 Beaverton annexes!
City of Beaverton annexation policies
State of Oregon laws regarding annexation
The City of Beaverton held a hearing on Monday, December
6 to consider the annexation of several large areas near the intersection
of Cedar Hills Boulevard and Barnes Road (see map). A second hearing
will occur Monday December 13. Written testimony will be accepted until
5 pm on that day.
Several years ago, the city annexed parts of Cedar Hills Boulevard,
Cornell, and Barnes, in what is called a “cherry stem” annexation.
State law allows land in a “public way” to be annexed if it
connects to a parcel the city wants to annex. And because Beaverton now
owns the roads, they can to annex these parcels without a vote of property
owners and residents because they are “surrounded by city property.”
Most of Cedar Mill lies in unincorporated Washington County. Both
the state and county have expressed their desire eventually to “get
counties out of the business of providing city-type services.” To this
end the county has been encouraging Beaverton, Tigard and Hillsboro
to annex places like Cedar Mill, which are inside the Urban Growth Boundary.
However at the December 7, 2004 CPO meeting, our Washington County commissioner
John Leeper said that the commission has decided not to continue
to allow the cherry-stem road annexations that Beaverton has been pursuing.
It’s
not clear at this time what the county can do about it—state law seems
to endorse the procedure. [Relevant Oregon State statutes are on the website
version of this month’s News, cedarmill.org/news]
We asked Joe Grillo, Beaverton Community Development Director,
to clarify the City’s plans and our options for remaining a unique community.
City of Beaverton
Urban
Service Area Policy
The City remains committed to annexing its urban services area over
time, but the City will be selective regarding the methods of annexation
it chooses to use. The City of Beaverton prefers to avoid use of annexation
methods that may force annexation against the will of a majority of
voters in larger unincorporated residential neighborhoods. The City
is, however, open to annexation of these areas by other means where
support for annexation is expressed, pursuant to a process specified
by State law, by a majority of area voters and/or property owners.
The City is open to pursuing infrastructure/service planning for the
purposes of determining the current and future needs of such areas
and how such areas might best fit into the City of Beaverton provided
such unincorporated residents pursue an interest of annexing into the
City.
City of Beaverton
Corporate Limits Policy
The City of Beaverton is committed to annexing those unincorporated
areas that generally exist inside the City’s corporate limits.
Most of these areas, known as “islands,” generally receive
either direct or indirect benefit from City services. The Washington
County 2000 Policy, adopted in the mid-1980s, recognizes that the County
should not be a long-term provider of municipal services and that urban
unincorporated areas including unincorporated islands should eventually
be annexed to cities. As such, primarily through the use of the ‘island
annexation method’, the City’s objectives in annexing such
areas are to:
-
Minimize the confusion about the location of City boundaries
for the provision of services;
-
Improve the efficiency of city service provision, particularly
police patrols;
-
Control the development/redevelopment of properties that
will eventually be within the City’s boundaries;
-
Create complete neighborhoods and thereby eliminate small
pockets of unincorporated land; and
-
Increase the City’s tax base and minimize increasing
the City’s mill rate.
In order to achieve these stated objectives, the City chooses to
generally pursue the following areas for ‘island annexation’ into
the City of Beaverton:
-
Undeveloped property zoned for industrial, commercial uses
or mixed uses;
-
Developed or redevelopable property zoned for industrial,
commercial or mixed uses;
-
Undeveloped or redevelopable property zoned for residential
use;
-
Smaller developed property zoned residential (within a neighborhood
that is largely incorporated within the City of Beaverton).
|
It
appears that Beaverton is working to annex as much land to the north
as it can through “cherry stem” road annexation and other means.
Is the city’s ultimate goal to annex everything north within the UGB?
The official City plan policy is to eventually over time annex everything
within its assumed urban service area, which is shown on a map
in the City Comprehensive Plan as including land within Washington County
and the urban growth boundary generally east of 185th Avenue and north
of the City of Tigard, except a few properties along the county line that
are in the City of Portland.
Are there any long-term plans for annexation of Cedar Mill that
will involve voting, or will it all be piece-at-a-time opportunistic
annexation?
Recently the City Council adopted a resolution setting
City policies regarding annexation in different situations. The policies
distinguish between annexations of areas presently surrounded by City territory,
known as “islands,” and
areas that are not islands. The policy on island annexations
further prioritizes properties in islanded areas for annexations, and explains
why their annexation is important to the City. {These policy documents are
also available at the online version of The News: cedarmill.org/news]
What rules govern annexation?
There are several annexation procedures available to the City
under State law and Metro Code, and the City will use the process
that is most appropriate for a given situation. Until recently, the
City only annexed a property where the owner agreed to sign a petition
requesting annexation. Property owners petitioned for annexation
for a variety of reasons ranging from their perception that City
services were superior or less expensive in comparison to those
that could be received in the unincorporated area, to the need
to connect to City maintained utility lines to develop a property.
Sometimes it was necessary to annex public right-of-way to connect
to a property whose owner wished to annex, and that resulted in what is called
a “cherry stem” annexation.
Can you outline the tax impacts on average homeowners and business
owners after annexation?
If an unincorporated property in the Cedar Mill area is annexed
into the City, at the present time (the 2004-2005 Fiscal Year)
its property tax rate would increase by $2.72 per thousand dollars
of assessed (not market) value, or $680/year for a house with
a “maximum assessed value” (not market value) of $250,000.
For a business such as the Thriftway store in Cedar Mill, this would mean about
$2270 more in property tax payments for the year. This is the differential between
what would be paid to the County Enhanced Sheriff’s Patrol District
(ESPD) and the County Urban Road Maintenance District (URMD) and what is
paid in City property taxes. (When a property annexes, it is removed from
the ESPD and URMD, as well as any Street Lighting District it might be
in.)
This $2.72 differential varies from year to year. In the future
it could gradually decrease if higher value properties are annexed
to the City and removed from the tax base for the ESPD and the
URMD. [Ed note: of course it can increase as well if tax rates
rise or if the city annexes areas that need increased services.}
What about water/sewage rates? Are Beaverton’s rates comparable with
CWS/Tualatin Valley rates? Or would we continue with those services?
Pursuant to a 2002 intergovernmental agreement with the
Tualatin Valley Water District, as the City annexes into Cedar Mill
TVWD will continue to provide service and set water rates.
A 2004 agreement between Clean Water Services (CWS) and the City
defines part of the Cedar Mill area, south of Cornell Road,
as being in the City’s “Area
of Future Maintenance Responsibility.” This means that after the City annexes
this area, the City would assume maintenance of sanitary sewer pipes under 24
inches in diameter as well as the storm drainage system. Sewer rates will not
change, but the City will assess a monthly charge of $5.75 per “equivalent
dwelling unit” for maintenance of and improvements to the storm
drainage system versus $4.00 now charged by CWS. The extra $1.75 per month
goes to pay for more frequent system maintenance and improvements to reduce
flooding in some areas.
Anything else that our readers should know about annexation?
The City is still negotiating with the County and other
interested service providers to define the City’s urban service area—the area the City would likely
annex over the long term. The City’s assumed urban service area may change
when all the parties reach agreement. Under most proposals for defining the City’s
urban service area, most if not all of Cedar Mill
area would be included. That does not mean, however, that the City is
interested in annexing all of Cedar Mill in the near future. The City
would prefer to gradually annex a community the size of Cedar Mill so
that adequate City service levels can be maintained for both current
City residents/businesses and newly annexed residents and businesses
when such annexation occurs.
Once an area is in the City, area residents and businesses
will probably not notice a major change in service. The most significant
change, which may not be apparent to most people, is that there
will likely be a higher police presence in the community because
the City provides more officers per thousand population than the
ESPD, 1.5 versus 0.9. City fees for building permits and garbage
collection will be slightly lower on average, and because there
is no street lighting district in the City, there will be no fees
for that service.
Oregon State statutes regarding
annexation
199.490 Procedure for minor boundary changes or transfers of territory. (2)(B)(c)
For the purpose of this subsection, consent need not be obtained for
any land in a public way included within or contiguous to the territory
proposed to be annexed. However, land in such a public way shall, as
determined by the commission, be considered annexed to the affected
city or district if the minor boundary change is approved, regardless
of the land’s ownership, size or assessed valuation.
(d) For the purpose of this subsection, consent need not be
obtained for any real property that is publicly owned, is the right
of way for a public utility, telecommunications utility or railroad
or is exempt from ad valorem taxation unless the owner of such property
files a statement consenting to or opposing annexation with the legislative
body of the annexing city or district on or before the date the city
or district adopts the resolution required by paragraph (a) of this
subsection.
222.750 Annexation of unincorporated territory surrounded by city. When
territory not within a city is surrounded by the corporate boundaries
of the city… it is within the power and authority of that city
to annex such territory…Unless otherwise required by its charter,
annexation by a city under this section shall be by ordinance or resolution
subject to referendum, with or without the consent of any owner of
property within the territory or resident in the territory. |
|
