorporated areas that assumes a certain level of development in the future. This includes housing and employment allocations that they are obligated to fulfill. When a property annexes to a city,it is important for the planning assumptions to remain intact for the region to function as intended. This is especially true to reduce negative impacts upon the transportation system from higher than planned densities/uses. 2. The City shall ensure the capacity exists, or can be developed, to provide needed urban level services to the area when approving an annexation. Policy 2 Commentary: The City is responsible for the provision of urban services to its residents. An important part of this responsibility is adopting plans and programs to act as a guide. When a property is proposed to be annexed, the City is obligated to analyze current conditions and future plans for services to ensure the capacity exists, or will in the future, to effectively serve the Draft Language 4 Goal 14 PIT Meeting#3 7/28/2008 • • annexed property without diminishing service provision to current residents and their properties. 3. The City shall approve proposed annexations based on findings that the request: A. Eliminates an island of unincorporated territory within the City; or B. Is contiguous to current City limits and is located within the Tigard Urban Services Area;and C. Can be accommodated by City's public facilities and services. Policy 3 Commentary: State law governs the annexation of property in Oregon. Municipalities are allowed to annex islands,based on a number of requirements,without consent of the property owners. This eliminates inefficient provision of services based on fragmented patches of governance. If outside of an island, state law mandates a property be contiguous to the city limits to be eligible for annexation. This again helps to eliminate fragmented governance. In both cases, the annexed properties will now be paying taxes for facilities and services they either already access or would in the future. In addition to following state law, the City must still ensure the capacity exists to accommodate the services and facilities needed for the property. 4. The City shall evaluate and require,when appropriate, parcels adjacent to proposed annexations be included to: A. Avoid creating unincorporated islands within the City; B. Enable public services to be efficiently and effectively extended to the entire area; or C. Implement a concept plan or sub-area master plan that has been approved by the Planning Commission or City Council. Policy 4 Commentary: It is in the City's interest to avoid creating unincorporated islands within the City because of the consequences of fragmented governance and inefficient delivery of services that is associated with islands. When application for annexation is made with the City,requiring properties to join the annexation to eliminate the creation of an island is preferable. Additionally, ensuring public services are being extended efficiently is in the best interest of the City and its residents. Requiring a property to join an annexation to ensure efficient extension of service, or to implement an adopted land use plan for the area is also preferable. 5. The City shall : . .. :.. . -, ; -; -- : - -- - - ..- . ::: : periodically update and/or amend its Public Facility Plan to ensure the predictable and logical provision of urban services for areas anticipated to be within the City Limits. Policy 5 Commentary: State law requires the adoption of a Public Facility Plan for the City of Tigard. Included in the plan are an inventory and assessment of existing systems and an identification of projects needed to support land uses designated in the Comprehensive Plan. The purpose is to ensure a timely, efficient, and orderly arrangement of facilities and services. Draft Language 5 Goal 14 PIT Meeting#3 7/28/2008 • • Recommended Action Measures: i. Periodically review and update the City's annexation methods and encourage property owners within the unincorporated Tigard Urban Services Area to annex based upon the benefits associated of being within the City limits. ii. Clearly communicate and maintain a positive dialog with unincorporated residents within the Tigard Urban Services Area regarding the benefits associated with being a City resident. iii. Utilize and promote incentives, as appropriate, to encourage owners of unincorporated properties to annex to the City. iv. Develop criteria and procedures to encourage, and when possible, require owners of adjacent parcels to also annex to the City when neighboring parcel(s) annex. Goal: 14.3. Promote Ensure Tigard residents'interests are represented and promoted in urban growth boundary expansion and other regional and state growth management decisions. Goal 14.3 Commentary: The City wants access and representation in decisions regarding expansion and growth in the region; essentially our due process rights as a member community must be preserved and used. In addition,Washington County and the state are involved as it pertains to the Urban Reserve and Rural Reserve issues. They must work in tandem with the City to make decisions that affect Tigard residents. The City must have a seat at the table during the decision-making process. For example, urbanization decisions on new UGB lands can have profound impacts on Tigard's Transportation System;negatively affect the City's ability to redevelop its Downtown and Highway 99W Corridor; and further burden City services through unincorporated urban development. Policies: 1. The City shall support Metre regional and state growth management decisions, while promoting policy that to the extent they supports cities as the best building blocks of an efficient, stable, and compact urban region. Policy 1 Commentary: Over the years, in addition to the management of the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB), Metro has become much more involved in other growth management decisions. These are related to the development of a compact urban form, efficient/effective use of Draft Language 6 Goal 14 PIT Meeting#3 7/28/2008 • • infrastructure,natural resource protections, transportation planning, focusing development in centers, corridors, employment lands, etc. The City has agreed with and been involved in the implementation of these principles and needs to continue to be engaged in the regional and state political/growth management discussions. One issue the City has a pressing interest in is the urban level unincorporated development that has taken place in the region, some of which abuts the City's boundaries. The City's position is that cities are better suited to provide urban services. The taxing structures of counties and cities are set up to make cities better suited to provide urban services and implement regional growth management principles. However, this has not stemmed continued unincorporated urban growth. Addressing this issue is important to not only the City of Tigard, but to the region as a whole. 2. The City's support of regional Urban Growth Boundary management decisions shall consider if these actions prevent future unincorporated urban development,prevents urban sprawl, and promotes the development of an efficient and compact urban form. Policy 2 Commentary: One of the primary tools used in Oregon to control sprawl, preserve valuable resource lands, and promote the coordinated and logical provision of public facilities and services is the urban growth boundary. Tigard is located within the Portland Metropolitan Urban Growth Boundary (UGB),where Metro has the responsibility for establishing and managing the UGB in order to accommodate urban growth in the region for the next 20 years. Existing unincorporated urban development presents a problem when UGB expansion is proposed as it may block a city's ability to expand and provide services to new UGB areas. This undermines the position of the region's cities as the best building blocks of an efficient, stable, and compact urban region. 3. The City shall maintain the low-density residential character of its existing single family residential neighborhoods and accommodate more intense urban land uses in its regional and town centers and within major transportation corridors to be consistent with Statewide Planning Goals and the Metro Framework Plan. Policy 3 Commentary: The City and its residents would like to protect existing single-family neighborhoods to retain the low density residential character of much of the community. Seventy percent of Tigard is zoned residential,with low density zoning (7500 square foot minimum lot size or greater) occupying 41.5% of City land. In order for the community to retain this character, a need exists to accommodate more intense urban land uses within its town and regional centers and major transportation corridors. Metro has designated Washington Square as one of nine Regional Centers; all having connections via high-capacity transit and highways. Town Centers (Tigard Downtown) are intended to be a principal center of urban life,while corridors (99W and Hall Blvd) are Draft Language 7 Goal 14 PIT Meeting#3 7/28/2008 • • intended to feature a high-quality pedestrian environment, convenient access to transit, and somewhat higher than current densities. 4. The City shall not provide municipal services outside its city limits. Policy 4 Commentary: City residents pay City taxes,while residents living in unincorporated urban development do not pay City taxes. Based on the principle of equity,Tigard residents should not subsidize services provided outside of the municipal boundary. This includes the maintenance of infrastructure, the provision of staff services, and infrastructure capital improvements. 5. The City shall not support the formation or expansion of service districts or special county funding levies if these actions result in the expansion/or intensification of unincorporated urban areas. Policy 5 Commentary: Expansion and formation of service districts and special levies support unincorporated urbanization, adding to the problems associated with this type of development. The uncontrolled expansion of service districts exacerbates some negative growth management consequences. A significant part of the City's currently identified Urban Planning Area (this includes Metzger and Bull Mt.) has been urbanized in unincorporated Washington County. Key services, mainly sewer services, have been provided by County Service Districts. Public safety has been accommodated to a degree by enhanced Washington County Sheriff's services. The consequence is that residents of these areas use services provided Tigard and other cities that are not provided by the County (parks for example). This situation negates incentives for property owners to annex to the City. The provision urban services by service districts to unincorporated urban lands have negative growth management consequences as stated above. In Tigard's situation, unincorporated development in the Bull Mountain area now separates urban growth areas 63 and 64 from Tigard. Because these areas are not contiguous, they cannot be annexed to the city. Therefore, absent a change in Washington County's policy and state annexation law, the City should not continue to plan to provide services for these areas. Recommended Action Measures: i. Encourage Metro to adopt requirements that new lands added to the Urban Growth Boundary be planned for urbanization by existing cities and annexed prior to development. ii. Work with the state,Metro and other jurisdictions to resolve legislative and jurisdictional policy barriers to city annexation of lands that are within the urban growth boundary. Draft Language 8 Goal 14 PIT Meeting#3 7/28/2008 • • iii. If there are to be new cities in the Portland Metropolitan region, encourage the state and Metro to establish criteria for the formation of new municipal governments to ensure they be fiscally sustainable and consistent with state and regional growth management objectives. iv. Work with Washington County,its cities,Metro and others to address: a. public service equity issues associated with unincorporated urban development; b. quality of life needs and desires of both incorporated and unincorporated residents; and c. preventing blight conditions associated with underserved urban development. v. Participate in state and regional efforts to develop equitable ways to fund public infrastructure needed to provide for existing service needs and support projected employment and population growth. Draft Language 9 Goal 14 PIT Meeting#3 7/28/2008 • • ATTACHMENT 2 . . _ - .:e eee , - et. - - _ - - - - -= - - -= - -• Findings -- - - : , ---- : • - . - • :_ ---- _ • -- ! , - III _ -- = ---- - - = =• annexatiens CPA2008-00006 7 GOAL 14: URBANIZATION CITY OF TIGARD • • d. Provide for a process to extend existing services; and e. Provide a process for annexations of land to the City. limits. 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 * ■ .- . . . . . .- . . . • - • THE CITY OF TIGARD. THE SERVICES ARE: 1. WATER; 2. SEWER; 3. DRAINAGE; CPA2008-00006 8 GOAL 14: URBANIZATION CITY OF TIGARD • • 1. STREETS; 5. POLICE; AND 6. FIRE PROTECTION. b. IF REQUIRED BY AN ADOPTED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM ORDINANCE, THE APPLICANT SHALL SIGN AND RECORD WITH THE-FOLLOWING; I OWING• 1. THE FORMATION OF A LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (L.I.D.) FOR OF THE FOLLOWING: a) WATER; b) SEWER; c) DRAINAGE; AND d) STREETS. 10.1.2 APPROVAL OF PROPOSED ANNEXATIONS OF LAND BY THE CITY SHALL BE . .• • • • _ _ . - . . , • a. THE ANNEXATION ELIMINATES AN EXISTING "POCKET' OR "ISLAND" OF b. THE ANNEXATION WILL NOT CREATE AN IRREGULAR BOUNDARY THAT c. THE POLICE DEPARTMENT HAS COMMENTED UPON THE ANNEXATION; c. THE ANNEXATION CAN BE ACCOM 'e` • _ - - - - - - 10.1.1(3). COUNTY ZONING DESIGNATION, THE CITY OF TIGARD SHALL ASSIGN THE CITY (Roy. Ord. 81 21) CPA2008-00006 9 GOAL,14:URBANIZATION CITY OF TIGARD • • 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 . r . , ■ ,, . ■ * - r • .r C. WHERE THE APPLICABLE STATE OR COUNTY HEALTH AGENCY HAS 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 THAT DEVELOPMENT WILL NOT: a. PRECLUDE THE FURTHER DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTIES TO 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 a. LAND USE; b. DENSITY; c. PLACEMENT OF STRUCTURES ON THE SITE; d. STREET ALIGNMENT;AND e. DRAINAGE. • • CPA2008-00006 10 GOAL 14: URBANIZATION CITY OF TIGARD • • • .. . _■ . . e _ _ . - _ . _ -. •• _ _. _ . . _ POLICIES 10.3.1 THE CITY SHALL CONSIDER ANNEXATION REQUESTS OUTSIDE THE TIGARD - _ _ _ • • _ - e •. _ CONSISTENT WITH POLICIES 10.1 AND 1.0.2 AND AMENDMENT OF THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE COUNTY. . • _ . - . _ a. a e - CPA2008-00006 11 GOAL 14: URBANIZATION CITY OF TIGARD . . . . .. V • : . .. .. . .. • A t 1::,..k:1 1 1 I I..Th. .... .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. : .. .. i'I,1 1:iii I......'. .. .. .. .. . .. 1 1:,t i 1.1(..1:.I 1 ,.......:-: .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .: :i.... .•I :i .i.• .. .. .. . . . : I I..- • I .. .. . „.. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. . . .. .. . . .. . .. .. . •• * .. : : •:..: .. .. . .. .. .. •„: .. .. I•.....1::...' : .. . .. .. .. .. ..... .. .. .;.• • .. .. .. .. .. .. •- i..,'..I: .. .. : • . '„ ..., ....'.,..„• .• '..: •,. I I• .. .. .. .... .. .. . . . . .. -.„ .. . .. .. :..: .. .. : .. . .. .. . .. .. I d 1 .. .. .. Ar...,3,.....1. .. .. .. . .. .. . .. .. . .. .. . .. .. . .. .. .. . .. ... . . .. . .. .. . .. .. . .. . .••• t••• ...1/2M4 . .. .. .. .. 1. .. .. .. .. i .. . . . I . . . . .. .. : .. . .. . : .. : .. .. . . • • ATTACHMENT 4 Oregon's Statewide Planning Goals & Guidelines GOAL 14: URBANIZATION OAR 660-015-0000(14) (Effective April 28, 2006) To provide for an orderly and efficient population forecast coordinated with transition from rural to urban land use, affected local governments; and to accommodate urban population and (2) Demonstrated need for urban employment inside urban housing, employment opportunities, growth boundaries, to ensure efficient livability or uses such as public facilities, use of land, and to provide for livable streets and roads, schools, parks or open communities. space, or any combination of the need categories in this subsection (2). Urban Growth Boundaries In determining need, local Urban growth boundaries shall be government may specify characteristics, established and maintained by cities, such as parcel size, topography or counties and regional governments to proximity, necessary for land to be provide land for urban development suitable for an identified need. needs and to identify and separate urban Prior to expanding an urban and urbanizable land from rural land. growth boundary, local governments shall Establishment and change of urban demonstrate that needs cannot growth boundaries shall be a cooperative reasonably be accommodated on land process among cities, counties and, already inside the urban growth where applicable, regional governments. boundary. An urban growth boundary and amendments to the boundary shall be Boundary Location adopted by all cities within the boundary The location of the urban growth and by the county or counties within boundary and changes to the boundary which the boundary is located, consistent shall be determined by evaluating with intergovernmental agreements, alternative boundary locations consistent except for the Metro regional urban with ORS 197.298 and with consideration growth boundary established pursuant to of the following factors: ORS chapter 268, which shall be adopted (1) Efficient accommodation of or amended by the Metropolitan Service identified land needs; District. (2) Orderly and economic provision of public facilities and services; Land Need (3) Comparative environmental, Establishment and change of energy, economic and social urban growth boundaries shall be based consequences; and on the following: (4) Compatibility of the proposed (1) Demonstrated need to urban uses with nearby agricultural and accommodate long range urban forest activities occurring on farm and population, consistent with a 20-year forest land outside the UGB. 1 • • land, a county may authorize industrial Urbanizable Land development, and accessory uses Land within urban growth subordinate to the industrial development, boundaries shall be considered available in buildings of any size and type, on for urban development consistent with certain lands outside urban growth plans for the provision of urban facilities boundaries specified in ORS 197.713 and and services. Comprehensive plans and 197.714, consistent with the requirements implementing measures shall manage the of those statutes and any applicable use and division of urbanizable land to administrative rules adopted by the maintain its potential for planned urban Commission. development until appropriate public facilities and services are available or GUIDELINES planned. A. PLANNING Unincorporated Communities 1. Plans should designate In unincorporated communities sufficient amounts of urbanizable land to outside urban growth boundaries counties accommodate the need for further urban may approve uses, public facilities and expansion, taking into account (1) the services more intensive than allowed on growth policy of the area; (2) the needs of rural lands by Goal 11 and 14, either by the forecast population; (3) the carrying exception to those goals, or as provided capacity of the planning area; and (4) by commission rules which ensure such open space and recreational needs. uses do not adversely affect agricultural 2. The size of the parcels of and forest operations and interfere with urbanizable land that are converted to the efficient functioning of urban growth urban land should be of adequate boundaries. dimension so as to maximize the utility of the land resource and enable the logical Single-Family Dwellings in Exception and efficient extension of services to such Areas parcels. Notwithstanding the other 3. Plans providing for the transition provisions of this goal, the commission from rural to urban land use should take may by rule provide that this goal does into consideration as to a major not prohibit the development and use of determinant the carrying capacity of the one single-family dwelling on a lot or air, land and water resources of the parcel that: planning area. The land conservation and (a) Was lawfully created; development actions provided for by such (b) Lies outside any acknowledged plans should not exceed the carrying urban growth boundary or unincorporated capacity of such resources. community boundary; 4. Comprehensive plans and (c) Is within an area for which an implementing measures for land inside exception to Statewide Planning Goal 3 urban growth boundaries should or 4 has been acknowledged; and encourage the efficient use of land and (d) Is planned and zoned primarily the development of livable communities. for residential use. B. IMPLEMENTATION Rural Industrial Development 1. The type, location and phasing Notwithstanding other provisions of of public facilities and services are factors this goal restricting urban uses on rural 2 • • which should be utilized to direct urban expansion. 2. The type, design, phasing and location of major public transportation facilities (i.e., all modes: air, marine, rail, mass transit, highways, bicycle and pedestrian) and improvements thereto are factors which should be utilized to support urban expansion into urbanizable areas and restrict it from rural areas. 3. Financial incentives should be provided to assist in maintaining the use and character of lands adjacent to urbanizable areas. 4. Local land use controls and ordinances should be mutually supporting, adopted and enforced to integrate the type, timing and location of public facilities and services in a manner to accommodate increased public demands as urbanizable lands become more urbanized. 5. Additional methods and devices for guiding urban land use should include but not be limited to the following: (1) tax incentives and disincentives; (2) multiple use and joint development practices; (3) fee and less-than-fee acquisition techniques; and (4) capital improvement programming. 6. Plans should provide for a detailed management program to assign respective implementation roles and responsibilities to those governmental bodies operating in the planning area and having interests in carrying out the goal. 3 • • ATTACHMENT 5 3 . A N N E X A T I O N revisions to the Urban Planning Area, which now includes unincorporated Bull Mountain and unincorporated Metzger; removal and addition of policies regarding annexation; and the inclusion of a section addressing Murray Boulevard. Regarding annexation, the UPAA initially included conditions that allowed or limited the City's ability to annex lands in the Area of Interest. The current agreement no longer includes those conditions. It focuses primarily on service provision and transfer of services upon annexation, including naming the annexation plan method as the most appropriate method of annexing properties to the City (although it does not preclude individual annexations). The TUSA (also referred to as the SB 122 agreement) was adopted in 2004 and relates to the long- term provision of services to the covered areas. The Tigard Urban Service Agreement was amended in July 2006. The Urban Services Intergovernmental Agreement (USIGA) was first adopted in 1997 and amended in 2002. It related to the provision of land development, building, code enforcement, and engineering permits through the City on behalf of the county to the unincorporated Urban Services Area. The concept was developed through the UPAA as an attempt to provide enhanced customer service to the urban unincorporated population in Tigard and reduce the cost of providing services. In March, 2006, Tigard City Council voted unanimously to terminate the USIGA after concluding that conditions have changed and the IGA is no longer a benefit to the City. Termination was effective on June 30, 2006. Washington County is now responsible for providing development review and building inspection services in the Bull Mountain Urban Services Area. Map 6-4 shows the shared boundary of the Tigard Urban Planning Area and the Tigard Urban Services Area. B. RECENT ANNEXATIONS (1983-2007) From 1983 to 2007 there were 5583.63 Table 6-6:Annexation and Buildable Lands Inventory acres of land added to the municipal city Number of Acres Lots Acres on Percentage limits through annexation. Table 6-1 Year Annexations Annexed Annexed BLI on BLI 2007 4 45.29 23 27.63 61.01% lists the acres annexed to the City from 2006 3 38.96 11 0 0.00% 1983 to 2007. 2005 4 47.58 65 28.93 60.80% 2004 3 94.98 16 35.45 37.32% 2003 2 4.21 3 1.94 46.08% Most notably, the City of Tigard 2002 4 64.63 16 46.41 71.81% annexed what is known as the south Total 295.65 140.36 47.48% Metzger area in 1987, including Source:Tigard Community Development,2008 Washington Square. To protect the City's border in 1986, the City of Tigard unsuccessfully tried to annex the entire south Metzger area. In 1987 the City redrew the boundaries to include the eastern Growth & Development Page 6-32 Tigard 2007 • • 3 . A N N E XA T I O N area and along Hwy 217, where residents had voted in favor of the annexation in 1986. Promising maintenance and urban services, the City was able to successfully annex this area in 1987. The City was also able to sway Washington Square away from Beaverton as part of the same vote by offering a property tax phase-in. Also notable is the Walnut Island Annexation (ZCA 1999-00006 through ZCA 1999-00020) in 2000. Tigard City Council initiated the annexation of 15 areas completely surrounded by the Tigard City Limits. The annexation contained 497 tax lots, 383 houses, and 1,034 people. The islands were located south of Walnut Street, north of Bull Mountain Rd., west of Hwy 99W, and east of the Bonneville Administration power lines that run north south over Bull Mountain. In 2004 Tigard's Bull Mountain annexation effort failed using the "double majority" method. 65% of City residents passed the proposed annexation, while only 11% of Bull Mountain voters did. In 2006, an incorporation effort to create the City of Bull Mountain also failed. Figure 6-2 details the annexation and incorporation efforts. The City recognizes that current circumstances may prevent the City from ever reaching the intent of the Tigard Urban Planning Area Agreement. C. CURRENT ANNEXATION 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 (IGAs). These IGAs are primarily between the City and Washington County, but also include Metro and a number of area service provider districts. 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 (8/8/2006), 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 Growth & Development Page 6-33 Tigard 2007 • • ■ 3 . A N N E X A T I O N 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 rights of the City and property owners to annex properties using the other provisions provided by the Oregon Revised Statutes. Administrative Policy In 2006 Council determined that the City should have a neutral approach towards annexation. In other words, the City would neither promote nor discourage annexation. Instead, Council's position was that the City would receive and process annexation applications as they occurred. However, to lessen the financial burden on applicants, Council approved waiver of the annexation fee for the period July 1, 2006 to February, 2008. On March 13, 2007 Resolution 07-13 was adopted by City Council and contained the following policy on annexation: • The City shall not resort to involuntary annexation of unincorporated land, except in cases where it is found that such action is in the overall City's interest, such as to resolve public safety and/or health issues where it is necessary to extend or provide essential City services consistent with an adopted Community Investment Plan (CIP) or Public Facility Plan (PFP), and/or resolve incongruous municipal boundaries. • Tigard shall work with other cities, Washington County, Metro, and the state to promote regional and statewide policies and actions that recognize that logical, efficient and economically sustainable urban development can best occur in existing incorporated cities. • The City shall proactively promote the benefits of being within the municipal City limits and invite owners of unincorporated properties to voluntarily join the City. However, each annexation shall be evaluated on its own merits to ensure it is in the • City's overall interests. • The City shall communicate with, and otherwise work directly with, those that express voluntary interest in annexation to facilitate the annexation process. This shall include providing incentives to annex such as the following: • Waiver of the City annexation application fee • Phasing in of increased property taxes for properties that annex Growth & Development Page 6-34 Tigard 2007 Figure.6-2: Bull Mountain Annexation and Incorporation Effort Timeline "- 1983 The City — 1 983 Washington '•-. '7!;/ of Tigard and County and �, Washington Bull Mountain . :' `..-0..," _;u • .: County sign an Residents develop 'F.1,11.1/4-:,..• ; •': Urban Planning the Bull Mountain Area Agreement Community Plan 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1906 The City ::. :•_ .•i` .;'. ,'t ,t ' of Tigard and t'''‘..:P.-.'‘,1/4.,� 3 Washington ;41' rx ;x ••County sign an ` • Urban Services _ ..�,-2.-.•,..'-...-......::::,..; l Agreement r 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2001 Tigard City""'2001 Bull Mountain Proposed City (B IMo n. 5--- 20))6 City of Bull'"""'2006 Bull Mountain Council establishes Annexation Study Mountain Economic Incorporation Vote: a goal to develop completed.Study -°'F •. P g P P Y ?��"��'' Feasibility Study 48 percent-in favor and annexation examined the costs and -c "::' (June). of incorporation policy/strategy for benefits of annexation 1 :: r- and 1,864 votes-or unincorporated for Tigard. r� '. _tt. Washington • areas. 2003 Public -° F` County Bard of 52 percent against Facilities and _ (November). Commissioners Services Assesment M`� place Bull Mountain �""`" Report for the Bull P Incorporation Mountain Area request on ballot W ~ complete. (August). . • I 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 L 'oN1'Public 201)4 Bull Mountain—2004 Tigard City— 2004 Vote on opinion survey of To Builto°""'" ono" 'G f' P Y Annexation Plan Council Accepts Bull Mountain - ►,.� `' ' + Tigard and Bull completed(July) Annexation Plan Annexation:65% tic • �I P U Y) �...LtV Mountain residents �� ; � (Res.04-59)and of City residents � ��i- • k on annexation. 201)4 Formation o �' Eao;: ` of Friends of Bull sends the decision pass,only 11% +u'u•• A STEP TOWARD COMPTSTTNC to the voters(Res. of Bull Mountain OUR COMMUNITY- Mountain. 04-60)(August). residents did CTO•TIGW (November). ,t'.1... ;\•_::-.1..'...?,*„.-...,...;.. . , and • , ; ;. ' ;. .•_, �;- �', ? • ",` Planning 6 an , - >r ! .- Urban Services �!. •,,,, ✓ ,. ( Area -I _ j P i� ... Tigard 2007 • j� ....._ �4! 1 , ... Co Plan Report j' r �,,'i L 0 . i��._ `.i._._..it..\ .I f Tigard C t . PY :;` f Comp o Ti ap %',.. .. -, `�, Oregon j Boundary of EN6 - ., 1417 ,, \' _ °R` �; Tigard Urban .4110 q`�� ' RE B �_...... i �� ,� p Area . q--� Agreement t._..J k nntng - •, `, _. and Aur i < `� 5 "' 5 - Tigard Urban j`� N 1P0, ,. " – Services ' 4,...,:r 1 �,, /• Agreement v r` ., • 1 , n Stream :• . .,� j ` 1� ,1 � Water L. . 4; / ,/, _. _. ..• 1 —_- Major Street • qp , i . ;..-1 ,r o . Street r� RUU �, i1 5 ..-..,., Railroad• .' I I 1 , 1 V BONITA „0.O I�........., .. i , ao •7.7. __ I. I NOU NTAIN I V • 2 i ( .. , City of Tigard 'to 41111 • . p�,nl I ! Fo i w . • /, { ••m.r rm.w.tmte:o,tea an this map o.f.rw a, < '. ... i ''..! ll .hme 15,201<.Revisions will Ee made en new acc on.� , . : i a l 26r.madmems occur m alle the wnlrnl of the mop. t• , , a - � gar,•�u i I , •'.DEF.F 1 •' ` .I I i ea—IT—AM ,`O I j 11 \ \ • '1 4s e.-.7.A \ � I I L.f.. .. t. . . a:: • yl;. .. , • i ��.,,1.. .' i_.._f_.... 1.-�• - _ �+- -�7.m' � - 1• .�.�"''c . I ..-I '-..14 _!__-.. -1m t. s',j'r ...._ mtw n7.:,::rx.c.:u:..-..,_,..um"i..w,14._..17■ j1:.._.:._. I- _. -' I — .147.171 r , ,„„.,..„.,.,. , : \ ••• .„,. ..., • • 3 . A N N E XA T I O N • Council will review the annexation policy and the offer of incentives to individual property owners who voluntarily annex to the City. Resolution 07-13 has been amended twice to expand the offer of incentives. Resolution 07-47 expanded the offer of incentives to include City payment of the Metro Mapping/Filing Fee. City Council voted to extend the offer of incentives during their annual review of the annexation Policy. Resolution 08-12 extends the offer of all incentives to property owners who annex prior to February 2009. The incentives include: • Waiver of the City Annexation Application Fee (currently $2,498); • Phasing in of increased property taxes at the rate of 33% the first year, 67% the second, and 100% the third year; • City payment of the Metro Mapping/Filing Fee; • Waiver of the Pre-Application Conference Fee to property owners who desire to annex to the City of Tigard; and • Assistance with the preparation of surveys, not to include field survey work. Growth & Development Page 6-35 Tigard 2007 • • 3 . A N N E X A T I O N K E Y F I N D I N G S • 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. • 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 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. • Tigard has operated under three agreements with Washington County: The Urban Planning Area Agreement (UPAA), The Tigard Urban Services Agreement (TUSA), and the Urban Services Intergovernmental Agreement (USIA). • The Tigard Urban Planning Area Agreement dates back to 1983. The UPAA currently states that 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. • The Urban Planning Area is a mapped area including both unincorporated Washington County and incorporated Tigard. Both the Metzger and Bull Mountain area were part of the "Area of Interest" (AOI), where the City maintained an interest in County development/planning activities due to its proximity and possible effects on the City. • The AOI also represented the area that could be annexed to Tigard; i.e., unincorporated land located within the Metro Urban Growth Boundary. • The Tigard Urban Service Agreement was adopted in 2004 and relates to the long-term provision of services to the covered areas. The Agreement was amended in July 2006. • The Urban Services Intergovernmental Agreement was first adopted in 1997, amended in 2002, and terminated in 2006. It related to the provision of land development, building, code enforcement, and engineering permits through the City on behalf of the county to the unincorporated Urban Services Area. • From 1983 to 2007 there were 5583.63 acres of land added to the municipal city limits through annexation. Most notably, the City of Tigard annexed what is known as the south Metzger area in 1987. Also notable is the Walnut Island Annexation (ZCA 1999-00006 through ZCA 1999- 00020) in 2000. • In 2004, Tigard's Bull Mountain annexation effort failed using the "double majority" method. In 2006 an incorporation effort to create the City of Bull Mountain also failed. • The City recognizes that current circumstances may prevent the City from ever reaching the intent of the Tigard Urban Planning Area Agreement. • On March 13, 2007 Resolution 07-13 was adopted by City Council and contained the current annexation policy. Resolution 07-13 has been amended twice to expand the offer of incentives to property owners who choose to annex to the City. Growth & Development Page 6-36 Tigard 2007