07/11/2005 - Packet Parks & Recreation Advisory Board
AGENDA
Monday July 11 , 2005
7:00 p.m.
Tigard Water District Building
8777 SW Burnham Street
The purpose of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board is to
advocate for park and recreation opportunities for a growing Tigard.
1 . Roll Call
2. Approval of Minutes
3. Comments from the audience
4. Council Adopting Criteria and Resolution regarding
Guiding Principles to consider when purchasing park property
5. In Executive Session on June 28, Council reviewed properties
being considered for purchase (Confidential)
6. Recreation/Rec Center/Park-Open Space Property
Presentations
7. Adjourn
i
Land Acquisition Evaluation Matrix/Criteria (To be completed by staff)
NAME OF SITE: ADDRESS
CONTACT: PHONE:
Scale = 1(poor) — 5(good)
1) Location of property: 1 2 3 4 5
2) Acreage: 1 2 3 4 5
3) Accessibility: 1 2 3 4 5
4) Visibility: 1 2 3 4 5
5) Linkage to parks/trails/etc: 1 2 3 4 5
6) Able to be developed: 1 2 3 4 5
7) Usability when developed: 1 2 3 4 5
8) Utilities nearby: yes no
9) Clear title: yes no
10) Does property comply with Park System Master Plan? yes no
(eliminate deficiencies/increase acres per 1,000 pop.)
11) Will there be an adverse impact on parks maintenance? yes no
12) Cultural significance: yes no
13) Are there unique features? yes no
14) Does the property pose a liability? yes no
15) Is an initial intake investment necessary (FTE/$)? yes no
(fencing/clean-up/etc.)
16) Is the land involved in a mitigation situation? yes no
17) Is construction on the property prohibited by land yes no
use regulations? If so, the city establishes that in these
cases, value of parks SDC credits are established at
ten-percent (10%) of the per-acre value of greenway
set forth in the parks SDC methodology ($130,000
per acre) — 10% of$130,000 = $13,000 per acre.
18 Is the land subject to future development? yes no
(This criteria is to be generally used as a tie breaker
when evaluating two or more properties, and all other
aspects being equal).
If any criteria are marked yes,please provide a description and attach to this form.
Process and criteria to be used in determining whether to
recommend to Council to accept or resect an offer to receive
offers of donated land, or to give a developer parks SDC credit
in lieu of charging parks SDCs, or when purchasing land for
park and/or greenway purposes
PROCESS: When the City is offered a land donation, the property owner
must provide the City with a letter setting forth what it is they are proposing
to donate. The land owner must attach the following to the letter:
1) plat of the property
2) lot map
3) topographic map
4) acreage
5) document showing clear title
6) description of utilities on, or nearby the property
7) any known uniqueness of the property
(cultural/trees/wetlands/floodplain/etc.)
8) all pertinent information/calculations related to a request for Parks
SDC credit
If donations are initiated with the Engineering or Community Development
Departments, it is essential that the Parks Division be notified immediately
so this criteria analysis can be completed and a recommendation be made to
Council on whether to accept or reject the offer.
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
RESOLUTION NO. 05-
DRAFT (June 29, 2005)
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING GENERAL GUIDELINES TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CITY
COUNCIL WHEN THEY CONSIDER THE LOCATION AND ACQUISITION OF PARK AND
GREENWAY PROPERTIES
WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council recognizes the need for additional park and greenway properties in
the Tigard community, and
WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council has adopted an annual goal for 2005 to "Identify and Acquire Parks
and Open Space(greenway)," and
WHEREAS,the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board has also been given the task to: a.)evaluate potential
park and greenway needs, b.) obtain public input and support, and c.) make recommendations to the City
Council relating to the funding of these needs, and
WHEREAS, past City Councils elected to not purchase or secure land for parks and greenways outside the
city limits, and
WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to adopt general guidelines and evaluation process to accept donated
property, and/or to accept property offered by developers in lieu of System Development Charges (SDCs)
for parks and greenways, and that the framework presented by staff on April 19, 2005, is deemed adequate,
and
WHEREAS,the City Council recognizes that state law requirements set forth that new development cannot
be forced to pay for any current deficiencies Tigard has in its parks and greenway inventory,
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that: the Tigard City Council directs
staff to:
SECTION 1: Evaluate all park and greenway donation offers and potential property purchase and submit a
staff recommendation to the City Council for each donation and/or property purchase,
SECTION 2: Prioritize the search and evaluation of future park sites to those areas identified as currently
underserved (the City's adopted Park System Master Plan defines "underserved" areas as
areas not within one-half mile of a neighborhood park),
SECTION 3: Use City General Funds for land purchases inside the City limits, and park SDCs to fund
growth, and to purchase property outside the City limits, but within the UGB or UGB
expansion areas,
RESOLUTION NO. 05 -
Page 1
SECTION 4: Look to serve those areas which will become park deficient over time,
SECTION 5: Look to purchase or obtain parcels of land with some size as compared to multiple, non-
contiguous, small parcels if possible,
SECTION 6: Consider and evaluate the acquisition of suitable property outside the City Limits, and
SECTION 7: Consider land banking adequate property for future park development.
SECTION 8: This resolution is effective immediately upon passage.
PASSED: This day of 2005.
Mayor-City of Tigard
ATTEST:
City Recorder- City of Tigard
RESOLUTION NO. 05 -
Page 2
WASHINGTON COUNTY
OREGON
June 28, 2005
DRAFT
PLANNING DIVISION
ISSUE PAPER NO. 15
Park Planning for the Bull Mountain Area
Issue
Through the Planning Division's 2005 work program, the Board of County Commissioners
(Board) directed staff to prepare seven issue papers about planning and park issues in the urban
unincorporated Bull Mountain area. This paper examines how to address park planning for the
urban unincorporated Bull Mountain area in conjunction with Tigard's update of its Park System
Master Plan.
Recommendation
Staff recommends that park planning for the Bull Mountain area should continue to be conducted
by the City of Tigard through its update of the Tigard Park System Master Plan in 2006.
Background
At the Board's request,the Planning Division has prepared seven issue papers that address
different planning and park issues associated with the urban unincorporated Bull Mountain area.
Five of the other issue papers address density,parks funding alternatives,updating the Bull
Mountain Community Plan,planning for the Bull Mountain UGB expansion areas, and
amendments to the Washington County/Tigard Urban Planning Area Agreement.' The seventh
issue paper(IP 14) addresses CPO 413's request for a public facility strategy/development
moratorium for the Bull Mountain area.
In December 2004,the Board and the Tigard City Council held a joint meeting to discuss a
number of issues about the Bull Mountain area that had been raised by residents in the area. The
Board and Council expressed a desire to work together to develop a planning program that could
address residents' concerns,primarily through the upcoming planning efforts of the city. The
Board directed the county Planning Division to prepare Issue Papers 15, 16, 17, 18 and 21 in
consultation with Tigard. The Board asked staff to include in these issue papers an assessment
about how to address identified issues in conjunction with Tigard's update of its Comprehensive
Plan and park master plan, and planning for the Bull Mountain UGB expansion areas.
The focus of this issue paper is park planning for the urban unincorporated Bull Mountain area.
The following paragraphs present a chronology of events regarding park planning for the Bull
Mountain area.
1 IP 16 addresses park funding alternatives;IP 17 addresses decreasing densities;IP 18 addresses planning for the
UGB expansion areas;IP 21 addresses updating the Bull Mountain Community Plan;IP 22 addresses Tigard's
request to amend the UPAA for the UGB expansion areas.
Department of Land Use & Transportation • Planning Division
155 N First Avenue, Suite 350-14, Hillsboro, OR 97124-3072
Phone: (503) 846-3519 • Fax: (503) 846-4412 • www.co.washington.or.us
DRAFT ISSUE PAPER NO. 15
Park Planning for the Bull Mountain Area
June 28,2005
Page 2
• In 1983, the Board adopted the Bull Mountain Community Plan(BMCP). Urban
unincorporated Bull Mountain,which is identified as the "Summit and Slopes Subarea" in
the BMCP, is identified as being park deficient. At the time the BMCP was adopted,
unincorporated Bull Mountain was not within the jurisdictional boundaries of a parks
provider. However, General Design Element 15 of the BMCP required the county to
coordinate with the City of Tigard for park planning and the provision of park and recreation
services in urban unincorporated Bull Mountain.
Also in 1983,the first Washington County/Tigard Urban Planning Area Agreement
(UPAA)was adopted. Per the adopted UPAA, urban unincorporated Bull Mountain was
identified as an Area of Interest within the Tigard Urban Planning Area.
• In 1995, the county, along with Tualatin Hills Park and Recreation Department(THPRD)
and the cities of Hillsboro and Tigard(the park providers for the majority of the urban area),
began to study how best to provide park,recreation and open space services to urban
Washington County through the work to implement the provisions of ORS 195, commonly
referred to as Senate Bill 122. That work designated which local governments would be the
long-term providers of park,recreation and open space services, and defined each provider's
long-term service boundary and park/recreation service principles. The designated park
providers are THPRD and the cities of Hillsboro and Tigard. In 2002, through the Tigard
Urban Service Agreement (TUSA),the City of Tigard was designated as the parks provider
for the area within the Tigard Urban Service Area(the same boundary as Tigard's Urban
Planning Area in the UPAA), which includes urban unincorporated Bull Mountain.
Elements of the countywide park strategy are:
I. Properties will be served by the designated service provider when they are located within
the jurisdictional boundary of Tigard,Hillsboro or THPRD.
2. In THPRD's long term service area,properties subject to development are required to
annex to THPRD prior to final land use approval or issuance of building permits
3. Washington County may serve as an interim provider of park land and recreation
facilities for urban unincorporated properties when specific requirements are met. An
interim funding source for the county to acquire park and open space land could include a
county park system development charge (SDC). The purpose of the county's interim role
is to serve as a bridge, so that immediate funding can be provided for needed park and
recreation facilities in areas under development,until the unincorporated properties are
annexed to the applicable park provider.
4. Before the county could serve as an interim provider to unincorporated properties in the
Tigard and Hillsboro Urban Service Areas,the following requirements must be met: 1)
there be a commitment by the city to serve its long term service area; 2) The city's Park
DRAFT ISSUE PAPER NO. 15
Park Planning for the Bull Mountain Area
June 28,2005
Page 3
Master Plan would address the unincorporated areas in its long-term service area; 3)The
standards for park, recreation and open space services to the unincorporated areas would
be those contained in the city's Park Master Plan; and 4) There be a commitment by the
city to place an annexation plan on the ballot.
• In 1998,the Cache Creek Nature Park site (located within the urban unincorporated Bull
Mountain area)was purchased by the city and county through their allocation of Metro's
Greenspaces funds. The site,under the city's ownership, will be developed in the future by
the city.
• In 1999,the City of Tigard updated its Park System Master Plan. The updated master plan
addressed the unincorporated Bull Mountain area and lands within Tigard's city limits.
• In 2000, the proposal for the Atfalati Recreation Partnership District(Measure 34-23)was
placed on the ballot. The measure proposed to provide recreation facilities and park
improvements in the Tigard and Tualatin areas, and to provide recreation programs. The
measure failed in the November 2000 election. The unincorporated Bull Mountain area,
which is comprised of three precincts, opposed the measure by a range of 58%to 66%of the
voters.
• In 2002,the Tigard Urban Service Agreement(TUSA)was adopted and became effective. In
this agreement, the unincorporated Bull Mountain area was identified as part of the City of
Tigard's urban service area, and the city was designated as the parks provider for the entire
Tigard urban service area. The agreement's park and recreation service principles include:
1) The standards for parks, open space and recreational facilities will be the standards in
Tigard's Park System Master Plan;
2) Updates to Tigard's Park System Master Plan shall address all properties in the Tigard
Urban Service Area.
• In November 2004,the City of Tigard placed a double majority annexation measure on the
ballot for the annexation of Bull Mountain. The Tigard City Council established the Bull
Mountain Annexation Parks and Open Space Task Force in January 2004;the purpose of the
Task Force was to provide additional time for public discussion and review of key benefits of
annexation as it pertained to parks and open spaces. The Task Force developed a Bull
Mountain Parks Concept Plan,which identified potential park sites on Bull Mountain and
provided cost estimates of acquiring and developing the sites. The annexation measure failed
in the November 2004 election.
• In December 2004, the City of Tigard updated its parks SDC methodology and rate. The
SDC update incorporated proposed parks identified in the Bull Mountain Parks Concept
Plan. The city increased its park SDC for a single family dwelling from $1,580 to $3,753,
which is only applicable to new development in the city. The park SDC was increased
DRAFT ISSUE PAPER NO. 15
Park Planning for the Bull Mountain Area
June 28,2005
Page 4
substantially in order to pay for the full expected cost of providing parkland and recreational
facilities for new development in the city and urban unincorporated Bull Mountain. The
analysis for Issue Paper 16,which addresses park funding alternatives, indicates that the
majority(approximately 69%) of the park deficiency on Bull Mountain is due to existing
residential development.
• In 2004,the county began evaluating a proposal(Ordinance 632)that would allow the county
to become an interim provider of park land in unincorporated Bull Mountain. The next
scheduled hearing for Ordinance 632 is July 19, 2005.
• In 2005,the city funded an update of its Park System Master Plan and Capital Improvement
Plan, which will address the entire Tigard Urban Service Area, including the unincorporated
Bull Mountain area. The update will begin in 2006.
• In April 2005,the City of Tigard's Parks and Recreation Department issued a draft List of
Land Acquisition Projects for Fiscal Year 2005—2006. This draft list includes the
acquisition of neighborhood parks, an open space area, and pocket parks that would serve the
urban unincorporated Bull Mountain area.
Analysis
As noted at the beginning of the Background section,the Board directed the county Planning
Division to prepare this issue paper about park planning for the urban unincorporated Bull
Mountain area. The Board asked staff to include in this issue paper an assessment about how to
address the park planning issue in conjunction with Tigard's update of its Park System Master
Plan.
To address the above issue, staff examined several factors. First, staff reviewed the
Comprehensive Framework Plan for the Urban Area and the TUSA, which identify the parks
provider for Bull Mountain. Second, staff compared the county and the city in terms of their
respective park planning expertise and availability of funding for park planning. Third, staff
examined the project scope. Fourth, staff examined the issues of efficiency and economies of
scale in conducting the ark planning. Fifth, s
tafreviewed the park planning efforts that the city
has already undertaken with respect to Bull Mountain. Based on these factors, described in more
detail below, staff concludes that the City of Tigard should continue to conduct the park planning
for the Bull Mountain area through its update of the Tigard Park System Master Plan in 2006.
1) Consistency with the Comprehensive Framework Plan and TUSA. Washington County's
Comprehensive Framework Plan for the Urban Area, and the adopted Tigard Urban Service
Agreement(TUSA), a binding agreement,both specify that the city is the parks provider for
Bull Mountain. In order for the county to conduct park planning for unincorporated Bull
Mountain, amendments to the TUSA and the Framework Plan, specifying the county as a
parks provider, would need to be approved by the City of Tigard and by the Board,
respectively.
DRAFT ISSUE PAPER NO. 15
Park Planning for the Bull Mountain Area
June 28,2005
Page 5
2) Expertise. The City of Tigard has a parks department, and has a Park System Master Plan
and Park Capital Improvement Plan for its entire urban service area, which includes
unincorporated Bull Mountain. The county has not historically been a parks provider and has
neither a parks department nor expertise in parks planning and development.
3) Fundin . The county does not have the revenue to undertake park planning. Existing
homeowners and new development in unincorporated Bull Mountain don't provide funding
for park planning and park provision through a parks SDC or property taxes as city residents
do. Conversely,the city has recently updated its parks SDC methodology and rate and has
funded a Parks System Master Plan update,which is scheduled to begin in 2006. The Parks
System Master Plan update will include parks planning for the Bull Mountain area.
4) Project Scope. The park needs of the entire community in the Tigard Urban Service Area,
not just a part of it, need to be examined as part of the park planning process for Bull
Mountain. This is particularly true since some neighborhood and community parks and
recreational trails that will serve unincorporated Bull Mountain will be located in the City of
Tigard—and vice versa. For example, Tigard's Cache Creek Nature Park site,which is
within urban unincorporated Bull Mountain, will be a park serving both Bull Mountain and
City of Tigard residents. The city,which has already developed a Park System Master Plan
for the Tigard Urban Service Area as mentioned above, is the logical entity to conduct park
planning at the level of the entire urban service area.
renin for he Bull
5 Efficienc It is more efficient for the cit to conduct the ark la o t
y Y p planning
Mountain area asart of the Tigard Park System Master Plan update, which has been
p g Y
recently funded and is scheduled to move forward in 2006. A proposal for the county to
create a separate parks plan for unincorporated Bull Mountain would constitute a duplication
of effort. In addition, due to the county's lack of expertise in park planning, if the county
were to undertake park planning for Bull Mountain,the City of Tigard or a consulting firm
would need to provide assistance and guidance to the county. The county and city's efforts
would also have to be coordinated because much of Bull Mountain is now within the city.
6) Economies of scale. The greatest cost savings is obtained by updating the whole of the
existing master plan for the Tigard Urban Service Area through one process rather than two
separate processes, which would have to be coordinated.
7) City's park planning efforts on behalf of Bull Mountain. The city has invested effort and
funds in parks planning for Bull Mountain, as evidenced by:
• The city's 1999 Park System Master Plan,which includes the Bull Mountain area; the
city's 2004 park SDC methodology update,which incorporates proposed parks identified
through the Bull Mountain Parks Concept Plan;
• The city's acquisition of the Cache Creek Nature Park site;
DRAFT ISSUE PAPER NO. 15
Park Planning for the Bull Mountain Area
June 28,2005
Page 6
• The city will be starting work on an update of its Park System Master Plan in 2006,the
scope of which will include unincorporated Bull Mountain;
• The city is currently working to acquire park land and open space in unincorporated Bull
Mountain, as indicated in the Tigard Parks and Recreation draft List of Land Acquisition
Projects for Fiscal Year 2005—2006.
Therefore,based on the above factors, staff concludes that it is appropriate for the City of Tigard,
rather than the county, to continue to conduct the park planning for Bull Mountain. Given the
city's past and ongoing planning activities on behalf of Bull Mountain, it is unlikely that the city
would wish to amend the park provider provision of the TUSA.
wpshare\2005ord\work program\issue papers\Bull Mt\IP 15\IP 15 park planning final draft 6-28-04
WASHINGTON COUNTY
OREGON
June 28, 2005
DRAFT
PLANNING DIVISION
ISSUE PAPER NO. 16
Potential Funding Alternatives to Provide Parks and
Open Space In the Bull Mountain Area
Issue
Through the Planning Division's 2005 work program, the Board of County Commissioners
(Board) directed staff to prepare seven issue papers about planning and park issues in the urban
unincorporated Bull Mountain area. Issue Paper 15 examined park planning for the Bull
Mountain area. While drafting that paper, staff realized that more analysis was needed on the
issue of providing parks. Issue Paper 16 provides an overview of different funding alternatives
for providing parks and open space in the Bull Mountain area.
Recommendation
The purpose of Issue Paper 16 is to provide information about potential funding alternatives to
provide parks and open space in the Bull Mountain area. Consequently, this paper does not make
any recommendations about the alternatives. However, staff does recommend that future
consideration of a park LID, county park service district or a park and recreation special service
district be contingent upon the submission of a citizen petition requesting the formation of one of
these alternatives.
Background
Urban unincorporated Bull Mountain is identified as the "Summit and Slopes Subarea"in the
Bull Mountain Community Plan(BMCP). The BMCP identifies the subarea as being park
deficient. When the BMCP was adopted in 1983, unincorporated Bull Mountain was not within
the jurisdictional boundaries of a parks provider. However, General Design Element 15 of the
BMCP required the county to coordinate with the City of Tigard for park planning and the
provision of park and recreation services in urban unincorporated Bull Mountain.
In 2002 and 2003, respectively,the Tigard Urban Service Agreement(TUSA) was adopted and
the Comprehensive Framework Plan for the Urban Area(Framework Plan)was amended,both
of which designated the City of Tigard as the parks provider for urban unincorporated Bull
Mountain. The background section of Issue Paper 15 (Park Planning for the Bull Mountain
Area)provides a chronology of events from 1983 to the present,regarding park planning for the
Bull Mountain area.
At the Board's request,the Planning Division has prepared seven issue papers that address
different planning and park issues associated with the urban unincorporated Bull Mountain area.
Five of the other issue papers address density,park planning, updating the Bull Mountain
Department of Land Use & Transportation • Planning Division
155 N First Avenue, Suite 350-14, Hillsboro, OR 97124-3072
Phone: (503) 846-3519 • Fax: (503) 846-4412 • www.co.washington.or.us
DRAFT ISSUE PAPER NO. 16
Potential Park and Open Space Funding Alternatives
June 28,2005
Page 2
Community Plan,planning for the Bull Mountain UGB expansion areas, and amendments to the
Washington County/Tigard Urban Planning Area Agreement.' The seventh issue paper(IP 14)
addresses CPO 4B's request for a public facility strategy/development moratorium for the Bull
Mountain area.
In December 2004, the Board and the Tigard City Council held a joint meeting to discuss a
number of issues about the Bull Mountain area that had been raised by residents in the area. The
Board and Council expressed a desire to work together to develop a planning program that could
address residents' concerns,primarily through the upcoming planning efforts of the city. The
Board directed the county Planning Division to prepare Issue Papers 15, 16, 17, 18, 21 and 22 in
consultation with Tigard staff. The Board asked staff to include in these issue papers an
assessment about how to address identified issues in conjunction with Tigard's update of its
Comprehensive Plan and park master plan, and planning for the Bull Mountain UGB expansion
areas.
Lack of parks on Bull Mountain was identified as a key citizen issue. In addition, Bull Mountain
residents raised the possibility of a local improvement district (LID) to provide parks. Staff
recognizes that at least seven alternatives exist for funding parkland acquisition, development,
and/or operations and maintenance for the park-deficient Bull Mountain area. These alternatives
are:
1) County park LID: A LID is a means of funding construction, operation and maintenance of a
public improvement.
2) County special service district(ORS Ch.451): A county special service district(county
service district) is a district established to provide service facilities in a county or counties.
Examples of county service districts in Washington County are the Enhanced Sheriff s Patrol
District(ESPD),the Urban Road Maintenance District(URMD),the Service District for
Street Lighting(SDL), and Clean Water Services (CWS).
3) Park and recreation special service district(ORS Ch. 266): Park and recreation districts (park
and recreation districts) are municipal corporations formed by communities to provide park
and recreation facilities for the inhabitants. An example of a park district in Washington
County is the Tualatin Hills Park and Recreation District(THPRD).
4) County park system development charge(SDC : A system development charge(SDC) is a
method by which new development is charged to fund the capital improvements needed to
serve that development. In 2004,the county proposed an interim park and recreation SDC
for urban unincorporated Bull Mountain in conjunction with proposed Ordinance 632. The
next scheduled public hearing for Ordinance 632 is on July 19, 2005. The 2004 proposed
park SDC was rejected because it did not reflect the City of Tigard's new park SDC
1 IP 15 addresses park planning issues;IP 17 addresses decreasing densities;IP 18 addresses planning for the UGB
expansion areas;IP 21 addresses updating the Bull Mountain Community Plan;IP 22 addresses Tigard's request to
amend the UPAA for the UGB expansion areas.
DRAFT ISSUE PAPER NO. 16
Potential Park and Open Space Funding Alternatives
June 28,2005
Page 3
methodology report and rates for the Bull Mt. area. Please see pages 22 and 23 for more
information about a county park SDC.
5) Park provision by the City of Tigard: Parkland acquisition, development and maintenance
funded and conducted by the City of Tigard.
6) Joint park provision by the county and the City of Tigard: Parkland acquisition, development
and maintenance jointly funded and conducted by the City of Tigard and Washington
County.
7) Private funding: Private funding mechanisms for parks could include the formation of a non-
profit organization,private corporation, or homeowners association for the purpose of raising
funds for parkland acquisition, development and maintenance.
Staff notes that all of the above park funding alternatives would need to be consistent with local
planning related requirements prior to implementation. In this case, the local planning related
requirements are the county's Comprehensive Framework Plan for the Urban Area(Framework
Plan),the Bull Mountain Community Plan(BMCP), and the Tigard Urban Service Area
Agreement(TUSA). Only the private funding alternative was consistent with all three of the
local requirements. The remaining alternatives were inconsistent with one or more of the three
local requirements, and would require amendments to the Framework Plan, the TUSA, or both
prior to implementation. See Table A,Park Funding Options—Consistency with Planning
Related Requirements, for details about the consistency of each alternative with the planning
related requirements.
Alternatives#1 through#4 (county park LID, county service district,park and recreation special
service district and county park SDQ involve park funding at the county level and will be
examined in more detail in this issue paper. Park funding alternatives#5 and#6, which involve
park funding by the City of Tigard,were not further examined because staff is assuming that the
city would spend its revenue to serve areas within the city limits. Staff is unaware of any city or
park district that spends its revenue to construct facilities outside of its boundary to serve
residents and employees outside its boundary. Staff did not examine private funding alternatives
because they would not involve the county.
Analysis
PARK NEEDS.
Before comparing the four park funding alternatives, it is first necessary to present an assessment
of Bull Mountain's park needs, and the estimated costs associated with those needs. It is
important to point out that the park needs assessment in this issue paper is not an independent
assessment. Because the county is not a parks provider and does not have expertise in park
planning, staff has relied upon the parks provider's plans, as we did in 2004 for THPRD's
ultimate service area.
DRAFT ISSUE PAPER NO. 16
Potential Park and Open Space Funding Alternatives
June 28,2005
Page 4
Table A
Park Fundin Options —Consistenc with Planning Related Requirements
Alternatives Comp.Framework Plan Bull Mt. Community Plan TUSA
Tigard OK OK—county must coordinate with Tigard for NO—Service by
park planning and provision of facilities Tigard is limited
to its city limits
County park SDC NOT CONSISTENT OK—county must coordinate with Tigard for OK
(SDCs may only provide county can't be a provider due to park planning and provision of facilities
capital improvements) lack of an annexation plan'
County LID NOT CONSISTENT OK—county must coordinate with Tigard for NOT
• county can't be a provider due park planning and provision of facilities CONSISTENT—
to lack of an annexation plan' Tigard is the
• Plan only permits interim designated
capital improvements by provider,not the
county 3 county°
County 451 service NOT CONSISTENT OK—county must coordinate with Tigard for Should study
district • county can't be a provider due park planning and provision of facilities feasibility,must
(This option was to lack of an annexation plan' serve entire
designated TUSA'
• Tigard is the desi
previously rejected by g g
voters) provider
• Plan only permits interim
capital improvements by
county'
Park and NOT CONSISTENT OK—county must coordinate with Tigard for Should study
recreation service • Tigard is the designated park planning and provision of facilities feasibility,must
district provider' serve entire
TUSA'
Joint funding by NOT CONSISTENT OK NOT
county & Tigard • county can't be a provider due CONSISTENT—
the lack of an annexation plan' Service by
• Plan only permits interim Tigard is limited
capital improvements by to its city limits
coun 9
'If adopted,Ordinance 632 would eliminate this issue.
3 Must amend the Comp Plan to: a)designate the county as a service provider; b)allow the county to provide
maintenance and operation services;and c)allow the county to be a long term service provider or define an LID as
an interim provision of service.
'Must amend the Tigard Urban Service Agreement(TUSA)to make the county a designated service provider.
5 Must amend the Comp Plan to designate a county park service district as the long term service provider of all park
and rec.services.
6 Must amend the TUSA to designate a county park service district as the service provider.
'Must amend the Comp Plan to designate a park service district as the service provider.
8 Must amend the TUSA to designate a park service district as the service provider.
9 Must amend the Comp Plan to designate the county as a service provider&allow the county to provide
maintenance and operation services.
DRAFT ISSUE PAPER NO. 16
Potential Park and Open Space Funding Alternatives
June 28,2005
Page 5
Because the City of Tigard is the designated parks provider for urban unincorporated Bull
Mountain, staff has relied upon the park planning documents prepared by the city. These
documents are discussed in more detail below.
The park needs assessment below identifies the study area; the quantity, type, and size of needed
parks within the study area; and potential park locations within the study area. The subsequent
section, "Park Costs",provides an estimate of the costs associated with the identified park needs.
Identification of the boundary of the Bull Mountain park study area.
The present limits of urban unincorporated Bull Mountain were the starting point for the
identification of the study area. However,urban unincorporated Bull Mountain is not an entirely
contiguous area. A small number of urban unincorporated Bull Mountain properties are
"islands", surrounded on all sides by properties within the City of Tigard. Two of these "island"
areas were excluded from the proposed study area due to their significant spatial separation from
the proposed Bull Mountain parks locations, which are described in more detail in the following
section. The excluded"island"properties are those urban unincorporated properties located east
of the BPA easement and abutting SW Fern Street, and those urban unincorporated properties
located east of SW 133`d Avenue and north of, and abutting, SW Hood Vista Lane. The resulting
proposed study area is shown in Map A, Bull Mountain Park Study Area.
Identification of the quantity, size and type of Bull Mountain parks to be funded.
In order to identify the appropriate quantity, size, and types of parks that should be funded, staff
has relied in large part on park planning documents prepared by the City of Tigard and the city's
Bull Mountain Annexation Parks and Open Space Task Force. Tigard is the identified park
provider to the area, and its Park System Master Plan and park SDC address the area. Therefore,
staff has relied upon the following documents: the 1999 Tigard Park System Master Plan
(TPSMP), the 2004 Tigard Parks and Recreation System Development Charges Methodology
Update(SDC Methodology Update),the 2004 Bull Mountain Parks Concept Plan (BMPCP).
In addition,the county is aware that a parcel currently owned by the Trust for Public Lands
(TPL) exists within urban unincorporated Bull Mountain, located west of the Cache Creek
Nature Park site. Staff is aware of the community's desire to preserve the TPL site as a Bull
Mountain greenspace. Lastly, staff concluded that a park funding alternative should fund the
development of Tigard's Cache Creek Nature Park site,which was acquired through the Metro
Greenspaces Program by funds designated to Tigard and Washington County for the purchase of
greenspaces.
Identified Park and Recreation Improvements
Based on the above information, staff concluded that each of the four park funding alternatives
would need to fund the acquisition and development of the park and recreation improvements
described below. Approximately 77%of the improvements are needed to serve existing
development in the area.
a) Four neighborhood parks, each approximately 2 - 3 acres in size;
b) BPA powerline linear park trail, approximately 5.4 acres in total area;
C) Powerline pocket parks, totaling approximately 2.5 acres in size;
DRAFT ISSUE PAPER NO. 16
Potential Park and Open Space Funding Alternatives
June 28,2005
Page 6
d) TPL greenspace, approximately 4 acres in size;
e) Development of the 12.15 acre Cache Creek Nature Park site.
Figure 1 is the BMPCP, developed in 2004 by the city's Bull Mountain Annexation Parks and
Open Space Task Force. The BMPCP illustrates proposed locations for the four neighborhood
parks,the BPA powerline linear park trail, and the powerline pocket parks, as well as the
existing location of the Cache Creek Nature Park site.
Consistent with the Framework Plan and the TUSA,the character and proposed improvements of
the above park facilities would be consistent with the Tigard Park System Master Plan (TPSMP).
For example, the TPSMP defines greenspaces as areas of natural quality that protect valuable
natural resources and provide wildlife habitat. Per the TPSMP, greenspace improvements would
be limited to features such as trails,picnic areas, and interpretive signs. Similarly, although
nature parks are not listed as a separate category in the TPSMP, staff has assumed that the Cache
Creek Nature Park site would retain its wooded character, and would ultimately be improved
with trails and perhaps a small-scale interpretive center.
On the other hand,the TPSMP states that the purpose of neighborhood parks and pocket parks is
to provide recreation opportunities. Per the TPSMP and the BMPCP,these types of parks would
feature children's play areas, picnic areas, and sports facilities; that is,they would be developed
to a greater or lesser degree, rather than being retained in their current natural condition, as an
open space area would be retained. Figures 2, 3,4,and 5 are the BMPCP illustrative plans for
neighborhood and pocket parks, showing the more developed character of these parks containing
sports courts and playground areas.
Identification of potential Bull Mountain park sites.
The next step was determining potential locations for the above facilities. The TPSMP and
BMPCP identified generalized neighborhood park locations in the north, south, east and west
quadrants of unincorporated Bull Mountain,but did not identify specific lots as park sites.
However,the city is currently in negotiations to acquire approximately 2 acres of a property
abutting the Cache Creek Nature Park to the north, for a north neighborhood park. The location
of the Cache Creek Nature Park and the potential north neighborhood park site are shown on
Map B, Generalized Potential Park Locations. The Generalized Potential Park Locations map
also shows the generalized locations of the south, east, and west neighborhood parks, as per the
TPSMP and BMPCP; and the proposed powerline linear park, which will be coterminous with
the existing BPA easement. Lastly, the map shows the TPL site, located west of the Cache
Creek Nature Park.
As noted above, specific park sites for the proposed south, east and west neighborhood parks
were not identified in the TPSMP and BMPCP;those plans identified only generalized
neighborhood park locations. To determine whether potential park sites currently exist in the
generalized locations identified in those plans, staff compared the generalized park locations in
the TPSMP and BMPCP with a current map of vacant and redevelopable lands for the Bull
Mountain area, as well as aerial photos of the Bull Mountain area. Properties were identified as
potential neighborhood park sites if they met the following criteria:
Attachment - Listing of Identified Potential Properties
Proposed Park System
Park Type Map ID Number Tax Lot Tax Map Owner Value RMV Acreage Use Master Plan Area
Pocket Park:
1. BPA Node"1" unidentified unidentified unidentified unidentified BPA 1/4-1/2 acre Pocket Park W-3,4
2. BPA Node"2" unidentified unidentified unidentified unidentified BPA 1/4-1/2 acre Pocket Park "
3. BPA Node"3" unidentified unidentified unidentified unidentified BPA 1/4-1/2 acre Pocket Park "
4.Ash Creek Lots(2 potential) 1s125dc00300 Mr. Richards $? SDC credits .2-acres Pocket Park E-3
Neighborhood Park:
5. Price 2s109ac02500 Price 611,000 3-acres N. Park W-7
6. Canterbury 2s111ac02600 Tigard Water District 3-acres N. Park S-2
7. Menlor 2s105db06100 Tigard Water District 382,000 2 to 3-acres N. Park W-1
8. Jack Park Ext. 2s104ad04500 Trigg 705,000 2-acres N. Park W-6
Greenway:
9. TPL 2s105cd00100 Trust for Public Land 1,100 4-acres Greenway W-1
10. Burnham & Main 2s102ac00200 Stevens 952,000 2-4 acres Greenway E-6
11. Ash Creek Estates 1 s125dc00300 Mr. Richards donation 4.5 acres Greenway E-3
12. Shady Lane Property next to 9730 SW Shady Lane 3-acres Greenway E-3
13. Metzger(Hall Blvd) 1.5-acres Greenway E-7
in pre-app for development by
14. Gage Property Don Morrisette 2s112cc00200 Gage Sisters 219,000 3.5-acres Greenway S-5
in pre-app for development by
15. North Dakota (N. Tigard) Don Morrisette 2-acres Greenway C-3,4
16. Wood/Wright Property 2s109dc00601 Wood/Wright 118,000 1.5-acres Greenway W-4
17. Cameron Property 2s109dc01000 Cameron 2.25 acres Greenway W-4
18. 72nd Ave. (South of 99) 5-acres Greenway E-4,6
19. Kalberers Property 2s109dc01200 Kalberers 1,500,000 8.5-acres Greenway W-4
20.Ameri Property 2s109dc00700 Ameri 2,000,000 11+acres Greenway W-4
21. Fowler School Property 1 s134dd01000 TTSD 30+ acres Greenway C-3
22. Cornutt Property
(76th/79th Ave) Cornutt 5+acres Greenway S-5
Community Park: unidentified areas 63 and 64 Park
Linear Park/Trails: unidentified Park/Trail