Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
City Council Packet - 02/15/2005
1 r:,~l:,l TIGARD CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP MEETING February 15, 2005 COUNCIL MEETING WILL NOT BE TELEVISED I:\04kDOnna's\ccpkt2 Agenda Item No. 4.1 For Agenda of April 12, 2005 COUNCIL MINUTES TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 15, 2005 Mayor Dirksen called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. Council Present: Mayor Dirksen; Councilors Harding, *SheRmeed, Wilson, and Woodruff. • EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council went into Executive Session at 6:30 p.m. to discuss labor negotiations ORS 192.660(2)(d). 1. WORKSHOP MEETING 1.1 Mayor Dirksen called the City Council & Local Contract Review Board meeting to order at 6:57 p.m. 1.2 Council Present: Mayor Dirksen; Councilors Harding, *Shepweed, Wilson, and Woodruff. 1.3 Pledge of Allegiance 1.4 Council Communications & Liaison Reports Mayor Dirksen announced that the Downtown Task Force agreed on a street light standard for the downtown plan. He shared a photo of an example of the street light with the City Council. 1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items: None 2. JOINT MEETING WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE Community Development Director Hendryx presented the staff report on this agenda item. An outline of the highlights of Community Development Director Hendryx's presentation to the Council is on file in the City Recorder's office. The scope of the presentation was as follows: a. Background b. Comprehensive Plan concept c. Program phases/process d. Specific areas of analysis critical for Tigard e. Public involvement program f. Direction needed for public involvement program Mr. Hendryx noted the study area for the Comprehensive Plan needs to be determined. Should the study area include unincorporated areas of Bull Mountain and Metzger? "Minutes approved on April 12, 2005, with correction as shown; Cou ilor Sherwood did of attend this meeting. G P Catherine Wheatley, Ci Recorder April 13, 2005 COUNCIL MINUTES -FEBRUARY 15, 2005 page 1 Tigard's Comprehensive Plan is acknowledged and has been updated to address new laws; however, the overall plan is dated. The Comprehensive Plan does not address annexed properties that have come into the City since its initial adoption in the 1980's. Planning Commissioner Buehner was present. Commissioner Buehner advised that there has been a series of meetings during the last year to discuss the process of doing an update. In recent months, the Planning Commission has felt that the discussion of the Comprehensive Plan update has been placed on the "back burner." Commissioner Buehner said an update to the Plan is important and would be closely tied to the priorities identified by the City Council. The Plan also would impact the Downtown Plan. The consensus of the Planning Commission was that a Planning Commission representative come to the City Council to stress the importance of going forward with the Comprehensive Planning Update process. It is anticipated that an update would take three years to complete. Commissioner Buehner advised the City Council that the current staffing is insufficient. She noted the update would entail development of an inventory (underlying work before going out to the public) and a number of months to get the Comprehensive Plan Task Force in place and "up to speed." A City Council decision to move forward is needed quickly if there is to be a meaningful analysis completed this year. Commissioner Buehner suggested two full time planners plus a part-time administrative assistant be hired for this effort. In addition, she recommended that a consultant be hired to develop a public involvement process. She noted a recent planning fee surcharge could be used to fund the consultant work. Commissioner Buehner noted two decisions need to be made: 1. What is to be the study area? (existing City limits, unincorporated area, Areas 63 and 64) 2. What is the extent of the public involvement process? The second year of the Comprehensive Plan update would be for public outreach and the third year would be devoted to developing a final document for presentation to the Planning Commission and the City Council. Commissioner Buehner advised that is was the opinion of the Planning Commission to get started on the Comprehensive Plan update "right now." In response to a question from Mayor Dirksen, Community Development Director Hendryx advised that staff has reviewed the Planning Commission proposal. Community Development Director Hendryx referred to the work program and advised that staff needs to know what the study area will be and what is the extent COUNCIL MINUTES -FEBRUARY 15, 2005 page 2 of the public involvement to be utilized; will there be a task force formed for the Comprehensive Plan update? Community Development Director Hendryx reviewed in more detail what would take place for a three-year work plan. The Plan cannot move more quickly because of the time required for a public involvement process. City Council discussion followed on the amount of time this project would take. With regard to the question of the area to be included in the Comprehensive Plan update, City Council members asked about how much it would cost to include the areas identified for possible inclusion in the update. Community Development Director Hendryx noted that Washington County is putting together what it would cost for their involvement with the update for the Bull Mountain area. This topic will be discussed by the County Board in mid-March. Councilor Harding said she thought the planning for this area should be done for Bull Mountain regardless since in the long run it will cost the City more if the planning is not done now. Councilor Wilson noted that the City would not be "starting from scratch" to develop inventories and identify what is needed to be addressed in the Comprehensive Plan. He suggested that focus should be on problem areas and areas where there are opportunities. He said it would be helpful to know "what needs to be fixed." Community Development Director Hendryx reviewed a slide from his PowerPoint presentation outlining the major subject areas to be addressed in Tigard. He again noted the lack of planning for those areas that have already been annexed There was discussion on a specific area - the Greenburg Road intersection at 99W. Commissioner Buehner advised that the Planning Commission has talked about changing this intersection and using 95th and 98th Avenues for routing. She said this area merits careful evaluation: land use, residential/mixed use and as an entrance into the City. Community Development Director Hendryx commented that it's still unknown what the County will contribute for the planning for Bull Mountain and the Urban Reserve areas. The Intergovernmental Agreement (Urban Planning Area Agreement) needs to be revised. A number of questions that need to be answered will be "further along in another month." In the meantime, a lot can be done including inventories, establishing a task force, and identifying the citizen involvement. There was additional discussion on the importance of planning for the Bull Mountain area with the debate still open about how this planning would be paid for. Mayor Dirksen said that Washington County is responsible for the long-range planning for Bull Mountain and the City needs support from the County. Councilor COUNCIL MINUTES -FEBRUARY 15, 2005 page 3 Wilson said some of the City Council's concerns might be tempered if the City Council knew what the planning for Bull Mountain would cost - is it a significant amount? Community Development Director Hendryx said the cost will depend on "what the County brings to the table." The County could decide to provide staff or to perform the needed inventories for the area. Interim City Manager Prosser suggested that a work plan could be developed for the full area, which would identify the costs. Discussion followed on the level of community involvement to be utilized. Councilor Wilson noted it would be inevitable that elements of the Comprehensive Plan will be controversial. The first year will be devoted to "ground work" for the project. Public involvement process would start in mid-2006. Councilor Woodruff noted he was disappointed that the update will take such a long time. He noted the value of the Comprehensive Planning process and that "some thorny questions need to be resolved." He said in many areas he did not think the City would have to start from "ground zero." He said a task force would be a good idea. There was some discussion on whether the Planning Commission needs additional members. Mayor Dirksen commented on citizen involvement. He noted that it seems that other communities, when doing Comprehensive Plan Updates, utilize the same model as the City of Tigard has done with its Downtown Task Force. There was discussion about a Comprehensive Plan Update Task Force with a suggestion that it be made up of Planning Commission representatives plus an equal amount of other citizens including representatives from Boards and Committees. The Mayor noted that the Citizens for Community Involvement Committee would be "obvious place to start." Commissioner Buehner advised that since she has been on the Planning Commission there have been four area updates to the Comprehensive Plan. These updates have taken a lot of staff and Commission time; this has been inefficient and she advised she would not want to see the update "put off." Interim City Manager Prosser summarized City Council direction he had heard so far: On the public involvement process - more involvement rather than less, but City Council would like to keep its options open in terms of looking at cost COUNCIL MINUTES -FEBRUARY 15, 2005 page 4 as part of the work plan. In terms of putting together the work plan, staff could assume a larger public involvement process. Interim City Manager Prosser said it was his understanding that the City Council is interested in exploring options for a Task Force, but would like to see options for how it would be structured. Councilor Wilson suggested considering members from Vision Task Force for the Comprehensive Plan Update. Interim City Manager Prosser suggested that a Task Force be put together drawing from the Planning Commission, CCI, Vision Task Force, and perhaps some of the other Task Forces of the City. Mayor Dirksen clarified he would like to see representatives from each of the boards and committees. Community Development Director Hendryx said the Council could structure a task force made up of a variety of people, including members of the Vision Task Force; he noted the Vision Task Force has made a lot of suggestions on the Comprehensive Plan. Interim City Manager Prosser said if the larger study area is decided upon, then people from the unincorporated areas would need to be involved. Interim City Manager Prosser confirmed with the City Council that the program priority is to focus on the Downtown Plan and the Comprehensive Plan Update comes in next for long-range planning priorities. Mayor Dirksen said he could easily see where there will be a need for additional staff, whether those are people hired directly or if the City pays for some consultant time for the update. Mayor Dirksen brought up the economic development component of the Comprehensive Plan Update. He said City Council has discussed for some time the need to have an Economic Development Department for the City. If staffing is increased for the Comprehensive Plan, this may evolve for FTE's needed over the long term. Councilor Woodruff pointed out the possibility of using interns in this planning project. Community Development Director Hendryx and Planning Manager Shields confirmed with Interim City Manager Prosser that they had the direction they needed on this agenda item. Planning Commission membership was discussed briefly. City Council consensus was to leave the Planning Commission membership at nine members. COUNCIL MINUTES -FEBRUARY 15, 2005 page 5 3. JOINT MEETING WITH THE TRANSPORTATION FINANCING STRATEGIES TASK FORCE Transportation Financing Strategies Task Force (TFSTF) Members Present: Councilor Nick Wilson, Paul Owen, Joe Schweitz, Gretchen Buehner (Chair), Basil Christopher, Ralph Hughes (Vice Chair), and Connie Anderson. City Engineer Duenas introduced this agenda item. The Task Force was reconstituted in July 2004. The Task Force has met several times since July. One of the things that Council President Wilson mentioned is that the Task Force needs to focus on what projects it needs to raise funds for. The Task Force is charged with evaluating funding sources for major street projects as well as sidewalk improvements and right-of-way maintenance. It was strongly recommended that the Task Force meet with the Council to get direction. TFSTF Chair Buehner said that over the last several months the Task Force has been reviewing financing options. All options have pros and cons. The Task Force came to the conclusion that the most viable option was to look at a gas tax. The draft proposal uses the MSTIP model for this type of proposal to provide for a limited duration gas tax that would be tied to a specific list of projects and would automatically sunset in five years subject to being continued. The proposal would involve community outreach efforts to be led by members of the Task Force to get input on how much tax was appropriate (how much revenue needs to be generated), what projects would be on the list, and whether revenue bonds should be sold to jump-start the project. In the first year, there would not be a lot of revenue to do anything. Ms. Buehner said that the Task Force comes to the Council with some specific questions and hoped the Council members have had an opportunity to read a prepared memo to review the pros and cons of this proposal. The Task Force would want to get the gas station industry involved in this discussion. Multnomah County has a substantially higher gas tax than Washington County. Tigard's gas stations are spread all over the City's portals (99W, Greenburg Road, Carmen Drive, etc.). The Task Force did an analysis of the gas prices all over the City and there is about a 15-cent difference for the same type of gas depending upon the station. -Ms. Buehner outlined the questions the Task Force asks the Council to consider: ■ Does the Council support the concept of a local gas tax? ■ If the Council thinks this is a viable idea, would the Council like the Task Force to follow up and use the MSTIP model for the public process? ■ Should the Task Force prepare a work program to be implemented over the next several months that would include the development of an initial list of projects; i.e., determine if sidewalks would be included, come up COUNCIL MINUTES -FEBRUARY 15, 2005 page 6 with a proposed ratio, develop a public input plan (open houses in different areas) that would require some City funding? In response to a question from Councilor Woodruff, Ms. Buehner advised that the gas taxes now charged are: Washington County: 1 cent Multnomah County: 4 cents State of Oregon: 24 cents A list of cities that charge a gas tax was sent to the Council in the meeting packet materials. None of the cities in the immediate vicinity of Tigard have a gas tax. King City is considering a gas tax at this time. Ms. Buehner explained that the City Engineer, upon request of the Task Force, did some research to find how much revenue is received by those cities that have a gas tax. This research was used as the basis of revenue estimates on Page 2 of the memo from the Task Force to the Council. The estimates are conservative. Mr. Duenas said the Oregon Department of Transportation would collect the gas tax for the City. Ms. Buehner said the Task Force would want to go to the voters with this proposal as was done in the MSTIP model, which has been used successfully by the County. Determination of projects would be done through a public process. The final piece would be to limit this to five years to see if it works. Councilor Wilson referred to Task Force efforts to consider every potential, conceivable revenue source. He said he has long been of the opinion that "we've got a cart and the horse thing going here." He said the Task Force was started the first time to study ways to get money for maintaining the streets and the City has since implemented the street maintenance fee. When the Task Force was reconstituted it was to try to figure out how to address some of the transportation problems. This year, the Council has set the Improve Highway 99W goal. Councilor Wilson said the gas tax idea is intriguing, but he would like to direct the Task Force efforts to study a lot of ways to address traffic issues in or surrounding Highway 99W and come up with some projects. Then, the City could look at the gas tax and/or bond measure, or joint State/City projects. He said it was difficult for him to support a gas tax without knowing what the funds would be used for. Ms. Buehner said identifying the projects would be part of the implementation phase. The Task Force would start on the list and then get public input as to which of the projects they think are important. Under current financing, the City can afford to do about one semi-major project a year. A large project might take COUNCIL MINUTES -FEBRUARY 15, 2005 page 7 two or three years. The gas tax could supplement capital improvement funding so specific projects could be completed. Mr. Duenas referred to a couple of recommendations in the proposed Capital Improvement Program for next year. He said he is proposing a project to look at the entire 99W corridor. He referred to a TGM grant process - a preapplication was submitted today. If a grant is awarded, funding would be received in July. The project would not only include physical improvements (big or small) but also land use recommendations to make changes for improved traffic circulation. Mr. Duenas said a review of Greenburg Road is also underway to evaluate alternatives to widening such as alternate routes to the downtown and limit access onto 99W. Ms. Buehner said prior studies would be used as a starting point. Mr. Duenas referred to the Hall and 99W intersection project. An alternatives analysis has been completed. Mr. Duenas commented on the number of projects currently under consideration for 99W. The gas tax could be a way to get some of the projects going. Councilor Woodruff noted that people would be more likely to acquiesce to something like a gas tax if specific needs have been identified, especially if they are convinced that those needs cannot be taken care of unless something is done to raise the money. Councilor Woodruff asked if the Task Force is asking for the "go ahead" to plan for the gas tax before the specific projects are identified. Ms. Buehner said the Task Force was asking to go through the process of identifying an initial list of projects, going to the public to determine how the public feels about the list and a possible gas tax and then coming back to the City Council. Councilor Wilson said that a driving vision (sense of mission) is needed to get people excited and supportive of changes. He said "...you have to have that initial spark, that thing, that I think is missing here in particular for our big, overwhelming problems. Study them, get a great idea, a list of things you want to do and then say, how are we going to get them done? That's the way I'd like to proceed..." Mayor Dirksen said he thought he could hear agreement between Ms. Buehner's proposal and Councilor Wilson's outline of how he would like to proceed. Mayor Dirksen said he agreed that if the City was to ask people to come up with money, the request should be based upon specific tasks that will be accomplished. This would draw the people into the process to help find a solution. He said he was hearing this is what the Task Force wanted to do and COUNCIL MINUTES -FEBRUARY 15, 2005 page 8 was outlined in the memo from the Task Force. The first thing would be to identify a list of projects that are outside the scope of any funds available right now. Then, ask the public if they agree if the projects are important and which projects are the most important. Finally, ask the public how to go about funding the priority projects and offer the idea of the gas tax and ask the public what it thinks about that. Councilor Wilson noted a bond measure was voted down several years ago that included a long list of projects. The "right" projects need to be identified. Task Force Member Schweitz said he didn't think the bond measure failed because of the list of projects, but failed because people didn't want a bond measure at that time. The original bond measure completed improvements on Greenburg Road and Durham Road and that measure was done the way the Task Force and Council members are suggesting. The list was made, it went to the public, and it was voted on. Mr. Schweitz said that this is not now being presented for a vote of the public, but for a vote of the Council. The idea is to get the public input first. Mr. Schweitz said, "...we are looking at pennies ...we are not going to raise a lot of money... but it is something that can be used for projects that the people need, especially safety issues that the City has. This is something that you whittle away ...even with the other tax revenues that we have coming in, things are changing and so we have to be on top of it. This is only one way and we've studied these other things.... Again, can we do bond measures? We've ruled it out because of the community's feeling about it at this time, and so, what's left? Not a whole lot. And, so that's why we've come together with this, I believe." A Task Force Member directed attention to Attachment B in the Council packet material. Proceeds of the gas tax for many of the cities are used for things other than for projects; i.e. maintenance. The people that live in these cities appear to be "ok" for using the money this way. He said he agrees that projects are great idea because it represents something to people that is tangible, but he didn't think it would be the only reason to collect a gas tax. City Engineer Duenas said he thought there is a big need for making some sidewalk connections, especially to schools in residential areas. This type of project is always being brought up, but the City just doesn't have the funds. Therefore, the gas tax might not just be for 99W, but for items in the local community that people want to see happen. Councilor Woodruff agreed that sidewalks are of concern and would be a reasonable project to propose. He said he was still puzzled and asked, "Are we saying ...we've looked at surveys, talked to lots of people and these are the three things we think need to happen and aren't going to happen with the current money. And, they cost x-amount of money, and based on that, we want to go with a gas tax that will raise that x-amount of money to pay for that." Ms. Buehner said that is exactly what the Task Force is proposing. Councilor COUNCIL MINUTES -FEBRUARY 15, 2005 page 9 Woodruff said he was fine with looking at that, whittling it down and coming up with the most exciting, necessary proposals to do. Once the costs of these projects are known, then determine how much money might be needed from a gas tax. Councilor Woodruff said the concept of the gas tax sounded all right to him if the public is convinced that certain projects would not happen unless funded by the additional money the gas tax would provide. Ms. Buehner explained that the reason the Task Force is before the Council now is to find out if the Council thinks the Task Force is going in the right direction, and if so, can the Task Force continue to go out and do this research and analysis, come up with a list, and talk to people in the community. There will be some expenditure to set up meetings to talk to people. Councilor Harding said she has concerns about the way the proposal has been presented. She referred to the cost "per capita" for the annual cost and questioned whether this was really true to what it would be for one person if that person bought all of their gas in Tigard. She said for a nickel gas tax, the cost might be for her and her husband about $250 a year, not $36. Care needs to be taken in how this is presented. She said it is a good thing to identify projects and to present the true cost. Ms. Buehner noted that most of the funding sources reviewed would only be paid by City residents. A gas tax could also pick up revenue from motorists driving through and using Tigard streets. Mayor Dirksen said that this is a good point. Ms. Buehner said that what she is hearing is that the Task Force should continue to do the research to try and work with the industry and come up with an initial list, then go out to the public and get their input. Mayor Dirksen said the research is important and also to acquire a visible level of community support. Councilor Harding suggested monitoring what King City is doing over the next two or three weeks to see what comes of their consideration of a gas tax. Mayor Dirksen noted instances where taxes are collected from citizens of Tigard by the federal government or the state, which are spent somewhere else. He pointed out that money collected and spent at a local level would mean the City would receive the benefit. Councilor Harding suggested the Cityscape be used to communicate to citizens how their tax dollars are being spent. A Task Force member agreed with Councilor Harding's earlier comment that the average cost for a Tigard motorist be more accurately stated. Councilor Woodruff noted he calculated that if you drive 12,000 miles per year and get 20 COUNCIL MINUTES -FEBRUARY 15, 2005 page 10 miles to the gallon, a five-cent tax would cost $30. The Task Force was looking at a two- or three-cent per gallon tax. The Mayor asked the Task Force go ahead and collect more data. 4. WALL STREET UPDATE City Engineer Duenas introduced this agenda item. He advised that the Wall Street Extension began with the Transportation System Plan (TSP) to connect Hunziker Street with Hall Boulevard. It is one of the key routes projected to carry 7,000 vehicles per day. It is proposed for construction with development. City Engineer Duenas recited additional background on Wall Street and the proposed LID. An outline of the highlights of City Engineer Duenas' presentation to the Council is on file in the City Recorder's office. The presentation contained information on the following: • Reasons for Constructing Wall Street • Reasons for the Local Improvement District • The Local Improvement District Process • Actions to Date (City Council Resolution No. 02-11; March 11, 2003 Interim Report; March 23, 2004 Preliminary Engineer's Report) • Issues (At-grade crossing of two main railroad tracks; permits for crossing Fanno Creek, flood plain, and wetlands) • Potential street alignments • Hall Boulevard/Wall Street Project (city project - Phase 1; Phase 2 - remainder of Wall Street depends on formation of LID) • Overview of Phases • Wall Street Joint Access • Current status for the at-grade railroad crossing is that approval is unlikely • Environmental permits for Phases 1 and 2 have been obtained • Comprehensive Plan Amendment application is in progress • Options explored by the property owner to provide access to the interior property if crossing of the tracks does not occur • View of industrial property vicinity map • View of Wall Street options • Council Direction Requested on the following: Whether or not to - a. Continue with the hearing on the at grade railroad crossing b. Signalize the library entrance c. Construct Phase 1 of Wall Street to provide joint access to the library and Fanno Pointe COUNCIL MINUTES -FEBRUARY 15, 2005 page 11 d. Continue with an LID to build Wall Street across Fanno Creek to provide access to the interior property • Staff Recommendations: a. Withdraw the crossing application b. Signalize the Library intersection c. Construct Phase 1 of Wall Street d. Regarding construction of Wall Street across the creek Consider an LID to construct it short of the tracks Have the developer construct that segment without an LID Mr. Fred Fields introduced Mr. Bob Thompson from Group MacKenzie Architects and Engineering. Mr. Thompson referred to some exhibits including a regional map of the site. The Wall Street extension will provide access to Mr. Fields' property. Mr. Thompson described the options explored by Mr. Fields for property access. Other exhibits referred to by Mr. Thompson included an aerial photograph; an aerial photograph showing the topography - the site is relatively flat with about 30-80 feet of the western property line in the 100-year flood plain. A large portion of the site is developable. Access from Milton Court was mentioned, which would involve a permit from Metro. Mr. Thompson referred to some concept plans showing how the property could be developed. The property is currently zone I-L (light industrial). He noted one of the concepts would be to build light industrial buildings and described the needs for this type of development, which would significantly impact existing trees. Another concept would be to seek a zone change to I-P to allow office-type buildings, which would mean less truck activity and the smaller roof tops would mean than a much larger number of trees would be retained. Councilor Harding requested clarification of the Milton Court access. Mr. Thompson described its location, noting NW Medical Teams is on Milton Court. Mayor Dirksen said that in looking at the different options, including a zone change, he wondered if Metro would accept this. Mr. Mike Wells (a colleague of Mr. Thompson) responded that there had been a brief discussion with Metro staff. An I-P (industrial park) is a different type of industrial, which falls within Metro's goals for employment lands and Metro is open to this. Mayor Dirksen noted there has been recent controversy about jurisdictions attempting to convert industrial land for commercial purposes. Mr. Wells said one of the caveats is that the I-P zone in Tigard does allow a certain amount of retail and a large amount of retail would not be wanted. Mr. Wells said that if there was an application for an I-P zone there could be an overlay restricting it to no or very little retail. City Engineer Duenas said that he thinks the area is better suited for I-P considering what is already existing on Milton Court and the surrounding areas. The property along COUNCIL MINUTES -FEBRUARY 15, 2005 page 12 Sequoia Parkway, developed by Pactrust is zoned I-P and some was used for retail (Home Depot), but much of it is one- or two-story "tilt up" with office. Councilor Woodruff asked if the property was used only for office, so there would be no truck traffic, could Milton Court be the only access (and not extend Wall Street)? Mr. Wells said this would represent some challenges; Milton Court is currently a dead-end street and exceeds the Washington County standards for the length of a dead-end street. The area is large enough that it makes sense to provide for some interconnectivity. City Engineer Duenas said that a loop is always preferable, with access from two directions. Council Woodruff and Mr. Fields discussed that the access to the property 40 years ago. Mr. Fields said that it wasn't landlocked on what is now the library property, there was a 20-foot easement (a farm road) and there was a small bridge across Fanno Creek. Mr. Fields purchased the two houses as well as a piece of vacant property for a total of 6-7 acres for access. He said when he sold the property for the library, he made sure he had access or he would have never sold the property. In response to a question from Councilor Harding about access with or without the new library, Mr. Fields said when he sold the property for the library, he could have crossed the property at any point as long as he could have crossed Fanno Creek. As to the railroad, he said he remembered meeting 30 years ago with Burlington Northern and Southern Pacific; "...everyone said, yes, this sounds like a very practical thing to have a crossing at that point. But, of course, that was 30 years ago and a lot of it has changed since then - Union Pacific owns part of it, ODOT owns the other part of the railroad - so, you've got all sorts of ramifications..." Councilor Harding asked if the railroad granted any rights to Mr. Fields 30 years ago? Mr. Fields said "...no, there was nothing official about it. It was a concept and, at that time, I must admit that financially, it wasn't possible. I didn't have any money, neither did the City. But, we were trying to anticipate the development of the community for the future. And, I don't know whether you realize this, but I formed the LID that improved Hunziker Road, I put in the water district, I put in the sewer district. All of that was done by landowners' money; that wasn't done by the City. It's all been extended since - I'm not trying to take any proprietary position in this, but the point is, this has been an evolution over a long period of time ...and, to answer your question Mr. Dirksen, that zoning ...the consideration for changing that zoning... someone, I don't know who it was, whether it was someone local, but someone suggested that maybe an office complex would be more compatible than a residential area, and I'm not advocating one or the other. We'd like to get the thing moving. I'm not going to live forever...I think the real intent... there's no question but what we can get access to it. Gus and his people have gone through all of the motions with the Corps of Engineers to cross Fanno Creek and so forth. We haven't gotten across the two railroads yet. But, the point is, you've got a big block of property there - one mile square - directly across the street from City Hall and downtown. And, believe it or not, and I think we all believe, that Tigard is in a very strategic position. And, you've got a plugged up sink here with 99W backed COUNCIL MINUTES -FEBRUARY 15, 2005 page 13 up against 1-5 and... it needs all the help it can get to...get into a practical community." Mr. Wells added that the application to Metro has been submitted. It will be reviewed by the Parks Department of Metro to determine if they may cross over Metro's land to Milton Court. There's also a short stretch of city land off the end of Milton Court to which it would attach. This needs to go through the Metro process. One of the benefits of crossing at this location is that it does avoid the flood plain and wetlands and is next to the rail line; thus, it has minimal impact to the overall Metro parcel. Mr. Wells said this location is a logical place for getting access from two different points. He said doesn't know for certain whether access could only come from Milton Court; no traffic studies have been done. Also, Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue would have to have access for emergency vehicles. If there are a large number of employees in this area, it would have to be designed for safety. Mr. Wells said another point to raise about the extension of Wall Street, is that if it is brought in under LID as a City street with a cul de sac at the rail, it does set up for an eventual crossing, whether it be a grade crossing - he agreed with City Engineer Duenas that the chances for a grade crossing are slim - but also connect to an over crossing, if that were to be put in place. He said in trying to work towards the City's vision of helping with traffic flow, this would set it up for an eventual connector that would break up that long block. The connection to Milton Court would also help for access on the west side of the rail. Councilor Wilson asked how there could be an over crossing without cutting off access? Mr. Wells agreed that the geometry would be difficult, and "frankly, we have not had the engineers study that. We think the cost is a very difficult obstacle and technically it would be very challenging; i.e., expensive. There is also the technical possibility of lowering the rail bed to some extent to help with that geometry, but then again, that would be very expensive." Councilor Harding commented that all options presented are very expensive. She said, "and, we've spent a lot now. And, as Mr. Fields said, it wasn't landlocked..." Councilor Harding advised she reviewed minutes from before and it appears the City has spent almost $.5 million already pursuing this project. She referred to the railroad's comment that it is looking to eliminate at-grade crossings, not add them. With the commuter rail, the estimate is between 30-47 trips crossing at this location. Councilor Harding said she thought this was a difficult hurdle to cross both the railroad and the creek. She said she thought Mr. Field's offer to pay for the LID is magnanimous, but she noted the amount spent by the City already. She said, I don't think the we should shoulder the blame that this is not useable. think that's a tough piece of land and I think you've probably already known that all along, hoping that something would happen that would work out." Blake Hering of Norris Beggs and Simpson Realtors said he is the owner of the utility industrial park built in 1970's in the subject area. Mr. Hering noted that in the COUNCIL MINUTES -FEBRUARY 15, 2005 page 14 70's there was no problem with access or egress. Now, he has tenants who advise they may need to move because of traffic congestion on Hunziker and SW 72na This is hurting Tigard. This is what has happened over the last 25-30 years. Also, the rail spur provided an alternative mode of transportation and was used by Willamette Industries as a bargaining tool with truckers when there was talk of rate increases. Mr. Hering said in the last 30 years, he did not think more than four rail cars have used the spur. The spur is useless. But, that could be a great asset for the City of Tigard in terms of widening Wall Street to help with traffic on Hall Boulevard and 72"a. Councilor Woodruff and Councilor Harding commented about other problems with the traffic. Mr. Hering noted the need to plan for the future to look to what has happened in the last 30 years and then "...take yourself forward..." Mr. Wells summarized the issues before the City Council: 1. Withdraw the crossing application? 2. Signalize the library intersection? 3. Construct Phase 1 of Wall Street? 4. What is proposed for the LID? Mr. Wells said their question to the Council for discussion is a proposed LID to the tracks. If an LID to the tracks is formed with Mr. Fields it will "...get you one of two things: Either crossing over the rail or access via Milton. And, I think there is logic in taking that LID over to the rail... it doesn't solve all the problems today, but it sets it up to be more likely to solve the problems in the long-term future. This is a very difficult task to get good circulation to the Tigard Triangle, all the way down to City Hall. But, we need to take it one step at a time." Mr. Fields agreed that "it's complicated, it's not easy, and it's not going to be cheap. And, that's the reason we didn't do it 40 years ago. But, as I say, the economics have got to the point where the land values can justify substantially more in the way of the costs of the road and so forth today. I know it's an expense to the City, but I'd thought we all had faced up to that when I sold the property for the library. In other words, I sold the property for the library with the understanding that they would assist and do everything possible to get that road out to Hunziker. I don't want throw anything around and... insist that the City do that... but we do have a contract and that is an important consideration I think somewhere along the line. I agree with Mike ...If we go with the Wall Street up to the railroad and put a cul de sac there and divert the exit out to Milton Court, we've got that opportunity to eventually push it across the railroad. The railroad can be awfully demanding, or be awfully negative. But, at the same time, there are times when they are looking for favors, too. I've gone to Marty Brantley, who is the Director of Economic Development for the State. Gus and I, and Jim Hendryx, went down there about a year ago and he was very receptive. He says that they have quite a bit of money, like $500 million, ...to develop and create jobs in the State of Oregon. And, that's COUNCIL MINUTES -FEBRUARY 15, 2005 page 15 for development of properties in any community... So, he was the one...to suggest ...that well, we've got some money down in Salem that could possibly help you with that issue ...I have a feeling they would give quite a bit to help generate some employment in the State of Oregon. I asked him how much property you'd really have to have that would provide encouragement for the State to cooperate and what size of a piece property... He said, 'about 15 acres, how much is there out there?' I said, 'well there's almost 70 acres.' He said, '...we're all for that.' So, my point is that we have a couple of avenues we haven't really pursued at this point. It just seems to me that what we're doing, what we've been trying to do with it, is improve the transportation in the whole area. I could sell it off tomorrow, I don't have any problem in doing that, but I've had a thought in mind as to what the community would need for a long time. I've got some selfish reasons myself." Mr. Fields commented that the LIDs for Hunziker and the formation of the water and sewer district in this area were all done before the incorporation of the City of Tigard and not for any great personal gain. Mr. Fields said, "I think it's the thing to do and I think that you people, as management for the City of Tigard have a great responsibility to see to it to do anything you can to cause this community to grow and thrive in a very basic, fundamental, practical way. You say it's expensive - 10 years from now it's going to be a lot more expensive ...As far as the Milton Court access and roadways - if you're going to do that, it's not going to do anything for the traffic planning for Tigard... it'll get traffic in and out of the property, but it doesn't take care of any traffic problems. So, that's the reason it needs some really good, hard-nosed efforts ...I solicited the help of the City when I agreed to sell the property for the library." Mr. Fields said, "...try to push the railroad for that crossing, if you're going to do anything about transportation ...this is the only opportunity you're going to have to get someone to cooperate and pay for the bulk of the expense. I know you've spent a lot of money, but... I can't tell you over the years I've paid a pretty penny in just paying taxes ...for the last 40 years." Councilor Woodruff noted he appreciated all the work done by Mr. Fields and, if the City is required contractually, then it needs to be done. There isn't any need for discussion about whether or not it should occur. Councilor Woodruff said that some of the decisions were made by the City Council before he or Councilor Harding were part of the City Council. Councilor Woodruff said if it was just his personal opinion, he was not in favor in extending Wall Street. He said he thought Mr. Fields should get a return on his investment for the property. Councilor Woodruff said the library is the "...living room of Tigard. It is in a pristine location and there are a lot of people in the community that are telling us that we need to maintain the open space, we need to maintain the character of the community, and that's kind of a special place there at Fanno Creek. I'm not in favor of having a street go there. I'm not even too much in favor of Phase 1 unless I can be convinced that will benefit the library to do that. So, that's my personal opinion. And, I just think that it contributes to what we are being often criticized for, which is COUNCIL MINUTES -FEBRUARY 15, 2005 page 16 just doing more and more development and taking away from the open space from the community. So, if there's a way to use that property, to get in through this other way and that you could get a return on your investment... I'm in favor of that. I'm even in less favor of this than I was before now that we're looking at this having to be a cul de sac...One of the main reasons that we talked about it was because of this improved traffic flow and we don't have that unless there is some kind of conclusion to the railroad crossing. So, that's my opinion, and I don't know what the official legal requirements are for us to move ahead... If there's no need for discussion, then why are we discussing?" Mr. Fields said, "Now, just let me make one point. If you say, `No, we're not going to do this now,' you know you're never going to get it. You're never going to improve it..." Mr. Fields said that it's not Hunziker that's plugged up - it's Hall Street and 72nd Avenue. Mr. Fields said, I know everybody wants a greenway and that's fine, too. But, now you're talking about rezoning property when you're doing that." Councilor Wilson said, "I'm really torn on this one. I've long-agreed with your proposition that Tigard is as messed up traffic-wise as it is because we have so few roads across Fanno Creek, the railroad and 217. In fact, I think you can go from Scholls Ferry to the Tualatin River and only cross nine roads, which makes a nice greenway, but it's horrendous for traffic On the other hand, this is your private property and if you want to make it happen, you're going to make it happen. So, I guess I'm a little bit unclear as to the level of participation that you're asking from us and what the various options are." Councilor Wilson asked if Mr. Fields needs to acquire property from the City of Tigard or is that portion of Wall Street already dedicated in front of the library? City Engineer Duenas said it was dedicated right-of-way for Phase 1. Councilor Wilson said his question is, "At this point, what do you require of us? Do we withdraw the application even from the railroad... and, I'm not sure what criteria the railroad uses to make their decision, but it sounds like we don't meet it at this point, and so if that can't go through, it makes it less interesting. Although, your point that it sets it up for the future is well taken ...I'm still on the fence on this one. But, I think this is the clearest... so far...to see the whole context. I can see the fact that it does make connections that don't exist now and could be helpful." City Engineer Duenas said referred to the controversial Walnut Street Extension, going up Ash Creek. Councilor Wilson said he expects some opposition and noted "...that's between several crossings at grade, and they might be less likely to be opposed to it. And, if we push on this one and we come in with another one a year later, they will say, 'Well, we already gave you one.'..." Councilor Harding said without the at-grade crossing, she did not see how it could be said that this makes the way for the future. She said that "we'd have to have it so that it actually extends and with that great hope that sometime in the next 20 COUNCIL MINUTES -FEBRUARY 15, 2005 page 17 years or 30 they would redo that intersection at 72nd and 217, but that's kind of been pushed way out there. At the moment, I can't see where we would totally improve traffic until... made the changes in that whole section with Dartmouth, 72nd and 217...When I hear the term 'right of eminent domain' that sounds pretty hefty to me coming from the railroad. And, we are looking to eliminating grade crossings, not add them ...are we going to spend more money for nothing?" Mr. Fields said that he would bear the brunt of the cost of an LID. The cost involved with continuing with the railroad crossing would be a matter of attending one or two more meetings. He said, "We may be turned down. We may have to take it to Salem and get some action from there, but that would be at the expense of the state government... The matter of the LID crossing Fanno Creek and going up to the railroad, certainly, that's going to be at my expense ...the contract that you and I have sets limitations on what you're supposed to spend... I think you've promised... what goes on from here in the way of construction and so forth, that's really at my expense. I can't foresee a great deal more..." City Engineer Duenas said that "part of the expense was doing Hall Boulevard and the first phase of Wall Street because quite a bit of the'wetlands and the realignment of Pinebrook Creek is in that 425 feet. Crossing of Fanno Creek is another challenge, but again the Corps, DSL, and CWS have all issued permits for the whole thing... it's available to be built." Mr. Fields said, "...What you're saying is that the bulk of that is going to be at my expense and not of the city's, am I saying that right?" City Engineer Duenas said, "Correct, but what I am also saying is you could probably do it cheaper by just picking it up from where we leave off if we do the first 425 feet. Do it as a developer and build the road up to the tracks and then do the connection at Milton Court. An LID basically tacks on additional cost, it's just .that you get a chance to prorate it over a ten-year period." Mr. Wells said, "rest assured, that if I build that street, I am not going to build it in that alignment that sets up for the future. If I build that street, that's not an LID, I'm not going to build it so that it sets up as a cul de sac that will eventually go over the tracks, because that is a more expensive way to do it. It provides for the future, but it doesn't do anything for developing that particular tract." City Engineer Duenas said he thought the most practical way to cross this area would be to raise the tracks and go under. Councilor Woodruff asked if this property could be turned into a park? Mr. Fields said, "No. If you're interested in this, you would be No. 2 in line, because Metro has already spoken several times, and the answer has been the same ...they said that... in the last two weeks... and they said that ten years ago. I'm not trying to be COUNCIL MINUTES -FEBRUARY 15, 2005 page 18 bull headed, but as I told them, I don't think they could afford it. And they said, 'Why can't we afford it?' and I said, 'Because I'm a tax payer and you can't afford it.' And, that's not necessarily a laughing matter, but I don't want to give it...to the Metro group... somewhere you've got to have some tax base in this community and until you get some business and jobs created, how many thousands of dollars are you going to lose there in tax revenue for the City? From an economic point of view, I don't think it's very practical, but I guess you are representing the tax payers and, if you can afford it, then I guess that's ok..." Councilor Woodruff noted that Councilor Sherwood has some opinions on this matter as well, but she was not able to be here tonight. Interim City Manager Prosser said that tonight staff was looking for informal direction, which would be brought back to the City Council for ratification. Mayor Dirksen said he personally disliked giving up on the idea of ever having a rail crossing there and being able to extend Wall Street for a connection in the Tigard Triangle. For future benefit of the area, he said he thought the City needed to leave that option open. Mayor Dirksen said he recognized in the short term that getting that crossing is unlikely; he would be willing to forego that in favor of taking the Wall Street extension across Fanno Creek to a cul de sac with the thought that in the future this might be possible. Dartmouth might also be extended. Mayor Dirksen said with regard to the issue of Mr. Fields' property and his use of it, his experience has been that increases in revenue from development of property rarely keep up with the responsibilities that occur from the development. However, Mayor Dirksen said that "I don't think that we can legally, or even morally for that matter, deny Mr. Fields the use of his property as he sees fit as long as it is within the confines of the law. I think it would be great if we could turn it into a greenspace...but, if Mr. Fields wants to develop it, that's his right as a property owner... I think there would be a problem in developing the property either industrial or for office if the only access were across Fanno Creek and Hall Boulevard... The compromise to me that seem logical is to provide that loop that goes from Hall Boulevard across and then tie into Milton Court. I don't even know whether that's even possible, it depends upon the negotiations with Metro... to cross that piece of property that they own. As a question, I'm curious, I know that your property includes some stream side corridor that's not going to be developable in any case and wondering if Metro would be interested in a transfer of property to allow you the right of way across the property they currently own in return for some stream site property of an equal amount, which I think would be beneficial all concerned." Mr. Wells said the suggested this in their application. Mayor Dirksen said he would be in favor of withdrawing the crossing application with the caveat that some day in the future the City would revisit that. He clarified that he was on Council when the City was negotiating with Mr. Fields for the library and he said, "I know that the attitude of Council was for that in consideration in COUNCIL MINUTES -FEBRUARY 15, 2005 page 19 return for purchasing the property that the City would do everything reasonable to a point of unreasonableness to see to it to get that access across over to Hunziker Street and I feel like we are contractually bound to make every effort to do that. But, recognizing that in the short term that may not be feasible. If Mr. Fields is willing to consider the alternative and consider that contract by us allowing the crossing of the creek and then... allowing the connection over to Milton Court, then I would think that would be your reasonable compromise. But, I feel that development of the property would need both of those connections to Hall Boulevard and over to Milton Court..." City Engineer Duenas said that withdrawing the application at this point does not prejudice the situation. He said he thought the worse situation was to have the application denied. Councilor Woodruff said, "Aside from that decision, I'm not sure what this debate is about. If it's a done deal. If Mr. Fields can do this without our blessing, or if we've already obligated that we are going to do this, then what are we making a decision on to give direction?" Interim City Manager Prosser summarized the need for City Council direction on: 1. The withdrawal of the application for the railroad crossing. 2. Whether to work with Mr. Fields to form an LID to finance his portion of the extension of Wall Street to the cul de sac or whether that would be his own development. There are two options as to how and where that street would be developed. 3. Whether the City should go ahead and build the stub of Wall Street to the end of the City's property. Mayor Dirksen said that he thought the portion that goes to the creek is needed, even if nothing else is done. The library and parking lot layout was based on assuming that would go through. Mayor Dirksen said the other thing was for access to the apartments to the south - this was to be their primary access. City Engineer Duenas said that ODOT insisted that the Fanno Pointe driveway on Hall be closed when the driveway is connected to Wall Street. In response to a question from Councilor Wilson, City Engineer Duenas said it would have to be bid out and administered by the City. City Engineer Duenas confirmed that the extension would be more expensive if constructed through an LID. There was discussion on whether it would be better to form an LID or to have the developer construct privately. Mayor Dirksen said if it wasn't constructed through the use of an LID, then the City would give up the right to dictate the right of way to the point of where it would be useful for a future crossing for a connection to Hunziker. Interim City Manager Prosser said the advantage of an LID to the property owner is that it would provide access to lower-cost financing COUNCIL MINUTES -FEBRUARY 15, 2005 page 20 because the City would issue tax-exempt bonds to help finance his portion and this would probably be lower-interest costs than he could get on his own. Mr. Fields said that, "When we negotiated the library transaction, this was an obligation. Now, to withdraw that application for the railroad crossing at this point in time, I think that they would look upon that as 'well, they just gave up,' and the next time it comes up they'll just rubber stamp it and say, 'well, it'll go so far and they'll give up again.' I don't like the idea of giving up on that crossing. I'd like to pursue it through in Salem in whatever way we can to try to secure that now. Because, I think we have maybe some friendly people there now, but we have no way of knowing what we're going to get at some later point. Now, to go back, I want to be just about as straightforward as you have been, in that had I known that we were going to come to this point three years ago, I would not have sold the City the property for the library. I would not have done it. Everyone knows it was never for sale and the property behind has never been for sale ...I don't mean to be objectionable, but my point is that we faced this whole thing three years ago and here we are facing it again..." In response to a question from Councilor Wilson, City Engineer Duenas explained that the City applied for a crossing permit, which was contested by Portland Western. When there is a contested application, it goes to a hearing. Mr. Duenas said he thinks the railroad will show it will be hampered by this crossing. The reason the railroad objects is because they do they are switching at this location and the railroad says it needs one mile of track. Mayor Dirksen said he thinks this is a bad argument that the railroad is not entitled to. He said that when the railroad was given that right of way, it was to use as travel right of way. This is not a switching yard and they should have no reasonable expectation to use it as such. City Engineer Duenas said there is a spur track for which Union Pacific has the easement rights. It is not being used for anything other than for parking some dilapidated cars. But, they won't give it up because they have it and they don't have to give it up. Interim City Manager Prosser asked the City Engineer about the process to pursue the application for the crossing - how much time? City Engineer Duenas advised there is a prehearing meeting scheduled for April 15 and an issue will be the spur track that is in the way and what will be done to resolve that issue. There will need to be a realignment away from the spur track, which will be more expense and the issue will not be solved as to whether or not a crossing will be allowed. City Engineer Duenas said there would be no point of going through the exercise of realigning the road to avoid the spur track. Mr. Fields asked if pursuing the application for the crossing would involve a lot of City money. City Engineer Duenas said yes it would - the City Attorney is the representative for the City. City Engineer Duenas said the City has gone through COUNCIL MINUTES -FEBRUARY 15, 2005 page 21 a lot of process up until now submitting and reviewing documents. If a study is needed to realign the road, this will mean more expense. Mayor Dirksen commented that is part of the concern. If the City continues to move forward, the City is incurring continual expense. He said, "It's hard to justify, not seeing a favorable outcome... If there was a reasonable expectation that we would be successful..." Mr. Fields said, "Let's look at it - three years ago, we knew it was going to be difficult. We didn't anticipate that it was going to be a slam-dunk by any stretch... so, nothing has really changed." Mayor Dirksen said that when he saw the presentation tonight showing the street dead-ending at the tracks, he thought Mr. Fields was considering this as an option - that Mr. Fields was bringing this to the City Council as a possible alternative. Mr. Fields said, "But if you run it up to the tracks and then you divert a road down to Milton Court, that solves the practical problems..." Mayor Dirksen said, "So, what you are suggesting that we do both ...we do the development up to this point as such, but continue to pursue the crossing as well to its logical conclusion." Mr. Field said "yes." Mayor Dirksen said that "having been involved in originally in the contract with the library site... he feels we are contractually obligated to do so." Councilor Woodruff said "if that's the case, let's just move on..." Mr. Fields said "These are hard decisions to make and I still feel, and I may be wrong, but you've got traffic studies and everything else that support this... but you still need that crossing..." Councilor Harding said "but... until the rest of that is done, it's going to add to the traffic..." Mayor Dirksen said "You do what you can now, and you make sure that everything that you do is directed toward what needs to be done completely in the long run." Councilor Harding said "That's why you need to look at the infrastructure; if they won't do grade crossings, then you look at the prospect of a bridge... but you say that's too expensive." Mr. Fields said that "...my point on that one is...we've got so much allocated to make that railroad crossing - that's pretty expensive. Now, to elevate it or to... underground, we might be able to get the state to pick up that tab. I think COUNCIL MINUTES -FEBRUARY 15, 2005 page 22 there's a good possibility of that happening... this is the time to do it because they say they've got $500 million to enhance or develop..." Councilor Harding commented she was wondering what the library was really costing the tax payers. She also questioned the amount of taxes paid by Mr. Fields in the last 40 years on the vacant land - she did not think it has been excessive. Mr. Fields noted taxes have been $100,000 a year on the vacant property. Councilor Wilson said Mr. Fields is going to develop his property one way or another. The real issue is to what extent is the City going to participate. He asked if there was a way to work with Mr. Fields to develop a "win/win?" Mr. Fields said, "...it seems that the City has spent 95% of what they had to spend to make this thing..." Mayor Dirksen asked if this could be confirmed? City Engineer Duenas responded that "we have done 60% of the design all of the way to Hunziker; we've done 100% of the design up to 425 feet. So, the LID would pick up any additional costs if we go beyond that point." Mayor Dirksen asked about the legal requirements of pursuing the crossing. How much more is that likely to cost the City? City Engineer Duenas responded that there would probably be another prehearing meeting and then the actual hearing. Councilor Wilson asked for clarification and said, "there's nothing we can do to prevent Mr. Fields from building a bridge across Fanno Creek?" City Engineer Duenas responded that "He can if he wants to." Councilor Wilson said, "Right, he's got the permits, if he wants to spend the money, he can do it, right?" City Engineer Duenas said, "Right." Councilor Woodruff said the only choice for the City is whether we do Phase 1. He noted a bridge wouldn't do any good unless Phase 1 is completed. City Engineer Duenas noted Phase 1 provides access for the library and allows for expansion of the parking lot. Mayor Dirksen said it was his recommendation to move forward to Phase 1, which is a City project. Mayor Dirksen said he didn't feel the City could withdraw the railroad application. Councilor Woodruff said if this is part of the good faith effort, then he agreed the application should not be withdrawn. Mr. Fields said he thought this had been discussed and decided upon three years ago. He acknowledged this will be controversial. COUNCIL MINUTES -FEBRUARY 15, 2005 page 23 Councilor Woodruff said he told the voters when he ran for office that he was not in favor of this extension. He said, "I am going to have to stick with the position that I had." Mayor Dirksen said that in order to get a clear direction, this will need to come back to the City Council. Interim City Manager Prosser said this will be rescheduled for a business meeting. He said if this item doesn't get scheduled on a Council agenda before the April 15 prehearing meeting, then he would assume the City would attend the prehearing. City Engineer Duenas said that "Right now Phase 1 and the signalization is a City project... it's moving ahead. I'm just putting everything on the table so we can get some direction to stop it or continue it as a project." Mayor Dirksen said, "At this point I don't hear a clear consensus around this table without a formal vote." 5. STRATEGIC FINANCE PLAN DISCUSSION This agenda item will be rescheduled to a future meeting. 6. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS: None. 7. NON AGENDA ITEMS Administrative Items - The following items were reviewed briefly by Interim City Manager Prosser: ■ Council Mail Delivery - mail will be held and delivered as part of the Friday newsletter and when agendas are distributed. The first packet of the month will be delivered by the Police Department as has been the past practice. ■ March 1 Draft Agenda was approved by the City Council ■ Council Calendar: • February 21: President's Day Holiday - City Hall Closed, Library Open • February 22: Council Business Meeting - 6:30 p.m. -Town Hall • February 28: Capital Improvement Program Tour 3-5 p.m.; Meet in the Permit Center Lobby • March 1: Special Council Meeting - 6:30 p.m. - Town Hall COUNCIL MINUTES -FEBRUARY 15, 2005 page 24 1 • March 8: Council Business Meeting - 6:30 p.m. - Town Hall 8. EXECUTIVE SESSION: Not held. 9. ADJOURNMENT: 10:03 p.m. n e _J2 Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder Attest: Mayo , City of Tigard Date: , I - 0 I:\admlcathylccm12005t050215.doc COUNCIL MINUTES -FEBRUARY 15, 2005 page 25 Revised 2/15/05 - Added Executive Session at beginning of meeting. Times are estimated. TIGARD"CITY'COLINCIL MEETING - FEBRUARY 15, 20,056:30::p.ni: CITY OF TIGARD OREGON TIGARD CITY HALL IJ125 SW HALL BLVD TIGARD; OR 97223 PUBLIC NOTICE: Assistive Listening Devices are available for persons with impaired hearing and should be scheduled for Council meetings by noon on the Monday prior to the Council meeting. Please call 503-639-4171, ext. 2410 (voice) or 503-684-2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf). Upon request, the City will also endeavor to arrange for the following services: • Qualified sign language interpreters for persons with speech or hearing impairments; and • Qualified bilingual interpreters. Since these services must be scheduled with outside service providers, it is important to allow as much lead time as possible. Please notify the City of your need by 5:00 p.m. on the Thursday preceding the meeting by calling: 503-639-4171, ext. 2410 (voice) or 503- 684-2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf). SEE ATTACHED AGENDA COUNCIL AGENDA -FEBRUARY 15, 2005 page 1 AGENDA TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 15, 2005 - 6:30 PM 6:30 PM • EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session to discuss labor negotiations ORS 192.660(2)(d). 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. 6:45 PM 1. WORKSHOP MEETING 1.1 Call to Order - City Council & Local Contract Review Board 1.2 Roll Call 1.3 Pledge of Allegiance 1.4 Council Communications K Liaison Reports 1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items 6:50 PM 2. JOINT MEETING WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE ■ Staff Summary: Community Development Department 7:50 PM 3. JOINT MEETING WITH THE TRANSPORTATION FINANCING STRATEGIES TASK FORCE ■ Staff Summary: Engineering Department 8:25 PM 4. WALL STREET UPDATE ■ Staff Summary: Engineering Department 9:20 PM 5. STRATEGIC FINANCE PLAN DISCUSSION ■ Staff Summary: Finance Department COUNCIL AGENDA -FEBRUARY 15, 2005 page 2 6. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS 7. NON AGENDA ITEMS Administrative Items ■ Council Mail Delivery ■ March 1 Draft Agenda ■ Council Calendar: • February 21: President's Day Holiday - City Hall Closed, Library Open • February 22: Council Business Meeting - 6:30 p.m. - Town Hall • February 28: Capital Improvement Program Tour 3-5 p.m.; Meet In the Permit Center Lobby • March 1: Special Council Meeting - 6:30 p.m. - Town Hall • March 8: Council Business Meeting - 6:30 p.m. - Town Hall 8. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council may 'go into Executive Session. If an Executive Session is called to order, the appropriate ORS citation will be announced identifying the applicable statute. 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. 10:00 PM 9. ADJOURNMENT is\adm\cathy\cca\2005\050215). doc COUNCIL AGENDA -FEBRUARY 15, 2005 page 3 AGENDA ITEM # a FOR AGENDA OF 2/15/05 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Comprehensive Plan Update Program Process Discussion/Joint Meeting with the Planning Commission PREPARED BY: Barbara Shields DEPT HEAD OK ITY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL This presentation will provide an opportunity for the City Council to continue discussion on the overall approach for the Comprehensive Plan Update Program. The focus of the February 15, 2005, work session is identification of the major components of a Comprehensive Plan update and public involvement programs. A Planning Commission representative will attend the Council meeting to discuss the Planning Commission position with Council. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff asks for Council's concurrence with the Long Planning work program, identification and direction on the Comprehensive Plan update study areas, task force composition, and other elements of the public involvement program. INFORMATION SUMMARY Between December 2003 and April 2004, the Planning Commission held five work sessions on the Comprehensive Plan Update work program. During this time, the Planning Commission reviewed the main elements of the plan update: public involvement; preliminary issue identification and data collection; plan update process; and plan adoption. Each of these meetings was open to any interested citizens and subject to public meeting law. Meeting materials were available on the City's website. The meetings resulted in the Planning Commission's preliminary recommendations for the Comprehensive Plan Update work program. During the last year, the Planning Commission raised four major questions related to the work program development and asked for Council input and direction (Exhibit A). On November 22, 2004, Council reviewed the preliminary work program and provided directions to the four questions, which were raised by the Planning Commission. A summary of Council's directions and a brief update on the status of the each issue raised at the November 22, 2005 is contained in Exhibit A. At the November 22, 2004 meeting, Council indicated that the Comprehensive Plan Update should be part of the Long Range program, but not the main priority for 2005. The City should continue to build a general understanding about the Comprehensive Plan Update components and work with the Planning Commission to finalize the program. The scope of the February 15, 2005, meeting is to 1) review major phases of the Comprehensive Plan update program, and 2) discuss components of the Public Involvement Program. I:\CDADM\JERREE\Agenda Sum\2-15-05 Comp Plan Update AIS.DOC OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Not applicable. VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY/ APPLICABLE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES Community Character and Quality of Life, Community Aesthetics, #1 - Develop strategies to balance needs of new and infill development with the need to provide preservation and protection of open space, natural areas, and other defined aesthetic qualities valued by those who already live and work in Tigard. Growth & Growth Management - Goal #1, Growth while protecting the character and livability of new and established areas while providing for natural environment and open space throughout the community. ATTACHMENT LIST Exhibit A: Memo to Jim Hendryx dated February 1, 2005 - Comprehensive Plan Update Program Attachment 1: Draft Comprehensive Plan Update Timeline Attachment 2: November 22, 2004 Council meeting transcript Exhibit B: PowerPoint Slides - Comprehensive Plan Update, February 2005 FISCAL NOTES Not applicable. I:\CDADM\JERREE\Agenda Sum\2-15-05 Comp Plan Update AIS.DOC EXHIBIT "A" CITY OF TIGARD Community Development Shaping A Better Community MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD TO: Jim Hendryx, Community Development Director FROM: Barbara Shields, Long Range Planning Manager DATE: February 1, 2005 SUBJECT: Comprehensive Plan Update Program CC: Craig Prosser, Interim City Manager Introduction At the November 22, 2004 meeting, Council indicated that the Comprehensive Plan Update should be part of the Long Range program but not the main priority for 2005. The City should continue to build a general understanding about the Comprehensive Plan Update components and work with the Planning Commission to finalize the program. The scope of the February 15, 2005, meeting is to 1) review major phases of the Comprehensive Plan update program, and 2) discuss components of the Public Involvement Program. A Planning Commission representative will attend the Council meeting to discuss the Planning Commission position with Council. Background Between December 2003 and April 2004, the Planning Commission held five work sessions on the Comprehensive Plan Update work program. During this time, the Planning Commission reviewed the main elements of the plan update: public involvement; preliminary issue identification and data collection; plan update process; and plan adoption. Each of these meetings was open to any interested citizens and subject to public meeting law. Meeting materials were available on the City's website. The meetings resulted in the Planning Commission's preliminary recommendations for the Comprehensive Plan Update work program. Based on the Planning Commission discussions, staff prepared the Draft Comprehensive Plan Update Timeline (Attachment 1). IACDADWERREE\Agenda Sum\2-15-05 Comp Plan Update Exhibit A.DOCI The Planning Commission recognized that the overall timeline and result of the Comprehensive Plan would depend on the available resources and the extent of a public outreach program. Work Program Development During the last year, the Planning Commission raised four major questions related to the work program development and asked for Council input and direction. On November 22, Council reviewed the preliminary work program developed by the Planning Commission and provided directions to the four questions, which were raised by the Planning Commission. The following is a summary of Council's directions and a brief update on the status of the each issue raised at the November 22, 2005 (Attachment 2). 1. Long Range Planning Program Priorities. How should the City prioritize the Long Range Planning projects to assure that the Comp Plan Update remains a focal point of the planning program in the next three plus years? Directions: • The Downtown program should remain the priority. It should not be jeopardized by any other major projects. It is a big project by itself. It should not end with the adoption of the TGM grant products. The next step should be to develop an effective implementation program. • The Comprehensive Plan update should be part of the program but not the main focal point. Rather, the Planning Commission should finalize the program after the joint meeting with Council in February. The City should continue to build a general understanding about the Comprehensive Plan program components and the extent of the public outreach process. • The City should not rush into the program, without any clear understanding what type of tools may be applicable in view of the overall Measure 37 impacts. Status: Under the TGM grant conditions, the Downtown Improvement Plan needs to be finalized by July 2005. The recommendations of the Plan will form a basis for the funding program. The Task Force established a funding subcommittee in January to explore these funding options with financial experts. They also created a Brand Tigard subcommittee to create an identity through small projects (such as pedestrian improvements) that focus attention and generate momentum in Downtown; and a Catalyst Project subcommittee to identify larger public projects that would stimulate other improvements. Their recommendations will be included in the Open House on April 23, 2005. 2. Study Area. Should the Comprehensive Plan Update Program include the unincorporated Bull Mountain area? This area includes both the Bull Mountain Annexation Plan area and the UGB expansion areas. What about Metzger? 1ACDADWERREE\Agenda Sum\2-15-05 Comp Plan Update Exhibit ADM Council Directions: • Council may consider including the unincorporated areas in the Comprehensive Plan update provided that Washington County contributes its resources to the program. • The City needs to initiate a discussion with the County to assess the level of support that may be provided by the County for the Comprehensive Plan update. Status: Under the current City/County Urban Planning Area Agreement (UPAA), the County is responsible for long range planning in unincorporated areas. There is a need to amend the agreement to determine the scope of planning responsibilities. In order to amend the agreement, the City needs to revisit the overall urbanization/annexation strategy. The urbanization/annexation strategy discussion with Council is scheduled for March 15, 2005. The County's work program includes updating the UPAA over the next year. This process would allow us to determine the City's role in planning for the unincorporated areas. 3. Public Involvement Process. What should be the extent of the public involvement process? Council Directions: • More time is needed to understand the scope of the Comprehensive Plan Update Program. • The City should continue to build a general understating about the Comprehensive Plan program components to determine the extent of the public outreach process. Status: • The objective of the February 15, 2005, is to continue building a general understanding about the Comprehensive Plan program components and the extent of the public outreach process. 4. Task Force. Should Council appoint a new Task Force to guide the Comprehensive Plan Update Program? How should the City go about it? Do we need a new committee or some blend of the existing committees? Council Directions: • More time is needed to evaluate this question. • As the City progresses with the public outreach program development, it will explore different options for a committee to guide the Comprehensive Plan Update Program. Status: The objective of the February 15, 2005, is to discuss the role of a task force in guiding the Comprehensive Plan Update Program. 1:\CDADMVERREE\Agenda Sum\2-15-05 Comp Plan Update Exhibit A.DOC3 Attachment 1 DRAFT Draft Comprehensive Plan Update: Timeline months X Program Phase/Task 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42. 44 46 48 Development of Public Participation Plan/Program Major Issues: Must have clear message for involvement 1. Develop Draft Public Participation ■ :Must provide wide range of options for participation Plan ■ Must reflect critical points of overall work program (critical path meetings and 2. Review Draft Plan activities (overall program must be mapped out) 3. Adopt Public Participation Plan ■ Must be adopted by Council before public outreach/involvement begins Task Force Appointed BACKGROUND REPORT Part I. Prepare Land Use Inventory and Trend Analysis 1. Population Major Issues: 2. Buildable Lands Inventory ■ Must contain alternatives for land use designation/allocation: needs to include discussion on residential, 3. Residential Land Analysis commercial, industrial, natural resources, open space, facilities/transportation elements 4. Resource Analysis ■ Must balance land inventory with community issues and realistic implementation options 5.0 en Space/Recreation ■ Must be "quality product": solid foundations for communitywide review and discussion; credible information; refined; readable 6. Annexation and Urbanization ■ Must involve all key City Departments ("Technical Advisory Group") to proves/develop technical reports; 7. Infrastructure/Facilities Public Works: Public Facilities, Open Space/Recreation/Natural Resource; Engineering: Transportation; 8. Economic Development Finance: implementation/funding strategies ■ Information Review Loop: Technical Group develops report-Internal Staff Review-Planning Commission 9. Trans ortation/Traffic Review/ Task Force Review Part II. Develop Land Use Schedule dependent up initiation of the program. I 1:1CDADMUERREE\Agenda Sum12-15-05 Comp Plan Update Attachment 1.DOC DRAFT Program Phase/Task 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38,.4014-TV-44, 46 48 Alternatives 1. Prepare Alternatives 2. Review Alternatives 3. Finalize Report Background Report Published 0 Plan Update Process 1. Conduct Series of Open Houses to introduce alternatives (5-10); Major Issues: II. Conduct Follow up Series of Small ■Transition from Vision to Goals/Policies/Implementation Group Workshops focused on programs refinements to alternatives (20-30) ■ Number of open houses needs to be determined as part of Ill. Conduct Series of Open Houses to Public Participation Plan; share preferred alternatives (land use ■ Time/Resource intensive process; need for skilled distribution and policies) (3-5 facilitators IV. Prepare Draft Recommendations ■ Peak point of Public Participation Program: consensus on preferred alternative Draft Recommendations Published Plan Document Production 1. Prepare Draft Text Major Issues: II. Prepare Draft Maps ■ Document production phase: assembling all pieces in Schedule dependent up initiation of the program. one coherent document; ■ Intensive internal review; edits 1XDADWERREBAgenda Sum12-15-05 Camp Plan Update Attachment LDGC ■ Graphic presentation; format; readable document DRAFT Program Phase/Task 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 132 34 36 3 . `4W 4 , 44 46 48 11. Finalize Inventory 111. Finalize Technical Appendices IV. Review of Draft Document Draft Document Published Plan Adoption 1. Prepare Notices (Measure 56, legislative notices) Major Issue ■ Adoption must follow land use laws 11. Conduct Public Hearings (PC/CC) ■ Extensive notification required III. Finalize Document Plan Adopted Schedule dependent up initiation of the program. 3 IXDADWERREBAgenda Sum12.15-05 Comp Plan Update Attachment LDOC Attachment 2 November 22, 2004 Agenda Item No. 10 - Comp Plan Update Process Discussion Monahan: Barbara is a little bit under the weather, so she has a shorter presentation, and she is having a little bit difficult time speaking. Unfortunately, Jim Hendryx is on vacation, so she is pressed into service and needed to be here. Shields: I have allergies, so I can hardly talk today. I hope to be able to answer your questions. I wanted to say that, the critical piece in your report today is a chart which identifies recommendations for the timeline for the comprehensive plan update. The timeline is over 3 years, and is based on the Planning Commission recommendations. The Planning Commission recognizes in order to finalize the program, there is a need for a joint meeting with the Council to address the scope of work issues and we looked at a number of issues. We listed a number of issues based on Planning Commission's recommendations. One of them is the study area. Should we include the unincorporated Bull Mountain into the discussion of the study area for the Comprehensive Plan Update. That is one of the major issues in front of us. Another one is how do we go about the public involvement process, what should be the extent of the public information. Should the Council want to establish another task force to guide the comprehensive plan update process. Also, there is a priority issue. There are a number of long range planning projects, what is the Council's priorities. With that, I will open up to questions from the Council. Monahan: So there are a series of questions that have been raised. What staff is looking for is some feedback on how they have gone to the Planning Commission on several occasions and have tried to craft what is the process that should be followed, and as you know, it is a very extensive process. The other thing I should point out to you is that we are working with our Committee for Citizens Involvement (CCI), so when Barbara makes reference to do we need another committee, the question is, do we need another totally separate committee or do we want to perhaps blend some of the representation from the Planning Commission with the Committee for Citizens Involvement. We are just looking for direction at this time, are the on the right track, are you concerned about the timeline, are you concerned about the process and do you ultimately want to have a meeting with the Planning Commission in the near future to learn more about what they have been talking about and to make sure we are all thinking in the same way and how this would proceed. Wilson: I have some strong feelings that I could express. We have just gone through a very controversial year. Very taxing, extensive use of city resources and Council time. I think that the Comprehensive Plan needs to be updated and it should be updated soon, but I do not in anyway what to jeopardize our work on the downtown plan, because that is a big project by itself. Personally, I think the comp plan needs to take a back seat to that, and especially with I:\CDADM\JERREE\Agenda Sum\2-15-05 Comp Plan Update Attachment 2.DOC Measure 37, we just lost a potentially our major tool in planning. I think some sortof delay to see what the fallout of that, even if it is only six months, in six months to a year we are going to know how, what is in our tool box. To charge forward now is futile, it could be just another year lost in futility, and Ii do not want to do that again. I am suggesting, think about it, let's plan for it, let's not charge into it yet. Sherwood: I agree with Nick on the Downtown Plan, the work we are doing down there, and it has been our policy for the past several years to cutback and not have extra staff hired. I appreciate what you have gone through this past year with all the stuff we have had going on. I would like us to start planning, but I am with Nick, I do not want to charge head on into this, but maybe some of the preliminary work and meet with the planning commission. Woodruff. I think it would be a good idea to have some joint meeting with the Planning Commission and talk about this. They have been reviewing this, and I would like to hear what they have to say about this. They are our advisory group on this whole thing. Dirksen: I appreciate your comments, Nick, and Sydney as well, and Tom. I think Nick prefaced his comments by saying that the Comprehensive Plan needs to be reviewed, and soon. But soon is a relative term. This is certainly not something we want to rush into and attempt to do as quickly as possible. While there is a certain urgency, because of the consequences of continued development with an outdated plan, becoming too urgent if you are going to come up with a product that is not going to be satisfactory, and also, I am as you know, very sympathetic about the downtown plan, and not wanting to see anything get rid of that. My view of this comprehensive plan process, is it is not going to happen very quickly, and even if we begin preliminary stages now, there is not going to be any changes, or even plans or recommendations for months. The first two things listed on the plan update, the planned updated, the phased approach is the development of a public participation plan program. The second, after that, is then to create a background report. If we do have a Citizens Task Force involved, as we have learned in the recent past, there is a period of time during which that citizen group reviews the volumes of documents that they must be familiar with before they can have any meaningful opinion on the issue. I can see where that process can move forward beginning right away, but there would be no substantive change or recommendation of plan until such time as we move into that phase of it, until such time as we felt it would be appropriate to begin that. Sherwood: The only thing I am concerned about, Craig, is the amount of staff time it will take to get that preliminary step going. Basically it is staff time, and that is my concern, and I think that is yours too, because we are asking staff to do a lot of the downtown and with development going on, it is the same staff. Monahan: Can I add the other point, is that with Measure 37, we have no idea what the impacts is going to be on staff when claims are filed. So what it sounds like we are hearing is there is no need to rush, set up a meeting with the Planning Commission, probably sometime after the first of the year. Can you give us a reality check on what Barbara was saying to, is that the way she has charted this out, we are talking about a three year process. We want to make sure your expectations are in line with ours, that is too long of a process, too short of a process, sounds I:\CDADM\JERREE\Agenda Sum\2-15-05 Comp Plan Update Attachment 2.DOC about right, do you have enough, or do you want to not comment on it now, but work through this with the Planning Commission, and in the discussion with the Planning Commission, get some more definite about what these pieces are, and then after that meeting, respond. Because if you are saying don't start up, and we are not going to object to that, just know, we have been hearing from the Council and the community that the Comprehensive Plan needs to get started, so that is why Barbara and her staff have put so much work into getting this to this point. It certainly can be put down again, and we can put quality effort into the other activities, and then have that discussion. Woodruff. We have responded to the fourth question that you have listed here, I don't know if you are needing to have responses to the first three questions about the zoning. I don't know if we touched on, maybe that can just be put on the back burner while we wait for things to kind of heat up, but those are three important questions. I don't know if direction needs to be given on them. Sherwood: I wouldn't be in favor of having unincorporated Bull Mountain be included in it, unless the County wanted to pay for it. That is going to create a lot of staff time and a lot of work in that area. If the County wants to pay us to do it, great, we will do it, but if we are going to have to use our City of Tigard money to do it, I realize that is not real planning foresight here, but after this last year, I feel a little bit singed around the edge about using City of Tigard money to do something that people have resoundly said they have said we do not want to be in your city. Dirksen: I agree with that. Monahan: it sounds like the direction is to initiate some discussions with Washington County to see if there is a contribution we can be able to obtain for planning for the unincorporated Bull Mountain, and possibly the newly added UGB areas, and come back to the Council with that information, and that would be able to tell us whether you would like to include that in the study area. That is Question 1 It sounds like on the Task Force, you are not giving us direction yet, you want to talk to the Planning Commission to see whether the Planning Commission is up to the task, or if we can potentially involve the Planning Commission in a future task force. That is Question 2. Question 3 is the public participation program, and it sounds like there is time for that discussion, and as I mentioned, we are getting the CCI up and running again. The Fourth Question, is interesting, because the way Barbara phrased this, "how should the City prioritize the rest of the ongoing projects to assure that the comprehensive Plan update remains a focal point of the Long range Planning Program in the next three plus years." It sounds like at this point, at least in the immediate future, is not the focal point of the Long Range Planning Program, but Downtown is that focal point, and you want to have a discussion to see where the comprehensive plan process fits into that, and you can give us a time frame at a later date, as to whether it is 3-1/2 years, potentially beyond when the comprehensive plan would be completed. Does that make sense. I:\CDADM\JERREE\Agenda Sum\2-15-05 Comp Plan Update Attachment 2.130C O Woodruff: The downtown task force is on the burner already. They can deal with that, it is on the table already. The impacts of Measure 37 is going to happen and I want to see how that plays out a little bit before we move too far down the road. Wilson: I am also concerned about is, we finish out TGM grant in June, but we are not done until we start getting that built down there. I think that a, probable urban renewal area is next and that is a big deal. It is going to take a lot of effort. I see this as lasting several years as a significant priority. Dirksen: While I acknowledge the principles of the downtown plan, I would ask Council to not put a halt on this process, but to begin the planning behind it, right the preliminary setting up the structure, working with the planning Commission, making the decision, and putting together a citizen involvement program, and maybe even pulling people into that. That preliminary portion of it and review of documentation is going to take way beyond after the TGM grant is done and the downtown plan is done and presented. I would like us to see if we can move forward on that and not stop all together. Sherwood: Yes Woodruff I think there is a lot of sentiment out there. We heard during the election process and people's campaigns, there was a lot of interest in making sure we were moving ahead with this comprehensive plan update. Dirksen: Okay, do you have a direction to go. Shields: I think I do. Create some preliminary elements of the public involvement plan, I heard you say. And the Planning Commission. Dirksen: Right. We want to talk to the Planning Commission and between us, come up with at least a beginning to figure out the structure and how we will fold the community involvement portion in. We are looking at that for January and/or February, and moving forward from there. Monahan: So, it sounds like January or February might be possible with your discussion with the Planning Commission. Shields: Probably will be February. I want to go back to the Planning Commission and report about what Council discussed and get feedback. Monahan: Plus, we have committed the January workshop meeting to Council Goal Setting, so the February workshop would be the logical time for a lengthy discussion which is what it probably will require. Does that sound okay. Everybody: Yes. I:\CDADM\JERREE\Agenda Sum\2-15-05 Comp Plan Update Attachment 2.DOC EXHIBIT "B" Scope of Presentation 1. Background Comprehensive Plan 2. Comprehensive Plan concept Update 3. Program phases/process 4. Specific areas of analysis critical for Tigard February 2005 5. Public Involvement Program 6. Direction needed for public involvement program Background - Planning Commission Role Four issues identified for Council direction • The Planning Commission has spent most of 1. Program Priorities the past Spring, meeting to discuss the • How should the City prioritize projects to assure the Comprehensive Plan update remains a focal point? program components for a Comprehensive 2. Study area Plan update • What areas should be included in the study area? Tigard • Determined a final work program could not be City limits, unincorporated areas, UGB expansion areas? 3. Public Involvement Process developed without direction from Council on • What should be the extent of the public involvement four issues process? 4. Task Force • Should a Task Force be appointed that is separate from existing groups or a blend of existing committees? 1 Council direction - November 22, 2004: Council direction - November 22, 2004: 1. Program Priorities 2. Study Area • Downtown Plan remains the program priority • Council may consider including the Bull Mountain, • The City should continue to build a general understanding Metzger, UGB expansion areas and other unincorporated of the components and public outreach process for the areas in the update provided the County contributes Comprehensive Plan update and should not rush into the resources to the work program program without clear understanding of the tools that may • The City needs to initiate a discussion with the County to be applicable in view of the Measure 37 impacts assess the level of support to be provided by the County Status Status • The City continues development of the Downtown • The City is continuing discussions with the County and Improvement Plan with an anticipated July adoption. developing a strategy. At this time, the County continues to be • The implementation of the Downtown Improvement Plan will the authhonzed duris iction for comprehensive planning in the continue to be a main focal point of the long range planning unincorporated areas. work program after the Plan is adopted. • Discussion with Council in March to receive direction for City/County coordination Potential areas to include in update Council direction - November 22, 2004: 3. Public Involvement ng~ • More time is needed to understand the scope of the work program for the update; distinctive sub-areas • The City should continue to build a general understanding about the Comprehensive Plan program components to determine the extent of the outreach process Status p rO•, _ ' • Continuing to discuss as part of this presentation and during anoint PC/CC worksession to be held in the o° future % Addition t unincorp rated area 2 Council direction - November 22, 2004: Comprehensive Plan 4. Task Force • Legal Document - Must Comply with • More time is needed to evaluate how the make up of the • State Law Task Force (variety of sub-areas and Stakeholders) • As the City progresses with public outreach program • ORS 197 development, it will explore different options for a • Statewide Planning Goals committee to guide the Comprehensive Plan update program • Metro Framework Plan and Functional Plan • Status Tigard's adopted in the 80's • Continuing to discuss as part of this presentation and • Updated as needed to address new laws during a joint POCC worksession to be held in the • Not comprehensively updated and reviewed since future originally developed What is a Comprehensive Plan? Major subject areas to be addressed in Tigard A generalized, coordinated land map and • Urban ization/Annexation policy statement that interrelates all functional • Economic Development and natural systems and activities relating to ■ Downtown ■ Washington Square ■ Employment the use of lands ■Commuter Rail ■ 217 Revitalization • Residential Development Major components include: ■ Affordable Housing ■ Density/capacity 0 Factual basis (inventory) • Openspace/Natural Resource Protection D Policies and Implementation measures • Facilities Planning 0 Map ■ Transportation ■ Traffic management ■ Water ■ Sewer ■ Schools ■ etc 3 Phases of Plan update Program Phases of Plan update program • Technical report (Phase I) Technical Report • Background information - Utilize factual information from existing data sources, surveys recently conducted, etc Draft Preparation • Identification of several preliminary alternatives for different areas of analysis Product 0 Product Adoption • Document with factual (not anecdotal) background data, identification of issues and set of alternatives that complies with State law Phases of Plan update program (cont.) Phases of Plan update program (cont.) • Draft Preparation (Phase In • Product (Phase III) • Major public involvement to discuss identified • Based on public involvement in Phase II, focus alternatives on one set of alternatives and incorporate into document 0 Product • Preferred alternatives identified 0 Product • Basic consensus on policies and implementation • Draft Plan with policies, implementation measures measures and objectives • Preferred map 4 Phases of Plan update program (cont.) Work Program - detailed and involved , • Adoption (Phase IV) ° • Adoption of Comprehensive Plan revisions, ordinance, etc through public hearings 0 Product • Final adopted Plan Iq Forms of Public Involvement Forms of Public Involvement (Cont.) • Task Force • Small scale community dialogs • Oversees entire Comprehensive Plan update • Small scale meetings with targeted groups allows one-on- • Made up of citizens and property owners having direct one interaction, input and feedback on the development of input on the development of the Plan the Plan. • Meetings open to the public with opportunities for public • Requires more staff time to coordinate and facilitate but comment provides greater detail of feedback • Technical Advisory Committee • Open houses • Committee of informed and interested individuals representing agencies, governments and interests related • At each phase of the process. to the main areas of analysis included in Comprehensive • Intended to convey information and get input from large Plan update. groups of people at one time. • Public involvement through citizen members on • Several may be held during key involvement phases to Committee and ability for public to attend meetings to ensure public participation. become better informed. 5 Forms of Public Involvement (Cont.) Participation throughout process • Public Hearings Task Force oversees entire process • Opportunity for anyone interested to comment directly on the Plan and whether it should be adopted. Phase 1 Phase 11 Phase 111 Phase Iv Tech. Process Product Adoption • Will involve at minimum, direct notice to all property Report owners, legal ads in newspapers and posted notices Technical advisory throughout the City. committee Small scale community dialogs Communication techniques Open houses Press releases, newspaper ads, web site, TVTV, and Public Hearings direct mailings convey information to targeted audiences communication tools used throughout process (Shaded areas indicate activity, darker shading indicates higher activity level) inniminimmial! Public Outreach Considerations Key decisions for Public Involvement Plan • Public outreach plan must be established and • Message in place prior to beginning the update process: • What do we want to communicate? Who is our audience? • Task Force • Ensure adequate resources are committed • How many members, make up, etc. • Get committees and program in place • Utilize existing committees or form new Task Force? • The message is critical • Study area • What is the message that will engage the public in • What areas are included? What sub-groups do we need to include in Public Involvement Plan? an effective and efficient way? • Commitment • Message tailored to sub-areas and stakeholders • Long term resource commitment determines ultimate timeline and level of public involvement. 6 Direction requested Next Steps to develop program for update: • Tonight - February 15th 1. General direction on Task Force make up General direction provided on Public Participation • Existing group or form new group? • March • Technical advisory committees? • Council direction requested on Study area • Geographic representatives? • March - November 2. Desired forms of public participation • City/County coordination to incorporate Study area decisions • Open houses only Impacts time • November • Small group meetings commitment of Task • Final Comprehensive Plan Update work program • Combinations Force and staff presented to Council 7 AGENDA ITEM # FOR AGENDA OF February 15, 2005 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Joint Meeting with the Trans ortatio inancin Strategies Task Force w PREPARED BY: A.P. D as DEPT HEAD OK: A.P. Duenas CITY MGR OK: 0 ~ ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Council meets with the Transportation Financing Strategies Task Force to provide direction what transportation- related projects are considered high priority and to discuss potential new funding sources that the Task Force should evaluate for funding these projects. STAFF RECOMMENDATION That Council provide direction to the Task Force to focus their efforts in the exploration of new funding sources for transportation projects. That Council consider the initial funding proposal by the Task Force and provide direction on whether or not the concept proposed should be further pursued. . INFORMATION SUMMARY The Transportation Financing Strategies Task Force was created by City Council to explore feasible funding strategies for implementing transportation improvements, sidewalk improvements, and rights-of-way maintenance on collectors and arterials, and to assist in the development and implementation of those strategies. The Street Maintenance Fee was recommended by the Task Force and adopted and implemented by Council. The original Task Force established in 2001 was reconstituted in July 2004 and currently has eleven members. Six members constitute a quorum for meetings. One of the members is a Council liaison and two are members of the Planning Commission. The business community is represented by a Chamber of Commerce representative and by the Oregon Grocery Association. The remaining six members are drawn from the City at large. The Task Force will meet with Council on February 15, 2005 to discuss projects, public process for project selections, and to receive direction from Council on project priorities. This dialogue with Council is necessary to focus the Task Force efforts on evaluating new funding sources for those projects that Council considers of high priority. The reconstituted Task force has already met four times and has explored one funding source for preliminary discussion with City Council. Council direction will be requested on whether or not to pursue the concept any further. During the coming year, the Task Force is expected to actively continue its work of evaluating new potential funding sources for major street improvements, sidewalk improvements, and rights-of-way maintenance on collectors and arterials. Funding sources that are deemed feasible for implementation will be brought to Council periodically for discussion and possible implementation. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED N/A VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY The development of new funding sources for major street improvements would meet the Tigard Beyond Tomorrow goal of Identify and Develop Funding Resources. These funding sources would provide the means for widening of existing collectors and arterials and would meet the Tigard Beyond Tomorrow goals of Improve Traffic Flow and Improve Traffic Safety. ATTACHMENT LIST Funding Proposal Memorandum dated February 1, 2005 from the Task Force with Attachments A & B.. • Attachment A is the list of gas stations in Tigard with map of station locations. • Attachment B is the survey performed by the City of Eugene on the jurisdictions that currently have a local gas tax. FISCAL NOTES None at this point. i:leng'QWcoundl agenda summadesU-15-05 joint meeting with the transportation financing strategies task farce ais.doc Ai;l CITY OF TIGARD Engineering Department Shaping A Better Community MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Phone 503-639-4171 Fax: 503-624-0752 TO: Mayor and City Councilors FROM: Transportation Financing Strategies Task Force DATE: February 1, 2005 SUBJECT: Funding Proposal For Major Street Projects Background City Council directed that the Transportation Financing Strategies Task Force (hereinafter "Task Force") explore various financing options for transportation projects. Because the state gas tax amount (24 cents per gallon) has not been increased in a decade, the revenue available to the City for street maintenance and/or capital construction projects decreases each year as operational and material costs increase. Tigard established the street maintenance fee in November 2003, set the rates in February 2004, and began collections in April 2004 to fund street maintenance projects. It will be reviewed in three years. Funding of sidewalk and right of way maintenance projects may be reviewed at that time. Currently, the City of Tigard can fund about one major capital project per year. There is a long backlog of capital projects needed to accommodate current and future transportation-related demands. The Task Force has looked primarily at funding of projects to improve. collectors and arterials. As you know, the transportation bond measure failed in the year 2000 election. Given the current political climate, submission of another transportation bond levy to the voters is not a viable option. Proposed Funding Source After review of a variety of options, the Task Force determined that a local gas tax is the best choice at this point in time. The City Engineer has done some initial analysis of potential revenue estimates based upon both research as to other jurisdictions and the number of gas stations in Tigard. The following is the expected revenue from a local gas tax: Local Gas Tax Tax Rate Per Expected Annual Annual Tax Per Annual Tax Gallon Revenue Capita for 1- Per Capita Cent Tax $0.01 $ 300,000 $6.82 $ 6.82 $0.02 $ 600,000 $6.82 $13.64 $0.03 $ 900,000 $6.82 $20.46 $0.04 $1,200,000 $6.82 $27.27 $0.05 $1,500,000 $6.82 $34.10 Attachment A lists the service stations in the City and provides a map of the service station locations. Attachment B is a survey performed by the City of Eugene on the various jurisdictions in Oregon that currently have a local gas tax. A. Reasons for implementation of a local gas tax are as follows: (1) It can be easily implemented with the existing state and county gas tax collection infrastructure. (2) A gas tax need not go to the voters for implementation. (3) A gas tax is appropriate to support revenue bonds to provide a jump start for projects during the first two years of implementation. (4) Some revenue would be recovered from thru traffic using 99W, Hall, etc.. (5) There are large variations in pricing among local gas stations, resulting in a low likelihood of citizens reducing their gas purchases in Tigard because of a local gas tax. B. The negative aspects of implementation are as follows: (1) The industry would likely oppose any such tax. (2) The voters could begin a repeal initiative. (3) Local gas revenues would decline because of the tax. C. A series of strategies could be used to make such a gas tax acceptable to the public. (1) The City could use the successful Washington County MSTIP model to develop a list of collector, arterial streets and intersection projects, using the current backlog list as a starting point, with extensive public input into the list development process. The following are some of the decisions that could be made with public input: a. Priority and type of road project to be included on the list. Memorandum to Council - Task Force Funding Proposal Page 2 of 3 b. Whether the public wants to use revenue bonds to jump start the process in the first year or two, resulting in a 5-10 year payoff, using some of revenues collected in those subsequent years. c. Whether a portion of the funds should be allocated to capital sidewalk and right of way maintenance projects. (2) The tax revenue would be dedicated to the list developed above, and would be kept separate from the list developed under the current general capital improvements list. This would allow more local street projects to be done using the general capital fund system. (3) Develop a program for right of way maintenance and capital projects based upon the "Adopt-a- Street" program currently in existence. Ex. Provide materials but volunteers do the labor. (4) Include a provision for the tax to come up for renewal in after a set period (Example-5 years). At time of renewal, a new list of projects would be developed for implementation during the subsequent set period. There would also be a sunset provision if not renewed. (5) The Task Force would take the lead in holding 2 to 3 open houses in the community to gather input in conjunction with articles in the Cityscape and the local newspapers, and a specific mailing from the City. An open and public process to solicit input that would be given serious consideration ensures that the citizens of Tigard are a significant part of the decision- making process and should minimize the chances of a successful repeal initiative. Conclusion The Task Force requests the following direction from Council: A. Does Council support the concept of a local gas tax? B. If so, does Council approve use of the "MSTIP" model for the public process? C. Does Council want the Task Force to continue work on this concept, including the following? • Develop an initial proposed program list of projects. • Determine a recommended proportion of sidewalk/right of way projects to street projects. • Develop a public input plan. • Implement a notice and public input process using City funding Attachments c: Craig Prosser, Acting City Manager Transportation Financing Strategies Task Force Members Memorandum to Council - Task Force Funding Proposal Page 3 of 3 Attachment A Gas Stations in Tigard Station Name Address Taxlot ID Shell 11834 SW Pacific Hwy 2S101BB00301 Chevron 11747 SW Pacific Hwy 1 S 136CD01001 Shell 11475 SW Pacific Hwy 1 S 136AD05800 Union 76 11440 SW Pacific Hwy 1 S 136AD06400 Union 76 10775 SW Greenburg Rd 1 S 135BC00100 Chevron 13970 SW Pacific Hwy 2S 103DD01200 Union 76 14030 SW Pacific Hwy 2S 110AA00700 Union 76 9905 SW Walnut St 2S 102BDO1200 Astro 12885 SW Pacifc Hwy 2S 102BDO2000 Shell 11290 SW Bull Mountain Rd 2S 110AC01101 ESTBY 16240 SW Pacific Hwy 2S 115BA02600 Chevron 15670 SW Upper Boones 2S 112DD00900 Shell 15900 SW 72nd Ave 2S 112DD00300 Pacific Pride 15055 SW 72nd Ave 2S 112AC01800 CV t t 1 1 1 1- tr 1 1 union 76 Cations L S, S Ga • -Tigard ion 7 _ _ \ s ell In ,r ~ ~L~ P F E ST Che rOn 1 DAKOT S E g uw ell 1 1 ? ` UN t NUT ~i 7 ST ~kFR r T. 0 ~bP~¢ 1 ` j i r n, ~ C i 1 RD ST BO P cific Pride io uj 511 MD NT y 1 g ell Z Chevron t r R k ell i i B t- E T~Y ' 16 1 1 ant m p` P,ttach Attachment B Transportation Funding Project - Individual Funding Options - November 2004 Summary of Oregon Motor Vehicle Fuel Taxes Other Oregon Jurisdiction Practice (Telephone Survey) 4, Year Tax Rate Applied to Annual Tax Approx. iOrego`n < Current First per to Diesel Approx. per Capita Annual Tax Admin. Jurisdiction . i Population Name of Tax Imposed Gallon Sales? Annual Yield for 1-cent Tax per Capita Use of Proceeds Cost Who Administers? Washington County @ 404,750 Motor Vehicle Fuel Dealer 1977 $ 0.01 No $ 1,840,000 $ 4.55 $ 4.55 General road maintenance $ 30,000 ODOT under contract. License Tax Multnomah County © 642,000 Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax 1976 $ 0.03 Yes $ 6,600,000 $ 3.43 $ 10.28 General road and bridge purposes $ 95,000 State (ODOT) Sunset City of Pendleton 17,000 Business License Tax on 1999 $ 0.02 Yes $ 290,000 $ 8.53 $ 17.06 Specific street construction project not tracked Administered in-house Sunset January 2004 Motor Vehicle Fuel Dealers City of Woodburn t`t 16,585 Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax on 1989 $ 0.01 Yes $ 130,000 $ 7.84 $ 7.84 Construction, maintenance of streets $9,732 ODOT under contract. Motor Vehicle Fuel Dealers City of Eugene 140,550 Motor Vehicle Fuel Dealers 2003 $ 0.03 Yes $ 2,000,000 $ 4.74 $ 14.23 Street Preservation and Maint. $ 15,540 ODOT under contract Business License City of Cottage Grove © 8,670 Motor Vehicle Fuel Dealers 2003 $ 0.03 Yes $ 390,000 $ 14.99 $ 44.98 Street Preservation and Maint. $ 7,000 ODOT under contract Business License City of Springfield 53,450 Motor Vehicle Fuel Dealers 2003 $ 0.03 Yes $ 850,000 $ 5.30 $ 15.90 Street Preservation and Maint. $ 12,000 ODOT under contract Business License Budgeted City of Dundee 2,670 Ordinance Imposing a Tax on 2003 $ 0.02 Yes $ 54,000 $ 10.11 $ 20.22 Planning design, construction Not tracked In-house, one station. Motor Vehicle Fuel Dealers Maintence, repair operation and use of City streets City of Stanfield 1,980 City of Standfield Fuel License 1999 $ 0.01 Yes $ 110,000 $ 55.56 $ 55.56 Construction, repair, maintenance of Not tracked Admin in house Tax Ordinance public highways, roads, streets, parks. City of Sandy 5,380 Fuel License Tax Ordinance 2003 $0.01 Yes 130,000 $ 24.16 $ 24.16 on-going maint of city streets, minor Not tracked Admin in house repair (A) Source of Population Data: 2003-2004 Oregon Blue Book, as of 2001 iBt Source of Data for City of Woodburn: City Ord. 2028, ODOT reports for 1998, and 1999-2000 Oregon Blue Book (c) Data extrapolated from 9 months of 2004 actual data. AGENDA ITEM # 4 FOR AGENDA OF February 15, 2005 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Wall Street U date PREPARED BY: A.P. Duenas DEPT HEAD OK: A.P. Duenas CITY MGR OK: ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL A briefing to Council on the status of the proposed Wall Street and presentation of options for building segments of the street that can be constructed through a combination of City funding and a proposed local improvement district. STAFF RECOMMENDATION That Council review and discuss the options presented and provide direction to staff on what further action should be taken regarding Wall Street. INFORMATION SUMMARY One new alternate route identified in Tigard's Transportation System Plan (TSP) is the extension of Wall Street from Hunziker Street to Hall Boulevard. This connection is projected to carry about 5,000 to 7,000 vehicles per day and relieves Hall Boulevard sufficiently to allow that street to function adequately at three instead of five lanes. This proposed street would allow northbound traffic from south Tigard to bypass Hall Boulevard and proceed directly to Hunziker Street, then north to the Tigard Triangle. Traffic from south Tigard currently has to traverse a block approximately one mile square to get to the Tigard Triangle. Wall Street cuts across that block and provides a much more direct connection to the Triangle. Attached is a drawing showing the Wall Street alignment within that large square block consisting of Bonita Road, Hall Boulevard, 72nd Avenue and Hunziker Street. The intention in the TSP is that this new route would be constructed in conjunction with development of the properties adjacent to the new street. The interest shown by a major property owner along the proposed corridor for the Wall Street Extension initiated the LID (local improvement district) formation process to construct the new street. Council Resolution No. 02-11 directed the Engineering staff to prepare a Preliminary Engineer's Report for the Proposed Wall Street LID. At the March 23, 2004 meeting, staff reviewed the Preliminary Engineer's Report with Council. Because Portland & Western Railroad objected to the at-grade crossing, a hearing on the railroad at-grade crossing application was to be scheduled. Council decided to hold off on deciding on the LID formation until the hearing on the crossing application could be conducted and the results known. Unfortunately, the hearing date has not been set as the process has dragged along. Two prehearing meetings have been held and another is scheduled for April 15`h. All parties have submitted documents supporting their positions. There are options that can be considered to build segments of Wall Street, even if the railroad crossing is not approved. The Wall Street approach (425 feet from the intersection) to Hall Boulevard sufficient to provide joint access to the library and Fanno Pointe is one option that should be considered. By Resolution No. 03-16, City Council separated the Hall Boulevard/Wall Street intersection approaches from the proposed Wall Street LID study so that it could be designed and constructed as a City project to allow for that common access point. The library layout is based on that joint access. The current driveway would be removed and the new driveway would be on the east side of the library site. This would allow vehicles to drive in directly to the drive-up book returns and drive out without entering the rest of the parking lot. ODOT required the joint access at the time the City was applying for the permit to construct the half-street improvements on Hall Boulevard contingent upon that segment of Wall Street being built. Attached is a drawing that shows the future connections to Wall Street from both the library and Fanno Pointe. Access to the interior property east of the library site between the railroad tracks and the library property is dependent upon the extension of Wall Street across Fanno Creek. Another option for consideration is to extend Wall Street from where the City project terminates, cross the creek, and extend Milton Court northwest to the interior property to provide a loop that connects Hall Boulevard with Bonita Road. The construction of this loop to provide access from two directions is desirable and could be performed through the formation of an LID to do so. Mr. Fred Fields, the interior property owner, is currently exploring what development would make sense for that property and just what access is necessary to adequately serve it. Development concepts for office and light industrial are included for illustration and will be presented to and discussed with Council during this meeting. Attached to this agenda item is a summary of the proposed Wall Street and the current status of the City project and proposed LID. Staff needs Council direction on the following: • Whether or not to continue with the hearing on the railroad crossing application. • Whether or not to construct the Wall Street approach to Hall Boulevard sufficient to provide joint access to the library and Fanno Pointe. All environmental permits have been received. The Comprehensive Plan amendment to realign Pinebrook Creek and remove the pond nearest to Hall Boulevard is underway. • Whether or not to continue with a proposed LID to build Wall Street across Fanno Creek and provide access to the interior property. This option should be contingent upon establishment of a loop from the property to Bonita Road via Milton Court, regardless if that segment is included in the LID. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED None VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY The Wall Street connection from Hall Boulevard to Hunziker Street meets the Tigard Beyond Tomorrow goal of Improve Traffic Flow by creating an alternative route that bypasses the Hall/Hunziker/Scoffins signals and allows traffic to move directly to Hunziker Street from Hall Boulevard south of City Hall. The construction of a segment of Wall Street sufficient to provide joint access for the library and the Fanno Pointe Condominiums also meets that goal by eliminating the Fanno Pointe direct access to Hall Boulevard and directing both developments to one signalized intersection point. ATTACHMENT LIST 1. Drawing showing the Wall Street alignment within a large square block 2. Drawing showing future connections to Wall Street from the library and Fanno Pointe Condominiums 3. Wall Street Summary 4. Wall Street Status Report 5. Development Concepts a. Vicinity Map b. Wall Street and Milton Court connection c. Potential industrial development d. Potential office complex development 6. Resolution No. 02-11 7. Resolution No. 03-16 FISCAL NOTES None at this point. iAetq\pus\muncll agenda summades\2-1505 wall street update ais.0oc 0 O Q ~ ~z 0 0 H B D G an M ' 8 P s® A ~ ~ ~ e \ \ 8 Cq ° a c H D 9 4i ~ .9 ~ 0 72N VE N{!xl a f N? ~ S tb e~ ~ y ,ss f ~ v 5/// ~ s{ter y~lfi/i h s ~ / ✓a /I S.lc s a ~ / ~ 4 / r/ / ~~f~'✓.j~'ys .i.. /,/s £ % 'f Es.... EA, .r NTERSTA 5 E; 5 y „ f s r M~ : Wall street to connections DRA p AT) V:Uture i"NG PLL TED L lag, tlALF J4E N 1 Inc `.t - Y UU all ' r r 1 1 I a ! V 1 to . \ - - V ~ ~ 1 ~ -11 - •titt~y i - V ~i I l I I _ _ r(~ JI' ftt~' , LAP Futuf 1 I \ a ti l .1--' l 1 ~ J ` - , J ' • ~ ~ y~ \ Ll 1(11 i 1 1 ~1 il1 West Pa+d / / /~'~f ' ` !7 - f ra _ t 4 " F 1\ I 1 1 I f - f , , ttill 1.. UPta^d / iJ / / q%rffU! /k4J1 1 rY '`'l 1 / r / \ ltlj B"lf~r _ - l~ . l J , ~ / J ` / / j J~ /~77/`~',..r' n~j_•,__ 1 i\ ~t C 11 ~ Itl+++ /f .1 ij A f, /N f U~1 1. 1. I I~Ijll t . o Wall Street Summary WHAT IS IT? Wall Street is a proposed new collector roadway connecting SW Hall Boulevard and SW Hunziker Street in Tigard (see attached map depicting the proposed roadway alignment). WHY IS IT NECESSARY? Highway 99W running through Tigard is extremely congested with traffic volumes ranging from 45,000 to 57,000 vehicles per day on this 5-lane highway. Improvements in capacity to Highway 99W would require the elimination of businesses adjacent to it on both sides, would merely attract more regional traffic, and would not address intra-city circulation in Tigard. For better circulation within the City, alternate routes to bypass Highway 99W must be developed. The recently adopted Tigard Transportation System Plan (TSP) focused on the development of such alternate routes. One of two new key alternate routes identified in the TSP for the area east of Highway 99W is the extension of Wall Street from Hunziker Street to Hall Boulevard. WHAT DOES IT DO? This new connection is projected to carry about 5,000 to 7,000 vehicles per day and would reduce the level of traffic at two key intersections (Hall/Hunziker and 72"dBonita Road). Based on traffic modeling conducted for the TSP, this new connector produces adequate capacity at those two intersections and relieves Hall Boulevard sufficiently to allow that street to function adequately at 3 instead of 5 lanes. This proposed street would allow northbound traffic from south Tigard to bypass Hall Boulevard and Highway 99W and proceed directly to Hunziker Street, then north to the Tigard Triangle, a commercial and corporate business center housing such major businesses as Costco and WinCo. A proposed future overcrossing of Highway 217 would allow traffic to connect directly from Hunziker to Hampton Street in the Tigard Triangle. PROJECT DETAILS The project would construct a new roadway to collector standards with two travel lanes, a center two-way left turn lane, bike lanes and sidewalks on both sides of the street. The connection to Hall Boulevard would be approximately 350 feet south of the Hall Boulevard/O'Mara Street intersection. The roadway includes a bridge crossing Fanno Creek and at-grade crossings of the two parallel Portland and Western RR tracks. From those crossings, the roadway would traverse along the existing Wall Street to connect to Hunziker Street at its current intersection with Wall. The roadway would build on and widen the existing Wall Street requiring removal of the existing spur track and the spur track crossing at Hunziker Street. The railroad crossings would emphasize safety by providing automatic gates, medians and a flashing signal system for traffic control. The intersection at Hall Boulevard would be signalized. Wall Street Summary Page 1 of 3 WHAT ARE THE BENEFITS OF CONSTRUCTING THIS NEW ROAD? Transportation Benefits: • Provides an alternate route to the Tigard Triangle that does not depend on Highway 99W • Would carry up to 7,000 vehicles per day, thereby relieving the congestion at the Hall/Hunziker and 72"dBonita Road intersections. • Would allow Hall Boulevard to function at 3 lanes and delay the inevitable widening of Hall Boulevard to 5 lanes for possibly 15 to 20 years • The new roadway would provide joint access for the new Tigard Library and the Fanno Pointe Condominium development, both adjacent to Hall Boulevard. Economic Benefits • The new street would open up approximately 69 acres of industrial land for development. This undeveloped land represents slightly over 15% of the total industrial land available in Tigard. The interest expressed by a major property owner (who owns a large percentage of the undeveloped industrial properties) in formation of a Local Improvement District to construct the street presents an opportunity for the City to have this major transportation route constructed at this time with the benefited properties paying for the project. There is an opportunity for a win-win situation whereby the City has a new collector constructed and the undeveloped industrial properties are provided access needed to develop. • Development of the industrial land means new job creation, increased tax revenue to the City of Tigard, and economic growth for the State. OBSTACLES TO THE PROJECT • Removal of the existing spur track adjacent to the existing access road • At-grade crossings of two main railroad tracks (requires approval by Portland & Western and the Oregon Department of Transportation ) • Permits for crossing of Fanno Creek, the flood plain, and adjacent wetlands between the railroad tracks and Hall Boulevard. • Comprehensive Plan Amendment to allow removal of two manmade ponds and permit restoration and realignment of Pinebrook Creek to create a free-flowing stream that would run south of Wall Street and eventually empty into Fanno Creek. The permits necessary for crossing the wetlands, Fanno Creek, and the flood plain can be obtained, albeit with difficulty. The two man-made ponds were created many years ago for watering livestock. The ponds are stagnant during the summer months, are filled with algae at that time, act as heatsinks, and dump the heated water into Fanno Creek. Clean Water Services supports removal of the two ponds primarily because of the heating action that occurs and favors restoration of Pinebrook Creek to a free-flowing stream that merges naturally with Fanno Creek. On the other hand, these ponds do serve as habitat for a variety of species and may be difficult to remove from the natural resources inventory. Wall Street Summary Page 2 of 3 However, the most significant obstacle is the new at-grade crossings of the two parallel tracks. The City has already applied for the at-grade crossings. Portland & Western Railroad objects to the crossings because they use the area from Hall Boulevard east to the proposed crossings to switch cars (primarily because they lack a true switching yard). Traffic on Hall Boulevard is often stopped for relatively long periods while the trains conduct their maneuvers. The spur track has not been in use for the past 30 years. The two businesses north of Hunziker use the spur track as a potential marketing tool for their business, but are not actually served by it. The spur track has not been substantially used for service during the past 35 years. The railroad company now typically parks cars on the tracks, some for months at a time. The original intent for the granting of the easement for rail service to the businesses along that spur is definitely not being met with the spur now being used to park dilapidated rail cars and broken-down engines. Attachment: Drawing - Proposed Wall Street Alignment Wall Street Summary Page 3 of 3 meat , - ; Wall Street pl~gr► - Proposed - proposed railroad crossings 1j x EXiStin9 Spur track to be . removed OMAR~ m C ;nteseclion project ' J'• 4 T a~t~U±►A LN Wall Street Status Report BACKGROUND The proposed Wall Street project includes design and construction of the street from Hall Boulevard to Hunziker Street and Hall Boulevard approaches at its intersection with the proposed Wall Street. In July 2002, the design team led by DeHaas & Associates was selected to provide engineering design services through a formal Request for Proposal process. In April 2003, the City was required to provide half-street improvements along Hall Boulevard as a condition of approval for the Library project. The City was also required by ODOT to construct a joint access for the library and the Fanno Pointe Condominiums. In the City Council meeting of May 13, 2003, Council approved a resolution amending the FY 2002-03 CIP Budget to separate the Hall Boulevard/Wall Street Intersection project (including 425 feet of Wall Street east from its intersection with Hall Boulevard) from the Wall Street LID project. Separation of the two projects provided the City an opportunity to expedite the construction schedule for the Hall Boulevard half-street improvements required as a condition of approval for the Library project. The rest of Wall Street would be designed to the 60% stage to complete the Preliminary Engineer's Report. Any additional design after that would be dependent upon formation of the LID to construct the improvements. Limits of work for the two projects are defined as follows: • Hall Boulevard/Wall Street Intersection project (See attached drawing): Construction of half-street improvement on Hall Boulevard and the first 425 feet of Wall Street to provide a joint access for the library and the Fanno Pointe Condominiums. Hall Boulevard/Wall Street Improvements - Phase 1: This project includes construction of half-street improvements on Hall Boulevard. Construction of this phase has been completed. Hall Boulevard/Wall Street Improvements - Phase 2: The project involves construction of the first 425 feet of Wall Street to provide a joint access for the two developments. The Corps of Engineers permit and the Clean Water Services Service Provider Letter have been obtained. The DSL permit is expected in February 2005. The Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Sensitive Land Permit are expected in April or May 2005. The design of Phase 2 is substantially completed. During the design of the project, staff had requested signalization of the Hall Boulevard/Wall Street intersection. However, because the warrant for the eight-hour and peak hour volumes was not met, ODOT did not approve the signal system request at that time. Due to the uncertainty of ODOT's approval, the original contract with DeHaas & Associates did not include engineering costs for the signal. However, ODOT has recently reconsidered Wall Street Status Report Page 1 of 4 the request and has allowed the City to install a signal at the new library entrance. • Wall Street LID project (See attached drawing): Extension of Wall Street, beginning 425 feet east of its intersection with Hall Boulevard, across Fanno Creek and existing railroad tracks to Hunziker Street. CURRENT STATUS Design Status The design of Wall Street from its intersection with Hall Boulevard 425 feet east to provide joint access to the Library and Fanno Pointe is substantially completed. The design for signalization of the intersection is currently underway and is expected to be completed by April 2005. Because the construction of the first 425 feet of Wall Street is linked with the realignment of Pinebrook Creek, the construction work for the street must be performed in conjunction with the creek realignment. The project would be advertised for bids in the spring. However, the work in the creek would have to be performed during the period of time between July 1, 2005 and September 30, 2005. Construction of the new signal is anticipated to begin in June 2005. The signal system would be designed such that it could be transitioned to the segment of Wall Street (first 425 feet) that would provide joint access to the Library and Fanno Pointe. If determined feasible as the signalization design proceeds, as the environmental applications are received, and as the Comprehensive Plan Amendment is undertaken, the signalization and the street construction may be combined into one project for bid advertisement. That determination would be made during the next few months. Proposed LID Status At the Council meeting on March 23, 2004, Council heard the Preliminary Engineer's Report (approximately 60% design stage) on the proposed LID to construct Wall Street. At that time, the railroad at-grade crossing application had been submitted but was contested by Portland & Western Railroad. The application would have to go to a hearing to determine if the crossing application should be approved or denied. Council decided at that time to delay a decision on formation of the LID until after the hearing. At-Grade Railroad Crossing Application The City applied for the at-grade crossing in December 2003. Portland & Western Railroad objected to the crossing. In such cases, the application goes to a hearing, which is presided over by an Administrative Law Judge from the Division of Administrative Hearings, Department of Justice. There was a prehearing conference conducted on June 30, 2004, followed by another prehearing meeting on December 14, 2004. A third prehearing meeting is scheduled for April 15, 2005, at which time a hearing date would most likely be set. The railroad company uses this area for switching cars and would have that switching operation significantly affected by the crossing. In all likelihood, the application would be denied because of this impact. Wall Street Status Report Page 2 of 4 Environmental Permits The environmental agencies require that the City show the impacts of Wall Street throughout its entire length as part of the permit application process. As a result, the permit applications address the entire street from Hall Boulevard to Hunziker Street. However, the City does have the option of building only a portion of Wall Street once the permits have been received. The following is the status of the permits needed to construct Wall Street: • Corps of Engineers Permit - Received • Clean Water Services Service Provider Letter - Received • Division of State Lands Permit - Received • Comprehensive Plan Amendment - April or May 2005. Application and supporting documents have been submitted. City is reviewing the documents to ascertain completeness. This amendment is needed to remove/revise the existing man-made ponds and realign Pinebrook Creek to create a free-flowing stream. • Sensitive Lands Permit - April or May 2005 The permits from the environmental agencies are all expected to be in hand to begin the project in the spring of 2005. However, the Comprehensive Plan Amendment process is lengthy and could delay timely implementation of the project. Anticipated Schedule for Implementation • Signalization of the Hall/Wall Intersection - June 2005 • Construction of 425 Feet of Wall Street (Phase 2) - June 2005 • Railroad Crossing Application ■ Third Pre-hearing Conference April 15, 2005 ■ Hearing - to be set after April 15, 2005 • Wall Street (425 feet east to Hunziker) - Dependent upon LID formation. LID could be modified to cross Fanno Creek and loop to Milton Court. Options will be discussed with City Council at the workshop meeting scheduled for February 15, 2005. Wall Street Local Improvement District Options The City currently intends to construct Wall Street from its intersection with Hall Boulevard east 425 feet to provide joint access to the Library and Fanno Pointe Condominiums. The following additional segments of Wall Street are options that could be funded by formation of a Local Improvement District, which is a Council decision and action. Wall Street Status Report Page 3 of 4 • Construction of Wall Street from 425 feet east of Hall Boulevard across Fanno Creek and the railroad tracks to connect to Hunziker Street. • Construction of Wall Street from 425 feet east of Hall Boulevard across Fanno Creek and terminate short of the tracks to provide access to the interior property. • Construction of Wall Street from Hunziker Street to the railroad tracks. • Construction of Wall Street across Fanno Creek to the interior property. Extend Milton Court from the south to connect to this segment of Wall Street and create a loop back to Bonita Road through Milton Court. The extension of Milton Court to connect to Wall Street should be constructed to provide ingress and egress for truck traffic. It is especially critical if Wall Street does not cross the tracks to connect to Hunziker Street. City staff has made this known to Mr. Fred Fields, the interior property owner. He is working with Metro staff to obtain an easement across the Metro greenspaces property between Milton Court and his property. Any LID formed to construct Wall Street should have this component as either a part of the improvements or as a condition to the construction of the improvements. Attachments: Drawing - Hall Boulevard/Wall Street Intersection and Approaches Drawing - Proposed Wall Street Local Improvement District Wall Street Status Report Page 4 of 4 Hall Boulevard[Wall Street Intersection and Approaches HALL BLVD / WALL STREET I o , I I r I I' k 7 J h tier vq&d.tibiory I OMARA JST I ` / ( o I i~fersecfion - L7(LWlill lllJLS1f U.Wiu, Prgjec A;nits REGINA. ' `4 I I Proposed Wall Street Local Improvement District WALL STREET LID 0 , L~ ,13 r N 11 ~ QMARA AT I r \ 5ignWiieD inferaeclJon , St~tlo 4 + 25 to REGINA LN - Hunzi~el,. Street F- ® i 1 LL N > i~la ri ii ^ IN ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ tom` low~~►,,-'" 1~ ►l. 311 .10 - 9,17PAP , - %7 T1 -i..-i it t~q Ili, 4.4~I R n _ Aa, C161 CINg it~1i tY ~ • -P . r „~.,V ..+c+."':~~'"~Fw` ~s+il' ~f~ jl ~ 1qJ >;!r~~1~~ Ir` F (I ,l~ f jkr~r Jb' . i t ~ ~i ~ ~ j, ",.i~~~~ ~ ~~~~k~ ~ yAaL_ 1~ ...✓~J j i J~~t'~1 C~ ;.w_,: ll~-""'~'T• eV 1i -I. .rte{ ,3Y~V,1%~aNLL MS a # ` ®r . ~(A~~~ \1 (tr Or, ~O~r , ` ~o. it :1 Pik Tr, Ift- 42 ON A I . rte, F 4 i I K Y'~ A ~e• OWL r 164 ~v ~ </,fw~r.:-„~ a ~'~@ . ~ )r v ' ~A, , ~"~v ' ~ ~~`s ~ ~?a/~..~/~ ,%~s/*, ' s"► ' I~'v:" 1k,S~~ "4 ,i ~ t') ~ ~ ~*-ic i~ it arC-rte-~r "c = ` e. ~.r r.I'I-1"v~IQF 1(, .i'y^-:, I^~ y1 IL. CrI". .,~.N:. ~CT • .r ~.a''.I•;t ~ •''f~e Ic ~~~1rt: ~,~•t~~~ ~ f ; n'111~ 7\►A~ ,V aeaE. J ii-- t ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~4► Irks ~ ~~r-' iwN~~~~''~ 11 > a „i.^'.~^ ^ _ ' an~8 TI H MS ' yy~ " 0' ~y. a 7Zi 'irl ~,M' csln. If~wJl►a1'All lul .+.,81t® ~1 L c : r Sa 1 ~a•~ Nam ~1~ (f~+' • M►~n 111 p!~ JAA, q V•,'•\E~~ fl~~~~ ~ ~~Di, ! n.J ' W + j~►D FfN+~li a s. ta_s ~y 7) tom.' n~ ^ `•Y~. 14`1 ~ ~ •i V "E f}, - I r~t II~E," V~'~U ~y .!!t ~k~7 ~lyref ;y +V` five ~.,..d1 C t f' 1 ~ 6 1l ~ t ~ ~ ,,ryry P`pp9~rl'e~1t~l . r ! au 1, 'm Ag j~` . ~tZ rear +1~. a I 'i~ Kro \1'\ rt i i i I CIO SYfE =°fff 2W5 ~lPANATTON~ i ti r a a l► ~ srre o E FEBRUARY t 2005 J,pANATT0N~ Bazar =Z =Z - _ s. 0 /i r ' I \ LCrw 91bGD \ \ q \ \ A. „SrrE PLAN I a FRED FIELDS SITE TIGARD, OREGON N 1\\ \ CONCEPTUAL OFRCE \ DEVELOPMENT PLAN , FEBRUARY 12005 \ \ \ \ ©PANATTONI I 1 11 ~~1 8 I ~ ~ ~ II lid ~~Ger~ C CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON RESOLUTION NO.02- A RESOLUTION DIRECTING THE ENGINEERING STAFF TO PREPARE A PRELIMINARY ENGINEER'S REPORT FOR THE PROPOSED WALL STREET LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT AND DIRECTING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A FUNDING MECHANISM FOR THE PREPARATION OF THE REPORT. WHEREAS, one of two new key alternate routes identified in Tigard's Transportation System Plan (TSP) is the extension of Wall Street from Hunziker Street to Hall Boulevard; and WHEREAS, this new route is projected to carry up to 7,000 vehicles per day and relieve Hall Boulevard sufficiently to allow that street to function adequately at 3 instead of 5 lanes; and WHEREAS, one major property owner along the proposed corridor for the road project is interested in forming a Local Improvement District (LID) for construction of the new connector road; and WHEREAS, an Option Agreement executed to purchase property from this land owner for the proposed new Tigard Library requires the City to pursue formation of an LID for construction of the street; and WHEREAS, the City agreed in that Option Agreement to provide the funding for the engineering and construction management of the LID improvements; and WHEREAS, the Engineering staff prepared a Preliminary Evaluation Report which was submitted to City Council for discussion and direction during the meeting on January 22, 2002; and WHEREAS, the Preliminary Evaluation Report determined that the proposed LID appears feasible, despite various major issues that need resolution, and recommended that City Cuuncil take the next step in the LID formation process by authorizing the preparation of a Preliminary Engineer's Report; and WHEREAS, the Preliminary Evaluation Report recognized that there is no funding currently available to move ahead with the project and recommended that City Council direct the establishment of that funding mechanism designating the Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) Fund as the funding source; and WHEREAS, City Council discussed the proposed LID and indicated that the LID boundary and improvements to be constructed by the LID are satisfactory as submitted; and WHEREAS, City Council has directed staff to prepare a resolution authorizing preparation of a Preliminary Engineer's Report and submit that resolution for adoption at the next Council business meeting. RESOLUTION NO.02- Page I NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that: SECTION 1: The Engineering staff is directed to proceed with preparation of Preliminary Engineer's Report for the proposed LID in accordance with the proposed LID boundary and improvements as described in the Preliminary Evaluation Report. SECTION 2: The Preliminary Engineer's Report should include the scope of work, location of the proposed improvements, proposed district boundaries, estimated costs, proposed assessment methods, and other information that may be relevant to the feasibility of the improvements and district. The report should recommend approval, approval with conditions, or dcnial. SECTION 3: The City of Tigard shall provide the funding for preparation of the Preliminary Engineer's Report. The initial amount needed to prepare the report and continue with the LID formation process is approximately $325,000. SECTION 4: The City staff is directed to establish the funding mechanism in that amount for the engineering work using the TIF as a funding source. Any budget adjustments requiring Council action and necessary for the establishment of the project funding shall be brought to Council for appropriate action. EFFECTIVE DATE: This Resolution shall be effective immediately. t~'1 PASSED: This ~a day of '2002. fyor-City o Tigard ATTEST: City Recorder - City of Tigard lACitywide\Res\Resolution Directing Preliminary Engineer's Report for Wall Street LID RESOLUTION NO.02-Ji Page 2 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON RESOLUTION NO.03-)(P A RESOLUTION TO AMEND THE FY 2002-03 CIP (CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM) BUDGET. WHEREAS, the Adopted FY 2002-03 CIP (Capital Improvement Program) of the City of Tigard lists all projects authorized to be developed or constructed in FY 2002-03; and WHEREAS, the FY 2002-03 CIP includes a project under the Street System Program funded under the Gas Tax Fund to reconstruct North Dakota Street (Greenburg Road to 95th Avenue); and WHEREAS, visual inspection, confirmed by geotechnical investigation, of the street structural section un Bonita Road from Hall Boulevard to Fanno Creek Bridge indicates that reconstruction of that street is urgently needed at this time; and WHEREAS, Bonita Road is a collector street in the City's transportation network and carries significantly more traffic than North Dakota Street (a neighborhood route); and WHEREAS, the proposed improvements on North Dakota Street can be delayed and the amount of funding allocated to that project can be applied to the Bonita Road Reconstruction Project for the remainder of FY 2002-03 without increasing the CIP Budget; and WHEREAS, the FY 2002-03 CIP includes the proposed Wall Street LID (Local Improvement District) Project with funding of $300,000 allocated for the design of the project; and WHEREAS, it is the desire of both the City and the Oregon Department of Transportation that the new Tigard Library project and the Fanno Pointe Condominiums pruject have one common access point to Hall Boulevard along the selected Wall Street alignment; and WHEREAS, there is a need to separate the Hall Boulevard/Wall Street intersection and approaches from the proposed LID so that it could be designed and constructed as a City project to allow for that common access point; and WHEREAS, the extension of Wall Street from that segment to connect to Hunziker Street would remain under the proposed Wall Street LID project and would be constructed only if the LID is successfully formed and permits are obtained to cross the wetlands, Fanno Creek, and the existing railroad tracks; and WHEREAS, the $300,000 available in TIF funds for engineering design costs under the Wall Street LID Fund could be reallocated to provide $200,000 for the intersection project and $100,000 for the Wall Street LID without changing the overall FY 2002-03 CEP Budget amount; and RESOLUTION NO. 03- 1(67 Page 1 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission at its meeting on April 21, 2003 approved the proposed amendments and recommends approval to the City Council. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that: SECTION 1: Amendment No. 1 to the FY 2002-03 Capital Improvement Program Budget is hereby approved to add the Bonita Road Reconstruction Project (Hall Boulevard to Fanno Creek Bridge) to the Street System Program project list and delete the North Dakota Street Project (Grccnburg Road to 95 h Avenue) from that list. The amount of $120,000 allocated in the FY 2002-03 CIP Budget from the Gas Tax Fund for the North Dakota Street Project is hereby allocated for the Bonita Road Reconstruction Project. SECTION 2: Amendment No. 2 to the Approved FY 2002-03 Capital Improvement Program Budget is hereby approved to establish the Hall Boulevard/Wall Street Intersection and Approaches project as a project separate from the Wall Street LID. The $300,000 allocated from TIF funds for the Wall Street LID project is hereby reallocated as follows: Hall Boulevard/Wall Street Intersection and Approaches ($200,000) and the Wall Street LID ($100,000). SECTION 3: There shall be no changes in the overall FY 2002-03 CIP Budget amount as a result of these amendments. EFFECTIVE DATE: This resolution shall take effect on May 13, 2003. PASSED: This 3 day of (.LC '2003. M yor City f ' and ATTEST: City Recorder - City of Tigar I:\Eng\Gus\Resolutions\Resolution Amending the FY 2002-03 CIP Budget.doc RESOLUTION NO. 03- 1& Page 2 4--,vICI ear Po',n4- R Ps0-v~ ~~(A;O)i 41 C n q' n ec-> v- t -,W Lc-o ~,dau Sire e-F City of Tigard The Wall Street Extension • Connects Hunziker Street with Hall Wall Street Update Boulevard • Key route in new Transportation System Plan • Projected to carry up to 7,000 February 15, 2005 vehicles per day • Proposed for construction with development 3e F Z Reasons for Constructing Wall Street Reasons for Constructing Wall Street 0 Transportation Benefits ► Provides an alternate route to the Tigard 0 Economic Benefits Triangle ► Would open up approximately 69 ► Relieves congestion at the Hall/Hunziker acres of industrial land for C and 72"a/Bonita intersections I development (approximately 15% of ► Would delay widening of Hall Blvd and j total industrial land in Tigard) 72"d Avenue for 15-20 years ► New jobs will be created ► Increased tax revenue for the City ► Provides joint access for the new Tigard L J Library and Fanno Pointe Reasons for the LID LID Process 1 • Preliminary Evaluation Report 0 Major property owner owns over • Preliminary Engineer's Report 70% of benefited properties • Declaration of intention to form the • Major property owner in support of ~ district t~.he LID ; • Provides City a rare opportunity to • District formation • Construction of Improvements accelerate construction of this key connector road • Spreading of assessments by ordinance 5 6 1 ~I 1 Actions to Date} Issues *Council Resolution No. 02-11 0At-grade crossing of two main directed the preparation of the railroad tracks Preliminary Engineer's Report i • Permits for crossing of Fanno Creek, flood plain and wetlands Interim Report was presented to t `'Council on March 11, 2003 E A 0Comprehensive Plan Amendment •The Preliminary Engineer's Report 0 Removal of spur track adjacent to presented to Council on March 23, existing access road 2004 ► Rarely used since placement 7 K V _ Issues +Street Alignments Y ON • e il.~._..1.~._ _ ,jl 1:~ :m ~f r' ti" ~9M • I I ,jo i.~Kaill,~ 1111( y / CT lo in t I r I~ ,•dz~ f T l I ...h J licl 0 Cuts across a block f - Selected Alignment I Wall Street one-mile square 5-T T Ma~ g I~ ~l g I7 2 Hall BlvdNVall Street Project Phases 1 and 2 Phase ((City Project) Phase 2 (LID Project) • Separated from the Wall Street LID HALL BLVD /WALL tITNEET by Resolution 03-16 WALL -T LD • Phase 1 established as a City project l ► Will provide joint access for the new a ( Library and Fanno Pointe Condominiums S - - -j i ► Is currently planned to proceed to construction • Phase 2 (construction of the rest of I f aM -r Wall Street) depends on LID I _ formation dd Signalized Intersection u iA Overview of Phases Wall Street Joint Access lt llli~llt1/ °i / ~r,,~13✓ ~!i i~r'I'T"llflitlil~ll }L' Nlrr r ' 6 Et ? - i.~ ss[:.r iii! 15 I4 g Current Status Current Status *Application for at-grade crossing " •Environmental permits for Phases 1 has been submitted and 2 have been obtained ► Portland-Western Railroad objects ► Two prehearing meetings have been • Comprehensive Plan Amendment conducted application is in progress ► Hearing has not been set e(Options have been explored by the ► Council delayed decision on LID until property owner to provide access to hearing results are known the interior property if crossing of *Approval unlikely as Portland & the tracks does not occur Western switching occurs in this area i 17 ~ f IN 3 c Industrial Property Vicinity Map i Wall Street Options Terminate Wall Street ~ i~~i: 4a , , ~ ~ i short of tracks and I1> a v~ ft"K - I provide connection to Milton Court :x ~ `'a„• ` fig ~ r+~~ ,i y" 1 a _ e •f {rf h 1>. iA~. ~ +1 -T F (y'-. 1~(Ib la 7_":~ ~ \ 4 19 311 Wall Street Options Wall Street Options Industrial ' Development Office Complex I ~ Concept I Concept 011 maw - 1 L ~o t c 21 33 Council Direction Requested Recommendations • Whether or not to: • Withdraw the crossing application ► Continue with the hearing on the at- • Signalize the Library intersection grade railroad crossing *Construct Phase 1 of Wall Street ► Signalize the library entrance C► Construct Phase 1 of Wall Street to I= *(Regarding construction of Wall Street provide joint access to the library and across the creek Fanno Pointe ► Consider an LID to construct it short of ► Continue with an LID to build Wall the tracks Street across Fanno Creek to provide ► Have the developer construct that access to the interior property s" segment without an LID 2i 24 4 AGENDA ITEM # 15 FOR AGENDA OF February 15, 2005 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Workshop - Strategic Finance Plan Discussion PREPARED BY: Tom Imdieke DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK I ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL The City prepared its first Strategic Finance Plan in 2003. The City Council now has the opportunity to update the plan and direct staff to make any appropriate changes as determined by the Council. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Update the Strategic Finance Plan with the appropriate changes as determined by the City Council. INFORMATION SUMMARY The City prepared its first Strategic Finance Plan in 2003. It is time to update that plan to reflect current conditions and issues. As we did in 2003, Executive Staff first brainstormed a list of issues that they feel are current or will soon be faced by the City. Executive Staff then organized that list into rough order of priority. Finally, staff wrote brief (1 to 2 page) issue papers on each issue to present to Council. Those issue papers were distributed earlier to the City Council for their review. Council may choose to include all of the attached issues in its Goals or in the final Strategic Finance Plan. It may drop any issues that it feels appropriate and add any issues it feels are missing from this packet. Finally, Council will be asked to discuss the final list of issues, to assign priorities and timelines, and to provide direction to staff on how the Council wishes staff to proceed on these issues. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED N/A VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY The Strategic Finance Plan can act as a tool in developing strategies and funding for implementation of projects to address goals as outline in the Vision Statement. ATTACHMENT LIST Copies of the draft 2005 Strategic Finance Plan were distributed to the City Council on December 14, 2004. FISCAL NOTES N/A 2/16/05 cx Councilor Sherwood, Attached is the "Value-Added Brain-Storm List," which was distributed to Council at its meeting of February 15, 2005. This should be part of the 2005 Strategic Finance Plan. This Plan was on the agenda for 2/15; however, the meeting ran long and this item will be discussed at an upcoming meeting. Cathy Value-Added Brain-Storm List 1. Additional Parking At Library 34. Increased Room, Usage 2. Address Issues Proactively 35. Larger Street Name Signs (72"d, Dartmouth) 36. Light at Hall & Wall 3. Advance Signage 37. Monthly Utility Billing (Flat) 4. Alcohol In Parks Not OK 38. More Adopt-A-Street 5. All Employees Live In City 39. More Library Hours 6. Alternative Homeless Shelters 40. Neighborhood Clean Up (Not Parks) 41. Neighborhood Program 7. Better Environmental Program 42. Overall Signage Program 8. Better Tie-In To Washington (Educational) Square 43. Park Property 9. Bus Routes Cross Towns 44. Partnership with School District 10. Bus Stop Enhancements 45. Plant More Trees/Preservation 11. Cameras In Community Room 46. Pocket Park on Burnham and 12. Clean Up Weed Patch on RR elsewhere Downtown 47. Proactive Code Enforcement 13. Community Gardens 48. Public Art 14. Community Policing (Foot & 49. Public Trash Receptacles Bike Patrol) 50. Recreational Program 15. Completion Of Fanno Trail 51. Shared Services with Other 16. Completion Of Wall St. 400' Agencies 17. Deep-six WCCLS 52. Sign Standards 18. Demonstration Gardens 53. Solar Access Sponsored By Garden Centers 54. Spring Bulbs 19. Design Standards 55. State/Regional/County Take 20. Diversity Celebration Care of their Property 21. Downtown Arts Program 56. Street Furniture 22. E-Commerce and Info At City 57. Summer Concerts, Movies, 23. Enhanced plantings and Cultural Events gardening on City property 58. Trails, Sidewalks, Greenway 24. Entrance Signs Enhancements & Completion 25. Environmental Design 59. Tualatin Pedestrian Bridge 26. Esplanade from Downtown To 60. Volunteer Cops Washington Square 61. Volunteer Opportunities & 27. Estimated Monthly Utility Billing Results 28. Explorer Post (Police) 62. Youth Summit 29. GIS for Public 30. Improve Appearance of Public Buildings 31. Improve Street Lamp Design 32. Increase Library Programs. & Classes 33. Increased Patron Registration