MINUTES WASHINGTON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS JUNE 3, 2014

Transcription

1 MINUTES WASHINGTON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS JUNE 3, 2014 CONVENED: 10:05 a.m. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS: Chairman Andy Duyck Vice Chair Bob Terry Commissioner Dick Schouten Commissioner Greg Malinowski Commissioner Roy Rogers STAFF: Robert Davis, County Administrator Alan Rappleyea, County Counsel Bill Gaffi, General Manager, CWS Andrew Singelakis, Director, LUT Dave Schamp, Division Manager, LUT-Operations/Maintenance Stephen Roberts, LUT Office of Director, Administrative Svcs. Val Valfre, Housing Services Philip Bransford, County Administrative Office Julie McCloud, County Administrative Office Mary Gruss, Chief Finance Officer Todd Watkins, Principal Engineer, LUT-Operations/Maintenance Jim Thiessen, Audiovisual Technician Ana Noyola, Alternate Clerk of the Board Minutes by Michelle Rubio PRESS: Simina Mistreanu, The Oregonian 1. ORAL COMMUNICATION (2-MINUTE OPPORTUNITY) Betty Storey, 5520 NE Hidden Creek Drive #101, Hillsboro, Oregon 97123, asked for an update on the medical marijuana issue as she hadn t heard anything since the temporary moratorium was passed. Chair Duyck asked County Counsel, Alan Rappleyea to respond. Alan Rappleyea explained there are Charter provisions that outline how ordinances are enacted. He stated first the County needs to provide notice on an issue, bring it to the Planning

2 Commission who then makes a recommendation to the Washington County Board of Commissioners. He noted the medical marijuana issue has been placed on the work program but it s one of several which compete for staff time but it is currently being worked upon. Mr. Rappleyea asked Andrew Singelakis if there was a timeline on when this item would be coming back to the Planning Commission. Andrew Singelakis said staff is currently meeting with Board members and after that time the ordinance will be produced sometime before October. Mr. Rappleyea said after an ordinance is filed and the Planning Commission comments on it, it goes forward to the Board of Commissioners where they will adopt, change or reject the ordinance. Chair Duyck noted at each step there are opportunities for public testimony. Betty Storey asked if there is a way to work together to get this issue done as fast as the ban was passed. Vice Chair Terry explained that the Board did not pass a ban but rather tabled it to allow time to study the issue, since it arrived quickly from the Legislature. Chair Duyck added that the moratorium is temporary. The County is coordinating with other jurisdictions to determine time, place and manner regulations. He said they have to carefully craft the language in the ordinance as it can have far reaching consequences if it isn t worded correctly, and that takes time. Commissioner Malinowski asked if the next public opportunity to speak would be when the Planning Commission addresses this topic. Andrew Singelakis answered yes. Commissioner Malinowski asked for a specific date this topic would be on the Planning Commission agenda. Andrew Singelakis said he would get that information to the Board. Commissioner Malinowski encouraged the public to testify what it wants to see in the ordinance when the Planning Commission addresses this topic. When changes are made at that level, it provides a more complete ordinance, which allows a more expedient adoption. Betty Storey asked if the public should come and explain what they think the ordinance should include. Commissioner Malinowski explained that the public forum would take place during the Planning Commission s public comments period.

3 Betty Storey requested the Planning Commission s meeting schedule. Chair Duyck said staff could provide that information. Mr. Singelakis informed that Wayne Hason is the contact and asked Ms. Story to leave her contact information for him. Claudia Lavander, Westside Wellness, testified that she closed Westside Wellness to comply with the moratorium. She urged the Board to help the County patients by moving the ordinance forward. In the 12 days the facility was open, 225 new faces arrived. She explained that there are people dying in the community that need access to this medication. She also shared that this facility took in $26,000 during its 12 days of operation. She noted the lack of funding in the County and proposed a 25 cent transaction fee on medical marijuana facilities to provide the County with an additional source of income. She implored the Board to work with her and others to get this settled sooner rather than later as people will die in 90 days without this medication. She shared the struggle her business faces in directing patients to another County because some of them don t have the means to travel. She had proposed forming a Washington County Cannabis Standards Ethics and Advisory Committee to work with the Board. During its operation, the facility has shown no issues with crime, violence, minors or loitering. She pleaded for expediency with this ordinance as they ve invested their life savings and face bankruptcy and the possibility of losing their home if they can t reopen their business as soon as possible. She thanked the Board for its time. 2. CONSENT AGENDA Commissioner Rogers announced that he serves on the Board of Work Systems Inc. County Counsel noted there is no conflict of interest in regards to item 2.j., and he will be allowed to vote. It was moved to adopt the Consent Agenda. Motion Rogers 2 nd Terry MINUTES May 20, 2014 CLEAN WATER SERVICES 2.a. CWS MO Approve Intergovernmental Agreement with Beaverton and Tigard for the Scholls Ferry Trunk Sewer Extension Phase 2 Project No (CPO 4B, 6) (Approved Under Consent Agenda)

4 LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION 2.b. RO Amend the Road Maintenance Program (CPO All) (Approved Under Consent Agenda) 2.c. RO Acknowledge the Aloha-Reedville Study and Livable Community Plan (CPO 6, 7) (Approved Under Consent Agenda) 2.d. MO Initiate Proceedings to Legalize a Portion of SW Bald Peak Road as County Road No. 3296; Set Date for a Public Hearing (CPO 10) (Approved Under Consent Agenda) 2.e. RO Approve Declaration of Necessity and Protective Rent Payments for Right-of-Way Acquisition for the Kay Road Culvert Replacement Project (CPO 8) (Approved Under Consent Agenda) 2.f. RO Approve Establishment of a Road Maintenance Local Improvement District (MLID) for Iron Ridge Woods (CPO 1) (Approved Under Consent Agenda) HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 2.g. MO Authorize Purchase Orders for Miscellaneous Medications for the Department of Health and Human Services (Approved Under Consent Agenda) JUVENILE DEPARTMENT 2.h. MO Grant Waiver from Request for Proposals Process and Approve Contract to Provide Third Party Administrative Services for Claims Processing and Approve Funds for Claims Payment (Approved Under Consent Agenda) 2.i. MO

5 Authorize Amendment with Multnomah County for Juvenile Detention Services (Approved Under Consent Agenda) SHERIFF S OFFICE 2.j. MO Grant Waiver from Request for Proposal Process and Approve Contract Amendment for the Pre- Release Exit Program with Worksystems, Inc. (CPO All) (Approved Under Consent Agenda) SUPPORT SERVICES 2.k. RO Adopt Resolution and Order Levying the Annual Assessments for the Metzger Park Local Improvement District (CPO 4M) (Approved Under Consent Agenda) 2.l. MO Authorize Purchase Orders for Annual Hardware and Software Maintenance Services (Approved Under Consent Agenda) 2.m. MO Authorize Purchase Orders for Telecommunications, Computer, Data Storage and Network Hardware/Software (Approved Under Consent Agenda) SERVICE DISTRICT FOR LIGHTING 2.n. SDL RO Form Assessment Area, Authorize Maximum Annual Assessment, and Impose a First Year Assessment for Iron Ridge Woods (Approved Under Consent Agenda) 4. PUBLIC HEARING SUPPORT SERVICES 4.a. RO Adopt Fee Schedule for Fiscal Year Mary Gruss reported that this year s proposed fee schedule includes increases to reflect inflationary costs of doing business. Metzger Park is proposing a fee structure change for the rental of the Patricia D. Whiting Metzger Park Hall. The Metzger Park Advisory Board approved the fee at their May 19, 2014, meeting. Public Health Clinic fees are changing to match the Medicaid coding standards for the types of visits and procedures. The Staff recommendation is to adopt the Resolution and Order approving the Fee Schedule.

6 It was moved to adopt the Resolution and Order approving the Fee Schedule. Motion Schouten 2 nd Rogers 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION 3.a. MO Second Reading and First Public Hearing of Proposed Ordinance No. 778 An Ordinance Adopting Chapter 3.14 of the Washington County Code Imposing a Vehicle Registration Fee (CPO All) It was moved to read proposed Ordinance 778 by title only. Motion Rogers 2 nd Terry Alan Rappleyea read the ordinance by title only. Andrew Singelakis reported that last October the Board set a public hearing on a proposed $30 vehicle registration fee for today s first public hearing. If the fee is implemented, it would be used for Washington County s portion of road maintenance. The cities within Washington County would have the flexibility to use the funds for maintenance or safety improvements in the public right-of-way. The revenue, if implemented, would be used for the road fund or on major County roads. The County has the Urban Roads Maintenance District, which covers neighborhood streets in the unincorporated areas, and they are adequately funded. The vehicle registration fees would be for the major county road system. Funding for several major county roads is not keeping pace with inflation. The fee is a proactive solution to address the growing road maintenance needs that will cost vastly more to fix in the future if not addressed now. LUT completed a pavement management audit in 2013 to make sure the funds are spent in the most prudent way possible, and best management practices are employed. Mr. Singelakis concluded by stating that this report can be found on LUT s website. LUT Staff proceeded with a PowerPoint presentation. Due to technical difficulties, it was moved to table the public hearing on Ordinance No. 778 until the technical issues were resolved. Motion Terry 2 nd Rogers

7 In the interim, the Board of Commissioners addressed agenda items 3.c. through 3.g. (the motion and votes for these items follow 3.b. in these minutes). It was moved to reconvene on Ordinance No. 778 (item 3.a. on the agenda). Motion Terry 2 nd Malinowski Chair Duyck opened the public hearing. Keith Peal, Chair-elect of the Hillsboro Chamber of Commerce, conveyed the Chamber s support of Ordinance No He said the Chamber believes roadways are an asset to be preserved and maintained in a proper manner to realize the full return on the investment. He stated the vehicle registration fee is fair and equitable providing an ongoing funding stream for roadway maintenance. He explained the gas tax funding model isn t keeping pace with the demands of the roadway system and a new approach needs to be adopted. He applauded the Board of Commissioners for being proactive in finding a funding solution to address the need in funds for road maintenance. He highlighted the fact the condition of roads worsen each year and, if not addressed, there will come a time where major reconstruction is necessary and more costly. The continued growth and success of the economy and ability to attract new companies to the County depends on a robust and well maintained road network. The Hillsboro Chamber supports the vehicle registration fee increase to $43. It is within the County Commission s authority to move this ordinance forward, and to adopt a fee that addresses both deferred maintenance as well as ongoing maintenance needs. Commissioner Malinowski asked for confirmation that the Hillsboro Chamber agrees that the $43 fee makes more sense than the lower $30 proposed amount. Mr. Peal confirmed and mentioned that their business members have repeatedly said they are willing to invest in transportation and believe it s a modest fee. The Federal Highway Administration studies and GIO office have shown that the return on transportation investment is $3.80 for every $1 spent and that return is favorable to most business owners. He said the County has done a great job in managing the transportation system investment but believes it needs to keep up to pace and thus believes this ordinance needs to be passed. Vice Chair Terry stated that part of the reason the County hasn t been able to keep pace with road maintenance is because the funds are no longer available. The problem begins with the State, but because the State is not addressing the problem, the County has to do something. He asked Hillsboro Chamber if the State were to provide adequate funding in the future, if this tax should be kept in place or if it should have a provision to sunset, subject to the State providing funding to address this issue. Mr. Peal said the gas tax has not changed for over 20 years and it is clear leaders in Washington keep kicking the can down the road with this funding mechanism and this hasn t changed. He stated there are increased costs of maintenance and inflationary costs, among other reasons why

8 it costs more, but it all needs to be paid for. The fee is a modest investment. He gave an example of the MSTIP program showing how local investments are best managed and handled at the local level as is with this proposal. In regards to Commissioner Malinowski s question, he believes they should always take another look when the time comes to make sure things are done the right way and not necessarily include a sunset mechanism. Andrew Aebi, SW Cardinal Loop, Beaverton, complimented the staff on Ordinance No. 778 and the leadership of the County Commission on bringing this forward. He is in support of the ordinance and shared the following thoughts in his professional capacity as a transportation project manager for the City of Portland: In looking back at street projects he s built over the last 12 years, the rate of inflation of those projects has been remarkable. He noted that the annual increase of construction costs in a similar area of town was 9.4 percent per year, showing that the cost of these street projects is increasing. He explained that if maintenance is not kept up on roads, eventually a complete and expensive reconstruction will be needed. He noted that 12 years ago, he could build a street for $198 a center line foot and now it costs $579. So, if the maintenance is not done now they are looking at a much higher fee in the future to fix the roads. He believes the Commission should implement this fee so as to not have future generations to pay for what isn t addressed today. He thinks the fee is reasonable and efficient to collect and maximizes the amount of revenue going to keep the roads in good shape and encourages the Commission to approve the ordinance. Commissioner Malinowski asked Mr. Aebi if he had a preference regarding either the $30 or $43 yearly fee. He noted the higher rate allows the County to fix two of the 188 bridges a year. Mr. Aebi said he thinks either rate would be fine but since it is a new fee, he would implement the $30 fee and consider raising it to the higher fee a few years later. Mr. Singelakis decided to not continue the PowerPoint presentation as there were additional technical difficulties. Commissioner Schouten asked that if the Board decided to make changes in the fee amount, whether the ordinance would need to be engrossed. Mr. Rappleyea affirmed that it would. Chair Duyck asked that if the Board changed the fee, whether this ordinance would need to be rejected and a new ordinance be placed on the ballot, should it go to the ballot. Mr. Rappleyea answered that the ordinance could be engrossed to include a referral from the Board. Chair Duyck confirmed that the engrossment would include a rate change as well as a referral. Mr. Rappleyea said the enacting clause would have to be enacted by the people of Washington County and different changes to the body of the ordinance.

9 Commissioner Terry asked what kind of timeframe they would have to make a change. Mr. Rappleyea said the Board would need to provide direction on the proposed change, the change would be brought back before the Board, it would be engrossed and then it would be scheduled for an election. Commissioner Schouten asked if the current ordinance is drafted to call for a referral or would it be something the Board would do directly. Mr.Rappleyea said it would be a direct adoption of the fee by the County Board and doesn t call for a referral at all. Commissioner Schouten asked if the Board needs to discuss whether to have a referral or not and the amount of the fee. Chair Duyck noted that the Board will be discussing this at their worksession next week. Commissioner Malinowski asked if they could talk about the cost of placing this proposed fee on the ballot during the next worksession. Mr. Singelakis said they could discuss that and add it to the worksession agenda. It was moved to continue the hearing on Ordinance No. 778 to June 17, Motion Rogers 2 nd Malinowski 3.b. RO Consider the Annexation of Approximately Acres to Tualatin Valley Water District Chair Duyck opened the public hearing. Joy Chang reported that the County received the request to annex 82 parcels along with road right-of-way to the Tualatin Valley Water District. The acres are located in unincorporated Multnomah County just east and southeast of Area 93, the County line outside of the urban growth boundary. All parcels have received water service from the district for many years and no new water services have been extended. The District is requesting the boundary change so it may upgrade or replace its existing pipelines in the area. The request is through the majority annexation process for special districts pursuant to ORS sub 3. A total of 64.4 percent of registered voters signed the petition and owners of 76.2 percent of the area s acreage signed the petition allowing the annexation without election. She explained that the County in which the district has the greater portion of the value of all taxable property has the authority for boundary changes in Multnomah County for this special district. Notice has been made

10 according to state statute requirements. She displayed a map showing parcels inside the urban growth boundary, the 82 parcels annexing into the district located in Multnomah County. The criteria for district boundary changes are set forth in ORS 198 and Metro Code The local comprehensive plan for the area and any service agreement executed between local governments and the affected district need to be considered. Consideration needs to be made to see if the boundary needs to be made to promote timely and orderly and economic provisions of public facilities and services. Ms. Chang explained that Metro Code is applicable because it says neither a city nor a district may extend water or sewer service from inside a UGB to territories that lie outside the UGB. Oregon Statewide planning goal 11 is applicable as well. She said this proposal meets several review criteria, since it s only assessing parcels currently being served by the district. She shared that this proposal is supported by Metro and the City of Portland since it only includes parcels that are currently being served by the district. Staff mailed out notice relating to the addition of the two parcels left out. This notice explains that the first parcel was inadvertently left out in the application, and that Tualatin Valley Water District submitted a new application requesting this parcel to be included at a future date. The second parcel, which is not served, is owned by Mr. Mira. Mr. Mira has inquired though his attorney to include this parcel as part of the proposal. Ms. Cofield (Mr. Mira s attorney) requested to have the Metro letter, dated August 7, 2012, as part of the application. Metro Code is applicable to this proposal and neither parcel was included in the original application or identified in the notice of hearing. Petitions or legal descriptions were not submitted or reviewed by the Department of Revenue. Due to these reasons, staff believes there would be legal issues if these parcels were included as part of the current proposal. Tualatin Valley Water District indicated they would like to proceed with the current proposal as is and without the addition of the two parcels. The district or property owner could provide a separate petition at a future date for annexation of those properties that aren t currently included. The letter from Metro, dated June 7, 2012, which is applicable to lots not currently served, shows allowance of connections to lines that already exist outside of the urban growth boundary, as long as it doesn t encourage urban levels of development on rural lands. Multnomah County has no land use objections. Staffs recommends conducting the public hearing and considering the annexation to the subject properties and to the district; adopt a resolution and order approving the annexation as proposed, with approval becoming effective immediately. Commissioner Schouten asked if Multnomah County is okay with adding the two additional parcels at some point in the future. Theresa Cherniak answered that they did not receive official letters from Multnomah County. The discussions they had were limited to the properties currently served. Ms. Cherniak does not know what Multomah s position would be. Commissioner Schouten recapped that one parcel actually is connected to the water system, and excluding it from the application was an error. The second parcel is not currently served, but is working on becoming part of the District. He asked for Metro s input on these two parcels.

11 Ms. Cherniak said Metro would have no issues on the property that was inadvertently left out and asked Ms. Chang to address the other issue. Ms. Chang said Metro Code deals with extending services outside the urban growth boundary. Additionally, State goal 11 deals with urban development in a rural setting. Those issues need to be identified at the next proposal and decisions need to be addressed and made at that time. Commissioner Schouten asked if County Counsel has made a definitive ruling on properties that: are not currently in the gray area; will be annexed today; are not current customers, but the property does abut an existing pipeline. Mr. Rappleyea answered that they received a letter from Metro on a similar situation from 2012 stating it wouldn t violate the Metro Code to hook up to an existing line for a property that s outside the urban growth boundary. This is the situation here for the one small parcel in red and Metro didn t have an objection. Mr. Rappleyea does not think it would violate Goal 11 because it s a preexisting parcel that already has a line in front of it. He explained this ruling is not an issue before the Board today but will likely be back in front of the Board and that s when the definitive ruling will be made. Vice Chair Terry asked if anyone is present to testify on behalf of the water district. Ms. Chang said yes. Vice Chair Terry said that issue can be addressed when they testify. He asked if those two parcels can come back to be included in the annexation or do they need to be made under a new filing. Mr. Rappleyea said they would need to come back under a new application. Ms. Chang read a statement outlining the criteria in the plan or land use regulation the person believes to apply to the decision. Lynn Chapman, NW Thompson Road, addressed a safety issue in favor of this annexation proposal. She spoke about a rusty pipe along Thompson Road above their property. Periodically, they get leaks at that location, which is steep and at the edge of a ravine. She said a geologist has told them these leakages add to the risk of a land slide, which could affect their property and/or Thompson Road. She hoped this can finally get taken care of and bring them into the District so new water lines can be laid down. James Crawford said in principle he doesn t object to Tualatin Valley Water District providing water to unincorporated area in Multnomah County. But, this area is not only outside Washington County and the UGB but has been designated as urban reserve. He said this designation as rural reserve is intended to ensure the area is reserved for farming, forestry or stay as a natural area. He understood the intention of this annexation is intended to provide urban services for low density suburban development. He believes a consultation with the counties

12 attorney s might reveal it is illegal for Tualatin Valley Water District to annex this area. He objected to the annexation because of the inherent hypocrisy. Over 10 years, Tualatin Valley Water District has refused to annex Area 93 even though most of the properties are already provided with water under extraterritorial exemptions. The few houses that don t already have water service have been denied and thus have become uninhabitable because their wells have failed. A decade has passed since the two year deadline Metro has imposed for the completion of the concept plan for Area 93. In 2005, Metro s Chief Executive, Mike Jordan assured many of the Area 93 landowners negotiations were taking place with developers to expedite the planning. Since that time, Multnomah County and the City of Portland have refused to begin the concept planning and aborted the concept planning after developers aborted the options. Because of this, Area 93 landowners aren t confident that a concept plan that is economically viable will be adopted by the County and thus feel they should be annexed as well into the water district to preserve their options if the concept planning fails. Chair Duyck clarified that the Tualatin Valley Water District isn t an agency of Washington County. It is just within the County. He shared he didn t think it was the water district that annexed Bonnie Slope but rather it was a previous County policy that prevented it from happening. Mr. Crawford said various landowners have tried to get water services and have had Multnomah County, Washington County and Tualatin Valley Water District veto it at different times. He feels annexing these properties into the water district or into the unified sewage agencies district would be give confidence to landowners to wait out the process and let concept planning go forward and not do anything to preclude development. Chair Duyck said there is a process for those in an emergency situation to get water from the water district that live within Area 93. He added that the Board is holding off on wholesale annexation until the planning work is completed so the pipes can be sized appropriately. Mr. Crawford shared that one homeowner needing water for her home consulted with Tualatin Valley Water District after the boundary change and is still refused water service. Ms. Chang confirmed Chair Duyck s statements regarding County policy stating that when there is a concept plan being formed, the County cannot move forward on anything in that area until the plan is completed. She explained that at the time the request Mr. Crawford was referring to was made, the planning efforts were being conducted by the City of Portland and Multnomah County. She said in regards to Ms. Seegan s property, her property abuts an existing line and thus is an application the County will be processing. She added the other parcels will be addressed on a case by case basis and the County will not be moving forward with those parcels until the concept planning in that area is completed. Commissioner Schouten said regarding Area 93, in terms of the service area, Tualatin Hills Park and Recreation District, Water District and others will be included as service providers if and when there are annexations. Ms. Chang confirmed that is correct.

13 Mr. Crawford stated that the landowners might end up with one or one and a half million dollars in SDCs imposed on their properties, which means urbanization will not be economically viable. Chair Duyck said that with good planning that will not happen. Dorothy Cofield, representing Omid Mira, stated that her client owns two parcels (tax lot 600 and 700). She explained that when her client purchased the property, it was used as one lot but it was actually two lots. Since then, the landowner did a property line adjustment showing the two tax lots. She explained tax lot 600 is in escrow right now with earnest money set against it, subject to it having water service. In 2007, Mr. Mira received two certifications of water service but considered good in the 2014 property line adjustment showing tax lot 600 and 700 would receive service. She added that Multnomah County approved the property line adjustment based on the lots having water service. She spoke with Roger Alfred who is legal Counsel at Metro and he said the letter makes it clear that tax lot 600 could be annexed in. She said State law and Goal 11 aren t issues as that would prevent lot 600 from being annexed. She understood it s too late to add this property to the current annexation but would like a continuance and send another notice out as the sale of the property in question is set to close in 60 days. She spoke with Tualatin Valley Water District today and they indicated they would add this property on the application with the Laidlaw property. It was a scribner s error and they said they would provide a statement showing they would process this application. She asked the Board to provide an order saying the Mira property tax lot 600 can proceed with an application and indicate that it does meet Metro, County and State law and will be approved. Chair Duyck said legal Counsel made it clear that the County agrees with Ms. Cofield s assessment that property could be served, but the County isn t the water district as it s a separate agency from the County. Ms. Cofield restated that the water district said they will provide a statement saying they will start processing this application. She would like an indication from the Board that it will approve that application. Vice Chair Terry said he will be asking the water district that question when they give oral testimony. Commissioner Schouten said it seems Ms. Crawford wants the Board to indicate they would like to see tax lot 600 annexed which is the County s responsibility. Ms. Cofield affirmed that s what her client would like to see. Commissioner Schouten explained the only other issue to address is that of providing notice and asked what the timeframe would be if there was a second round of hearings if a second notice was to be sent out that includes tax lot 600. Joy Chang said it would be at least 40 days because staff would need to send out public notice as well as send out notifications to 500 parcels.

14 Ms. Cofield felt the timeline of 40 days would work and asked if her client would receive a fee waiver since that lot was inadvertently left out. Vice Chair Terry recommended the water district absorb the cost as they made the error. Commissioner Rogers agreed to the recommendation but doesn t want to make any assurances because the Board has yet to hear what comments will come from sending out a second notice. Personally he had no objection to anything Ms. Cofield shared but feels the process the County has needs to be followed. Ms. Cofield stated that puts her client in a difficult position because he is hearing that he can submit a new annexation petition if the District brings it, yet there are ORS protections. He does not want to appeal if it could be fixed within a 40-day annexation petition. Commissioner Malinowski asked if Ms. Cofield s client had a certificate of the guarantee of water from the water district. Ms. Cofield said yes but it says her client needs to coordinate with the district on annexation and thus the water district can t move forward without the County approving annexation of the property. Commissioner Malinowski noted there are about a dozen orphaned properties that may want to be annexed into the water district too. He feels it s not unreasonable for those landowners to pay for the fees to get into the water district. However, he knows of the financial burden involved for some of the landowners when all their neighbors receive water and they don t. Ms. Cofield explained her client is paying the hookup fee to the Tualatin Valley Water District which is about $17,000 but she was referring to waiving the application fee for the annexation because the other 82 properties included in the annexation didn t pay because Tualatin Valley Water District was the applicant. She asked Ms. Chang what the cost would be if her client paid for an annexation application on his own. Ms. Chang said it wouldn t be a fee but a deposit which is $3,000 and if all of it isn t utilized they would return the difference and if the costs ran over they would bill the applicant. Vice Chair Terry believes everyone agrees the water district needs to pay for sending out a second notice as it was their error. Ms. Cofield didn t want the other 12 properties mentioned earlier to be included as they may have other legal issues that haven t been come up that the Mira and Laidlaw properties don t and want to keep them separate. Commissioner Schouten asked for clarification on the timeline.

15 Ms. Cherniak said once the application is received they would need to assess if it s complete, review it, write their reports and 40 days is what s needed for the noticing so it would be a bit longer than the 40 day period. Peter Owens explained his family didn t sign the petition on the annexation because they were out of town and wanted to convey his opinion on this issue. He stated his family bought the property in 2002 and they are in favor of the annexation. He shared that of the safety issues in the water they were receiving, the water included iron bacteria. There has been no maintenance on the lines with which his family receives water and he doesn t understand why this is seeing since they pay their water bill every month. Commissioner Schouten noted there is a strong majority in favor of the annexations. Chris Goodhill, Land Use Planner AKS Engineering of Tualatin, stated that they are working with Tualatin Valley Water District. He introduced Stu Davis, District Engineer with the water district. He explained that the Hofelner property will be included in a separate annexation application and the water district has been in contact with Ms. Cofield regarding her client s property. Stu Davis explained why tax lot 600 wasn t included in the annexation proposal. He said they don t have a problem serving people as long as it s done following the established rules. He stated the water district would be open to including the red lot in the annexation. Commissioner Malinowski asked if there was a house sitting on the red lot presently. Mr. Davis said no. Mr. Goodhill explained the purpose of the annexation was to include tax lots currently being served as opposed to bringing in ones that weren t. Mr. Davis said the purpose for that is so the maintenance can be made to make the system whole again. Commissioner Malinowski asked if the vacant lot in red was in the same boat as the other vacant lots. Mr. Goodhill responded in the affirmative. Vice Chair Terry thought that, from counsel s testimony, there was an older home on the red lot but either way that lot should be included, especially if there s a contract on that house. He sensed a resistance from the water district to pay for the fee to include that lot in the annexation. Mr. Goodhill said he s not resistant but it sets precedence about the other lots. Vice Chair Terry disagreed as the red lot has a water certificate whereas the other lots do not. Commissioner Schouten pointed out the key question is whether or not there s a water line that runs by this particular property and this property does meet that requirement. Because of this

16 there are no legal issues and both Metro and County Counsel s standpoint is there is no issue and asked Mr. Goodhill how he feels. Mr. Goodhill explained that they are being careful as they don t want to get in trouble with any of the regulatory agencies. Vice Chair Terry stated that government complicates issues that make life miserable and expensive for other people unnecessarily. He agrees costs need to be met but stated the water district has the same obligation as the County to make things right. Chair Duyck understood the purpose of the annexation is to provide service on the water lines and if the green lot, which is currently being served, is not being harmed by moving forward with the annexation, he feels the ordinance should be adopted. He pointed out having the green lot not included in the annexation does not prevent the water district from providing service from those lines and asked Mr. Goodhill if that was correct. Mr. Goodhill said that is correct. He explained the water district has a project to make the improvements but needs approval of the annexation to move forward. Commissioner Rogers stated these properties are located in Multnomah County so it s a bit presumptuous to tell another county as well as the water district what should be happening. He encouraged the water district to resurvey the area to see if there aren t other issues that need to be addressed but believes what s in place is fine. Commissioner Schouten noted the law states Washington County is responsible for the area being annexed as most of its property is in the County, making Washington County the responsible agency. He said he s open to providing service for the red parcel. Chair Duyck closed the public hearing. It was moved to adopt a Resolution and Order approving the annexation with the approval becoming effective immediately. Authorize the Chair to sign the Resolution and Order for Service District Annexation LRP/BC Motion Rogers 2 nd Schouten 3.c. RO Consider the Annexation of Approximately 24.4 Acres to Tualatin Hills Park & Recreation District (CPO 7) Joy Chang reported Crandall Group submitted a request to annex 4 parcels into 5 service districts and the staff report is applicable to all five annexation requests. Case file is an annexation to the Tualatin Hills Parks and Recreation District; is to the Tualatin Valley Water District, is to Clean Water Services, is to the Enhanced Sheriff Patrol District and is to the Urban Road Maintenance District. The parcels total about 24.4 acres (3 parcels

17 are located on NW Brugger Road, north of NW Josh Ave. and 1 is located at the east side of NW Kaiser Road, north of Springville Road). She noted the annexation requests were made to comply with Community Development Code (CDC), section a requiring the land within the Bethany sub-area plan to annex into the districts prior to development. She added that each district has provided a general endorsement of all annexations in the North Bethany sub-area. She explained the required notifications and postings were completed and no letters or comments have been received. Staff recommended the Board adopt a resolution and order approving the annexations to be effective immediately. The Public Hearings were closed and voted upon for approval. Motion Rogers 2 nd Malinowski 3.d. RO Consider the Annexation of Approximately 24.4 Acres to Tualatin Valley Water District (CPO 7) Motion Schouten 2 nd Malinowski 3.e. RO Consider the Annexation of Approximately 24.4 Acres to Clean Water Services District (CPO 7) Motion Rogers 2 nd Terry 3.f. RO Consider the Annexation of Approximately 24.4 Acres to the Enhanced Sheriff s Patrol District (CPO 7) Motion Terry 2 nd Malinowski

18 3.g. RO Consider the Annexation of Approximately 24.4 Acres to the Urban Road Maintenance District (CPO 7) Motion Rogers 2 nd Malinowski 5. ORAL COMMUNICATION (5-MINUTE OPPORTUNITY) None. 6. BOARD ANNOUNCEMENTS Chair Duyck announced next Tuesday, June 10, 2014 is a worksession only at 8:30 a.m. 7. ADJOURNMENT: 11:40 a.m. Motion Terry 2 nd Schouten MINUTES APPROVED THIS DAY 2014 RECORDING SECRETARY CHAIRMAN