Brookings Annexation Project
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Portland State University PDXScholar Center for Public Service Publications and Reports Center for Public Service 2-22-2016 Brookings Annexation Project Portland State University. Hatfield School of Government. Center for Public Service Kent S. Robinson Portland State University Robert Winthrop Portland State University Dave Rouse Portland State University Paul Manson Portland State University See next page for additional authors Follow this and additional works at: https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/publicservice_pub Part of the Public Administration Commons, and the Public Policy Commons Let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y Citation Details Portland State University. Hatfield School of Government. Center for Public Service; Robinson, Kent S.; Winthrop, Robert; Rouse, Dave; Manson, Paul; McKee, Chris; and Wagner, Priscilla, "Brookings Annexation Project" (2016). Center for Public Service Publications and Reports. 31. https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/publicservice_pub/31 This Report is brought to you for free and open access. It has been accepted for inclusion in Center for Public Service Publications and Reports by an authorized administrator of PDXScholar. Please contact us if we can make this document more accessible: [email protected]. Authors Portland State University. Hatfield School of Government. Center for Public Service, Kent S. Robinson, Robert Winthrop, Dave Rouse, Paul Manson, Chris McKee, and Priscilla Wagner This report is available at PDXScholar: https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/publicservice_pub/31 Brookings Annexation Project Final Report Prepared by: The Center for Public Service Mark O. Hatfield School of Government Portland State University Kent Robinson Bob Winthrop Dave Rouse Paul Manson Chris McKee Priscilla Wagner February 22, 2016 I-1 Brookings Annexation Project Final Report, February 2016 Pre-decisional work product. Contents Executive Summary .........................................Separate Document I. Task Definition and Project Scope ............................................ I- 5 Introduction: Annexation Options to Serve Community Needs...... I- 5 II. South Curry County Regional Governance and Service Situation II- 1 Introduction ......................................................................... II- 1 III. City of Brookings Current Services ...................................... III- 1 Introduction ........................................................................ III- 1 Financial Sustainability and Debt Loads ................................. III- 29 Major Issues: Intergovernmental Relations ............................ III- 36 IV: Harbor Area Services ......................................................... IV- 1 Harbor Area Boundary Uncertain ............................................ IV- 1 Population Profile and Forecast .............................................. IV- 2 Employment and Jobs ......................................................... IV- 12 County and Special Districts Service Arrangements ................ IV- 15 Intergovernmental Relations ................................................ IV- 23 V: Technical Concepts to Support Alternatives ............................. V- 1 Land Use Planning Context: State Land Use Requirements ......... V- 1 Comprehensive Planning and Annexation ................................. V- 2 Relevant Oregon Annexation Law and Procedures ...................... V- 3 for Special Districts ............................................................... V- 3 Planning Requirements and Procedures: Planning for Areas Inside the UGB ......................................................................................... V- 12 Urban Renewal Area Expansion ............................................. V- 15 VI: Alternative I: Annexation of Port of Brookings-Harbor Commercial Area ............................................................................................ VI- 1 Location and Demographics ................................................... VI- 1 Alternative Vision, Intent and Goals ........................................ VI- 3 I-2 Brookings Annexation Project Final Report, February 2016 Pre-decisional work product. Service Program Integration and Analysis ............................... VI- 6 Program Budgets and Costs ................................................. VI- 11 Revenue Sources, Amounts, and Limitations .......................... VI- 13 Major Issues: Benefits and Risks of Annexation ...................... VI- 20 VII: Alternative II: Annexation of Harbor Sanitary District Service AreaVII- 1 Location and Demographics .................................................. VII- 1 Alternative Vision, Intent and Goals ....................................... VII- 3 Service Program Integration and Analysis .............................. VII- 7 Program Budgets and Costs ................................................ VII- 16 Revenue Impacts .............................................................. VII- 21 Major Issues: Benefits and Risks of Annexation ..................... VII- 34 Optional Configurations for Alternative II ............................. VII- 37 Chapter VIII: Comparison of Alternatives ................................ VIII- 1 Evaluation of Program Attributes .......................................... VIII- 5 Other Alternatives Not Developed ....................................... VIII- 12 IX: Property Tax Valuation of Area within Urban Growth Boundary IX- 1 Methodology for Assessed Value Analysis ................................ IX- 1 Results of Assessment Analysis .............................................. IX- 3 Limitations of this Analysis .................................................... IX- 5 Conclusions ......................................................................... IX- 6 X. Recommendations ............................................................... X- 1 Inter-dependence in South Curry Government: ......................... X- 1 Utilize a Range of Techniques to Provide Public Services: ........... X- 2 Resolve Ongoing Issues ......................................................... X- 2 Public Works Infrastructure Liabilities ...................................... X- 3 Establish Joint Working Relationships Special Districts Whenever Possible ........................................................................................... X- 4 Alternative I: Limited Revenues Only Support Police Services: ... X- 4 Alternative II: Major Changes to the City: ............................... X- 5 I-3 Brookings Annexation Project Final Report, February 2016 Pre-decisional work product. Variation on Alternative II Option: Full Assumption of the Harbor Sanitary District: ............................................................................... X- 6 Demonstrate the Benefits of Annexation to All Parties: ............... X- 7 Build Community Trust and Confidence in the City ..................... X- 8 Annexation Strategic Plan....................................................... X- 8 Appendix ......................................................Separate Document I-4 Brookings Annexation Project Final Report, February 2016 Pre-decisional work product. I. Task Definition and Project Scope Introduction: Annexation Options to Serve Community Needs The City of Brookings (City) stands as the primary provider of public services in South Curry County. The City and Curry County (County) are located in a relatively isolated part of Oregon, accessible from the Coast Highway 101, or by crossing the Klamath Mountains through California. Unlike many Oregon counties with strong county government, limited property tax revenues and the loss of federal shared timber sale revenues have reduced the Curry County government to a bare minimum of service capacity. The lack of County capacity reinforces the importance of the City of Brookings in the region’s public service delivery. The City is also the lead city government within the Brookings planning urban growth boundary (UGB). In this role, it must plan for the development and extension of public services throughout the UGB. Adjacent to the City on the south side of the Chetco River, the Harbor unincorporated area contains over 2,800 residents. The area is urban, with dense development of manufactured housing and foundation-built homes. The area also contains a large eldercare facility, and commercial development. Several single-purpose service districts provide selected services to the Harbor unincorporated area at low cost. Curry County economically provides road and street maintenance services. However, the City regularly provides law enforcement coverage and mutual aid outside its boundaries. Residents of the unincorporated area adjacent to the City regularly travel on city streets to access shopping centers, or to use City recreational facilities and swimming pool. The City has no mechanism for recovering the costs of these services to non-residents. The annexation of unincorporated areas adjacent and near to the City would provide one means to begin cost recovery, gain consistency and quality in service performance, and build efficiencies in regional public service delivery. Our study interviews revealed that for the Harbor community just south of the City, proposals for annexation by the City raise uncertainties and fears. Harbor residents, often with fixed and limited incomes, perceive the City’s calls for annexation as taking their money, and providing no benefits or increased value in return. According to the 2010 U.S.