02/08/2023 - Agenda
City of Tigard | 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 | 503-639-4171 | www.tigard-or.gov | Page 1 of 2
City of Tigard
Town Center Advisory Commission Agenda
MEETING DATE/TIME: February 8, 2023 – 6:00 to 8:00 p.m. (Business meeting)
MEETING INFORMATION:
Hybrid Meeting
In-person: Tigard Town Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd. or
MS Teams: https://www.tigard-or.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/1949/637770827974830260
1. CALL TO ORDER Tom 6:00
2. CONSIDER MINUTES Tom 6:05
3. CALL FOR NON-AGENDA ITEMS Tom 6:10
4. PUBLIC COMMENT Tom 6:15
5. FOLLOW UP FROM PREVIOUS MEETING Tom 6:20
6. TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS IN TIF DISTRICTS Dave Roth, Sr. Transp. Planner 6:25
7. TCDA JOINT MEETING RECAP Tom 6:45
8. ADOPT 2023 TCAC GOALS Tom 6:50
Action Item
9. FORMATION OF AREAS OF EMPHASIS GROUPS/DISCUSS GOAL KPI’S
Tom 6:55
10. NICK WILSON MEMORIAL PLAZA DISCUSSION Sean 7:05
11. TCDA BUILDING IMPROVEMNT GRANT DISCUSSION Sean 7:15
12. APPOINTMENT OF LIAISONS Tom 7:20
13. NON-AGENDA ITEMS All 7:25
14. ADJOURN BUSINESS MEETING Chair 7:30
15. EXECUTIVE SESSION 7:30-8:00
*EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Town Center Advisory Commission may go into Executive Session to discuss real property
transaction negotiations under ORS 192.660(2) (e). All discussions are confidential and those present may disclose nothing from the
Session. Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend Executive Sessions, as provided by ORS 192.660(4), but must not
disclose any information discussed. No Executive Session may be held for the purpose of taking any final action or making any final
decision. Executive Sessions are closed to the public.
TOWN CENTER ADVISORY COMMISSION AGENDA
City of Tigard | 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 | 503-639-4171 | www.tigard-or.gov | Page 2 of 2
Upcoming meetings of note:
Tues., February 14, 6:30 p.m. TCDA Meeting (TIF 101)
Wed., Mar. 8, 6:00 p.m., Regular TCAC Meeting
Related websites and information:
Tigard TIF Districts
Tigard Construction Updates
The City of Tigard tries to make all reasonable modifications to ensure that people with disabilities have an equal
opportunity to participate equally in all city meetings.
Upon request, the city will do its best to arrange for the following services/equipment:
• Assistive listening devices.
• Qualified sign language interpreters.
• Qualified bilingual interpreters.
Because the city may need to hire outside service providers or arrange for specialized equipment, those requesting
services/equipment should do so as far in advance as possible, but no later than 3 city work days prior to the meeting.
To make a request, call 503-718-2481 (voice) or 503-684-2772 (TDD- Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf).
Page 1 of 2
CITY OF TIGARD
TOWN CENTER ADVISORY COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes
January 11, 2023
Members Present: Travis Diskin, Scott Hancock (Vice Chair), Renette Hier, Tom Murphy (Chair),
Mandy Sharp, Elise Shearer, Bob Tomasovic, Gabe Velasquez (Alternate), and Justin Watson (Ex
Officio).
Members Absent: Adrian Hinckley, Chris Sjolin, and Derrick Wright.
Staff Present: Redevelopment Project Manager Sean Farrelly, and Sr. Administrative Specialist Joe
Patton.
Others Present: N/A
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chair Murphy called the meeting to order at 6:15 pm. The meeting was held in Town Hall with a
hybrid MS Teams option.
2. CONSIDER MINUTES
The December 14, 2022, TCAC Minutes were unanimously approved.
3. CALL FOR NON-AGENDA ITEMS – N/A
4. PUBLIC COMMENT – N/A
5. FOLLOW UP FROM PREVIOUS MEETINGS – N/A
6. MAIN STREET GREEN STREET PHASE 2
Andy gave a brief update on the project. He noted that the temperature needs to be at least 45
degrees in order to pave, so the weather has caused some delay. Once the paving is done the striping
takes place and the signs get installed.
7. FY23-24 BUDGET PRIORITIES
Seam briefly reviewed the draft budget emailed to Commissioners. He moted the Building
Improvement Grant amounts were increased in both Districts. The line item for downtown
wayfinding sign design was of concern. Sean will talk to a couple firms to see if the amount seems
reasonable. Commissioners agreed to leave the amount unchanged.
8. BUILDING IMPROVEMENT GRANT JOINT COMMITTEE NEW MEMBERS
Sean noted the need for two Commissioners to serve on the joint Building Improvement Grant
committee. Gabe and Mandy volunteered.
9. NON-AGENDA ITEMS – N/A
TOWN CENTER ADVISORY COMMISSION
January 11, 2023
Page 2 of 2
10. NOMINATIONS AND OFFICER ELECTIONS
No further nominations were made. Commissioner Murphy was unanimously reelected as Chair and
Commissioner Hinckley was unanimously elected Vice Chair.
11. ADJOURN BUSINESS MEETING
The meeting adjourned at 7:20 pm.
Joe Patton, TCAC Meeting Secretary
Tom Murphy, Chair
Project Need: An Overlook of the Fanno Creek on Main Street will provide access to the natural and recreational resources of the
creek and trail.
Project Description: Construct an overlook at the Fanno Creek at Main Street that will add additional public space and serve as an
attractive amenity for downtown visitors and residents.
Operations and Maintenance Impact:Will add a new public space that will require additional staff and equipment resources.
Prioritization: Tier B – Strategic Vision or Community Promise
Total Project Cost: $1,734,000
Actual
Through
2022
Projected
2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028
Project
Total
*** PRELIMINARY ***97027 - Nick Wilson Memorial Plaza
2029
EXPENSES
External Expenses
Land/Right of Way
Acquisition
323,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 323,000
Design and Engineering 0 155,000 250,000 95,000 0 0 0 0 500,000
Construction 0 0 0 650,000 0 0 0 0 650,000
Environmental Permit
Compliance
0 0 0 20,000 0 0 0 0 20,000
Contingency 0 31,000 50,000 160,000 0 0 0 0 241,000
323,000 186,000 300,000 925,000 0 0 0 0Total External 1,734,000
323,000 186,000 300,000 925,000 0 0 0 0Total Project Expense 1,734,000
REVENUES
Other Revenue Source
Urban Renewal Capital
Improvement
323,000 186,000 300,000 925,000 0 0 0 0 1,734,000
323,000 186,000 300,000 925,000 0 0 0 0Total Other Revenue 1,734,000
323,000 186,000 300,000 925,000 0 0 0 0Total Revenues 1,734,000
Construction will be adjusted if necessary as we get farther in design
Operations and Maintenance Impact:
_______ number of FTE required in ______ fiscal year
_______ dollars required in ________ fiscal year
Project Comments:
*** PRELIMINARY ***Requested CIP System: Parks
Agenda Item 10
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul
Attend Design Coordination and OAC Meeting (Kick-Off)* ** ** *
Review Background Information
Review Survey
Arborist Report
Topographic Survey (if needed)
Geotechnical Assessment & Report
Wetland Delineation Assessment & Report
Traffic Analysis (Main Street and Driveway Placement)
Evaluation of New Fanno Creek Trail Crossing of Main Street
Attend Design Coordination and OAC Meeting * ** ** *
Develop Design Alternatives
Prepare Graphics for Community Outreach
Community Outreach
Misc Public Meetings (Up to three)
Meet with CWS
Submit CWS Pre-Screen Form *
Land Use Pre-Application Conference *
Develop Preferred Concept/ Schematic Design Package
ROM Cost Estimate *
Plan Review with City Staff *
Attend Design Coordination and OAC Meeting * ** ** ** ** *
Design Refinement
50% Design Development Package
50% Design Development Cost Estimate
Plan Review with City Staff
100% Design Development Package
Plan Review with City Staff
Land Use Application & Submittal *
Preliminary Stormwater Report *
Coordinate potenital utility relocation with franchise utility providers
Submit CWS Natural Resource Assesssment (NRA) *
Submit Joint Permit Application & Approval - Army Corps & DSL (Contingent on final design)*
Attend Design Coordination and OAC Meeting * ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** *
Construction Documents 50%
Cost Estimate - 50% CD
Plan Review and Comment Response
Value Engineering
Construction Documents 90%
Plan Review and Comment Response
Permit Set
Prepare Bid Schedule and Specifications
Final Stormwater Report
Submit Erosion Control Plan *
Submit Tree Removal Application *
Submit Permit Applications (Site Work and Public Facilities Improvement)*
Obtain Temporary Construction Easement (work with City)*
Permit Comment Response
Invitation to Bid (Construction Services)
Construction Documents 100% (Conformance Set)
Construction Services Contract Award
Attend Weekly Construction Meeting * ** ** ** ** ** ** ** *
Pre-Construction Video and Photo Documentation of Conditions
Pre-Construction Meeting
Driveway Construction
Plaza Construction
Fanno Creek Bank Restoration
Main Street Crossing (contingent)
Construction Administration, Submittal Review, & RFI Response
On-Site Observation & Field Reports
Punch Walk (Substantial Completion)*
Final Acceptance Walk with City and contractor *
Prepare Record Drawings
Review Construction Warranties and O&M Manuals
2025
TASK 6: PROJECT CLOSE OUT
PROPOSED WILSON MEMORIAL PLAZA
DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE
TASK 1: PROJECT START-UP AND ANALYSIS
TASK 2: SCHEMATIC DESIGN
TASK 3: DESIGN DEVELOPMENT
TASK 5: CONSTRUCTION
TASK 4: CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTATION, PERMITTING, & BIDDING
2023 2024
Agenda Item 10
Prepared by Atlas Landscape Architecture
July, 2014
Fanno Creek Public Space
Feasibility Study
Agenda Item 10
Acknowledgements
Prepared by Atlas Landscape Architecture
Nick Wilson, Landscape Architect
Civil and Structural Engineering:
WDY , Inc.
Cole Presthus
Environmental Consulting:
Pacific Habitat Services
Shawn Eisner
Transportation Consulting:
DKS Associates
Adam Miles
Prepared for City of Tigard
Mayor and Council:
John L. Cook, Mayor
Gretchen Buehner, Councilor
Marland Henderson, Councilor
Jason Snider, Councilor
Marc Woodard, Councilor
City Center Advisory Committee:
Thomas Murphy, Chair
Carine Arendes, Vice Chair
Deanie Bush
Sherrie Devaney
Laura Fisher
Henry March
Paul Miller
Linli Pao
Richard Shavey
Lynn Scroggin, Alternate
Staff:
Kenny Asher
Community Development Director
Sean Farrelly
Redevelopment Project Manager
ATLAS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE 1
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this feasibility study is to explore options to
create a public pedestrian connection between Main Street
and the existing Fanno Creek Trail adjacent to Max’s Fanno
Creek Brewpub. (See Existing Configuration right). In order to
close the egress, a new two-way access must be constructed
to serve the parking in the rear of the building.
The simplest solution is to expand the existing ingress on
the southwest side of the building. However building is
approximately 17’ from the existing property line and at least
20’ is required for two way access. Therefore a new two way
access would require an acquisition of a strip of land from the
adjacent Main Street Apartments. Three options were studied.
Option 1 is to widen the existing ingress on the south west side
of lot 1100 to provide two way access. Option 2 is to create a
new driveway connecting to Maplewood Drive, a private road
serving the Main Street Village Apartments. Option 3 is a hybrid of Options 1 and 2. The existing one-way ingress is
reversed becoming a one way egress. A new one-way ingress accesses the site through Maplewood Drive.
The analysis included physical and regulatory constraints. Review of the proposal included civil and structural engineering
expertise provided by WDY, Inc. an environmental review by Pacific Habitat Services, and a transportation review by DKS
Associates. Their comments are included in full in Appendices C, D and E respectively and have been incorporated into
the narrative. The feasibility review did not include a geotechnical analysis of the stability of the banks of Fanno Creek.
They are over-steep and there is some evidence of localized erosion but they have been in their current condition for many
years and they are assumed to be stable. Additional study may be warranted.
The study was based on mapping data from two different surveys and design information from two different projects.
The data did not match up entirely but is considered reasonably accurate and sufficient for feasibility purposes. Previous
work had been based on data derived from aerial photographs and the new data is likely to be much more reliable If the
project moves forward, a new survey will be required.
The study includes some graphic representations of what a design solution might look like. It was not intended as a final
design but simply a vision for decision-makers and a basis for establishing a budget. A budgetary cost opinion is included
in Appendix A. A plan view design graphic and five perspective renderings of the Fanno Creek Public Space are including
in Appendix B.
Parking
One-way
Vehicular
Traffic
Max’s
Fanno Creek
Brewpub
Existing Configuration
Fanno Creek Public Space
Feasibility Study
FANNO CREEK PUBLIC SPACE FEASIBILITY STUDY2
Stakeholders
The project would impact four tax lots: 1101, 1100, 201 and 204 on Map 2S102AC. Tax lot 1101, the location of Max’s
Brew Pub, and lot 1100 immediately to the west which collectively share the existing ingress and egress are now under a
single ownership. Lot 201 is the Main Street Village Apartments and lot 204 is City-owned park land. In addition to the
three owners, tenant stakeholders, include the Brew Pub, office and retail tenants as well as residential tenants in the
apartments. Leaseholders have certain rights and interests that could be positively or negatively impacted and should be
fully considered in the decision making process. One of the primary considerations for tenants is the availability of parking.
Existing parking is limited and any project that reduces parking, would not likely be viewed favorably. The existing parking
is mostly gravel and not striped. However in conjunction with the recent regrading and re-rocking “blue top” hub marking
whiskers have been placed to mark parking stalls. These are not permanent and in fact are already nearing the end of
their useful life. With the existing layout, there are about 50 parking stalls but most of these are tandem stalls that will
only work for valet or other organized
parking systems.
Option 1
Option 1 would require the acquisition
of an approximately 10’ strip of land
from lot 201 (Main Street Village
Apartments) to widen the existing
driveway to 20 feet. This option
would require a new retaining wall
and relocation of power lines. It
also removes a significant number
of existing trees. This option
exacerbates existing conflicts with
ground floor tenants who currently
use the front yard for parking.
The proximity of the driveway to
Maplewood Drive exacerbates
existing conflicts. The turning radius
of the entrance particularly for eastbound right turns is limited and sight line limitations from the west. There are also
sight line limitations for pedestrians exiting the building with respect to vehicles approaching Main Street from the parking
lot. This is currently not an issue because vehicles approach from the opposite direction. It could be mitigated by design
but not likely without impacting front parking options. Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue (TVF&R) was not concerned about
the limited turning radius since the
approach would likely be from the
northeast from Station 51 on SW
Burnham St. TVF&R has expressed a
preference for this option as it does
not require them to cross the new Main
Street median. However crossing the
median is required to access the 237-
unit Main Street Village Apartments
and the median was designed for that
purpose. Option 1 appears to have
the least impact to Main Street Village
Apartments.
Option 2
Option 2 is to create a new driveway
connection from Maplewood Drive to
the rear parking lot approximately 65
feet south of Main Street. This option Option 2.
Option 1.
ATLAS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE 3
requires a new easement (or fee simple acquisition) from Main Street Village and the construction of a new driveway.
This option also also requires the removal of some trees but allows retention of most of the trees. It also requires a new
retaining wall. It slopes up modestly to Maplewood Drive. Option 2 reduces traffic conflicts with the existing front yard
parking, and pedestrian movements into the building. It also reduces the conflicts caused by the proximity of the driveway
with Maplewood Drive. The turning radii and visibility are better where the driveway meets Maplewood Drive than where
it meets Main Street in Option 1. The turning radii are large enough to accommodate most vehicles, and visibility is good
in all directions. Option 2 would de-couple the front and back parking areas. It is assumed that the front parking would
remain as-is. It is not clear whether a non-conforming parking lot in the front would be allowed to remain under the
development code. Some patrons may find an entrance from Maplewood counter -intuitive however the existing entrance
given its narrow configuration, the existing trees and proximity to the building also lacks visibility. Signage can assist
with way-finding. This option is acceptable to TVF&R but not the most preferred option because of the need to cross the
median.
Option 3
Option 3 is a hybrid of Option 1 and
Option 2. It splits the ingress and
egress with a new one-way ingress
from Maplewood and uses the
existing driveway for egress. This
would reverse the existing direction
of the driveway which is necessary
to avoid crossing of traffic at a blind
corner at the rear of the building. This
option reduces impacts by using the
existing driveway and narrowing the
needed new driveway into the parking
lot from Maplewood. This option
reduces impacts to existing trees and
may minimize the new retaining walls
needed. It provides good turning radii
in all directions. However it does not
meet the TVF&R’s need for a 20’
minimum access width.
Conclusion
Based on transportation accessibility, safety, and geometric review
(see DKS Associates memorandum in appendix E), Option 2 is the
preferred alternative, followed by Option 1. Option 3 appears to be
ruled out based on minimum fire access requirements.
Project Constraints
An initial concern about the physical width of the entrance in all
options appears to be resolved. Specifically the distance between
a retaining wall supporting the nearest apartment building and
the nearest building wall on the project site is constrained. (see
photo below.) The space between them is 22’-6” and there is a
slope at the base of the wall that may indicate a shallow footing.
However, subsequent study has indicated that the width is physically
adequate, the slopes can be addressed and the wall appears to be
sound and is not subject to negative impact of a widened driveway.
The primary constraints impacting the feasibility of the proposed
project are political, financial and regulatory. And the three are
Option 3.
FANNO CREEK PUBLIC SPACE FEASIBILITY STUDY4
interconnected. The political constraints are dependent on whether the various stakeholders interests are sufficiently
aligned to reach an agreement to proceed. The degree to which a political consensus can be reached depends to some
degree on the project cost and how costs are shared. And regulatory constraints add to the project cost. The remainder
of the feasibility study addresses the regulatory constraints, the likely project cost and designs to equip decision makers
with the information necessary to make an informed decision.
Tigard Development Code
This study is concerned primarily with the new public space along Fanno Creek. The project was conceived as constructing
only the public space and the minimum improvements necessary to close the existing access which initially included only
the new driveway. However the Tigard Development Code requires that any change in access will trigger a need to bring
the entire parking lot into compliance with all applicable standards in chapters 18.805 through 18.810 including the off-
street parking standards contained in 18.765.
Although a detailed review of the standards was not undertaken because actual parking lot design was not included in
the scope of the study, it is assumed that all the standards can be met and that meeting them is simply a matter of cost
and the number of spaces that can be incorporated.
The one standard that will require either an adjustment or variance is the driveway entrance width. The development
code requires 24’ curb to curb width for commercial driveways. Staff had indicated that a 20’ width would likely meet
the criteria for approval under the adjustment process. There is also a requirement that new driveways must be spaced
a minimum of 30’ from another driveway. Staff has indicated that this requirement would be likely waived through an
adjustment process also.
Clean Water Services (Storm Water)
On redevelopment sites, Clean Water Services (CWS) requires treatment of new impervious area and a percentage of
existing impervious area depending on the size of the existing impervious area and the area of disturbance. Detention
is not required. The volume of treatment required in cubic feet 0.03 X the impervious area to be treated. Because this
project spans four tax lots, it is premature to determine exactly how large the basin would need to be. Normally, CWS
requires each lot to be treated separately and thresholds for treatment differ depending on changes to impervious area
and area of disturbance. But if the entire impervious area existing and proposed is required to be treated (approximately
1 acre), it would require approximately 1300 cu. ft. of treatment volume or 650 s.f. at two feet of depth. The area shown
on the site plan for the water quality facility is sufficient but it may require retaining walls around the perimeter depending
on the volume actually required.
Fire Lane
The Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue Fire Marshall has reviewed the plan with the the three access options as well as the
entire conceptual design including the parking lot and the public pedestrian area along Fanno Creek. The existing parking
lot access is not in compliance with the requirements for a fire lane. The fire code requires that all portions of the building
be within 150’ of a public street or approved fire lane. Portions of the existing building are longer than 150’ from Main
Street. The Fire Marshall has reviewed the proposed hammerhead turnaround and indicated a likelihood of approval
based on the preliminary review. However Option 3 does not meet the minimum requirements for a fire lane and would
not likely be approved.
Natural Resources
The natural resources found on the site associated with Fanno Creek are regulated by the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps),
the Oregon State Division of State Lands (DSL), Clean Water Services (CWS) and the City of Tigard. The jurisdiction of
the agencies varies. The Corps and DSL have overlapping jurisdiction and permit projects jointly. Corps/DSL jurisdiction
ATLAS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE 5
include the waterway up to the “ordinary high water mark” (OHWM) and its associated wetlands. CWS regulates a
vegetated corridor buffer area that from the Corps/DSL jurisdictional boundary upland an additional 50 feet or in the
case of previously developed sites, up to the limit of the existing developed area. Tigard imposes additional regulations
on “Sensitive Lands” defined in this case as areas within the 100 year floodplain.
The permitting process begins with a delineation of the jurisdictional boundaries. The boundary has been recently
delineated for tax lot 1101 and therefore no new delineation is required. However, improvements to tax lot 1100 are
anticipated as well and a new delineation may be required for that portion of the site. Lot 1101 was the subject of a
previous improvement project when the brew pub was opened. At that time, the driveway egress was widened and water
quality facilities were installed and a previously developed site was added to the resource buffer area and mitigation
planting was installed.
This project does not necessitate impacts to Corps/DSL jurisdictional resources as currently proposed. However, if the
city would like to address improvements to the creek also, it would be preferable to treat that work as a separate project
because of the complexity that federal permitting would entail.
CWS requires that encroachments into existing vegetated corridors be mitigated on a 1:1 basis on the project site. The
mitigation area is required to be incorporated into the remaining Vegetated Corridor on the project site and meet the
Good Corridor Condition standards. In addition, CWS requires that the entire vegetated corridor within the development
be enhanced to meet or exceed Good Corridor Condition.
The project encroaches as much as 3800 s.f. into the existing vegetated corridor. The amount of encroachment could
be reduced if the storm facility size requirements are reduced, or if it can be relocated from the place shown on the
plan. It could be completely removed from the vegetated corridor by reducing parking spaces but it is understood that
stakeholders place a high value on parking spaces and loss of spaces would likely mean a loss of support for the project.
Pathways are an allowed use in a vegetated corridor so long as they meet certain criteria. However the cantilever deck
shown in the concept drawings are not. It would be subject to an alternatives analysis and may be deemed insufficiently
justified by CWS. It should be noted that similar decks functioning as interpretive facilities associated with pathways have
been permitted within vegetated corridors.
The project would likely be approved subject to additional City-owned land nearby be set aside for additional corridor
width and mitigation installed according to CWS requirements.
Project Budget
A budget for the project has been estimated at $737,000, including soft costs such design and permitting. The cost of
acquiring easements as not been included in the project budget. Of the total, $94,000 is attributed to soft costs and
$643,000 to construction. Of the construction budget, $395,000 is attributed to the public open space and $248,000
to the parking lot and new driveway. The project includes a 20% contingency. The parking lot and driveway budget is
less flexible than the public space budget since its design is driven primarily by regulatory parameters. The public space
budget could be increased or decreased depending on the level of improvement desired. The budget reflects a medium
level of improvement based on the plan graphics and images prepared as a visioning exercise for the project. The budget
detail is included in Appendix A.
Project Design
This feasibility study was not intended for purposes of developing a specific design for the project. It was intended to
develop a vision for the project to equip decision makers and stakeholders with information to evaluate the proposal to
determine whether there is consensus to pursue it further. However, there are several principles to observe in completing
FANNO CREEK PUBLIC SPACE FEASIBILITY STUDY6
any design. The purpose of this project is to allow the public to appreciate and to enjoy views of downtown’s primary
amenity, Fanno Creek. In order to appreciate the creek’s attributes, it is necessary that they be visible. CWS will require
that the creek be restored to “good corridor condition.” Good condition is defined by the corridor’s vegetation. It should
consist of a combination of trees shrubs and ground cover covering greater than 80% of the community and greater
than 50% tree canopy. In order to achieve that goal, CWS requires specific plants be planted at certain minimum sizes
and densities. For example, small trees (2’-3’ height at planting) are required to be planted at 10’ spacing which could
interfere with views. The goal of 50% coverage could be achieved by planting larger trees at greater spacing but the code
does not allow this. In addition there is little flexibility in the types of shrubs that are planted. Lower shrubs can achieve
the 80% coverage goal while allowing views of the creek. The City of Tigard should negotiate with CWS to allow some
flexibility in achieving good corridor condition while supporting the additional pubic benefits of being able to see the creek.
Secondly, public spaces are most successful when supported by their adjacent uses. This site is adjacent to the Fanno
Creek Brew Pub. The project’s design should be integrated as much as practical with the adjacent private uses to be
mutually supportive.
Finally, there is a unique opportunity to engage the public in learning about their downtown asset, Fanno Creek. Establishing
a relationship with Tigard’s most visible and accessible waterway, creates an opportunity to raise awareness of its role
in the natural environment. There is an the possibility to create a new artful storm outfall from Tigard’s new Main Street
Green Street and to tell its story. There is also an opportunity to link in to the USGS’s water quality monitoring facility that
could give a viewer real time information about the creek’s water flow, temperature, turbidity and other information that
could help raise awarenesss of our urban stream and appreciation for protecting its water quality and wildlife.
Plan graphics and images were developed to help visualize what a finished project might look like. They are included in
Appendix B.
Fanno Creek Public Space
Feasibility Study
Budget Estimate Appendix A
Page 1 of 3
Entire Project Budget
Section No.Item Description
Bid
Quantity Bid Units Unit Price Subtotal
01 00 00 General Requirements
01 57 13 -01 Sediment fence 500 lin. ft. $3.50 $1,750
02 00 00 Existing Conditions
02 41 00 -01 Asphalt and concrete paving removal 11000 s.f. $0.70 $7,700
03 00 00 Concrete
03 30 00 -01 seatwall footing 13 cu yd. $350.00 $4,550
03 30 00 -02 concrete seatwall 430 f.f. $60.00 $25,800
03 45 00 -01 precast seatwall wall cap 6 cu yd. $800.00 $4,800
04 00 00 Masonry
04 42 00 -01 seatwall stone veneer 860 s.f. $35.00 $30,100
04 22 00 -01 trash enclosure 1 allow $10,000.00 $10,000
05 00 00 Metals
05 52 00 -01 stainless steel railing 40 l.f. $300.00 $12,000
06 00 00 Wood, Plastics & Composites
06 15 33 -01 hardwood decking over steel 1000 s.f. $50.00 $50,000
10 00 00 Specialties
10 73 16 -01 glass canopy 500 s.f. $155.00 $77,500
26 00 00 Electrical
26 56 00 -01 pole lights 7 ea. $3,000.00 $21,000
26 56 00 -02 site electrical allowance 1 l.s. $10,000.00 $10,000
31 00 00 Earthwork
31 13 00 -01 Tree removal 6 ea $500.00 $3,000
31 22 00 -01 Common excavation & haul off 1200 cu. yd. $35.00 $42,000
32 00 00 Exterior Improvements
32 11 00 -01 3/4" minus aggregate base 500 cu.yd. $35.00 $17,500
32 12 16 -01 Class C - AC 18500 s.f. $2.00 $37,000
32 13 13 -01 Driveway apron 350 s.f. $7.50 $2,625
32 14 13 -01 60 mm conc. Unit pavers 3500 sq. ft. $6.00 $21,000
32 16 13 -01 Type C PCC curb, 16" depth, machine form 770 lin. ft. $23.00 $17,710
32 17 23 -01 Paint Striping, signage 1 allow $1,500.00 $1,500
32 32 23 -01 MSE retaining wall 300 f.f. $25.00 $7,500
32 31 13 -01 6' chain link fence 250 lin. ft. $25.00 $6,250
32 33 00 -01 8-foot bench 3 each $1,500.00 $4,500
32 33 00 -02 Trash receptacle 2 each $1,200.00 $2,400
32 90 00 -01 Mitigation Planting (on-site) 0.15 acre $12,000.00 $1,800
32 90 00 -02 Mitigation Planting (off-site) 0.10 acre $12,000.00 $1,200
32 90 00 -03 Landscaping 10500 s.f $4.00 $42,000
33 40 00 Utilities
33 40 00 -01 storm system allowance 1 l.s. $35,000.00 $35,000
Subtotal $498,185
General Conditions/OH/Profit l.s. 7.50% $37,364
Subtotal $535,549
Contingency 20.00% $107,110
Grand Total $642,659
Fanno Creek Public Space
Feasibility Study
Budget Estimate Appendix A
Page 2 of 3
Public Space Budget
Section No.Item Description
Bid
Quantity Bid Units Unit Price Subtotal
01 00 00 General Requirements
01 57 13 -01 Sediment fence 300 lin. ft. $3.50 $1,050
02 00 00 Existing Conditions
02 41 00 -01 Asphalt and concrete paving removal 3000 s.f. $0.70 $2,100
03 00 00 Concrete
03 30 00 -01 seatwall footing 13 cu yd. $350.00 $4,550
03 30 00 -02 concrete seatwall 430 f.f. $60.00 $25,800
03 45 00 -01 precast seatwall wall cap 6 cu yd. $800.00 $4,800
04 00 00 Masonry
04 42 00 -01 seatwall stone veneer 860 s.f. $35.00 $30,100
04 22 00 -01 trash enclosure 0 allow $10,000.00 $0
05 00 00 Metals
05 52 00 -01 stainless steel railing 40 l.f. $300.00 $12,000
06 00 00 Wood, Plastics & Composites
06 15 33 -01 hardwood decking over steel 1000 s.f. $50.00 $50,000
10 00 00 Specialties
10 73 16 -01 glass canopy 500 s.f. $155.00 $77,500
26 00 00 Electrical
26 56 00 -01 pole lights 5 ea. $3,000.00 $15,000
26 56 00 -02 site electrical allowance 0.5 l.s. $10,000.00 $5,000
31 00 00 Earthwork
31 13 00 -01 Tree removal 0 ea $500.00 $0
31 22 00 -01 Common excavation & haul off 155 cu. yd. $35.00 $5,425
32 00 00 Exterior Improvements
32 11 00 -01 3/4" minus aggregate base 80 cu.yd. $35.00 $2,800
32 12 16 -01 Class C - AC 0 s.f. $2.00 $0
32 13 13 -01 Driveway apron 0 s.f. $7.50 $0
32 14 13 -01 60 mm conc. Unit pavers 3500 sq. ft. $6.00 $21,000
32 16 13 -01 Type C PCC curb, 16" depth, machine form 0 lin. ft. $23.00 $0
32 17 23 -01 Paint Striping, signage 0 allow $1,500.00 $0
32 32 23 -01 MSE retaining wall 0 f.f. $25.00 $0
32 31 13 -01 6' chain link fence 250 lin. ft. $25.00 $6,250
32 33 00 -01 8-foot bench 3 each $1,500.00 $4,500
32 33 00 -02 Trash receptacle 2 each $1,200.00 $2,400
32 90 00 -01 Mitigation Planting (on-site) 0.075 acre $12,000.00 $900
32 90 00 -02 Mitigation Planting (off-site) 0.05 acre $12,000.00 $600
32 90 00 -03 Landscaping 6875 s.f $4.00 $27,500
33 40 00 Utilities
33 40 00 -01 storm system allowance 0.2 l.s. $35,000.00 $7,000
Subtotal $306,275
General Conditions/OH/Profit l.s. 7.50% $22,971
Subtotal $329,246
Contingency 20.00% $65,849
Grand Total $395,095
Fanno Creek Public Space
Feasibility Study
Budget Estimate Appendix A
Page 3 of 3
Parking and Driveway Budget
Section No.Item Description
Bid
Quantity Bid Units Unit Price Subtotal
01 00 00 General Requirements
01 57 13 -01 Sediment fence 200 lin. ft. $3.50 $700
02 00 00 Existing Conditions
02 41 00 -01 Asphalt and concrete paving removal 8000 s.f. $0.70 $5,600
03 00 00 Concrete
03 30 00 -01 seatwall footing 0 cu yd. $350.00 $0
03 30 00 -02 concrete seatwall 0 f.f. $60.00 $0
03 45 00 -01 precast seatwall wall cap 0 cu yd. $800.00 $0
04 00 00 Masonry
04 42 00 -01 seatwall stone veneer 0 s.f. $35.00 $0
04 22 00 -01 trash enclosure 1 allow $10,000.00 $10,000
05 00 00 Metals
05 52 00 -01 stainless steel railing 0 l.f. $300.00 $0
06 00 00 Wood, Plastics & Composites
06 15 33 -01 hardwood decking over steel 0 s.f. $50.00 $0
10 00 00 Specialties
10 73 16 -01 glass canopy 0 s.f. $155.00 $0
26 00 00 Electrical
26 56 00 -01 pole lights 2 ea. $3,000.00 $6,000
26 56 00 -02 site electrical allowance 0.5 l.s. $10,000.00 $5,000
31 00 00 Earthwork
31 13 00 -01 Tree removal 6 ea $500.00 $3,000
31 22 00 -01 Common excavation & haul off 1045 cu. yd. $35.00 $36,575
32 00 00 Exterior Improvements
32 11 00 -01 3/4" minus aggregate base 420 cu.yd. $35.00 $14,700
32 12 16 -01 Class C - AC 18500 s.f. $2.00 $37,000
32 13 13 -01 Driveway apron 350 s.f. $7.50 $2,625
32 14 13 -01 60 mm conc. Unit pavers 0 sq. ft. $6.00 $0
32 16 13 -01 Type C PCC curb, 16" depth, machine form 770 lin. ft. $23.00 $17,710
32 17 23 -01 Paint Striping, signage 1 allow $1,500.00 $1,500
32 32 23 -01 MSE retaining wall 300 f.f. $25.00 $7,500
32 31 13 -01 6' chain link fence 0 lin. ft. $25.00 $0
32 33 00 -01 8-foot bench 0 each $1,500.00 $0
32 33 00 -02 Trash receptacle 0 each $1,200.00 $0
32 90 00 -01 Mitigation Planting (on-site) 0.075 acre $12,000.00 $900
32 90 00 -02 Mitigation Planting (off-site) 0.05 acre $12,000.00 $600
32 90 00 -03 Landscaping 3625 s.f $4.00 $14,500
33 40 00 Utilities
33 40 00 -01 storm system allowance 0.8 l.s. $35,000.00 $28,000
Subtotal $191,910
General Conditions/OH/Profit l.s. 7.50% $14,393
Subtotal $206,303
Contingency 20.00% $41,261
Grand Total $247,564
1
Nick Wilson
Subject:FW: Fanno Creek Trail---Storm Water Treatment Requirements
From: Cole Presthus [mailto:colep@wdyi.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2014 4:50 PM
To: Atlas-Nick
Subject: RE: Fanno Creek Trail---Storm Water Treatment Requirements
Nick,
Regarding the above project, following is a summary of our site observations & research of the structural and civil
engineering issues we were requested to look at. Namely, any structural concerns regarding placing the new access road
immediately adjacent to the downhill side of the existing concrete retaining wall located on the adjacent apartment
complex property to the south; and perform a brief review of potential storm water facility requirements that may be
needed for the project. Please give me a call if you have any questions, Thanks, Cole
A. Structural observation of existing concrete retaining wall on adjacent private property:
The concrete wall on adjacent private property appears to be in adequate condition and performing its intended
function, modification of the wall is not recommended.
The existing grade at the downhill face of wall appears to be low enough that the proposed access driveway can
be installed adjacent to the wall without causing detrimental effects on the existing wall.
Approximate 3 inch diameter drainage weep holes were noted along the base of the wall on the downhill face.
These weep holes must not be obstructed by future development as they allow drainage of the soil backfill
behind the wall. Provision for collecting water seepage coming out of these weep holes should be provided for
in the design of the new access driveway.
B. Storm Drainage considerations for redeveloping or adding new impervious areas to the two Tax Lots (TL 1100 and TL
1101):
In accordance with CWS standards for determining storm water facility requirements, the development on
each Tax Lot will be considered separately as they are distinct legal parcels. It is possible to provide one storm
facility on one lot for both the lots but it would require new storm drainage easements and maintenance
agreements to be created with final review and approval authority by CWS and City of Tigard.
Note that CWS will not require storm water detention facilities, but facilities for storm water quality treatment
may be required.
Both tax lots are approximately 0.6 acres in size, and each has approximately 16,000 SF of existing impervious
area. Per CWS standards, if a lot has more than 5,280 SF of existing impervious area and less than 0.5 acres of
existing impervious area, then if more than 1,000 SF of existing impervious area is disturbed in a re‐
development project, then ALL storm drainage from both new and existing impervious area must be collected
and treated in a storm water treatment facility. That means all roof runoff and all parking lot or other
impervious areas must be collected and treated.
If less than 1000 sf of existing impervious area is disturbed, then no storm water quality treatment will be
required. Storm water treatment is required for all new impervious areas.
Storm water treatment facilities should be located toward the low end of each lot and outfall provided to the
adjacent Fanno Creek.
Cole Presthus, P.E., S.E.
WDY Structural ‐ Civil Engineers
6443 SW Beaverton‐Hillsdale Hwy.
Suite 210
Portland OR 97221
Oregon General Contractors: CCB# 94379
April 14, 2014
Nick Wilson
Atlas Landscape Architecture
12562 SW Main Street, Suite 210
Tigard, OR 97223
In Re: Fanno Creek Public Space – Regulatory Memorandum
PHS Project Number: 5401
Nick:
Thank you for your recent description of your vision for the Fanno Creek Public Space project just south of
Main Street in Tigard. I have considered the topics we discussed and reviewed the conceptual site plan you
prepared. Based upon that information and a review of existing conditions I have made some assumptions
regarding the need for several common natural resource permits and approvals. Those likely to be required for
work in the vicinity of waterways and wetlands include wetland/waterway fill permits from the Oregon
Department of State Lands (DSL) and the US Army Corps of Engineers (Corps); and a Service Provider Letter
(SPL) from Clean Water Services (CWS). All three of these agencies will rely upon the results of a wetland
delineation to determine the limits of their respective jurisdiction in the vicinity of the project. This memo
includes a discussion of each of these elements and how they might affect the project as proposed. The City of
Tigard also has specific natural resources reporting requirements but their needs will very likely be met by
and/or encapsulated within reports or applications required by these three other agencies.
Water areas delineation
The purpose of the delineation is to identify the limits of potentially jurisdictional waterways or wetlands, in
this case the limits of Fanno Creek, within the project area. The Corps and DSL will rely upon the delineation,
the results of which will be documented in a report, to identify the jurisdictional boundaries of the creek (and
wetlands, if present). Clean Water Services uses the delineation to identify where vegetated corridors adjoining
the water resource begin. If no impacts to jurisdictional water bodies are anticipated then a standalone report is
not necessary for CWS. The results of a delineation can be incorporated into the supporting documentation for
a natural resources assessment (see below). If a recent delineation of the project area already exists a full
delineation and associated report may not be necessary for this project. Assuming impacts to Fanno Creek are
necessary; concurrence of the delineation report will need to be obtained separately from Corps and DSL and
will take approximately 120 days. This review can occur concurrently with any application for wetland or
waterway impacts (see below).
Wetland/Waterway fill permit (DSL & Corps)
Though our on-site discussion generally revolved around the need to obtain an SPL from CWS, the proximity
of the project to Fanno Creek itself means that the project and the work to implement it will need to be carefully
designed if permits from both the DSL and Corps are to be avoided. As there remains a potential need for such
permits, I have included a discussion of the permitting process.
PACIFIC HABITAT SERVICES, INC
9450 SW Commerce Circle, Suite 180 (800) 871-9333 (503) 570-0800 Fax (503) 570-0855
Wilsonville, OR 97070
Nick Wilson, Atlas Landscape Architecture
Pacific Habitat Services, Inc. / PHS #5401
Page 2 of 3
The need for permits from the DSL and Corps could be triggered by a number of actions. Should the banks of
Fanno Creek that flows through the middle of the project area need to be shaped or stabilized, permits would be
necessary regardless of impact area or quantity of removal or fill. This is because Fanno Creek is mapped
essential salmonid habitat (ESH) and is a known to provided habitat to listed fish species. Even if these
elements will benefit the system, such as the removal of unpermitted fill material, or the addition of fish habitat
elements, or to increase channel complexity, permits will be needed. Though every impact to jurisdictional
wetlands or waterways require some form of mitigation, it is assumed that proposed elements could be
quantified as improvements to the existing habitat and would therefore be self-mitigating. This would be
important to prove within the permit application because direct impacts to waterways with listed fish species
are more difficult to get approved and additional mitigation (on-site or off) may need to be provided.
The permitting process for a project including stream bank restoration can be relatively straightforward,
provided the project will result in a measurable increase in bank stability. Projects that include water control
structures, such as the boulders shown on the conceptual plan, can also be considered restoration elements. If a
permit is necessary, the application will be submitted to the DSL and Corps and both agencies can be expected
to issue a permit within approximately 120 days of submittal. If proposed elements cannot be considered an
instream enhancement, a biological assessment of the project may need to be provided. This requires an
extensive report documenting the project and its effect on fish habitat within the project area and beyond. This
report is then reviewed by the Corps and National Marine Fisheries Services (NMFS), before NMFS issues a
biological opinion (BO); a process that can take four to six months.
Following the recent issuance of SLOPES V (for Stormwater, Transportation or Utilities), a biological opinion
and agreement between the Corps and NMFS, any project including wetland or waterway impact that results in
a permanent increase in impervious surfaces will trigger the need to provide a level of stormwater treatment and
detention that exceeds current local standards, including those of CWS. In addition to treating stormwater
runoff from all contributing areas, storm retention or detention facilities must limit discharge to match pre-
development discharge rates (i.e., the discharge rates assume natural groundcover before any development). The
stormwater detention requirement may necessitate a storm pond, subsurface storage, and/or the utilization of
pervious pavement or other LIDA stormwater techniques. Again, this elevated storm plan is only triggered if the
Corps needs to issue a permit and the project includes increased impervious surface. Therefore, if at all
possible, it may be necessary to treat some of these public space improvements as different projects and thereby
limit the federal nexus for stormwater treatment. Decreasing overall impervious surfaces within the project area
would also eliminate the need for the higher stormwater standards.
Service Provider Letter from CWS
Clean Water Services will not only be directly involved with stormwater elements, but due to their natural
resources nexus, their regulations will also need to be addressed from a surface water standpoint as well. CWS
regulates activities in vegetated corridors adjoining all wetlands and waterways. Fanno Creek and any adjoining
wetlands will have a vegetated corridor extending 50 feet from the resource edge. Where development lies
within 50 feet, the vegetated corridor will extend to the very edge of development. As the public space
improvements as you have described them will include expanding development out into vegetated areas west of
Fanno Creek, vegetated corridor impacts are anticipated. Though payment to CWS in lieu of direct mitigation is
sometimes an option for vegetated corridor mitigation, those triggers would not apply for a project such as this
(unless the entire area of encroachment can be kept beneath 300 square feet).
CWS requires the applicant to submit a Natural Resource Assessment (NRA) report that identifies wetlands,
streams, and vegetated corridors. The NRA also identifies impacts to resources and the vegetated corridor
enhancement and proposed mitigation plans. CWS reviews the NRA and issues a Service Provider Letter within
approximately 15 business days. The review period is extended when additional information is requested by
Nick Wilson, Atlas Landscape Architecture
Pacific Habitat Services, Inc. / PHS #5401
Page 3 of 3
CWS. Fees associated with CWS include $500 initial review fee, and when corridor impacts this close to a
water resource are proposed, an additional $1,000 tiered review fee.
As the project will include some extensive work on both sides of the existing building west of Fanno Creek, as
well as the potential for additional improvements to the east of Fanno Creek, it is anticipated that CWS will
require complete enhancement of vegetated corridors on both sides of Fanno Creek within tax lots that are part
of the proposed project. Enhancement entails the removal of existing invasive species such as reed canarygrass
and Himalayan blackberry as well as the planting of native trees, shrubs, and groundcover to a CWS required
density. The requirement for on-site enhancement and the likely need for mitigation for project related impacts
mean that off-site mitigation will likely need to be identified in order for this project to be approved by CWS.
The identification of off-site mitigation opportunities is beyond the scope of this memo, but in general CWS
will be looking for such mitigation to occur as close as possible to the development area. Typically, mitigation
must occur beyond the regulated vegetated corridor boundary, that is it would need to occur beyond the
standard 50 foot vegetated corridor boundary associated with that system. Ratios for offsite mitigation vary
depending upon the distance from the site and the condition of the onsite vegetated corridor.
As you have described, recent (2009) work in this area included parking lot and driveway improvements (in the
form of pavers) as well as the removal of asphalt along the east side of the parking area and egress drive as well
as the addition of a storm pond. With the possibility for additional impacts in this area, including the potential
for some new encroachments for a seating area and trail connections, all within areas planted with native
vegetation as part of the prior project, I would recommend that this project be submitted CWS for comment and
review prior to any official submittal for the SPL. This will allow the City to discuss the need to impact areas
that had been planted as part of a prior project. Of course, the utilization of LIDA elements will help alleviate
CWS concerns, though it is possible that additional mitigation may need to be provided.
I have attempted to provide information that includes several assumptions that may or may not apply now or as
project elements change but hopefully this includes a reliable indication of the complexity of obtaining
approvals for the project as planned. Feel free to contact me at your convenience with any additional questions
or comments.
Sincerely,
Shawn Eisner
Wetland Biologist
Pacific Habitat Services
2/1/23 TIF District Project Updates
City Center TIF District
1. Universal Plaza
• Ribbon cutting planned for April 15
2. Main Street Green Street Phase 2
• In progress
3. Senior Center Affordable Housing
• Framing completed
• Official name will be “Alongside Senior Apartments”
• Weekly contacts from people interested in leasing
4. Main Street at Fanno project
• Site work has started
• Encountering some challenges- larger boulders, much more excavation needed
than planned.
5. Building Improvement Grants
• Shawn Gardener Dancing project complete
6. Nick Wilson Memorial Plaza (Fanno Creek Overlook)
• Design and engineering team has a scope and schedule
7. City Facilities Consolidation (only parking structure is TIF funded)
• No update
8. Downtown Reimagined
• Land Use and Transportation Alternatives TCAC review in March
9. Downtown Parking Strategy
• Parking survey for visitors, residents, and businesses results are back, will be
discussed with TCAC in March
Tigard Triangle URD
1. Affordable Housing
• New application received
2. The Overland (Dartmouth and 72nd Mixed Use)
• Project complete
3. Red Rock Creek Trail Planning
• TCAC update trail alignment study will be scheduled
4. Mixed Use Path over Highway 217
• No Update
5. Parks
• Agency investigating additional properties
6. Opportunity Fund
• Grant recipient El Jefe opening this month
• New application received- Cake Hoopla for an Overland space
7. Infrastructure
• City applying for Federal RAISE grant to fund the final design and
construction of Phase 1 SW 72nd Ave. between Pacific Highway and
Dartmouth
• Will request letter of support from TCAC
8. DIG Hampton Street Project
• No update
FINANCIALIMPACT REPORT
TIF District/Urban RenewalTown Center Development Agency of the City of Tigard
FY 2021–2022
FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2022
Date Filed: January 31, 2023
TC DA
TCDA
TCDA
The Overland Apartments
PAGE 2 | TIF District/Urban Renewal FINANCIAL IMPACT REPORT | FY 2021-2022 TIF District/Urban Renewal FINANCIAL IMPACT REPORT | FY 2021-2022 | PAGE 3
Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Districts Urban Renewal (Overview)
ORS 457.460 requires the urban renewal agency to file an annual statement on financial proceedings. In
Tigard, the term “urban renewal” is synonymous with tax increment financing or TIF.
What Does Tax Increment Financing Do?
Tax increment financing uses property taxes from within an area to fix identified problems in that same area. It often
focuses on improving an area’s transportation and utility infrastructure since these kinds of improvements can unlock an
area’s development potential. Tax increment financing can also be used to attract and retain small businesses, support
affordable housing, and develop public spaces such as parks, plazas, and trails.
How Does Tax Increment
Financing Work?
When a Tax Increment Financing (TIF) District is established, the
County Assessor determines the current assessed value of all
property within the area and freezes that tax base. Tax revenue from
this “frozen base” continues to go to taxing districts annually for
the life of the TIF District. Tax revenue on any increase in property
value that would occur anyway – from new development and/or
appreciation – is allocated to the TIF District Agency for projects
in the district. This increase above the frozen base is called the
“increment.” When the TIF District expires, the frozen base also
expires, and the local taxing districts resume receiving taxes on the
full assessed value of the properties.
How are decisions made about tax
increment financing?
The Town Center Development Agency (TCDA) is the City of Tigard’s
TIF District Agency and is responsible for administering the City Center
and Tigard Triangle plans. The Board of the Town Center Development
Agency are the decision makers of the agency. The membership of the
Board is made up of the Tigard City Council. The Town Center Advisory
Commission makes recommendations to the board on policy, budget,
and implementation of tax increment financing projects.
What Are the Benefits of
TIF Districts for Tigard?
• Improves Tigard’s Long-Term
Financial Health
By bringing in new businesses and
development, urban renewal increases
Tigard’s tax base over time which, in turn,
helps fund future city services for all of
Tigard residents.
• Provides a Stable Funding Source
By creating a stable, long-term funding
source (without creating a new tax), the city
can build or fix infrastructure that it may
otherwise delay, or never be able to afford.
• Steers Investment Toward an Area
Ready for Change
By focusing on areas already zoned for
mixed-use commercial and residential
density, TIF steers investments toward parts
of Tigard that are the most ready for change.
• Furthers Tigard’s Walkability Goal
TIF can help further the city’s goal
of becoming a more walkable,
interconnected and healthy community by
transforming auto-oriented districts with
no or limited sidewalks into pedestrian-
friendly areas with a diverse mix of
destinations and activities.
• Supports Travel by Alternate Modes
By fostering the creation of a complete
community – one which has jobs,
housing, services, and transit – TIF can
make travel by alternate modes (travel by
foot, bike, or transit) feasible.
Red Rock Creek Commons
PAGE 4 | TIF District/Urban Renewal FINANCIAL IMPACT REPORT | FY 2021-2022 TIF District/Urban Renewal FINANCIAL IMPACT REPORT | FY 2021-2022 | PAGE 5
Tigard has two urban
renewal districts:
1. City Center
(Downtown) Urban
Renewal District
2. Tigard Triangle Urban
Renewal District
Tax increment financing
expenditures in both districts
are guided by their respective
urban renewal plans. These
urban renewal plans are
administered by the Town
Center Development Agency,
which was established by the
Tigard City Council as the
City’s Urban Renewal Agency.
Approved by Voters: 2006
Substantial Amendments Approved by Voters: 2017 and 2021
Size: 228.96 acres
Amended Duration: 29 years
Amended Maximum Indebtedness: $42.8 Million
Remaining Maximum Indebtedness: $31,197,120 (2022)
The purpose of the City Center Urban Renewal Plan is to use the
tools provided by TIF to attract private investment and facilitate
the area’s revitalization. In 2021 Tigard voters approved a
substantial amendment to the plan extending the duration and
adding $20.8 million in maximum indebtedness (the amount to
fund projects and programs.)
The City Center Urban Renewal Area boundary is shown in blue.
The City Center (Downtown) Urban Renewal Plan has 5 Distinct Goals:
Goal 1
Revitalization of the Downtown should recognize the value of natural
resources as amenities and as contributing to the special sense of place.
Goal 2
Capitalize on Commuter Rail and Fanno Creek as catalysts for future
investment and development.
Goal 3
Downtown’s transportation system should be multi-modal, connecting
people, places and activities safely and conveniently.
Goal 4
Downtown’s streetscape and public spaces should be pedestrian-friendly
and not visually dominated by the automobile.
Goal 5
Promote high-quality development of retail, office and residential uses that
support and are supported by public streetscape, transportation, recreation
and open space investments.
City Center Urban Renewal Plan City Center Urban Renewal Plan
PAGE 6 | TIF District/Urban Renewal FINANCIAL IMPACT REPORT | FY 2021-2022 TIF District/Urban Renewal FINANCIAL IMPACT REPORT | FY 2021-2022 | PAGE 7
Attwell off Main
Completed in 2017, Attwell off Main brought over 300 residents to
downtown Tigard. Attracting new residents to downtown is a goal
of the TIF district and the City’s strategic plan.
Attwell off Main would not have occurred without TIF. In 2015,
the Tigard City Center Development Agency (TCDA, Tigard’s
TIF agency) signed a developer agreement with Capstone
Greenlight and DIG Tigard. Through the agreement, the
developer team purchased the TCDA-owned development
site for its appraised value and the TCDA invested the $1.65
million purchase price into partially offsetting the nearly $2.8
million in system development charges incurred by the project’s
construction.
This public investment resulted in private investment of over $30
million into the mixed-use project.
Take a walk down Tigard’s
Main Street and it may be
difficult to remember how
it looked just a few years
ago. Restored and improved
storefronts, new landscaping,
LED streetlights and unique
public artwork are just a few
of the amenities that invite
people downtown to shop,
dine, walk the dog, or meet
up with family and friends.
TIF has played a pivotal
role in downtown Tigard’s
transformation. The next few
pages provide a snapshot of
how TIF has helped reshape
downtown Tigard.
$49.4M private investment
into property improvements and new
construction in the City Center TIF District
since 2006, more than double the amount
of investment in the 12 years preceding.
29 downtown businesses have
received TIF matching grants for interior
or exterior building improvements.
292 new units of multifamily
housing units constructed or under
construction in downtown Tigard since
the TIF district was established in 2006.
32% increase in multifamily
housing in downtown Tigard since 2006,
compared to a 25% increase in the rest
of Tigard.
2.6:1 leverage ratio of private
to public investment into TIF tenant
and storefront improvements, meaning
every $1 in grant funding has yielded
$2.60 in private investment.
64% increase in assessed value in
the City Center TIF District between 2006
– 2019, compared to a 56% increase in
assessed value citywide.
Data Source: Washington County
Data Source: City of Tigard
Data Source: Metro Data Source: Metro
Data Source: City of Tigard
Data Source: Washington County
Project SpotlightProject Spotlight
City Center Urban Renewal Plan: Accomplishments to Date City Center Urban Renewal Plan: Accomplishments to Date
PAGE 8 | TIF District/Urban Renewal FINANCIAL IMPACT REPORT | FY 2021-2022 TIF District/Urban Renewal FINANCIAL IMPACT REPORT | FY 2021-2022 | PAGE 9
Symposium Coffee
In 2013, the TCDA awarded a matching grant to Symposium
Coffee to renovate the vacant front half of the Tigard
Chamber of Commerce building. The grant awarded
$24,800 in funding toward a total project budget of $90,159,
leveraging nearly three times the grant amount in private
investment. Since opening, Symposium Coffee has played
a leading role in the revitalization of downtown Tigard,
attracting new customers to Main Street and serving as a
community gathering space.
Main & Burnham Street Improvements
The TIF Agency has helped pave the way for improvements to two of downtown Tigard’s most prominent streets.
Completed in 2011, the reconstruction of Burnham Street closed sidewalk gaps and added 10-18 foot sidewalks to encourage
strolling, safer pedestrian crosswalks, LED streetlights, underground utilities, on-street parking, a center turn lane, and built a
new section of Ash Avenue.
Completed in 2014, phase 1 of Tigard’s Main Street Green Street project rebuilt the southern half of Main Street, from Pacific
Highway/99W to the railroad crossing near Commercial Street. Funded largely by a Metro grant, the project provided safer
pedestrian crossings, green streetscape planters that help remove pollutants from storm water, new sidewalks, streetlights,
benches and bike racks. Main Street Green Street Phase 2 will be completed in 2023. (Plans shown below.)
Heritage Trail & Outdoor Museum Ash Ave. Dog Park
Downtown Public Art Streetscape Improvements
Jim Griffith Memorial Skate Park
Facade & Interior Improvement Grants
Fanno Creek Trail Undercrossing LightsBurnham St. Parking Lot
Ash Ave. Connection
City Center Urban Renewal Plan: Accomplishments to Date City Center Urban Renewal Plan: Accomplishments to Date
Project Spotlight
PAGE 10 | TIF District/Urban Renewal FINANCIAL IMPACT REPORT | FY 2021-2022 TIF District/Urban Renewal FINANCIAL IMPACT REPORT | FY 2021-2022 | PAGE 11
City Center Urban Renewal Plan: Current & Proposed Projects
TIF District Matching Grant Program
The TIF Disctrict Matching Grant Program provides matching
grants for existing businesses and property owners in the City
Center TIF District to make improvements to the exterior of
their building. The program also funds interior improvements
for restaurants or similar businesses that move into vacant
commercial spaces. This program has previously supported
renovations to projects at Senet Game Bar, Tigard Taphouse,
Symposium Coffee, Jeffrey Allen Gallery, and many others.
Grant-funded projects have strengthened participating
businesses and improved Main Street’s position as a walkable
commercial district.
Universal Plaza
The Universal Plaza will be built on Burnham Street adjacent to Fanno Creek Park. The plaza will be a signature public space
and a hub of activity in the downtown. The plaza will open in early 2023.
AVA Main Street at Fanno Creek Development
The TCDA is actively engaged in redeveloping. The TCDA purchased this key site where Main Street meets Fanno Creek
and then used $400,000 in grant funding from the U.S. EPA Brownfield Cleanup Program for remediation and preparing
the site for development. The property was sold to a developer, who broke ground in 2022 on a mixed-use building with
22 apartments that will bring added vitality to Downtown.
City Center Urban Renewal Plan: Current & Proposed Projects
Alongside Affordable Senior Housing
The city entered into a development agreement and 99-year ground lease with Northwest Housing Alternatives, a non-profit
affordable housing developer to build 58 units adjacent to the Tigard Senior Center. The units will be leased to seniors 62 and
older, including units reserved for very low income (less than $16,000 per year). Additionally, the project will prioritize housing
for veterans and seniors with disabilities.
PAGE 12 | TIF District/Urban Renewal FINANCIAL IMPACT REPORT | FY 2021-2022 TIF District/Urban Renewal FINANCIAL IMPACT REPORT | FY 2021-2022 | PAGE 13
The Tigard Triangle
Urban Renewal Plan:
Existing Problems:
• Dirt roads/lack of
sidewalks
• Areas with no sewers/
sewers needing repair
• Red Rock Creek erosion
• Flooding
• Traffic congestion Approved by Voters: 2017
Area Size: 548 acres
Plan Duration: 35 years
Maximum Indebtedness: $188 million
Remaining Maximum Indebtedness: $179,119,431 (2022)
The Tigard Triangle (roughly the area bordered by I-5, Highway
217 and Highway 99W) is an area with great potential but also
has significant infrastructure needs. Approved by Tigard voters in
2017, the Tigard Triangle Urban Renewal Plan includes projects
that will improve walkability, address transportation issues, and
help businesses grow.
The Tigard Triangle Urban Renewal Plan’s 5 goals outline its basic
intents and purposes:
Goal 1
Encourage meaningful involvement by citizens, interested parties, and
affected agencies throughout the life of the urban renewal district to
ensure it reflects the community’s values and priorities.
Goal 2
Provide a safe and effective multimodal transportation network that
provides access to, from, and within the Area and supports mixed-use
and pedestrian-oriented development.
Goal 3
Provide public utility improvements to support desired development.
Goal 4
Create a clear identity for the Area as a fun and diverse place to
live, work, shop, eat, and play by building upon existing unique and
desirable features.
Goal 5
Provide financial and technical assistance to new and existing
businesses and housing developments that contribute to the Area’s
diversity and vitality and help it transform into a mixed-use and
pedestrian-oriented district.
Tigard Triangle Urban Renewal PlanTigard Triangle Urban Renewal Plan
TIGARD TRIANGLE URBAN RENEWAL AREA MAP
Tigard Triangle Urban Renewal Area Map
PAGE 14 | TIF District/Urban Renewal FINANCIAL IMPACT REPORT | FY 2021-2022 TIF District/Urban Renewal FINANCIAL IMPACT REPORT | FY 2021-2022 | PAGE 15
Tigard Triangle Urban Renewal Plan
Re/Development Assistance
The Agency has created a robust Re/Development Assistance
program to support both affordable housing and market rate
mixed use projects.
• New Streets & Sidewalks
• New Trails & Parks
• Major Sewer Line
• Red Rock Creek
• Stormwater
• Intersection Improvements
• Facade Improvement • Grants/Loans
• Small Business SupportOpportunity Grants
The Triangle Business Opportunity Fund supports entrepreneurs by providing matching
grants for construction costs associated with building renovations. Grants provide
a 50% funding match to help fund the cost of interior or exterior renovations for
businesses moving into vacant ground floor commercial spaces in the Tigard Triangle.
Apartment Units
Units
Increase in Apartment Units
Current Projects Proposed Projects
Accomplishments to Date
Small Business
503 133
334%
built or under construction in the Tigard Triangle since the
TIF District was established in 2017.
built or under construction in the Tigard Triangle since 2017.
of affordable
housing units
built in the
Tigard Triangle
since 2017.
Tigard Triangle Urban Renewal Plan
PAGE 16 | TIF District/Urban Renewal FINANCIAL IMPACT REPORT | FY 2021-2022 TIF District/Urban Renewal FINANCIAL IMPACT REPORT | FY 2021-2022 | PAGE 17
Financial Reports
Introduction
URBAN RENEWAL AGENCIES must prepare an annual financial report for the governing body and public in accordance
with Oregon Revised Statutes 457.460. The report includes a financial summary of the preceding year and the budget
for the new fiscal year. It also includes an analysis of the financial impact of carrying out the urban plan on the tax
collections for all taxing districts.
History of Tax Increment Financing
In less than two decades, three ballot measures – Measure 5 (1990), and Measure 50 (1997) – have made significant
changes to Oregon’s system of property taxation. Those changes have influenced urban renewal programs and tax
increment revenue calculations. The provisions of these changes to the property tax system, Ballot Measures 5 and
50, now are incorporated into Oregon’s Constitution, and into Oregon Urban Renewal Statutes. Those provisions
provide the basic framework for revenue calculations in this report.
Tax Increment Calculations
To determine the amount of the taxes levied, the total assessed value within each urban renewal area is segregated
by the county assessor into two parts: (a) the total taxable assessed value in the district at the time the Urban Renewal
Plan was adopted (the base or “frozen” value); and (b) the difference between the frozen base value and the current
total assessed value (the incremental value or “excess”). Revenues derived from the application of the tax rate for
each affected taxing district to the amount of the incremental value may be collected by the urban renewal agency and
deposited in its debt service fund. This revenue is used to repay indebtedness incurred in carrying out the projects.
Effect of Urban Renewal on Taxing Districts
Carrying out an urban renewal plan has an effect on the county assessor’s calculation for each taxing district that shares
values with Tigard’s urban renewal agency. Some property taxes that may have been received by the taxing bodies that
levy property taxes within Tigard’s urban renewal area are being paid to Tigard’s urban renewal agency.
Passage of Ballot Measure 50 (Article XI, Section 11 of the Oregon Constitution) resulted in converting most property
taxes from a levy-based system to a rate-based system. Pages 18 and 19 of this report shows the financial impact by
taxing district for Tigard’s urban renewal agency.
Financial Reports
The financial reports on pages 18–22 account for the activities of Tigard’s urban renewal agency. In accordance with
ORS 457.460, these reports were prepared by the Finance Department of the City of Tigard and consultant Tiberius
Solutions using the same basis of accounting it uses to prepare its financial statements — modified accrual basis of
accounting. These reports are due annually by January 31, information and figures contained herein are based upon
audited draft financial statements. At the end of each fiscal year, June 30, this financial impact report is prepared which
shows the urban renewal tax impact by taxing district. Copies are available by January 31 at the Tigard Permit Center,
13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, 97223 and on the City of Tigard website.
Maximum Indebtedness Tracking
As summarized on the following pages, Town Center Development Agency’s 2021–22 total requirements were $17,449,289
for expenditures charged to the District as of June 30, 2022. For fiscal year 2022–23, total budgeted resources of $21,373,717
were balanced with requirements of $21,373,717, including a financing agreement to fund future urban renewal projects. The
District uses the funds it receives from the division-of-taxes method of calculating property taxes to finance various urban
renewal projects and activities. These property taxes totaled $1,766,144 in FY 2021–22 and are expected to rise to $2,194,696
in FY 2022–23. These tax estimates are calculated based on the Washington County assessment summary received after
budget adoption.
City Center
Total Debt $11,602,980
Maximum Indebtedness Remaining $31,197,020
Tigard Triangle
Total Debt $8,880,569
Maximum Indebtedness Remaining $179,119,431
PAGE 18 | TIF District/Urban Renewal FINANCIAL IMPACT REPORT | FY 2021-2022 TIF District/Urban Renewal FINANCIAL IMPACT REPORT | FY 2021-2022 | PAGE 19
Financial Reports Financial Reports
Town Center Development Agency
Statement of Resources & Requirements for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2022.
Note: Figures are based upon audited financial statements.
Town Center Development AgencyStatement of Resources and Requirementsfor the fiscal year ended June 30, 2022
As summarized below, Town Center Development Agency's 2021-22 total requirements were $17,449,289 for expenditures
charged to the District as of June 30, 2022. For fiscal year 2022-23, total budgeted resources of were
balanced with requirements of $21,373,717, including a financing agreement to fund future urban renewal projects.
The District uses the funds it receives from the division-of-taxes method of calculating property taxes to finance
various urban renewal projects and activities. These property taxes totaled $1,766,144 in FY 2021-22 and
are expected to increase in FY 2022-23. These tax estimates are calculated based on the
Washington County assessment summary received after budget adoption.
City Center Debt Service
Funds Triangle Debt Service Funds
City Center Capital Projects
Funds Triangle Capital Projects Funds Total
Actual Budget Actual Budget Actual Budget Actual Budget Actual Budget
2021-22 2022-23 2021-22 2022-23 2021-22 2022-23 2021-22 2022-23 2021-22 2022-23
Resources:
Beginning Fund Balance 1,347,913 852,751 850,023 1,366,485 3,880,320 4,392,128 106,541 7,764,241 6,184,797 14,375,605
Tax Increment Property Taxes 728,711 773,146 1,037,434 1,421,550 - - - - 1,766,144 2,194,696
Interest Income 7,627 2,132 6,483 3,416 18,513 10,868 - - 32,622 16,416
Net increase (decrease) in investment
fair value (22,508) - (22,253) - (61,859) - (78,870) - (185,489) -
Intergovernmental revenues - - - - 338,789 1,818,000 - - 338,789 1,818,000
Miscellaneous revenues - - - - 10 - 16 - 26 -
Other Financing Sources - - - - 1,019,700 1,249,500 8,292,700 1,719,500 9,312,400 2,969,000
Total Resources 2,061,742 1,628,029 1,871,686 2,791,451 5,195,474 7,470,496 8,320,387 9,483,741 17,449,289 21,373,717
Requirements:
Debt Service 465,531 540,000 488,960 700,000 - - - - 954,491 1,240,000
Transfers Out - 349,500 - 1,719,500 - - - - - 2,069,000
Community Development - - - - - 394,500 197,264 2,219,500 197,264 2,614,000
Capital Outlay - - - - 1,299,759 200,000 - 1,000,000 1,299,759 1,200,000
Ending Fund Balance 1,596,211 738,529 1,382,726 371,951 3,895,715 6,875,996 8,123,123 6,264,241 14,997,775 14,250,717
Total Requirements 2,061,742 1,628,029 1,871,686 2,791,451 5,195,474 7,470,496 8,320,387 9,483,741 17,449,289 21,373,717
Note: Figures are based upon audited financial statements.
City Center
Debt Service Funds
Resources
Beginning Fund Balance
Tax Increment Property Taxes
Interest Income
Net increase (decrease) in
investment fair value
Intergovernmental revenues
Miscellaneous revenues
Other Financing Sources
Total Resources
Requirements
Debt Service
Transfers Out
Community Development
Capital Outlay
Ending Fund Balance
Total Requirements
City Center
Capital Projects Funds
Triangle
Capital Projects Funds Total
Triangle
Debt Service Funds
PAGE 20 | TIF District/Urban Renewal FINANCIAL IMPACT REPORT | FY 2021-2022 TIF District/Urban Renewal FINANCIAL IMPACT REPORT | FY 2021-2022 | PAGE 21
Financial Reports Financial Reports
Town Center Development Agency
City Center Urban Renewal Plan
Financial Impact of the City Center Urban Renewal Plan on Tax Collections by Taxing District for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2022.
Sources: FY 2021-22 SAL Table 4e (Washington County); FY 2021-22 SAL Table 4a (Washington, Multnomah,
Clackamas, Tillamook, and Yamhill counties); FY 2021-22 Summary Brochure (Clatsop County)
Note: Taxes imposed have been adjusted to account for Measure 5 compression loss and rate truncation.
Previous Tigard Urban Renewal Financial Impact Reports displayed the impacts of Tigard’s UR Districts on taxing
districts based on the taxes imposed within city boundaries. Tables will now display the impacts of UR Districts
based on the total taxes of the affected districts.
Impact to Taxing Districts for Annual Report: FY 2021-22 - Version ATigard Triangle Total Frozen Base Incremental ValueGeneral GovernmentWashington County 512,774,721$ 424,744,405$ 88,030,316$ 2.2484$ 197,272$ 163,791,860$ 0.12%Tualatin Soil & Water District 512,774,721$ 424,744,405$ 88,030,316$ 0.0825$ 6,882$ 6,001,173$ 0.11%Metro 512,774,721$ 424,744,405$ 88,030,316$ 0.0966$ 8,395$ 18,359,718$ 0.05%Port of Portland 512,774,721$ 424,744,405$ 88,030,316$ 0.0701$ 6,117$ 14,785,220$ 0.04%TV Fire & Rescue 512,774,721$ 424,744,405$ 88,030,316$ 1.5252$ 133,800$ 104,485,816$ 0.13%
City of Tigard 512,774,721$ 424,744,405$ 88,030,316$ 2.5131$ 220,975$ 18,838,664$ 1.16%
Tigard/Tualatin Aquatic District 512,774,721$ 424,744,405$ 88,030,316$ 0.0900$ 7,633$ 1,154,301$ 0.66%
Education
Tigard/Tualatin School District 512,774,721$ 424,744,405$ 88,030,316$ 4.9892$ 438,895$ 63,428,983$ 0.69%
NW Regional ESD 512,774,721$ 424,744,405$ 88,030,316$ 0.1538$ 12,999$ 14,047,123$ 0.09%
PCC 512,774,721$ 424,744,405$ 88,030,316$ 0.2828$ 24,468$ 42,292,163$ 0.06%
Total 512,774,721$ 424,744,405$ 88,030,316$ 12.0517$ 1,057,434$ 447,185,022$ 0.24%
City Center
Total Frozen Base
Incremental
Value
General Government
Washington County 179,791,156$ 117,522,911$ 62,268,245$ 2.2484$ 139,925$ 163,791,860$ 0.09%
Tualatin Soil & Water District 179,791,156$ 117,522,911$ 62,268,245$ 0.0825$ 4,588$ 6,001,173$ 0.08%
Metro 179,791,156$ 117,522,911$ 62,268,245$ 0.0966$ 5,342$ 18,359,718$ 0.03%
Port of Portland 179,791,156$ 117,522,911$ 62,268,245$ 0.0701$ 3,823$ 14,785,220$ 0.03%
TV Fire & Rescue 179,791,156$ 117,522,911$ 62,268,245$ 1.5252$ 94,807$ 104,485,816$ 0.09%
City of Tigard 179,791,156$ 117,522,911$ 62,268,245$ 2.5131$ 155,982$ 18,838,664$ 0.82%
Tigard/Tualatin Aquatic District 179,791,156$ 117,522,911$ 62,268,245$ 0.0900$ 5,089$ 1,154,301$ 0.44%
Education
Tigard/Tualatin School District 179,791,156$ 117,522,911$ 62,268,245$ 4.9892$ 310,407$ 63,428,983$ 0.49%
NW Regional ESD 179,791,156$ 117,522,911$ 62,268,245$ 0.1538$ 9,175$ 14,047,123$ 0.07%
PCC 179,791,156$ 117,522,911$ 62,268,245$ 0.2828$ 17,586$ 42,292,163$ 0.04%
Total 12.0517$ 746,725$ 447,185,022$ 0.17%
Sources: FY 2021-22 SAL Table 4e (Washington County); FY 2021-22 SAL Table 4a (Washington, Multnomah, Clackamas, Clatsop, Tillamook, and Yamhill counties)
Note: Taxes imposed have been adjusted to account for Measure 5 compression loss and rate truncation.
Taxes Imposed For Affected Districts Percent Tax Revenue ForegoneAssessed Value of URA (FYE 2022)Permanent Tax Rate Taxes Imposed for URA
Taxes Imposed
For Affected
Districts
Tax
Revenue
Foregone
Assessed Value of URA (FYE 2022)
Permanent
Tax Rate
Taxes Imposed
for URA
Note: The division-of-taxes process results in some property taxes that may have been received by the “taxing
districts” that levy property taxes within the urban renewal area (for example, Washington County, NW Regional
ESD) being paid over to Tigard’s urban renewal agency. The taxing districts forgo a share of the property tax
income during the life of an urban renewal plan so that the urban renewal agencies can carry out activities that
increase property values in the long term. The above table shows the urban renewal tax impact by taxing district
using permanent rates established pursuant to Measure 50.
PAGE 22 | TIF District/Urban Renewal FINANCIAL IMPACT REPORT | FY 2021-2022 TIF District/Urban Renewal FINANCIAL IMPACT REPORT | FY 2021-2022 | PAGE 23
Financial ReportsFinancial Reports Financial Reports
Town Center Development Agency
Tigard Triangle Urban Renewal Plan
Financial Impact of the Tigard Triangle Urban Renewal Plan on Tax Collections by Taxing District for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2022.
Note: The division-of-taxes process results in some property taxes that may have been received by the “taxing
districts” that levy property taxes within the urban renewal area (for example, Washington County, NW Regional
ESD) being paid over to Tigard’s urban renewal agency. The taxing districts forgo a share of the property tax
income during the life of an urban renewal plan so that the urban renewal agencies can carry out activities that
increase property values in the long term. The above table shows the urban renewal tax impact by taxing district
using permanent rates established pursuant to Measure 50.
Impact to Taxing Districts for Annual Report: FY 2021-22 - Version A
Tigard Triangle
Total Frozen Base
Incremental
Value
General Government
Washington County 512,774,721$ 424,744,405$ 88,030,316$ 2.2484$ 197,272$ 163,791,860$ 0.12%
Tualatin Soil & Water District 512,774,721$ 424,744,405$ 88,030,316$ 0.0825$ 6,882$ 6,001,173$ 0.11%
Metro 512,774,721$ 424,744,405$ 88,030,316$ 0.0966$ 8,395$ 18,359,718$ 0.05%
Port of Portland 512,774,721$ 424,744,405$ 88,030,316$ 0.0701$ 6,117$ 14,785,220$ 0.04%
TV Fire & Rescue 512,774,721$ 424,744,405$ 88,030,316$ 1.5252$ 133,800$ 104,485,816$ 0.13%
City of Tigard 512,774,721$ 424,744,405$ 88,030,316$ 2.5131$ 220,975$ 18,838,664$ 1.16%
Tigard/Tualatin Aquatic District 512,774,721$ 424,744,405$ 88,030,316$ 0.0900$ 7,633$ 1,154,301$ 0.66%
Education
Tigard/Tualatin School District 512,774,721$ 424,744,405$ 88,030,316$ 4.9892$ 438,895$ 63,428,983$ 0.69%
NW Regional ESD 512,774,721$ 424,744,405$ 88,030,316$ 0.1538$ 12,999$ 14,047,123$ 0.09%
PCC 512,774,721$ 424,744,405$ 88,030,316$ 0.2828$ 24,468$ 42,292,163$ 0.06%
Total 512,774,721$ 424,744,405$ 88,030,316$ 12.0517$ 1,057,434$ 447,185,022$ 0.24%
City Center
Total Frozen Base
Incremental
Value
General Government
Washington County 179,791,156$ 117,522,911$ 62,268,245$ 2.2484$ 139,925$ 163,791,860$ 0.09%
Tualatin Soil & Water District 179,791,156$ 117,522,911$ 62,268,245$ 0.0825$ 4,588$ 6,001,173$ 0.08%
Metro 179,791,156$ 117,522,911$ 62,268,245$ 0.0966$ 5,342$ 18,359,718$ 0.03%
Port of Portland 179,791,156$ 117,522,911$ 62,268,245$ 0.0701$ 3,823$ 14,785,220$ 0.03%
TV Fire & Rescue 179,791,156$ 117,522,911$ 62,268,245$ 1.5252$ 94,807$ 104,485,816$ 0.09%
City of Tigard 179,791,156$ 117,522,911$ 62,268,245$ 2.5131$ 155,982$ 18,838,664$ 0.82%
Tigard/Tualatin Aquatic District 179,791,156$ 117,522,911$ 62,268,245$ 0.0900$ 5,089$ 1,154,301$ 0.44%
Education
Tigard/Tualatin School District 179,791,156$ 117,522,911$ 62,268,245$ 4.9892$ 310,407$ 63,428,983$ 0.49%
NW Regional ESD 179,791,156$ 117,522,911$ 62,268,245$ 0.1538$ 9,175$ 14,047,123$ 0.07%
PCC 179,791,156$ 117,522,911$ 62,268,245$ 0.2828$ 17,586$ 42,292,163$ 0.04%
Total 12.0517$ 746,725$ 447,185,022$ 0.17%
Sources: FY 2021-22 SAL Table 4e (Washington County); FY 2021-22 SAL Table 4a (Washington, Multnomah, Clackamas, Clatsop, Tillamook, and Yamhill counties)
Note: Taxes imposed have been adjusted to account for Measure 5 compression loss and rate truncation.
Taxes Imposed
For Affected
Districts
Percent
Tax
Revenue
Foregone
Assessed Value of URA (FYE 2022)
Permanent
Tax Rate
Taxes Imposed
for URA
Taxes Imposed
For Affected
Districts
Tax
Revenue
Foregone
Assessed Value of URA (FYE 2022)
Permanent
Tax Rate
Taxes Imposed
for URA
Sources: FY 2021-22 SAL Table 4e (Washington County); FY 2021-22 SAL Table 4a (Washington, Multnomah,
Clackamas, Tillamook, and Yamhill counties); FY 2021-22 Summary Brochure (Clatsop County)
Note: Taxes imposed have been adjusted to account for Measure 5 compression loss and rate truncation.
Previous Tigard Urban Renewal Financial Impact Reports displayed the impacts of Tigard’s UR Districts on taxing
districts based on the taxes imposed within city boundaries. Tables will now display the impacts of UR Districts
based on the total taxes of the affected districts.
PAGE 24 | TIF District/Urban Renewal FINANCIAL IMPACT REPORT | FY 2021-2022
Financial Reports
Note: Figures are based upon audited financial statements.
Town Center Development Agency
Detail of Purpose for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2022
City Center Urban Renewal Projects
Tigard Triangle Urban Renewal Projects
Financial Impact Report
FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2022
TIF District/Urban RenewalTown Center Development Agency of the City of Tigard
Town Center Development Agency
Detail of Purpose
for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2022
Actual Budget
2021-22 2022-23
Detail of Purpose:
Capital Outlay:
Nick Wilson Memorial Plaza - 186,000
Universal Plaza 1,144,697 5,311,000
Main Street Green Street Improvement 580,000
Building Improvement Grants 125,000
Admin/Legal/Finance 155,062 224,500
1,299,759 6,426,500
Actual Budget
2021-22 2022-23
Park Land Acquisition - 2,958,000
Transportation Infrastructure - 1,000,000
Affordable Housing Development Assistance - 1,000,000
Development Assistance - 1,000,000
Business Opportunity Grants - 125,000
Admin/Legal 197,264 94,500
197,264 6,177,500
Note: Figures are based upon audited financial statements.
City Center
Capital Projects Fund
Tigard Triangle
Capital Projects Fund
Town Center Development Agency
Detail of Purpose
for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2022
Actual Budget
2021-22 2022-23
Detail of Purpose:
Capital Outlay:
Nick Wilson Memorial Plaza - 186,000
Universal Plaza 1,144,697 5,311,000
Main Street Green Street Improvement 580,000
Building Improvement Grants 125,000
Admin/Legal/Finance 155,062 224,500
1,299,759 6,426,500
Actual Budget
2021-22 2022-23
Park Land Acquisition - 2,958,000
Transportation Infrastructure - 1,000,000
Affordable Housing Development Assistance - 1,000,000
Development Assistance - 1,000,000
Business Opportunity Grants - 125,000
Admin/Legal 197,264 94,500
197,264 6,177,500
Note: Figures are based upon audited financial statements.
City Center
Capital Projects Fund
Tigard Triangle
Capital Projects Fund
TC DA
TCDA
TCDA