Loading...
01/14/2009 - Packet ■ City of Tigard ■ City Center Advisory Commission — Agenda MEETNG DATE: Wednesday,January 14, 2009 —6:30-8:30 p.m. MEETING LOCATION: Red Rock Creek Conference Room, City Hall 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, OR 97223 1. Welcome and Introductions ....................................................................................................6:30—6:35 2. Chair's New Year's Message....................................................................................................6:35 - 6:40 (Alice Ellis Gaut) 3. "Check-in"..................................................................................................................................6:40— 6:55 4. Review / Approve Minutes .....................................................................................................6:55—7:00 5. Elections.....................................................................................................................................7:00—7:15 Budget Overview— Downtown Projects...............................................................................7:15 - 7:30 (Phil Nachbar) 7. Organizational Leadership—Downtown...............................................................................7:30—8:30 (Subcommittee / Discussion) 8. Other Business...........................................................................................................................8:30— 8:35 Follow-up Items ,information only) • Matrix of Downtown Projects • Letter to Main St. Property Owners—re: removal of signage / canisters ■ FY 09-10 Budget Schedule 9. Adjourn ......................................................................................................................................8:35 p.m. CITY CENTER ADVISORY COMMISSION AGENDA—January 14, 2009 City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 503-639-4171 1 www.tigard-or.gov I Page 1 ofl City Center Advisory Commission ° Meeting Minutes Date of Meeting: January 14, 2009 Location: Red Rock Creek Conference Room Called to order by: Chair Alice Ellis Gaut Time Started: 6:30 p.m. Time Ended: 9:32 p.m. Commissioners Present: Carolyn Barkley; Chair Alice Ellis Gaut; Ralph Hughes; Kevin Kutcher; Vice Chair Lily Lilly;Thomas Murphy; Elise Shearer; Martha Wong;Vice Chair Elect Alexander Craghead (alternate); Linh Pao (alternate) Commissioners Absent: Commissioner Louw Others Present: Marland Henderson, Mike Marr Staff Present: Phil Nachbar, Downtown Redevelopment Manager;Jerree Lewis, Executive Assistant AGENDA ITEM #1: Welcome and Introductions Important Discussion and/or Comments: Councilor Marland Henderson was welcomed. Action Items (Follow-Up or Votes): None AGENDA ITEM #2: Chair's New Year's Message Important Discussion and/or Comments: Chair Ellis Gaut spoke to the Commissioners about meeting procedure. She asked that the Commissioners establish a habit of being recognized before speaking and not talking over others. She also asked that Commissioners and guests keep comments brief and to the point. She would like people to address issues, offer possible solutions, and try to be productive and proactive. Chair Ellis Gaut noted that sometime during the year, it would be nice for the Commission to refine and expand the bylaws to cover such things as succession and appointing alternates CCAC Meeting Minutes for January 14, 2009 Page 1 of 7 to fill vacant positions. She believes it also might be worth considering having a retreat so the Commissioners can discuss goals, strategy, what has been accomplished so far, where we want to go in the future, and other issues. Action Items (Follow-Up or Votes): The Commissioners will think about scheduling a retreat in the near future. AGENDA ITEM #3: Check In Important Discussion and/or Comments: Chair Ellis Gaut advised that this will be a new item on the Commission's agendas. There will be a few minutes at each meeting to discuss any burning questions or ideas on anyone's minds that they would like to discuss. Commissioner Craghead noted that this will be sort of a safety valve for things that don't get seen, things that get lost in between meetings. Commissioner Craghead said he has discussed the idea of having a retreat with several other Commissioners and there seems to be support for having one. He also noted that the Commissioners have not discussed their goals for the year. This might be a good thing to discuss during the retreat. Commissioner Murphy stated he is aware of the commitment of new Commissioners who want the CCAC to succeed. They are willing to put the time, energy, and effort into it to make that happen. Commissioner Hughes talked about the times shown on the meeting agendas. He believes we should be realistic about the time it takes to have a meeting. He sees 2 hours listed on the agendas, but he knows they will take longer. He would like this addressed in the future. Commissioner Shearer said maybe we should consider the agendas to be 3 hours, but the meetings may actually take less time. Commissioner Craghead said this is something that could be discussed during the retreat. Chair Ellis Gaut decided to add the topic of a retreat to Other Business at the end of the meeting. Commissioner Barkley noted that she had heard a suggestion for assigning more subcommittee work. This could save a lot of time on the agenda if subcommittees were able to work on issues outside of the regular meetings. Perhaps there could be standing subcommittees for particular items already identified by the Commission. The Commissioners could share in the work. CCAC Meeting Minutes for January 14, 2009 Page 2 of 7 Commissioner Lilly said that she appreciates being able to attend the Urban Land Institute seminars and tours. They have been very educational. She will provide materials to the secretary who will scan the information and send it out to the other Commissioners. She hopes others can get involved in these outreach opportunities. Chair Ellis Gaut advised that she is working at building back her professional life of practicing law. She said she is committed to the CCAC and the work that they are doing. She is not going away. Action Items (Follow-Up or Votes): The retreat will be discussed during Other Business. AGENDA ITEM #4: Review / Approve Minutes Important Discussion and/or Comments: The Commissioners reviewed the December 10, 2008 meeting minutes. It was noted on page 3, under the 5th bullet of Agenda Item #5, that it should read "Stevens property" rather than "Stevenson property." Action Items (Follow-Up or Votes): The Commissioners voted unanimously to adopt the minutes as corrected. AGENDA ITEM #5: Elections Important Discussion and/or Comment: It was advised that the City Attorney has indicated that alternate Commissioners can hold office, but cannot vote. Action Items (Follow-Up or Votes): Commissioner Murphy nominated Alice Ellis Gaut for Chair of the Commission; Commissioner Lilly seconded the nomination. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Lilly nominated Commissioner Craghead for Vice Chair of the Commission; Commissioner Shearer seconded the nomination. The motion passed unanimously. AGENDA ITEM #6: Budget Overview— Downtown Projects Important Discussion and/or Comments: Phil Nachbar gave a brief update on current Downtown projects. He advised that with the new year, he will be working more on the 2 shopping centers, feasibility studies, and working with property owners who may be interested in future development. CCAC Meeting Minutes for January 14,2009 Page 3 of 7 Phil Nachbar provided a quick overview of the budget calendar and the CIP budget (Exhibits A-C). He noted there would be more time at the next meeting to look more closely at the budget and perhaps make specific recommendations. The Commissioners advised that they would like to have early public participation for the Downtown gateway feature —possibly a committee to provide input at the beginning of the process. With regard to the fagade program, Phil Nachbar said he would like to contact Downtown property and business owners to see what their level of interest is for the program. Action Items (Follow-Up or Votes): The Commissioners will discuss budget recommendations at their next meeting. AGENDA ITEM #7: Organizational Leadership —Downtown Important Discussion and/or Comments: It was noted that Options #2 and #4 are essentially different ways of doing the same thing— the City would be available and be supportive, but would not actually fund an association. Option #2 is more passive; #4 is more proactive. The Commissioners voted to go forward with Option #4 as the recommendation for Council's consideration. The Commissioners worked to wordsmith the recommendation. It was noted that some of the wording in Options #2 and #3 could also be included in Option #4. After discussion, the Commissioners recommended that the following wording: Preliminary Recommendation The option that the Commission recommends is Option 4: Take a decent approach. This option contemplates that the best way of achieving the goals set out for the Commission is to utilize a variety of approaches as outlined below, rather than funding a specifrc association. After careful consideration, the CCAC believes that there are other approaches to better achieve organization and leadership capacity in Downtown Tigard. The last sentence in the next paragraph on page 5 was deleted: Tke-reality is that being able to ehange that elintate is slitn, regardless of funding le CCAC Meeting Minutes for January 14,2009 Page 4 of 7 The next 2 paragraphs are unaltered. There are specific actions that the CCAC recommends the City take to help foster an environment in which all stakeholders may thrive. These include: ■ Setting of a Downtown business strategy/policy. Although the CCAC has made many recommendations for Downtown projects as part of the Urban Renewal District, so far the Commission has not developed an area business policy for the City. Yet Urban Renewal projects will greatly shape land use, rent rates, and the character of the business environment within Downtown. The CCAC feels that it should take the time as soon as practical to examine what its economic development goals are within Downtown, including what kind of businesses it is hoping to retain and/or attract, and then use this policy as an approach to shape Urban Renewal activities. ■ Fast-tracking URD catalyst projects. The City should make catalyst projects such as the public plaza and various street improvements their number one priority and do everything within reason to achieve them in the near term. This may include being willing to undertake an unusually high degree of stakeholder communication as well as using a greater variety of approaches to complete these projects. ■ Improve the local business climate. The City should examine the local business climate with an eye towards making improvements that would lead to greater success in Downtown. Actions might include the revision of"red tape" in Downtown to make doing business easier, as well as engaging directly in marketing and economic development activities. ■ Improve public outreach efforts. The City can work towards fostering better relationships between itself and stakeholders by utilizing creative approaches to public input that would maximize communications. This might include greater one-on-one communication with key stakeholders, as well as using less traditional input approaches such as charrettes and public workshops. ■ Consideration of a project-based grant program. The CCAC recognizes that third parties such as associations frequently are able to field interesting project ideas that are beneficial to Downtown. The CCAC therefore recommends that if the City wishes to fund such activities within Downtown, that it establish a clear and fair grant-based approach to the process. This would allow any organization meeting qualifying criteria to apply for and potentially receiving funding for activities on a project basis. CCAC Meeting Minutes for January 14,2009 Page 5 of 7 This approach would largely eliminate many of the political pitfalls of direct funding and further would clearly measure the disbursement of funds against the clear goals for Downtown. Under the Action Plan, the following sentence was added to the April/May timeline: This will be especially critical in determining what obstacles currently exist in Downtown, as well as what the business strategy/policy for Downtown ought to be. Bullet points from the June-September action plan in Option #2 were added to Option #4. The remainder of the recommendation was unchanged. [NOTE: The revised preliminary recommendation, as prepared by Commissioner Craghead, is included as Exhibit D.] Visitor Mike Marr asked who the City is going to hire as the Economic Development Director to carry out the recommended goals. He does not believe that current City staff is equipped to pursue economic development action. He hopes this will be a step forward for the City seeking a professional, experienced Economic Development Director. Chair Ellis Gaut acknowledged that the Commission has talked about this issue over the years. In as much as these are preliminary recommendations to Council, perhaps this may be one of the flags that they see. Commissioner Murphy asked if it might be appropriate to add a comment that would suggest an Economic Development Director be hired by the City. Action Items (Follow-Up or Votes): Motion by Commissioner Kutcher, seconded by Commissioner Wong, to recommend Option #4 as revised here tonight as our recommendation to City Council. The vote passed unanimously. AGENDA ITEM #8: Other Business Follow-up Items (information on1X) ■ Matrix of Downtown Projects ■ Letter to Main St. Property Owners — re: removal of signage / canisters ■ FY 09-10 Budget Schedule Important Discussion and/or Comments: Phil Nachbar advised that he has drafted a letter to Main Street property owners about removing the sign canisters. He will send the Commissioners a copy of the letter after he has mailed it to the property owners. CCAC Meeting Minutes for January 14, 2009 Page 6 of 7 The Commissioners discussed having a retreat. Possible dates, times, and locations were discussed. They decided on a tentative date of February 25`" Commissioner Lilly will ask Sheila Greenlaw Fink when she needs the support letters for the CPAH project on Hunziker and if there are any parameters for the letters. Phil Nachbar advised that staff members Duane Roberts and Cheryl Caines will attend the CPAH charrette. Phil Nachbar advised that Sean Farrelly would like to do a parking survey in the Downtown before the commuter rail goes into effect. A City intern will help with the survey, but we may need more volunteers. Commissioner Shearer said she may be available to help on the weekends and on January 19`". Commissioner Wong said she may be able to help next Wednesday. Action Items (Follow-Up or Votes): As noted above. AGENDA ITEM #9: Adjournment Important Discussion and/or Comments: The meeting adjourned at 9:32 p.m. Action Items (Follow-Up or Votes): None Jerree Lewis, CCAC Secretary ATTEST: ' Chair Alice Ellis Gaut CCAC Meeting Minutes for January 14, 2009 Page 7 of 7 City of Tigard Fiscal Years 2009-2014 Capital Improvement Program Urban Renewal System (Downtown Projects) Page Projected Number Project 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 Total 90560-Ash Ave.Extension(Burnham to RR) 750,000 750,000 90650-Hall Blvd.at Hwy 99W Gateway 260,000 75,000 100,000 435,000 90720-Burnham St.Reconstruction 1,400,000 5,106,463 3,000,000 9,506,463 95130-Park Land Aquistion 310,000 20,000 330,000 95830-Commercial St.Intersection(Lincoln to Main) 800,000 800,000 95870-Fanno Creek Trail(Main St. to Grant St.) 115,000 70,000 185,000 95900-Fanno Creek Plaza 2,420,000 2,457,000 4,877,000 95930-Main St. / Green St. Retrofit 60,000 60,000 380,000 500,000 96630-Lower Fanno Creek Park 260,000 951,050 414,000 276,300 1,901,350 96640-Festival Street 123,000 820,680 943,680 95960-Scoffins/Hall/Hunziker Realignment 75,000 150,000 225,000 Total Urban Renewal System 2,895,000 6,467,.513 6,289,000 2,908,300 923,000 970,680 1 20,453,493 Urban Renewal Budget-Sources& Uses of Funds for Project Using UR Funds Draft 17-Dec Fund Uses FY 09-10 FY 10-11 FY11-12 FY12-13 FY13-14 Main St. -Grant Match 60,000 380,000 Burnham St. Improvements 350,000 Facade Improvement Program 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 Gas Tax/Gen Gas Tax/Gen Fund Sources* Fund Fund UR Bond UR Bond UR Bond Subtotal 135,000 805,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 Total UR Bond Proceeds* 1,165,000 * UR Bond Amount based on revised UR Financial Projections-Bond Date: Fall 2010 * Fa4ade Rehab Program funded with General Fund for FY 09-10, repaid with UR funds in Fy 10-11 * Main St. Match-Funded with Gas Tax FY 09-10, repaid with UR Fund FY 10-11 Cl� Concept Preliminary Downtown Projects- Stages Matrix Planning Design Design Final Design 8-Jan-09 Implementation Projects Lower Fanno Creek Park Design x x x in-process Fanno Creek Re-Meander (CWS) x x x x Downtown Plaza x x TBD TBD Main St. Redesign /Construction x x TBD TBD Burnham St. Redesign /Construction x x x x Ash Ave (Burnham St. to Commuter Rail Lot) x x x x Hall / 99W Gateway in-process TBD TBD TBD PW Site Redevelopment Jan-June 09 Jan-June 09 TBD TBD Fanno Creek Gateway at Main St. x x TBD TBD Transit Center Redevelopment in-process in-process TBD TBD Urban Creek Corridor TBD TBD TBD TBD Planning Proiects Circulation Plan I Sept 09 Sept 09 TBD TBD Urban Design Plan - Refinement I x x NA NA Preliminary Recommendation to the City of Tigard Organizational Leadership and Capacity in Downtown Tigard January 14, 2009 Prepared by: City Center Advisory Commission OLCD Subcommittee: Alexander Craghead Thomas Murphy Elise Shearer CCAC Preliminary Recommendation on 2 Organizational Leadership and Capacity in Downtown Tigard Context& Background Downtown Tigard is a diverse environment with many interests and little community.This makes communication between stakeholders and the city,as well between the stakeholders and other stakeholders difficult. It also means that a coordinated vision of the future of downtown does not now exist amongst stakeholders. In 2007,the City of Tigard hired the Leland Consulting Group to assist in the creation of a development strategy for the Tigard downtown core. In the resulting Downtown Strategy,Leland recommends the creation of a downtown organization partly in response to the concerns previously mentioned.Additional concerns included providing a forum independent of the city government for advocacy and conflict resolution,as well as a venue for the private sector to demonstrate their support of downtown revitalization. This recommendation was forwarded by the City Council to the City Center Advisory Commission (CCAC),with the charge of determining if the recommendation should be implemented,and if so how. The CCAC has been concerned with the complexity of such an effort,and created a subcommittee in May of 2008 to investigate the issues surrounding the establishment of or support of a downtown association. This subcommittee conducted extensive research over the course of the summer,presenting their final research report to the CCAC on September 18,2008. Following the receipt of this report,the CCAC conducted a series of meetings to discuss the matter further. In December 2008,the CCAC asked the subcommittee to reconvene and draft three options for a recommendation to the CCDA.These recommendations were considered by the CCAC at the January 14, 2008 meeting,at which this preliminary recommendation was chosen. Goals&Objectives This recommendation seeks to address concerns raised by the Leland Consulting Group in their Development Strategy for Downtown Tigard.Leland recommends a series of specific options to "strengthen organization and leadership capacity in Downtown Tigard".They state the basis as follows: Successful downtowns are the result of strong leadership and great champions at both the public and private levels. While the city council is solidly behind downtown,private sector leadership is more fractured. Strengthening the private sector organization and improving communication between the City and the private sector is a prerequisite to successful redevelopment. Leland provides a somewhat more specific view of this issue in the strategic framework section of their report.They state that a"strong organization" is needed to"champion and implement projects" as "downtowns must be managed at both the public and private levels."They further support their recommendations by stating that it is critical to"[bring]these stakeholder groups of varied interests and perspectives together[as]...an integral part of Place Making strategy for Downtown Tigard."They conclude by stating that their specific recommendations are aimed at"strengthening relationships among existing(and future)stakeholder groups." Leland's specific statement of support for funding a downtown association states that the goals of this funding would be to subsidize the costs of an executive staff member for the association who would"lead initiatives and outreach,[and]actively[engage]business and property owners." Thus,we conclude that the objectives of any City funded effort at strengthening organizational leadership and capacity in Downtown Tigard would be to: 1.Better champion and implement projects; 2. Manage the downtown at both the private and public levels; 3.Bring stakeholders together for Place Making; 4. Strengthen relationships and improve communication between City and stakeholders. In examining the options before the CCAC,these four goals are vital. CCAC Preliminary Recommendation on 3 Organizational Leadership and Capacity in Downtown Tigard Summary of Research The subcommittee's research determined that there is no clear route that stands out above all others;in short there are multiple ways of achieving revitalization goals.Some cities have chosen to participate in established,traditional forms,such as the National Trust's Main Street program,while others have chosen to create their own,innovative programs tailored to their specific needs In very few cases did associations have a direct impact on urban renewal efforts;however,by their nature they are often positioned well to undertake routine efforts such as promotion,maintenance,advocacy, business outreach,and other"soft"skills that cities without economic development departments generally lack. Failure is common in such associations,and is usually the result of a lack of broad leadership(reliance on one or too few individuals),a lack of vision or purpose,and a lack of stable funding. Funding levels seem less important than funding stability. The subcommittee's conclusion was that the creation or support of a downtown association in Tigard would be a challenging effort.Making matters more complex is the high degree of failure rates that these associations experience,along with the broad path of options available.One important fact to note is that regardless of whether the city chooses to take a traditional role,or a more innovative path,there are other cities in the state with similar experiences and with whom the city would likely be able to share knowledge for mutual benefit. Summary of Alternatives The CCAC identified five primary options for action.They are: Option l: Begin funding immediately. Under this option, it is conceived that the City ought to immediately begin funding the development of a downtown association. Option 2: Do not fund an association. Under this option, the position is that it is not an appropriate use of City funds to help an association to develop itself. Option 3: Consider funding an association but not until certain conditions are met. Under this option, it is contemplated that an association would need to meet certain criteria in order to be viable and thus a sound investment of public funds. Option 4: Take a different approach. This option contemplates that the best way of achieving the goals set out for the Commission is to utilize a variety of approaches rather than funding a specific association. Option 5:Make no recommendation. This option contemplates the inability to reach consensus on the matter. CCAC Preliminary Recommendation on 4 Organizational Leadership and Capacity in Downtown Tigard Evaluation of Alternatives Option l:Begin funding immediately. Under this option, it is conceived that the City ought to immediately begin funding the development of a downtown association. Analysis.The CCAC identified some positive reasons to support this option,including recognition of the business community and a sense of keeping the plan moving in spite of economic conditions. However, the body found far more arguments could be made against this route,including but not limited to: • The research report demonstrated that there is no nexus between a successful downtown association and a successful urban renewal effort. • Funding an association at this time may be premature and simply set up the association for failure once city funds cease. • Issues regarding incentive,perceived political endorsement,and lack of sufficient interest in the existing business community. * * * Option 2: Do not fund an association. Under this option, the position is that it is not an appropriate use of Cityfunds to help an association to develop itself. Analysis.The primary principle under this option is that any association that would be strong and healthy would need to come from the community itself. Funding of an association before there is demand or critical mass would not be helpful but rather would be setting that association up for failure once city funding ceased. The CCAC also identified numerous other reasons to support this option.The subcommittee's research showed,for example,that there was no demonstrable nexus between the existence of an association and success in an urban renewal project such as that the CCAC is charged with overseeing,thus making the extension of seed money to an association both a distraction and outside the purview of the CCAC. Numerous additional reasons were also contemplated suggesting that funding the formation of an association would be a poor use of City funds. Option 3: Consider funding an association but not until certain conditions are met. Under this option, it is contemplated that an association would need to meet certain criteria in order to be viable and thus a sound investment of public funds. Analysis. The CCAC found many reasons to support this option.The commission felt that this option best reflected the realities of the current conditions within downtown while leaving the door open for a more activist role for the City in the future. In the meanwhile,the City would be strongly encouraged to undertake activities that would lead towards conditions more hospitable to the flourishing of an association. The CCAC did identify a few negatives to this route,including the appearance of being ineffective and the potential for introducing delays into the process. * * * CCAC Preliminary Recommendation on 5 Organizational Leadership and Capacity in Downtown Tigard Option 4: Take a different approach. This option contemplates that the best way of achieving the goals set out for the Commission is to utilize a variety of approaches rather than funding a specific association. Analysis. This was the widest ranging of options,considering the possibility that the needs identified by Leland would be better met by approaches other than an association. It would free the City to focus on more tangible improvements and projects. An almost equal amount of weaknesses were identified as well,most notably that,due to its custom nature, the identification and implementation of a"third way" would be time consuming for the CCAC. Option 5: Make no recommendation. This option contemplates the inability to reach consensus on the matter. Analysis. This option anticipated that the commission would be unable to reach consensus on the decision of funding an association. The CCAC believes no further analysis of this option is necessary. CCAC Preliminary Recommendation on 6 Organizational Leadership and Capacity in Downtown Tigard Preliminary Recommendation The option that the Commission recommends is Option 4: Take a different approach. This option contemplates that the best way of achieving the goals set out for the Commission is to utilize a variety of approaches[as outlined below]rather than funding a specific association. After careful consideration,the CCAC believes that there are other approaches to better achieve organizational and leadership capacity in Downtown Tigard. The CCAC believes that this approach would invest far too much time,money,and effort in organizational development,rather than making direct and meaningful improvements in the concerns outlined in the goals section of this recommendation. However,the CCAC also believes that the City does have a role in supporting the development of downtown that goes beyond providing major infrastructure improvements. These actions may include activities ranging from marketing and branding to maintenance,event hosting, and the fostering of better communication. The CCAC believes that the best way to achieve these goals is on a case-by-case basis with solutions tailored to specific problems. While identifying a customized,unified strategy towards engaging the downtown will take more time than an"off--the-shelf'approaches such as an association,a decentralized approach has the benefit of being able to be implemented far quicker.Targeted efforts at outreach,business support,and communication can be implemented and adjusted based on how staff resources are allocated as well as on the project priorities of the City/CCDA. There are specific actions that the CCAC recommends the City take to help foster an environment in which all stakeholders may thrive.These include: • Setting of a downtown business strategy/policy.Although the CCAC has made many recommendations for downtown projects as part of the urban renewal district,so far the commission has not developed an area business policy for the City.Yet urban renewal projects will greatly shape land use,rent rates,and the character of the business environment within downtown.The CCAC feels that it should take the time as soon as practical to examine what its economic development goals are within downtown, including what kind of businesses it is hoping to retain and/or attract,and then use this policy as as approach to shape urban renewal activities. • Improve public outreach efforts.The City can work towards fostering better relationships between itself and stakeholders by utilizing creative approaches to public input that would maximize communications.This might include greater one-on-one communication with key stakeholders,as well as using less traditional input approaches such as charrettes and public workshops. • Improve the local business climate. The City should examine the local business climate with an eye towards making improvements that would lead to greater success in downtown.Actions might include the revision of"red tape" in downtown to make doing business easier,as well as engaging directly in marketing&economic development activities • Consideration of a project-based grant program.The CCAC recognizes that third parties such as associations frequently are able to field interesting project ideas that are beneficial to downtown.The CCAC therefore recommends that if the City wishes to fund such activities within downtown,that it establish a clear and fair grant-based approach to the process.This would allow any organization meeting qualifying criteria to apply for and potentially receiving funding for activities on a project basis.This approach would largely eliminate many of the political pitfalls of direct funding and further would clearly measure the disbursement of funds against clear goals for downtown. • Fast-tracking URD catalyst projects.The City should make catalyst projects such as the public plaza and various street improvements their number one priority and do everything within reason to achieve them in the near term.This may include being willing to undertake an unusually high degree of stakeholder communication as well as using a greater variety of approaches to complete these projects. CCAC Preliminary Recommendation on 7 Organizational Leadership and Capacity in Downtown Tigard This recommendation meets the four goals identified earlier in this document: 1. Better champion and implement projects.By concentrating on making improvements directly"in the ground"rather than on organization building,the City will be able to make a direct and beneficial impact on Downtown Tigard more efficiently. 2. Manage the downtown at both the private and public levels.This recommendation recognizes the inherently individualistic nature of Downtown Tigard's private sector.Rather than attempt to change that,this option honors that uniqueness and instead works to find nontraditional solutions that will encourage individual private sector stakeholders to manage their portions of downtown better. 3. Bring stakeholders together for Place Making.Rather than expending funds and time on the creation of a new organization,the City has shown it is more than capable of bringing stakeholders together to undertake Place Making,most notably through the award-winning TDIP process.The City would best achieve Place Making by building on this experience and taking a central role in such efforts. 4. Strengthen relationships and improve communication between City and stakeholders. Currently there are numerous URD projects and efforts that will require public input.The City should utilize these requirements to take creative approaches that will build synergies between public input and community building. CCAC Preliminary Recommendation on 8 Organizational Leadership and Capacity in Downtown Tigard Action Plan The CCAC suggests the following steps for refining the City's plans for supporting organizational and leadership capacity in Downtown: April/May, 2009: Seek out public input on this option. It is recommended that the CCAC develop a public outreach program that will present Option 4 to key stakeholders and the public at large.The goal will be to seek reactions,suggestions,and other forms of input from these groups to help refine the option. This will be especially critical in determining what obstacles currently exist in downtown,as well as what the business strategy/policy for downtown ought to be. This outreach will also give the CCAC an opportunity to foster better communication between the City and stakeholders. It is recommended that the City utilize nontraditional,participatory input methods that may include tactics borrowed from the charrette model of input. June-September, 2009: Refine option. Following initial public input,the CCAC will refine this option over the Summer to develop: • A business strategy/policy. • Improved public outreach policies.The CCAC will make a list of recommendations for improving public outreach policy in the City, including but not limited to the handling of public input and the opportunities to create relationship building synergies in public outreach programs. • List of obstacles needing review. • List of enforcement recommendations. • List of"direct actions".The CCAC will identify a"menu" of possible non-capital activities that the City could directly engage in that would benefit the downtown area. • A grant program. October 2009: Present draft plans to stakeholders,public.Following the refinement of this option,the draft recommendation would be presented to the public to receive a final round of input and make any necessary adjustments. October/November 2009: Make final refinement of plan and present to Council.Present an actionable plan to the Council for consideration. City of Tigard FY 2009-10 Financial Forecast/Budget Calendar • November 2008 o Forecast Training • December, 2008 o Financial Forecast Due o Individual Department Training • January 2009 o 12-Department budget worksheets are available on the I drive o 21 and 22-Department budget training o 23-New FTE and position reclassification due to HR • February 2009 0 13-Budget requests and revenue due to Finance 0 17-Budget committee meeting 0 20-HR FTE and reclass reports to the Finance Department 0 23-27-Department meetings with Finance staff • March 2009 o 2-8-City Manager/Finance/Department meetings 0 11-Budget wrap up meeting with Craig 0 13, 20, 27-Requested budget and proposed budget development(Finance and Craig) • April, 2009 o 3- Requested budget and proposed budget development(Finance and Craig) o 6-Proposed budget to printer o 10-Budget to budget committee o 20-Exec Staff Budget Hearing preparation o 27-Budget Committee hearing (CD, PW) o 27-CCDA Budget Committee hearing • May, 2009 o 4-Budget Committee hearing(Recap 4/27 mtg., Police, Library, City Admin, Policy& Legislation) o 11-Budget Committee hearing (Recap 5/4 mtg., Citywide issue papers, Discussion and wrap up) o 18-Budget Committee hearing if needed o 26-Budget materials due in council packet • June 9, 2009 o Budget presented to Council Option 2 Preliminary Recommendation to the City of Tigard Organizational Leadership and Capacity in Downtown Tigard January 14, 2009 Prepared by: City Center Advisory Commission OLCD Subcommittee: Alexander Craghead Thomas Murphy Elise Shearer CCAC Preliminary Recommendation on 2 Organizational Leadership and Capacity in Downtown Tigard Context& Background Downtown Tigard is a diverse environment with many interests and little community.This makes communication between stakeholders and the city,as well between the stakeholders and other stakeholders difficult.It also means that a coordinated vision of the future of downtown does not now exist amongst stakeholders. In 2007,the City of Tigard hired the Leland Consulting Group to assist in the creation of a development strategy for the Tigard downtown core. In the resulting Downtown Strategy,Leland recommends the creation of a downtown organization partly in response to the concerns previously mentioned.Additional concerns included providing a forum independent of the city government for advocacy and conflict resolution,as well as a venue for the private sector to demonstrate their support of downtown revitalization. This recommendation was forwarded by the City Council to the City Center Advisory Commission (CCAC),with the charge of determining if the recommendation should be implemented,and if so how. The CCAC has been concerned with the complexity of such an effort,and created a subcommittee in May of 2008 to investigate the issues surrounding the establishment of or support of a downtown association. This subcommittee conducted extensive research over the course of the summer,presenting their final research report to the CCAC on September 18,2008. Following the receipt of this report,the CCAC conducted a series of meetings to discuss the matter further. In December 2008,the CCAC asked the subcommittee to reconvene and draft three options for a recommendation to the CCDA.These recommendations were considered by the CCAC at the January 14, 2008 meeting,at which this preliminary recommendation was chosen. Goals&Objectives This recommendation seeks to address concerns raised by the Leland Consulting Group in their Development Strategy for Downtown Tigard. Leland recommends a series of specific options to "strengthen organization and leadership capacity in Downtown Tigard".They state the basis as follows: Successful downtowns are the result of strong leadership and great champions at both the public and private levels. While the city council is solidly behind downtown,private sector leadership is more fractured.Strengthening the private sector organization and improving communication between the City and the private sector is a prerequisite to successful redevelopment. Leland provides a somewhat more specific view of this issue in the strategic framework section of their report.They state that a"strong organization" is needed to"champion and implement projects"as "downtowns must be managed at both the public and private levels."They further support their recommendations by stating that it is critical to"[bring]these stakeholder groups of varied interests and perspectives together[as]...an integral part of Place Making strategy for Downtown Tigard."They conclude by stating that their specific recommendations are aimed at"strengthening relationships among existing(and future)stakeholder groups." Leland's specific statement of support for funding a downtown association states that the goals of this funding would be to subsidize the costs of an executive staff member for the association who would"lead initiatives and outreach,[and]actively[engage]business and property owners." Thus,we conclude that the objectives of any City funded effort at strengthening organizational leadership and capacity in Downtown Tigard would be to: 1.Better champion and implement projects; 2. Manage the downtown at both the private and public levels; 3. Bring stakeholders together for Place Making; 4. Strengthen relationships and improve communication between City and stakeholders. In examining the options before the CCAC,these four goals are vital. CCAC Preliminary Recommendation on 3 Organizational Leadership and Capacity in Downtown Tigard Summary of Research The subcommittee's research determined that there is no clear route that stands out above all others;in short there are multiple ways of achieving revitalization goals.Some cities have chosen to participate in established,traditional forms,such as the National Trust's Main Street program,while others have chosen to create their own,innovative programs tailored to their specific needs In very few cases did associations have a direct impact on urban renewal efforts;however,by their nature they are often positioned well to undertake routine efforts such as promotion,maintenance,advocacy, business outreach,and other"soft"skills that cities without economic development departments general lack. Failure is common in such associations,and is usually the result of a lack of broad leadership(reliance on one or too few individuals),a lack of vision or purpose,and a lack of stable funding. Funding levels seem less important than funding stability. The subcommittee's conclusion was that the creation or support of a downtown association in Tigard would be a challenging effort. Making matters more complex is the high degree of failure rates that these associations experience,along with the broad path of options available. One important fact to note is that regardless of whether the city chooses to take a traditional role,or a more innovative path,there are other cities in the state with similar experiences and with whom the city would likely be able to share knowledge for mutual benefit. Summary of Alternatives The CCAC identified five primary options for action.They are: Option 1: Begin funding immediately. Under this option, it is conceived that the City ought to immediately begin funding the development of a downtown association. Option 2: Do not fund an association. Under this option, the position is that it is not an appropriate use of City funds to help an association to develop itself. Option 3: Consider funding an association but not until certain conditions are met. Under this option, it is contemplated that an association would need to meet certain criteria in order to be viable and thus a sound investment of public funds. Option 4: Take a different approach. This option contemplates that the best way of achieving the goals set out jar the Commission is not an association, but some other tool. Option 5: Make no recommendation. This option contemplates the inability to reach consensus on the matter. Evaluation of Alternatives Option 1: Begin funding immediately. Under this option, it is conceived that the City ought to immediately begin funding the development of a downtown association. Analysis.The CCAC identified some positive reasons to support this option, including recognition of the business community and a sense of keeping the plan moving in spite of economic conditions. However, the body found far more arguments could be made against this route,including but not limited to: • The research report demonstrated that there is no nexus between a successful downtown association and a successful urban renewal effort. • Funding an association at this time may be premature and simply set up the association for failure once CCAC Preliminary Recommendation on 4 Organizational Leadership and Capacity in Downtown Tigard city funds cease. • Issues regarding incentive,perceived political endorsement,and lack of sufficient interest in the existing business community. * * * Option 2: Do not fund an association. Under this option, the position is that it is not an appropriate use of Cityfunds to help an association to develop itself. Analysis.The primary principle under this option is that any association that would be strong and healthy would need to come from the community itself.Funding of an association before there is demand or critical mass would not be helpful but rather would be setting that association up for failure once city funding ceased. The CCAC also identified numerous other reasons to support this option.The subcommittee's research showed,for example,that there was no demonstrable nexus between the existence of an association and success in an urban renewal project such as that the CCAC is charged with overseeing,thus making the creation of an association both a distraction and outside the purview of the CCAC.Numerous additional reasons were also contemplated suggesting that funding the formation of an association would be a poor use of City funds. * * * Option 3: Consider funding an association but not until certain conditions are met. Under this option, it is contemplated that an association would need to meet certain criteria in order to be viable and thus a sound investment of public funds. Analysis.The CCAC found many reasons to support this option.The commission felt that this option best reflected the realities of the current conditions within downtown while leaving the door open for a more activist role for the City in the future. In the meanwhile,the City would be strongly encouraged to undertake activities that would lead towards conditions more hospitable to the flourishing of an association. The CCAC did identify a few negatives to this route,including the appearance of being ineffective and the potential for introducing delays into the process. * * * Option 4: Take a different approach. This option contemplates that the best way of achieving the goals set out far the Commission is not an association, but some other tool. Analysis.This was the widest ranging of options,considering the possibility that the needs identified by Leland would be better met by tools other than an association. It would free the City to focus on more tangible improvements and projects. An almost equal amount of weaknesses were identified as well,most notably that,due to its custom nature,the identification and implementation of a"third way"would be time consuming for the CCAC. Option 5: Make no recommendation. This option contemplates the inability to reach consensus on the matter. Analysis.This option anticipated that the commission would be unable to reach consensus on the decision of funding an association.The CCAC believes no further analysis of this option is necessary. CCAC Preliminary Recommendation on 5 Organizational Leadership and Capacity in Downtown Tigard Preliminary Recommendation The option that the Commission recommends is Option 2. Do not fund an association. Under this option, the position is that it is not an appropriate use of Cityfunds to help an association to develop itself. After careful consideration of the matter,the CCAC feels that the funding of an association's development in Downtown Tigard would result in little return on investment and far more detriments than benefits within the community.This does not mean that the CCAC is recommending the City ought to ignore or choose not to work with an association or associations,merely that it should take no role in the development of such organizations. The first and largest reason for this stance is the recognition of the context of Downtown Tigard.At this time,it is evident that there are not conditions that are conducive to the success of an association. Multiple associations have existed or have been attempted within downtown within the last 10-20 years and every one of them has run into stagnation of one form or another.Based upon the local context and the research the subcommittee undertook,the CCAC believes that within downtown at this time there are not enough of the businesses of the type that are traditionally supportive of an association's functions.To fund an association at this juncture would be to set up an organization that would be chronically lacking in necessary volunteers and necessary non-City supplied funding. Following upon that finding,the CCAC further believes that the City ought not fund an association's formation or organizational development activities at all.Numerous reasons were identified,including: • Associations usually have an "owner".Based on the subcommittee's research, it was a frequent occurrence that associations often live or die based upon the activities of just one key individual.This is true of both positive and negative experiences. When that strong leader is absent,the organization often does not survive.This make associations an inherently weak tool for addressing private sector leadership. • Using City funds for an association is a dual edged sword.On one hand there is no guarantee,once the funding is disbursed,that the City will receive any benefits from the association,which may now do as it pleases. Conversely, if the City places conditions upon the money, it is quite likely that the association will be viewed as an arm of the City government rather than an independent group that represents the community first. • Use of public funds for private benefit.An association's primary purpose is often seen as benefitting private sector interests. Using public funds--regardless of the amount--for what will be perceived by the public as a private benefit could be negatively viewed by the public. • Political complications.Using City funds for an association could result in political divisions within and outside of downtown.The concept of paying a group whose role includes advocacy could result in the City getting"more than it bargained for"politically as well. Finally,there could be significant complications if more than one group emerged to contend for funding.Overall,funding an association would result in forcing the City to navigate significantly complex political waters in defense of a comparatively small investment that has few chances of returns. Finally, the CCAC believes that the funding of an association would be a major distraction to its work, and would prevent the City from addressing the goals earlier identified within this recommendation in a more immediate and meaningful way. It should be carefully and expressly stated that the CCAC is not advocating that the City ignore existing or future associations within downtown.The City,rather,ought to welcome the input of any and all organizations whose stated purpose includes the improvement of conditions within Downtown Tigard. In recommending Option 2,the CCAC is making the policy statement that such organizations ought to come into existence based upon the interest of the community they represent,rather than through the artificial intervention of City actions,and that such organizations should be independent of the City structure.The CCAC Preliminary Recommendation on 6 Organizational Leadership and Capacity in Downtown Tigard CCAC recommends that the City continues to have an open door policy to all such organizations. Rather than funding an association,the CCAC recommends certain other steps be undertaken by the City, including: • Review of obstacles.The CCAC recommends the City adopt an"obstacle removal"philosophy to downtown development.Existing codes and regulations should be reviewed carefully to determine what obstacles to development may currently exist,and subsequently revised to remove these obstacles. • Examination of enforcement.The flip-side of the prior suggestion is the recommendation that such regulations as the City deems useful for downtown should be enforced.An examination of how building,fire,and other codes are enforced downtown is suggested. • Setting of a downtown business strategy/policy.Although the CCAC has made many recommendations for downtown projects as part of the urban renewal district,so far the commission has not developed an area business policy for the City.Yet urban renewal projects will greatly shape land use,rent rates,and the character of the business environment within downtown.The CCAC feels that it should take the time as soon as practical to examine what its economic development goals are within downtown,including what kind of businesses it is hoping to retain and/or attract,and then use this policy as a tool to shape urban renewal activities. • Consideration of a project-based grant program.While the CCAC suggests that organizational development and administrative support of an association is not in the best interest of the City,the CCAC recognizes that third parties such as associations frequently are able to field interesting project ideas that are beneficial to downtown.The CCAC therefore recommends that if the City wishes to fund such activities within downtown,that it establish a clear and fair grant-based approach to the process. This would allow any organization meeting qualifying criteria to apply for and potentially receiving funding for activities on a project basis.This approach would largely eliminate many of the political pitfalls of direct funding and further would clearly measure the disbursement of funds against clear goals for downtown. Using these primary tools,the CCAC believes the City can best address the needs outlined in the goals identified earlier in this document: 1. Better champion and implement projects.By concentrating on making improvements directly"in the ground"rather than on organization building,the City will be able to make a direct and beneficial impact on Downtown Tigard more efficiently. 2. Manage the downtown at both the private and public levels.This recommendation recognizes the inherently individualistic nature of Downtown Tigard's private sector.Rather than attempt to change that,this option honors that uniqueness and instead works to find nontraditional solutions that will encourage individual private sector stakeholders to manage their portions of downtown better.Further, this recommendation recognizes that public monies are not best put to use for primarily private benefits, and concentrates on bettering the downtown environment with tools that are clearly within the public realm. 3. Bring stakeholders together for Place Making.Rather than expending funds and time on the creation of a new organization,the City has shown it is more than capable of bringing stakeholders together to undertake Place Making,most notably through the award-winning TDIP process.The City would best achieve Place Making by building on this experience and taking a central role in such efforts. 4. Strengthen relationships and improve communication between City and stakeholders.Currently there are numerous URD projects and efforts that will require public input.The City should utilize these requirements to take creative approaches that will build synergies between public input and community building. CCAC Preliminary Recommendation on 7 Organizational Leadership and Capacity in Downtown Tigard Action Plan The CCAC suggests the following steps for refining the City's plans for supporting organizational and leadership capacity in Downtown: April/May,2009: Seek out public input on this option. It is recommended that the CCAC develop a public outreach program that will present the tools suggested for use in Option 2 to key stakeholders and the public at large. The goal will be to seek reactions,suggestions,and other forms of input from these groups to help refine the option.This will be especially critical in determining what obstacles currently exist in downtown,as well as what the business strategy/policy for downtown ought to be. This outreach will also give the CCAC an opportunity to foster better communication between the City and stakeholders. It is recommended that the City utilize nontraditional,participatory input methods that may include tactics borrowed from the charrette model of input. June-September, 2009: Refine option. Following initial public input, the CCAC will refine this option over the Summer to develop • List of obstacles needing review • List of enforcement recommendations • A business strategy/policy • A grant program October 2009: Present draft plans to stakeholders,public. Following refinement of this option, the draft recommendation would be presented to the public to receive a final round of input and make any necessary adjustments. October/November 2009:Make final refinement of plan and present to Council.Present an actionable plan to the Council for consideration. Option 3 Preliminary Recommendation to the City of Tigard Organizational Leadership and Capacity in Downtown Tigard January 14, 2009 Prepared by: City Center Advisory Commission OLCD Subcommittee: Alexander Craghead Thomas Murphy Elise Shearer CCAC Preliminary Recommendation on 2 Organizational Leadership and Capacity in Downtown Tigard Context& Background Downtown Tigard is a diverse environment with many interests and little community.This makes communication between stakeholders and the city,as well between the stakeholders and other stakeholders difficult. It also means that a coordinated vision of the future of downtown does not now exist amongst stakeholders. In 2007,the City of Tigard hired the Leland Consulting Group to assist in the creation of a development strategy for the Tigard downtown core.In the resulting Downtown Strategy,Leland recommends the creation of a downtown organization partly in response to the concerns previously mentioned.Additional concerns included providing a forum independent of the city government for advocacy and conflict resolution,as well as a venue for the private sector to demonstrate their support of downtown revitalization. This recommendation was forwarded by the City Council to the City Center Advisory Commission (CCAC),with the charge of determining if the recommendation should be implemented,and if so how. The CCAC has been concerned with the complexity of such an effort,and created a subcommittee in May of 2008 to investigate the issues surrounding the establishment of or support of a downtown association. This subcommittee conducted extensive research over the course of the summer,presenting their final research report to the CCAC on September 18,2008. Following the receipt of this report,the CCAC conducted a series of meetings to discuss the matter further.In December 2008,the CCAC asked the subcommittee to reconvene and draft three options for a recommendation to the CCDA.These recommendations were considered by the CCAC at the January 14, 2008 meeting,at which this preliminary recommendation was chosen. Goals&Objectives This recommendation seeks to address concerns raised by the Leland Consulting Group in their Development Strategy for Downtown Tigard. Leland recommends a series of specific options to "strengthen organization and leadership capacity in Downtown Tigard".They state the basis as follows: Successful downtowns are the result of strong leadership and great champions at both the public and private levels. While the city council is solidly behind downtown,private sector leadership is more fractured.Strengthening the private sector organization and improving communication between the City and the private sector is a prerequisite to successful redevelopment. Leland provides a somewhat more specific view of this issue in the strategic framework section of their report.They state that a"strong organization"is needed to"champion and implement projects"as "downtowns must be managed at both the public and private levels."They further support their recommendations by stating that it is critical to"[bring]these stakeholder groups of varied interests and perspectives together[as]...an integral part of Place Making strategy for Downtown Tigard."They conclude by stating that their specific recommendations are aimed at"strengthening relationships among existing(and future)stakeholder groups." Leland's specific statement of support for funding a downtown association states that the goals of this funding would be to subsidize the costs of an executive staff member for the association who would"lead initiatives and outreach,[and]actively[engage]business and property owners." Thus,we conclude that the objectives of any City funded effort at strengthening organizational leadership and capacity in Downtown Tigard would be to: 1.Better champion and implement projects; 2.Manage the downtown at both the private and public levels; 3.Bring stakeholders together for Place Making; 4.Strengthen relationships and improve communication between City and stakeholders. In examining the options before the CCAC,these four goals are vital. CCAC Preliminary Recommendation on 3 Organizational Leadership and Capacity in Downtown Tigard Summary of Research The subcommittee's research determined that there is no clear route that stands out above all others;in short there are multiple ways of achieving revitalization goals. Some cities have chosen to participate in established,traditional forms,such as the National Trust's Main Street program,while others have chosen to create their own,innovative programs tailored to their specific needs In very few cases did associations have a direct impact on urban renewal efforts;however,by their nature they are often positioned well to undertake routine efforts such as promotion,maintenance,advocacy, business outreach,and other"soft"skills that cities without economic development departments general lack. Failure is common in such associations,and is usually the result of a lack of broad leadership(reliance on one or too few individuals),a lack of vision or purpose,and a lack of stable funding. Funding levels seem less important than funding stability. The subcommittee's conclusion was that the creation or support of a downtown association in Tigard would be a challenging effort.Making matters more complex is the high degree of failure rates that these associations experience,along with the broad path of options available. One important fact to note is that regardless of whether the city chooses to take a traditional role,or a more innovative path,there are other cities in the state with similar experiences and with whom the city would likely be able to share knowledge for mutual benefit. Summary of Alternatives The CCAC identified five primary options for action.They are: Option 1: Begin funding immediately. Under this option, it is conceived that the City ought to immediately begin funding the development of a downtown association. Option 2: Do not fund an association. Under this option, the position is that it is not an appropriate use of Cityfunds to help an association to develop itself. Option 3: Consider funding an association but not until certain conditions are met. Under this option, it is contemplated that an association would need to meet certain criteria in order to be viable and thus a sound investment of public funds. Option 4: Take a different approach, This option contemplates that the best way of achieving the goals set out for the Commission is not an association, but some other tool. Option 5: Make no recommendation. This option contemplates the inability to reach consensus on the matter. Evaluation of Alternatives Option 1: Begin funding immediately. Under this option, it is conceived that the City ought to immediately begin funding the development of a downtown association. Analysis.The CCAC identified some positive reasons to support this option, including recognition of the business community and a sense of keeping the plan moving in spite of economic conditions. However, the body found far more arguments could be made against this route,including but not limited to: • The research report demonstrated that there is no nexus between a successful downtown association and a successful urban renewal effort. • Funding an association at this time may be premature and simply set up the association for failure once CCAC Preliminary Recommendation on 4 Organizational Leadership and Capacity in Downtown Tigard city funds cease. • Issues regarding incentive,perceived political endorsement,and lack of sufficient interest in the existing business community. * � r Option 2:Do not fund an association. Under this option, the position is that it is not an appropriate use of Cityfunds to help an association to develop itself. Analysis.The primary principle under this option is that any association that would be strong and healthy would need to come from the community itself. Funding of an association before there is demand or critical mass would not be helpful but rather would be setting that association up for failure once city funding ceased. The CCAC also identified numerous other reasons to support this option.The subcommittee's research showed,for example,that there was no demonstrable nexus between the existence of an association and success in an urban renewal project such as that the CCAC is charged with overseeing,thus making the creation of an association both a distraction and outside the purview of the CCAC.Numerous additional reasons were also contemplated suggesting that funding the formation of an association would be a poor use of City funds. irr Option 3: Consider funding an association but not until certain conditions are met. Under this option, it is contemplated that an association would need to meet certain criteria in order to be viable and thus a sound investment of public funds. Analysis.The CCAC found many reasons to support this option.The commission felt that this option best reflected the realities of the current conditions within downtown while leaving the door open for a more activist role for the City in the future.In the meanwhile,the City would be strongly encouraged to undertake activities that would lead towards conditions more hospitable to the flourishing of an association. The CCAC did identify a few negatives to this route,including the appearance of being ineffective and the potential for introducing delays into the process. I. i Option 4: Take a different approach. This option contemplates that the best way of achieving the goals set out for the Commission is not an association, but some other tool. Analysis.This was the widest ranging of options,considering the possibility that the needs identified by Leland would be better met by tools other than an association. It would free the City to focus on more tangible improvements and projects. An almost equal amount of weaknesses were identified as well,most notably that,due to its custom nature,the identification and implementation of a"third way"would be time consuming for the CCAC. tr + Option 5: Make no recommendation. This option contemplates the inability to reach consensus on the matter. Analysis.This option anticipated that the commission would be unable to reach consensus on the decision of funding an association.The CCAC believes no further analysis of this option is necessary. CCAC Preliminary Recommendation on 5 Organizational Leadership and Capacity in Downtown Tigard Preliminary Recommendation The option that the Commission recommends is Option 3: Consider funding an association but not until certain conditions are met. Under this option, it is contemplated that an association would need to meet certain criteria in order to be viable and thus a sound investment of public funds. After careful consideration,the CCAC believes that an association may be beneficial to Downtown Tigard redevelopment,and that the City may have a role in funding such an effort.Benefits may include better communication between stakeholders and the City,as well as among stakeholders themselves,along with better marketing and maintenance of Downtown. However,the CCAC also feels that certain environmental conditions must be met before an association would be a good investment of public money. Funding an association before these conditions exist would be setting up such an organization for failure once public monies cease. It may also be a wasteful use of human capital on the part of both the City and the organization,leading to"burnout"on the part of volunteers if the organization fails to gain traction in a premature context. First,the CCAC feels that there must be a preexisting association that meets certain specific criteria, including but not limited to: • Inclusivity. • Adequate organizational structure. • Transparency and accountability. • Strong working relationship with other organizations and stakeholders. Any organization must have strength enough to coalesce without intervention from the City.The City does not have the ability to use funding to force private stakeholders to work or communicate with each other.A truly successful association will need to form when there is a critical mass that provides an adequate number of volunteers and financial supporters in the Downtown area. The CCAC further believes that the City should wait to fund an association until the following environmental conditions are met: • Critical Mass.In order to support a healthy association in Downtown Tigard,the area needs a greater number of retail businesses.This means that the area will need more retail occupied square footage. It is anticipated that, following some of the catalyst URD projects,the amount of square footage for retail (and its attractiveness to such tenants)will increase,thus improving the likely chances of success for an association. • URD Wins.Current conditions in the URD are little changed from when the district was formed in 2006. It is believed that there is little to no extra"excitement"on the part of existing or potential stakeholders.This situation likely will not change until some major projects are completed within the URD. Examples might include the Main Street green street project and the Burnham Street improvements,as well as the public plaza. • Better economic times.Current economic conditions are unfavorable to the creation of an association.A better economic climate will be more likely to result in the necessary private sector financial support for an association. In the meanwhile,there are specific actions that the CCAC recommends the City take to help foster an environment in which a healthy organization may thrive.These include: • Fast-tracking URD catalyst projects.The City should make catalyst projects such as the public plaza and various street improvements their number one priority and do everything within reason to achieve them in the near term.This may include being willing to undertake an unusually high degree of stakeholder communication as well as using a greater variety of tools to complete these projects. CCAC Preliminary Recommendation on 6 Organizational Leadership and Capacity in Downtown Tigard • Improve the local business climate.The City should examine the local business climate with an eye towards making improvements that would lead to greater success in downtown. Actions might include the revision of"red tape"in downtown to make doing business easier,as well as • Improve public outreach efforts.The City can work towards fostering better relationships between itself and stakeholders by utilizing creative approaches to public input that would maximize communications.This might include greater ane-on-one communication with key stakeholders,as well as using less traditional input tools such as charrettes and public workshops. This recommendation meets the four goals identified earlier in this document: 1. Better champion and implement projects.By waiting until certain conditions are met,the City is free to concentrate on core activities such as achieving success in URD catalyst projects. 2. Manage the downtown at both the private and public levels.This approach continues the strong record of downtown management on the part of the City while recognizing the inherently individualistic nature of the URD's private sector stakeholders. 3. Bring stakeholders together for Place Making.Rather than expending funds and time on the creation of a new organization,the City has shown it is more than capable of bringing stakeholders together to undertake Place Making,most notably through the award-winning TDIP process.The City would best achieve Place Making by building on this experience and taking a central role in such efforts. 4. Strengthen relationships and improve communication between City and stakeholders.Currently there are numerous URD projects and efforts that will require public input.The City should utilize these requirements to take creative approaches that will build synergies between public input and community building. Action Plan The CCAC suggests the following steps for refining the City's plans for supporting organizational and leadership capacity in Downtown: April/May, 2009: Seek out public input on this option.It is recommended that the CCAC develop a public outreach program that will present Option 3 to key stakeholders and the public at large.The goal will be to seek reactions,suggestions,and other forms of input from these groups to help refine the option. This outreach will also give the CCAC an opportunity to foster better communication between the City and stakeholders. It is recommended that the City utilize nontraditional,participatory input methods that may include tactics borrowed from the charrette model of input. June-August, 2009: Refine option. Following initial public input, the CCAC will refine this option over the Summer to develop: • Criteria.It will be necessary to develop criteria to judge when the appropriate time and conditions for the success of an association would be.This criteria would also include what characteristics the City would be looking for in an association with which to partner. • Implementation plans.This would be a set of recommendations for the nature of City involvement in an association. • List and schedule of interim actions.This would be a specific list of interim steps the CCAC would recommend the City undertake in order to bring about conditions that would lead to the success of an association in Downtown Tigard. September 2009: Present draft plans to stakeholders,public. Following the refinement of this option, the draft recommendation would be presented to the public to receive a final round of input and make any necessary adjustments. October/November 2009: Make final refinement of plan and present to Council. Present an actionable plan to the Council for consideration. Option 4 Preliminary Recommendation to the City of Tigard Organizational Leadership and Capacity in Downtown Tigard January 14, 2009 Prepared by: City Center Advisory Commission OLCD Subcommittee: Alexander Craghead Thomas Murphy Elise Shearer CCAC Preliminary Recommendation on 2 Organizational Leadership and Capacity in Downtown Tigard Context& Background Downtown Tigard is a diverse environment with many interests and little community.This makes communication between stakeholders and the city,as well between the stakeholders and other stakeholders difficult. It also means that a coordinated vision of the future of downtown does not now exist amongst stakeholders. In 2007,the City of Tigard hired the Leland Consulting Group to assist in the creation of a development strategy for the Tigard downtown core. In the resulting Downtown Strategy,Leland recommends the creation of a downtown organization partly in response to the concerns previously mentioned.Additional concerns included providing a forum independent of the city government for advocacy and conflict resolution,as well as a venue for the private sector to demonstrate their support of downtown revitalization. This recommendation was forwarded by the City Council to the City Center Advisory Commission (CCAC),with the charge of determining if the recommendation should be implemented,and if so how. The CCAC has been concerned with the complexity of such an effort,and created a subcommittee in May of 2008 to investigate the issues surrounding the establishment of or support of a downtown association. This subcommittee conducted extensive research over the course of the summer,presenting their final research report to the CCAC on September 18,2008. Following the receipt of this report,the CCAC conducted a series of meetings to discuss the matter further. In December 2008,the CCAC asked the subcommittee to reconvene and draft three options for a recommendation to the CCDA.These recommendations were considered by the CCAC at the January 14, 2008 meeting,at which this preliminary recommendation was chosen. Goals&Objectives This recommendation seeks to address concerns raised by the Leland Consulting Group in their Development Strategy for Downtown Tigard.Leland recommends a series of specific options to "strengthen organization and leadership capacity in Downtown Tigard".They state the basis as follows: Successful downtowns are the result of strong leadership and great champions at both the public and private levels.While the city council is solidly behind downtown,private sector leadership is more fractured.Strengthening the private sector organization and improving communication between the City and the private sector is a prerequisite to successful redevelopment. Leland provides a somewhat more specific view of this issue in the strategic framework section of their report.They state that a"strong organization"is needed to"champion and implement projects"as "downtowns must be managed at both the public and private levels."They further support their recommendations by stating that it is critical to"[bring]these stakeholder groups of varied interests and perspectives together[as]...an integral part of Place Making strategy for Downtown Tigard."They conclude by stating that their specific recommendations are aimed at"strengthening relationships among existing(and future)stakeholder groups." Leland's specific statement of support for funding a downtown association states that the goals of this funding would be to subsidize the costs of an executive staff member for the association who would"lead initiatives and outreach,[and]actively[engage]business and property owners." Thus,we conclude that the objectives of any City funded effort at strengthening organizational leadership and capacity in Downtown Tigard would be to: 1. Better champion and implement projects; 2. Manage the downtown at both the private and public levels; 3.Bring stakeholders together for Place Making; 4.Strengthen relationships and improve communication between City and stakeholders. In examining the options before the CCAC,these four goals are vital. CCAC Preliminary Recommendation on 3 Organizational Leadership and Capacity in Downtown Tigard Summary of Research The subcommittee's research determined that there is no clear route that stands out above all others;in short there are multiple ways of achieving revitalization goals. Some cities have chosen to participate in established,traditional forms,such as the National Trust's Main Street program,while others have chosen to create their own,innovative programs tailored to their specific needs In very few cases did associations have a direct impact on urban renewal efforts;however,by their nature they are often positioned well to undertake routine efforts such as promotion,maintenance,advocacy, business outreach,and other"soft"skills that cities without economic development departments general lack. Failure is common in such associations,and is usually the result of a lack of broad leadership(reliance on one or too few individuals),a lack of vision or purpose,and a lack of stable funding.Funding levels seem less important than funding stability. The subcommittee's conclusion was that the creation or support of a downtown association in Tigard would be a challenging effort.Making matters more complex is the high degree of failure rates that these associations experience,along with the broad path of options available.One important fact to note is that regardless of whether the city chooses to take a traditional role,or a more innovative path,there are other cities in the state with similar experiences and with whom the city would likely be able to share knowledge for mutual benefit. Summary of Alternatives The CCAC identified five primary options for action.They are: Option 1: Begin funding immediately. Under this option, it is conceived that the City ought to immediately begin funding the development of a downtown association. Option 2: Do not fund an association. Under this option, the position is that it is not an appropriate use of Cityfunds to help an association to develop itself. Option 3: Consider funding an association but not until certain conditions are met. Under this option, it is contemplated that an association would need to meet certain criteria in order to be viable and thus a sound investment of public funds. Option 4: Take a different approach. This option contemplates that the best way of achieving the goals set out for the Commission is not an association, but some other tool. Option 5:Make no recommendation. This option contemplates the inability to reach consensus on the matter. Evaluation of Alternatives Option 1: Begin funding immediately. Under this option, it is conceived that the City ought to immediately begin funding the development of a downtown association. Analysis.The CCAC identified some positive reasons to support this option,including recognition of the business community and a sense of keeping the plan moving in spite of economic conditions. However, the body found far more arguments could be made against this route,including but not limited to: • The research report demonstrated that there is no nexus between a successful downtown association and a successful urban renewal effort. • Funding an association at this time may be premature and simply set up the association for failure once CCAC Preliminary Recommendation on 4 Organizational Leadership and Capacity in Downtown Tigard city funds cease. • Issues regarding incentive,perceived political endorsement,and lack of sufficient interest in the existing business community. Option 2:Do not fund an association. Under this option, the position is that it is not an appropriate use of Cityfunds to help an association to develop itself. Analysis.The primary principle under this option is that any association that would be strong and healthy would need to come from the community itself.Funding of an association before there is demand or critical mass would not be helpful but rather would be setting that association up for failure once city funding ceased. The CCAC also identified numerous other reasons to support this option.The subcommittee's research showed,for example,that there was no demonstrable nexus between the existence of an association and success in an urban renewal project such as that the CCAC is charged with overseeing,thus making the creation of an association both a distraction and outside the purview of the CCAC.Numerous additional reasons were also contemplated suggesting that funding the formation of an association would be a poor use of City funds. � s # Option 3: Consider funding an association but not until certain conditions are met. Under this option, it is contemplated that an association would need to meet certain criteria in order to be viable and thus a sound investment of public funds. Analysis.The CCAC found many reasons to support this option. The commission felt that this option best reflected the realities of the current conditions within downtown while leaving the door open for a more activist role for the City in the future. In the meanwhile,the City would be strongly encouraged to undertake activities that would lead towards conditions more hospitable to the flourishing of an association. The CCAC did identify a few negatives to this route,including the appearance of being ineffective and the potential for introducing delays into the process. Option 4: Take a different approach. This option contemplates that the best way of achieving the goals set out for the Commission is not an association, but some other tool. Analysis.This was the widest ranging of options,considering the possibility that the needs identified by Leland would be better met by tools other than an association. It would free the City to focus on more tangible improvements and projects. An almost equal amount of weaknesses were identified as well,most notably that,due to its custom nature,the identification and implementation of a"third way"would be time consuming for the CCAC. * s * Option 5: Make no recommendation. This option contemplates the inability to reach consensus on the matter. Analysis.This option anticipated that the commission would be unable to reach consensus on the decision of funding an association.The CCAC believes no further analysis of this option is necessary. CCAC Preliminary Recommendation on 5 Organizational Leadership and Capacity in Downtown Tigard Preliminary Recommendation The option that the Commission recommends is Option 4: Take a different approach. This option contemplates that the best way of achieving the goals set out for the Commission is not an association, but some other tool. After careful consideration,the CCAC believes that a downtown association is not the best tool to achieve better organization and leadership capacity in Downtown Tigard. The CCAC believes that this approach would invest far too much time,money,and effort in organizational development,rather than making direct and meaningful improvements in the concerns outlined in the goals section of this recommendation.The reality is that the business climate in Downtown is highly individualistic,and the likelihood of an organization being able to change that climate is slim,regardless of funding levels. However,the CCAC also believes that the City does have a role in supporting the development of downtown that goes beyond providing major infrastructure improvements.These actions may include activities ranging from marketing and branding to maintenance,event hosting,and the fostering of better communication. The CCAC believes that the best way to achieve these goals is on a case-by-case basis with solutions tailored to specific problems.While identifying a customized,unified strategy towards engaging the downtown will take more time than an"off-the-shelf'tool such as an association,a decentralized approach has the benefit of being able to be implemented far quicker.Targeted efforts at outreach,business support, and communication can be implemented and adjusted based on how staff resources are allocated as well as on the project priorities of the City/CCDA. Examples of alternate approaches that might be taken by the City include: • Direct funding of retail-oriented programs such as facade improvement grants; • Better public outreach policies; • Leveraging of public input opportunities with creative tools,e.g.charrettes; • Engaging directly in marketing&economic development activities; • Reviewing City policies and programs to make the area more"business friendly". This recommendation meets the four goals identified earlier in this document: 1. Better champion and implement projects. By concentrating on making improvements directly"in the ground" rather than on organization building,the City will be able to make a direct and beneficial impact on Downtown Tigard more efficiently. 2. Manage the downtown at both the private and public levels.This recommendation recognizes the inherently individualistic nature of Downtown Tigard's private sector.Rather than attempt to change that,this option honors that uniqueness and instead works to find nontraditional solutions that will encourage individual private sector stakeholders to manage their portions of downtown better. 3. Bring stakeholders together for Place Making.Rather than expending funds and time on the creation of a new organization,the City has shown it is more than capable of bringing stakeholders together to undertake Place Making,most notably through the award-winning TDIP process.The City would best achieve Place Making by building on this experience and taking a central role in such efforts. 4. Strengthen relationships and improve communication between City and stakeholders.Currently there are numerous URD projects and efforts that will require public input.The City should utilize these requirements to take creative approaches that will build synergies between public input and community building. CCAC Preliminary Recommendation on 6 Organizational Leadership and Capacity in Downtown Tigard Action Plan The CCAC suggests the following steps for refining the City's plans for supporting organizational and leadership capacity in Downtown: April/May, 2009: Seek out public input on this option. It is recommended that the CCAC develop a public outreach program that will present Option 4 to key stakeholders and the public at large.The goal will be to seek reactions,suggestions,and other forms of input from these groups to help refine the option. This outreach will also give the CCAC an opportunity to foster better communication between the City and stakeholders. It is recommended that the City utilize nontraditional,participatory input methods that may include tactics borrowed from the charrette model of input. June-September, 2009: Refine option. Following initial public input,the CCAC will refine this option over the Summer to develop: • List of"direct actions".The CCAC will identify a"menu"of possible non-capital activities that the City could directly engage in that would benefit the downtown area. • Improved public outreach policies.The CCAC will make a list of recommendations for improving public outreach policy in the City, including but not limited to the handling of public input and the opportunities to create relationship building synergies in public outreach programs. October 2009: Present draft plans to stakeholders, public. Following the refinement of this option,the draft recommendation would be presented to the public to receive a final round of input and make any necessary adjustments. October/November 2009: Make final refinement of plan and present to Council. Present an actionable plan to the Council for consideration. Option 2 Preliminary Recommendation to the City of Tigard Organizational Leadership and Capacity in Downtown Tigard January 14, 2009 Prepared by: City Center Advisory Commission OLCD Subcommittee: Alexander Craghead Thomas Murphy Elise Shearer 0 a CCAC Preliminary Recommendation on 2 Organizational Leadership and Capacity In Downtown Tigard Context& Background Downtown Tigard is a diverse environment with many interests and little community.This makes communication between stakeholders and the city,as well between the stakeholders and other stakeholders difficult. It also means that a coordinated vision of the future of downtown does not now exist amongst stakeholders. In 2007,the City of Tigard hired the Leland Consulting Group to assist in the creation of a development strategy for the Tigard downtown core. In the resulting Downtown Strategy,Leland recommends the creation of a downtown organization partly in response to the concerns previously mentioned.Additional concerns included providing a forum independent of the city government for advocacy and conflict resolution,as well as a venue for the private sector to demonstrate their support of downtown revitalization. This recommendation was forwarded by the City Council to the City Center Advisory Commission (CCAC),with the charge of determining if the recommendation should be implemented,and if so how. The CCAC has been concerned with the complexity of such an effort,and created a subcommittee in May of 2008 to investigate the issues surrounding the establishment of or support of a downtown association. This subcommittee conducted extensive research over the course of the summer,presenting their final research report to the CCAC on September 18,2008. Following the receipt of this report,the CCAC conducted a series of meetings to discuss the matter further.In December 2008,the CCAC asked the subcommittee to reconvene and draft three options for a recommendation to the CCDA.These recommendations were considered by the CCAC at the January 14, 2008 meeting,at which this preliminary recommendation was chosen. Goals&Objectives This recommendation seeks to address concerns raised by the Leland Consulting Group in their Development Strategy for Downtown Tigard.Leland recommends a series of specific options to "strengthen organization and leadership capacity in Downtown Tigard".They state the basis as follows: Successful downtowns are the result of strong leadership and great champions at both the public and private levels.While the city council is solidly behind downtown,private sector leadership is more fractured.Strengthening the private sector organization and improving communication between the City and the private sector is a prerequisite to successful redevelopment. Leland provides a somewhat more specific view of this issue in the strategic framework section of their report.They state that a"strong organization"is needed to"champion and implement projects"as "downtowns must be managed at both the public and private levels."They further support their recommendations by stating that it is critical to"[bring]these stakeholder groups of varied interests and perspectives together[as]...an integral part of Place Making strategy for Downtown Tigard."They conclude by stating that their specific recommendations are aimed at"strengthening relationships among existing(and future)stakeholder groups." Leland's specific statement of support for funding a downtown association states that the goals of this funding would be to subsidize the costs of an executive staff member for the association who would"lead initiatives and outreach,[and]actively[engage]business and property owners." Thus,we conclude that the objectives of any City funded effort at strengthening organizational leadership and capacity in Downtown Tigard would be to: 1.Better champion and implement projects; 2.Manage the downtown at both the private and public levels; 3. Bring stakeholders together for Place Making; 4. Strengthen relationships and improve communication between City and stakeholders. In examining the options before the CCAC,these four goals are vital. r CCAC Preliminary Recommendation on 3 Organizational Leadership and Capacity in Downtown Tigard Summary of Research The subcommittee's research determined that there is no clear route that stands out above all others; in short there are multiple ways of achieving revitalization goals. Some cities have chosen to participate in established,traditional forms,such as the National Trust's Main Street program,while others have chosen to create their own, innovative programs tailored to their specific needs In very few cases did associations have a direct impact on urban renewal efforts;however,by their nature they are often positioned well to undertake routine efforts such as promotion,maintenance,advocacy, business outreach,and other"soft'skills that cities without economic development departments general lack. Failure is common in such associations,and is usually the result of a lack of broad leadership(reliance on one or too few individuals),a lack of vision or purpose, and a lack of stable funding. Funding levels seem less important than funding stability. The subcommittee's conclusion was that the creation or support of a downtown association in Tigard would be a challenging effort. Making matters more complex is the high degree of failure rates that these associations experience,along with the broad path of options available.One important fact to note is that regardless of whether the city chooses to take a traditional role,or a more innovative path,there are other cities in the state with similar experiences and with whom the city would likely be able to share knowledge for mutual benefit. Summary of Alternatives The CCAC identified five primary options for action.They are: Option 1: Begin funding immediately. Under this option, it is conceived that the City ought to immediately begin funding the development of a downtown association. Option 2: Do not fund an association. Under this option, the position is that it is not an appropriate use of Cityfunds to help an association to develop itself. Option 3: Consider funding an association but not until certain conditions are met. Under this option, it is contemplated that an association would need to meet certain criteria in order to be viable and thus a sound investment of public funds. Option 4: Take a different approach. This option contemplates that the best way of achieving the goals set out for the Commission is not an association, but some other tool. Option 5: Make no recommendation. This option contemplates the inability to reach consensus on the matter. Evaluation of Alternatives Option 1: Begin funding immediately. Under this option, it is conceived that the City ought to immediately begin funding the development of a downtown association. Analysis. The CCAC identified some positive reasons to support this option, including recognition of the business community and a sense of keeping the plan moving in spite of economic conditions. However, the body found far more arguments could be made against this route, including but not limited to: • The research report demonstrated that there is no nexus between a successful downtown association and a successful urban renewal effort. • Funding an association at this time may be premature and simply set up the association for failure once r CCAC Preliminary Recommendation on 4 Organizational Leadership and Capacity in Downtown Tigard city funds cease. • Issues regarding incentive,perceived political endor,cmcnt, and lack of sufficient interest in the existing business community. * * r Option 2: Do not fund an association. Under this option, the position is that It is not an appropriate use of Cityfunds to help an association to develop itself. Analysis.The primary principle under this option is that any association that would be strong and healthy would need to come from the community itself. Funding of an association before there is demand or critical mass would not be helpful but rather would be setting that association up for failure once city funding ceased. The CCAC also identified numerous other reasons to support this option.The subcommittee's research showed,for example,that there was no demonstrable nexus between the existence of an association and success in an urban renewal project such as that the CCAC is charged with overseeing,thus making the creation of an association both a distraction and outside the purview of the CCAC.Numerous additional reasons were also contemplated suggesting that funding the formation of an association would be a poor use of City funds. Option 3: Consider funding an association but not until certain conditions are met. Under this option, it is contemplated that an association would need to meet certain criteria in order to be viable and thus a sound investment of public funds. Analysis. The CCAC found many reasons to support this option.The commission felt that this option best reflected the realities of the current conditions within downtown while leaving the door open for a more activist role for the City in the future. In the meanwhile,the City would be strongly encouraged to undertake activities that would lead towards conditions more hospitable to the flourishing of an association. The CCAC did identify a few negatives to this route,including the appearance of being ineffective and the potential for introducing delays into the process. Option 4: Take a different approach. This option contemplates that the best way of achieving the goals set out for the Commission is not an association, but some other tool. Analysis.This was the widest ranging of options,considering the possibility that the needs identified by Leland would be better met by tools other than an association. It would free the City to focus on more tangible improvements and projects. An almost equal amount of weaknesses were identified as well,most notably that,due to its custom nature,the identification and implementation of a"third way"would be time consuming for the CCAC. Option 5:Make no recommendation. This option contemplates the inability to reach consensus on the matter. Analysis.This option anticipated that the commission would be unable to reach consensus on the decision of funding an association.The CCAC believes no further analysis of this option is necessary. CCAC Preliminary Recommendation on 5 Organizational Leadership and Capacity in Downtown Tigard Preliminary Recommendation The option that the Commission recommends is Option 2. Do not fund an association. Under this option, the position is that it is not an appropriate use of Cityfunds to help an association to develop itself. After careful consideration of the matter,the CCAC feels that the funding of an association's development in Downtown Tigard would result in little return on investment and far more detriments than benefits within the community. This does not mean that the CCAC is recommending the City ought to ignore or choose not to work with an association or associations,merely that it should take no role in the development of such organizations. The first and largest reason for this stance is the recognition of the context of Downtown Tigard.At this time,it is evident that there are not conditions that are conducive to the success of an association. Multiple associations have existed or have been attempted within downtown within the last 10-20 years and every one of them has run into stagnation of one form or another.Based upon the local context and the research the subcommittee undertook,the CCAC believes that within downtown at this time there are not enough of the businesses of the type that are traditionally supportive of an association's functions.To fund an association at this juncture would be to set up an organization that would be chronically lacking in necessary volunteers and necessary non-City supplied funding. Following upon that finding, the CCAC further believes that the City ought not fund an association's formation or organizational development activities at all.Numerous reasons were identified,including: • Associations usually have an "owner".Based on the subcommittee's research, it was a frequent occurrence that associations often live or die based upon the activities of just one key individual.This is true of both positive and negative experiences. When that strong leader is absent,the organization often does not survive.This make associations an inherently weak tool for addressing private sector leadership. • Using City funds for an association is a dual edged sword.On one hand there is no guarantee,once the funding is disbursed,that the City will receive any benefits from the association,which may now do as it pleases. Conversely, if the City places conditions upon the money, it is quite likely that the association will be viewed as an arm of the City government rather than an independent group that represents the community first. • Use of public funds for private benefit.An association's primary purpose is often seen as benefitting private sector interests.Using public funds--regardless of the amount--for what will be perceived by the public as a private benefit could be negatively viewed by the public. • Political complications.Using City funds for an association could result in political divisions within and outside of downtown.The concept of paying a group whose role includes advocacy could result in the City getting"more than it bargained for"politically as well. Finally, there could be significant complications if more than one group emerged to contend for funding.Overall,funding an association would result in forcing the City to navigate significantly complex political waters in defense of a comparatively small investment that has few chances of returns. Finally,the CCAC believes that the funding of an association would be a major distraction to its work, and would prevent the City from addressing the goals earlier identified within this recommendation in a more immediate and meaningful way. It should be carefully and expressly stated that the CCAC is not advocating that the City ignore existing or future associations within downtown.The City,rather,ought to welcome the input of any and all organizations whose stated purpose includes the improvement of conditions within Downtown Tigard. In recommending Option 2,the CCAC is making the policy statement that such organizations ought to come into existence based upon the interest of the community they represent,rather than through the artificial intervention of City actions,and that such organizations should be independent of the City structure.The CCAC Preliminary Recommendation on 6 Organizational Leadership and Capacity in Downtown Tigard CCAC recommends that the City continues to have an open door policy to all such organizations. Rather than finding an association,the CCAC recommends certain other steps be undertaken by the City, including: • Review of obstacles.The CCAC recommends the City adopt an"obstacle removal"philosophy to downtown development.Existing codes and regulations should be reviewed carefully to determine what obstacles to development may currently exist,and subsequently revised to remove these obstacles. • Examination of enforcement.The flip-side of the prior suggestion is the recommendation that such regulations as the City deems useful for downtown should be enforced.An examination of how building,fire,and other codes are enforced downtown is suggested. • Setting of a downtown business strategy/policy.Although the CCAC has made many recommendations for downtown projects as part of the urban renewal district,so far the commission has not developed an area business policy for the City.Yet urban renewal projects will greatly shape land use,rent rates,and the character of the business environment within downtown.The CCAC feels that it should take the time as soon as practical to examine what its economic development goals are within downtown,including what kind of businesses it is hoping to retain and/or attract,and then use this policy as a tool to shape urban renewal activities. • Consideration of a project-based grant program.While the CCAC suggests that organizational development and administrative support of an association is not in the best interest of the City,the CCAC recognizes that third parties such as associations frequently are able to field interesting project ideas that are beneficial to downtown.The CCAC therefore recommends that if the City wishes to fund such activities within downtown,that it establish a clear and fair grant-based approach to the process. This would allow any organization meeting qualifying criteria to apply for and potentially receiving funding for activities on a project basis.This approach would largely eliminate many of the political pitfalls of direct funding and further would clearly measure the disbursement of funds against clear goals for downtown. Using these primary tools,the CCAC believes the City can best address the needs outlined in the goals identified earlier in this document: 1. Better champion and implement projects.By concentrating on making improvements directly"in the ground"rather than on organization building,the City will be able to make a direct and beneficial impact on Downtown Tigard more efficiently. 2. Manage the downtown at both the private and public levels.This recommendation recognizes the inherently individualistic nature of Downtown Tigard's private sector.Rather than attempt to change that,this option honors that uniqueness and instead works to find nontraditional solutions that will encourage individual private sector stakeholders to manage their portions of downtown better.Further, this recommendation recognizes that public monies are not best put to use for primarily private benefits, and concentrates on bettering the downtown environment with tools that are clearly within the public realm. 3. Bring stakeholders together for Place Making.Rather than expending funds and time on the creation of a new organization,the City has shown it is more than capable of bringing stakeholders together to undertake Place Making,most notably through the award-winning TD1P process. The City would bcst achieve Place Making by building on this experience and taking a central role in such efforts. 4. Strengthen relationships and improve communication between City and stakeholders.Currently there are numerous URD projects and efforts that will require public input.The City should utilize these requirements to take creative approaches that will build synergies between public input and community building. CCAC Preliminary Recommendation on 7 Organizational Leadership and Capacity in Downtown Tigard Action Plan The CCAC suggests the following steps for refining the City's plans for supporting organizational and leadership capacity in Downtown: April/May, 2009: Seek out public input on this option.It is recommended that the CCAC develop a public outreach program that will present the tools suggested for use in Option 2 to key stakeholders and the public at large.The goal will be to seek reactions,suggestions,and other forms of input from these groups to help refine the option.This will be especially critical in determining what obstacles currently exist in downtown,as well as what the business strategy/policy for downtown ought to be. This outreach will also give the CCAC an opportunity to foster better communication between the City and stakeholders. It is recommended that the City utilize nontraditional,participatory input methods that may include tactics borrowed from the charrette model of input. June-September, 2009: Refine option. Following initial public input, the CCAC will refine this option over the Summer to develop • List of obstacles needing review • List of enforcement recommendations • A business strategy/policy • A grant program October 2009: Present draft plans to stakeholders,public.Following refinement of this option,the draft recommendation would be presented to the public to receive a final round of input and make any necessary adjustments. October/November 2009: Make final refinement of plan and present to Council.Present an actionable plan to the Council for consideration. Option 3 Preliminary Recommendation to the City of Tigard Organizational Leadership and Capacity in Downtown Tigard January 14, 2009 Prepared by: City Center Advisory Commission OLCD Subcommittee: Alexander Craghead Thomas Murphy Elise Shearer CCAC Preliminary Recommendation on 2 Organizational Leadership and Capacity in Downtown Tigard Context& Background Downtown Tigard is a diverse environment with many interests and little community.This makes communication between stakeholders and the city,as well between the stakeholders and other stakeholders difficult.It also means that a coordinated vision of the future of downtown does not now exist amongst stakeholders. In 2007,the City of Tigard hired the Leland Consulting Group to assist in the creation of a development strategy for the Tigard downtown core. In the resulting Downtown Strategy,Leland recommends the creation of a downtown organization partly in response to the concerns previously mentioned.Additional concerns included providing a forum independent of the city government for advocacy and conflict resolution,as well as a venue for the private sector to demonstrate their support of downtown revitalization. This recommendation was forwarded by the City Council to the City Center Advisory Commission (CCAC),with the charge of determining if the recommendation should be implemented,and if so how. The CCAC has been concerned with the complexity of such an effort,and created a subcommittee in May of 2008 to investigate the issues surrounding the establishment of or support of a downtown association. This subcommittee conducted extensive research over the course of the summer,presenting their final research report to the CCAC on September 18,2008. Following the receipt of this report,the CCAC conducted a series of meetings to discuss the matter further. In December 2008,the CCAC asked the subcommittee to reconvene and draft three options for a recommendation to the CCDA.These recommendations were considered by the CCAC at the January 14, 2008 meeting,at which this preliminary recommendation was chosen. Goals&Objectives This recommendation seeks to address concerns raised by the Leland Consulting Group in their Development Strategy for Downtown Tigard. Leland recommends a series of specific options to "strengthen organization and leadership capacity in Downtown Tigard".They state the basis as follows: Successful downtowns are the result of strong leadership and great champions at both the public and private levels. While the city council is solidly behind downtown,private sector leadership is more fractured.Strengthening the private sector organization and improving communication between the City and the private sector is a prerequisite to successful redevelopment. Leland provides a somewhat more specific view of this issue in the strategic framework section of their report.They state that a"strong organization" is needed to"champion and implement projects"as "downtowns must be managed at both the public and private levels."They further support their recommendations by stating that it is critical to"[bring]these stakeholder groups of varied interests and perspectives together[as]...an integral part of Place Making strategy for Downtown Tigard."They conclude by stating that their specific recommendations are aimed at"strengthening relationships among existing(and future)stakeholder groups." Leland's specific statement of support for funding a downtown association states that the goals of this funding would be to subsidize the costs of an executive staff member for the association who would"lead initiatives and outreach,[and]actively[engage]business and property owners." Thus,we conclude that the objectives of any City funded effort at strengthening organizational leadership and capacity in Downtown Tigard would be to: 1. Better champion and implement projects; 2.Manage the downtown at both the private and public levels; 3. Bring stakeholders together for Place Making; 4. Strengthen relationships and improve communication between City and stakeholders. In examining the options before the CCAC,these four goals are vital. i CCAC Preliminary Recommendation on 3 Organizational Leadership and Capacity in Downtown Tigard Summary of Research The subcommittee's research determined that there is no clear route that stands out above all others;in short there are multiple ways of achieving revitalization goals. Some cities have chosen to participate in established,traditional forms,such as the National Trust's Main Street program,while others have chosen to create their own,innovative programs tailored to their specific needs In very few cases did associations have a direct impact on urban renewal efforts;however,by their nature they are often positioned well to undertake routine efforts such as promotion,maintenance,advocacy, business outreach,and other"soft"skills that cities without economic development departments general lack. Failure is common in such associations,and is usually the result of a lack of broad leadership(reliance on one or too few individuals),a lack of vision or purpose, and a lack of stable funding. Funding levels seem less important than funding stability. The subcommittee's conclusion was that the creation or support of a downtown association in Tigard would be a challenging effort. Making matters more complex is the high degree of failure rates that these associations experience,along with the broad path of options available. One important fact to note is that regardless of whether the city chooses to take a traditional role,or a more innovative path,there are other cities in the state with similar experiences and with whom the city would likely be able to share knowledge for mutual benefit. Summary of Alternatives The CCAC identified five primary options for action.They are: Option 1: Begin funding immediately. Under this option, it is conceived that the City ought to immediately begin funding the development of a downtown association. Option 2: Do not fund an association. Under this option, the position is that it is not an appropriate use of Cityfunds to help an association to develop itself. Option 3: Consider funding an association but not until certain conditions are met. Under this option, it is contemplated that an association would need to meet certain criteria in order to be viable and thus a sound investment of public funds. Option 4: Take a different approach. This option contemplates that the best way of achieving the goals set out for the Commission is not an association, but some other tool. Option 5: Make no recommendation. This option contemplates the inability to reach consensus on the matter. Evaluation of Alternatives Option 1: Begin funding immediately. Under this option, it is conceived that the City ought to immediately begin funding the development of a downtown association. Analysis. The CCAC identified some positive reasons to support this option, including recognition of the business community and a sense of keeping the plan moving in spite of economic conditions. However, the body found far more arguments could be made against this route, including but not limited to: • The research report demonstrated that there is no nexus between a successful downtown association and a successful urban renewal effort, • Funding an association at this time may be premature and simply set up the association for failure once t CCAC Preliminary Recommendation on 4 Organizational Leadership and Capacity in Downtown Tigard city funds cease. • Issues regarding incentive,perceived political endorsement,and lack of sufficient interest in the existing business community. Option 2: Do not fund an association. Under this option, the position is that it is not an appropriate use of Cityfunds to help an association to develop itself. Analysis.The primary principle under this option is that any association that would be strong and healthy would need to come from the community itself. Funding of an association before there is demand or critical mass would not be helpful but rather would be setting that association up for failure once city funding ceased. The CCAC also identified numerous other reasons to support this option.The subcommittee's research showed,for example,that there was no demonstrable nexus between the existence of an association and success in an urban renewal project such as that the CCAC is charged with overseeing,thus making the creation of an association both a distraction and outside the purview of the CCAC.Numerous additional reasons were also contemplated suggesting that funding the formation of an association would be a poor use of City funds. Option 3: Consider funding an association but not until certain conditions are met. Under this option, it is contemplated that an association would need to meet certain criteria in order to be viable and thus a sound investment of public fiends. Analysis. The CCAC found many reasons to support this option.The commission felt that this option best reflected the realities of the current conditions within downtown while leaving the door open for a more activist role for the City in the future. In the meanwhile,the City would be strongly encouraged to undertake activities that would lead towards conditions more hospitable to the flourishing of an association. The CCAC did identify a few negatives to this route,including the appearance of being ineffective and the potential for introducing delays into the process. Option 4: Take a different approach. This option contemplates that the best way of achieving the goals set oul for the Commission is not an association, but some other tool. Analysis. This was the widest ranging of options,considering the possibility that the needs identified by Leland would be better met by tools other than an association. It would free the City to focus on more tangible improvements and projects. An almost equal amount of weaknesses were identified as well,most notably that,due to its custom nature,the identification and implementation of a "third way"would be time consuming for the CCAC. Option 5: Make no recommendation. This option contemplates the inability to reach consensus on the matter. Analysis.This option anticipated that the commission would be unable to reach consensus on the decision of funding an association. The CCAC believes no further analysis of this option is necessary. CCAC Preliminary Recommendation on 5 Organizational Leadership and Capacity in Downtown Tigard Preliminary Recommendation The option that the Commission recommends is Option 3: Consider funding an association but not until certain conditions are met. Under this option, it is contemplated that an association would need to meet certain criteria In order to be viable and thus a sound investment of public funds. After careful consideration,the CCAC believes that an association may be beneficial to Downtown Tigard redevelopment,and that the City may have a role in funding such an effort. Benefits may include better communication between stakeholders and the City,as well as among stakeholders themselves,along with better marketing and maintenance of Downtown. However,the CCAC also feels that certain environmental conditions must be met before an association would be a good investment of public money. Funding an association before these conditions exist would be setting up such an organization for failure once public monies cease. It may also be a wasteful use of human capital on the part of both the City and the organization, leading to"burnout"on the part of volunteers if the organization fails to gain traction in a premature context. First,the CCAC feels that there must be a preexisting association that meets certain specific criteria, including but not limited to: • Inclusivity. • Adequate organizational structure. • Transparency and accountability. • Strong working relationship with other organizations and stakeholders. Any organization must have strength enough to coalesce without intervention from the City.The City does not have the ability to use funding to force private stakeholders to work or communicate with each other.A truly successful association will need to form when there is a critical mass that provides an adequate number of volunteers and financial supporters in the Downtown area. The CCAC further believes that the City should wait to fund an association until the following environmental conditions are met: • Critical Mass.In order to support a healthy association in Downtown Tigard,the area needs a greater number of retail businesses.This means that the area will need more retail occupied square footage. It is anticipated that, following some of the catalyst URD projects,the amount of square footage for retail (and its attractiveness to such tenants)will increase,thus improving the likely chances of success for an association. • URD Wins.Current conditions in the URD are little changed from when the district was formed in 2006. It is believed that there is little to no extra"excitement"on the part of existing or potential stakeholders.This situation likely will not change until some major projects are completed within the URD. Examples might include the Main Street green street project and the Burnham Street improvements,as well as the public plaza, • Better economic times.Current economic conditions are unfavorable to the creation of an association.A better economic climate will be more likely to result in the necessary private sector financial support for an association. In the meanwhile,there are specific actions that the CCAC recommends the City take to help foster an environment in which a healthy organization may thrive.These include: • Fast-tracking URD catalyst projects.The City should make catalyst projects such as the public plaza and various street improvements their number one priority and do everything within reason to achieve them in the near term.This may include being willing to undertake an unusually high degree of stakeholder communication as well as using a greater variety of tools to complete these projects. 1 CCAC Preliminary Recommendation on 6 Organizational Leadership and Capacity in Downtown Tigard • Improve the local business climate.The City should examine the local business climate with an eye towards making improvements that would lead to greater success in downtown.Actions might include the revision of"red tape" in downtown to make doing business easier,as well as • Improve public outreach efforts.The City can work towards fostering better relationships between itself and stakeholders by utilizing creative approaches to public input that would maximize communications.This might include greater one-on-one communication with key stakeholders,as well as using less traditional input tools such as charrettes and public workshops. This recommendation meets the four goals identified earlier in this document: 1. Better champion and implement projects.By waiting until certain conditions are met,the City is free to concentrate on core activities such as achieving success in URD catalyst projects. 2. Manage the downtown at both the private and public levels.This approach continues the strong record of downtown management on the part of the City while recognizing the inherently individualistic nature of the URD's private sector stakeholders. 3. Bring stakeholders together for Place Making.Rather than expending funds and time on the creation of a new organization,the City has shown it is more than capable of bringing stakeholders together to undertake Place Making,most notably through the award-winning TDIP process.The City would best achieve Place Making by building on this experience and taking a central role in such efforts. 4. Strengthen relationships and improve communication between City and stakeholders. Currently there are numerous URD projects and efforts that will require public input.The City should utilize these requirements to take creative approaches that will build synergies between public input and community building. Action Plan The CCAC suggests the following steps for refining the City's plans for supporting organizational and leadership capacity in Downtown: April/May, 2009: Seek out public input on this option.It is recommended that the CCAC develop a public outreach program that will present Option 3 to key stakeholders and the public at large.The goal will be to seek reactions,suggestions,and other forms of input from these groups to help refine the option. This outreach will also give the CCAC an opportunity to foster better communication between the City and stakeholders. It is recommended that the City utilize nontraditional,participatory input methods that may include tactics borrowed from the charrette model of input. June-August, 2009: Refine option. Following initial public input, the CCAC will refine this option over the Summer to develop: • Criteria.It will be necessary to develop criteria to judge when the appropriate time and conditions for the success of an association would be.This criteria would also include what characteristics the City would be looking for in an association with which to partner. • Implementation plans.This would be a set of recommendations for the nature of City involvement in an association. • List and schedule of interim actions.This would be a specific list of interim steps the CCAC would recommend the City undertake in order to bring about conditions that would lead to the success of an association in Downtown Tigard. September 2009: Present draft plans to stakeholders,public.Following the refinement of this option, the draft recommendation would be presented to the public to receive a final round of input and make any necessary adjustments. October/November 2009: Make final refinement of plan and present to Council.Present an actionable plan to the Council for consideration. City of Tigard FY 2009-10 Financial Forecast/Budget Calendar • November 2008 o Forecast Training • December, 2008 o Financial Forecast Due o Individual Department Training • January 2009 0 12-Department budget worksheets are available on the I drive 0 21 and 22-Department budget training 0 23-New FTE and position reclassification due to HR • February 2009 0 13-Budget requests and revenue due to Finance 0 17-Budget committee meeting 0 20-HR FTE and reclass reports to the Finance Department 0 23-27-Department meetings with Finance staff • March 2009 0 2-8-City Manager/Finance/Department meetings o 11-Budget wrap up meeting with Craig 0 13, 20, 27-Requested budget and proposed budget development(Finance and Craig) • April, 2009 0 3- Requested budget and proposed budget development(Finance and Craig) 0 6-Proposed budget to printer 0 10-Budget to budget committee 0 20-Exec Staff Budget Hearing preparation 0 27-Budget Committee hearing(CD, PW) 0 27-CCDA Budget Committee hearing • May, 2009 o 4-Budget Committee hearing (Recap 4/27 mtg., Police, Library, City Admin, Policy & Legislation) o 11-Budget Committee hearing(Recap 5/4 mtg., Citywide issue papers, Discussion and wrap up) 0 18-Budget Committee hearing if needed o 26-Budget materials due in council packet • June 9, 2009 o Budget presented to Council Option 4 Preliminary Recommendation to the City of Tigard Organizational Leadership and Capacity in Downtown Tigard January 14, 2009 Prepared by: City Center Advisory Commission OLCD Subcommittee: Alexander Craghead Thomas Murphy Elise Shearer CCAC Preliminary Recommendation on 2 Organizational Leadership and Capacity in Downtown Tigard Context& Background Downtown Tigard is a diverse environment with many interests and little community.This makes communication between stakeholders and the city,as well between the stakeholders and other stakeholders difficult.It also means that a coordinated vision of the future of downtown does not now exist amongst stakeholders. In 2007,the City of Tigard hired the Leland Consulting Group to assist in the creation of a development strategy for the Tigard downtown core. In the resulting Downtown Strategy,Leland recommends the creation of a downtown organization partly in response to the concerns previously mentioned.Additional concerns included providing a forum independent of the city government for advocacy and conflict resolution,as well as a venue for the private sector to demonstrate their support of downtown revitalization. This recommendation was forwarded by the City Council to the City Center Advisory Commission (CCAC),with the charge of determining if the recommendation should be implemented,and if so how. The CCAC has been concerned with the complexity of such an effort,and created a subcommittee in May of 2008 to investigate the issues surrounding the establishment of or support of a downtown association. This subcommittee conducted extensive research over the course of the summer,presenting their final research report to the CCAC on September 18,2008. Following the receipt of this report,the CCAC conducted a series of meetings to discuss the matter further.In December 2008,the CCAC asked the subcommittee to reconvene and draft three options for a recommendation to the CODA.These recommendations were considered by the CCAC at the January 14, 2008 meeting,at which this preliminary recommendation was chosen. Goals&Objectives This recommendation seeks to address concerns raised by the Leland Consulting Group in their Development Strategy for Downtown Tigard.Leland recommends a series of specific options to "strengthen organization and leadership capacity in Downtown Tigard".They state the basis as follows: Successful downtowns are the result of strong leadership and great champions at both the public and private levels. While the city council is solidly behind downtown,private sector leadership is more fractured.Strengthening the private sector organization and improving communication between the City and the private sector is a prerequisite to successful redevelopment. Leland provides a somewhat more specific view of this issue in the strategic framework section of their report.They state that a"strong organization"is needed to"champion and implement projects"as "downtowns must be managed at both the public and private levels."They further support their recommendations by stating that it is critical to"[bring]these stakeholder groups of varied interests and perspectives together[as]...an integral part of Place Making strategy for Downtown Tigard."They conclude by stating that their specific recommendations are aimed at"strengthening relationships among existing(and future)stakeholder groups." Leland's specific statement of support for funding a downtown association states that the goals of this funding would be to subsidize the costs of an executive staff member for the association who would"lead initiatives and outreach,[and]actively[engage]business and property owners." Thus,we conclude that the objectives of any City funded effort at strengthening organizational leadership and capacity in Downtown Tigard would be to: 1. Better champion and implement projects; 2. Manage the downtown at both the private and public levels; 3. Bring stakeholders together for Place Making; 4.Strengthen relationships and improve communication between City and stakeholders. In examining the options before the CCAC,these four goals are vital. CCAC Preliminary Recommendation on 3 Organizational Leadership and Capacity in Downtown Tigard Summary of Research The subcommittee's research determined that there is no clear route that stands out above all others; in short there are multiple ways of achieving revitalization goals. Some cities have chosen to participate in established,traditional forms,such as the National Trust's Main Street program,while others have chosen to create their own,innovative programs tailored to their specific needs In very few cases did associations have a direct impact on urban renewal efforts;however,by their nature they are often positioned well to undertake routine efforts such as promotion,maintenance,advocacy, business outreach,and other"soft"skills that cities without economic development departments general lack. Failure is common in such associations,and is usually the result of a lack of broad leadership(reliance on one or too few individuals),a lack of vision or purpose,and a lack of stable funding. Funding levels seem less important than funding stability. The subcommittee's conclusion was that the creation or support of a downtown association in Tigard would be a challenging effort. Making matters more complex is the high degree of failure rates that these associations experience,along with the broad path of options available. One important fact to note is that regardless of whether the city chooses to take a traditional role,or a more innovative path,there are other cities in the state with similar experiences and with whom the city would likely be able to share knowledge for mutual benefit. Summary of Alternatives The CCAC identified five primary options for action.They are: Option 1: Begin funding immediately. Under this option, it is conceived that the City ought to immediately begin funding the development of a downtown association. Option 2: Do not fund an association. Under this option, the position is that it is not an appropriate use of Cityfunds to help an association to develop itself. Option 3: Consider funding an association but not until certain conditions are met. Under this option, it is contemplated that an association would need to meet certain criteria in order to be viable and thus a sound investment of public funds. Option 4: Take a different approach. This option contemplates that the best way of achieving the goals set out for the Commission is not an association, but some other tool. Option 5:Make no recommendation. This option contemplates the inability to reach consensus on the matter. Evaluation of Alternatives Option 1: Begin funding immediately. Under this option, it is conceived that the City ought to immediately begin funding the development of a downtown association. Analysis. The CCAC identified some positive reasons to support this option, including recognition of the business community and a sense of keeping the plan moving in spite of economic conditions. However, the body found far more arguments could be made against this route,including but not limited to: • The research report demonstrated that there is no nexus between a successful downtown association and a successful urban renewal effort. • Funding an association at this time may be premature and simply set up the association for failure once CCAC Preliminary Recommendation on 4 Organizational Leadership and Capacity in Downtown Tigard city funds cease. • Issues regarding incentive,perceived political endorsement,and lack of sufficient interest in the existing business community. Option 2: Do not fund an association. Under this option, the position is that it is not an appropriate use of Cityfunds to help an association to develop itself. Analysis.The primary principle under this option is that any association that would be strong and healthy would need to come from the community itself. Funding of an association before there is demand or critical mass would not be helpful but rather would be setting that association up for failure once city funding ceased. The CCAC also identified numerous other reasons to support this option.The subcommittee's research showed,for example,that there was no demonstrable nexus between the existence of an association and success in an urban renewal project such as that the CCAC is charged with overseeing,thus making the creation of an association both a distraction and outside the purview of the CCAC.Numerous additional reasons were also contemplated suggesting that funding the formation of an association would be a poor use of City funds. + * r Option 3: Consider funding an association but not until certain conditions are met. Under this option, it is contemplated that an association would need to meet certain criteria in order to be viable and thus a sound investment of public funds. Analysis. The CCAC found many reasons to support this option. The commission felt that this option best reflected the realities of the current conditions within downtown while leaving the door open for a more activist role for the City in the future. In the meanwhile,the City would be strongly encouraged to undertake activities that would lead towards conditions more hospitable to the flourishing of an association. The CCAC did identify a few negatives to this route,including the appearance of being ineffective and the potential for introducing delays into the process. Option 4: Take a different approach. This option contemplates that the best way of achieving the goals set out for the Commission is not an association, but some other tool. Analysis.This was the widest ranging of options, considering the possibility that the needs identified by Leland would be better met by tools other than an association. It would free the City to focus on more tangible improvements and projects. An almost equal amount of weaknesses were identified as well,most notably that,due to its custom nature,the identification and implementation of a"third way" would be time consuming for the CCAC. Option 5: Make no recommendation. This option contemplates the inability to reach consensus on the matter. Analysis.This option anticipated that the commission would be unable to reach consensus on the decision of funding an association. The CCAC believes no further analysis of this option is necessary. CCAC Preliminary Recommendation on 5 Organizational Leadership and Capacity in Downtown Tigard Preliminary Recommendation The option that the Commission recommends is Option 4: Take a different approach. This option contemplates that the best way of achieving the goals set out for the Commission is not an association, but some other tool. After careful consideration, the CCAC believes that a downtown association is not the best tool to achieve better organization and leadership capacity in Downtown Tigard. The CCAC believes that this approach would invest far too much time,money, and effort in organizational development,rather than making direct and meaningful improvements in the concerns outlined in the goals section of this recommendation. The reality is that the business climate in Downtown is highly individualistic,and the likelihood of an organization being able to change that climate is slim,regardless of funding levels. However, the CCAC also believes that the City does have a role in supporting the development of downtown that goes beyond providing major infrastructure improvements. These actions may include activities ranging from marketing and branding to maintenance,event hosting,and the fostering of better communication. The CCAC believes that the best way to achieve these goals is on a case-by-case basis with solutions tailored to specific problems. While identifying a customized,unified strategy towards engaging the downtown will take more time than an "off-the-shelf'tool such as an association,a decentralized approach has the benefit of being able to be implemented far quicker.Targeted efforts at outreach,business support, and communication can be implemented and adjusted based on how staff resources are allocated as well as on the project priorities of the City/CCDA. Examples of alternate approaches that might be taken by the City include: • Direct funding of retail-oriented programs such as facade improvement grants; • Better public outreach policies; • Leveraging of public input opportunities with creative tools,e.g.charrettes; • Engaging directly in marketing&economic development activities; • Reviewing City policies and programs to make the area more"business friendly". This recommendation meets the four goals identified earlier in this document: 1. Better champion and implement projects.By concentrating on making improvements directly"in the ground"rather than on organization building,the City will be able to make a direct and beneficial impact on Downtown Tigard more efficiently. 2. Manage the downtown at both the private and public levels.This recommendation recognizes the inherently individualistic nature of Downtown Tigard's private sector. Rather than attempt to change that, this option honors that uniqueness and instead works to find nontraditional solutions that will encourage individual private sector stakeholders to manage their portions of downtown better. 3. Bring stakeholders together for Place Making.Rather than expending funds and time on the creation of a new organization,the City has shown it is more than capable of bringing stakeholders together to undertake Place Making,most notably through the award-winning TDIP process. The City would best achieve Place Making by building on this experience and taking a central role in such efforts. 4. Strengthen relationships and improve communication between City and stakeholders. Currently there are numerous URD projects and efforts that will require public input. The City should utilize these requirements to take creative approaches that will build synergies between public input and community building. CCAC Preliminary Recommendation on 6 Organizational Leadership and Capacity in Downtown Tigard Action Plan The CCAC suggests the following steps for refining the City's plans for supporting organizational and leadership capacity in Downtown: April/May,2009: Seek out public input on this option.It is recommended that the CCAC develop a public outreach program that will present Option 4 to key stakeholders and the public at large.The goal will be to seek reactions,suggestions,and other forms of input from these groups to help refine the option. This outreach will also give the CCAC an opportunity to foster better communication between the City and stakeholders.It is recommended that the City utilize nontraditional,participatory input methods that may include tactics borrowed from the charrette model of input. June-September,2009: Refine option.Following initial public input,the CCAC will refine this option over the Summer to develop: • List of"direct actions".The CCAC will identify a"menu"of possible non-capital activities that the City could directly engage in that would benefit the downtown area. • Improved public outreach policies.The CCAC will make a list of recommendations for improving public outreach policy in the City, including but not limited to the handling of public input and the opportunities to create relationship building synergies in public outreach programs. October 2009: Present draft plans to stakeholders,public.Following the refinement of this option,the draft recommendation would be presented to the public to receive a final round of input and make any necessary adjustments. October/November 2009: Make final refinement of plan and present to Council.Present an actionable plan to the Council for consideration.