Urban needs, rural government
Urbanization Forum continues
Mark Cushing, the facilitator of the Washington County Urbanization Forum, met with leaders of Citizen Participation Organizations (CPOs) from around the county in September to discuss the second phase of the Forum process.
The Forum was convened by Washington County and several of its cities and service districts to discuss the future of the approximately 500,000 people who live in Urban Unincorporated Areas (UUAs) in the county. Washington County is in a relatively unique situation of having a lot of urban development that hasn’t been incorporated. Counties generally provide “county-wide” services, while cities provide urban services like police, planning, sidewalks and sewers. In Washington County, however, service districts provide many of these services to urban area residents. We discussed this situation at some length in a series of articles in the Cedar Mill News, collected on the website at cedarmill.org/news/UrbanNeeds.
A flurry of annexation efforts in the early 21st century, and resultant opposition, prompted many to ask why cities were needed when all the services were provided already. Fears of increased control and, of course, increased taxes have led many to prefer to stay as we are.
But the county is unlikely to be able to provide services to the expected influx of population with its current funding structure. Finding a way around this conundrum is the task of the Urbanization Forum (see urbanizationforum.com).
The first phase of the Forum’s work was to get some agreement among participating cities as to their aspirations toward annexation and how to handle future Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) expansions. That phase was completed with the July 2009 adoption of a resolution by all the jurisdictions involved. The resolution says that any new areas brought into the UGB should be incorporated into (and contiguous with) cities. It also agrees that the county needs new funding tools to provide services to UUA residents, and the signing agencies agree to support the effort to pass legislation to enable that funding.
With that agreement in hand, Cushing is turning to the second phase, which he says will answer these three questions:
1. How do we approach finding out if change is wanted in the various areas of the UUA?
2. What is the cost of providing additional services that might be needed? What do cities provide and what could the county provide?
3. What legislative tools (new state laws) need to be created to allow the county to provide those services?
The Forum began to work on the first question during Phase One. A series of meetings was held in seven regions of the county, where community leaders met with representatives of service providers (park districts, water districts, etc), and nearby cities to discuss deficiencies and aspirations. Of the seven, only five areas (Cedar Mill, Bethany-Rock Creek, Bull Mountain, Aloha, and Reedville) expressed any interest in discussing a change. Cedar Hills-Raleigh Hills and Metzger seemed fairly content with the status quo.
To work on the second question, Cushing says an Information Working Group will be formed, consisting primarily of county staff.
Legislation to enable Washington County to get additional revenue will be developed by working with local state legislators and the county. Additional revenue could include a greater portion of gas taxes to build roads, a portion of utility franchise fees (these currently go to cities, even though they’re paid by county taxpayers), and other sources to be determined.
Cushing says he will be getting these processes structured in the coming months. He was originally hired by the county, the cities, and the service districts in 2007 and was paid by them for his services through December 2008 (one-third from each group). He did some additional work as a volunteer, and then resumed work as a paid consultant last May. He is a lawyer with the firm of Tonkon Torp practicing in the Government Relations and Public Policy area.
|
