10/14/2009 - Packet City of Tigard
City Center Advisory Commission — Agenda
r
MEETING DATE: Wednesday, October 14, 2009 —6:30-8:15 p.m.
MEETING LOCATION: Tigard City Hall- Red Rock Creek Conference Room
13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, OR 97223
1. Welcome and Introductions....................................................................................................6:30—6:35
2. Facade Improvement Program Discussion...........................................................................6:35 —7:05
(Paul Frank of LRS Architects)
Dismss program goals with on-retainer architect and members of FaFade Improvement Program subcommittee.
3. Review / Approve September Minutes..................................................................................7:05—7:10
4. Review Draft 2009 Annual Report of the CCAC................................................................7:10—7:40
(Sean Farrelly and Tom Murphy)
Review Draft Report to be finalized at the November 51h meeting and filed with the CCDA by December 1.
Downtown Website and CCAC Communication Tools.....................................................7:40—7:50
(Sean Farrelly and Tom Murphy)
Discuss new website and potential future role of CCAC. Please review new website prior to meeting
bttp://www.ti
gard-or.gov/downtown_tigard
7. Open Discussion.......................................................................................................................7:50— 8:15
Discussion of any topics that time has not permitted at previous meetings.
8. Adjourn.......................................................................................................................................8:15 p.m
CITY CENTER ADVISORY COMMISSION AGENDA— October 14, 2009
City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 1 503-639-4171 1 www.tigard-or.gov I Page 1 oP1
41 City Center Advisory Commission
Meeting Minutes
Date of Meeting: October 14, 2009
Location: Red Rock Creek Conference Room
Called to order by: Chair Thomas Murphy
Time Started: 6:30 p.m.
Time Ended: 8:34 p.m.
Commissioners Present: Carolyn Barkley; Vice Chair Alexander Craghead; Kevin Kutcher;
Peter Louw; Chair Thomas Murphy; Martha Wong; Linli Pao (alternate)
Commissioners Absent: Ralph Hughes,Alice Ellis Gaut, Elise Shearer
Others Present: Paul Frank, LRS Architects
Staff Present: Sean Farrelly, Senior Planner;Jerree Lewis, Executive Assistant
AGENDA ITEM #1: Welcome and Introductions
Important Discussion and/or Comments: Introductions were made.
Action Items (Follow-Up or Votes):
AGENDA ITEM #2: Facade Improvement Program Discussion
Important Discussion and/or Comments: Sean Farrelly and Paul Frank, LRS Architects,
briefed the Commissioners on the Fagade Improvement Program (Exhibits A and B). Sean advised
that the Fagade Improvement subcommittee has been meeting throughout the summer to work out
the program details. The information is being designed as a brochure that will be handed out to
property owners. Council will review the information at their October 271h meeting. LRS
Architects will be on retainer to provide the design assistance. They have done a lot of work for the
Portland Development Commission (PDC).
Mr. Frank advised that his firm did a walking tour of Main Street, took pictures, and cataloged some
of the inventory on Main Street. They identified several buildings that could benefit from the
program. He showed a few before and after pictures of PDC improvements that his firm has done
(Exhibit C).
Mr. Frank advised that the PDC acts as a referee between the client and the consultant. Everything
is done through the PDC. The consultants sit down with the client and ask what they want and
CCAC Meeting Minutes for October 14,2009 Page 1 of 6
how much they want to spend. The consultants then create examples of what could be done based
on vision and dollars. The PDC has a matching grant program, up to $20,000.
Staff advised that the Facade Improvement Program is a pilot project. There are 2 levels of
participation. The first level is free 30-40 hours of design services provided by the consultants.
There is enough money in the budget this year for design services for 4 projects. After the design
work is completed, the property/business owner can apply for a matching grant. There is a total of
$28,000 in the budget this year for matching funds.
The consultants give the business/property owner enough information so they can go to a
contractor directly to get pricing. The business/property owner contracts on their own for the
construction and installation.
Staff advised that applicants would have to go through the design assistance process first before
they could qualify for the matching grant. The first 4 qualified applicants will get the design
assistance; the matching grant portion would be competitive. It was clarified that applicants must
go through the design process.
It was suggested having dual signatures on the application for design assistance (Exhibit B) — one
for the owner, one for the applicant.
With regard to the $28,000 matching fund amount, if there is only 1 applicant, the entire amount
could go to that project. If there are more applicants, the City may choose to allocate the funds
differently, depending on the number of qualified applicants. Staff also advised that we will not
have a kick-off test project.
The Commission asked what would happen if the owner of a building had significant construction
issues, such as leaking roofs, bad wiring, etc., applied for a facade improvement grant. Mr. Frank
advised that there are 2 separate issues —maintenance and cosmetics. The facade improvement
money wouldn't apply to maintenance. Since the construction funds will be competitive, this is a
factor that should be taken into consideration. Staff noted that since the applicant/owner has to
match the money,we would have to assume that they're willing to invest in their building.
Staff advised that the pilot project will go to Council on October 27th. Once we have Council's
approval, the applications and brochure will be given to business/property owners. He referred to
the table on the back of Exhibit A which lists the eligibility requirements. It was noted that this is a
pilot program for this year and we will learn from it. If needed, it could be changed for next year.
Commissioner Pao asked why we couldn't include structural integrity and soundness as criteria
before we work on the fagade. Commissioner Kutcher thinks that if the property owner is willing
to spend their own money for facade work, they probably have some desire to maintain their
building. Chair Murphy reminded everyone that this is a pilot project and if we're going to pre-
screen projects, it will take a lot of money to evaluate the construction-worthiness of every property
to see who qualifies. He suggested we try the pilot project and see how it works.
CCAC Meeting Minutes for October 14,2009 Page 2 of 6
Action Items (Follow-Up or Votes): The Commissioners will receive copies of the Downtown
pictures taken by Mr. Frank.
AGENDA ITEM #3: Review/Approve Minutes
Important Discussion and/or Comments:
Action Items (Follow-Up or Votes): Motion by Commissioner Craghead, seconded by
Commissioner Kutcher, to adopt the minutes of September 16, 2009. The motion passed by a vote
of 5-0. Commissioner Louw abstained.
AGENDA ITEM #4: Review Draft 2009 Annual Report of the CCAC
Important Discussion and/or Comment: Chair Murphy advised that the report will have to be
ready for any final revisions and approval by the November meeting (November 5). The
Commissioners were asked to have their comments to Sean Farrelly, Commissioner Craghead, or
Chair Murphy preferably by October 23rd (no later than October 26th). The Commissioners
reviewed the draft 2009 annual report (Exhibit D) and offered the following comments:
■ We should include that we worked on goals to make meetings more efficient and possibly
state some of the goals.
■ We could say that this is the first time we have successfully set goals for the year and worked
to meet them.
■ On the last page, maybe we should give some specific examples of the efficiency of
meetings, agendas, and annual calendar development.
■ Maybe we could give the CCDA a new member orientation packet to show them what we
put together.
■ Does City Council really care about our process or do they just want to know our results?
■ I think they do care about the process.
■ In the past, we have had sketchy reports. We need to flesh out the information so they can
see what we're doing, and doing it well.
■ Under Goal 4, based on our Storefront Improvement Program, is #b true or does it need to
be modified since we're no longer doing 2 project models?
■ Under #b, we could modify the language to read, "Participate with staff in developing
project models" and then take out lower case i and ii.
■ We can expand on Goal #4 to reflect information that we now have.
■ We can take out "project models" and add "pilot project."
■ Add that Commissioners Pao and Wong attended an Urban Land Institute seminar [in
March] to get a better idea of what's going on in the Metro area and the State level about
developing around transportation cores and a report from the State Legislative session on
where funding was going.
■ Commissioner Craghead and Sean Farrelly attended a retail conference (International
Shopping Center Association) in May.
CCAC Meeting Minutes for October 14,2009 Page 3 of 6
■ We should add more information about the Outreach Subcommittee regarding
organizational leadership. Commissioner Craghead will send some revised language on that
item.
■ Commissioner Craghead will review the information about design guidelines.
■ Goal #6 does not have the number in front of it.
• Maybe we should have a cover letter with the report.
Action Items (Follow-Up or Votes): The revised report will be emailed to the Commissioners
and a hard copy will be in the November meeting packet. The report will be saved as a .doc
document.
AGENDA ITEM #5: Downtown Website and CCAC Communication Tools
Important Discussion and/or Comments: Chair Murphy advised that he wanted this on the
agenda so that people were aware that the Downtown website is out there. It's a source of
information that's available to everyone, so potentially it has an impact on the CCAC. It's well to
be aware of that.
This could potentially be better if there was direct input from the CCAC to the Downtown website.
He asked if there was someone who would consider monitoring the information or maybe
contributing to it. Sean advised that the Office Services staff concentrates on the look of the
website; he and Marissa Daniels provide the content. We are making an effort to keep it more
updated than it has been in the past; staff would also like to have it more centralized and have more
information. Sean advised that for the Burnham project, the City will have a Twitter feed.
Action Items (Follow-Up or Votes): Staff will let the Commissioners know if the CCAC should
have involvement with the website.
AGENDA ITEM #6: Open Discussion
Important Discussion and/or Comments: Commissioner Louw thinks there has been a
breakdown in outreach efforts to the business community for the Family Fest and the Halloween
events. He said there was initial contact on the Family Fest with City staff looking for a site to hold
the event, but there was no further communication. He would like to have had more
communication to the businesses. Commissioners Louw and Barkley expressed their frustration
with the confusion surrounding the Halloween event and the lack of communication to the vendors
on Main Street. Staff clarified that the City was not involved in organizing the Halloween event. It
was advertised in the Cityscape as a courtesy to the TCBDA with the information that they
provided. They later called and changed the date, so the date was changed on the online version of
Cityscape. The Police will be helping with security. Commissioner Craghead commented that even
if the City is not organizing the event, the fact that it goes out in a City publication makes it look
like the City is organizing it, so it reflects on the City.
CCAC Meeting Minutes for October 14,2009 Page 4 of 6
Commissioners Louw and Barkley noted that the merchants have no say about the Halloween
event. Commissioner Louw said that if we're trying to support the businesses Downtown,we need
to pull them together. These kinds of things divide the business community. He believes that, as a
committee, the CCAC can be involved in outreach or other methods to pull it together and make it
a positive thing.
The issue of a governing body in the Downtown was brought up. Because these events are held on
Main Street and because it's in the geography of what the CCAC is voicing their opinion and
thought over, Commissioner Kutcher wondered if we should be involved in recommending to
Council that all events be managed in a specific way. Commissioner Craghead noted that we will
want to have more events in the Downtown which means it could become more of a problem if we
continue on the existing path.
Staff suggested that business owners attend TCBDA meetings and discuss their concerns.
Commissioner Louw noted that TCBDA meetings are held during business hours and it's difficult
to attend. It was suggested to make this a future agenda item and discuss if the CCAC should have
a role, and if so,what would that be. Chair Murphy remarked that this comes back to the
Downtown leadership issue which needs to be looked at again by the Commission.
Commissioner Pao said she would like to revisit the publicity aspect in light of what the future plans
for Downtown will be.
The Burnham Street groundbreaking ceremony was mentioned. The ceremony will be on October
201h at 3:00 p.m.
The secretary advised that the CCAC retreat will be held at the Brew Pub on Main Street at 9:00
a.m. on January 18, 2010. If there are items that Commissioners would like to discuss at the retreat,
they were advised to let one of the retreat subcommittee members know (Tom, Alexander,Linli,
Elise).
Commissioner Pao said she has noticed that occasionally meeting decisions reach a point of
frustration and by the time we get to voting, most people are exhausted and confused or have given
up. We don't table it because we're afraid that the same thing will happen at the next meeting.
Sometimes we get into decisions without truly feeling that we got to a good place. The
Commissioners who represent Main Street the most immediately tend to be the ones who get to the
point of frustration the most often. Also,we don't hear very much from some members of the
Commission before we move into voting, so it's difficult to tell exactly what other thoughts there
are that haven't been said.
Chair Murphy said, in a way, we've got that same tension between values. He wants everyone to
have the opportunity to speak fully. He also does not want people to get to the point of exhaustion
and for us to chronically be getting out of meetings close to 10:00. It's a tough balance to strike.
He would like to hear back from people on where that balance is.
Commissioner Wong said that in a committee made up of people with different backgrounds and
personalities, we have to expect that some people will talk and express their opinions more than
CCAC Meeting Minutes for October 14,2009 Page 5 of 6
others, but it's not a bad thing if somebody doesn't speak up. Sometimes other people have already
said the same thing, or at other times, maybe a compromise is just as good. Each person probably
has their own limits or tolerance as to how passionate they are on different subjects.
Commissioner Barkley believes that sometimes what Commissioner Pao said is very valid. Being a
Downtown business owner, sometimes she gets the feeling that too many Commissioners feel that
something may be good enough, while she and Commissioner Louw are impacted by it. She thinks
that's where their frustration comes from. They're dealing with things differently than the other
Commissioners and she doesn't always feel that she's getting her concerns across to others. She's
dealing with things that she's been passionate about for a long time and doesn't feel people are
hearing her. Communication could be part of the issue.
Commissioner Louw likes to hear all points because it opens up a conversation. It brings
information forward to be considered. He doesn't take things personally. Since he has a business
Downtown, he has a biased point of view so he may not think of everything. It's good to get
everyone's thoughts on the table to shed more light. Because the Commissioners represent the City
at large, it's good to discuss issues and consider options. He encouraged Commissioners to share
what they're thinking and not hold back.
Because the Halloween issue was brought up to other Commissioners who knew nothing about the
problems, Commissioner Kutcher noted that we now have an action plan to put it on our agenda
and try to bring some sort of conclusion to it. He is confident that the Commissioners will find a
solution that will create new policy and set the stage for success for all events.
Commissioner Craghead reported that he has been having discussions with other Commissioners
about the fallout of the TriMet redevelopment of the Transit Center (feasibility study). There is
some concern about what that means for development in general in Downtown. This is something
that should be discussed in the future. Chair Murphy believes that the Transit Center site will be
included in the 2010 goals for the Commission.
Action Items (Follow-Up or Votes):
AGENDA ITEM #7: Adjournment
Important Discussion and/or Comments:
Action Items (Follow-Up or Votes): The meeting adjourned at 8:34 p.m.
ee Lewis, CCAC Secretary
ATTEST:
Chair Thomas Murph
CCAC Meeting Minutes for October 14,2009 Page 6 of 6
E411b14 Iq
DRAFT
Main Street
Facade Improvement Program
h
lip
! 6
6 7
Program Information
Thank you for your interest in the Main Street Fagade Improvement Program. The Main Street
Fagade Improvement Program was established to provide direct assistance to businesses and
property owners within the Downtown Urban Renewal District to upgrade the appearance of
storefronts to create a more attractive place to shop,recreate, do business, and invest in. It is
funded by Urban Renewal funds that have been generated in the District.
The pilot program has two parts. The first is Fagade Improvement Design Assistance.This
assistance is completely free to eligible applicants and is available"first come, first served". It
provides for 30-40 hours of design services of an architect. The architect will meet with you and
discuss your objectives for the building's facade. The design will also be consistent with the
Downtown design standards.The architect will complete schematic design level drawings and also a
general estimate of the cost of the project.
The second part of the program is the Fagade Improvement Matching Grant. Applicants who
have received Design Assistance and who wish to be considered for the grant can fill out an
additional application and undergo a competitive process to receive a 50%matching grant to
complete the project. Funds are available to provide up to $28,000 in match.
DRAFT
The design schemes will be reviewed by the Fagade Improvement Subcommittee. The following
factors will be considered in selecting a project for funding:
• Compliance with all applicable design standards,Development, and Building Code
regulations.
• The degree of visible and substantial improvement on the property.
• The potential for positive impact on Main Street.
• Maximizing private investment(ratio of public funds to private funds.)
For projects that are selected for a matching grant:
• Plans submitted will be reviewed by the Planning and Building Departments. Approved
plans, together with construction bids and construction schedules,are reviewed to determine
the final grant amount.
• After signing a CCDA/Developer agreement,you will contract on your own for
construction and installation.
• Upon completion the grant amount is awarded. Arrangements can be made for partial
awards upon completion of specific project phases.
Program Eligibility:
Eligible Participants Main Street commercial property owners and business lessees of
ro erty with written authorization of the property owner
Ineligible Participants National franchises,government offices and agencies,residential
properties
Rehabilitation of building facades visible to the street,including
storefronts;cornices,gutters and downspouts;signs and
Eligible Work graphics;exterior lighting;canopies and awnings;painting and
masonry cleaning;interior window display lighting,permit and
des' fees
Maintenance improvements;roofs;structural foundations;
Ineligible Work billboards;security systems;non-permanent fixtures;interior
window coverings;vinyl awnings;personal property and
equipment;security bars;razor/ barbed wire fencing;
landscaping, sidewalks, and paying
Design Requirements Must meet new Downtown Design Standards,and applicable
Development and Building Code standards
For more information contact project manager Sean Farrelly (503) 718-2420,sean@igard-or.gov
DRAFT
Main Street Facade Improvement Program
Application for Design Assistance
Building Address:
Building Owner:
Address:
Phone: Signature:
Applicant (If Not Owner):
Business:
Does the business have a Tigard Business License? Yes No
If no, please explain
Address:
Phone: Signature:
For more information contact project manager Sean Farrelly (503) 718-2420, scan@tigard-or.gov
THE DESOTO BUILDING g2oo BARNES ROAD
C ♦ S
s:: Vis= �E •� � i ..
AFTER BEFORE
STORABLES SHERMAN CLAY
°
Vim-= -
BEFOR AFTER BEFORE
r I
i
BEFORE BEFORE
CITY OF TIGARD Lr
�
COMMERCIAL FACADE IMPROVEMENT PILOT PROGRAM
ARCHITECTS
DRAFT
2009 Annual Report of the City Center Advisory Commission
In its meeting on April 9, 2009, the City Center Advisory Commission ("CCAC")
unanimously adopted goals for calendar year 2009. A copy of those goals is appended to this
report as Attachment"A." The agenda for the CCAC for the balance of 2009 was largely
devoted to developing and implementing those goals. This report is organized around that
framework.
Goal No. 1 - Downtown Land Use & Design Code
a. Review land use & design code
b. Participate in public hearings and open houses
C. State formal position to City Council
In 2007, the CCAC and the Tigard Planning Commission("TPC") appointed a joint
subcommittee to review the land use regulations and design code provisions applicable to the
Urban Renewal District("the URD"), and to propose revisions that would promote the goals of
the Urban Renewal Plan ("the Plan"). The City had retained TGM Grant Consultants to assist
with technical aspects of that review and revision. In May 2009,the TPC/CCAC joint
subcommittee completed its work with the consultants. The CCAC analyzed and debated the
proposed revisions to the land use and design standards at its regular meeting on June 10, 2009,
in a specially-scheduled work session one week later, and again in the regular meeting on July 8,
2009. During the latter meeting,the proposed revisions of the land use and design standards for
the URD were endorsed, with limited amendments, and were forwarded to the TPC for its
consideration.
The proposed revisions of the land use and design standards for the URD were presented
and displayed to the public at the Open House held on July 29, 2009. CCAC members and city
staff were available to discuss the proposed revisions with Tigard residents.
The TPC held a public hearing on the proposed land use and design standards for the
URD for Monday, October 19, 2009.
It is anticipated that the proposed revisions to the land use and design standards
applicable to the URD will be on the agenda of the City Council in December 2009 for final
action.
Goal No. 2 - Downtown Circulation Plan
a. Participate in public/business outreach
b. Participate in open houses
C. State formal position to City Council
The CCAC began its work on the Downtown Circulation Plan at its April 2009 meeting
by commenting on a conceptual diagram of future surface transportation routes in the URD.
Because of the complexity and potential impact of this task, the CCAC held a work session on
April 22, 2009 devoted solely to discussing and"marking up"the conceptual diagram and
identifying values to be served by revisions to the transportation system. City staff then utilized
the marked-up diagram and the statement of values in orienting the work of the consultants
r
DRAFT
retained to develop the Plan. Representatives of one of the consultants, SERA Architects, made
presentations to the CCAC at the July 2009, August 2009 and September 2009 meetings on the
emerging form and content of the Plan. The Circulation Plan concepts were also presented to the
public at the Open House on July 29, 2009.
At its September 2009 meeting, the CCAC endorsed one of the two options presented by
the consultants. With that endorsement, the Circulation Plan has been forwarded to be evaluated
as part of the Transportation System Plan update and review by the the City's Transportation
Advisory Committee. It is anticipated that the Circulation Plan will come before the CCAC
again for final consideration prior to the public hearing process leading to Plan adoption..
Goal No. 3 - Main Street Green Street
a. Participate in public/business outreach
b. Provide on-going feedback/recommendations to Council
The Main Street Green Street improvements will have significant impacts, both short-
and long-term, on businesses and property owners in the URD. Trying to make a living in an
active construction zone can present special challenges. In view of this, several members of the
CCAC paired up with representatives of City staff during June 2009 to contact Main Street
businesses and property owners,to explain the Main Street Green Street project, to hear their
concerns and answer their questions. The outreach effort produced generally positive responses.
Questionnaires that were completed during the interviews were forwarded to City staff. It is the
CCAC's understanding that safety concerns will be considered and addressed internally, while
the balance of the public input will be provided to the consultants to be retained by the City to
oversee and coordinate the project.
The Main Street Green Street project was presented to the public at the Open House on
July 29, 2009. CCAC members and City staff were present to discuss the project and answer
questions.
It is anticipated the City will have a finalized work program with a consultant by the end
of the year. The CCAC will function as the Citizen Advisory Committee for that project, and will
continue to assist the consultant with public outreach.
Goal No. 4 - Storefront Improvement Program
a. Promote benefits and opportunities to business community
b. Participate with Staff in developing 2 project models
i. i large scale (full facade development)
ii. 1 small budget (i.e.: paint,awnings, planters)
The CCDA and the CCAC formed a joint subcommittee, which first met in June,to
develop and implement a pilot Commercial Fagade Improvement Program in the URD. Through
the efforts and with the input of the subcommittee, the City issued a request for qualifications
and retained LRS Architects as the on-retainer architecture firm for the Facade Improvement
Program. At its October 2009 meeting, the CCAC met with a representative of the firm to
discuss the program's goals and implementation. It is anticipated that the program will be up
and running and applications from eli ible property and business owners will be actively
t
DRAFT
solicited startinp, in November.
Goal No. 5 - Tigard Transit Center
a. Review study as presented to CCAC
b. Provide feedback and recommendations to CCDA
At its meeting on August 12, 2009, the CCAC heard the presentation and received the
written report of Johnson Reid, the consultant on land use economics retained by the City to
analyze the feasibility of high-density mixed-use development of the Tigard Transit Center site
(as well as an adjacent privately-owned parcel). The results were disappointing. The consultant
concluded that, in current market conditions,the contemplated development of the Transit Center
site would not generate sufficient income to offset the relatively high costs of construction. The
consultant's report was forwarded to the CCDA without a recommendation.
It is anticipated that the CCAC will return to the topic of development on the Transit
Center site in 2010. The parcel is central to the URD, both in location and in potential
significance. Tri-Met, the present owner, is apparently a"willing seller" (under the right
circumstances). The opportunity cannot be ignored.
Other.
The reconfiguration of the Greenburg Road/Pacific Highway and the Hall
Boulevard/Pacific Highway intersections were presented to the public at the Open House on July
i
29, 2009. CCAC members were paired with City staff for those presentations.
The CCAC presented its preliminary recommendation on downtown organizational
leadership to the CCDA on February 17, 2009. The CCAC has not taken further formal action
on that recommendation. It is submitted,however, that the outreach to Main Street businesses
and property owners in furtherance of the Main Street Green Street project (described under Goal
No. 3 above) is just the sort of"different approach"to realizing the benefits of a downtown
organization which is contemplated by the preliminary recommendation. It is anticipated that the
CCAC will return to the topic of downtown organizational leadership in 2010.
Review,participate as needed, and provide on-going feedback/ recommendations for the
following projects:
• Burnham Street- In 2008 the CCAC chair and the Mayor visited several Burnham Street
property owners to talk about the project's importance and listen to owners concerns related
to right of way acquisition.This outreach played a role in the ultimate acquisition of
necessary ROW,and the subsequent awarding of the construction contract and the
groundbreaking for the project in October.
• Lower Fanno Creek Park. Preliminary work completed in August 2009 and the
CWS re-meander of creek and bridge replacement will start summer 2010. This work
implements recommendations of the Fanno Creek Pak and Plaza Master Plan which was worked on
by members of the CCAC.
1
DRAFT
• 99W Urban Design
Members attended review meetings and provided feedback to the University of Oregon
graduate students working on the project.
Continually improve CCAC processes and procedures including, but not limited to:
New Member Orientation
Efficiency of meetings and agendas
Annual calendar development
• Held the first CCAC retreat in January, 2009.
• Completed training on external communications and internal processes
Tigard Oregon • • • • • •
•
\rteSoil
, J
,�W�.`
FY 2009-2010 CITY CENTER DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
City Center Development Agency
City of Tigard
Fiscal Year 2009 —2010
CITY CENTER DEVELOPMENT AGENCY BUDGET COMMITTEE
Jason Snider Craig Dirksen
Rick Parker Gretchen Buehner
John Bailey Sydney Webb
Dena Struck Marland Henderson
Cameron James Nick Wilson
Dan Goodrich (Alternate)
CITY CENTER DEVELOPMENT AGENCY BOARD
Craig Dirksen, Chair
Gretchen Buehner Sydney Webb
Nick Wilson Marland Henderson
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
Craig Prosser
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
Ron Bunch
SENIOR PLANNER for DOWNTOWN
Sean Farrelly
FINANCE and INFORMATION SERVICES DIRECTOR
Toby LaFrance
r
i
CITY CENTER DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard,OR 97223 503-6394171
Cover Graphic from Tigard Downtown Future Vision by Tigard Community Development and University of
Oregon
PAGE 2- CITY OF TIGARD
FY 2009-2010 BUDGET TRANSMITTAL
Citizens of Tigard,
I am pleased to present to you the third annual budget for Tigard's City Center Development Agency
(CCDA). I proposed this budget to the CCDA Budget Committee in April of 2009. The Budget
Committee (made up of five citizens of Tigard and the five members of the City Council, plus an alter-
nate citizen member) reviewed the proposed budget in May and recommended it to CCDA Board
(made up of the five members of the City Council) for adoption. The CCDA Board adopted this
budget on June 9,2009.
The City Center Development Agency is charged with the revitalization of Downtown and implemen-
tation of the Urban Renewal Plan which was approved by voters in May of 2006. Community expecta-
tions for revitalizing Downtown are high; however the ability to fulfill this vision is, at present, con-
strained. The source for the Agency's revitalization efforts is the property taxes collected on the
growth in assessed value in the urban renewal district since its establishment. While it was expected
that property tax receipts would not be significant in the first few years, due to the limited private in-
vestment in the Downtown up to now,incremental growth has been even lower than projected.
However,progress is being made on projects that will ultimately benefit the Downtown. Tri-Met's
WES Commuter Rail service commenced in February of 2009,improving Downtown Tigard's connec-
tion to the region and presenting an opportunity for redevelopment around the new station.
The Burnham Street reconstruction project will start this year. Design work for reconstructing the
southern portion of Main Street as a green street will also begin and a Downtown Circulation Plan will
be completed. A Design Future Vision was completed in January of 2009 that showed how the district
could evolve over the next fifty years. Other projects that are currently, or soon to be, underway in-
clude the Transit Center redevelopment study; the 99W/Greenburg and 99W/Hall intersection im-
provements; the Community Partners for Affordable Housing Senior Housing Project; the Fanno
Creek Re-meander project;new Land Use and Design regulations; and an enhanced pedestrian crossing
to the Tigard Public Library. There is also the future prospect of light rail in the 99W Corridor. The
Downtown has also captured the imagination of the region and is held up as an innovative example of
the potential to create a livable and prosperous suburban downtown. The Agency is fortunate to have
an engaged and committed citizen advisory body,the City Center Advisory Commission (CCAC),
which has made recommendations on many critical issues.
Staff and material support for Downtown Urban Renewal will continue to be derived from the City's
General Fund. This fiscal year the funds intended for projects and activities that will directly enhance
the economic development prospects of Downtown, and the consequent future growth of tax incre-
ment revenues are assigned to the City Center Development Agency budget.This is necessary to prop-
erly account for expenditures that can ultimately be paid back to the General Fund by tax increment
growth.
The adopted Agency budget for Fiscal Year 2009-2010 consists of two funds: the Urban Renewal
Capital Projects Fund and the Debt Service Fund. The Urban Renewal Capital Projects Fund is sup-
ported by loans from the City of Tigard, (which will be repaid with interest.)This fiscal year the
Agency will direct this fund to invest in professional services and other projects designed to promote
private investment that will increase the increment. The focus of these services will be fostering oppor-
tunities for redevelopment and/or renovation of properties. Examples of such programs include envi-
ronmental assessments of Brownfields, development opportunity studies, and storefront improvement
grants.
CCDA ADOPTED BUDGET- PAGE 3
FY 2009-2010 BUDGET TRANSMITTAL
The Debt Service Fund reflects the revenues anticipated to be generated by the growth in the assessed
value of the urban renewal district. In FY 2009-10 we expect the increment to be$177,004.The Fund
contains a balance of$159,862 collected in FY 2007-08 and FY 2008-09,including interest. Under state
law,these revenues may only be used for the repayment of indebtedness. Since the first loan was made
in FY 2008-09 and repayment does not start for two years,in FY 2010-11,there are no budgeted loan
repayments in the proposed 2009-10 Budget. Under the Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) between
the City Center Development Agency and the City of Tigard,loans from Tigard to the CCDA are re-
paid in ten equal payments on the principle starting ten years after the loan;however,interest payments
start in the second year after the loan. The CCDA can choose to repay loans earlier.
The objective of the City Center Development Agency is to engage stakeholders and foster economic
development in the Downtown. Despite the economic downturn,property and business owners will be
engaged to plan for the future,and set up partnerships than can be acted,upon when the economy im-
proves. I am optimistic that this year's budget will take the Urban Renewal District out of its formative
stages to where revitalization projects actually take place.
Respectfully submitted,
Craig Prosser
Executive Director
PAGE 4- CITY OF TIGARD
FY 2009-2010 URBAN RENEWAL BOUNDARY MAP
Li
''ti:'� .{' 'Jar''J� ,, '.��'- \,� \ ( f'�- �•-�' f`= p'� � �!
y i \ \ �
<11
2 op
XX
IL
Urban Renewal Zme urban Renewal Boundary Stream
City of-riprd _ Taxlol Boundary Rallhoad
Oregon
Clilvviek:WmouudLY MnlupkwN Dpi did;"'M
Rwrael• (lttol'Ti d 9V!{liiu 1M(uart'.Mqr. " • �'
CODA ADOPTED BUDGET-PAGE 5
FY 2009-2010 CITY CENTER DEVELOPMENT AGENCY FACTS
District Formation Date..................................................................................May 2006
DistrictSize (acres)................................................................................................ 193.71
District Tax Lot Area (acres): .............................................................................. 144.14
District Right-of-Way Area (acres) ....................................................................... 49.57
Base Assessed Value ...................................................................................$69,207,378
Assessed Value (2009) ................................................................................$78,530,005
Annual taxes levied (projected 2010)..............................................................$177,004
Maximum Debt Limit:.................................................................................$22,000,000
DebtIssued:...................................................................................................................$0
Remaining Debt Limit.................................................................................$22,000,000
PAGE 6- CITY OF TIGARD
URBAN RENEWAL CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND SUMMARY
Actuals Revised Proposed Approved Adopted
Description 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2009-10 2009-10
3000 Beginning Fund Balance SO $0 $0 $27,967 $27,967 $27,967
Total Fund Balance&Reserves $0 $0 $0 $27,967 $27,967 $27,967
Property Taxes
Total Property Taxes $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Grants
Total Grants $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Interagency Revenues
4250 Intergovernmental Revenue $0 $0 $379,269 $150,000 150,000 150,000
Total lnteragencyRevenues $0 $0 $379,269 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000
Fees&Charges
Total Fees&Charges $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Fines&Forfeitures
Total Fines&Forfeitures $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Franchise Fees
Total Franchise Fees $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Interest and Rental Earnings
Total Interest and Rental Earnings $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Bond and Note Proceeds
Total Bond and Note Proceeds $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Other Revenues
Total Other Revenues $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Fund Transfers
Total Fund Transfers $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL RESOURCES $0 $0 $379,269 $177,967 $177,967 $177,%7
Program Expenditures
Total Program Expenditures $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Loans
Loan to CCDA
Total Loans $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Capital Improvement Program $0 $0 $379,269 $177,967 $177,967 $177,967
Total Capital Improvement Program $0 $0 $379,269 $177,967 $177,967 $177,967
Transfers Out
Total Transfers to Other Funds $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Contingency
Total Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Total Budget $0 $0 $379,269 $177,967 $177,967 $177,967
_ Ending Fund Balance $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Total Requirements $0 $0 $379,269 $177,967 $177,967 $177,967
CODA ADOPTED BUDGET- PAGE 7
URBAN RENWAL DEBT SERVICE FUND SUMMARY
Actuals Revised Proposed Approved Adopted
Description 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2009-10 2009-10
50 $0 $39,662 $159,979 $159,979 $159,979
Total Fund Balance&Reserves $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Property Taxes
4000 Current Property Taxes SO S38,469 S41,000 5177,004 S177,004 $177,004
Total Property Taxes $0 $38,469 $41,000 $177,004 $177,004 $177,004
Grants
Total Grants $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Interagency Revenues
Total Interagency Revenues $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Fees&Charges
Total Fees&Charges $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Fines&Forfeitures
Total Fines&Forfeitures $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Franchise Fees
Total Franchise Fees $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Interest and Rental Earnings
4700 Interest Eamings 50 $1,193 $3,000 $718 S718 5718
Total Interest and Rental Earnings $0 $1,193 $3,000 $718 $718 $718
Bond and Note Proceeds
Total Bond and Note Proceeds $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Other Revenues
Total Other Revenues $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Fund Transfers
Total Fund Transfers $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL RESOURCES $0 $39662 $83,662 $337,701 $337,701 $337,701
Program Expenditures
Total Program Expenditures $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Loans
Total Loans $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Capital Improvement Program $0 S0 SO $0 $0 SO
Total Capital Improvement Program $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Transfers Out
Total Transfers to Other Funds $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Contingency
Total Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Tota!Budget $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Ending Fund Balance $0 $39,662 $83,662 $337,701 $337,701 $337,701
Total Requirements $0 $39,662 $83,662 $337,701 $337,701 $337,701
PAGE 8 - CITY OF TIGARD
FY 2009-10 URBAN RENEWAL PROJECTS
Storefront Improvement Program- $40,000
To enhance the commercial atmosphere on Main Street, a storefront improvement program will be
developed. The budget includes funding for a pilot program that could be expanded in future fiscal
years. The budget will pay for technical assistance from professional architects as well as cash grants
to property or business owners who wish to improve their commercial building's facades. Program
standards (to be developed) will establish the criteria for projects, the number of projects to be
funded, and the required match from the participant.
Environmental Assessment- $15,000
Funds will be available for initial environmental assessments of potential Brownfield properties that
are candidates for redevelopment.
Redevelopment/Marketing/Real Estate Studies and Assistance- $95,000
This project consists of funding professional services (in real estate development and economics,ar-
chitecture, and other needed specialists) to foster the opportunities for the redevelopment and/or
renovation of properties. The goal is to increase the tax increment revenues in the urban renewal dis-
trict. A major program will be development opportunity studies to provide business and property
owners the technical assistance and resources to assess the feasibility of redeveloping properties in
the urban renewal district. Eligible pre-development activities include architectural,planning,and en-
gineering studies,and real estate market and financial analysis.This fund will also pay for the printing
of planning and promotional materials for the Downtown
Carryover Projects- $27,967
Two projects started in Fiscal Year 2008-9,the Downtown Circulation Plan and the Tigard Transit
Center Redevelopment Feasibility Study,will be completed in the new fiscal year.
Total: $177,967
CCDA ADOPTED BUDGET- PAGE 9