City Council Packet - 12/15/2015
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE AND TIME:December 15, 2015 - 6:30 p.m.
MEETING LOCATION:City of Tigard - Town Hall - 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223
PUBLIC NOTICE:
Times noted are estimated.
Assistive Listening Devices are available for persons with impaired hearing and should be scheduled for
Council meetings by noon on the Monday prior to the Council meeting. Please call 503-639-4171, ext. 2410
(voice) or 503-684-2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf).
Upon request, the City will also endeavor to arrange for the following services:
• Qualified sign language interpreters for persons with speech or hearing impairments; and
• Qualified bilingual interpreters.
Since these services must be scheduled with outside service providers, it is important to allow as much lead
time as possible. Please notify the City of your need by 5:00 p.m. on the Thursday preceding the meeting by
calling: 503-639-4171, ext. 2410 (voice) or 503-684-2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf).
VIEW LIVE VIDEO STREAMING ONLINE:
http://live.tigard-or.gov
Workshop meetings are cablecast on Tualatin Valley Community TV as follows:
Replay Schedule for Tigard City Council Workshop Meetings - Channel 28
Every Sunday at 12 a.m.
Every Monday at 1 p.m.
Every Thursday at 12 p.m.
Every Friday at 10:30 a.m.
SEE ATTACHED AGENDA
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE AND TIME:December 15, 2015 - 6:30 p.m.
MEETING LOCATION:City of Tigard - Town Hall - 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223
6:30 PM
1.WORKSHOP MEETING
A.Call to Order - City Council
B.Roll Call
C.Pledge of Allegiance
D.Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items
2. JOINT MEETING WITH THE BUDGET COMMITTEE - 6:35 p.m. estimated time
3. UPDATE ON THE TIGARD TRIANGLE PROJECT - 7:20 p.m. estimated time
4. BRIEFING ON AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH WASHINGTON
COUNTY REGARDING FUNDING ROY ROGERS ROAD IMPROVEMENTS - 7:40 p.m.
estimated time
5. UPDATE ON RIVER TERRACE DEVELOPMENT - 7:55 p.m. estimated time
6. PRESENTATION ON THE 2015 COMMUNITY ATTITUDES SURVEY - 8:20 p.m.
estimated time
7. DISCUSSION ON THE WALL STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESIGN AND
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT SERVICES CONTRACT - 8:40 p.m. estimated time
8.NON AGENDA ITEMS
9.EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session to discuss
exempt public records under ORS 192.660(2)(f). All discussions are confidential and those present
may disclose nothing from the Session. Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend
Executive Sessions, as provided by ORS 192.660(4), but must not disclose any information
discussed. No Executive Session may be held for the purpose of taking any final action or making
any final decision. Executive Sessions are closed to the public. - 8:55 p.m. estimated time
10.ADJOURNMENT - 9:35 p.m. estimated time
AIS-2424 2.
Workshop Meeting
Meeting Date:12/15/2015
Length (in minutes):45 Minutes
Agenda Title:Joint Meeting with the Budget Committee
Prepared For: Toby LaFrance, Finance and Information Services
Submitted By:Carol Krager, Central Services
Item Type: Update, Discussion, Direct Staff Meeting Type: Council
Workshop
Mtg.
Public Hearing: No Publication Date:
Information
ISSUE
Staff will provide the Budget Committee with the city's fiscal status mid-year and background
on the budget process for Fiscal Year 2016-17.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST
Staff will provide information and seek input on the upcoming budget process; no action
required.
KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY
At this meeting, staff will provide the following:
An update on the close of fiscal year 2015 audit.
A financial report for FY 2015 through the first five months of the fiscal year.
Review important dates on the budget calendar for FY 2017.
Updates on Committee direction regarding the Park Utility and Sidewalk Gap Program.
Review initial forecast for General Fund.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES
N/A
COUNCIL GOALS, POLICIES, APPROVED MASTER PLANS
The FY 2016 Budget supports Council Goals and the city's Strategic Plan.
DATES OF PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
The Budget Committee last met when they approved the FY 2016 budget on May 4, 2015.
Ci
t
y
of
Ti
g
a
r
d
Re
s
p
e
c
t
a
n
d
C
a
r
e
|
D
o
t
h
e
R
i
g
h
t
T
h
i
n
g
|
G
e
t
i
t
D
o
n
e
Ci
t
y
of
Ti
g
a
r
d
Re
s
p
e
c
t
a
n
d
C
a
r
e
|
D
o
t
h
e
R
i
g
h
t
T
h
i
n
g
|
G
e
t
i
t
D
o
n
e
FY
2
0
1
7
B
u
d
g
e
t
In
t
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
De
c
e
m
b
e
r
15
,
20
1
5
Ci
t
y
of
Ti
g
a
r
d
Ag
e
n
d
a
•
FY
20
1
6
Bu
d
g
e
t
Re
c
a
p
•
FY
20
1
7
In
i
t
i
a
l
Fo
r
e
c
a
s
t
•
FY
20
1
7
Bu
d
g
e
t
Pr
o
c
e
s
s
2
Ci
t
y
of
Ti
g
a
r
d
Is
s
u
e
s
L
e
a
d
i
n
g
i
n
t
o
F
Y
1
6
•
Bu
d
g
e
t
Cu
t
s
in
20
1
0
& 20
1
2
•
Si
n
c
e
20
0
9
,
Po
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
up
8%
an
d
wo
r
k
f
o
r
c
e
do
w
n
9%
•
GF
Re
v
gr
o
w
s
3.
5
%
vs
.
Ex
p
e
n
s
e
s
gr
o
w
4.0%
•
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
Fu
n
d
pa
y
s
fo
r
Po
l
i
c
e
,
Li
b
r
a
r
y
,
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
,
an
d
Pa
r
k
s
Ci
t
y
of
Ti
g
a
r
d
Fo
r
e
c
a
s
t
w
/
o
K
e
y
F
Y
1
6
De
c
i
s
i
o
n
s
4
Ci
t
y
of
Ti
g
a
r
d
Ke
y
F
Y
1
6
D
e
c
i
s
i
o
n
s
•
Cu
r
r
e
n
t
Pa
r
k
Ma
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
co
s
t
s
$2
.
2
Mi
l
l
i
o
n
.
•
Du
r
i
n
g
FY
16
,
Co
u
n
c
i
l
wi
l
l
es
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
a Park
Ma
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
Fe
e
(P
M
F
)
to
fu
n
d
pa
r
k
s
in a
ne
w
wa
y
.
•
He
a
r
i
n
g
on
PM
F
is
Ja
n
u
a
r
y
12
,
20
1
6
.
5
Ci
t
y
of
Ti
g
a
r
d
Ke
y
F
Y
1
6
D
e
c
i
s
i
o
n
s
•
St
a
r
t
i
n
g
FY
17
,
th
e
$2
.
2
Mi
l
l
i
o
n
of
Pa
r
k
s
Ma
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
is
no
lo
n
g
e
r
in
th
e
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
Fu
n
d
.
6
Ci
t
y
of
Ti
g
a
r
d
Fo
r
e
c
a
s
t
w
/
o
P
a
r
k
s
M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
i
n
F
Y
1
7
7
Ci
t
y
of
Ti
g
a
r
d
Ke
y
F
Y
1
6
D
e
c
i
s
i
o
n
s
•
St
a
r
t
i
n
g
FY
17
,
up
to
$1
.
8
Mi
l
l
i
o
n
of
GF
th
a
t
us
e
d
to
pa
y
fo
r
Pa
r
k
s
is
no
w
av
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
fo
r
ot
h
e
r
se
r
v
i
c
e
s
,
in
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
$9
5
K
of
GF for
op
e
n
i
n
g
th
e
Li
b
r
a
r
y
on
Th
u
r
s
d
a
y
s
.
•
$4
0
0
K
is
no
t
pr
o
g
r
a
m
m
e
d
to
ac
h
i
e
v
e
6 ‐
ye
a
r
su
s
t
a
i
n
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
.
8
Ci
t
y
of
Ti
g
a
r
d
FY
1
6
A
d
o
p
t
e
d
F
o
r
e
c
a
s
t
w
/
K
e
y
D
e
c
i
s
i
o
n
s
9
Ci
t
y
of
Ti
g
a
r
d
FY
1
7
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
F
o
r
e
c
a
s
t
As
s
u
m
p
t
i
o
n
s
•
In
c
l
u
d
e
s
Al
l
Ke
y
De
c
i
s
i
o
n
s
fr
o
m
FY
16
.
•
Ec
o
n
o
m
i
c
co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
wi
t
h
mo
d
e
r
a
t
e
gr
o
w
t
h
wi
t
h
po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
ec
o
n
o
m
i
c
le
v
e
l
i
n
g
du
r
i
n
g
fo
r
e
c
a
s
t
pe
r
i
o
d
.
•
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
wi
l
l
ad
d
20
0
ho
m
e
s
pe
r
year
in
Ri
v
e
r
Te
r
r
a
c
e
an
d
60
ho
m
e
s
pe
r
ye
a
r
ou
t
s
i
d
e
Ri
v
e
r
Te
r
r
a
c
e
.
10
Ci
t
y
of
Ti
g
a
r
d
FY
1
7
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
F
o
r
e
c
a
s
t
•
Wi
t
h
o
u
t
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
ba
s
e
co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
co
n
t
i
n
u
e
s
wi
t
h
re
v
e
n
u
e
s
gr
o
w
i
n
g
sl
o
w
e
r
th
a
n
ex
p
e
n
s
e
s
.
•
Du
r
i
n
g
Ri
v
e
r
Te
r
r
a
c
e
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
,
re
v
e
n
u
e
s
grow
by
an
ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
0.
5
%
an
n
u
a
l
l
y
.
•
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
re
v
e
n
u
e
s
wi
l
l
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
in
FY
16
& 17
and
th
e
n
de
c
l
i
n
e
as
in
i
t
i
a
l
pl
a
n
s
fo
r
Ri
v
e
r
Te
r
r
a
c
e
are
co
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
.
11
Ci
t
y
of
Ti
g
a
r
d
FY
1
7
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
F
o
r
e
c
a
s
t
•
Fo
r
e
c
a
s
t
do
e
s
no
t
in
c
l
u
d
e
:
Ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
se
r
v
i
c
e
s
fo
r
Ri
v
e
r
Te
r
r
a
c
e
Sp
e
c
i
f
i
c
pr
o
p
o
s
a
l
s
to
fu
n
d
th
e
St
r
a
t
e
g
i
c
Plan
an
d
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
Co
r
e
Se
r
v
i
c
e
s
.
Pr
o
p
o
s
a
l
s
ne
e
d
e
d
to
ad
d
r
e
s
s
pe
n
t
up
se
r
v
i
c
e
de
m
a
n
d
s
fr
o
m
th
e
la
s
t
se
v
e
n
ye
a
r
s
of
le
v
e
l
bu
d
g
e
t
s
.
12
Ci
t
y
of
Ti
g
a
r
d
FY
1
7
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
F
o
r
e
c
a
s
t
13
Ci
t
y
of
Ti
g
a
r
d
FY
1
7
B
u
d
g
e
t
I
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
s
•
De
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
s
ar
e
as
k
e
d
to
pr
e
p
a
r
e
st
a
t
u
s
qu
o
budgets.
•
De
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
s
ar
e
al
s
o
as
k
e
d
to
ad
d
r
e
s
s
th
e
th
r
e
e
items
no
t
in
c
l
u
d
e
d
in
th
e
Fo
r
e
c
a
s
t
th
r
u
Bu
d
g
e
t
Pa
c
k
a
g
e
s
and
Is
s
u
e
Pa
p
e
r
s
:
Ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
se
r
v
i
c
e
s
fo
r
Ri
v
e
r
Te
r
r
a
c
e
Sp
e
c
i
f
i
c
pr
o
p
o
s
a
l
s
fo
r
fu
n
d
i
n
g
th
e
St
r
a
t
e
g
i
c
Pl
a
n
an
d
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
Core
Se
r
v
i
c
e
s
.
Pr
o
p
o
s
a
l
s
ne
e
d
e
d
se
r
v
i
c
e
de
m
a
n
d
s
fr
o
m
th
e
la
s
t
se
v
e
n
ye
a
r
s
of level
bu
d
g
e
t
s
.
14
Ci
t
y
of
Ti
g
a
r
d
FY
1
7
B
u
d
g
e
t
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
Pr
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
•
Sh
o
u
l
d
th
e
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Bu
d
g
e
t
:
1.
Fo
l
l
o
w
st
r
i
c
t
Bu
d
g
e
t
La
w
an
d
ma
k
e
a re
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
on how
to
ap
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
an
y
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
Fu
n
d
ma
d
e
av
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
by
th
e
PMF?
Or
2.
Le
a
v
e
an
y
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
Fu
n
d
ma
d
e
av
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
by
th
e
PM
F
un
a
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
d
?
In
ei
t
h
e
r
sc
e
n
a
r
i
o
,
Bu
d
g
e
t
Co
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
ca
n
re
c
e
i
v
e
Wh
i
t
e
Papers
on
op
t
i
o
n
s
to
fu
n
d
se
r
v
i
c
e
s
.
•
Is
th
e
r
e
ot
h
e
r
gu
i
d
a
n
c
e
?
15
AIS-2411 3.
Workshop Meeting
Meeting Date:12/15/2015
Length (in minutes):20 Minutes
Agenda Title:Tigard Triangle Project Update
Submitted By:Cheryl Caines, Community
Development
Item Type: Update, Discussion, Direct
Staff
Meeting Type: Council
Workshop
Mtg.
Public Hearing
Newspaper Legal Ad Required?:
No
Public Hearing Publication
Date in Newspaper:
Information
ISSUE
Receive a briefing on the Tigard Triangle including updates on the Lean Code and Metro
Community Planning & Development Grant.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST
Receive an update on the Tigard Triangle including the Lean Code and next steps for
implementation.
KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY
Implementation of the Tigard Triangle Strategic Plan is underway. There are several
components of putting the plan into action. Staff is currently focusing on two of those
components: the Triangle Lean Code and the Triangle Community Development Grant with
Metro.
Drafting the Lean Code
During the week of September 14, 2015, Tigard hosted a planning workshop with a
consultant team to develop a framework for a new code and gather feedback on preliminary
zone and code changes. There were 19 individual meetings during the week-long workshop.
Over 100 people participated including city staff, agency representatives, Triangle business and
property owners, Tigard citizens, real estate professionals, and community leaders. Reaction
to the preliminary zoning and lean code was generally positive. Topics of discussion at the
public meetings included building heights, parking requirements, and flexibility/predictability
tradeoffs. A report summarizing the workshop meetings is attached (Working Session Report).
Triangle zoning will continue to be a mix of commercial and mixed use. The code will be form
based and lean. Form based codes focus primarily on the relationship between the street and
site, how buildings relate to one another, and the street scale and design. The use of the term
lean comes from a practice known as Lean Urbanism that seeks to accelerate revitalization by
minimizing regulation. The new code will have fewer regulations, shorter review times, and
require fewer improvements for smaller developments, which results in lower expense and
more certainty for applicants. This allows smaller property owners and business entrepreneurs
to participate in building the Triangle community through incremental change alongside large
scale developers.
A first draft of the Lean Code was provided to city staff by the consultant in late October.
Staff has reviewed the draft, discussed major issues with the consultant team, and provided
detailed edits and comments. Originally the plan was to develop two separate code chapters: a
Lean Code chapter that could be applied to any part of the city, and an updated Triangle Plan
District Chapter. Trying to draft a generic lean code and specific code for the Triangle created
a confusing setup for some readers. It was decided to include the lean code regulations in the
Tigard Triangle Plan District (Chapter 18.620) for simplicity, which is more in the spirit of the
Lean Code philosophy. A second draft is expected in early January.
Scoping for the Community Planning and Development Grant (CPDG) and Adoption of the
Lean Code
In September, the city was awarded a grant from Metro for $145,000 in Community Excise
Tax (CET) funds. The grant application focused on urban renewal and catalyst site
development and branding. However, it has become clear that further stormwater and
transportation planning is needed to implement the Lean Code and support development in
the Triangle. Staff is working with Metro to develop a slightly modified scope that includes
urban renewal and infrastructure planning.
Stormwater requirements are mandated by other agencies and levels of government, so the
city's flexibility with these requirements is limited. One way to allow smaller scale development
to happen without fully constructing stormwater infrastructure is to utilize a fee-in-lieu
mechanism. However, determining a reasonable fee requires a clear understanding of
stormwater needs. A citywide stormwater master plan is in the 2016-17 Capital Improvement
Plan, and would include planning a regional system for the Triangle. Completion of the
master plan is estimated over a year away but there is momentum to adopt a Lean Code for
the Triangle. Staff is considering a phased adoption of the Lean Code. The first phase will
include a lean process and flexibility on some street standards. Phase two will provide for a
leaning of the stromwater requirements.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES
N/A
COUNCIL OR CCDA GOALS, POLICIES, MASTER PLANS
City Council Goal #3 (Adopt Tigard Triangle Strategic Plan and enable future
development capacity).
Tigard Strategic Plan Goals
#1 - Facilitate walking connections to develop an identity.
#2 - Ensure development advances the vision.
DATES OF PREVIOUS CONSIDERATION
August 18, 2015 - joint meeting with Tigard Planning Commission.
Prior dates: September 3, 2013, December 17, 2013, May 13, 2014 and August 12, 2014.
Attachments
Tigard Triangle Working Session Report
Working Session Report
September 14-17, 2015
PlaceMakers, LLC
DPZ
Crabtree Group
Tigard Triangle Lean Code i
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................ 1
COMMUNITY PLANNING PROCESS .......................................................................................................................... 2
TIGARD TRIANGLE ZONING MAP DRAFT 1 ............................................................................................................ 4
T5 HIGH BULK STANDARDS .................................................................................................................................... 5
T5 MEDIUM BULK STANDARDS ............................................................................................................................... 7
TIGARD TRIANGLE NETWORK PLAN ...................................................................................................................... 9
TIGARD TRIANGLE THOROUGHFARE PLAN......................................................................................................... 10
FRONTAGE SETBACKS: COMMON YARD AND FENCED YARD ............................................................................. 11
FRONTAGE SETBACKS: SHALLOW AND URBAN .................................................................................................... 12
FRONTAGE TYPES: PORCH, STOOP, COMMON ENTRY ........................................................................................ 13
FRONTAGE TYPES: GALLERY, ARCADE, SHOPFRONT .......................................................................................... 14
TIGARD TRIANGLE LEAN MATRIX ........................................................................................................................ 15
TIGARD TRIANGLE LEAN MATRIX ........................................................................................................................ 16
T5 MEDIUM AND T5 HIGH PERMITTED USES ....................................................................................................... 17
THOROUGHFARES: TYPICAL, SKINNY, AND TRANSIT.......................................................................................... 18
THOROUGHFARES: ARTERIALS ............................................................................................................................. 19
MEETING 1 | TEAM MEETING | SEPTEMBER 14 | 9:00 A.M. ........................................................ 21
NARROW TRAVEL LANES ...................................................................................................................................... 21
ON-STREET PARKING ............................................................................................................................................. 21
GOAL 2 AT THE STATE LEVEL ABOUT PUBLIC PROCESS ...................................................................................... 21
ANNOTATED CODE OUTLINE ............................................................................................................................... 21
OREGON DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ................................................................................................... 21
TRANSECT LANGUAGE .......................................................................................................................................... 21
MEETING 2 | TOUR TRIANGLE | SEPTEMBER 14 | 10:00 A.M. .................................................... 22
DRIVING TOUR ....................................................................................................................................................... 22
MEETING 3 | LANDOWNERS | SEPTEMBER 14 | 11:00 A.M. ........................................................ 22
MEETING 4 | DEPARTMENT DIRECTORS TRIANGLE STRATEGY | SEPT. 14 | 1 P.M. ............ 22
LEAN CODE: GETTING TO YES .............................................................................................................................. 22
THRESHOLDS .......................................................................................................................................................... 22
PARKING ................................................................................................................................................................. 23
SKINNY STREETS ..................................................................................................................................................... 23
SAFETY .................................................................................................................................................................... 23
HEIGHTS ................................................................................................................................................................. 23
DENSITY .................................................................................................................................................................. 23
STRATEGIC PLAN .................................................................................................................................................... 24
URBAN RENEWAL DISTRICT .................................................................................................................................. 24
MEETING 5 | LEGAL | SEPTEMBER 14 | 2:00 P.M. ......................................................................... 24
ESTABLISH THRESHOLDS ........................................................................................................................................ 24
ADMINISTRATIVE WAIVERS? .................................................................................................................................. 24
ii Working Session Report | September 2015
OBJECTIVE STANDARDS FOR LEVEL 1 COMPLIANCE ............................................................................................ 24
LEVEL 2 FOR LARGE SITES ...................................................................................................................................... 24
INTERPRETATIONS ................................................................................................................................................. 24
HOMEWORK ........................................................................................................................................................... 25
LAND USE DECISION ............................................................................................................................................... 25
NEW CHAPTER 900 ................................................................................................................................................ 25
MEETING 6 | STORMWATER | SEPTEMBER 14 | 2:00 P.M............................................................ 25
DEGRADATION OF THE CREEK ............................................................................................................................. 25
STANDARDS/REGULATIONS .................................................................................................................................. 25
THE STREAM AS AN AMENITY: PILOT PROJECT.................................................................................................... 26
THRESHOLDS AND COLLECTING MONEY............................................................................................................. 26
MASTER SERVICE PROVIDER LETTER .................................................................................................................... 26
GREEN STREETS, STRUCTURAL SOILS, TREED PARKING ...................................................................................... 27
MEETING 7 | TEAM MEETING: DNA OPTIONS | SEPTEMBER 14 | 3:00 P.M. ........................... 27
DNA ....................................................................................................................................................................... 27
PROTOTYPES IN THE REGION ................................................................................................................................ 27
WHAT TO REINFORCE IN THE TRIANGLE NOW ................................................................................................... 27
MEETING 8 | PUBLIC OPEN HOUSE | SEPTEMBER 14 | 6:30 P.M. .............................................. 27
WHAT PLACES IN THE REGION ARE EXAMPLES OF WHAT YOU’D LIKE TO SEE IN THE TRIANGLE? .................... 27
WHICH IS YOUR PRIORITY – FLEXIBILITY OR PREDICTABILITY? ........................................................................... 27
WHAT ARE YOUR ASPIRATIONS OR CONCERNS FOR THE ZONING UPDATE? ...................................................... 28
MEETING 9 | TEAM MEETING | SEPTEMBER 15 | 9:00 A.M. ........................................................ 28
ZONING MAP FIRST DRAFT FOR TODAY AT 4 P.M. .............................................................................................. 28
CHARACTER OF STREETS FOR THE TRANSIT LINE ............................................................................................... 28
STREET SECTIONS ................................................................................................................................................... 29
LAST NIGHT’S PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT ................................................................................................................... 29
MEETING 10 | PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT | SEPTEMBER 15 | 10:00 A.M. ......................... 29
TREE INFRASTRUCTURE......................................................................................................................................... 29
SIDEWALKS .............................................................................................................................................................. 29
THRESHOLDS .......................................................................................................................................................... 29
MEETING 11 | LANDOWNER MEETING | SEPTEMBER 15 | 10:00 A.M. ..................................... 29
MEETING 12 | TRANSPORTATION | SEPTEMBER 15 | 11:00 A.M. .............................................. 29
MEETING 13 | LANDOWNER MEETING | SEPTEMBER 15 | 11:00 A.M. ..................................... 29
MEETING 14 | ODOT | SEPTEMBER 15 | 3:00 P.M. ........................................................................ 30
MEETING 15 | LANDOWNER MEETING | SEPTEMBER 15 | 4:00 P.M. ....................................... 31
MEETING 16 | LANDOWNER GROUP MEETING | SEPTEMBER 15 | 6:00 P.M. ........................ 31
ZONING MAP .......................................................................................................................................................... 31
SETBACKS ................................................................................................................................................................ 31
HEIGHTS ................................................................................................................................................................. 31
Tigard Triangle Lean Code iii
PARKING ................................................................................................................................................................. 31
LANDSCAPING ........................................................................................................................................................ 31
MEETING 17 | TEAM MEETING | SEPTEMBER 16 | 9:00 A.M. ...................................................... 31
LAST NIGHT’S PUBLIC INPUT ................................................................................................................................ 31
LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT .......................................................................................................................... 31
DENSITIES ............................................................................................................................................................... 32
MEETING 18 | TEAM MEETING | SEPTEMBER 16 | 5:00 P.M. ...................................................... 32
NETWORK PLAN ..................................................................................................................................................... 32
REGULATING PLAN ................................................................................................................................................ 32
THOROUGHFARE ASSIGNMENT PLAN .................................................................................................................. 32
LEAN MATRIX SCENARIO ILLUSTRATIONS ........................................................................................................... 32
MEETING 19 | CLOSING AND PUBLIC COMMENT | SEPTEMBER 17 | 6:30 P.M. .................... 32
Tigard Triangle Lean Code 1
Executive Summary
One of Tigard’s goals is to be the most walkable community in the Pacific Northwest. That’s a tall
order, thanks to some inspiring competition. To achieve this, suburban development patterns need to
be repaired from auto-centric to more walkable, bike-able, transit-friendly streets. Today, the most
walkable part of Tigard is downtown on Main Street. The Lean Code intends to help the Triangle step
it up.
While the planning horizon of the Lean Code is 20 years, to enable incremental growth and home-
based businesses as well as larger developments, the Lean Code is based on thresholds that differ for
“small, medium, large, and extra-large” projects. For the smaller developments, certain requirements
including stormwater and traffic impact studies are lessened to spark growth. A Lean Matrix (pages 12-
13) is underway to spell out how this cutting the red tape would apply to redevelopment projects of
varying sizes.
The Lean Code is a form-based code, shaping the form of the built environment first, then allowing a
mixture of compatible uses. The code relies heavily on graphics to spell out rules for a predictable
development environment, and aims to be understandable by landowners and businesses as well as
attorneys and architects. These regulations are based on character, with wider streets like 72nd Avenue
allowing taller buildings up to six stories, and narrower streets like 69th Avenue having buildings up to
four stories. Both of these streets are seen as the most walkable in the Triangle, having a main street
sort of feel making up the spine of the pedestrian street networks seen on the Network Plan (page 6).
Since mixed-use is allowed, more flexibility is available so that a rezoning is not required for a change
of use, providing it is within the range of uses allowed in the Permitted Use Table (page 14). The two
new zoning categories, T5 Medium Intensity and T5 High Intensity, are mixed-use that reflect current
allowed uses, but are expanded based on public input. The use categories are kept as broad as possible;
so that the City does not have to amend the Zoning Map (page 3) every time a millennial has a good
idea. Existing big boxes with little redevelopment pressure will stay zoned as Commercial General.
The Triangle zoning categories are:
• C-G Commercial General: No changes to the standards, only improvements to the process
• T5 Medium Intensity: 4 stories
• T5 High Intensity: 6 stories, along 72nd Avenue, where there is a wider right-or-way width
• T5 Medium Transit Bonus: if transit gets approved, this district automatically increases to 6
stories, with a 20-foot step-back for the fifth and sixth stories, to alleviate a canyon effect on
narrow streets.
The Transect shows how the character of place changes from the most rural to the most urban
environment. It’s a spectrum showing where different plants and animals – as well as economies and
people – thrive. T5 is on the more urban end of the T1-T6 Transect, reflecting the urban aspirations of
the Triangle.
2 Working Session Report | September 2015
Frontage Types (pages 10-11) describe what happens between the building and the sidewalk,
encouraging the buildings to shape the shared public realm, making for informal gathering places and a
sort of outdoor living room. This includes what sort of encroachments and building faces are allowed.
The Triangle has many reasonably-sized blocks, but it also has some blocks that are much too big – or
incomplete – to be walkable. So the Triangle Thoroughfare Plan (page 7) shows how the streets can be
completed over time, as development occurs.
Community Planning Process
The Tigard Triangle Lean Code Working Session during September 2015, provided an opportunity for
the City of Tigard department leaders as well as the Triangle landowners, business leaders, and
developers to work with the PlaceMakers / DPZ / Crabtree consultant team to establish a framework
for the new Lean Code to implement the Triangle Strategic Plan. In advance of the September
working session, a Lean Code Analysis on legal context was completed, along with a Lean Code
Annotated Table of Contents Draft 1.
During nineteen meetings in the Working Session, over 100 people contributed ideas about the
development and market context. The City of Tigard Departments of Community Development,
Engineering, Public Works, Legal, Finance, Fire, and Police worked together to help develop a lean
framework. The Oregon Department of Transportation came to the table as a sounding board for
transportation analysis impacts. A smaller working group of Community Development, Engineering,
and the consulting team developed a matrix of thresholds to enable development, with a small-
medium-large-extra-large approach to development proposals. Drafts of the following documents
received two rounds of public input as well as city staff review:
• zoning map
• street network plan
• thoroughfare plan, which designates street classification and section requirements such as
width, on-street parking, number of lanes, etc.
• frontage types, which illustrates how different types of development will look on the sites.
The Lean Code aspires to empower incremental placemaking by creating tools and techniques so that
more people can actively build their community, focusing on change to create a walkable, bike-able
town center. This sort of removing the red tape to building interconnected neighborhoods helps local
development advances the community vision. A first draft of the Lean Code will be delivered to the
Community Development Department by October 28 and will be considered for adoption in early
2016.
The Lean Code accounts for changing transportation system impacts anticipated as the Tigard Triangle
develops. Initially the code assumes that conditions will continue to approximate a typical suburban
condition, utilizing the ITE trip generation manual for trip estimation. As the Lean Code anticipates
the fulfillment of Metro’s requirements for reduced transportation system impact, the use of a 30%
reduction over ITE trip generation standards is provided for. As Tri-Met considers future high-
Tigard Triangle Lean Code 3
capacity transit service within the Tigard Triangle, the Lean Code provides for the use of up to date
mixed-use trip generation reductions developed by UC Davis in coordination with Portland State
University. Trip generation rate standards are therefore organized into the following three levels:
Level 1: Current Triangle: Traffic study using ITE trip generation standards required for those uses
that would generate over 1,000 new trips via ITE estimate.
Level 2: Triangle implementation meets Metro requirements for 30% reduction over ITE: Traffic
study using a 30% reduction of ITE trip generation standards required for those uses that would
generate over 1,000 new trips via ITE estimate, 30% reduced. Requirements from Metro include a
traffic management plan, zoning out of auto-oriented uses, etc.
Level 3: Triangle receives Tri-Met rail transit: Traffic study using UC Davis trip generation tool
required for those uses that would generate over 1,000 new trips via UC Davis tool estimate.
4 Working Session Report | September 2015
Tigard Triangle Zoning Map Draft 1
Tigard Triangle Lean Code 5
T5 High Bulk Standards
6 Working Session Report | September 2015
Tigard Triangle Lean Code 7
T5 Medium Bulk Standards
8 Working Session Report | September 2015
Tigard Triangle Lean Code 9
Tigard Triangle Network Plan
10 Working Session Report | September 2015
Tigard Triangle Thoroughfare Plan
Tigard Triangle Lean Code 11
Frontage Setbacks: Common Yard and Fenced Yard
12 Working Session Report | September 2015
Frontage Setbacks: Shallow and Urban
Tigard Triangle Lean Code 13
Frontage Types: Porch, Stoop, Common Entry
14 Working Session Report | September 2015
Frontage Types: Gallery, Arcade, Shopfront
Tigard Triangle Lean Code 15
Tigard Triangle Lean Matrix
16 Working Session Report | September 2015
Tigard Triangle Lean Matrix
Tigard Triangle Lean Code 17
T5 Medium and T5 High Permitted Uses
18 Working Session Report | September 2015
Thoroughfares: Typical, Skinny, and Transit
Tigard Triangle Lean Code 19
Thoroughfares: Arterials
20 Working Session Report | September 2015
Tigard Triangle Lean Code 21
Meeting 1 | Team Meeting | September 14 | 9:00 a.m.
Kickoff meeting before team tours Triangle site.
Narrow Travel Lanes
Walkable environments depend heavily on smaller than 11’ travel lanes, to tame the traffic and create
an environment that is safe and comfortable to the pedestrian. Because of the traffic congestion in the
Triangle, there has been reticent to go on street diets. However, it’s not hydraulics: wider lane widths
do not mean more capacity. In fact, just the opposite is true, because as speeds slow down, cars can
travel closer to each other without losing capacity. Paying particular attention to topography and
stormwater, Paul will design a collection of street sections appropriate for the walkable environments
of Tigard.
On-Street Parking
The Tigard Triangle Lean Code will have additional definitions specific to the Transect Zones and
development standards. There is a possibility that some will conflict with the definitions in Chapter
18.120. It will be best to develop an internal set of definitions to the Lean Code rather than
augmenting 18.120.
Goal 2 at the State Level Public Process
Very clear parameters are required to allow expedited approval processes. Work sessions this week
with stormwater, public works, and engineering will begin to define and enable these clear thresholds.
Annotated Code Outline
This week is all about refining and adding content to the code outline, and revising where needed so
that code writing can occur over the next six weeks. City Staff is generally comfortable with the
starting point of the Annotated Code Outline draft, and will make any necessary edits this week.
Oregon Department of Transportation
The State of Oregon Transportation Planning Rule states that zone changes it not have a significant
impact on the surrounding ODOT routes, frequently requiring City street upgrades to comply. A
sensitivity analysis of the Triangle has been completed in 2015, which does show a significant impact
on surrounding routes, due to congestion at each of the entry points into the Triangle. The City much
show if the Lean Code would modify these findings, and if so, how those impacts would be mitigated.
Using projects that are already in the plan, ODOT is asking how to further define and fund queuing
lane extensions at the intersections, particularly the intersections of 72nd and 217 and 99th and 217. Any
planning for transit has to go to a public vote, so can’t make assumptions on it until it is voted on and
approved. Trip Generation Rates for Smart Growth Development estimate a 30% reduction, which
are appropriate for the Triangle as a town center.
Transect Language
Need some explanation of the gradient of intensity. Most zones have multiple uses beyond residential.
Okay with the word “Transect” but need some dialogue regarding the character this week.
22 Working Session Report | September 2015
Meeting 2 | Tour Triangle | September 14 | 10:00 a.m.
Team toured Triangle site.
Driving Tour
Reviewed the Triangle site with planning department staff and the consultant team.
Meeting 3 | Landowners | September 14 | 11:00 a.m.
Meeting with landowners to understand development concerns.
Meeting 4 | Department Directors Triangle Strategy | Sept. 14 | 1 p.m.
Meeting with Department Directors to clarify Triangle Strategy.
Lean Code: Getting to Yes
Brainstorming session for how to speed up development that complies with the strategic plan. Type 1
development and Type 2 development reviews can impact streets and police, etc. Future infrastructure
capital improvements impact finance.
Thresholds
Considering thresholds for various types of development – from redevelopment on smaller parcels to
more extensive developments – based on size of development and what is happening on the site.
Connectivity, major stormwater, public open space are a big deal on large site, but can get lean on
smaller sites.
Timing is an important part of the threshold considerations. Some infrastructure can wait for
collective upgrade, some are more expedient, some can be fee in lieu for small sites that can contribute
to offsite remediation. Example: for a 400 SF addition to an existing building to add a coffee shop. Off-
street parking could certainly be more flexible, to count on street parking, however stormwater is
more complicated.
Need to be clear on when the various thresholds are available. Would be easier if the Lean Code were
supported by a number of master plans: stormwater, parking, streets, etc. In the zoning map, instead
of just having colors on parcels, we’d like to codify the locations of future streets, so that if develop
adjacent to this area, you will put in half of the street.
A Consolidated Review Committee is strongly recommended, so that empowered decision makers
from each department sits at the table with the applicant. In this lean framework, need to open the
possibility of construction and development to a group of people to whom development is otherwise
closed because of professional hurdles. At least in the application process, so that a “completed
application” doesn’t necessarily include traffic studies and wetland studies for the smaller thresholds. If
the City can provide some of that missing professional help in the front end, can save time in the end.
Tigard Triangle Lean Code 23
Parking
On-street, off-street, what are the requirements and how can we work with the Metro Guidelines.
How can we reduce curb cuts and add on-street parking? How can we allow parking reductions, but
within thresholds, dependent on size and use? Some developers may have more parking than the
maximums allow, so we don’t usually recommend maximums. Parking configurations are also
important, for placement on the lot. Perhaps a Triangle Parking Management Plan is also something
needed at some point, whether it’s striping, or shared parking and shuttles. Can also build standards
that trigger different outputs once transit comes into play. May be better served with a credo that City
Staff all knows, pointing out that there will be less room for cars over time, as the place becomes more
beloved, and more people want to be there. But in the mean time, can also do other interventions, like
consolidating curb cuts, mixing compatible uses that have natural shared parking. For a long time, San
Diego’s parking maximums were equal to LA’s parking minimums. Now each new parking space in
San Diego has to be justified via proof of hardship. Paris has been removing thousands of parking spots
per year in their core for awhile now, to allow room for pedestrians and cyclists.
Skinny Streets
How can design speed match posted speed, so that people drive the posted speed? On the pedestrian
streets only, 10’ travel lanes help this happen, along with on-street parking, street trees, and wider
sidewalks. How can those pedestrian streets connect in a network or at least a loop? This forms an A-
Grid of walkable streets, supported by a B-Grid of more service-oriented streets, where the standards
relax slightly. If we try to make all of the streets great, it’s harder to concentrate redevelopment and
see a near-term change. Walnut Street just west of 99 just got restriped to 10’ travel lanes, and no
complaints. Doing 32’ curb-to-curb with parking both sides. But in places with more bus traffic, going
with 10’ 6”.
Safety
Fire district is a special service district of 3-counties, and will be with us tomorrow for the streets. 20’
clear. Big turning radius. 300’ as the hose would lie.
Heights
FAR will go away, and no ODOT height limitations. Instead of regulating height in feet, we like to
regulate height in stories, with a maximum height for each story, usually 14’ floor to ceiling for
residential, and 26’ for commercial. We regulate floor to ceiling because the floor plenum can be
radically different based on the use and the HVAC demand. We calculate to the bottom of a structure
for a loft, but if exceeds 14’ then it’s two stories. The best practice in walkable urban environments
(not in regional cores) is not to exceed 6 stories, but 5 stories is better. The Triangle is likely to be at
least two and possibly three zoning districts, with different heights in each district.
Density
Strongly suggest that we don’t regulate dwelling units per acre, since the bulk standards (lot coverage
and building height) plus parking control for density.
24 Working Session Report | September 2015
Strategic Plan
Some points needs to be tweaked, such as cross block connections, A-B-C Grid
Urban Renewal District
The Urban Renewal District idea is an implementation tool of the Tigard Triangle Strategy, and not
directly a established by the Lean Code. However, this week’s engagement with both City Staff and
the development community has pointed to the benefits of establishing a Tigard Triangle Urban
Renewal District to undertake a number of implementation initiatives, including:
• Master Drainage / Red Rock Creek Restoration Plan
• Parking Management Plan for the Centre consistent 3.08.410 of the RTFP and a subsequent
parking structure(s) as part of the plan
• Transportation System or Demand Management Plan consistent with 3.08.160 of the RTFP
and subsequent street improvements and connections to ODOT facilities
• Sewer Main Extensions
• Master Service Provider Letter
Meeting 5 | Legal | September 14 | 2:00 p.m.
Meeting with Legal Department to understand legal constraints.
Establish Thresholds
• To clarify Level 1, Level 2, and Level 3
Administrative Waivers?
• Possible to provide for administrative waivers, nothing limiting at state enabling legislation
• Waivers for topography and stormwater
Objective Standards for Level 1 compliance
• Parametrics - possible
• Purpose statement is important - broad is good
o Triangle Area
o Block
o Street
o Building
o Open Space
Level 2 for Large Sites
• Requires notification but not hearing
Interpretations
• Council is entitled to deference in interpretation
Tigard Triangle Lean Code 25
Homework
• What is clear and objective?
Land use decision
• Land use decision means that it requires discretion, if its just checking boxes its not a land use
decision (Type 1)
o Subdivision is a land use decision -> we can add clear and objective subdivision
regulations
o Partition = subdivision of 3 lots or less in Oregon law
New Chapter 900
• New Chapter 900, tied to through the plan district, point to parts of the existing code
Meeting 6 | Stormwater | September 14 | 2:00 p.m.
Meeting with Stormwater Management to understand lean stormwater intervention possibilities.
Degradation of the Creek
Red Rock Creek stream channel is eroding. Regionally what we do with the stream corridor, so that
we do not have to deal with stormwater on a lot-by-lot basis, but contribute to a regional solution.
Freeways, big boxes, and slopes are creating the perfect storm, that new development or
redevelopment cannot solve.
Standards/Regulations
The purpose of the regulations are to ensure that development and redevelopment don’t cause
additional negative impact, more than is already there. Post-Q is to not exceed Pre-Q. But Pre-Q is
pretty bad for most of the Triangle. MS4 permit doesn’t allow us to create resilient stream conditions.
New MS4 is to be adopted early next calendar year. If solely rely on regulations, will be no
improvements downstream (all retain and release). Currently working on a stormwater master plan
Citywide (budgeted for this year and next year), to develop a floodplain management plan (storage,
trails, management), that would get integrated with the regulations. Need to set ourselves up so that
the DEQ Permit does not apply generic terms that will be less appropriate to these particular
constraints, by developing a stormwater and district for the triangle.
Problem vs Solutions
The problem is that Red Rock Creek is degrading and eroding and a mess due to subwatershed
degradation. There are several strategies that could address this problem:
• Stream Channel Restoration
• Regional detention/local treatment
• Greenway widening/trails
• On-site BMPs
• Pay-in-lieu (with facility assured)
26 Working Session Report | September 2015
• Designate the projects as “regional”
• Tigard Triangle surcharge fee
• Master Service Provider Letter
• Green light projects at certain thresholds
• Add to toolkits, such as: structural soils, simple green streets, tree infrastructure, green roofs
The Stream as an Amenity: Pilot Project
“Tigard Triangle is already set up as an urbanized area, that we are establishing Red Rock Creek
Watershed District as a pilot to demonstrate how to do things in a different way, to demonstrate a
more holistic approach to stormwater management. As part of the Hydro Modification plan, this area
will be one of the first phases.” Currently, the creek is more like a hazard than an amenity. Work
toward a restored stream channel. Six sewer main breaks in the last five years due to stream erosion.
Stream enhancement, stream channel restoration, regional detention facility, upstream treatment and
infiltration where possible, buffers within the corridor as greenway widening with trails.
Thresholds and Collecting Money
Regional benefits between the Tigard Triangle District (or maybe calling it the Red Rock Creek
Watershed District) and its residents and developers. If the monthly rate payers are all paying an
additional fee that’s going toward redevelopment without doing a lot of onsite stormwater
management, it would be incentivizing redevelopment. Justify a fee on properties in this area because
they are having a huge impact, but there’s also a way to partner up with specific sites and landowners
on stream restoration and park system. This isn’t just a drainage ditch behind your property, this is
your property. Or certainly its biggest amenity. Then others want to be a part of it. There’s a variety
of ways we can structure the fees.
Master Service Provider Letter
Where there’s a wetland, Army Corp of Engineers protect the resources, and we protect the barrier
that’s protecting the resources. But don’t end up with a very development-friendly scenario, because
it’s lot by lot. In Beaverton, predetermined where impact and mitigations will happened, with an
agreement in advance of development.
Beaverton Creek is a straightened stream channel. Our rules have a requirement to pull the
development back from the top of bank a certain amount (25’, 50’), (which can provide development
challenges). Looked at the developments in existence now, and mapped what would likely not
redevelop. Master Service Provider Letter is in draft to determine buffers and encroachments and
alternatives, as well as identified mitigation areas. If a developer wants to then develop as per the
master plan, can do what the MSPL says, and/or pay into a pot for the mitigation that the City has in
play without going through an individual Service Provider Letter process. Looking at how we can
incentivize more de-paving to provide a green ribbon of parkway through the Tigard Triangle. The
master effort leans the process for individual property owners..
Tigard Triangle Lean Code 27
Green Streets, Structural Soils, Treed Parking
Establishing a toolkit for dealing with infrastructure is important. Need more options that fit within
the footprint. If have new structures going up built to new earthquake standards, could justify
structured soils and green roofs. Maybe could give a density bonus for some of these green
interventions.
Meeting 7 | Team Meeting: DNA Options | September 14 | 3:00 p.m.
DNA
Intensity of development. Streetscape type. Transparency on the ground floor. Parking onstreet or
behind the building. Frontage types. Percentage of frontage buildout. Heights. Uses. Signage.
Pedestrian streets (A-Grid) get more stringent requirements, and get looser on the service streets (B-
Grid). Landscaping numbers and location, but not plant type (point to approved plant list).
Prototypes in the region
Burnside, Mississippi Avenue, the Alphabet District
What to Reinforce in the Triangle Now
One-story red brick buildings on Beveland Street
Meeting 8 | Public Open House | September 14 | 6:30 p.m.
The public open house started with a short presentation of the Tigard Triangle Strategy Plan
implementation via the Lean Code, then round-table working sessions addressed these three questions.
What places in the region are examples of what you’d like to see in the Triangle?
• Bridgeport – people can park and walk
• Northwest 23rd Avenue
• Orenco – scale and feel is great, provided it’s in the right area
• Something halfway between Johns Landing and South Waterfront
• St. Johns – people know their neighbors; lots of gathering places
• Take advantage of the natural areas within the Triangle by connect-ing with cycling amenities
and walking paths and sidewalks. Encourage small-scale businesses instead of big box. More
residential.
Which is your priority – flexibility or predictability?
• Challenging to come to consensus.
• Flexibility: more landowners prefer flexibility, to let the free market decide if it wants to build
a café or a house, instead of designating it only for apartments or offices or any single-use
category.
• Predictability: more business owners prefer predictability so people can predictably make
28 Working Session Report | September 2015
investment choices.
What are your aspirations or concerns for the zoning update?
• Aspirations: Ensure connectivity of streets especially 68th, 72nd to 77th Ave. and Hwy. 99;
keep the fir trees; more access to Red Rock Creek; co-hesive; functional; attract small business;
ensure mixed-use everywhere in-stead of any single-use zoning; parking structures at perimeter
of Triangle.
• Concerns: Increased traffic and other transportation issues are inhibiting investment; existing
uses should be protected; incompatibility between us-es and scales; don’t put maximums on
parking; have larger developments mitigate their impacts; 72nd and Dartmouth has
considerable congestion.
Meeting 9 | Team Meeting | September 15 | 9:00 a.m.
Findings, set basic code metrics.
Zoning Map First Draft for Today at 4 p.m.
One zone with subdistricts for intensity. Core Residential confuses people. Using Transect
designations is keyed to intensity. At this moment, considering two zones: one that covers the existing
single-family residential As long as we don’t go below 45’, we aren’t downzoning anyone. We could
go with 3-story and 5-story (or maybe 6-story). The 3-story would have more intensity than the
current FAR, because we’re allowing more lot coverage.
If you have a 10,000 SF lot, and the existing FAR of 0.4, would never get to 45’ unless did a tiny
tower. So if had 60% or 70% lot coverage on 10,000 SF lot, would be 6,000 SF of buildable on one
story, so at 3-stories, this is a significant up-zoning.
In an area the size of the Triangle, at 300+ acres, is two neighborhoods. Need a diversity of intensity
in a neighborhood. Helps build identity. Helps us not be legal, non-conforming to most of the single-
family housing stock, except along 72nd. However, for most minor modifications, we’ll have standards
that make it easy to modify and expand an existing structure, but still may have some challenges with
insurance and financing for legal, non-conforming.
Height, lot coverage, setbacks, and frontages would be different in the two zones.
Character of Streets for the Transit Line
The one-way couplets make these not as walkable of streets, but the car traffic doesn’t have to be one-
way, just the transit.
Otherwise, should consider reclaiming 72nd as an A-Street. Would need 10’ lanes instead of 11’ and on-
street parking. Need to deal with the topography at Dartmouth. The current traffic loads are high
enough to
68th is the service side, and 69th and 72nd are the pedestrian streets.
Tigard Triangle Lean Code 29
Street Sections
The newly designed street sections that we are providing this week may be applicable elsewhere in
Tigard.
Last Night’s Public Engagement
Very civil, helpful conversation. Notes separately.
Meeting 10 | Public Works Department | September 15 | 10:00 a.m.
How does a lean code and successional development of infrastructure impact Public Works staff (those
who review, inspect, and maintain public facilities)? Understanding these issues and trying to find
solutions to eliminate them.
Tree Infrastructure
Structural soil in the tree-well. Small redevelopment may not trigger. Would want barrier on the street
edge, but it can be under the sidewalk. Would have to do under drains, so would have to deal with
ensuring they don’t get root-bound. Would deal with runoff of street.
Sidewalks
Have to figure out street section for sidewalks and trees. Gets away from soil volumes. Instead of a
LIDA facility, it’s trees with a surface around them, cutting maintenance costs significantly.
Thresholds
Have to figure out what triggers the ditch improvements and culverts. Or if using the ditch as
stormwater, must use a particular design v-notch or trapezoidal.
Jump-start vibrancy by encouraging low-hanging fruit: marked on map.
Meeting 11 | Landowner Meeting | September 15 | 10:00 a.m.
Meeting with landowners to understand development concerns.
Meeting 12 | Transportation | September 15 | 11:00 a.m.
Discussions to help the PlaceMakers team understand transportation concerns and obtain feedback on
street section concepts.
ODOT Process: 1. New Zoning Map, 2. Compare to Sensitivity Analysis, 3. Debate the Assumptions
with ODOT, 4. If delta increases, amend the TSP.
Meeting 13 | Landowner Meeting | September 15 | 11:00 a.m.
Meeting with landowner to understand development concerns.
30 Working Session Report | September 2015
Meeting 14 | ODOT | September 15 | 3:00 p.m.
Joint meeting with ODOT. The changes in the Tigard Triangle will impact the surrounding state
highways. This meeting will focus on how to address those impacts, including better defining
interchange and queuing lane projects within the Transportation System Plan and funding for those
improvements.
Rezoning has to address the Transportation Planning Rule if it has a significant impact on the
surrounding ODOT routes, to ensure adequate infrastructure for 20 years. A sensitivity analysis of the
Triangle has been completed for one likely build-out scenario, which did show a significant impact on
surrounding routes, however but it was based on Euclidean zoning instead of the current form-based
Lean Code. The City becomes responsible to improve safety and capacity, with mitigation put in the
Transportation System Plan with some sort of funding mechanism identified. With the new zoning,
would need to demonstrate if the current TSP is adequate or if it needs other mitigation.
217 southbound at 99 W or 217 northbound at 72nd.
Trip generation calculations in the ITE are based on single-use zoning where everything is a car trip.
Trip Generation for Smart Growth development from University California at Davis for CALTRAN,
which has been replicated for Orgeon, which shows reduced trip generation from internal trip capture.
Will have to demonstrate the trip capture.
Without some major consolidation of the very small parcels in the study area, it’s unrealistic to assume
that we will get the maximum intensity. Does ODOT have parameters for areas that are significantly
built out? This is much more of an incremental smaller scale development, with a fewer big projects.
Start with the study that was done, but make whatever assumptions are appropriate
The TSP requirement is 0.85 or 0.9 queuing analysis at intersections. 0.99 within the area.
, because it’s already so congested at each of the entry points into the Triangle. So we have to show
how we are going to mitigate those impacts. Using projects that are already in the plan, but ODOT is
asking us how to further define and fund. ODOT is used to dealing with FAR and height limitations,
and they’re also used to dealing with safety issues at the intersections. Finding financing to extend the
queuing lanes at the intersections, particularly the intersections of 72nd and 217 and 99th and 217.
Transit was not taking into the account in the sensitivity analysis. Any planning for transit has to go
to a public vote, so can’t make assumptions on it until it is voted on and approved. We permitted to
zone in anticipation, based on the Strategic Plan. Trip Generation Rates for Smart Growth
Development – Paul Crabtree will share. 30% reduction because it’s a town center.
Shifting emphasis from capacity to safety.
ITE 9 has some mixed use as well as the CALTRAN. ODOT is currently consulting with the LCD on
City of Portland for the TSP and Multi Modal Area (MMA) on the last 14 months to establish
assumptions for analysis both downtown and on the east side of Portland, but more for trip
generation, but not sure about how much for trip counts and trip capture.
Tigard Triangle Lean Code 31
Meeting 15 | Landowner Meeting | September 15 | 4:00 p.m.
Meeting with landowner to understand development concerns.
Meeting 16 | Landowner Group Meeting | September 15 | 6:00 p.m.
Meeting with landowners to understand development concerns.
Zoning Map
Additional transit trigger area in SW, Bev/Hermoso pocket. Most people liked the zoning map. Desire
to see neighborhood sale community amenities like coffee shops and restaurants.
Setbacks
Prefer to have 0’ setbacks on front and back setbacks – on narrow lots, every foot matters. Concern
about ROW on 70th and 72nd when streets expand.
Heights
High Intensity: Some prefer shorter, but others prefer as high as possible at 6 stories to support mixed-
use as well as preserve some greenspace for parks and recreation. Some prefer to make high intensity
area step back after 4 stories tall, if we are going to 6 stories. Others prefer not having the step-back. It
would be helpful to see what these different heights look like. 82% of jobs in Tigard are held by non-
Tigard residents so we need more residential.
Medium Intensity: most prefer 4 stories.
Parking
Parking management is essential if we go with 6 stories, so as not to have a sea of parking. But have
shared parking. No maximums, need minimums, and need shared parking. Reduce parking
requirements further near the transit after transit
Landscaping
Please remove the 15% minimums. Almost impossible on smaller lots – this would be a good thing to
make a trigger based on lot size.
Meeting 17 | Team Meeting | September 16 | 9:00 a.m.
Findings, set basic zoning districts.
Last Night’s Public Input
Reviewed and discussed.
Local Improvement District
Right now, not collecting money for projects, although outside of this scope, should establish a list of
projects. But are requiring a traffic study for each large applicant, with no clear triggers, but depends
on how many trips the project adds. Consider as simple as lot size and amount of change proposed.
32 Working Session Report | September 2015
Densities
Considering the acreage in each zoning district and utilizing the numbers currently enabled, would
enable 2400 to 3000 residential units compared to 2195 in 1995. And that’s before we take into account
that mixed use will reduce residential.
Meeting 18 | Team Meeting | September 16 | 5:00 p.m.
Present current product to PWD & CDD for review.
Network Plan
Even if a lot is too small to require the dedication of right-of-way on the matrix, but if the lot is a
required connection on the Network Plan, the lot still has to dedicate public right-of-way for streets.
Regulating Plan
Modify per group input.
Thoroughfare Assignment Plan
Add trails.
Lean Matrix Scenario Illustrations
A Lean Matrix was drafted Discussions between the Town Staff and Laurence Qamar are underway to
develop hypothetical plans to illustrate each of the scenarios within the Lean Matrix.
Meeting 19 | Closing and Public Comment | September 17 | 6:30 p.m.
Public presentation of work done during the week and opportunities for public comment.
This week, we’ve heard a lot of interest in incremental growth: to enable home-based businesses and
small developers. So the Lean Code is based on small, medium, large, and extra-large development. For
the small developments, stormwater and traffic impact studies are lessened.
The first night, we discussed whether people were more interested in predictability or flexibility.
While people valued both, the majority of people favored predictability so that everyone can know
what the rules are and get development built in a predictable development environment.
There are two zoning categories that are mixed-use that reflect current allowed uses, but are expanded
somewhat based on public input. New uses include things like group homes. The use categories are
kept as broad as possible, so that we don’t have to amend the zoning ordinance every time a millennial
has a good idea.
Frontage types describes what happens between the building and the sidewalks. This includes what
sort of encroachments and building faces are allowed. This code is more graphic to not have to have a
land use attorney to interpret it.
C-G: No changes to the standards, only improvements to the process.
Tigard Triangle Lean Code 33
T5 Medium Intensity: 4 stories
T5 High Intensity: 6 stories, along 72nd Avenue, where there is a wider right-or-way width.
T5 Medium Transit Bonus: if and when transit gets
One of Tigard’s goals is to be the most walkable community in the Pacific Northwest. That’s a tall
order, because there’s some great competition. To achieve this, the suburban development patterns
would need to be repaired from more auto-centric patterns to more walkable, bike-able patterns. The
urban form of the city contributes massively to walkability. The most walkable part of Tigard now is
downtown on Main Street.
The Transect shows how one thing changes from the most rural to the most urban environment. It’s a
spectrum of different environments, where different plants and animals as well as economies and
people, thrive.
The Triangle has many reasonably-sized blocks, but it also has some blocks that are much to big – or
incomplete – to be walkable. So the Triangle Thoroughfare Plan shows how the streets can be
completed over time, as development occurs.
Q1: You talk about walkability, and in the beginning you mentioned fences. Those two don’t mix. We
have very small lots within the Triangle. It would be nice to have no fences. It would be nice for my
customer to be able to walk to the next store.
A1: Fences only are appropriate in the residential portion of the neighborhood. It helps people to feel
comfortable on the front porch in places where there is a very short front setback.
Q2: Is there a way that the City could address shared driveways in the code?
A2: As we develop the access standards, we will address shared or tandem driveways. However, the
actual negotiation for a new structure would be between the two property owners. The code will not
require shared driveways, but it might be able to point to sample agreements, should
Q3: Will there be landscape requirements, and can they be reduced?
A3: There will be requirements for pervious surfaces, in part for stormwater management. Any
landscape standards would only apply to the front.
Q4: What are the parking standards, and will they be shared or reduced if transit comes? And also for
senior housing and affordable houses.
A4: We are still developing the parking standards, but we will certainly recommend shared parking
standards. Right now the parking standards are quite suburban in nature, so they will likely become
significantly less as the area urbanizes. We usually do a 50% parking reduction for senior and
affordable housing. Chapter 18.765 in the Tigard Community Development Code has the current
parking standards, but these will be modified in the Lean Code.
34 Working Session Report | September 2015
Q5: Please define “green street.”
A5: It’s a way stormwater can be captured and pretreated within the right-of-way, including rain
gardens and swales. The question is if we can do it in a way that is not unreasonably expensive, then it
would definitely be a practice to encourage.
Q6: How can I get a copy of all the boards that are on exhibit tonight?
A6: They will be posted on the City of Tigard website. Or leave email addresses into the sign-in sheet,
or contact Cheryl Caines.
Q7: Are the overepasses of 217 approved?
A7: In the 2009 Transportation Plan, an overpass for Hampton to Hunsiger was approved to move up
to Beveland. There are so many lights along 72nd, that they begin to interfere with movement along
217. At some point, it will move up the Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) list, as traffic demand
increases and traffic delays worsen, or if spending on transit comes through earlier.
Q8: How long can we continue to provide input?
A8: Until the first week in December.
AIS-2464 4.
Workshop Meeting
Meeting Date:12/15/2015
Length (in minutes):15 Minutes
Agenda Title:IGA with WA County for Funding Roy Rogers Rd
Improvements
Prepared For: Susan Shanks Submitted By:Susan
Shanks,
Community
Development
Item Type: Update, Discussion,
Direct Staff
Meeting Type: Council
Workshop
Mtg.
Public Hearing
Newspaper Legal Ad Required?:
No
Public Hearing Publication
Date in Newspaper:
Information
ISSUE
This briefing is on the attached draft intergovernmental agreement (IGA) with Washington
County. The IGA stipulates that the county is responsible for making improvements to Roy
Rogers Road through River Terrace and that both parties are responsible for sharing in the
cost of those improvements.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST
This briefing is for informational purposes only. Staff is scheduled to return to Council next
month to ask whether the city should sign the IGA as drafted.
KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY
The Washington County Board of Commissioners approved a new transportation funding
program for high-growth residential areas in June of this year. Soon afterwards, city and
county staff began drafting an IGA that would specify how the needed Roy Rogers Road
improvements through River Terrace would be constructed and funded. In addition to
explaining how this new transportation funding program will work, staff will summarize the
IGA and describe how it relates to existing land use approvals obtained by Polygon
Northwest.
The IGA contains several key components.
I. Section 1 (Project Description) generally describes the scope of the improvements and
allows for design flexibility. This flexibility will give city staff the opportunity to extend the
improvements as far to the south as the budget will allow.
II. Section 2 (Project Design) includes city staff on the design team. This involvement will give
city staff the opportunity to influence project design to meet city goals and objectives (e.g.
more connectivity for pedestrians, cyclists, and drivers) and keep the project on budget.
III. Section 3 (Construction of Project) identifies Washington County as the agency
responsible for building the improvements.
IV. Section 4 (Project Cost) includes the current cost estimate for constructing the
improvements and how the city will participate in managing project costs through the project
design and public bidding phases.
V. Section 5 (Project Funding) describes the city and county’s cost sharing obligations and the
city’s payment terms, as follows:
- Washington County will be responsible for 66.7% of project costs and Tigard will be
responsible for 33.3% of project costs. This cost split roughly equates to the amount of future
traffic that is expected to be regional in nature (from through-traffic) versus local in nature
(from new River Terrace development).
- The county will credit the city for eligible improvements that are built by private
development. Since the city will need to issue system development charge (SDC) credits to
developers for building these improvements, this provides the city with the opportunity to get
credit for the contributions to the project and is consistent with the assumptions in the River
Terrace Funding Strategy.
- The city will be required to pay the county for its share of project costs on an annual
basis after the notice to proceed has been issued for the awarded construction bid. City staff
is confident that the city will have collected a sufficient amount of Transportation SDCs and
Transportation Development Tax (TDT) fees to keep pace with the payment terms.
- A maximum city contribution of $9,000,000 is included so as to be consistent with the
assumptions in the River Terrace Funding Strategy.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES
Alternative #1: Council could propose modifications to the recitals, terms, conditions, and/or
covenants of the IGA.
Alternative #2: Council could direct staff to not sign the IGA. Since this would likely result in
private development building the improvements instead of Washington County, the city
would likely end up in a position where it had to issue SDC and/or TDT credits to private
development in excess of the city's Roy Rogers Road improvements budget as estimated and
described in the River Terrace Funding Strategy.
COUNCIL OR CCDA GOALS, POLICIES, MASTER PLANS
Council Goal 4: Enable Groundbreaking in River Terrace by Summer 2015
Approved Plans: River Terrace Community Plan, Transportation System Plan, and Funding
Strategy
DATES OF PREVIOUS CONSIDERATION
Council adopted the following plans, codes, maps, and fees:
- Dec 16, 2014: River Terrace Community Plan, Transportation System Plan, and Funding
Strategy
- Apr 28, 2015: Residential Transportation System Development Charges (citywide/River
Terrace)
Attachments
WA County IGA for Roy Rogers Rd Funding
Page 1 of 9
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT
BETWEEN
WASHINGTON COUNTY AND THE CITY OF TIGARD
FOR FUNDING AND CONSTRUCTION OF TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS ON ROY
ROGERS ROAD
This Intergovernmental Agreement is between Washington County, a political subdivision of the State
of Oregon, acting by and through its elected officials, hereinafter referred to as “COUNTY”; and the
City of TIGARD, a municipal corporation, acting by and through its City Council, hereinafter referred
to as “CITY”. COUNTY and CITY may be jointly referred to as the “Parties” or individually as
“Party.”
RECITALS
A. WHEREAS, ORS 190.010 authorizes agencies to enter into intergovernmental agreements for
the performance of any or all functions and activities that a party to the agreement has the
authority to perform; and
B. WHEREAS, recent additions to the region’s Urban Growth Boundary in Washington County,
hereinafter referred to as Residential High-Growth Areas, will need transportation
infrastructure to comply with planning requirements and to function successfully; and
C. WHEREAS, COUNTY and cities with Residential High-Growth Areas identified and selected
multiple transportation improvement projects for design and construction which consists of
COUNTY and State facilities located in and near these High Growth Areas (“ Residential
High-Growth Area Transportation Funding Program Project List” hereinafter “Project List”)
and attached as Exhibit ‘A’; and
D. WHEREAS, in order to help fund construction of improvements on the Project List, COUNTY
intends to create bonded indebtedness titled the Residential High-Growth Area Bonds based on
the growth of MSTIP funds; and
E. WHEREAS, on June 23, 2015 the Washington County Board of Commissioners approved
Resolution and Order 15-43 establishing the Residential High-Growth Area Transportation
Funding Program; and
F. WHEREAS, Resolution and Order 15-43 calls for the COUNTY to pay for sixty-six point
seven percent (66.7%) of costs and the CITY to pay for thirty-three point three percent (33.3%)
of costs to construct the projects on the Project List that serve both COUNTY and CITY
transportation needs; and
Page 2 of 9
G. WHEREAS, the Project List includes a project to complete construction of improvements to
Roy Rogers Road from Scholls Ferry Road to a point south of Bull Mountain Road; and
H. WHEREAS, the CITY, consistent with the powers and purposes of city government, finds it
necessary and desirable for the continued growth, safety and welfare of the community that the
Roy Rogers Road improvement project be funded and constructed; and
I. WHEREAS, the COUNTY and CITY find it is beneficial to the public to partner to complete
the Roy Rogers Road improvement project as provided in this Agreement and that such
partnership will minimize disruption of public travel and commerce, establish economies of
scale that will reduce the cost to the public, and provide other good and valuable benefits to the
general public; and
J. WHEREAS, the Parties desire to define the components and estimated cost of the Roy Rogers
Road improvement project, establish COUNTY and CITY funding obligations, provide a
schedule for CITY payments for the improvement project, and otherwise allocate the roles and
responsibilities of each Party as detailed below.
AGREEMENT
NOW, THEREFORE, the premise being in general as stated in the foregoing recitals, and in
consideration of the terms, conditions and covenants as set forth below, the Parties hereto agree as
follows:
1. Project Description. The Roy Rogers Road improvement project, hereinafter referred to as
“PROJECT” and shown generally on the attached Exhibit ‘B’, will include four vehicle travel
lanes, turn lanes as appropriate, pedestrian and bicycle facilities, intersection improvements at
the Bull Mountain Road and Scholls Ferry Road intersections, and improvements to address
connectivity at two additional intersections on Roy Rogers Road between Scholls Ferry Road
and Bull Mountain Road, including the Lorenzo Lane / Jean Louise Road intersection. The
PROJECT description may be amended and extended upon mutual written consent of the
Parties. The PROJECT, as originally planned or extended, shall be designed and constructed in
compliance with County Community Development Code and County Road Design and
Construction Standards in effect at the time of design and construction.
2. Project Design. The COUNTY shall include the CITY on the design team to refine the
PROJECT description, develop the PROJECT design, and review final design plans prior to
bidding. COUNTY agrees to consider CITY comments.
Page 3 of 9
3. Construction of Project. The COUNTY shall perform, or cause to be performed, all actions
necessary for the design and construction of the PROJECT including project management,
design and construction engineering, property acquisition, including right-of-way as necessary,
regulatory and land use permits and approvals, public information, contract administration,
inspection and construction management. COUNTY shall coordinate the design of, advertise
for, award and administer the construction contract for the PROJECT.
4. Project Cost. The Parties agree that the general categories and estimated cost amounts
associated with all aspects of the design, engineering, right-of-way acquisition, permitting,
construction, installation, contingency and related administration of the PROJECT are as
follows:
ITEM AMOUNT
Design $3,400,000
Right-of-Way $1,500,000
Construction $20,000,000
TOTAL PROJECT COST ESTIMATE $24,900,000
4.1 COUNTY and CITY understand and agree that the design, right-of-way and
construction components outlined above are estimates only and are used to determine
project budgets and estimated payment amounts used within this Agreement. Final costs
will be based on the actual contract amount of the schedule of prices and quantities used
and installed. Notwithstanding the estimates shown above, the COUNTY and CITY
agree that the funding contribution of each Party, as set forth in Section 5, shall be
based on actual design invoices, bid prices, construction costs and quantities and non-
construction costs such as account and managing the project.
4.2 Notwithstanding Section 4.1 above, the Parties agree and expressly acknowledge that
the PROJECT cost estimate described above will be reviewed as provided below:
4.2.1 Within thirty (30) days of receipt of COUNTY’s 30% design plans,
specifications and engineer’s estimate (PSE), the Parties shall review the
estimated PROJECT cost and the COUNTY may consider PROJECT cost
adjustments that do not significantly impact PROJECT description or schedule.
4.2.2 Within thirty (30) days of receipt of COUNTY’s 50% PSE, the Parties shall
review the estimated PROJECT cost and the COUNTY may consider PROJECT
cost adjustments that do not significantly impact PROJECT description or
schedule.
Page 4 of 9
4.2.3 Within thirty (30) days of receipt of COUNTY’s 90% PSE, the Parties shall
review the estimated PROJECT cost and the COUNTY may consider PROJECT
cost adjustments that do not significantly impact PROJECT description or
schedule.
4.2.4 Upon public opening of the bid solicitation and before award of any bid,
COUNTY shall provide CITY with bid tabs and other pertinent bid information
of the apparent low bidder. Within fifteen (15) days after receipt of such
information, the Parties shall review and reach agreement in writing on any
adjustments to the estimated PROJECT cost. Failure of the CITY to provide the
COUNTY with comments regarding the estimated PROJECT cost within fifteen
(15) days after public opening of the bid shall be deemed approval of the
estimated PROJECT cost without further action by the COUNTY.
4.3 COUNTY shall provide CITY with a final statement of PROJECT design expenses
within forty five (45) days after completion of the design phase described in Section
4.2. Within forty five (45) days after the completion of the construction contract, the
COUNTY shall provide the CITY with a final statement of construction costs. The total
final PROJECT cost shall be reconciled with the final design and construction cost
statements provided to the CITY.
4.4 The Parties shall meet throughout the PROJECT design process to determine which
portions of the PROJECT will be built by COUNTY’s contractor and which will be
built by private development.
5. Project Funding. The Parties agree as follows:
5.1 COUNTY shall fully fund, pursuant to the Residential High-Growth Area Bond, the
PROJECT cost in the estimated amount of $24,900,000 or the PROJECT cost as
adjusted. After repayment by CITY, COUNTY costs shall be in an amount equal to
sixty-six point seven percent (66.7%) of the total final PROJECT cost, less the CITY’s
costs as described in Section 5.2.
5.2 CITY shall pay to COUNTY an amount equal to thirty-three point three percent
(33.3%) of the total final PROJECT cost, up to a maximum of $9,000,000, as
determined through the provisions of this Agreement, less the value of any eligible
portions of the PROJECT that are constructed by private development, as described in
Sections 5.2.1, 5.2.2, 5.2.3, and 5.2.4 below.
Page 5 of 9
5.2.1 Portions of the PROJECT constructed by private development that are eligible
to count toward the CITY’s cost contribution shall include: dedication of right-
of-way, construction of sidewalks that are between five and six feet wide,
landscaping and trees as described in the Washington County Road Design &
Construction Standards, bike lanes, street lights, roadway widening to
accommodate general purpose through-lanes and a center left turn lane or
median, traffic signals at the intersection of Roy Rogers Road and Bull
Mountain Road, traffic signals at the intersection of Roy Rogers Road and
Lorenzo Lane / Jean Louise Road, traffic signal modifications at the intersection
of Roy Rogers Road and Scholls Ferry Road, stormwater facilities designed to
treat and manage runoff from Roy Rogers Road, and a proportional share of
regional stormwater facilities designed to treat and manage runoff from Roy
Rogers Road.
5.2.2 Portions of the PROJECT constructed by private development that are not
eligible to count toward the CITY’s cost contribution include: traffic signals,
turn lanes and accesses at intersections not provided for in Section 5.2.1, utility
undergrounding, stormwater facilities that are not designed to treat or manage
run off from Roy Rogers Road, landscaping in excess of that described in the
Washington County Road Design & Construction Standards, landscape
maintenance of planted medians, sidewalk width beyond six feet, and sidewalk
length in excess of the length of the adjacent roadway caused by a meandering
design.
5.2.3 CITY shall fully fund portions of the PROJECT outside of the PROJECT
description when requested as a betterment by CITY, including but not limited
to a pedestrian undercrossing at the location of the northernmost Roy Rogers
Road bridge.
5.2.4 Final determination of eligibility and cost contribution under this section shall
be at the sole discretion of the COUNTY.
5.3 CITY has adopted a mutually acceptable funding strategy for repayment of PROJECT
costs, including existing revenue sources (such as the Transportation Development
Tax), supplemental system development charges, and conditions imposed upon private
development to construct portions of the PROJECT, attached as Exhibit ‘C’.
5.4 CITY shall make annual installment payments to COUNTY for its share of PROJECT
costs no later than March 15th of each year. CITY’s obligation to make payments shall
commence in the fiscal year following the fiscal year in which the notice to proceed has
Page 6 of 9
been issued for the awarded construction bid. The amount will be determined as
follows:
5.5.1 Initial installment payments shall be based on the PROJECT costs determined at
the time of awarding the bid.
5.5.2 Installment payments shall be adjusted when the PROJECT costs are reconciled
as provided in Sections 5.2 and 4.3.
5.5.3 CITY shall make equal annual payments, as described in Sections 5.5.1 and
5.5.2, for ten years or until the amount is paid in full. There is no penalty for
early payment by the CITY, but in no event shall payment extend beyond ten
years except by mutual written consent of the Parties.
5.5 CITY agrees to contribute up to a maximum of $9,000,000 to the PROJECT per its
adopted River Terrace Funding Strategy, including the value of any eligible portions of
the PROJECT that are constructed by development. In no event shall CITY be obligated
to pay the COUNTY more than the total amount described in Section 5.2 in satisfaction
of its funding obligation under this Agreement.
5.6 Nothing in this Agreement obligates the CITY to contribute to any other projects on the
Project List.
6.0 General Provisions
6.1 LAWS OF OREGON
The parties shall comply with all applicable laws and regulations regarding the handling
and expenditure of public funds. This Agreement shall be construed and enforced in
accordance with the laws of the State of Oregon. All applicable provisions required by
ORS Chapter 279A and 279C to be included in public contracts are incorporated and
made a part of this Agreement as if fully set forth herein.
Page 7 of 9
6.2 DEFAULT
Time is of essence in the performance of the Agreement. Either party shall be deemed
to be in default if it fails to comply with any provisions of this Agreement. The non-
defaulting party shall provide the other party with written notice of default and allow
thirty (30) days within which to cure the defect.
6.3 INDEMNIFICATION
This Agreement is for the benefit of the Parties only. Each Party agrees to indemnify
and hold harmless the other Party, and its officers, employees, and agents, from and
against all claims, demands and causes of actions and suits of any kind or nature for
personal injury, death or damage to property on account of or arising out of services
performed, the omissions of services or in any way resulting from the negligent or
wrongful acts or omissions of the indemnifying party and its officers, employees and
agents. To the extent applicable, the above indemnification is subject to and shall not
exceed the limits of liability of the Oregon Tort Claims Act (ORS 30.260 through
30.300). In addition, each Party shall be solely responsible for any contract claims,
delay damages or similar items arising from or caused by the action or inaction of the
Parties under this Agreement.
6.4 MODIFICATION OF AGREEMENT
No waiver, consent, modification or change of terms of this Agreement shall be binding
unless in writing and signed by both Parties. In the event of unforeseen circumstances
which limit the ability of the CITY to repay its share of PROJECT Costs, the Parties
will meet to negotiate terms which may include changes to future MSTIP projects in the
CITY.
6.5 DISPUTE RESOLUTION
The Parties shall attempt to informally resolve any dispute concerning any Party’s
performance or decisions under this Agreement, or regarding the terms, conditions or
meaning of this Agreement. The Parties agree that in the event of an impasse in the
resolution of any dispute, the issue shall be submitted to the COUNTY Director of Land
Use & Transportation and the CITY Manager for recommendation or resolution. If
resolution cannot be reached, a neutral third party may be used if the Parties agree to
facilitate these negotiations.
6.6 REMEDIES
Subject to the provisions in paragraph 6.5, any Party may institute legal action to cure,
Page 8 of 9
correct or remedy any default, to enforce any covenant or agreement herein, or to enjoin
any threatened or attempted violation of this Agreement. All legal actions shall be
initiated in Washington County Circuit Court. The Parties, by signature of their
authorized representatives below, consent to the personal jurisdiction of that court.
6.7 EXCUSED PERFORMANCE
In addition to the specific provisions of this Agreement, performance by any Party shall
not be in default where delay or default is due to war, insurrection, strikes, walkouts,
riots, floods, drought, earthquakes, fires, casualties, acts of God, governmental
restrictions imposed or mandated by governmental entities other than the Parties,
enactment of conflicting state or federal laws or regulations, new or supplementary
environmental regulation, litigation or similar bases for excused performance that are
not within the reasonable control of the Party to be excused.
6.8 SEVERABILITY
If any one or more of the provisions contained in this Agreement is invalid, illegal or
unenforceable in any respect, the validity, legality and enforceability of the remaining
provisions of the Agreement will not be affected or impaired in any way.
6.9 INTEGRATION
This Agreement is the entire agreement of the Parties on its subject and supersedes any
prior discussions or agreements regarding the same subject.
7. Term of Agreement
7.1 The term of the Agreement shall be from the date of execution until the completion of
the PROJECT and the CITY’s payment obligations, as described in Sections 4 and 5.
Sections 6.3, 6.5, and 6.6 shall survive termination or expiration of this Agreement.
7.2 This Agreement may be amended or extended for periods of up to one (1) year by
mutual written consent of the Parties.
[Signature Page to Follow]
Page 9 of 9
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have set their hands as of the day and year hereinafter
written.
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
CITY MANAGER/MAYOR
DATE:
ATTEST:
CITY RECORDER
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
CITY ATTORNEY
WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON
CHAIR, BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS
DATE:
RECORDING SECRETARY
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
COUNTY COUNSEL
Exhibit ‘A’
Residential High-Growth Areas Transportation Funding Program Project List – Tigard
Road Extent PROJECT
Description1
Total Cost2 County
Cost2
Local Cost2 TDT
Project
Number3
Years 1-34
Roy Rogers Rd Scholls Ferry –
south of Bull
Mountain
Widen to 5 lanes $24,900,000 $16,600,000 $8,300,000 TBD
Total, Years 1-10 $24,900,000 $16,600,000 $8,300,000
Notes:
1. “Widening” projects include pedestrian/bicycle facilities, lighting, stormwater, etc.
2. Project costs are estimates and are subject to change.
3. Transportation Development Tax (TDT) project numbers shown as “TBD” are to be determined when
those projects are added to the TDT Project List.
4. Project timeframes shown are tentative and subject to change.
SW SCHOLLS FER R Y R O A D
S W R O Y R O G E R S R O A D
SW
R
O
S
H
AK
R
O
A
D
S
W
1
7
5
T
H
A
V
E
N
U
E
SW BULL MOUNTAIN ROAD
S
W BARROWS ROAD
Beaverton
Tigard
210
±
MAP LOCATION
SW ROY ROGERS ROAD
SCHOLLS FERRY ROAD TO BULL MOUNTAIN ROAD
VICINITY MAP
Map Date: August 10, 2015
Prepared by: EDF
PROJECT
LOCATION
PROJECT 100255
$149,600,000
$76,920,000
$17,527,000
$30,000,000
$25,153,000
$3,000,000
$1,396,800
$1,047,600
$8,730,000
$11,039,958
$900,000
$26,114,358
$961,358
Summary of Fees and Charges:$5
$450
$5,000
$6,323
3) Assumed 75% of Citywide TSDC and TDT collected in River Terrace to stay in River Terrace.
1) Subsequent SDC methodology report resulted in the adoption of different TSDC fees than shown here.
2) Assumed $28M for River Terrace Blvd and $8M for Roy Rogers Road, not including intersection
improvements.
Citywide TDT
Developer Contributions:
Non-creditable Public Costs (Collector Streets)
Private Costs (Neighborhood Routes)
Public Capital Costs
Public Funding Sources:
General Fund Transfers
ADOPTED STRATEGY2
75% Allocation3
City of Tigard Transportation Funding Strategy for
River Terrace1
River Terrace TUF
River Terrace TSDC
Citywide TSDC
RT Transportation System Development Charge (TSDC)
Citywide Transportation System Development Charge (TSDC)
Citywide Transportation Development Tax (TDT)
Grants
Total RT Revenue
Net Revenue
RT Transportation Utility Fee (TUF)
River Terrace (RT) Transportation Costs
Outside Funding Strategy:
Non-RT Costs & Outside Planning Area/Horizon
AIS-2413 5.
Workshop Meeting
Meeting Date:12/15/2015
Length (in minutes):25 Minutes
Agenda Title:River Terrace Update
Prepared For: Susan Shanks, Community Development
Submitted By:Susan Shanks, Community Development
Item Type: Update, Discussion, Direct Staff Meeting Type: Council
Workshop
Mtg.
Public Hearing: No Publication Date:
Information
ISSUE
Update Council on the progress of development in River Terrace.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST
This update is for informational purposes only. Council is encouraged to ask staff questions
on topics of interest.
KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY
Staff will update Council on the following topics:
1. Land use applications, permits, and development activities. Much has happened since
Council adopted zoning in February of this year. Staff will provide an overview of the land
use approvals and permits that have been issued, explain how it has managed this workload,
and describe what it expects to see on the ground in the near future. See attached for a
conceptual site plan of future development in River Terrace prepared by Polygon Northwest.
2. Project communication. With development underway, the need for information has not
decreased, but it has shifted. Staff will share what it is hearing from the public and summarize
how it has kept up with the demand for different kinds of information from a diverse set of
stakeholders.
3. Roy Rogers Road improvements. The Washington County Board of Commissioners
approved a new transportation funding program for high-growth residential areas in June of
this year. Soon afterwards, city and county staff began drafting an intergovernmental
agreement (IGA) that would specify how the needed Roy Rogers Road improvements
through River Terrace would be constructed and funded. Staff will explain how this new
transportation funding program is intended to work, what currently included in the IGA, and
transportation funding program is intended to work, what currently included in the IGA, and
when Council might expect to see a draft IGA for their consideration.
4. Strategic Plan efforts. After Jeff Speck's critique of River Terrace this past summer, the city
engaged Confluence Planning, an active transportation consultant, to work closely with
development review staff as it evaluates the various detailed development plans submitted by
Polygon Northwest. Staff will describe how the design of River Terrace is being influenced by
the Strategic Plan through the city’s permitting process.
5. Stormwater management challenges. Stormwater management in the southern part of River
Terrace continues to be challenging. Staff will briefly explain the additional analysis that has
been undertaken and the kinds of master plan amendments that Council can expect to see in
the future. See attached for a map that shows the streams that drain Strategy Area C in the
southern part of River Terrace.
6. Urban growth expansion request. Metro will consider another urban growth boundary
expansion in a few years, and there is no time like the present to influence that decision in
Tigard’s favor. Staff will explain why it is important to bring the city’s southern Urban
Reserve Area into the Urban Growth Boundary and how it is working with Metro,
Washington County, and King City to achieve that goal. See attached for a map that shows
the location of the city’s southern Urban Reserve Area.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES
COUNCIL GOALS, POLICIES, APPROVED MASTER PLANS
-Council Goal 4: Enable Groundbreaking in River Terrace by Summer 2015
-Approved Plans: River Terrace Community Plan, Funding Strategy, and Infrastructure
Master Plans (for water, sewer, stormwater, parks, and transportation)
DATES OF PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
Council approved the contract for developing the River Terrace Community Plan and related
documents on June 25, 2013. Council adopted the following plans, codes, maps, and fees:
- 2014 (various dates): Five River Terrace Infrastructure Master Plans
- Dec 16, 2014: River Terrace Community Plan and Funding Strategy
- Feb 24, 2015: River Terrace Plan District and Zoning
- Apr 28, 2015: Residential Transpo. System Development Charges (citywide/River Terrace)
- May 19, 2015: Park System Development Charges (citywide/River Terrace)
Attachments
Polygon Site Plan
Southern Stormwater Map
Southern Urban Reserve Area
City of Tigard
Southern Urban Reserve Area
AIS-2476 6.
Workshop Meeting
Meeting Date:12/15/2015
Length (in minutes):20 Minutes
Agenda Title:Receive Report on Tigard Community Attitudes Survey
Submitted By:Rudy Owens, City Management
Item Type: Update, Discussion, Direct Staff Meeting Type: Council
Workshop
Mtg.
Public Hearing: No Publication Date:
Information
ISSUE
A presentation of the results of the 2015 Community Survey.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST
Review and comment on the fall 2015 survey results presented. Discuss next steps for making
the survey results visible, future actions the results will address, and possibilities to explore
some questions in a focus group setting in January.
KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY
The city contracted with Riley Research Associates to conduct the 2015 biennial community
survey. A telephone survey (landline and cell phones representative of the city's adult
population) was conducted two weeks before and immediately after Thanksgiving, with 400
Tigard households. A web survey was launched simultaneously, scheduled to conclude on
Dec. 3, 2015. This marks the first time the city will have captured citywide survey information
from residents who preferred to take the survey in Spanish.
Michael Riley and Crystal Bolyard of Riley Research Associates will present a PowerPoint
summary of the the survey results to council. A detailed written report will also be provided.
A preliminary report will be available in the week prior to the Council's discussion and
distributed after Council agenda publication.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES
N/A
COUNCIL GOALS, POLICIES, APPROVED MASTER PLANS
N/A
DATES OF PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
N/A
Attachments
Report
PowerPoint
www.rileyresearch.com
10200 SW Eastridge St, Suite 120, Portland, OR 97225
phone [503] 222-4179 fax [503] 222-4313
COMMUNITY
ATTITUDES SURVEY
TOPLINE RESULTS
DECEMBER 10, 2015
Michael J Riley & Crystal Bolyard
Riley Research Associates
RESEARCH | INSIGHT | KNOWLEDGE
TOPLINE RESULTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1
Methodology .................................................................................................................... 1
Results: Tigard Livability ................................................................................................. 3
Results: Community & Recreation Center ....................................................................... 4
Results: Transit & Transportation .................................................................................... 8
Results: Strategic Plan .................................................................................................. 10
Results: Parks & Recreation Charge ............................................................................. 12
Results: Communications Preferences ......................................................................... 14
Demographics ............................................................................................................... 16
APPENDIX: Questionnaire
TOPLINE RESULTS
Introduction / Methodology 1
INTRODUCTION
The City of Tigard contracted Riley Research Associates to conduct its 2015 Community
Attitudes Survey of Tigard residents. The goals were to assess citizen support and priorities for
a number of issues, including a community and recreation center, transit and transportation,
parks maintenance, and Tigard’s strategic plan.
METHODOLOGY
Questionnaire Development
Riley Research Associates worked with the City of Tigard to update and develop a
questionnaire. Key questions were retained from past years’ surveys to preserve the ability to
compare responses over time, and new questions were added to reflect current issues of
interest. The questionnaire was designed for the telephone survey, with minor changes in the
question language to reflect the different medium.
RRA also translated the questionnaire into Spanish for both the telephone and online surveys.
Telephone survey
RRA conducted the telephone survey in its in-house, Washington County-based call center.
RRA purchased a list of phone numbers of Tigard residents that included both landline and
mobile numbers.
A total of 403 interviews were completed between November 12 and 29, 2015. The vast
majority of interviews were conducted prior to Thanksgiving (November 24th). Calls were made
on weekdays, between 11am and 9pm.
The sample of 403 produces a margin of error of +/-4.9% at a 95% level of confidence. This
means if the survey were repeated many times with different samples, the responses would fall
within the margin of error 95% of the time. The demographic subsets produce larger margins of
error due to the smaller sample size.
RRA monitored the sample to produce demographics comparable to the City of Tigard in
regards to age, gender, and ethnicity. Because the sample of residents, ages 18-34 was slightly
below the target demographic, RRA weighted the telephone survey results to better reflect this
audience. The weighting changed very little in terms of the results, with some responses
increasing by as much as 3%, and the vast majority of responses remaining unchanged.
RRA also employed bilingual interviewers, and conducted 16 interviews in Spanish.
Respondents were considered qualified if they were 18 or older and were currently living within
the City of Tigard.
TOPLINE RESULTS
Introduction / Methodology 2
METHODOLOGY (CONTINUED)
Online Survey
RRA programmed and managed the online survey. Once the survey was programmed, RRA
provided four links to the City of Tigard, which Tigard used to distribute to residents on various
mailing lists. The City sent out several reminders about the survey to increase response rates.
The survey was open from November 14 through the morning of December 4, 2015. All
responses collected during this period were included in the report.
The online survey was also translated into Spanish, and the City of Tigard did additional
outreach to Hispanic and Latino residents.
A total of 675 people started the survey. Of those, 97 lived outside of the City of Tigard and
were disqualified from the survey, and 44 only responded to the screening question asking if
they lived inside or outside of the City of Tigard, leaving 534 valid responses.
In addition, one respondent completed the Spanish version of the online survey, producing 535
online survey responses. Not all respondents answered each question or completed the entire
survey.
While the telephone sample was monitored for demographics and produced a sample
comparable to the age, gender, and ethnicity of the City of Tigard, the online survey was open
to all respondents, and had no quotas set.
Benchmark surveys
The City of Tigard has previously worked with other marketing research firms to conduct its
Community Attitudes surveys. Where applicable, results from those surveys have been included
in this 2015 report. It is important to note that in 2015, RRA set quotas for age, gender, and
Hispanic ethnicity in order to best represent the City of Tigard residents. Because those quotas
had not been set for previous years, the results cannot be directly compared. While it is valuable
to note the trends and changes over time, the demographic difference should be noted when
making any conclusions.
Report
All questions marked “unaided” were asked of the respondent without providing any potential
answer choices for both the telephone survey and the online survey. Responses were coded
into applicable categories.
The following report includes question-by-question analysis, with demographic insights included
when statistically significant. Results of the previous Community Attitudes surveys are included,
where applicable.
Results are presented in percentage form, with the percentage sign being cited on the top row
of each table. The number of respondents answering each question is indicated in each table,
labeled either as “Total Participants” or as “n=#”.
TOPLINE RESULTS
Results 3
RESULTS: TIGARD LIVABILITY
Q1. Overall, how do you rate Tigard as a place to live? Please use a “0” to “10” scale,
with zero meaning very poor place to live, and 10 an excellent place to live.
Phone: n=403 Extremely poor Excellent
Online: n=535 Mean 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Livability: Phone 7.8 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 4% 6% 20% 39% 16% 12%
Livability: Online 7.3 0 0 0 3 4 9 12 21 26 13 11
Mean Benchmark Results Phone Online
2015 7.8 7.3
2013 7.9 7.7
2011 7.6 -
2009 7.8 -
2007 7.4 -
Q2. What, in your opinion, is the single most important issue for the city council to
address over the next year? (Single Response, Unaided)
Phone Online
2015 2013 2015 2013
Total Participants 403 - 436 -
Traffic / congestion 34% 29% 35% 41
Education / schools 5 5 0 1
Transportation / public transit 4 5 7 10
Street improvements/maintenance 4 5 4 13
Growth and development/growth planning 4 5 3 5
Crime and drugs 3 3 3 6
Sidewalks 2 - 5 -
Taxes/lower taxes 2 4 4 3
Downtown development 2 5 3 7
Homelessness / Low income housing 1 - 5 2
Parks and recreation 1 4 5 5
Government spending / using tax dollars wisely 1 2 3 5
Jobs and economic development 1 2 1 4
Environmental areas / open space / protection 1 1 0 3
Local government effectiveness 1 0 - 2
Rising rent / Rent control 0 - 1 -
Water supply 0 3 1 2
Miscellaneous 12 14 19 13
None 6 1 - 1
Don't know / Refused 16 12 1 2
TOPLINE RESULTS
Results 4
RESULTS: COMMUNITY & RECREATION CENTER
Q3. In November, Tigard voters rejected a $35 million ballot measure for a new
community and recreation center. Did you vote to support or to oppose that bond
measure, or did you not vote?
Phone Online
Total Participants 403 523
Support 29% 24%
Oppose 26 58
Did not vote / Don't recall 44 14
Refused 1 5
Q3b. And why did you vote to support the measure? (Unaided. Multiple responses)
Phone Online
Total Participants 122 97
Good for Tigard/Community 38% 34%
Place for kids needed 20 16
Combined community center and recreation program 18 2
Need one / Want one 16 36
Good for families 7 6
Questions about operating agreement / YMCA 2 4
Insufficient information about the project 2 6
Price tag / Cost of the measure 1 2
Questions about the location 0 1
Other priorities 0 2
Taxes too high already - 2
Don't need one / Have other options - 2
Shouldn't pay for privately run/religions business/Pay twice - 1
Bring more traffic problems - 1
Miscellaneous 14 19
Don't recall specifics 1 -
Refused 1 -
TOPLINE RESULTS
Results 5
Q3b. And why did you vote to oppose the measure? (Unaided. Multiple responses)
Phone Online
Total Participants 112 281
Price tag / Cost of the measure 35% 25
Insufficient information about the project 28 36
Taxes too high already 27 13
Questions about operating agreement / YMCA 20 12
Questions about the location 8 9
Other priorities 7 14
No benefit to me / Wouldn't use 6 11
Shouldn't pay for privately run/religions business/Pay twice 5 15
Don't need one / Have other options 4 16
Bring more traffic problems 2 3
Combined community center and recreation program 2 1
Need one / Want one - 2
Good for Tigard/Community - 0
Place for kids needed - 0
Miscellaneous 4 19
Don't recall specifics 3 -
Refused 1 0
Q3b. And why did you not vote/not recall/prefer not to say for the measure? (Unaided.
Multiple responses)1
Online
Total Participants 21
Insufficient information about the project 19%
Need one / Want one 10
Price tag / Cost of the measure 5
Taxes too high already 5
Combined community center and recreation program 5
Questions about operating agreement / YMCA 5
Other priorities 5
No benefit to me / Wouldn't use 5
Don't need one / Have other options 5
Bring more traffic problems 5
Miscellaneous 38
Don't recall specifics 5
1 Verbatim responses for this answer choice were only collected through the online survey.
TOPLINE RESULTS
Results 6
Q4. What specific amenities, facilities, programs, or services, if any, would be important
to include if Tigard were to consider a community and recreation center? (Unaided,
Multiple Responses)
Phone Online
Total Participants 403 430
Indoor aquatics programs 31% 21%
Programs for youth 30 24
Specific recreation programs 17 11
Indoor gymnasium 15 20
Weight room/exercise equipment 15 18
Programs for seniors 12 13
Meeting rooms/event space 10 28
Family-oriented programs 10 11
Health-oriented programs/activities 6 13
Indoor walking/track 4 3
Community theater 3 6
Childcare facilities 3 3
Access to parks/trails 2 2
Shelter space / homeless resources 2 2
Coffee/juice bar 1 3
Farmers market space 1 0
Miscellaneous 14 34
None / fine as is 7 9
None / Don't use 9 4
Don't know / Refused 5 8
TOPLINE RESULTS
Results 7
Q5. And besides those amenities or features, what would make you more likely to access
or support a recreation and community center? (Unaided, up to three responses allowed)
Phone Online
Total Participants 403 529
Convenient location 15% 5%
Cost of membership/dues 13 13
Central location 9 7
Youth programs 7 2
Family friendly 7 1
Cost of property taxes 4 8
Parking / transportation access 4 4
Facility features 3 6
Convenient hours 3 2
Senior programs 3 2
Food services 1 1
Gym/exercise classes - 1
Miscellaneous 35 29
None / Don't use 18 9
Don't know / Refused 11 37
TOPLINE RESULTS
Results 8
RESULTS: TRANSIT & TRANSPORTATION
Q6. On the subject of mass transit, I'd like you to please rate the importance of the
following factors regarding decisions about connecting Tigard with Portland and the rest
of Washington County.
As I mention each factor, please use a 10-point scale, where “0” means not important at
all, while “10” means extremely important. The first factor is (Aided, Rotated):
Telephone Survey
Not important Extremely important
n=403 Mean 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NA
a. Easy and safe pedestrian
access to bus and transit
service stops
8.4 3% 1% 1% 1% 1% 3% 4% 9% 16% 13% 46% 3%
b. Reducing traffic on local
roadways
8.3 3 0 1 0 1 5 3 9 14 14 44 2
c. The cost-effectiveness of
the system
8.2 3 0 0 1 4 5 2 7 15 16 41 4
d. Local community support 8.1 2 0 1 1 1 7 5 11 17 13 37 4
e. Easy access to the system
for drivers and cyclists
7.8 4 1 0 1 3 5 6 11 20 14 32 2
f. Accommodating future
transit capacity
7.6 6 1 0 1 2 7 4 12 18 12 31 7
g. Reducing transit travel
times
7.4 6 1 2 1 4 6 6 13 16 12 29 5
h. Increasing ridership 7.1 6 1 2 1 3 10 6 14 18 10 23 6
Online Survey
Not important Extremely important
n=466-476 Mean 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NA
a. Easy and safe pedestrian
access to bus and transit
service stops
7.6 5% 1% 2% 3% 3% 5% 5% 9% 18% 10% 37% 2%
b. Reducing traffic on local
roadways
7.9 5 1 2 2 3 7 3 5 11 12 45 3
c. The cost-effectiveness of
the system
7.8 4 1 1 3 4 6 4 10 12 14 40 2
d. Local community support 7.3 3 2 2 2 6 10 7 8 14 15 29 2
e. Easy access to the system
for drivers and cyclists
7.3 7 2 2 2 4 5 4 10 17 15 30 2
f. Accommodating future
transit capacity
7.5 5 1 2 3 3 8 5 7 15 12 36 3
g. Reducing transit travel
times
7.3 6 2 2 3 3 9 4 10 14 12 33 3
h. Increasing ridership 6.8 7 3 3 3 3 12 5 11 13 11 27 3
TOPLINE RESULTS
Results 9
Q7a. In general, do you favor or oppose high-capacity transit options to connect Tigard
to Portland and other parts of Washington County?
Phone Online
Total Participants 403 478
Favor 73% 61%
Oppose 15 17
Don't know / Depends / Refused 12 22
Q8. If high-capacity transit is developed, would you prefer that be light rail or bus rapid
transit?
Phone Online
Total Participants 403 478
Light rail 52% 37%
Bus rapid transit 15 15
Both 23 24
Neither2 4 -
Unsure/undecided 7 23
2 This answer choice was not provided for the online survey respondents.
TOPLINE RESULTS
Results 10
RESULTS: STRATEGIC PLAN
Q9. In 2014, the City of Tigard adopted a strategic plan to provide guidance and direction
for the City's priorities over the next 20 years. The plan includes a vision for Tigard to be
the most walkable community in the Pacific Northwest, where people of all ages and
abilities enjoy healthy and interconnected lives.
The City has been implementing that plan over the past year. At this point, how familiar
are you with any aspects of the Strategic Plan? Would you say (Aided):
Phone Online
Total Participants 403 476
Familiar 41% 68%
Extremely familiar 1 4
Very familiar 4 10
Moderately familiar 16 24
Slightly familiar
19 29
Not familiar 59% 32%
Not familiar 57 31
Don't know / Refused 2 1
TOPLINE RESULTS
Results 11
Q10. As part of the plan, the City of Tigard is considering ways to promote walkability.
Using a 10-point scale, where “0” means not important at all, while “10” means extremely
important, how important are each of the following ideas? (Read & rotated)
Telephone Survey
Not important Extremely important
n=403 Mean 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NA
a. Making routes near
schools safer for parents
and children to walk or
bike to school
8.9 1% - 1% 1% 1% 2% 1% 6% 12% 15% 57% 3%
b. Improving safety for
pedestrians
8.6 2 - 1 2 1 3 3 7 14 14 51 2
c. Improving the safety of
crossings on major
roadways
8.5 3 0 2 2 3 3 1 5 12 16 52 1
d. Improving safety for
those with mobility issues
8.4 2 - 3 1 1 3 3 8 16 13 49 1
e. Connecting existing
sidewalks
7.8 4 1 2 0 3 7 4 10 19 12 36 2
f. Improving safety for
cyclists
7.6 6 1 1 1 3 7 4 14 16 11 35 2
g. Improving the safety and
the surfaces of trails and
non-paved walkways
7.4 3 0 2 2 4 10 6 15 17 14 25 2
Online Survey
Not important Extremely important
n=466 Mean 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NA
a. Making routes near
schools safer for parents
and children to walk or
bike to school
8.3 1% 0% 1% 2% 3% 8% 3% 6% 13% 12% 48% 3%
b. Improving safety for
pedestrians
8.1 1 1 1 2 3 8 5 9 11 15 41 2
c. Improving the safety of
crossings on major
roadways
8.0 1 1 1 2 4 10 6 7 11 12 43 2
d. Improving safety for
those with mobility issues
7.5 2 1 4 2 4 10 6 12 13 14 30 2
e. Connecting existing
sidewalks
7.7 3 1 3 2 4 10 3 9 14 15 35 1
f. Improving safety for
cyclists
6.6 6 3 4 3 6 12 5 9 12 12 25 2
g. Improving the safety and
the surfaces of trails and
non-paved walkways
6.9 3 2 5 4 4 13 9 13 12 13 23 1
TOPLINE RESULTS
Results 12
RESULTS: PARKS & RECREATION CHARGE
Q11. The city has nearly 550 acres of parks and parks land, and needs to know your
priorities for addressing park needs. Please rate the importance of each of the following,
on that same zero to ten scale, where “0” means lowest priority and “10” means highest
priority: (Aided, Rotated)
Telephone Survey
Low priority Highest priority
n=403 Mean 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NA
a. Maintaining the current
level of parks maintenance
8.3 1% 0% 0% 0% 1% 7% 3% 11% 24% 15% 33% 4%
b. Managing parks
infrastructure needs, such
as storm water
7.7 2 0 1 2 2 6 7 14 20 15 25 5
c. Developing and
maintaining the existing
land inventory
7.7 2 0 1 3 2 8 5 13 17 15 27 7
d. Addressing deferred
maintenance
7.4 1 0 1 2 4 10 7 15 23 12 18 7
e. Addressing currently-
planned improvements
7.4 2 1 0 2 3 9 8 12 21 11 18 13
f. Developing, then
maintaining future parks
7.3 3 2 2 3 3 6 8 15 17 11 26 3
g. Providing recreation
programs at parks
7.2 3 2 1 4 4 11 7 15 15 13 22 3
h. Providing arts and cultural
programs and features
6.4 7 1 3 3 6 14 11 11 16 10 15 2
Online Survey
Low priority Highest priority
n=459-460 Mean 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NA
a. Maintaining the current
level of parks maintenance
7.7 1% 0% 1% 3% 3% 14% 3% 10% 17% 20% 26% 3%
b. Managing parks
infrastructure needs, such
as storm water
6.9 2 2 3 3 5 14 8 12 18 15 16 1
c. Developing and
maintaining the existing
land inventory
6.9 6 3 4 5 5 13 9 11 13 12 18 2
d. Addressing deferred
maintenance
7.3 2 2 2 3 5 12 6 12 15 19 22 2
e. Addressing currently-
planned improvements
6.7 3 2 3 4 4 15 10 12 15 13 15 3
f. Developing, then
maintaining future parks
6.4 6 3 4 5 5 13 9 11 13 12 18 2
g. Providing recreation
programs at parks
5.9 9 4 5 5 6 16 7 11 12 10 14 1
h. Providing arts and cultural
programs and features
5.1 12 7 7 8 6 14 8 8 12 7 9 1
TOPLINE RESULTS
Results 13
Q12. Because of competing needs for resources, such as police, the library, and
community development, the City is considering asking residents to consider additional
funding for parks and recreation.
Would you be likely to support or oppose additional funding at a rate of $10 to $17
dollars a month? (Strongly or somewhat?)
Phone Online
Total Participants 403 457
Support 51% 40%
Support strongly 23 15
Support somewhat
28 25
Oppose 35% 47%
Oppose somewhat 17 19
Oppose strongly
18 29
Unsure 14% 13%
Depends / Don't know 14 13
Q13. If the city were to seek funding, would you prefer that it appeared on your annual
property tax bill or on your monthly utility bill.
Phone Online
Total Participants 403 457
Property tax bill (annual) 53% 40%
Utility bill (monthly) 29 22
Depends / Don't know 18 38
TOPLINE RESULTS
Results 14
RESULTS: COMMUNICATIONS PREFERENCES
Q14. During the past year, what have been your main sources of information for news
about the City of Tigard? (Unaided, Multiple Responses)
Phone Online
Total Participants 403 371
Cityscape / City newsletter 33% 41%
The Times 19 24
Friends/neighbors/WOM 17 7
Local television news 17 5
City of Tigard website 12 9
The Oregonian 11 5
City of Tigard Facebook 4 12
News websites / Newspapers (general) 3 13
Utility bill 3 1
Social media (general) 3 0
City of Tigard Twitter 2 8
Library (bulletins, flyers) 2 5
Mailings / Flyers 2 2
Radio 2 1
City council meetings / General city meetings / Staff / City reps 1 10
Neighborhood network site 1 3
Throughout town 1 0
Voters' pamphlet 1 0
Public access television 1 -
Emails 0 6
Google / Internet 0 5
El Hispanic News 0 -
Miscellaneous 7 8
Don't know / Refused 8 3
TOPLINE RESULTS
Results 15
Q15. All things considered, which of the following would be your first choice for getting
information about the City of Tigard? (Aided, Randomized)
First choice Second choice First & Second
Phone Online Phone Online Phone Online
Total Participants 403 452 302 374 403 452
The Cityscape newsletter 34% 44% 23% 25% 52% 67%
The city's website 23 17 32 31 48 42
The newspaper 16 18 20 20 30 34
Facebook posts 16 16 17 14 29 27
Twitter feeds 5 3 8 7 10 9
Not sure 7 2 - - 7 2
16 Results
DEMOGRAPHICS
Q17. May I ask your age?3
Phone Online
Total Participants 403 447
18 to 34 29% 11%
35 to 44 19 16
45 to 54 19 19
55 to 64 16 24
65+ 16 26
Refused 1 4
Q18. For how many years have you lived in the City of Tigard?
Phone Online
Total Participants 403 447
Less than one year 2% 1%
1-4 years 13 15
5-9 years 15 18
10 years or longer 69 66
Refused 2 1
Q19. Do any children under the age of 18 years old live in your household?
Phone Online
Total Participants 403 447
Yes 41% 30%
No 57 65
Refused 2 5
3 Age was weighted slightly to better represent the 18-34 year old residents of Tigard.
17 Results
Q20. Are you currently employed, either part-time or full-time?
Phone Online
Total Participants 403 446
Full-time 55% 50%
Part-time 16 11
Not employed 27 29
Refused 2 11
Q20b. (If employed) In what city or area is your job located? (Aided)
Phone Online
Total Participants 271 267
Tigard 22% 30%
Portland/other 14 9
Beaverton 13 9
Work at home (Tigard) 11 13
Portland/downtown 9 10
Lake Oswego 4 3
Tualatin 4 3
Wilsonville 4 2
Hillsboro 3 6
Multiple locations / All over 2 1
Sherwood 1 1
Newberg 1 1
Salem 1 2
Vancouver / Other Washington 1 1
Portland metro area 1 1
Clackamas 1 0
West Linn 0 1
Miscellaneous 5 4
Refused 1 1
18 Results
Q21. Do you own or rent your current home?
Phone Online
Total Participants 403 446
Own 70% 82%
Rent 26 15
Refused 4 3
Q22. Do you happen to know which elementary school is nearest to your home? (Aided)
Phone Online
Total Participants 403 446
Alberta Rider 13% 8%
Mary Woodward 12 14
Durham 11 15
Metzger 11 8
Templeton 10 18
C.F. Tigard 9 14
Don't know 34 23
19 Results
Q23. May I ask your race or ethnicity?
Phone Online
Total Participants 403 447
Caucasian 76% 75%
Hispanic/Latino 9 2
Asian 4 2
Native American 1 1
African American/Black 1 0
Miscellaneous 3 2
Refused 5 18
Q23b. And do you also happen to be Latino?4
Phone Online
Total Participants5 377 366
Yes 13% 4%
No 87 95
Refused - 1
Q24. Is your Zip Code 97223 or 97224?
Phone Online
Total Participants 403 430
97223 55% 54%
97224 45 46
4 Table includes both those who answered “Hispanic/Latino” to Q23a, and those who answered “yes” to
Q23b.
5 This table excludes the respondents answering “refused” to Q23a.
20 Results
Gender
Phone Online
Total Participants 403 421
Male 49% 43%
Female 51 57
Phone type (telephone survey)
Total
Total Participants 403
Landline 24%
Cell 76
Survey conducted in:
Phone Online
Total Participants 403 535
English 95% 100%
Spanish 5 0
Online respondent source
Total
Total Participants 447
Link A 65%
Link B 4
Link C 31
20
1
5
C
OM
M
U
N
I
T
Y
A TT
I
T
U
D
E
S
S UR
V
E
Y
Ri
l
e
y
R
e
s
e
a
r
c
h
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s
Pr
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
t
o
T
i
g
a
r
d
C
i
t
y
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
De
c
e
m
b
e
r
1
5
,
2
0
1
5
S UR
V
E
Y
O VE
R
V
I
E
W
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
at
t
i
t
u
d
e
s
su
r
v
e
y
of
Ti
g
a
r
d
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
,
de
s
i
g
n
e
d
to
ga
t
h
e
r
fe
e
d
b
a
c
k
on
pr
i
o
r
i
t
i
e
s
and
pr
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
s
fo
r
Ci
t
y
is
s
u
e
s
Qu
e
s
t
i
o
n
n
a
i
r
e
up
d
a
t
e
d
an
d
de
v
e
l
o
p
e
d
by
RRA and
Ti
g
a
r
d
,
wi
t
h
fi
n
a
l
ap
p
r
o
v
a
l
fr
o
m
Ti
g
a
r
d
Su
r
v
e
y
co
n
d
u
c
t
e
d
by
ph
o
n
e
an
d
on
l
i
n
e
in
order to
he
a
r
fr
o
m
a la
r
g
e
,
re
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
v
e
sa
m
p
l
e
of
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
Bo
t
h
su
r
v
e
y
mo
d
e
s
of
f
e
r
e
d
in
Sp
a
n
i
s
h
S UR
V
E
Y
O VE
R
V
I
E
W
Sc
i
e
n
t
i
f
i
c
te
l
e
p
h
o
n
e
su
r
v
e
y
of
40
3
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
Co
n
d
u
c
t
e
d
by
lo
c
a
l
,
in
‐ho
u
s
e
in
t
e
r
v
i
e
w
e
r
s
De
m
o
g
r
a
p
h
i
c
qu
o
t
a
s
es
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
e
d
to
be
re
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
v
e
of
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
in
re
g
a
r
d
s
to
ag
e
,
ge
n
d
e
r
,
an
d
Hi
s
p
a
n
i
c
et
h
n
i
c
i
t
y
Ce
l
l
ph
o
n
e
s
an
d
la
n
d
l
i
n
e
s
in
c
l
u
d
e
d
On
l
i
n
e
su
r
v
e
y
of
53
5
qu
a
l
i
f
i
e
d
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
Ti
g
a
r
d
co
n
d
u
c
t
e
d
ou
t
r
e
a
c
h
to
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
th
r
o
u
g
h
va
r
i
o
u
s
on
l
i
n
e
ma
i
l
i
n
g
s
RR
A
pr
o
g
r
a
m
m
e
d
an
d
ma
n
a
g
e
d
th
e
su
r
v
e
y
P RE
S
E
N
T
A
T
I
O
N
Re
s
u
l
t
s
of
on
l
y
th
e
sc
i
e
n
t
i
f
i
c
te
l
e
p
h
o
n
e
su
r
v
e
y
in
c
l
u
d
e
d
In
ge
n
e
r
a
l
:
Re
s
p
o
n
d
e
n
t
s
of
th
e
on
l
i
n
e
su
r
v
e
y
rated
as
p
e
c
t
s
sl
i
g
h
t
l
y
lo
w
e
r
th
a
n
te
l
e
p
h
o
n
e
re
s
p
o
n
d
e
n
t
s
,
al
t
h
o
u
g
h
pr
i
o
r
i
t
i
e
s
te
n
d
e
d
to
be
co
m
p
a
r
a
b
l
e
.
S OM
E
K
E
Y
F
I
N
D
I
N
G
S
F
R
O
M
20
1
5
SU
R
V
E
Y
Ov
e
r
a
l
l
,
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
st
i
l
l
fi
n
d
Ti
g
a
r
d
to
be
a go
o
d
place to
li
v
e
,
ne
a
r
l
y
id
e
n
t
i
c
a
l
to
fi
n
d
i
n
g
s
in
pa
s
t
ye
a
r
s
.
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
co
n
g
e
s
t
i
o
n
re
m
a
i
n
s
th
e
to
p
is
s
u
e
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
would
li
k
e
Ci
t
y
Co
u
n
c
i
l
to
ad
d
r
e
s
s
in
th
e
co
m
i
n
g
ye
a
r
,
similar to
pa
s
t
ye
a
r
s
.
Wh
i
l
e
fo
u
r
‐in
‐te
n
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
sa
i
d
th
e
y
ar
e
fa
m
i
l
i
a
r
with
th
e
St
r
a
t
e
g
i
c
Pl
a
n
,
th
e
r
e
is
a hi
g
h
le
v
e
l
of
su
p
p
o
r
t
for the
st
r
a
t
e
g
i
e
s
to
im
p
r
o
v
e
pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
sa
f
e
t
y
an
d
wa
l
k
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
in
Ti
g
a
r
d
th
a
t
pr
o
m
o
t
e
th
e
st
r
a
t
e
g
i
c
vi
s
i
o
n
.
L IV
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y
H OW
D
O
Y
O
U
R
A
T
E
T IG
A
R
D
A
S
A
P
L
A
C
E
T
O
L
I
V
E
?
Sc
a
l
e
o
f
0
-
1
0
w
h
e
r
e
“
1
0
”
i
s
an
“
E
x
c
e
l
l
e
n
t
p
l
a
c
e
t
o
l
i
v
e
.
”
7.
8
7.
9
7.
6
7.
8
7.4
012345678910
20
1
5
2
0
1
3
2
0
1
1
2
0
0
9
2
0
0
7
Me
a
n
Li
v
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
Ra
t
i
n
g
s
S IN
G
L
E
M
O
S
T
I
M
P
O
R
T
A
N
T
I
S
S
U
E
F
O
R
C IT
Y
C OU
N
C
I
L
?
Un
a
i
d
e
d
,
m
u
l
t
i
p
l
e
r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s
34
%
5%
4%
4
%
4
%
29
%
5%
5
%
5
%
5
%
0%5%
10
%
15
%
20
%
25
%
30
%
35
%
40
%
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
/
Co
n
g
e
s
t
i
o
n
Ed
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
/
Sc
h
o
o
l
s
Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
Gr
o
w
t
h
pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
Mo
s
t
im
p
o
r
t
a
n
t
is
s
u
e
to
ad
d
r
e
s
s
To
p
Co
m
m
e
n
t
s
2015 2013
C OM
M
U
N
I
T
Y
& R EC
R
E
A
T
I
O
N
C EN
T
E
R
Su
p
p
o
r
t
e
d
:
29
%
of
re
s
p
o
n
d
e
n
t
s
Pr
i
m
a
r
y
re
a
s
o
n
s
wh
y
th
e
y
vo
t
e
d
to
su
p
p
o
r
t
th
e
measure
(3
4
‐24
1
)
:
Go
o
d
fo
r
th
e
co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
(3
8
%
)
Ti
g
a
r
d
ne
e
d
s
a pl
a
c
e
fo
r
ki
d
s
(2
0
%
)
Co
m
b
i
n
e
d
co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
an
d
re
c
ce
n
t
e
r
pr
o
g
r
a
m
(1
8
%
)
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
wa
n
t
/
n
e
e
d
on
e
(1
6
%
)
(C
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
)
H OW
D
I
D
Y
O
U
V
O
T
E
O
N
T
H
E
B
A
L
L
O
T
M
E
A
S
U
R
E
F
O
R
A
NE
W
C
O
M
M
U
N
I
T
Y
A
N
D
R
E
C
R
E
A
T
I
O
N
C
E
N
T
E
R
(3
4
-
2
4
1
)
?
Op
p
o
s
e
d
:
26
%
of
re
s
p
o
n
d
e
n
t
s
Pr
i
m
a
r
y
re
a
s
o
n
s
wh
y
th
e
y
vo
t
e
d
to
op
p
o
s
e
th
e
measure:
Co
s
t
(3
5
%
)
In
s
u
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
in
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
(2
8
%
)
Ta
x
e
s
ar
e
al
r
e
a
d
y
to
o
hi
g
h
(2
7
%
)
Qu
e
s
t
i
o
n
s
ab
o
u
t
th
e
op
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
ag
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
wi
t
h
YM
C
A
(20%)
Pr
e
f
e
r
r
e
d
no
t
to
sa
y
/
D
i
d
no
t
vo
t
e
:
44
%
of
re
s
p
o
n
d
e
n
t
s
H OW
D
I
D
Y
O
U
V
O
T
E
F
O
R
T
H
E
B
A
L
L
O
T
M
E
A
S
U
R
E
F
O
R
A
NE
W
C
O
M
M
U
N
I
T
Y
A
N
D
R
E
C
R
E
A
T
I
O
N
C
E
N
T
E
R
?
A ME
N
I
T
I
E
S
,
FA
C
I
L
I
T
I
E
S
,
PR
O
G
R
A
M
S
,
SE
R
V
I
C
E
S
IM
P
O
R
T
A
N
T
T
O
I
N
C
L
U
D
E
I
N
N
E
W
C
E
N
T
E
R
Un
a
i
d
e
d
,
m
u
l
t
i
p
l
e
r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s
31
%
30
%
17
%
15
%
1
5
%
12
%
10
%
1
0
%
0%5%
10
%
15
%
20
%
25
%
30
%
35
%
In
d
o
o
r
aq
u
a
t
i
c
s
pr
o
g
r
a
m
s
Pr
o
g
r
a
m
s
fo
r
yo
u
t
h
Sp
e
c
i
f
i
c
re
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
pr
o
g
r
a
m
s
In
d
o
o
r
gy
m
n
a
s
i
u
m
We
i
g
h
t
ro
o
m
/
ex
e
r
c
i
s
e
eq
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
Pr
o
g
r
a
m
s
fo
r
se
n
i
o
r
s
Me
e
t
i
n
g
ro
o
m
s
/
ev
e
n
t
spaceFamily‐oriented programs
Im
p
o
r
t
a
n
t
fe
a
t
u
r
e
s
to
in
c
l
u
d
e
if
ne
w
ce
n
t
e
r
co
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d
To
p
Co
m
m
e
n
t
s
W HA
T
O
T
H
E
R
F
E
A
T
U
R
E
S
W
O
U
L
D
I
N
C
R
E
A
S
E
L
I
K
E
L
I
H
O
O
D
OF
U
S
I
N
G
O
R
S
U
P
P
O
R
T
I
N
G
A
C
E
N
T
E
R
?
Un
a
i
d
e
d
,
m
u
l
t
i
p
l
e
r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s
15
%
13
%
9%
7%
7
%
0%2%4%6%8%
10
%
12
%
14
%
16
%
Co
n
v
e
n
i
e
n
t
lo
c
a
t
i
o
n
C
o
s
t
of
me
m
b
e
r
s
h
i
p
/
d
u
e
s
Ce
n
t
r
a
l
lo
c
a
t
i
o
n
Y
o
u
t
h
pr
o
g
r
a
m
s
F
a
m
i
l
y
friendly
Ot
h
e
r
fe
a
t
u
r
e
s
th
a
t
wo
u
l
d
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
li
k
e
l
i
h
o
o
d
of
us
i
n
g
or
su
p
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
a pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
ce
n
t
e
r
To
p
Co
m
m
e
n
t
s
T RA
N
S
I
T
& T RA
N
S
P
O
R
T
A
T
I
O
N
I MP
O
R
T
A
N
C
E
O
F
F
A
C
T
O
R
S
R
E
L
A
T
E
D
T
O
C
O
N
N
E
C
T
I
N
G
T IG
A
R
D
W
I
T
H
O
T
H
E
R
A
R
E
A
S
Sc
a
l
e
o
f
0
-
1
0
w
h
e
r
e
“
1
0
”
i
s
“
E
x
t
r
e
m
e
l
y
i
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
t
.
”
8.
4
8.
3
8.
2
8.
1
7.
8
7.
6
7.
4
7.1
012345678910
Ea
s
y
an
d
sa
f
e
pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
ac
c
e
s
s
to
bu
s
an
d
tr
a
n
s
i
t
se
r
v
i
c
e
st
o
p
s
Re
d
u
c
i
n
g
tr
a
f
f
i
c
on
lo
c
a
l
ro
a
d
w
a
y
s
Th
e
co
s
t
‐
ef
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
n
e
s
s
of
th
e
sy
s
t
e
m
Lo
c
a
l
co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
su
p
p
o
r
t
Ea
s
y
ac
c
e
s
s
to
th
e
sy
s
t
e
m
fo
r
dr
i
v
e
r
s
an
d
cy
c
l
i
s
t
s
Ac
c
o
m
m
o
d
a
t
i
n
g
fu
t
u
r
e
tr
a
n
s
i
t
ca
p
a
c
i
t
y
Re
d
u
c
i
n
g
transit
tr
a
v
e
l
ti
m
e
s
Increasing ridership
Me
a
n
Im
p
o
r
t
a
n
c
e
Ra
t
i
n
g
s
D O
Y
O
U
F
A
V
O
R
O
R
O
P
P
O
S
E
H
I
G
H
-CA
P
A
C
I
T
Y
T
R
A
N
S
I
T
O
P
T
I
O
N
S
T
O
CO
N
N
E
C
T
T IG
A
R
D
T
O
P OR
T
L
A
N
D
A
N
D
O
T
H
E
R
P
A
R
T
S
O
F
W ASHINGTON
C OU
N
T
Y
?
73
%
15
%
12%
0%
10
%
20
%
30
%
40
%
50
%
60
%
70
%
80
%
90
%
10
0
%
Fa
v
o
r
O
p
p
o
s
e
U
n
s
u
r
e
/
D
e
p
e
n
d
s
Su
p
p
o
r
t
fo
r
hi
g
h
‐ca
p
a
c
i
t
y
tr
a
n
s
i
t
op
t
i
o
n
s
in
Ti
g
a
r
d
I FH
I
G
H
-CA
P
A
C
I
T
Y
T
R
A
N
S
I
T
I
S
D
E
V
E
L
O
P
E
D
,
WH
I
C
H
W
O
U
L
D
Y
O
U
PR
E
F
E
R
?
52
%
15
%
23
%
4%
7%
0%
10
%
20
%
30
%
40
%
50
%
60
%
70
%
80
%
90
%
10
0
%
Li
g
h
t
ra
i
l
B
u
s
ra
p
i
d
tr
a
n
s
i
t
Bo
t
h
N
e
i
t
h
e
r
U
n
s
u
r
e
/undecided
Pr
e
f
e
r
r
e
d
hi
g
h
‐ca
p
a
c
i
t
y
tr
a
n
s
i
t
op
t
i
o
n
S TR
A
T
E
G
I
C
P LA
N
F AM
I
L
I
A
R
I
T
Y
W
I
T
H
T IG
A
R
D
’S
S TR
A
T
E
G
I
C
P LA
N
RE
G
A
R
D
I
N
G
W
A
L
K
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y
5%
16
%
19
%
2%
57
%
Ho
w
fa
m
i
l
i
a
r
ar
e
yo
u
wi
t
h
as
p
e
c
t
s
of
th
e
Ci
t
y
’
s
St
r
a
t
e
g
i
c
Pl
a
n
?
Co
m
b
i
n
e
d
fa
m
i
l
i
a
r
i
t
y
= 41
%
Ex
t
r
e
m
e
l
y
/ Very familiar
Mo
d
e
r
a
t
e
l
y
familiar
Sl
i
g
h
t
l
y
fa
m
i
l
i
a
r
Un
s
u
r
e
No
t
fa
m
i
l
i
a
r
S TR
A
T
E
G
I
E
S
T
O
H
E
L
P
P
R
O
M
O
T
E
W
A
L
K
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y
Sc
a
l
e
o
f
0
-
1
0
w
h
e
r
e
“
1
0
”
i
s
“
E
x
t
r
e
m
e
l
y
i
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
t
.
”
8.
9
8.
6
8.
5
8.
4
7.
8
7.
6
7.4
0246810
Ma
k
i
n
g
ro
u
t
e
s
ne
a
r
sc
h
o
o
l
s
sa
f
e
r
fo
r
pa
r
e
n
t
s
an
d
ch
i
l
d
r
e
n
to
wa
l
k
or
bi
k
e
to
sc
h
o
o
l
Im
p
r
o
v
i
n
g
sa
f
e
t
y
fo
r
pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
s
Im
p
r
o
v
i
n
g
th
e
sa
f
e
t
y
of
cr
o
s
s
i
n
g
s
on
ma
j
o
r
ro
a
d
w
a
y
s
Im
p
r
o
v
i
n
g
sa
f
e
t
y
fo
r
th
o
s
e
wi
t
h
mo
b
i
l
i
t
y
is
s
u
e
s
Co
n
n
e
c
t
i
n
g
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
si
d
e
w
a
l
k
s
Im
p
r
o
v
i
n
g
sa
f
e
t
y
fo
r
cy
c
l
i
s
t
s
Improving the safety and the surfaces of trails and non ‐paved walkways
Me
a
n
Im
p
o
r
t
a
n
c
e
Ra
t
i
n
g
s
Th
e
t
o
p
-
r
a
t
e
d
s
t
r
a
t
e
g
y
(
M
a
k
i
n
g
r
o
u
t
e
s
n
e
a
r
s
c
ho
o
l
s
s
a
f
e
r
)
w
a
s
r
a
t
e
d
a
“
1
0
”
b
y
5
7
%
o
f
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
,
c
o
m
p
a
r
e
d
t
o
2
5
%
f
o
r
t
h
e
l
o
w
e
s
t
-
r
a
t
ed
s
t
r
a
t
e
g
y
(
I
m
p
r
o
v
i
n
g
s
a
f
e
t
y
a
n
d
s
u
r
f
a
c
e
s
o
f
tr
a
i
l
s
a
n
d
n
o
n
-
p
a
v
e
d
w
a
l
k
w
a
y
s
)
.
P AR
K
S
& P AR
K
S
M AI
N
T
E
N
A
N
C
E
F EE
P RI
O
R
I
T
I
E
S
F
O
R
A
D
D
R
E
S
S
I
N
G
P
A
R
K
N
E
E
D
S
Sc
a
l
e
o
f
0
-
1
0
w
h
e
r
e
“
1
0
”
i
s
“
H
i
g
h
e
s
t
p
r
i
o
r
i
t
y
.
”
8.
3
7.
7
7
.
7
7.
4
7
.
4
7.
3
7.
2
6.4
012345678910
Ma
i
n
t
a
i
n
i
n
g
th
e
cu
r
r
e
n
t
le
v
e
l
of
pa
r
k
s
ma
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
Ma
n
a
g
i
n
g
pa
r
k
s
in
f
r
a
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
ne
e
d
s
,
su
c
h
as
st
o
r
m
wa
t
e
r
De
v
e
l
o
p
i
n
g
an
d
ma
i
n
t
a
i
n
i
n
g
th
e
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
la
n
d
in
v
e
n
t
o
r
y
Ad
d
r
e
s
s
i
n
g
de
f
e
r
r
e
d
ma
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
Ad
d
r
e
s
s
i
n
g
cu
r
r
e
n
t
l
y
‐
pl
a
n
n
e
d
im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
De
v
e
l
o
p
i
n
g
,
th
e
n
ma
i
n
t
a
i
n
i
n
g
fu
t
u
r
e
pa
r
k
s
Pr
o
v
i
d
i
n
g
re
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
pr
o
g
r
a
m
s
at
pa
r
k
s
Providing arts and cultural programs and features
Me
a
n
Pr
i
o
r
i
t
y
Ra
t
i
n
g
s
L IK
E
L
I
H
O
O
D
T
O
S
U
P
P
O
R
T
A
D
D
I
T
I
O
N
A
L
F
U
N
D
I
N
G
A
T
T
H
E
RA
T
E
O
F
$1
0
TO
$1
7
PE
R
M
O
N
T
H
23
%
28
%
17
%
18
%
14
%
0%
20
%
40
%
60
%
80
%
10
0
%
Su
p
p
o
r
t
st
r
o
n
g
l
y
S
u
p
p
o
r
t
so
m
e
w
h
a
t
Op
p
o
s
e
so
m
e
w
h
a
t
Op
p
o
s
e
st
r
o
n
g
l
y
U
n
s
u
r
e
Li
k
e
l
i
h
o
o
d
of
su
p
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
fu
n
d
i
n
g
Co
m
b
i
n
e
d
Su
p
p
o
r
t
= 51
%
If
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
w
e
r
e
t
o
s
e
e
k
f
u
n
d
i
n
g
:
53
%
w
o
u
l
d
p
r
e
f
e
r
t
h
e
c
o
s
t
a
p
p
e
a
r
e
d
o
n
t
h
e
i
r
a
n
n
u
a
l
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
t
a
x
b
i
l
l
29
%
w
o
u
l
d
p
r
e
f
e
r
t
h
e
i
r
m
o
n
t
h
l
y
u
t
i
l
i
t
y
b
i
l
l
18
%
w
e
r
e
u
n
s
u
r
e
/
u
n
d
e
c
i
d
e
d
C OM
M
U
N
I
C
A
T
I
O
N
S
P RE
F
E
R
E
N
C
E
S
M AI
N
S
O
U
R
C
E
S
O
F
I
N
F
O
R
M
A
T
I
O
N
F
O
R
N
E
W
S
A
B
O
U
T
T IG
A
R
D
Un
a
i
d
e
d
,
m
u
l
t
i
p
l
e
r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s
33
%
19
%
17
%
1
7
%
12
%
11%
0%5%
10
%
15
%
20
%
25
%
30
%
35
%
Ci
t
y
s
c
a
p
e
/ Ci
t
y
ne
w
s
l
e
t
t
e
r
Th
e
Ti
m
e
s
F
r
i
e
n
d
s
/
Ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
s
/
Wo
r
d
of
mo
u
t
h
Lo
c
a
l
te
l
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
ne
w
s
Ci
t
y
of
Ti
g
a
r
d
we
b
s
i
t
e
The Oregonian
Ma
i
n
so
u
r
c
e
s
of
in
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
ab
o
u
t
Ti
g
a
r
d
To
p
Co
m
m
e
n
t
s
W HI
C
H
W
O
U
L
D
B
E
Y
O
U
R
F
I
R
S
T
&
SE
C
O
N
D
C
H
O
I
C
E
S
F
O
R
GE
T
T
I
N
G
I
N
F
O
R
M
A
T
I
O
N
A
B
O
U
T
T IG
A
R
D
?
Ai
d
e
d
52
%
48
%
30
%
29
%
10%
0%
10
%
20
%
30
%
40
%
50
%
60
%
Th
e
Ci
t
y
s
c
a
p
e
Ne
w
s
l
e
t
t
e
r
Th
e
Ci
t
y
'
s
we
b
s
i
t
e
T
h
e
ne
w
s
p
a
p
e
r
F
a
c
e
b
o
o
k
po
s
t
s
T
w
i
t
t
e
r
feeds
Co
m
b
i
n
e
d
pr
i
m
a
r
y
an
d
se
c
o
n
d
a
r
y
wa
y
s
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
prefer
to
ge
t
in
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
ab
o
u
t
Ti
g
a
r
d
Pr
i
m
a
r
y
Ch
o
i
c
e
:
34
%
Pr
e
f
e
r
th
e
Ci
t
y
s
c
a
p
e
Ne
w
s
l
e
t
t
e
r
R ES
P
O
N
D
E
N
T
D EM
O
G
R
A
P
H
I
C
S
Ag
e
*
O
r
i
g
i
n
a
l
W
e
i
g
h
t
e
d
C
e
n
s
u
s
18
‐34
1
8
%
2
9
%
3
0
%
35
‐44
2
3
1
9
1
9
45
‐54
1
8
1
9
1
9
55
‐64
1
9
1
6
1
7
65
+
1
9
1
6
1
6
M ON
I
T
O
R
E
D
D EM
O
G
R
A
P
H
I
C
S
*A
m
e
r
i
c
a
n
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
S
u
r
v
e
y
a
n
d
2
0
1
0
C
e
n
s
u
s
Ge
n
d
e
r
*
S
u
r
v
e
y
C
e
n
s
u
s
Ma
l
e
4
9
%
4
9
%
Fe
m
a
l
e
5
1
%
5
1
%
Et
h
n
i
c
i
t
y
:
Hi
s
p
a
n
i
c
*
S
u
r
v
e
y
C
e
n
s
u
s
No
n
‐Hi
s
p
a
n
i
c
8
7
%
8
7
%
Hi
s
p
a
n
i
c
1
3
%
1
3
%
Et
h
n
i
c
i
t
y
:
Al
l
Re
s
p
o
n
s
e
s
*
S
u
r
v
e
y
C
e
n
s
u
s
Wh
i
t
e
/ Ca
u
c
a
s
i
a
n
7
6
%
7
4
%
Hi
s
p
a
n
i
c
/ La
t
i
n
o
*
*
9
1
3
As
i
a
n
4
7
Af
r
i
c
a
n
Am
e
r
i
c
a
n
/ Bl
a
c
k
1
2
Na
t
i
v
e
Am
e
r
i
c
a
n
1
1
Mi
s
c
e
l
l
a
n
e
o
u
s
3
3
Re
f
u
s
e
d
5
‐
**
A
f
o
l
l
o
w
-
u
p
q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
w
a
s
a
s
k
e
d
o
f
re
s
p
o
n
d
e
n
t
s
t
o
d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
i
f
t
h
e
y
a
r
e
Hi
s
p
a
n
i
c
,
a
s
t
h
e
y
c
o
u
l
d
b
e
H
i
s
p
a
n
i
c
i
n
co
m
b
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
w
i
t
h
o
t
h
e
r
r
a
c
e
s
/
e
t
h
n
i
c
i
t
i
e
s
.
A DD
I
T
I
O
N
A
L
C HA
R
A
C
T
E
R
I
S
T
I
C
S
Ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
T
e
l
e
p
h
o
n
e
R
e
s
p
o
n
d
e
n
t
C
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
s
t
i
c
s
69
%
h
a
v
e
l
i
v
e
d
i
n
T
i
g
a
r
d
1
0
o
r
m
o
r
e
y
e
a
r
s
41
%
h
a
v
e
c
h
i
l
d
r
e
n
u
n
d
e
r
1
8
i
n
t
h
e
h
o
m
e
71
%
a
r
e
e
m
p
l
o
y
e
d
,
w
i
t
h
2
2
%
w
o
r
k
i
n
g
i
n
T
i
g
a
r
d
70
%
a
r
e
h
o
m
e
o
w
n
e
r
s
55
%
l
i
v
e
w
i
t
h
i
n
9
7
2
2
3
T HA
N
K
Y
O
U
R IL
E
Y
R ES
E
A
R
C
H
A SS
O
C
I
A
T
E
S
Mi
k
e
Ri
l
e
y
,
AP
R
,
PR
C
,
Pr
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
an
d
Re
s
e
a
r
c
h
Di
r
e
c
t
o
r
Cr
y
s
t
a
l
Bo
l
y
a
r
d
,
Vi
c
e
Pr
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
of
Op
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
an
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Ma
n
a
g
e
r
50
3
‐22
2
‐41
7
9
mr
i
l
e
y
@
r
i
l
e
y
r
e
s
e
a
r
c
h
.
c
o
m
cb
o
l
y
a
r
d
@
r
i
l
e
y
r
e
s
e
a
r
c
h
.
c
o
m
10
2
0
0
SW
Ea
s
t
r
i
d
g
e
,
Su
i
t
e
12
0
Po
r
t
l
a
n
d
,
OR
97
2
2
5
AIS-2490 7.
Workshop Meeting
Meeting Date:12/15/2015
Length (in minutes):15 Minutes
Agenda Title:Upcoming Contract Discussion - SW Wall Street
Improvement Project Design and Construction
Management Services
Prepared For: Joseph Barrett Submitted By:Norma
Alley,
Central
Services
Item Type: Update, Discussion, Direct
Staff
Meeting Type: Council
Workshop
Mtg.
Public Hearing
Newspaper Legal Ad Required?:
No
Public Hearing Publication
Date in Newspaper:
Information
ISSUE
A discussion of an upcoming proposed contract for design and construction management
services with Murray, Smith & Associates, Inc. for the SW Wall Street Improvement Project.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST
Staff is seeking Council direction on any additional information or direction they would like to
see in preparation of an award decision for this proposed contract.
KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY
Project Background: Public Infrastructure Finance
The Wall Street project is one part of the larger Hunziker Infrastructure Project which
includes $8.7 million in new public access, transportation, sewer and water service to catalyze
commercial and industrial development and increase employment in the Hunziker Industrial
Core's 138 acres.
Over the last two years, the city has been working to bring this project from concept to
construction. Work began with a 2014 Department of Land Conservation and Development
(DLCD) funded Public Infrastructure Finance Strategy, which culminated in the recruitment
of the industrial development firm Trammell Crow. Securing $1.5 million in matching funds
from the State of Oregon’s Capital Construction funds was the next critical step in this
process.
With these two components complete, the next step forward in financing this public
infrastructure was completed in November 2015 through the submission of a preliminary
grant proposal seeking $3 million in U.S. Department of Commerce, Economic Development
Agency funding for public works and economic development assistance. Notification of this
funding (notification of a grant award) is at least 90 days away. This grant submission was
made possible through the city Engineering Department’s development of a preliminary
project scope, engineering cost estimates, and an RFP for project design up to 30% for the
Wall Street component. Award of this contract will keep the overall project moving forward
to a "shovel ready" state, making Tigard's grant application more competitive
This project uses public infrastructure to transform an underperforming industrial district to
increase private sector investment, development, and employment. New public infrastructure
starts with 3,400 linear feet of public road (Wall Street from Hunziker Road to Tech Center
Drive) designed as a complete street for industrial use with curb and gutter, sidewalks, bike
lanes and storm water planter areas for water quality treatment. Within the road alignment, an
8” sewer, 12” waterline, and an 18” storm water line will serve adjacent industrial sites.
Schematic details and budget estimates were provided in the preliminary engineering report
that was shared with council on November 17, 2015.
Project Need: Public Infrastructure to Catalyze Private Investment
This project unlocks 138 acres of regionally relevant industrial property ¾ mile from Hwy
217 and I-5 for private sector investment. This investment leads to higher employment
density supporting planned high capacity transit for the regional workforce commuting from
neighboring cities. It supports infill development reducing development pressure on the
regional urban growth boundary; ensuring large lot industrial sites in other cities can be put to
their highest and best use. It transforms an underutilized industrial area with ready access to
freight networks.
New public infrastructure will act as a catalyst for private sector investment. Tigard's Hunziker
Industrial Core should support 150 to 300 jobs for residents from around the region with
average wages of $75K (2012 IMPLAN). Direct and indirect economic output from initial
private sector investment on the first 40 acres of property unlocked through this project is
estimated at $123M with another $37.2M in earnings accruing to employees from around the
region (2012 IMPLAN).
The area exemplifies the challenge land-constrained inner-ring suburban cities face when
trying to support business growth. Surrounded on each side by development, Tigard can no
longer meet regional expectations for employment by expanding boundaries. The regional
workforce is expected to grow by 300,000 in the next 10 years. In order to fulfill its
responsibility as a regional employer, supporting at least another 10,000 employees over the
next 15 years, Tigard must more efficiently use existing industrial lands, smaller parcels and
sites previously considered too expensive to develop.
The 138 acre Hunziker Industrial Core originally developed as warehousing and distribution
facilities to serve regional demand. New public infrastructure will act as a catalyst for this
area’s maturation into a mixed use employment center with a wider range of businesses
supporting higher levels of employment. This investment also supports the region's long
term plans (10-15 year time frame) for a high capacity transit alignment (light rail or rapid bus)
which is proposed to run adjacent to this investment area. This high capacity transit alignment
will connect Tigard directly to Portland, Portland International Airport and the regional
commuter transit system. Several stations are proposed within walking distance of this project.
New development and higher levels of employment in this investment area provides an
employment destination for the regional workforce via planned high capacity transit delivering
employees to this commercial/industrial district.
On Wednesday, Sept 2, 2015 the Tigard Transportation Advisory Committee (TTAC)
recommended that the City of Tigard designate $200,000 in contingency funding from the
City Gas Tax to fund engineering and design work that will begin project design, start the
project in a timeframe to support construction, catalyze private sector development and assist
in securing the $3 million dollar federal EDA grant. As recommended by the TTAC and
approved by the City Council at the October 13, 2015 council meeting, the FY 2016 Capital
Improvement Program (CIP) was amended to include $200,000 for the first phase of project
design of the Wall Street project. City Gas Tax funding can be used to hire a consultant to
perform the preliminary design work up to 30% design for a new industrial road connecting
Hunziker to Tech Center Drive. This expense will be reimbursed by the $1.5 million
appropriation from the State in summer 2017. This project and contract for the Wall Street
project will be executed in three phases:
1. Preliminary Design (30% Design),
2. Final Design/Contract Documents/Permitting/ROW Acquisition, and
3. Construction Administration
As this work will be done by an engineering firm, it falls under the Qualification-based
Solicitation (QBS) rules which does not allow the city to ask for any pricing information
during the solicitation. The city issued an Qualification-based Request for Proposal (RFP)
packet for design and construction administration services for this project on October 16,
2015. Public Notice was placed in the Daily Journal of Commerce and posted on the city's
webpage. A non-mandatory pre-proposal meeting was held on October 22nd and a
subsequent clarifying addendum was issued on October 26th. Proposals were due at 2:00 pm
on November 4th and the city received them from six firms:
Century West
McKenzie
Wallis Engineering
Murray Smith & Associates
Harper, Hoff, Peterson & Righellis, Inc., and
CESNW, Inc.
Under the QBS process, firms are scored based on identified criteria and ranked from highest
to lowest. The city then is able to enter into direct negotiations with the top ranking firm. If
a price cannot be agreed upon, the city moves to number two in the ranking and so on until a
negotiated price is achieved. A project team reviewed the proposals based on the following
criteria that was detailed in the RFP:
Project Understanding and Approach (20 points)
Design Consultant Team Qualifications (20 points)
Design Consultant Team Experience with Similar Projects (25 points)
Firm Availability & Ability to Meet Project Schedule (10 points)
Project Manager Experience (15 points), and
Reference (10 points)
Upon scoring, Murray, Smith & Associates was found to be the top ranking firm and staff
began negotiations with them for the work. The City would like to retain one consultant
though all possible phases and intends to enter negotiations with the top ranking consultant
with Phase 1 as a base contract and treat the additional phases as add-on tasks. The City
intends to proceed with Phase 1 as a base contract package as funding currently exists for this
phase. The contract will be drafted to clearly identify Phases 2 and 3 as optional and
dependent upon acquisition of additional funding. The City is currently in the application
phase of a federal grant that will help the City proceed with the additional phasing for the
overall project if a grant is awarded to the city. The contract will make no guarantees that the
additional phases will occur. The city and Murray, Smith & Associates were able to reach the
following pricing:
Phase 1 - Preliminary Design - $160,000 (negotiated)
Phase 2 (Optional) - Final Design - $349,000 (estimate)
Phase 3 (Optional) - Contract Administration - $90,000 (estimate)
Total Project - $599,000 (estimate)
Staff intends to bring a proposed contract award item before the Local Contract Review
Board at a future meeting for an estimated $600,000 but with only the preliminary design
work of $160,000 guaranteed. The other phase will be added, by Local Contract Review
Board approval, as funding is available. Staff is asking the Local Contract Review Board
tonight for any additional information they would like to see on this project or of any
questions they may have pertaining to this project or contract.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES
The Local Contract Review Board may reject this QBS process and direct staff to reissue the
solicitation. To do so would cost the project sorely needed time.
The Local Contract Review Board may direct staff to bring back an award item that only
incorporates Phase 1 and not Phases 2 and 3 as funding has yet to be solidified for these
phases. To do so would possible cost the city continuity and may increase overall cost as
Phases 2 and 3 would then require a new QBS solicitation with no guarantees the Murray,
Smith & Associates, Inc. would be awarded the additional phases.
COUNCIL GOALS, POLICIES, APPROVED MASTER PLANS
DATES OF PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
The City Council approved $200,000 in funding for Phase 1 of this contract at their October
13, 2015 meeting.
Council received schematic details and budget estimates in a preliminary engineering report
on the project on November 17, 2015.
This contract is a piece of the Hunziker Industrial/Commercial Core project that began in
early 2014 with a DLCD funded study of public infrastructure financing scenarios that could
improve the economic performance of the Core. The Council has been briefed on parts of
this project at the following meetings:
February 18, 2014;
September 9, 2014;
December 9, 2014; and
June 16, 2015.
Fiscal Impact
Cost:See Below
Budgeted (yes or no):Partial
Where budgeted?:Multiple
Additional Fiscal Notes:
This contract will be for an estimated $600,000 if the city is able to enact all phases of the
work. There is currently $200,000 of funding available in the City Gas Tax fund through
Council action on October 13, 2015. This funding will be used to complete Phase 1 of the
work and the City Gas Tax fund will be reimbursed from the $1.5 million Oregon Capital
Construction grant funds that the will be receiving in the near future. The city has also
applied for a $3 million Federal Economic Development Agency (EDA) grant. The city
won't hear on the success of that application for at least 90 days. Only Phase 1 of the
contract is guaranteed as that is all the city has current funding available to complete.
If EDA declines to fund the grant at the full $3 million, Tigard will be able to scale back the
project. The phased contract approach provides Tigard with the flexibility to address that
possibility.
Pr" SUPPLEMENTAL PACKET
FOR 4-'
HBA (DATE OF MEETING)
Home Builders Association /ow>2 nom_ Ge
„,
of Metropolitan Portia xi
December 15,2015
The Honorable John Cook, Mayor
Tigard City Council
13125 SW Hall Blvd.
Tigard, OR 97223
Re:Tigard Transportation System Development Charges
Mayor Cook and Councilors:
In light of the approaching effective date of Tigard's citywide Transportation SDC(TSDC) on residential
development,the HBA of Metropolitan Portland submits this letter and enclosed documentation and
requests a six-month delay in the implementation of the TSDC for all land development. During this
period,we would ask the City to convene a stakeholder workgroup of residential,commercial, and other
development interests on the matter.
The HBA appreciates that Council provided an initial extension to the proposed effective date earlier this
spring. This extension afforded the ability to engage highly respected consultants on these complex
matters to better understand the underlying assumptions and calculations with the TSDC.The
information presented reflects those initial findings and concerns that are of benefit to all involved.
As noted in a joint letter with NAIOP Oregon Chapter,the list of outstanding issues with Tigard's
citywide TSDC are problematic and require additional time to ensure transparency and accountability in
the process. Specifically,there are four main areas of concern that warrant a delay:
• Double-counting of projects.Analysis of the TSDC shows instances of double-counting of
projects,this includes approximately$18 million in intersection costs on Highway 99.
• Inflated project costs. Analysis of Tigard's adopted 2010 TSP and the 2015 TSDC include 34
matching projects—however,the 2015 TSDC costs exceed the 2010 TSP by more than $163
million.
• Projects not listed on adopted transportation plans.Analysis also revealed that the TSDC
includes$154 million in capital projects costs that are difficult to match to the 2010 TSP.
• Exclusion of non-residential land categories. The adoption of a new SDC must be applied
uniformly to all impacted land use categories. Moreover,the idea of providing a rebate should
not be used to cure a known problem.This requires that the proposal be addressed equitably to
all impacted parties.
Home Builders Association of Metro Portland
15555 SW Bangy Rd.,Ste.301
Lake Oswego,OR97035
503-684-1880• Fax 503-684-0588
Sound policy development and transparency in government requires that these outstanding policy
considerations be addressed before any fee goes into effect.
The enclosed slides prepared by David Evans and Associates highlight the above-noted issues and
examine significant cost differentials in greater detail by project.The slides were prepared prior to
receiving a response to a series of questions surrounding the TSDC—unfortunately the responses
provided were vague and lacked the data requested.
The second enclosure is an issue matrix that outlines those individual questions prepared by
ECONorthwest on behalf of the HBA,the responses provided to those questions,and the outstanding
legal and policy issues that still exist on the matter.
Understanding the ramifications to those impacted by the TSDC and the City's residents, as well as the
relationship of the Tigard TSDC with the adopted transportation plans of other regional jurisdictions, a
six-month delay in the effective date ensures that the policy is arrived at in a thoughtful,transparent,
and equitable fashion.
We recognize there were be opportunities to partner with City in the future, in particular around future
growth and expansion areas—and the HBA looks forward to being an active partner in that process.As
such, it is incumbent that we work to get the TSDC policy right today, helping ensure that our policy
considerations of the future are done in a collaborative fashion.
Sincerely,
Paul Grove
HBA Metropolitan Portland
Cc: Shelby Rihala,City Attorney's Office
Home Builders Association of Metro Portland pg.2