Loading...
05/12/2010 - Packet City of Tigard r r . City Center Advisory Commission ❑ Agenda MEETING DATE: Wednesday, May 12, 2010— 6:30-8:30 p.m. MEETING LOCATION: Tigard Public Library- 2nd Floor Conference Room 13500 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, OR 97223 1. Welcome and Introductions......................................................................................................6:30— 6:35 2. Review / Approve April Minutes............................................................................................6:35 —6:40 3. FY 2010-2011 Approve Downtown Redevelopment Work Program.............................. 6:40— 6:50 Action item: Consider endorsement to CCDA (Sean Farrelly) 4. Potential Fee Subsidy for Downtown Temporary Uses......................................................6:50 — 7:10 Discussion and Potential Action Item (Consider endorsement to CCDA) (Sean Farrelly) 5. Urban Renewal Relocation Policy..........................................................................................7:10— 7:30 Discussion and direction to staff (Sean Farrelly) 6. Downtown Circulation Plan....................................................................................................7:30 — 8:15 A. Circulation Plan Review process B. Form plan review sub-committee C. Tigard and Commercial/Main intersections discussion D. Asb Avenue connection over Fanno (Sean Farrelly) 7. Updates ........................................................................................................................................ 8:15 — 8:25 A. Report on ICSC Alliance Presentation (private/public partnerships in retail development) (Chair Craghead, Commissioner Shearer) B. CCDA Budget Update 8. Other Business............................................................................................................................. 8:25 — 8:30 9. Adjourn.........................................................................................................................................8:30 p.m. Upcoming meetings of note: 5/10:City/CCDA Budget Committee meeting(@PW Auditorium) 5/11: Council presentation Pacific Highway Vision 5/17: City/CCDA Budget Committee meeting(@PW Auditorium) 6/8:City/CCDA Budget Adoption 6/9:Regular CCAC meeting(@Library 2nd Floor) CITY CENTER ADVISORY COMMISSION AGENDA— May 12, 2010 City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, OR 97223 1 503-639-4171 1 www.tigard-or.gov I Page 1 oft City Center Advisory Commission Meeting Minutes 9 It . Date of Meeting: May 12, 2010 Location: Tigard Public Library—2nd Floor Conference Room Called to order by: Chair Alexander Craghead Time Started: 6:30 p.m. Time Ended: 8:45 p.m. Commissioners Present: Carolyn Barkley; Chair Alexander Craghead; Ralph Hughes; Kevin Kutcher; Peter Louw; Vice Chair Thomas Murphy; Elise Shearer; Martha Wong;Linli Pao (alternate); Philip Thornburg (alternate) Commissioners Absent: Alice Ellis Gaut Others Present: Richard Shavey,Planning Commission alternate Staff Present: Sean Farrelly, Redevelopment Project Manager;Jerree Lewis, Executive Assistant AGENDA ITEM #1: Welcome and Introductions Important Discussion and/or Comments: Introductions were made. Action Items (Follow-Up or Votes): None AGENDA ITEM #2: Approve Minutes Important Discussion and/or Comments: Commissioner Shearer asked which property was being referred to on page 5, item #C. It was clarified that the property being discussed was the Zuber property on Burnham Street. Action Items (Follow-Up or Votes): Motion by Commissioner Barkley, seconded by Commissioner Louw, to accept the April 14, 2010 minutes. The vote passed by a vote of 7-0. Commissioner Kutcher abstained. AGENDA ITEM #3: FY 2010-2011 Approve Downtown Redevelopment Work Program Important Discussion and/or Comments: The Commissioners reviewed the 2010-2011 work program (Exhibit A). Sean noted that since the urban creek has been separated from the CC_-1C Meeting Minutes for May 12,2010 Page 1 of 8 Circulation Plan, it should be added the work program as an additional item. It was decided to add it under 1-G, Downtown Plaza/Public Space. For 1-A, Sean advised that rather than staff drumming up interest, a pre-development grant program would offer grants for pre-development work, such as architecture or real estate analysis. A land owner or developer who is ready to make that step could contact us to apply for a grant. It's similar to a Development Opportunities Study (DOS), but with a different initiating party (staff initiates the DOS process). We may not be at the point where there's enough interest for a grant program, but toward the end of next fiscal year, it might make sense. Under 3-B, re-initiate discussions with ODOT Rail, it was noted that when the Commissioners were discussing the Circulation Plan, they talked about whether or not this would be the best place to put their investment money. Even if it won't be built right away, we would probably still want an agreement. Sean believes we would have a stronger position on the Ash Ave. at-grade crossing once it's on the Circulation Plan. Also, the TSP is proposing some consolidation at Tiedeman and North Dakota. Closing one of those crossings would be a pre-requisite to starting the discussion about Ash Ave. Action Items (Follow-Up or Votes): Motion by Vice Chair Murphy, seconded by Commissioner Wong, to pass on the work program to the CCDA. The motion passed unanimously. AGENDA ITEM #4: Potential Fee Subsidy for Downtown Temporary Uses Important Discussion and/or Comment: Sean provided information on the request for a temporary use fee subsidy. The Fanno Creek Brew Pub expressed concern to Council about the costs for obtaining a temporary use permit every time they have an outdoor event. These events, while benefiting the Brew Pub, also potentially attract new visitors to the Downtown. It was noted that once the permit conditions have been reviewed and approved for one permit, it doesn't seem like the full process should be necessary for repeat permits. If nothing changes, why not waive the majority of the fee for a renewal permit? This should probably be a Citywide policy, rather than just limited to the Downtown. Using Urban Renewal money for an operational issue rather than capital improvements was questioned. There is the thought that if a fee doesn't make sense, the fee should be changed rather than be subsidized. If the fee makes sense, businesses should have to pay it. There was a suggestion to either waive the fee or just charge a nominal amount to ensure that they get a permit. Sean said this could be interpreted as a marketing fee,which has been considered appropriate use of Urban Renewal funds. The whole idea of what the fee structure should be is outside the purview of the CCAC, so we have to separate the two things. He agrees that the City needs to revisit how temporary uses are regulated. Prior to that happening, the CCAC needs to decide if it's an CCAC Meeting Minutes for May 12,2010 Page 2 of 8 appropriate use of Urban Renewal funds to subsidize things that could market the Downtown and Main Street. Commissioner Barkley thinks that using this as a marketing tool is a stretch. It may market the one business, but she doesn't believe that it will bring business to the rest of the businesses on Main Street. Vice Chair Murphy disagreed. He thinks that events can bring people to Downtown and the more feet on the sidewalks, the better. He'd like to explore the possibility,but sees that the Commission doesn't agree with using Urban Renewal funds to pay a portion of the fees. If that's the only option that's up for discussion, he suggests we kill it and move on. If we want to look at the idea of whether, for policy reasons within the Urban Renewal District, those fees should be reduced, that's a different conversation. He is in favor of that option, at least as a pilot pro)ect, and try it for a year. There was a comment that a subsidy would benefit a specific business,whereas if the fees are waived, it would affect all the businesses equally and would be more fair. Sean noted that waiving fees would have an impact on the City. It was noted that a temporary use permit for such things as a Christmas tree lot or a fireworks stand is substantially different than a special event permit for something like a special sale or a brew fest. The temporary use permit probably requires more staff time for review and inspection. Action Items (Follow-Up or Votes): The Commissioners are not in favor of a subsidy or using Urban Renewal funds to pay for temporary use permit fees in the Downtown. They are potentially interested in looking at a general waiving of fees or fee restructuring. The Commissioners asked that this item be kicked back for more refined proposals from the feedback they have given to staff. They would like to revisit this next month. AGENDA ITEM #5: Urban Renewal Relocation Policy Important Discussion and/or Comments: Sean advised that the Urban Renewal Plan authorizes the Urban Renewal Agency to acquire properties. Eminent domain is not allowed for public purchase of private property to turn over to another private developer. The Urban Renewal Plan says that relocation benefits have to be paid for any public acquisition and before we can do that, we have to have relocation policies in place. Those policies were never put into place. Sean reviewed the detailed information in Exhibit B with the Commissioners. Attachment 1 is from the Urban Renewal Plan regarding property acquisition and disposition;Attachment 2 is the Oregon Revised Statues for relocation of displaced persons;Attachment 3 is a summary of residential relocation benefits for the Portland Development Commission (PDC),which are consistent with the Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act (Uniform Act). Basically, the PDC adopted the language of the Uniform Relocation Act as their relocation policy. The City Attorney is looking at whether we have to specifically spell out things like the PDC does or whether we can say that relocation policies will be consistent with the Uniform Relocation Act CCAC Meeting Minutes for May 12,2010 Page 3 of 8 and include information sheets to communicate with affected tenants /residents. Sean advised that if the Uniform Relocation Act is changed, the City will have to change our verbiage. It was suggested that we could just adopt a policy that the City of Tigard is co-extensive with the Uniform Act, including all future amendments, and have information sheets available. Sean advised that the CCDA has to adopt an official policy before any property can be purchased. The CCAC needs to make a recommendation. Action Items (Follow-Up or Votes): Sean will send out the actual PDC relocation expenses which are consistent with the Uniform Act. Motion by Vice Chair Murphy, seconded by Commissioner Louw, that the relocation policy within the Urban Renewal District conform to the Oregon Revised Statutes on relocation of displaced persons, ORS 35.500 to 35.530, including all future amendments of this statute. The motion passed unanimously. AGENDA ITEM #6: Downtown Circulation Plan Important Discussion and/or Comments: A. Cin-ulation Plan Review process Chair Craghead advised that the Ash Ave crossing is shown on the schedule, however,it is a separate issue from the Circulation Plan;it is not in the actual Circulation Plan for Downtown. It is something that will be discussed outside the Circulation Plan itself. Sean reviewed the updated CCAC Circulation Plan Schedule (Exhibit Q with the Commissioners. We will run the Circulation Plan by the development community to get their feedback on how it would affect their willingness to develop in Tigard. He expects to bring back the information by the next CCAC meeting. Sean advised that the new Transportation Planner can provide us with technical information. The Plan has already gone through the Technical Advisory Committee. The way it stands now, it meets all of ODOT's standards, and the Transportation Planner can review any changes we might want to make. In July, the CCAC will work on a prioritization list. We could think about which projects to concentrate on first—which projects would make the most sense to spend City dollars on and which ones could be paid for through for development. It was noted that if there is no CCAC endorsement of the Plan,we would have to start over. B. Form plan review subcommittee Chair Craghead reported that there are some issues with some of the text of the Plan, specifically if it accurately reflects what was going on and what was actually heard. He suggested having a CCAC Meeting Minutes for May 12,2010 Page 4 of 8 subcommittee review it to make sure it correctly reflects what we've done. Commissioners Barkley, Shearer, and Murphy volunteered to be on the subcommittee. C: Tigard and Commen-ta!/Main interrecdons discussion With regard to the additional alternatives analysis memo on the Tigard and Commercial intersections with Main Street (Exhibit D), Commissioner Thornburg thinks that the connection from a minor street to Tigard Street shown in alternative #2 isn't very smart. In alternative #4, Tigard Street does not continue across Main Street. Alternative #3 continues across Main Street and connects to Burnham. He thinks this has the best circulation and is the best alternative. It was noted that alternative #3 goes through the berm that supports the viaduct. That alternative is predicated on the replacement of the viaduct. Chair Craghead said it's possible, if TriMet builds a '\LNX line on Barbur Blvd., that the viaduct might go away and could be replaced with something else. That could be our opportunity to do something like alternative #3. None of the alternatives were in the Circulation Plan recommended map. Sean advised that this is the result of feedback from the January meeting with the CCDA. Councilor Wilson had pointed out that as long as this is a 50 year plan,why not plan for the Main Street intersections now. With alternative #2, Commissioner Barkley thinks there is a problem with moving Tigard Street to line up with the commuter rail parking lot because of the federally required islands on Main Street. She believes that going through the berm makes more sense. Chair Craghead pointed out that alternative #4 is just the current conditions, except that we connect Commercial across Main Street. Sean said the difference there is the alley in back of Main Street. Alternative #4 is potentially something that we could do now. If we choose alternative #3 with the caveat that if light rail is approved to come down Pacific Hwy, that's when we would consider rebuilding the intersection. Alternative #4 would move the intersection of the north side of Commercial and Main away from the tracks and could be considered the precursor to alternative #3. It was suggested that by having a diagonal or S-curve connection from Burnham Street to the underpass on Tigard Street, we could avoid going through the viaduct berm. Sean said S-curves aren't great from a street function point of view. A diagonal connection to the underpass would create a sharper corner (alternative #3 with a different angle). Commissioner Barkley thinks the connection of the 2 ends of Commercial Street would be the biggest benefit to the Downtown. She would like to definitely adopt that piece of the Circulation Plan. After more discussion, the Commissioners were generally in favor of the concept of alternative #3 and directed staff to continue to investigate that alternative, but would like to see a refined version. D. Ash Avenue connection over Fanno Creek CCAC Meeting hfinutes for May 12,2010 Page 5 of 8 Chair Craghead said the issue here is if the Commission wants to get involved formally in whether or not there should be an Ash Ave. connection over Fanno Creek in the TSP. Do we want to advocate for or against this issue as a Commission? Commissioner Barkley thinks it should be left to the Tigard Transportation Advisory Committee. Sean reported that the first public hearing on the TSP is scheduled for June 215,with the Planning Commission. The crossing is included the TSP. Vice Chair :Murphy thinks that, though the crossing may not be in our purview, Fanno Creek is. He believes the Commission should address it from a Downtown environmental prospective. He favors adding a comment to the Circulation Plan that the health of Fanno Creek is crucial to the Urban Renewal District and until the environmental concerns of the proposed Ash Creek crossing are adequately addressed, transportation concerns are second. That would be the starting point of the consideration of an Ash Creek crossing. Commissioner Shearer sees faster emergency services into the Ash Creek neighborhood as a benefit of the crossing, but she agreed that environmental considerations of Fanno Creek need to be a priority in the Ash Creek crossing. Commissioner Barkley is in favor of having the environmental policy suggested by Vice Chair Murphy be a statement from the CCAC, but is not in favor of advocating for or against the crossing. Commissioner Louw asked which environmental issues are we specifically concerned about preserving—water quality, wildlife, vegetation, or all of those. If those conditions can all be met and we can build a bridge to get access, are we happy with that? Is the bridge itself the objection? Commissioner Pao thinks the environmental groups are concerned about upsetting the ecological balance—they're looking at the whole ecosystem. Commissioner Hughes suggested not referencing the crossing at all, just the general condition of Fanno Creek and that any transportation or man made impairment needs to consider the condition of the Creek. Commissioner Shearer noted that we're planning a 50-year visionary process for Tigard. She thinks the crossing needs to stay on the books as a plan at some point because it will benefit the community. For those who feel strongly one way or another about the crossing or the transportation issue, Chair Craghead recommended that they testify a before the Planning Commission on June 21st. Action Items (Follow-Up or Votes): As noted above. AGENDA ITEM#7: Updates A. Report on ICSC Alliance Presentation (private/public partnerships in retail development) CCAC Meeting Minutes for May 12,2010 Page 6 of 8 Chair Craghead and Commissioner Shearer reported on the ICSC (International Council on Shopping Centers) alliance conference. Commissioner Shearer pointed out some interesting information from the conference: • There is an organization (www.socialcompact.org) that has a large data mine for developers to access. They look at debit and credit transactions to find the distance traveled by customers to make food purchases. They have also looked at the cell phone movement and what kinds of cash transactions are taking place in neighborhoods. One thing they pointed out is how underserved specific neighborhoods are for grocery stores in Detroit. There is an inverted relationship between informal income (cash income) and foreclosure rates. The higher the foreclosure rate, the less cash is available. There is a greater cash income in the poor neighborhoods, and there are no foreclosures there. • There were grocery store developers at the conference. A representative from the Market of Choice said he chooses to locate near campuses because there is a great daytime population. Another thing he may look at is voting records. He discovered that his demographics have certain voting patterns, so he looks for those voting patterns when deciding where to locate a store. • Fred Meyer always wants to create a store with more reasons to shop there. The Wilsonville Town Square is now incorporating residential use into a portion of their development. Costco is now doing in-fills in mall areas. They're putting their parking in different locations (the parking may be on top of the store or they may have an attached parking structure with other big box retailers). • Small businesses need proactive support. We're bookended by 2 large malls; the City and other institutions in the area have to get behind the small businesses in order for them to survive. • Food and entertainment can be anchors. • The 2035 Plan is now a link on the City of Portland website. • Value added—if you want to bring value to a district, you need a brew pub, cinema, specialty grocer, restaurants, parks, businesses, bike shop, book shop, transit, garden shop, or coffee shop. • They recommended a book by William H. White, called Redi covering the Central Cities. B. CCDA Budget Update The CCDM budget (Exhibit E) was passed on Monday. We got everything we asked for. They attributed $200,000 of urban renewal funds to the construction of Burnham Street. The budget CCAC Meeting Minutes for May 12,2010 Page 7 of 8 should be adopted be Council in June. Exhibit F shows the total property- tax increment that has been collected and expenditures that have been attributed to CCDA to date. Action Items (Follow-Up or Votes): None AGENDA ITEM #8: Other Business Important Discussion and/or Comments: Sean contacted the City of Tualatin and learned that a quiet zone is typically is for a long corridor (4-5 miles). It's not typically done just for a section of the corridor. Tualatin's cost is estimated at 52.5 million for 10 crossings. Action Items (Follow-Up or Votes): Commissioner Kutcher asked for an update on the Facade Improvement Program next month. AGENDA ITEM #9: Adjournment Important Discussion and/or Comments: Action Items (Follow-Up or Votes): The meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m. Jerree Lewis, CCAC Secretan- A'ITE,ST: Chair Alexander Craghe CCAC Meeting Minutes for May 12,2010 Page 8 of 8 Downtown Redevelopment Work Program Revised 5/4/10 FY 10-i1EEEiiE July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June 1 Facilitation of Downtown Redevelopment Projects A Development Opportunity Studies Follow u on previous studies Evaluate additional sites for DOS Perform 2-3 opportunity studies Evaluate whether to transition to a pre-development orant program B Main Street Fayade Improvement Program ruancile program and solicit applications Administer program CDeveloper Outreach Or and e a developers forum Serve as point of contact for new Downtown develo ment Monitor o ortunities or public private partnerships D Development Incentives Develop Incentive Toolbox CCAC Review/CCDA Approval E Pacific Hwy Corridor Land Use Management team for High Capacity Transit Land Use Plan F Brownfields Invests ate opportunities for Brownfield redevelo ment and grant funding G Downtown Plaza/Public Space Monitor Parks bond activities Evaluate opportunities for additional public space 2 Improvement of Fanno Creek Park/Open Space System A Lower Fanno Creek Park-Deferred until FY 11-12 B Rail to Trail(Main to Tiedeman) Coordinate with ODOT Rail 3 Develo ment of Comprehensive Street/Circulation System A Downtown Circulation Plan Refine Draft Circulation Plan Public outreach Develop Implementation Policies — CCAC Review P/annJn Commission worksho s/public hearings Council br/efln s/workshops/public hearin s e At-grade Crossing at Ash Ave Re-initiate discussions with ODOT Rail Downtown Redevelopment Work Program Revised 5/4/10 FY 10-11 July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June C Street Improvements Main Street Green Street Participate on Management Team Public/buslness outreach _ Citizen advisory committee meetings Design and Engineering Submit MTIP grant application for north Main Street Hall Pac Hwy Intersection Monitor Project Provide input on"interim"gateway area Burnham Street Ash Avenue Greenbur Main Pac Hwy Intersection Monitor ro ects D. Parking Strategy Evaluate Main Street parking stud 4 Organizational:City,Agency,Commission, Downtown Organizations,and Regional A City Center Development Agency/City Center Advisory Commission Strengthen coordination between CCDA,CCAC, and other Downtown organizations Increase property owner and developer outreach Establish regular CCDA meeting schedule Communications Refine CCAC web a e and Downtown web a e Create CCDA webpa e B Events/Marketing Support private/public special events In the Downtown Work with CCAC to determine City role in marketing and branding Downtown C Policy Prioritize UR Projects Prepare 5 year Evaluation Report of Urban Renewal Partici ate in Development Code reform effort Evaluate the possibility of a Railroad Quiet Zone in Downtown D Regional Coordination Collaborate with Metro TOD program Partici ate in the activities of Association of Oregon Redevelopment Agencies, Regional Partners for Economic Development,Urban Land Institute rIv City of Tigard Memorandum _ ate'.-MR To: Alexander Craghead, Chair City Center Advisory Commission From: Sean Farrelly, Redevelopment Project Manager Re: City Center Development Agency Relocation Policy Date: May 7, 2010 The City Center Urban Renewal Plan authorizes the acquisition and disposition of property from willing sellers to further the goals of Urban Renewal. Condemnation cannot be used by the Agency, although City can still acquire properties for roads or parks (for fair market value) through eminent domain. The Urban Renewal Plan also requires that relocation benefits must be paid for any public acquisition and that before the Agency acquires any property,it must adopt relocation regulations (see attachment 1). These policies have not yet been adopted by the CCDA. Oregon and Federal Law Oregon State Law ORS 35.500 to 35.530 governs relocation payments and assistance to persons or businesses displaced by public entities, including urban renewal agencies (see attachment 2). This law states that the relocation of residence, businesses, and non-profits be accomplished in accordance with the Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act ("Uniform Act"). The Act details a list of compensation that must be paid by public entities when tenant relocation is needed due to property acquisition. Relocations Due to Tigard Road Projects Currently, the City is guided by ORS 35.500-35.530 and the Uniform Act when it purchases properties for road projects that require relocation of residents or businesses. For example, in the case of the Zuber property (which was purchased for the building of Ash Avenue), the property owner received fair market value for his property. The tenants of the building received assistance in finding new locations and were paid actual relocation expenses, as well as money needed to reestablish their businesses, as is required under the Uniform Act. City Center Development Agency Relocation Policies As set forth in the Urban Renewal Plan, property cannot be acquired by the Agency through condemnation (or the threat of it). When a voluntary sale to the Agency is made, and if the tenants (business or residents) need to be relocated, they are entitled to relocation benefits. Staff recommends that the City Center Development Agency's relocation policies mirror the the Uniform Relocation Act and ORS 35.500-35.530. Among the urban renewal agencies whose relocation policies mirror the Uniform Relocation Act are the Portland Development Commission, Tualatin, Wilsonville, Bend, and Springfield. Whether the policies can be adopted by reference to the Oregon statutes, or whether the specific policies using the Uniform Act's language need to be adopted,will be clarified with the City Attorney. At the June meeting, the CCAC will be requested to consider endorsement of policies for CCDA adoption. Consistent with the Uniform Act the relocation benefits would include the following: Business Relocation: • Assistance in finding a new location (up to $2,500) • Reimbursement of the costs of actually moving equipment and inventory to a new location. • Reestablishment expenses for the new location which includes increased cost of rent of new location, signage, advertising of the new location, utilities and fees, the printing of new business cards, letterhead, etc., (not to exceed $10,000). • As an alternative, a business could elect to receive a fined payment rather than the actual expenses. The Uniform.pct provides for a payment equal the average annual net earnings of the business (not to exceed $20,000). Resident Relocation: • Actual moving expenses • A rent differential payment based on the difference between the current rent and the rent for a comparable replacement unit for 42 months. Generally, this payment may not exceed $5,250, but could be significantly more based on individual circumstances, such as affordability of the replacement housing for low income tenants. A more detailed example of relocation benefits consistent with the Uniform Act can be seen in Attachment 3 (a summary of the Portland Development Commission's policies.) A displaced business owner or resident who disagreed with the amount of compensation could also appeal the decision to the CCDA. The CCDA would review the decision and could provide additional compensation if circumstances warranted. Attachment I From Tigard City Center Urban Renewal Plan VIII. PROPERTY ACQUISITION AND DISPOSITION The Plan authorizes the acquisition and disposition of property as described in this section. Property includes any and all interests in property, including fee simple ownership, lease, easements, licenses or other rights to use. A. Property Acquisition —From Willing Sellers The Plan authorizes the Agency acquisition of any interest in property within the Area, including fee simple interest, to support private redevelopment, only in those cases where the property owner wishes to convey such interests to the Agency. The Plan does not authorize use of the power of eminent domain to acquire property for private redevelopment. Property acquisition for those public improvements projects authorized in Section N will be required. The Agency is not granted eminent domain authority under the Plan. Therefore, it the Agency cannot acquire the property needed for the described public improvements through negotiation and voluntary sale, the acquisition will be undertaken by the City of Tigard or other public entity under its independent eminent domain authority. Property acquisition from willing sellers may be required to support development of retail, office, housing and mixed use projects within the Area. B. Land Disposition The Agency may dispose of property acquired under the Plan by conveying any interest in property acquired pursuant to Subsection VIII A. Property shall be conveyed at its fair reuse value. Fair reuse value is the value, whether expressed in terms of rental or capital price, at which the urban renewal agency in its discretion determines such land should be made available in order that it may be developed, redeveloped, cleared, conserved or rehabilitated for the purposes specified in such plan. Because fair reuse value reflects limitations on use of the property to those purposes specified in the Plan, the value may be lower than the property's fair market value. Property disposition may be required to support development of retail, office, housing and mixed use projects within the Area. IX. RELOCATION METHODS i As descrbed in Section VIII, the Plan authorizes the acquisition of property by willing selers only. Relocation benefits must be paid for any public acquisition, whether the acquisition il s voluntary or involuntary. Therefore, before the Agency acquires any property, the Agency will adopt relocation regulations. Attachment 2 Oregon Revised Statutes RELOCATION OF DISPLACED PERSONS 35.500 Definitions for ORS 35.500 to 35.530. As used in ORS 35.500 to 35.530: (1) "Displaced person"means any person who moves, or is required to move the person's residence and personal property incident thereto, or the person's business or farm operation as a result of: (a) Acquisition of the real property, in whole or in part, by a public entity; or (b) Receipt of a written order by such person from a public entity to vacate the property for public use. (2) "Federal Act" means the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (P.L. 91-646, 42 U.S.C. 4601 et seq.) as in effect on January 1, 2003. (3) "Public entity" includes the state, a county, a city, a consolidated city-county as defined in ORS 199.705 (1), a district, public authority, public agency and any other political subdivision or public corporation in the state when acquiring real property or any interest therein for public use. "Public entity" also includes a private corporation that has the power to exercise the right of eminent domain. (4) "Public use" means a use for which real property may be acquired by a public entity as provided by law. (5) "Real property"or any interest therein includes tenements and hereditaments, and includes every interest, freehold and chattel, legal and equitable, present and future, vested and contingent, in such tenements and hereditaments. [Formerly 281.045] 35.505 Relocation within neighborhood; notice prior to move; costs and allowances. (1) A public entity undertaking urban renewal or neighborhood development shall make all reasonable efforts to insure that all displaced persons shall have the option to relocate within their urban renewal or development neighborhood or area and shall not be displaced, except temporarily as required by emergency, until appropriate residential units shall become available to them within their neighborhood or area and within their financial means. (2) Except as required by emergency, no displaced person shall be required to move from any real property without first having written notice from the public entity at least 90 days prior to the date by which the move is required. In no case shall any displaced person be required to move until the public entity notifies the person in writing of all costs and allowances to which such person may become entitled under federal, state or local law. [Formerly 281.055] 35.510 Duties of public entities acquiring real property. Whenever any program or project is undertaken by a public entity which program or project will result in the acquisition of real property, notwithstanding any other statute, charter, ordinance, or rule or regulation, the public entity shall: (1) Provide fair and reasonable relocation payments and assistance to or for displaced persons as provided under sections 202, 203, 204 and 206 of the Federal Act; (2)Provide relocation assistance programs offering to displaced persons and others occupying property immediately adjacent to the real property acquired the services described in section 205 of the Federal Act on the conditions prescribed therein; (3) In acquiring the real property, be guided by the land acquisition policies in sections 301 and 302 of the Federal Act; (4) Pay or reimburse property owners for necessary expenses as specified in sections 303 and 304 of the Federal Act; (5) Share costs of providing payments and assistance with the federal government in the manner and to the extent required by sections 211 (a) and (b) of the Federal Act; and (6) Appoint such officers, enter into such contracts, utilize federal funds for planning and providing comparable replacement housing and take such other actions as may be necessary to comply with the conditions and requirements of the Federal Act. [Formerly 281.060] 35.515 Required disclosures for business and farm operations. To be eligible for the payment authorized by ORS 35.510, a business or farm operation must make its state income tax returns and its financial statements and accounting records available for audit for confidential use to determine the payment authorized. [Formerly 281.070] 35.520 Decision on benefits; hearing; review. Any person who applies for relocation benefits or assistance under ORS 35.510 shall receive the public entity's written decision on the application, which shall include the statement of any amount awarded, the statutory basis for the award and the statement of any finding of fact that the public entity made in arriving at its decision. A person aggrieved by the decision shall be entitled to a hearing substantially of the character required by ORS 183.413 to 183.470, unless federal, state or local law provides otherwise.Notice required by ORS 183.415 must be served within 180 days of the receipt of the written decision by the aggrieved party. The decision of the public entity shall be reviewable pursuant to ORS 183.480. [Formerly 281.085; 2007 c.288 §5] 35.525 Construction. Nothing in ORS 35.510, 35.515 or 35.520 shall be construed as creating in any condemnation proceedings brought under the power of eminent domain, any element of value or of damage not in existence immediately prior to May 7, 1971. [Formerly 281.090] 35.530 Federal law controls. If a public entity is receiving federal financial assistance and is thereby required to comply with applicable federal laws and regulations relating to relocation assistance, such federal laws and regulations shall control should there be any conflict with ORS 35.500 to 35.530. [Formerly 281.105] Attachment 3 APPENDIX B SUMMARY OF RESIDENTIAL RELOCATION BENEFITS (As further described in Section 5.0) For a complete explanation of benefits and rules governing relocation benefits. refer to the Portland Development Commission Relocation Policies and Procedures and Federal Department of Transportation Relocation Rules and Regulations. A. For all households, the cost of the move including packing by a professional mover or a cash payment based on a fixed residential moving cost schedule. B. For residential tenants. 1. A rent differential payment based on the difference between the current rent and the rent for a comparable replacement unit for 42 months. Generally this payment may not exceed S5,250. but could be more based on individual circumstances such as affordability of the replacement housing for low income tenants. 2. As an alternative to a rent differential payment, a down payment assistance payment to be applied towards the purchase of a replacement dwelling. Generally this payment will not exceed S5.250 unless justified by individual circumstances. C. For residential owner occupants. 1. A purchase price differential of the amount between the acquisition price of the current dwelling and the cost of a comparable replacement dwelling. 2. A mortgage interest differential payment for increased financing or interest costs incurred because of purchasing a replacement dwelling. 3. Payment of incidental closing costs on the purchase of a replacement dwelling. 4. This payment to owner occupants generally will not exceed 522.500 unless justified by individual circumstances. Appendix B Page 1 of 1 APPENDIX C SUMMARY OF BUSINESS RELOCATION BENEFITS (As further described in Sections 6.0, 7.0, 8.0, 9.0) This is a summary only. Eligibility, requirements for payment and payment amounts are governed by the adopted Portland Development Commission Relocation Policies and Procedures. BUSINESS RELOCATION PAYMENTS MAY BE MADE UNDER OPTION 1 OR 2, NOT BOTH: I. Option 1 - A payment for actual reasonable moving expenses: A. Transportation of personal property to a replacement site. B. Packing and unpacking of personal property. C. Disconnection, dismantling, reassembling and reinstalling relocated machinery, equipment and other personal property. D. Disconnection and reconnection of personal property to available utilities. E. Storage of personal property for up to 12 months. F. Insurance premiums covering loss or damage to personal property during move. G. Cost of licenses, permits, fees or certifications necessitated by the move. H. Re-lettering signs and printing replacement stationery and other printed matter made obsolete by the move. I. Compensation for direct loss of personal property not relocated, but not to exceed its present fair market value or the estimated cost of moving it, whichever is less. J. Purchase and installation cost of substitute equipment, not to exceed the cost of the replacement item or the estimated cost of moving it, whichever is less. K. Expenses incurred in searching for a replacement location subject to a maximum of$2,500. L. Impact fees or one time assessments for anticipated heavy utility usage. M. Professional services necessary for planning the move. N. Professional services for feasibility and marketing studies of a replacement site. O. Reestablishment expenses subject to a maximum of$10,000 for certain expenses not covered by the actual moving expense payment above in sections A through N. The reestablishment expense payment may include such costs as increased rent, increased taxes, redecoration costs, advertising, or repairs or improvements to the replacement site. OR II. Option 2 - A fixed payment as an alternative to the payments as outlined above in section I for moving and reestablishment expenses. This payment will equal the average annual net earnings of the business, but not less than $1,000 nor more than $20,000. A business may receive this fixed payment or a payment for actual reasonable moving expenses but not both. Appendix C Page 1 of 1 Updated CCAC Circulation Plan Schedule 5/11/10 May: Form CCAC plan review sub-committee Tigard and Commercial/Main intersections discussion Ash Avenue connection over Fanno discussion June: Developer feedback Feedback from Transportation Planner Judith Gray July: Prioritization Implementation strategies August: Consider making an endorsement of the Plan, endorsement with recommended changes, or no endorsement September: Planning Commission workshops Intersections with Main Street There are currently several connectivity and traffic issues that occur along Main Street in Downtown.For example,the intersection of Commercial Street with Main is off-set, a situation which is further complicated by the proximity of this intersection with the rail line that runs parallel to Commercial.Tigard Street is also in close proximity to the rail line,and does not continue south across Main Street;it is off-set from the commuter rail parking lot(which is proposed as an alley in the Circulation Plan). Burnham Street is off-set from both Electric Street and the unnamed right-0f--way to the southwest Collectively,these off-set intersections and the presence of the rail line create traffic issues and inefficiencies along this central portion of Main Street In their 2006 memo,"Tigard Downtown Streetscape Design Plan:Traffic Analysis for Street Function Improvements,"DKS Associates proposed realigning both Commercial and Tigard Streets to address these issues.The realignment of Commercial(also mentioned in the TDIP)would occur on the property between OR 99 and Main to the east of the rail line.Under the DKS recommendations,Tigard Street would be reconfigured into an S-curve to align with Burnham Street.The SERA team began by evaluating the DKS recommendations and then developed three additional altematives for addressing the connectivity/intersection issues along Main Street. DKS'proposed realignment of Commercial Street seems to be a fairly straightforward move;it would allow for direct movements on Commercial across Main,make turning movements at the intersection more efficient,and would simplify the interaction c� with the rail line by moving the north/ �FtieG west leg of Commercial further away 99W from the tracks.This realignment will �a impact existing property however, and,depending on final design,may leave an undevelopable"sliver"parcel bounded by OR 99,the railroad right- of-way,Main Street,and the realigned s _ Tigard Commercial Street. Trans/t i i � center ✓° © Q DKS'proposed realignment of Tigard ,>1,X0Street seems more problematic,as it `rT Proposed J'T �P Park/ng , !�� introduces an S-curve configuration Lo cture 3 T�yGT '. •:��� (with two—90-degree turns)onto APPROX.1000 a fairly tight block.While this ' fl arrangement would allow for a direct connection to Burnham,the S-curve y 0 ' is introduced presumably because of the desire to utilize the existing Tigard Street underpass for OR 99.In Proposed Street Connectivity Diagram from DKS'`Traffic Analysis for Street Function addition to the tight turns,the S-curve Improvements'memorandum 6 T IGARD.OREGON is awkward because it pushes through traffic around the back of a developable block.In other words,the middle leg of the"S"will run between the OR 99 earthworks and the parking/loading/service area of a development that will face Main Street.Depending on the final design and alignment,this configuration may also make access to parking and loading difficult for adjacent parcels. For the three additional Main Street connectivity alternatives,the SERA team utilized the DKS'recommended realignment of Commercial Street and then examined different concepts for those areas south and west of the rail line. Also included in the three alternatives is the suggestion of an alley system that would run approximately parallel to Main Street in order to provide access to rear parking or loading and thereby moving those functions to the back sides of new developments.The east and west extents of this new alley system would depend in part on the depth of adjacent parcels,the extent of the OR 99 earthworks,and the disposition of ODOT,which owns the OR 99 right-of-way on which some or all of these alley segments might run.Lastly,it should be noted that elements from these various alternatives could be combined into a single,preferred alternative. Main Street Intersections-Alternative 2 (Note:"Alternative 1"is the Connectivity Plan currently featured in the Circulation Plan and is not discussed here.) Alternative 2 proposes shifting the Tigard Street alignment north and east such that it abuts the railroad right-of-way and ties in to Main Street directly across from the commuter rail lot/proposed alley. This reconfiguration would provide a(presumably)low-volume through- movement between Tigard Street r and the alley.However,it also would ' move the Tigard/Main intersection closer to the railroad crossing,which could cause additional traffic issues a� when trains are present.While this new alignment would impact existing property,it could facilitate redevelopment in the future.The / narrow lot that is currently between Tigard and the rail line is marginalized , by both its size and the presence of the railway.Under this alternative,this developable area would be shifted to the southwest,where it would be .:. 5 combined with the block that runs from Tigard Street to Electric Street. ADDITIONAL ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS MEft10-15 FEBRUARY 2010 Main Street Intersections-Alternative 3 Alternative 3 assumes the possibility of getting a new opening/underpass beneath OR 99 that would allow for a straighter connection between Tigard and Burnham Streets.While this alignment would both move the Tigard/Main intersection away from the rail line and allow direct \ movement from Burnham to Tigard Street,it would impact properties on both sides of OR 99.(The degree of ' impact would depend on the final -ft alignment and right-of-way width.) By vacating both the current Tigard right-of-way as well as that for Electric Street,this alternative would allow for '4 't a larger developable block(bounded ' by the new Tigard Street,OR 99,Main, F l.• �� and the rail line)at the heart of the Main Street sub-district. Main Street Intersections- Alternative 4 ;3'' ' '�`• ' < Alternative 4 proposes leaving Tigard Street in its current location,but vacating both Electric Street and the Ma;.-Street Intersections-Aitemathra 3 unnamed right-of-way to the south and west of it.As with the previous ` alternatives,additional access to r ' the intervening parcels would be provided by a new alley that would \ run southwest from Tigard Street. This alternative would eliminate the offset intersections with Burnham, Electric,and the unnamed right-of- way with Main Street,and therefore eliminate some of the confusion and inefficiencies caused by the current s-r arrangement It would also provide a continuous development block on the north side of Main running southwest c�3�F from Tigard Street.However,it would do little to improve connectivity between Burnham and Tigard Streets or the issue of Tigard's proximity to the -,%` rail line. Main S.eet Intersect.!-s-r: r;a 4 8 TIGARD.OREGON t Tigard, Oregon • • r • • • • • f1l ,.' � ms's• �. -v' •►�1� t ,:j a/W. ' 1f� /r;-ems'-".! �Y-� �.�.. �•� .ti" .., f.. ,r �: 1 '1 '_' r Y .r'1 S'�� � •'ir.k( ". 1L . 40 OKI ANY -� ���►.' `�j,?:�.,s J- � S ' !!�4''�'�,�'� �elr�ti�-Li �. �', �� •.j�� � y� .�4i� .,�J f, _'fl J A, -s• r r�<. '�� �R�� �y� i�°\`��. �,_ 11. Ey fi 1k r 11�,7 f r' City Center Development Agency City of Tigard Fiscal Year 2010-2011 CITY CENTER DEVELOPMENT AGENCY BUDGET COMMITTEE Rick Parker Craig Dirksen John Bailey Gretchen Buehner Dena Struck Sydney Webb Cameron James Marland Henderson Dan Goodrich Nick Wilson Mona Moghimian'(Altemate) 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 REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT MANAGER for DOWNTOWN Sean Farrelly FINANCE and INFORMATION SERVICES DIRECTOR Toby LaFrance a • i CITY CENTER DEVELOPMENT AGENCY City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard,OR 97223 503-6394171 Cover Grapbic from Tigard Downtown Future Vision by Tigard Community Development and University of Oregon —1— FY 2010-2011 BUDGET MESSAGE To the Citizens of Tigard, I am pleased to present to you a proposal for the fourth annual budget for Tigard's City Center Development Agency (CCDA). The City Center Development Agency is charged with the revitalization of Downtown and implementation of the Urban Renewal Plan which was approved by voters in May of 2006. Plans for the Urban Renewal District have been impacted by the severe economic downturn which has slowed bank lending and private development to a crawl. Property taxes collected on the growth in assessed value in the urban renewal district since its establishment (the source of the CCDA's funding of revitalization),remain sluggish. There was a jump in the tax increment distribution in Fiscal Year 2009-10,but it was due to an assessment on utilities (which is distributed by the State on an intermittent basis). Despite challenging economic conditions,FY 2009-10 saw considerable progress on public projects that will benefit the Downtown. The Burnham Street reconstruction project broke ground in 2009. When complete in summer 2011 the new street will include pedestrian amenities and green street features that will set the stage for new private development. These features are funded with $200,000 from the CCDA. Three other infrastructure projects,the completed enhanced pedestrian crossing to the Tigard Public Library and the soon to be constructed intersection improvements at Pacific Highway/ Main /Greenburg and Pacific Highway/Hall will improve Downtown vehicle, bicycle,and pedestrian accessibility.The Facade Improvement program provided design assistance to four Main Street businesses. A matching grant has been awarded to complete a major facade project(additional grants will likely be awarded). In addition,new Land Use and Design regulations for the Downtown were adopted,which will assure new buildings are well-designed and supportive of the vision of the area as an urban village. Projects to be completed in FY 2010-11 include a Downtown Circulation Plan and design work for reconstructing the southern portion of Main Street as a green street. In addition construction of the Community Partners for Affordable Housing Senior Housing Project, (the Knoll),will begin. While not an Urban Renewal project, the City and its partners have been pursuing High Capacity Transit (HCT) in the Pacific Highway Corridor and will start several planning efforts to this end. HCT would be an additional impetus to the creation of a livable and prosperous suburban downtown. The proposed Agency budget for Fiscal Year 2010-2011 consists of two funds: the Urban Renewal Capital Projects Fund and the Debt Service Fund.The Urban Renewal Capital Projects Fund is supported by loans. In prior years,all the loans have come from the City of Tigard. For FY 2010- 11, the CCDA will continue to require loans to pay for Agency programs and the Burnham St. reconstruction project contributions. It is still early in the Agency's life and it may not yet qualify for bank financing at reasonable rates. I am proposing a third year of loans from the City's General Fund to cover Agency financial needs,but I have also directed staff to explore the possibility of bank financing for Agency needs. If private financing is available, then the Agency will explore potential a potential land purchase. Like loans from the City of Tigard,the private loan will be paid from the tax increment received on property tax in the district. This fiscal year the Agency will direct the Capital Projects Fiend to three main projects. Fust, the CCDA will invest in professional services and other projects designed to promote private ' investment The focus of these services will be fostering opportunities for redevelopment and/or renovation of properties that will increase the increment. Examples of these projects include development opportunity studies and fagade improvement grants. Second,the CCDA will pay $200,000 toward the Burnham Street project The CCDA participation is for facilities such as extra- width sidewalks that would not have been included if the project were not in the Urban Renewal District Thirdly; the proposed budget includes an`.`opportunity fund'to assist with potential' . property purchase for.redevelopment and/or incentives for private development This is,the portion that will be funded if the agency is successful in acquiring financing outside of the.City of Tigard 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:2010-11 we expect the increment to be$211,000. The Fund contains a balance of$414,993 collected in FY 2007-08,FY 2008-09,and FY2009-10, including interest Under state law, these revenues may only be used for the repayment of indebtedness.- The first loan was made in FY 2008-09 and there is a budgeted loan repayment of $249,000 in the proposed 2010-11 Budget This is equal to the amount of the FY 10-11 load:-from the City's General Fund,and is necessary because of the condition of the City's General Fund. Under the Intergovernmental Agreement gGA) between the City Center Development Agency and the City of Tigard,_loans from Tigard to the CCDA are repaid in ten equal payments,on the principle starting ten years after the loan and interest payments start in the second year after the loan. The CCDA can choose to repay loans earlier. However, due to the constraints on Tigard's General Fund, this Proposed Budget agrees to accelerate the principle payments. 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 improves. The Agency is fortunate to have an engaged and committed citizen advisory body,the City Center Advisory-Cotrimission,(CCAC);;w,hichha.s nude'recommendations on many critical issues.. I,=optimistic:that this year's-budget:and.thei projects.that are._curreddy underway, will'position the.-Urban Renewal District:for.-further revitalization when:th'e national and regional economies recover. Respectfiiily submitted, Craig Prosser . Executive Director O - O .. � VwM i . LM r 4. =PE F. T t • V A Ur-Wk R.OTIO--Wal ZO)le Q Urban Renewal Boundary Stream' City- Of galC� Taxiot Boundary -*--F Raitfroad .j Ore_On cz -Coirnr umi y Demlopm pt Dept Jurie.2006 --- _ i zE; Sutra Cityof Tigard,Wash gion CoiwtfMM- CITY CENTER URBAN RENEWAL AGENCY FACTS DistrictFormation Date..............................................................................................May 2006 DistrictSize (acres) ............................................................................................................193.71 District Tax Lot Area (acres):...........................................................................................144.14 District Right-of-Way Area (acres)....................................................................................49.57 BaseAssessed Value •...............................................................................................$69,207,378 Assessed Value (2010) ........................................................................................... .$83,248,718 Annual taxes levied (projected 2011) ..........................................................................$212,600 MaximumDebt Limit:..............................................................................................$22,000,000 DebtIssued:.............. ................................................................................................................$0 RemainingDebt Limit..............................................................................................$22,000,000 -5- Capital Project Funds - Urban Renewal Capital Improvements FY 2008 FY 2009 2010 2011 Proposed vs Description Actual Actual Revised Proposed 09-10 Revised :Resources 40000-Beginning Fund Balance 0 0 27,967 0 0.0% Total Beginning Fund Balance 0 0 27,967 _0 -100.0% 44501-Intergovernmental Revenue 0 323,616 150,000 449,000 199.3% T6 lntergovernmental 0 323,61b 150,000 449,000 1993% a�s _'�"� a `; - .1• Totai#iesbu YO23;•6�bc; '77"967 �•s+K449, Requirements Program Expenditures Program Expenditures 0 0 0 0 0.0% Total Debt service 0 0 0 0 0.0% Total Work in Progress 0 295,649 177,967 449,000 252.3% ,.cQ..sL•_�asa..:.�s...n_..._.,.:u•- Ending Fund Balance 0 27,967 0 0 #Numl r,�r�.�s'�...Totat"ita�quEem�n >�. •-_ :�� '-:�- .:.. :_..-.v.. Debt Service Funds - Urban Renewal Debt Service FY 2008 FY 2009 2010 2011 Proposed vs Description Actual Actual Revised Proposed 09-10 Revised i;R- . 40000-Beginning Fund Balance 0 39,662 159,979 414,993 159.4% Total Beginning Fund Balance 0 39,662 159,979 _414,993 159.4% 40100-Current Property Taxes 38,469 115,019 177,004 211,000 19.2% 40101-Prior Year Property Taxes 0 0 0 1,600 100.0% Total Taxes 38,469 115,019 177,004 212,600 20.1% 47000-interest Earnings 1,193 2,898 718 6,225 767.0% Totailnterest Earnings 1,193 2,898 718 6,225 767.0% Total Resources 39,662 157 579 337701 633 818 87 7%' _. —_-_u. Program Expenditures Program Expenditures 0 0 0 0 0.0% Total Debt Service 0 0 0 249,000 100.0% t , r Total Budget 0 249 000`„ Ending Fund Balance 39,662 157,579 337,701 384,818 14.0% 'Y"- Total Req u�rements ,N Y ,�.• � �.,� _. ___ ._ FY 2010-2011 Urban Renewal Projects Storefront Improvement Program- $75,000 Expanded program from 4 to 7 businesses. The program pays for all of architectural design assistance and potential grants up to a$25,000 match in improvements. Opportunity Fund-$65,000 Opportunity Fund for land purchase and associated costs, fees subsidies for new development, and Pre-development loans. Redevelopment/Marketing/Real Estate Studies and Assistance- $85,000 This project consists of funding professional services (in real estate development and economics, architecture,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 district. 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 engineering studies,and real estate market and financial analysis.This fund will also pay for the printing of planning and promotional materials for the Downtown Other-$24,000 Completion of the Circulation Plan Refinement,and the Hall Boulevard/Pacific Highway traffic study. Total: $249,000 UR Property Tax Increment Income to date 5/2010 2007-08 $38,469 2008-09 $115,019 2009-10 $240,572 prev years $2,023 Total increment $396,083 interest earnings $4,809 $400,892 CCDA expenditures to date 5/2010 Burnham Street UR share 2008-09 $240,000 Transit Center DOS 2008-09,2009-10 $20,893 Circulation Plan 2008-09,2009-10 $40,022 on retainer RE consultant 2009-10 $10,000 Tax increment projections 2008-09 $4,770 Urban Design Vision costs 2008-19 $5,879 Facade Improvement Program 2009-10 $37,000 $358,564 Paid by Park SDC's (not UR) Fanno Creek Park and Plaza Master Plan $186,182 Fanno Creek Park Construction Documents $116,776 $302,958 Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June Downtown Redevelopment Work Program Revised 5/4/10 FY 10-11 July Aug Sept 1 Facilitation of Downtown Redevelopment Projects A Development Opportunity Studies Follow up on previous studies Evaluate additional sites for DOS Perform 2-3 opportunity studies Evaluate whether to transition to a pre-development grant program B Main Street Facade Improvement Program Publicize program and solicit applications Administer program C Developer Outreach Organize a developers forum Serve as point of contact for new Downtown development Monitor opportunities for public private partnerships D Development Incentives Develop Incentive Toolbox CCAC Review/CCDA Approval E Pacific Hwy Corridor Land Use Management team for High Capacity Transit Land Use Plan F Brownfields Investigate opportunities for Brownfield redevelopment and grant funding G Downtown Plaza/Public Space Monitor Parks bond activities Evaluate opportunities for additional public space 2 Improvement of Fanno Creek Park/Open Space System A Lower Fanno Creek Park-Deferred until FY 11-12 B Rail to Trail (Main to Tiedeman) AF— Coordinate with ODOT Rail 3 Development of Comprehensive Street/Circulation System A Downtown Circulation Plan Refine Draft Circulation Plan Public outreach Develop Implementation Policies CCAC Review Planning Commission workshops/public hearings Council briefings/workshops/public hearings B At-grade Crossing at Ash Ave Re-initiate discussions with ODOT Rail Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June Downtown Redevelopment Work Program Revised 5/4/10 FY 10-17 July Aug Sept C Street Improvements Main Street Green Street Participate on Management Team Public/business outreach Citizen advisory committee meetings Design andEngineering Submit MTIP grant application for north Main Street plop Hall/Pac Hwy Intersection Monitor Project Provide input on "interim"gateway area Burnham Street/Ash Avenue Greenburg/Main/Pac Hwy Intersection Monitor projects D. Parking Strategy Evaluate Main Street parking study 4 Organizational: City,Agency, Commission, Downtown Organizations, and Regional A City Center Development Agency/City Center Advisory Commission Strengthen coordination between CCDA,CCAC, and other Downtown organizations Increase property owner and developer outreach Establish regular CCDA meeting schedule Communications Refine CCAC webpage and Downtown webpage Create CCDA webpage B Events/Marketing Support private/public special events in the Downtown Work with CCAC to determine City role in marketing and branding Downtown C Policy Prioritize UR Projects Prepare 5 year Evaluation Report of Urban Renewal Participate in Development Code reform effort Evaluate the possibility of a Railroad Quiet Zone in Downtown D Regional Coordination Collaborate with Metro TOD program Participate in the activities of Association of Oregon Redevelopment Agencies, Regional Partners for Economic Development, Urban Land Institute Tigard, Oregon • • ' • • • 1 • • 10-11 so 1 � lot ,.Moe 1 /• Z ( i/A , w 01 00 44 ._ . 111�� •�� u.Rr;.�+��; 7 ' I A •IF e City Center Development Agency City of Tigard Fiscal Year 2010-2011 CITY CENTER DEVELOPMENT AGENCY BUDGET COMMITTEE Rick Parker Craig Dirksen John Bailey Gretchen Buehner Dena Struck Sydney Webb Cameron James Marland Henderson Dan Goodrich Nick Wilson Mona Moghinnian'(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 REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT MANAGER for DOWNTOWN Sean Farrelly FINANCE and INFORMATION SERVICES DIRECTOR Toby LaFrance n CITY CENTER DEVELOPMENT AGENCY City of Tigard 13125 5W Hall Blvd. Tigard,OR 97223 503-639-4171 Cover Grapbic from Tigard Downtown Future Vision by Tigard Community Development and University of Oregon �1� FY 2010-2011 BUDGET MESSAGE To the Citizens of Tigard, I am pleased to present to you a proposal for the fourth annual budget for Tigard's City Center Development Agency(CCDA). The City Center Development Agency is charged with the revitalization of Downtown and implementation of the Urban Renewal Plan which was approved by voters in May of 2006. Plans for the Urban Renewal District have been impacted by the severe economic downturn which has slowed bank lending and private development to a crawl. Property taxes collected on the growth in assessed value in the urban renewal district since its establishment (the source of the CCDA's funding of revitalization),remain sluggish. There was a jump in the tax increment distribution in Fiscal Year 2009-10,but it was due to an assessment on utilities (which is distributed by the State on an intermittent basis). Despite challenging economic conditions,FY 2009-10 saw considerable progress on public projects that will benefit the Downtown. The Burnham.Street reconstruction project broke ground in 2009. When complete in summer 2011 the new street will include pedestrian amenities and green street features that will set the stage for new private development. These features are funded with $200,000 from the CODA. Three other infrastructure projects,the completed enhanced pedestrian crossing to the Tigard Public Library and the soon to be constructed intersection improvements at Pacific Highway/Main /Greenburg and Pacific Highway/Hall will improve Downtown vehicle, bicycle,and pedestrian accessibility.The Facade Improvement program provided design assistance to four Main Street businesses. A matching grant has been awarded to complete a major faqade project(additional grants will likely be awarded). In addition,new Land Use and Design regulations for the Downtown were adopted,which will assure new buildings are well-designed and supportive of the vision of the area as an urban village. Projects to be completed in FY 2010-11 include a Downtown Circulation Plan and design work for reconstructing the southern portion of Main Street as a green street. In addition construction of the Community Partners for Affordable Housing Senior Housing Project, (the Knoll),will begin. While not an Urban Renewal project,the City and its partners have been pursuing High Capacity Transit (HCT) in the Pacific Highway Corridor and will start several planning efforts to this end. HCT would be an additional impetus to the creation of a livable and prosperous suburban downtown. The proposed Agency budget for Fiscal Year 2010-2011 consists of two funds: the Urban Renewal Capital Projects Fund and the Debt Service Fund.The Urban Renewal Capital Projects Fund is supported by loans. In prior years,all the loans have come from the City of Tigard. For FY 2010- 11,the CCDA will continue to require loans to pay for Agency programs and the Burnham St. reconstruction project contributions. It is still early in the Agency's life and it may not yet qualify for bank financing at reasonable rates. I am proposing a third year of loans from the City's General Fund to cover Agency financial needs,but I have also directed staff to explore the possibility of bank financing for Agency needs. If private financing is available,then the Agency will explore potential a potential land purchase. Like loans from the City of Tigard,the private loan will be paid from the tax increment received on property tax in the district. This fiscal year the Agency will direct the Capital Projects Fund to three main projects.`First, the CCDA will invest in professional services and other projects designed to promote private investment The focus of these services will be fosfering-opportunities for redevelopment and%or renovation of properties that will increase the increment Examples of these projects include development opportunity studies and facade improvement grants. Second,the CCDA will pay $200,000 toward the Burnham Street project The CCDA participation is for facilities such as extra- width sidewalks that would not have been included if the project were not in the Urban Renewal District Thirdly;.the proposed budget includes an"opportunity:fund" to assist with potential' . property purchase for.redevelopment and/or incentives for private development Thisds,the portion that will be.fimded if the-agency is successful in acquiring financing outside of the:City of Tigard. 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 2010-11 we expect the increment to be$211,000. The Fund contains a balance of$414,993 collected in FY 2007-08, FY 2008-09, and FY2009-10, including interest Under state law, these revenues may only be used for the repayment of indebtedness.. The first loan was made in FY 2008-09 and there is a budgeted loan repayment of $249,000 in the:proposed 2010-11 Budget This-is equal to the amount of the FY 10-11 load-from!: the City's General Fund,and is necessary because of the condition of the City's General.Fund. Under the Intergovernmental.Agreement gGA) between:the City. Center Development Agency and the:City of Tigard,.loans from Tigard to the CCDA are.repaid in ten equalpayments,on.the:principle starting ten years after the loan and interest payments staft in the second year after.the loan. The CCDA ran choose to repay loans earlier. However, due to the constraints on Tigard's General Fund, this Proposed Budget agrees to accelerate the principle payments. The.objective of the City Center..Development Agency is to engage stakeholders and foster economic development in the Downtown. ,Despite:the'econornic downtuzn;.property.and'business. owners will be engaged to plan for the future,and set up partnerships than can be-.acted upon when the economy improves. The Agency is fortunate to have an engaged and committed citizen advisory body, the City Center Advisory-.-Commission (CCAC)j w,hich.has mAd6iecommendations on many critical issues: 1,am optimistic,that.this year's-budget:and.the projects,that are;eurreritly:underway, will'posidon the:Urban Renewal District:.for,'further revitalizationnwhen th'e national and regional economies_recover. ' Respectfiilly submitted, Craig Prosser Executive Director, G q v W l!G �Y kr� m L _ O Pm8R 5t �s Ii mT sT A V)$an Renewal ZoneUrban Renewal Boundary /1f Stream Cit. of Tigard 0 Taxlot Boundary - - Railtoad _! Oregon Cmpgraphy.Coinrnonity POelopn"t riet.p .3ou 2006 Sources'..:.:.:City of.Tig*L WOO.in, tountj;3+wr6 CITY CENTER URBAN RENEWAL 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 BaseAssessed Value ................................................................................................$69,207,378 Assessed Value 2010 ...... .......$83,248,718 Annual taxes levied (projected 2011) .............. ...... .......$212,600 ...... ............ ....................... MaximumDebt Limit:..............................................................................................$22,000,000 DebtIssued-—..................I...11..........................I.....I...........................I....................................... $0 Remaining Debt Unit......................... .........$22,000,000 Capital Project Funds - Urban Renewal Capital Improvements FY 2008 FY 2009 2010 2011 Proposed vs Description Actual Actual Revised Proposed 09-10 Revised Resources 40000-Beginning Fund Balance 0 0 27,967 0 0.0% Total Beginning Fund Balance. :.,'U.<» 0 27967. 0 .:: -100Y0%' 44501-Intergovernmental Revenue 0 323,616 150,OOD 449,000 199.3% 777-7--7777777- iaotal intergoyernmenta) _ r0' >323,616 150,000 449,000 199.3% - s_ ��-���: �win y+' � � �,Total ResQurtes � •� � 'w 0 �� 323,6�1�6 `���17 967 44 ,000 y�,..�. 1,52 3S'o .Requirements Program Expenditures Program Expenditures 0 0 0 0 0.0% Total Debt Service 0 0 0 0 0.0% 4 __ Total Work in progress 0 295,649 177,967 _ 449,000 252.3% 5... .. <•:.STie'mktS'.?7.M'+.,,:tai,:^.^,m.:S^.:•wn:�?.SGS''.'.C'i;n>rg'c,Y•.:".ry ,'.j.7J.3.r'T>;^ C:?.�"r'�'..�. ';•1D 2 5 649 <3�s 969 s s 6 Q04 rv1�2 3 ,.w ^� 7<r' r r r z x. , �" c._.v..? _9.eu:t a..s...-u,.e x2Y.^..sL-..,. hc.e7/d. •,cx.r.�::ss:.x Ending Fund Balance 0 27,967 0 0 #Numl >.».,�..,:-...;..xx,.:�.. ....,,�;�.. ..��„mr-.,,.. .r ,••.,; ....,.....,,.,�..,."�"cn.ec. 'x<,.s.�+�.,�� :srrvn�.s�.„ ��G;.,.'e�i+:'+".a„Tis.�y ,.���:,w-r:.x..±�A Debt Service Funds - Urban Renewal Debt Service FY 2008 FY 2009 2010 2011 Proposed vs Description Actual Actual Revised Proposed 09-10 Revised ,Resources 40000-Beginning Fund Balance 0 39,662 159,979 424,993 159.4% . 111.1.61ta.1l Beginninkf4 Balance: . 0 39,662' `414,993 159.4% 40100-Current Property Taxes 38,469 115,019 177,004 211,000 19.2% 40101-Prior Year Property Taxes 0 0 0 1,600 100.0% 177,0 4 -.212,600 20,1% TotalTaxes 9 47000-Interest Earnings 1,193 2,898 718 6,225 767.0% Total Inte rest Earningsga' o WE 'Requirements Program Expenditures Program Expenditures 0 0 0 0 0.0% Total Debt Service 0 0 0 v 249,000 100.0%____ Ending Fund Balance 39,662 157,579 337,701 384,818 14.0% FY 2010-2011 Urban Renewal Projects Storefront Improvement Program- $75,000 Expanded program from 4 to 7 businesses. The program pays for all of architectural design assistance and potential grants up to a$25,000 match in improvements. Opportunity Fund- $65,000 Opportunity Fund for land purchase and associated costs, fees subsidies for new development, and Pre-development loans. Redevelopment/Marketing/Real Estate Studies and Assistance- $85,000 This project consists of funding professional services (in real estate development and economics, architecture,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 district. 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 engineering studies, and real estate market and financial analysis.This fund will also pay for the printing of planning and promotional materials for the Downtown Other- $24,000 Completion of the Circulation Plan Refinement,and the Hall Boulevard/Pacific Highway traffic study. Total: $249,000 City of Tigard Memorandum To: Alexander Craghead, Chair City Center Advisory Commission From: Sean Farrelly, Redevelopment Project Manager Re: Potential Fee Subsidy for Downtown Temporary Uses Date: May 4, 2010 This issue providing a fee subsidy for Downtown Temporary Uses arose when the owner of Max's Fanno Creek Brew Club expressed concern to Council/CCDA about the cost of obtaining multiple $304 temporary use permits for recurring special events, such as its summer and winter "Nano Brew Fests" and Oktoberfest. Events such as these,while benefiting private businesses, also attract new visitors to the Downtown and can play a role in marketing Main Street. The current system of temporary use fees may have the effect of discouraging events like brew fests, sidewalk sales, or other business sponsored holiday celebrations. One potential solution is to use Downtown Urban Renewal funds to provide a fee subsidy for applications by businesses for temporary uses that meet specific criteria. Staff s view is that,within limits, a subsidy for bona fide festival or special event activities is appropriate. At the April 13, 2010 the CCDA directed staff to develop proposals for a subsidy for review by CCAC and approval of CCDA. Background Temporary Use review is required for seasonal or special events. Applications are reviewed for consistency with the zoning district, parking, vehicle access and visual clearance issues. The City's interest in requiring temporary use review is that such uses can create off site impacts, whether generating traffic, reducing the amount of parking spaces available or changing how a parking lot is accessed. Of the 16 Temporary Use permits that were issued Citywide in 2009, only 3 were issued for existing businesses holding a temporary event: 2 to Max's and 1 to a mattress store on Pacific Highway. The rest of the temporary use permits were for Christmas tree lots (5), fireworks stands (4), temporary real estate sales offices (2), berry stand (1), and a traveling exhibition at Washington Square (1). Max's was the only business that applied for two temporary use permits within the same calendar year. Criteria: Staff suggests these criteria to be eligible for a temporary use permit subsidy: 1) The temporary application is from an existing business. 2) The use is located on Main Street or the Downtown "core" (within the borders of Scoffins, Hall, and Fanno Creek). 3) The event must foster a general awareness of Downtown Tigard. This could be demonstrated by promotional material (printed or website) that includes a tagline like "Explore Downtown Tigard" or "Explore Tigard Main Street." Staff would have some discretion about whether an event would qualify for a subsidy Fee Subsidy Structure: There are a variety of ways in which the program could be structured. Staff has identified three potential ways to structure it: 1) Subsidize the full temporary use fee for applicants meeting the criteria. 2) Partially subsidize (50% or 75%) of the fee (increasing the number of potential events that could be funded). 3) 1St temporary use permit in a calendar year is full price, and applications for additional temporary uses are eligible for a fully or partially subsidized fee. Staff requests that the CCAC endorse one of these options or a variation for consideration by CCDA. It is important to establish limits on the amount of Urban Renewal funds that could be expended for this purpose. Staff suggests $1,520 annually be made available (the cost of 5 full fee subsidies). When the fund is exhausted within the fiscal year, any further applicants must pay the full fee. The 2009-10 and 2010-11 CCDA budgets have line items for marketing to which any fee subsidy could be attributed. Completeness Review for Boards, Commissions ti�...r_..., and Committee Records CITY OF TIGARD CitS� Center advisory Commission Name of Board, Commission or Committee Mai, 12, 2010 Date of Meeting I have verified that to the best of my knowledge, these documents are a complete copy of the official record. I was not the original administrator for this meeting. &V4�— d" ' • Print Name Signature T� Date