The URL can be used to link to this page

CCDA Packet - 03/01/2016 City of Tigard City Center Development Agency Board CCDAand Tigard C1 Council - A TIGARD CITY CENTER DEVELOPMENT AGENCY BOARD AND CITY COUNCIL Revised 2/25/16: Agenda Item No. 5 Consider Authorizing the City Manager to Sign an Intergovernmental Agreement with Metro to Receive a Community Planning and Development Grant for the Purpose of Completing the Downtown Tigard Urban Lofts Development Project was moved to Consent Agenda. Subsequent items have been renumbered. MEETING DATE AND TIME: March 1,2016 - 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 City Center Development Agency Board meetings by noon on the Monday prior to the City Center Development Agency Board meeting. Please call 503-718-2419 (voice) or 503-684-2772 (TDD -Telecommunications Devices for the Deao. Upon request, the City will also endeavor to arrange for the following services: • Qualified sign language interpreters for persons with speech or hearing impairments; and • Qualified bilingual interpreters. Since these services must be scheduled with outside service providers,it is important to allow as much lead time as possible. Please notify the City of your need by 5:00 p.m. on the Thursday preceding the meeting by calling: 503-639-4171, ext. 2410 (voice) or 503-684-2772 (TDD -Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf). SEE ATTACHED AGENDA City of Tigard CODA City Center Development Agency Board - Agenda TIGARD CITY CENTER DEVELOPMENT AGENCY BOARD AND CITY COUNCIL Revised 2/25/16: Agenda Item No.5 Consider Autborizing the City Manager to Sign an Intergovernmental Agreement with,Metro to Receive a Community Planning and Development Grant for the Purpose of Completing the Downtown Tigard Urban Lofts Development Project was moved to Consent Agenda. Subsequent items have been renumbered. MEETING DATE AND TIME: March 1,2016 - 6:30 p.m. MEETING LOCATION: City of Tigard -Town Hall- 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, OR 97223 6:30 PM 1. CITY CENTER DEVELOPMENT AGENCY BOARD AND CITY COUNCIL MEETING A. Call to Order- City Center Development Agency and City Council B. Roll Call C. Pledge of Allegiance D. Call to Board and Staff for Non-Agenda Items CCDA AGENDA ITEMS 2. UPDATE ON THE FANNO CREEK OVERLOOK PROJECT - 6:35 p.m. estimated time 3. REPORT ON HOUSING AND DEMOGRAPHICS IN THE CITY OF TIGARD AND PORTLAND REGION - 6:50 p.m. estimated time 4. REPORT ON EMPLOYMENT TRENDS IN THE CITY OF TIGARD'S URBAN RENEWAL DISTRICT- 7:10 p.m. estimated time CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEMS 5. CONSENT AGENDA: These items are considered routine and may be enacted in one motion without separate discussion. Anyone may request that an item be removed by motion for discussion and separate action. Motion to: A. CONSIDER AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO SIGN AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH METRO TO RECEIVE A COMMUNITY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT GRANT FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPLETING THE DOWNTOWN TIGARD URBAN LOFTS DEVELOPMENT PROJECT 6. DISCUSSION ON CITY PRIORITIES - 7:40 p.m. estimated time 7. DISCUSSION ON CITY GAS TAX - 8:40 p.m. estimated time 8. NON AGENDA ITEMS 9. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Center Development Agency Board may go into Executive Session. If an Executive Session is called to order, the appropriate ORS citation will be announced identifying the applicable statute. All discussions are confidential and those present may disclose nothing from the Session. Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend Executive Sessions, as provided by ORS 192.660(4),but must not disclose any information discussed. No Executive Session may be held for the purpose of taking any final action or making any final decision. Executive Sessions are closed to the public. 10. ADJOURNMENT - 9:10 p.m. estimated time AIS-2125 2. CCDA Agenda Meeting Date: 03/01/2016 Length (in minutes): 15 Minutes Agenda Title: Fanno Creek Overlook Update Submitted By: Sean Farrelly, Community Development Item Type: Update, Discussion, Direct Staff Meeting Type: City Center Development Agency Public Hearing: No Publication Date: Information ISSUE Fanno Creek Overlook Update STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST The Board of the CCDA is requested to share their opinions and ideas on the concept. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY In 2014, the City Center Development Agency commissioned a feasibility study for a public space fronting Fanno Creek adjacent to Max's Fanno Creek Brewpub. The project would provide better access to the natural and recreational resources of Fanno Creek and the trail, at the same time serve as an attractive amenity for downtown visitors and residents. This project is consistent with both the City Center Urban Renewal Plan's goal to increase the number of Downtown public spaces and the city's Strategic Plan vision to make Tigard the most walkable community in the Pacific Northwest. The feasibility study included research into regulatory issues, options for design, an estimated budget, and images depicting the potential space. The main challenge for building the public space is the need to reconfigure the existing driveway egress for the brewpub and the neighboring building (12564 SW Main Street). A new two-way access would have to be constructed to serve the parking in the rear of the two buildings. Three driveway reconfiguration options were studied. The preferred option is to widen the existing ingress on the south west side of Main Street Village to provide two-way access. This would require acquisition of a narrow strip of land from Main Street Village Apartments. In November 2015, Community Development Director Kenny Asher met with the owners of the Main Street Village property, to discuss the concept. Although one partner in the LLC was initially receptive to allowing the city to acquire an easement, a majority of the ownership interest in the apartments has indicated that it sees no benefit in selling a property interest to the city. The feasibility study estimated the budget for the project to be $737,000. The cost of acquiring the land from Main Street Village would be an additional cost. Of the construction budget, $395,000 is attributed to the public open space and $248,000 to the parking lot and new driveway. The share of the public and private contribution to constructing parking lot improvements would be negotiated with George Diamond,who is a main owner of the brewpub building and the neighboring 12564 SW Main Street. The space would be a key component in a conceptual public space that could be created on the Main Street Bridge along with the proposed public space that is part of the Saxony redevelopment. The Main Street bridge public space concept would provide gathering and activity space, with occasional street closures for larger community events. The project could involve converting some of the road right-of-way into wider sidewalks, and installing decorative railings and art. This space would also serve as one of a "string of pearls" or small open spaces along Main Street, including public space at the head of the Tigard Street Trail and the recently renovated area in front of Tigard Wine Crafters/Maki Sushi/Elvia's Salon. The next steps include working with George Diamond on addressing concerns about potential loss of parking; refining the concept into design drawings; and additional attempts to negotiate a voluntary sale of the strip of land. If a voluntary sale cannot be negotiated, staff and the Board will need to discuss options. OTHER ALTERNATIVES No alternatives for consideration at this time. COUNCIL GOALS, POLICIES, APPROVED MASTER PLANS Tigard City Council 2015-17 Goals and Milestones Goal #2. Make Downtown Tigard a Place Where People Want to Be City Center Urban Renewal Plan Goal 1: Revitalization of the Downtown should recognize the value of natural resources as amenities and as contributing to the special sense of place. Goal 5: Promote high quality development of retail, office and residential uses that support and are supported by public streetscape, transportation, recreation and open space investments. Tigard Comprehensive Plan Special Planning Areas- Downtown Goal 15.3 Develop and Improve the Open Space System and Integrate Natural Features into downtown. Tigard Strate i'c Plan Goal 2: Ensure development advances the vision DATES OF PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION September 2, 2014 - Executive Session Attachments Fanno Creek Public Space Concept Concept Site Plan r, R h i r r tr r III AS 071■ 1331 OS m a 0 - ;•� .b�` uoildp , txZ NYWS , IL cr m�� y d 't,G r cty, � .r `�3Y�`r�� 5.�. ___ -" ____.__. J• I C -------------- s ❑£ ' *_ 7 a ' • t r t k 7,�„"• �C �` '.fin t�'[z'r- . y el ~ ;tefool a }: : ty ` .. wt �C" r Q� w TIP -J 0017 w - '> s a � , s f� f' 14 )ti I'l"7C.,*� , �. v fX✓ t 666 `�. � � � � r*, ^' � �. � � '•Fid- 't�2 � '. a �z h e r } Feet #` C 125 ♦ ,!�„':�. �� .ice. PXrvI'�... ��^^ !",� � �� .. .. .i� ri��''* x.44# ,„3� '�k M�� + Z u Y N 14 Ol 1 111,10 I fy� IIIA r " s 4 y y r Y M ts k n a N i 2 aims g., i I ❑ � L A N 0 5 CA P E APCHITECTupE i2582 BW Main, 9218 W P� Tigard, OR 97223 m r•, � � /i - O 503 . 224 . 5238 www Bt l a s-I n.nom i yyyG ARCHITECT/ENGINEER OF RECORD l \ o / 150 Z _� 145 E � 149.01 — CONSULTANT _ IF PVC CULV R v F'� VAV rrf7 , `u /}- O n v � Symbol Indicates A o ,C dor En soachment ea _ �� ❑ % -, ; 4-0 o F NI 4-0 W es _ < - e A ❑� I �+ 30' LL \ a p' i Q i , i I 0 -46 � Assurued Flre/�arbage,� / i Hammertead. � (, p i f 2 I i I O ° �9 ❑ ❑. M C - CO> CV h / � k °j�h / / ❑ � 2— CNJ 38 ar4�ing Stall s Total:38 (\ // �� Full sized, 28 "° U V UA S Compact 8 O Flo I A HC: ,, A � ' O "6 03 � _ ,�� ' . � mow, a ® �_❑ �� '� _ 'v , LL v � s MASTERPLAN 0 TDP REVISIONS F I ETE - - - � L -� n Ic e� I 1h`9�• P ) PROJECTARCHBTCT / N. Wilson •� �� '. I _ _ _ _ / DRAWN BY N.Wilson CHECKED BY N. Wilson PROJ DATE RNBMBER 14002 o / DATE 03.20.2013 \ r S ALE NAME r6 O I � N ❑ • �.' SHEET TITLE I, SITE PLAN --_ / Optlon 1 ' r P SHEET NOMBCR Option ' ❑ 0 10 2 L1. 0 43, ~-- s'".Mv— cvHV ol r+ .�+ o$ j ti 0 � ,+ - raus��wWl��rytltlny xeiulor�aa ti' 1:�� • / _tea :;� Option � o 10 20 5DFW 7,ti 1 _ I , r r �`� �•" ' �� + �� I r ��`�., � + art ' �� Ads, �� i ' ➢ ,. , jp r: r r i l I. 7 It r NEW i t Saxony Property Redevelopment Study Progress Report R E S O L V E A Tigard Mixed Use / Public Space Design 2 . 2 . 2016 ARCHITECTURE + PLANNING AIS-2134 3. CCDA Agenda Meeting Date: 03/01/2016 Length (in minutes): 20 Minutes Agenda Title: Housing and Demographics: Downtown, Tigard and the Region Submitted By: Sean Farrelly, Community Development Item Type: Update, Discussion, Direct Staff Meeting Type: City Center Development Agency Public Hearing: No Publication Date: Information ISSUE A snapshot report on housing and demographics in Downtown Tigard, the city of Tigard and the Portland region. STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST The Board of the CCDA is requested to share their feedback on the report. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY To provide context for urban renewal decisions on housing, staff compiled information for a brief snapshot of housing and demographics in Downtown Tigard, the city, and the region. The following are highlights of the report: Downtown Tigard Housing and Demographics •There are 453 housing units (mostly apartments) and 1024 residents of Downtown (the urban renewal district plus Main Street Village) • Compared to Tigard as a whole, Downtown residents are more likely to be renters (75% vs. 42%) Hispanic (28% vs. 13%), and under age 17 (30% vs 24%.) The median household income is $37,213 compared to $69,304 for Tigard. Urban Renewal District Property Values • Commercial properties in the urban renewal district have higher assessed values on a per square foot basis than multi-family development. •Many of these commercial properties have low Improvement to Land Ratios, indicating they may be candidates for redevelopment. Regional Housing Market •Regional housing market rents are rising faster than incomes. In the 7-County Portland Metro region, rents have risen 63% between 2006 and 2015, while renter income has only risen 39%. •The Beaverton-Tigard market saw rent increases of 28% between 2011 and 2015, the third largest increase in the Portland suburban markets. Tigard Housing •Since 2000 4,106 housing units have been permitted in Tigard. About 16% of these units were multi-family. •After many years of low or no multi-family unit construction in Tigard, in 2015 there was a sharp spike, with 468 multi-family units permitted. Tigard Housing Statistics and Demographics Compared to Select Neighboring Cities •42% of occupied rental units in Tigard have gross rent (rent plus basic utilities) that is 35% or greater than household income (a commonly accepted benchmark of housing affordability.) •Tigard permitted more multi-family units in 2015 than Beaverton, Lake Oswego, and Sherwood combined. • Considering the amount of one person households and families without children under 17, there may be an unmet need for more alternatives to traditional single family development in Tigard and other suburban markets. OTHER ALTERNATIVES No alternatives for consideration at this time. COUNCIL GOALS, POLICIES, APPROVED MASTER PLANS Tigard Comprehensive Plan Housing Goal 10.1 Provide opportunities for a variety of housing types to meet the diverse housing needs of current and future City residents. Special Planning Areas- Downtown Goal 15.2 Facilitate the development of an urban village. DATES OF PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION N/A Attachments Housing; and Demographic Snapshot Housing and Demographics: Downtown, Tigard and the Region Downtown Tigard Housing and Demographics The population of Downtown Tigard (defined here as the Urban Renewal District plus the DOWNTOWN T I G A R D Main Street Village Apartments) grew 14.7%, from 2000 to 2010. This is slightly behind the population growth of the overall city of Tigard ■2000 Census ■2010 Census in the same period, which was 16.5%.The N number of housing units in the Downtown 00 increased 8% (attributable to the construction of the Knoll at Tigard senior affordable housing project). Citywide,the number of ■ . housing units increased by 10% in the same time period. POPULATION HOUSING UNITS The housing stock in Downtown consists of ten apartment complexes (Main Street Village and the Knoll), approximately ten single family houses/duplexes, and the Cascade Mobile Villa with 30 mobile homes.The multi-family developments have a range of densities. Main Street Village, with 237 units on 15.15 acres has a density of about 15 units an acre. The older Tigard Manor Apartments on Ash Avenue are about 40-units an acre.The Knoll and the under construction Ash/Burnham project are closer to 50- units an acre. Downtown's demographics are distinct from Tigard as a whole. Downtown Tigard residents Percent of Households Renting are more likely to be renters (75%vs.42%) and 100% Hispanic (28%vs. 13%). Downtown's population 80% is trending younger-the percentage of 60% residents under age 17 has grown since 2000 40% from 25%to 30%. Downtown Tigard's median 20% IN IN household income is$37,213 compared to 0% $69,304 for Tigard as a whole. 2000 Census 2010 Census ■Downtown ■Tigard Percent of Population Hispanic Percent of Population Under Age 30% 17 40% 20% 30% 10% 20% 10% 0% 0% 2000 Census 2010 Census 2000 Census 2010 Census ■Downtown ■Tigard ■Downtown ■Tigard 1 Urban Renewal District Property Values City Center Urban Renewal District 2Downtown Assessed Value per Square 015 property values were analyzed (not including Main Street Village, Foot by Property Type which sits just outside the urban renewal district boundaries). Public or exempt property(including right of way) comprises 54%of the land area of the district. Commercial development comprises 38%of the district's acreage and multi-family development comprises only 4.5%. Looking at the assessed values on a per square foot basis reveals that COMMERCIAL MULTI-FAMILY SINGLE FAMILY MANUFACTURED commercial properties have the HOUSING PARK highest values at$21.15/square foot, with multi-family at$19.27/square foot. One indication of whether a property is a good candidate for redevelopment is to look at the property's Improvement to Land Ratio.This ratio compares the Tax Assessor's value assigned to a property's improvements (structures)to the value of the land. Generally, if the land is worth more than the improvement (an I:L ratio of less than 1), it is a sign the property is not being used to its highest potential. In the downtown, -- 66 of the commercial Improvement to properties (47.6 acres) had an Improvement to Land Land Value Ratio ' � oG ll Nom. Ratio of less than 1. Most of the multi-family properties Ro CO, •sT•.PG�.�' sT M �q2•. _Dhave Improvement to Land Q ratios between 2 and 4.The � commercial properties with ��P •< 5� = s lower I:L ratios are likely to F I be more feasible to S��q N� S�Mcke�Z redevelop into the higher rsr Fsr /11 1_s Z/7 Improvement/Land Value density residential and �� , � Exempt mixed use development NoImprovements that is envisioned in the City s .01-1.00 Center Urban Renewal Plan. PFS �P y'<<' 1.01-2.00 2.01-4.00 5 N _ Greater than 4.00 y 2 Regional Housing Market Facts Residential rents in the Portland Rental Market Rent Increase region have increased sharply 2011-2015 between 2011 and 2015, with the North Portland 71% largest increases in the city of i Downtown Portland 40% Portland.The Beaverton-Tigard East Portland 34% market saw increases of 28%, the Southwest Portland 34% third largest increase in the Portland Hillsboro-Forest Grove 34% suburban markets. Tualatin-Wilsonville- 29% Sherwood Beaverton-Tigard 28% Lake Oswego-West Linn 22% Vancouver 22% Milwaukie-Gladstone- 200' Oregon City Rents are rising faster than incomes Cumulative Change in Rent and Income for the 7-County Metro Region Regional housing market rents are 80% Apartment rent 631r rising faster than incomes. As shown r 60% __— Renter income in the chart' rents in the 7-County — owner income a�% Portland Metro region have risen 63% 40 — ' �0between 2006 and 2015, while renter s House price 22% E 20% _ income has only risen 39%. a%. -20% Metro 2046 2007 2008 2004 2010 2911 2012 2013 2914 2045 lot Soo .AWo/neMr MWIiAmifv NW,1o4 aror .ks Portland Regional Housing 67% of the Portland region's housing is made up of single family homes. 4D ■Single Family housing Units by type developed since 1998 Other than in Multnomah County, Clackamas single family residential construction (29,000 units) '" 2i'li has far outpaced multifamily Washingmn development since 1998. (44,000 units) 31% Multnarnah M ,53,01)0units) Single-family Multlfemuly 3 Tigard Citywide Housing Statistics Since the year 2000, a total of New Residential Building Permits 4,106 housing 2000-2015 units have been permitted in Tigard. Of these 3,424 were single , family houses and 682 were multi-family(two _ or more family ' developments) units, about 16% 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 of the total units t1 Family t2 Family 2 to 4 Family 5 or More Family permitted. Several years saw no multi-family units built in Tigard. In 2015,there was a spike in multi-family unit permits—to 468—including the 168-unit Ash/Burnham project, 60-unit Greenburg Apartments, and 240-unit Scholls Ferry Apartments. In Tigard,the median gross rent (which includes the costs of basic utilities) was reported as$945 in the American Community Survey (note: when 2015 data becomes available,this median rent is expected to rise significantly.) Tigard's for sale housing market has recovered to pre- Tigard Median Home Value 2006-2015 recession levels, with Tigard's $350,000 2015 median home value $300,000 estimated at$325,000. (Zillow) $250,000 $200,000 $150,000 $100,000 $50,000 $0 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 4 Tigard Housing Statistics and Demographics Compared to Select Neighboring Cities Select housing statistics for Tigard were compared to neighboring cities with Percent of Households Renting urban renewal districts (Beaverton, Lake Oswego, and Sherwood) as well as Portland. According to the American Community Survey between 2010 and 2014 all of these cities (and the state of ' Ilia , Oregon and the U.S.) have had an increase in the percentage of o 0 0 o 05 households who are renting. The American Community 2010 2014 Survey found that in 2014,42% I of occupied rental units in Tigard have gross rent(rent plus basic Percent of Rental Units Where Gross utilities)that is 35%or greater Rent is Above 35% of Household than household income. (35%of household income is a commonly Income accepted benchmark of housing affordability.)This percentage increased between 2010 and on NO moo. , 2014 in all of the cities studied, except for Sherwood, which saw a decrease (from 34%to 28%). Tigard's percentage is on par C�� ooPJ Qo� o with the U.S. average of 42.6%. ■2010 ■2014 Tigard permitted 468 multi-family units in New Residential Building Permits 2015 2015 (Burnham and Ash). Among Tigard's peer cities, Beaverton permitted 410 multi- family units,while Sherwood permitted 10, and Lake Oswego issued 6.The city of Portland permitted o TIGARD LAKE OSWEGO SHERWOOD BEAVERTON PORTLAND 3,377 multi-family units. ®SFR r-2 Family 2 to 4 Family 5 or More Family 5 Percent of One Person Households Percent of Households with Children (2014) Under 18 (2014) oo °oo °� �o o�°� J� °P�o �``o° °oo °� 4) \oP�o o°off J� 29% of Tigard households are made up of one person, which is slightly lower than the Oregon and U.S. portion of 28%and significantly higher than Sherwood (19%). 30% of Tigard households have children under 18 present, on par with Beaverton and Lake Oswego, and significantly lower than Sherwood (49%). Tigard's percentage of households with no vehicles are available is 5%, Percent of Households With No Vehicles compared with Beaverton's 8.7% and Available (2014) Portland's 15%.Tigard is below the U.S. average of 9%.This could be attributable to the fact that some areas of Tigard were developed without pedestrian facilities and commercial services within walking distance, so an automobile is o-0) J• considered essential. The U.S. Department of �P Transportation estimates that the average yearly cost to own and operate a car(including gas, insurance, and maintenance) is $8,698. For lower income households that are struggling to pay for housing this is an added burden. Many housing experts advocate for including the costs of transportation to determine the true cost of housing. In the Metro region, 20%of households are spending more than 45%of their income on housing and transportation. These statistics indicate that there may be unmet demand in Tigard for housing in more walkable and transit friendly areas. Market trends indicate that both millennial and downsizing baby boomer households have a preference for this type of housing. Tigard's Vertical Housing Development Zone, which allows a partial property tax exemption for mixed use development, can help encourage this type of mixed use residential development.The zone includes Downtown and the Tigard Triangle,where the first two projects have qualified for the exemption—the Burnham and Ash development and the Adrienne mixed use building in the Triangle. 6 City IP of "� Respect and Care Do the Right Thing Get it Done Tigard s ��F Housing and Demo • raphics Snap�hot: Downtown, and the Region City Center Development Agency Board March 1, 2016 TIGARD City I Tigard Purpose A brief snapshot of housing and demographic trends to provide context for future urban renewal decisions A 9f ' 1 ' " Rcrm%iai C1istrict %� T' p I , DOWNTOWN TIGARD Ci1ycmgonard �'N�$L]11 1 f 2000 Census ■ 2010 Census h � .•r�y�� 1 Mfiit�:� �. 00 a � N °�a�, �.�� 4� r, 'err - 1 �'*, • .k i 'y, f,� �•�+1r. sQlk"'a i'r'.e�� ` .. POPULATION HOUSING UNITS 14 City I Tigard Downtown resident demographics are distinct from the city Downtown . Citywide Percent of Households Renting 75% 39% Percent of Population Hispanic 28% 13% Percent of Population under 17 30% 24% Median Household Income $37,213 $69,304 City I Tigard Downtown Assessed Value per Square Urban Renewal District Foot by Property Type Property Values Commercial properties in the urban renewal district have higher assessed values on a per square foot basis than multi- family development. IR COMMERCIAL MULTI-FAMILY SINGLE FAMILY MANUFACTURED HOUSING PARK City I Tigard Improvement tv 1 r� Land Value Ratio, ,* Many of these commercial properties have low < Improvement to Land Ratios. e Many Q- underutilized Improvement r Land Value commercial Exempt properties are No Improvements candidates for M .01 - 1.°° redevelopment. 1.01 -2.00 y l :.aT 2.01 -4= Jti's H t ( - Greater than 4.00 City I Tigard Rents are rising faster than inc • Regional housing market Cumulative Change in Rent and Inoome for the 7-County rents are rising faster than Metro Region incomes. As shown in the 80% chart, rents in the 7-County Apartment rent 63% Portland Metro region have C -.096 ___ Renter income risen 63% between 2006 and 2015, while renter L :c, — — owner income �Ip income has only risen 39% House price 2296 E • The Beaverton-Tigard j . 'W � market saw rent increases 70 of 28% between 2011 and 2015, the third largest -206 increase in the Portland 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 suburban markets. Metro Soum:,AxlomrtHm MultlfnmikAW.Johnson Econonrlrs City I Tigard Tigard Housing Statistics Compared to Select Neighboring Cities Percent of Households Renting TIGARD LAKE OSWEGO SHERWOOD BEAVERTON PORTLAND OREGON UNITED STATES ■2010 2014 City I Tigard Tigard Housing Statistics Compared to Select Neighboring Cities Percent of Renters Gross Paying Above 35% of Household Income , Pon TIGARD LAKE OSWEGO SHERWOOD BEAVERTON PORTLAND OREGON UNITED STATES 2010 2014 City of Tigard Regional Housing Trends Portland Regional Housing Units ■Single-Family Units by Type Developed Since w'''ii Housing ■ Multifamily 1998 Housing Multnomah(53,000 units) Clackamas (29,000 units) Washington(49,000 units) Tigard(4,106 units)* 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% ■Single Family ■Muli-Family *since 2000 City of Tigard Citywide Housing Trends New Residential Building Permits 2000-2015 600 500 — 400 300 200 — 100 0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 1 Family 2 Family 3 or More Family • Since 2000 41106 housing units have been permitted in Tigard. About 16% of these units were multi-family. • After many years of low or no multi-family unit construction in Tigard, in 2015 there was a sharp spike, to 468 multi-family units permitted. Tigard Housing Statistics Compared to Select Neighboring Cities NEW RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PERMITS 2015 ■SFR ■ 2 Family ■ 3 or More Family rn m m Co 00 O Q0 rH rn o N � 00 00 Ln O O lD N O O TIGARD LAKE OSWEGO SHERWOOD BEAVERTON PORTLAND In 2015 Tigard permitted more multi-family units than Beaverton, Lake Oswego, and Sherwood combined. City I Tigard HOUSING UNITS TYPE ■SFR MF ■ Mobile home 0 O 00 0 o o r- r- 0 0 0 0 N Ln o 0 W M ol0 N M O o M N N r-I 00 0 p 0 o M 1 TIGARD LAKE OSWEGO SHERWOOD BEAVERTON PORTLAND OREGON UNITED STATES Single family housing is still the dominant form of housing in Tigard. City I Tigard What does this mean for Tigard ? • There is a demand for affordable housing in the region and in Tigard. • Downtown is a good candidate for transit oriented development, live/work units, and new affordable housing. • Although Downtown is attractive for new housing, it has more hurdles than in many other parts of the city. • Citywide, allow more opportunities for more housing options, particularly duplexes, ADU's, cottage clusters. (2013 Housing Strategies Report) yg it .m If - . y u AIS-2135 4. CCDA Agenda Meeting Date: 03/01/2016 Length (in minutes): 20 Minutes Agenda Title: Employment and Workforce: Downtown, Tigard and the Region Prepared For: Lloyd Purdy, Community Development Submitted By: Sean Farrelly, Community Development Item Type: Update, Discussion, Direct Staff Meeting Type: City Center Development Agency Public Hearing: No Publication Date: Information ISSUE Report documenting trends in employment in the City of Tigard's Urban Renewal District. STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST The Board of the CCDA is requested to share feedback on the data presented in this report. Follow-up questions can be researched if business and employment data is available. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY Tigard's Urban Renewal District is currently home to more than 176 firms, employing more than 1,700 residents from around the region. The average salary of a Tigard Urban Renewal District employee in 2014 was $43,268. Combined, firms in Tigard's Urban Renewal District expensed over $75 million in payroll in 2014. Covering 198 acres, this general commercial area supports a mix of firms/employers. A diverse mix of employers provides employment options for residents with a range of skills, education levels, interests and earning potential. The attached report outlines Tigard's Urban Renewal District (URD) trends over the last 10 years in: •The types of business operating in the URD, •Employment in the URD, •Wages of employees (workforce) in the URD, •Workforce education levels, and •Distribution by age of the URD's workforce. Tigard's Urban Renewal District Business/Employment Analysis (summary) Firms in the consumer services (i.e.. retail, restaurant, product repair, and entertainment) employ 35% of the workforce in Tigard's Urban Renewal District. These businesses are typically first-floor tenants serving a local customer base with retail goods and services. The other major employment sector can be generally characterized as employing a large portion of"office employees". Firms in the "office employee" category account for 41% of the workforce in Tigard's Urban Renewal District. Businesses in this sector are represented by firms in finance, insurance, professional services and public administration. Eight industries account for 86% of the employment opportunity in Tigard's Urban Renewal District. These same industries account for only 54% of employment city wide. Employment in the URD is concentrated and less diverse compared to city-wide employment. Tigard's Urban Renewal District supports 8.3 employees per acre. City wide, employment per acre is 20 when counting all employment lands. (Lincoln Center accounts for a high density per acre calculation when looking at the city overall.) For comparison sake, The City of Sherwood's Urban Renewal District currently employs 5.3 people per acre on 411 acres of Urban Renewal District. Beaverton's Urban Renewal District employees 13.6 people per acre in a 988 acre district. In 2007 at `peak employment" 1,900 people worked in Tigard's Urban Renewal District. From 2002 to 2013, Tigard's Urban Renewal District has seen a decrease in the number of people working in the URD. Overall employment in the URD has decreased 16%. This is counter to a city-wide increase in employment of 16% since 2002. The workforce in firms in the food service industry (+80/o), insurance (+7%) and healthcare (+6%) has increased, while the workforce in the other industries has decreased since 2002. The employment mix in Tigard's Urban Renewal District is not limiting the ability of the district to mature into an urban village format. The mix of business activity and employment is balanced but underrepresented in key urban village commercial activities like retail sales and restaurants. The district should be able to support at least 20% more employees than currently. As employment decreases in business sectors that need large amounts of space like warehousing, wholesale trade and manufacturing, empty capacity should be converted to use for activities that support higher densities of employment and other uses valued by the community. Prioritizing for first-story consumer oriented business activities with upper story office and residential uses supports an urban village style form. Workforce Earnings in Tigard's Urban Renewal District (summary) The trend in wages follows a national and city-wide trend of a decrease in middle income earners and increases in lower wage and higher wage positions. Since 2002, the number of employees in the middle range earning $15,000 to $40,000 per year in Tigard's Urban Renewal District decreased 35%. The number of employees working in low wage jobs (less than $15,000/yr) in Tigard's Urban Renewal District has increased the most dramatically since the end of the recession in 2010. In recent years, employment in low wage jobs has increased by 22% in Tigard's Urban Renewal District. City-wide, the employment trend shows a 45% increase in the number of employees making more than $3,333 per month and only a 3.5% increase in the lowest wage group earning less than $1,250/month ($15,000/yr.) As property owners and business owners reinvest in Tigard's Urban Renewal District creating more retail and restaurant offerings, the age of the workforce, education level and wages paid will continue to decline due to the nature of those businesses and jobs. This can be balanced by ensuring office capacity on upper stories and less pedestrian/consumer oriented activities around the edges of Tigard's Urban Renewal District as it transitions into neighboring industrial zones. Employee Education and Age in Tigard's Urban Renewal District (summary) In Tigard's Urban Renewal District an increasing number of employees have a high school education or less. This group accounts for 27% of the Urban Renewal District's workforce. The proportion of employees with a high school education or less is about the same at 25% for the city overall. Inconsistent with city-wide trends, the number of employees in Tigard's Urban Renewal District with at least a bachelor's degree decreased by 9.9%. For the city overall, the number of employees with at least a bachelor's degree has increased by 8.8%. The majority of Tigard's Urban Renewal District employees (56.2%) are in their primary earning years age 30 to 54. Similar to the national trend, the workforce is aging, and since the end of the recession, employees with experience have crowded out job opportunities for younger employees. About a quarter (26%) of the employees in Tigard's Urban Renewal District are older than age 55. This age group has increased about 69% since 2002. Only 17% of the Tigard Urban Renewal District's employees are 29 years old or younger, this group has seen the largest decrease of about 40%. The attached report includes graphics and comparisons to similar trends in the City of Tigard as well as the Urban Renewal Districts in Beaverton and Sherwood. This provides an opportunity to see how these workforce trends relate to Tigard's overall economy as well as the Urban Renewal Districts in two neighboring cities - one larger and one smaller. OTHER ALTERNATIVES No alternatives for consideration at this time. COUNCIL GOALS, POLICIES, APPROVED MASTER PLANS Tigard's Urban Renewal District covers 198 acres of"employment land" which is land zoned to support commercial and economic activity. As a sub-region within Tigard's employment lands, economic activity in the Urban Renewal District relates to the City of Tigard's Comprehensive Plan Goal 9 and the 2011 Economic Opportunity Analysis. Commercial activity in the Urban Renewal District can also support the City's Strategic Vision Goal that seeks to ensure development advances the vision of a "more walkable, interconnected and healthier city". An understanding of the trends in employment and business activity in Tigard's Urban Renewal District support's the City Center Urban Renewal Plan Goal 5: Promote high quality development of retail, office and residential uses that support and are supported by public streetscape, transportation, recreation and open space investment. DATES OF PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION N/A Attachments URD Workforce Analysis Tigard Urban Renewal District Employment/Workforce Analysis Employment Summary for Tigard's Urban Renewal District Tigard's Urban Renewal District is currently home to more than 176 firms, employing more than 1,700 residents from around the region.The average salary of an employee in the Tigard Urban Renewal District in 2014 was $43,268. Combined,firms in Tigard's Urban Renewal District expensed over$75 million in payroll in 2014. Tigard's Urban Renewal District sits between two industrial zones (outside of the urban renewal district)with another 61 firms employing more than 600 people in manufacturing, distribution and traded sector occupations. Daily more than 4,000 commuters make a transit trip via the Tigard Transit Center primarily as they commute to work somewhere else in the region or into Tigard for their job. Types of Jobs in Tigard's Urban Renewal District Covering only 198 acres,this general commercial area supports a mix of firms/employers. A diverse mix of businesses provides employment options for residents with a range of skills, education levels, interests and earning potential.The table shows the mix of industries employing people in Tigard's Urban Renewal District compared to employment in the city overall. Employment by Business Sectors 2013 Tigard URD City Wide The orange highlighted business sectors on the table show the Agriculture,Forestry,Fishing and Hunting 0.7% 0.1% Mining,Quarrying,and Oil and Gas Extraction 0.0% 0.0% percentage of employees in Tigard's Urban Renewal District Utilities 0.0% 0.1% Construction 2.3% 6.2% that work for a firm with a primarily consumer focus. Manufacturing 8.9% 5.4% Wholesale Trade 1.6% 6.3% Consumer services like retail trade, entertainment,food Retail Trade 16.5% 16.9% Transportation and Warehousing 0.0% 1.3% service and general/other services(shoe repair, barber, car Information 7.2% 3.3% mechanics) are the retail amenities that most residents expect Finanenala Insurance 6.1% 13.2% Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 0.6% 1.3 to find in an "urban village" downtown format.These Professional,Scientific,and Technical Services 2.7% 9.1% Management of Companies and Enterprises 0.0% 1.5% businesses are typically the first floor tenants serving a local Administration&Support 4.9% 14.8% Educational Services 0.8% 3.8% customer base with retail goods and service, often on evenings Health Care and Social Assistance 9.7% 6.1% Arts,Entertainment,and Recreation 0.2% 1.2% and weekends. Firms in the consumer services sector employ Accommodation and Food Services 9.9% 5.7% Other(Consumer)Services 8.1% 2.7% 35%of the workforce in Tigard's Urban Renewal District. Public Administration 19.7% 1.2% In order to support this type of business activity, a downtown also needs a healthy mix of office employment like finance and insurance, professional services, management, creative services and administration. These are business sectors (marked in blue in the table)that may have some interaction with retail customers (like an insurance office, or interior design firm). Employees at these firms also shop, eat and seek out services in a downtown. Firms with a large number of office employees account for 41%of the workforce in Tigard's Urban Renewal District. In a typical urban village downtown format, firms specializing in manufacturing, warehousing, and wholesale trade are atypical in the core. Their physical footprint and the infrastructure they need run counter to a pedestrian oriented consumer focused urban village. In many downtowns,this business activity takes place on the edge of the district. A mix of firms and business sectors and a higher density of employment are important factors to consider when thinking about Tigard's Urban Renewal District. Every employee downtown is a potential customer for a range of downtown goods and services. Page 1 of 6 Tigard Urban Renewal District Employment/Workforce Analysis Large Employment Sectors in Tigard's Urban Renewal District Employment in the eight largest business sectors for Tigard's Urban Renewal Districts can be compared to Sherwood and Beaverton's URD and the City of Tigard overall in the table below.These 8 business sectors account for 86%of all employment in the Tigard Urban Renewal District.These same business sectors only represent 54% of the employment capacity of the entire workforce in the city overall. Employment in Tigard's Urban Renewal District is highly concentrated in these sectors. Retail and commercial trade Tigard Beaverton Sherwood city of (retail, restaurants and Largest Employment Sectors(2013) URD URD URD Tigard consumer services) make up Share Share Share Share Manufacturing 8.9% 14.3% 16.8% 5.4% the largest private sector Retail Trade 16.5% 22.7% 21.6% 16.9% source of employment in Information 7.2% 4.2% 0.6% 3.3% the Tigard Urban Renewal Finance and Insurance 6.1% 2.2% 3.0% 13.2% Health Care and Social Assistance 9.7% 9.1% 13.8% 6.1% District. Combined, firms in Accommodation and Food Services 9.9% 14.2% 11.6% 5.7% these consumer oriented Other(Consumer)Services 8.1% 3.4% 6.7% 2.7% businesses provide jobs to Public Administration 19.7% 4.7% 4.4% 1.2% 35%of all employees who Listed as a percentage of Total 86.1% 74.8% 78.4% 54.4% work in Tigard's Urban Renewal District. In almost each instance,the same business sectors in Sherwood and Beaverton's urban renewal districts employ a larger percentage of people. Tigard's Urban Renewal District has a relatively large share of public administration jobs due to City Hall's location downtown, which reduces the proportion of private sector employment.Tigard City Hall (Public Administration 19.7%) makes up the single largest employer in Tigard's Urban Renewal District. Tigard's Urban Renewal district supports 8.3 employees per acre. City wide,employment per acre is 20 when counting all employment lands. (Lincoln Center accounts for a high density per acre calculation when looking at the city overall.) For comparison sake,The City of Sherwood's urban renewal district currently employs 5.3 people per acre on 411 acres of urban renewal district. Beaverton's Urban Renewal District employees 13.6 people per acre in a 988 acre district. Tigard's Urban Renewal District supports a mix of employees working in a range of business sectors that support an urban village downtown format. Proportionally more office based employees work in information services, finance, public administration and insurance in Tigard's Urban Renewal District than in Beaverton and Sherwood's Urban Renewal Districts and the City overall. The employment mix in Tigard's Urban Renewal District is not limiting the ability of the district to mature into an urban village downtown format.The mix of business activity and employment is balanced but underrepresented in key urban village shopping district commercial activities like retail sales and restaurants. Page 2 of 6 Tigard Urban Renewal District Employment/Workforce Analysis Employment Trends in Tigard's Urban Renewal District TOTAL EMPLOYMENT TIGARD URBAN RENEWAL DISTRICT In 2007 at"peak employment" 1,900 people worked in Tigard's Urban Renewal District. By 2013 (the most current 2,000 .............................................. year of data) employment dropped to 1,600 employees. 1,900 .......................................... .................................................... Employment is up slightly from a post-recession low of 1,500 1,800 in 2012. Over the same time period, city-wide employment 1,700 ............................... rose from 35,300 in to 41,079 employees in 2014. 1,600 1,500 From 2002 to 2013,Tigard's Urban Renewal District has seen 1,400 . a decrease in the number of people working within the 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N N district. Downtown's overall decrease in employment of N N N N N N N N N 16% is counter to a city-wide increase in employment of 16% since 2002. At"peak employment"firms located in Tigard's Urban Renewal District employed 5.33%of the City of Tigard's workforce. Currently, firms in the Urban Renewal District employ 3.8%of the overall workforce.This annualized decrease in workforce by sector equates to a loss of 300 jobs or 16%of the employees working in Tigard's Urban Renewal District. Area of Study 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 20131 Percent Chang Jobs URD 1,883 1,737 1,714 1,771 1,881 1,900 1,883 1,648 1,526 1,565 1,509 1,580 -16.09% Jobs and 35,341 34,342 35,306 35,971 37,333 38,550 38,553 36,059 36,988 39,975 40,090 41,079 16.24% Ti Tigard Population 44,6091 44828 45724 46709 47657 47916 48528 49254 48035 49025 49774 50,000 12.09% The chart to the right shows which business sectors are expanding and contracting their workforce in Tigard's Urban Business Sector Change in Employment Over Annualized Renewal District. Food services, healthcare and Time(Targeted Sectors) 2002-2013 Manufacturing -2.5% financial/insurance services are increasing. Every other business Wholesale Trade -4.6% sector represented in the table has been reducing its workforce. Retail Trade -1.3% Transportation and Warehousing -9.1% Information -2.9% Decreased employment indicates lower businesses activity for Finance and Insurance 7.2% these sectors.These firms may be reducing their workforce but Professional,Scientific,and Technical Services -4.4% Management of Companies and Enterprises -9.1% operating out of the same space, moving to another location, or Administration&Support -4.3% closing. Unusual for Tigard's Urban Renewal Districts is the wide- Health Care and Social Assistance 6.3% spread trend in decreasing employment, not limited to just a few Arts'Entertainment,and Recreation 6. p g em p y �jAccommodation and Food Services 8.4/4% 0 sectors. Other(Consumer)Services 0.9% Public Administration 0.6% The trend in increasing food service downtown is one good signal. Increased restaurant and food offerings in a downtown setting set the stage for retail and residential uses. Employment levels in Tigard's Urban Renewal District are not increasing along with the overall trend.The district should be able to support at least 20% more employees than currently. As employment decreases in business sectors that need large amounts of space like warehousing, wholesale trade and manufacturing, empty capacity should be converted to use for activities that support higher densities of employment and other uses valued by the community. Prioritizing for first-story consumer oriented business activities with upper story office and residential uses supports an urban village style form. Page 3 of 6 Tigard Urban Renewal District Employment/Workforce Analysis What do employees working in Tigard's Urban Renewal District Earn? Wages paid to employees in Tigard's Urban Renewal District are divided into three categories by the US Census. • Less than $15,000/year($1,250/month) PAY RANGES OF EMPLOYEES • Between $15,000 and $40,000 per year TIGARD URBAN RENEWAL DISTRICT • More than $40,000/year($3,333/month) 900 ..... ........................................................................... The trend in wages follows a national and city-wide trend 800 _1 1.11.1_ 11....................... ................................... of a decrease in middle income earners and increases in 700 lower wage and higher wage positions. Since 2002,the 600 number of employees in the middle range earning 500 $15,000 to$40,000 per year in Tigard's Urban Renewal 400 District has decreased by 35%. 300 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .+ .- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N N N N N N N N N N N Since the end of the recession in 2010, in Tigard's Urban Renewal District,the trend shows a slight decrease in the ■$1,250 per month or less number of employees earning more than $3,333 per ■$1,251 to$3,333 per month month ($40,000/yr).The number of employees working in ■More than$3,333 per month low wage jobs (less than $15,000/yr) in Tigard's Urban Renewal District has increased the most dramatically since 2013 WAGES BY STUDY AREA the end of the recession in 2010. In recent years, TIGARD URBAN RENEWAL DISTRICT employment in low wage jobs has increased by 22%in 4L7% Tigard's Urban Renewal District. Higher wage employment 50.0%($15,000 and above) has decreased by 1%and while it's lower 40.06 30A% than pre-recession levels, it is trending up. iaax 10.0% This trend in Tigard's Urban Renewal District is not consistent 0.0% with the trend in Beaverton and Sherwood's Urban Renewal s Districts. In Sherwood,the number of employees entering the a690 7a, �°'ko c, GD oo moi relatively higher income cohorts is growing(with a 23% Mwethin$3,333per month O Gq0 increase from 2010 to 2013) and the low wage group is 0 $1,250 per month Or tens shrinking(11%decrease).The disbursement of wages in 0 $1,251 to$3,333 per month Beaverton has been relatively constant between the three categories. For comparison, at the end of calendar year 2014,the average wage for an employee in Tigard was$47,968 ($4,000/month). Contrary to the trend in the Tigard Urban Renewal District, when looking across the whole City of Tigard,the trend shows a 45%increase in the number of employees making more than$3,333 per month and only a 3.5% increase in the lowest wage group earning less than $1,250/month ($15,000 yr.) As property owners and business owners reinvest in Tigard's Urban Renewal District creating more retail and restaurant offerings,the age of the workforce, education level and wages paid will continue to decline.This can be balanced by ensuring office capacity on upper stories and less pedestrian/consumer oriented activities around the edges of Tigard's Urban Renewal District as it transitions into neighboring industrial zones. Page 4 of 6 Tigard Urban Renewal District Employment/Workforce Analysis Employee Education and Age in Tigard's Urban Renewal District The education level of employees in Tigard's Urban Renewal District follows the trend in wages. In Tigard's WORKFORCE EDUCATION LEVEL 2013 Urban Renewal District an increasing number of TIGARD URBAN RENEWAL DISTRICT employees have a high school education or less.This ■Less than high school group accounts for 27%of the urban renewal district's ■High school or equivalent,no college workforce. Sherwood and Beaverton Urban Renewal 1'. ■Some college or Associate degree Bachelor's or advanced degree Districts have a similar proportional share of minimally ■Educational attainment not available educated employees.The trend is consistent with city- wide trends in education levels. Inconsistent with city-wide trends, the number of employees in Tigard's Urban Renewal District with at least a bachelor's degree decreased by 9.9%since 2009. City wide,the proportion of employees with a high school education or less is about the same at 25%and the number with at least a bachelor's degree has increased by 8.8%. Education data from the US Census is only available from 2009 to 2013. Wages, education Level and age are often correlated.The majority of WORKFORCE BY AGE TIGARD URBAN RENEWAL DISTRICT Tigard's urban renewal district employees (56.2%) are in their primary ■Age 29 or younger ■Age 30 to 54 earning years age 30 to 54.This "working age" group is about the same RAge 55 or older proportion in the Beaverton and Sherwood urban renewal districts.The proportion of this group related to the younger and older working demographic is true for the city overall as well. 4=10 Also, like national trends,the workforce is aging, and since the end of EMPLOYMENT BY AGE TIGARD URBAN RENEWAL DISTRICT the recession employees with experience have crowded out job 1,400 - -- ---- ---- --- opportunities for younger employees. 1.200 1.000 goo Just of a quarter(26%) of the COMPARISON OF 600 400 employees in the Tigard Urban WORKFORCE BY AGE 200 0 Renewal District are older than 0 2'7% 20 94 1 1% 19;D96 " age 55.This age group has 90% R Age 29 or younger ■ Age 30 to 54 ■ Age 55 or older 80% increased about 69%since 2002 70% 60% in and increased 84%city wide. Only 17%of the Tigard urban renewal 5D% district's employees are 29 years old or younger, this group has seen the 4M largest decrease of about 40%.This groups makes up anywhere from 23 2D% lo% to 29%of the employees in Beaverton and Sherwood's urban renewal 0% T4wd R—nn'n Sherwood City of district and the City overall. URD URD URD rgerd ■Age 55 or older ■Age 30 to 54 ■Age 29 or younger Page 5 of 6 Tigard Urban Renewal District Employment/Workforce Analysis Workforce Trend Summary • Firms in consumer services (retail, restaurant, product repair, and entertainment)employ 35%of the workforce in Tigard's Urban Renewal District. • Firms with a large number of office based employees account for 41%of the workforce in Tigard's Urban Renewal District. Businesses in this sector include professional services and public administration. • Eight industries account for 86%of the employment opportunity in Tigard's Urban Renewal District. Employment in the URD is concentrated and less diverse compared to city-wide employment. • Tigard's Urban Renewal District supports 8.3 employees per acre. City wide, employment per acre is 20 when counting all employment lands. (Lincoln Center accounts for a high density per acre calculation when looking at the city overall.) • In 2007 at "peak employment" 1,900 people worked in Tigard's Urban Renewal District. Overall employment in the URD decreased 16%.This is counter to a city-wide increase in employment of 16% since 2002. • The workforce employed by firms in the food service industry (+8%), insurance (+7%) and healthcare (+6%) has increased,while the workforce in other industries in the URD has decreased since 2002. • The trend in wages follows a national and city-wide trend of a decrease in middle income earners and increases in lower wage and higher wage positions. Since 2002,the number of employees in the middle range earning$15,000 to $40,000 per year in Tigard's Urban Renewal District decreased 35%. • The number of employees working in low wage jobs (less than $15,000/yr) in Tigard's Urban Renewal District increased by 22% post-recession. • In Tigard's Urban Renewal District an increasing number of employees have a high school education or less.This group accounts for 27%of the urban renewal district's workforce. • Inconsistent with city-wide trends, the number of employees in Tigard's Urban Renewal District with at least a bachelor's degree decreased by 9.9%. For the city overall,the number of employees with at least a bachelor's degree has increased by 8.8%. • The majority of Tigard's urban renewal district employees (56.2%) are in their primary earning years age 30 to 54. Similar to the national trend,the workforce is aging, and since the end of the recession, employees with experience have crowded out job opportunities for younger employees. • About a quarter(26%) of the employees in Tigard's Urban Renewal District are older than age 55.This age group has increased about 69%since 2002. Only 17%of the Tigard urban renewal district's employees are 29 years old or younger,this group has seen the largest decrease of about 40%. Page 6 of 6 �-� -� Clty O f Tigard Respect and Care � Do the ' � "�' ' Urban Renewal D iestrl'* ct Workforce Analysis TIGARD City / Tigard Workforce Summary Da«ntown i3rlsan N I Renecryial District "« r cres.d Tigard URD includes Oregon 1 LIPi' 198 acres 176 firms 1 700 employees $43 268 average salary it $75 million in payroll f 4,000 daily public transit trips. City / Tigard What does thl" s mean for 1 gard? Employment By Sector in URD A large portion of the workforce in the URD 11% Consumer/Retail ■Office/Professional supports business 13% 35a1 Traded sector/Production ■Education& Health activities that can contribute to the "urban village" feel . City / Tigard i Employment over Time TOTAL EMPLOYMENT TIGARD URBAN RENEWAL DISTRICT Peak Employment 2,OW .................................................................................................. 1,9000 jobs 1.900 ........................................... .................................................... Recession Level 1,800 ....................... ...............I......................... 1,500 jobs 1,600 ............................. Current Level 11500 1,600 jobs 1,400 M Kr Ln UDr.% co M ¢ r4 (14M Q Q Q 0 Q 0 0 O ri r-I r-1 r-4 G G G C 0 C) 0 0 C0 c 0 r4 C-4N N City / Tigard i Wages and Salaries in the URD PAY RANGES OF EMPLOYEES Less than $15,000/year TIGARD URBAN RENEWAL DISTRICT <_ $1,250/month _< $7.80/hr. $00 700 ....................... $15,001 to $40,000 per year 600 500 7.80-20.83/hr. 400 _ 300 N M V Ln 1.c r� 00 M 0 r-1 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 r-4 1-1 r-1r-I lV'iore than $4U,UUU/ a rq rq fq fq rq rq N rq N N N N N N N N N N N N >_ $3,333/month 1 $1,250 per month or fess >_ $20.83/hr. $1,251 to$3,333 per month More than $3,333 per month City / Tigard • WorkforceYEducatlon and Age WORKFORCE EDUCATION LEVEL 2013 EMPLOYMENT BY AGE TIGARD URBAN RENEWAL DISTRICT TIGARD URBAN RENEWAL DISTRICT ■ Less than high school ■ High school or equivalent,no college 1,400 ................................................................................................... MSome college or Associate degree 1,200 ......................................„...................„.................................... ", 0 Bachelor's or advanced degree ■ Educational attainment not available 800 600 400 WORKFORCE BY AGE TIGARD URBAN RENEWAL DISTRICT 200 ■Age 24 or y—ger ■Age 30 to 5 Q I Age 55 ar olaer N M b Ln co I• 00 Ch 0 11 N M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -4 ti N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N N N N N N N N N N N aV Age 29 or younger M Age 30 to 54 l Age 55 or older City of Tigard Popp= 1 1110 What does this mean for iTg • The Urban Renewal District has a basic mix of businesses and employment opportunities. • The Urban Renewal District can support more employment than currently offered. • As Tigard's Urban Renewal District matures into an "urban village" shopping district, wages to lower skilled workers may increase. • Efforts to support an "urban village" development pattern should be balanced with upper story development of professional and business services. AIS-2504 5. CCDA Agenda Meeting Date: 03/01/2016 Length (in minutes): 10 Minutes Agenda Title: Metro IGA for Downtown Grant Award Submitted By: Sean Farrelly, Community Development Item Type: Resolution Meeting Type: Council Business Meeting - Main Public Hearing No Newspaper Legal Ad Required?: Public Hearing Publication Date in Newspaper: Information ISSUE Shall Council authorize the City Manager to sign an Intergovernmental Government Agreement (IGA) with Metro to receive $100,000 in Community Planning and Development Grant (CPDG) funds for the purpose of completing the Downtown Tigard Urban Lofts Development project? STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST Staff recommends that Council authorize the City Manager to sign the IGA with Metro, substantially similar to the attached IGA. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY At its February 23 meeting, staff briefed Council on the attached IGA, which formally acknowledges the Metro CPDG award, describes the funding terms, and summarizes the city's performance responsibilities. Staff also briefed Council on Exhibit A of the IGA, which identifies the milestones, deliverables, and reimbursement schedule specific to this grant award. The award will fund pre-development feasibility work for a mixed use/housing development on two downtown sites: a 0.45 acre privately owned site fronting Main Street (the "Nicoll site") and the 0.81 acre site that is currently the Tigard Transit Center. The three main tasks are: 1. Reconfiguration plan for the Tigard Transit Center. 2. A concept plan for mixed-use transit oriented urban-style loft development of two sites. 3. Definition of the Urban Renewal District's role and financial commitments to the project. The deliverables and milestones are described in Exhibit A of the IGA which is attached. These grant-funded deliverables will be developed with the assistance of a consultant team. There are a couple of minor IGA issues that still need to be finalized and reviewed by the City Attorney, but the final documents will be substantially similar to Attachments A and B. Once the IGA is signed, a more detailed scope of work will be developed and a request for proposals will be publicized. OTHER ALTERNATIVES Council may choose not to enter into this IGA with Metro, which would result in the Downtown Tigard Urban Lofts Development project not moving forward. COUNCIL OR CCDA GOALS, POLICIES, MASTER PLANS Tigard City Council 2015-17 Goals and Milestones Goal #2. Make Downtown Tigard a Place Where People Want to Be Tigard Comprehensive Plan Special Planning Areas - Downtown Goal 15.2 Facilitate the development of an urban village. Tigard Strategic Plan Goal 2: Ensure development advances the vision City Center Urban Renewal Plan Goal 5: Promote high quality development of retail, office and residential uses that support and are supported by public streetscape, transportation, recreation, and open space investments Tigard Downtown Improvement Plan Downtown Housing Development Catalyst Project DATES OF PREVIOUS CONSIDERATION February 23, 2015, Review of draft IGA documents May 26, 2015, Resolution Authorizing Metro Community Planning & Development Grant Application Fiscal Impact Cost: $ 207,559 Budgeted (yes or no): partial Where Budgeted (department/program): Community Development Additional Fiscal Notes: The $97, 559 in staff time match is budgeted in the Community Development Department. If the $10,000 city funds match is required, it will be funded by the FY 16-17 CCDA budget request. The city/CCDA budget will be amended to reflect the $100,000 grant award. Attachments IGA Exhibit A Deliverables and Milestones Exhibit B: Grant Application DRAFT CONSTRUCTION EXCISE TAX GRANT INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT Metro—City of Tigard Downtown Tigard Urban Lofts Development Project This Construction Excise Tax Grant Intergovernmental Agreement("CET Grant IGA")is effective on the last date of signature below, and is entered into by and between Metro, a metropolitan service district organized under the laws of the state of Oregon and the Metro Charter, located at 600 Northeast Grand Avenue, Portland OR, 97232("Metro"), and the City of Tigard("City"),located at 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard Oregon, 97223, collectively referred to as"Parties." WHEREAS,Metro has established a Construction Excise Tax("CET"),Metro Code Chapter 7.04, which imposes an excise tax throughout the Metro regional jurisdiction to fund regional and local planning that is required to make land ready for development after inclusion in the Urban Growth Boundary; and WHEREAS,the CET is collected by local jurisdictions when issuing building permits,which the local jurisdictions then remit to Metro pursuant to Construction Excise Tax Intergovernmental Agreements to Collect and Remit Tax("CET Collection IGAs")entered into separately between Metro and the local collecting jurisdictions; and WHEREAS,the City has submitted a CET Grant Request("Grant Request")for the Downtown Tigard Urban Lofts Development Project("Project"); and WHEREAS Metro has agreed to provide the City CET Grant funding for the Project in the amount of $100,000, subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein, and the parties wish to set forth the funding amounts,timing,procedures and conditions for receiving grant funding from the CET fund for the Project. NOW THEREFORE,the Parties hereto agree as follows: 1. Metro Grant Award. Metro shall provide CET grant funding to the City for the Project as described in the City's CET Grant Request, attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein("Grant Request"), in the amounts and at the milestone and deliverable dates as set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein, subject to the terms and conditions in this Agreement. 2. City Responsibilities. The City shall perform the Project described in the Grant Request and as specified in this Agreement and in Exhibit A, subject to the terms and conditions specified in this Agreement and subject to the"funding conditions"recommended by the Metro Chief Operating Officer and adopted by the Metro Council in Resolution No. 15-4640. The City shall obtain all applicable permits and licenses from local, state or federal agencies or governing bodies related to the Project, and the City shall use the CET funds it receives under this Agreement only for the purposes specified in the Grant Request and to achieve the deliverables and/or milestones set forth in Exhibit A. 3. Payment Procedures. Within 30 days after the completion of each deliverable/milestone as set forth in Exhibit A,the City shall submit to Metro an invoice describing in detail its expenditures as may be needed to satisfy fiscal requirements. Within 30 days of receiving the City's invoice and supporting documents, and Page 1 —CET PLANNING&DEVELOPMENT GRANT IGA—Metro&City of Tigard DRAFT subject to the terms and conditions in this Agreement,Metro shall reimburse the City for its eligible expenditures for the applicable deliverable as set forth in Exhibit A. Metro shall send CET payments to: City of Tigard Finance Department Attention: Linda Compton 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 4. Funding Provisions. (a) CET Funds. Metro's funding commitment set forth in this Agreement shall be fulfilled solely through the programming of CET funds;no other funds or revenues of Metro shall be used to satisfy or pay any CET Grant funding commitments. The parties recognize and agree that if the CET is ever held to be unenforceable or invalid,or if a court orders that CET funds may no longer be collected or disbursed,that this Agreement shall terminate as of the effective date of that court order, and that Metro shall not be liable in any way for funding any further CET grant amounts beyond those already disbursed to the City as of the effective date of the court order. In such case the City shall not be liable to Metro for completing any further Project deliverables as of the date of the court order. (b) Waiver. The parties hereby waive and release one another for and from any and all claims, liabilities, or damages of any kind relating to this Agreement or the CET. 5. Project Records. The City shall maintain all records and documentation relating to the expenditure of CET Grant funds disbursed by Metro under this Agreement. The City shall provide Metro with such information and documentation as Metro requires for implementation of the CET grant process. The City shall establish and maintain books,records,documents,and other evidence in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles,in sufficient detail to permit Metro or its auditor to verify how the CET Grant funds were expended. Metro and its auditor shall have access to the books,documents,papers and records of the City that are directly related to this Agreement,the CET grant moneys provided hereunder,or the Project for the purpose of making audits and examinations. 6. Audits,Inspections and Retention of Records. Metro and its representatives shall have full access to and the right to examine,during normal business hours and as often as they deem necessary,all City records with respect to all matters covered by this Agreement and Exhibit A. Such representatives shall be permitted to audit,examine, and make excerpts or transcripts from such records,and to make audits of all contracts,invoices,materials, payrolls and other matters covered by this Agreement. All documents,papers,time sheets,accounting records,and other materials pertaining to costs incurred in connection with the project shall be retained by the City and all of their contractors for three years from the date of completion of the project,or expiration of the Agreement, whichever is later,to facilitate any audits or inspection. 7. Term. This Agreement shall be effective on the date it is executed by both parties, and shall be in effect until all deliverables/milestones have been achieved, all required documentation has been delivered, and all payments have been made as set forth in Exhibit A,unless terminated earlier pursuant to this Agreement. 8. Amendment. This CET Grant IGA may be amended only by mutual written agreement of the Parties. 9. Other Agreements. This CET Grant IGA does not affect or alter any other agreements between Metro and the City. Page 2—CET PLANNING&DEVELOPMENT GRANT IGA—Metro&City of Tigard DRAFT 10. Authori . City and Metro each warrant and represent that each has the full power and authority to enter into and perform this Agreement in accordance with its terms; that all requisite action has been taken by the City and Metro to authorize the execution of this Agreement; and that the person signing this Agreement has full power and authority to sign for the City or Metro,respectively. Metro City of Tigard By: By: Martha Bennett Martha Wine Title: Metro Chief Operating Officer Title: City Manager Date: Date: Approved as to Form: Approved as to Form: By: By: Alison R.Kean Title: Metro Attorney Title: City Attorney Date: Date: Attachments: Exhibit A—Milestones and Deliverables Schedule Exhibit B—City's Grant Request Page 3—CET PLANNING&DEVELOPMENT GRANT IGA—Metro&City of Tigard Exhibit A IGA for Community Planning and Development Grants funded with CET City of Tigard —Mixed-Use Development Projects Milestone and Deliverables Schedule for Release of Funds This project provides pre-development services for two sites located in Downtown Tigard. Site 1, the public works site, is owned by the City. Site 2 is an as yet to be identified site. The Developer partner has the responsibility to secure control of Site 2. Secure control means the Developer partner has a vested interest and has shown serious commitment to purchase Site 2; a purchase option including earnest money commitment if warranted has been executed (or similar commitment), with site purchase contingent on the outcomes of the deliverables described below. As such, milestone due dates may be different for tasks accomplished for both sites, depending on when Developer achieves control of Site 2. The table below includes the best estimates for milestone due dates. Milestone* Deliverable Date Due** Grant Payment 1. Execution of IGA Grant November 26, 2013 $0 2. Retain Project Management Consultant October 30, 2013 $0 a) RFP and consultant selection b) Agreement and authorization c) Negotiate an Memorandum Of December 1, 2013 Understanding (MOU)with Developer (MOU complete) d) Matching funding commitments provided to Metro e) Criteria approved by City Center Advisory Commission(CCAC) for making recommendations to the City Center Development Agency(CCDA) Board and City Council on project feasibility and how to proceed. 3. Undertake Environmental Investigations January 1, 2014 $30,000 a) Developer to demonstrate control of Site 2 (Site 1) b) Consultant selection for environmental February 1, 2014 investigations (Site 2) c) Phase 1 and 2 Environmental Assessment Report for Site 2 d) Comments by City and Metro on reports for Sites 1 and 2 and determination whether or not to proceed Tigard City Council Hearing on IGA 2 This task refers to Site 2 only. The City will fund a level 2 environmental assessment for Site 1 to be completed by January 1,2014. Page 1 —2013 CPD GRANT IGA—Metro—City of Tigard Mixed-Use Development Project 10/31/13 e) Progress report including environmental assessment report and decision whether or not to proceed 4. Undertake Appraisals and Land Surveys February 15, 2014 $15,000 a) Consultant selections for appraisals and (Site 1) surveys March 1, 2014 $15,000 b) Appraisal reports for Sites 1 and 2 (Site 2) c) Surveys for two downtown sites d) Comments by City and Metro on reports e) Progress report for milestone 5. Conduct Market Studies for 2 Sites April 1, 2014 $15,000 a) Consultant selection for market studies b) Market studies for Sites 1 and 2 c) Comments by City and Metro on reports d) Progress report for milestone 6. Prepare Conceptual Design and Cost Estimates June 1, 2014 $20,000 a) Architect selected with participation by Developer b) Draft design plans and cost estimates for Sites 1 and 2 c) Comments by City and Metro on draft plans d) Final design plans and cost estimates e) Progress report for milestone 7. Evaluate Development Feasibility July 15, 2014 $0 a) Pro-forma analysis for Sites 1 and 2 b) Report evaluating financing and if gaps exist, public financing strategies c) Comments by City and Metro of draft reports d) Final pro-forma and financing strategies e) Progress report for milestone 8. Development Agreements and Approvals September 1, 2014 $5,000 a) Draft and final development agreements for Sites 1 and 2 b) Comments by City and Metro of draft agreements c) Comments by City Center Advisory Commission and recommendations to the City Center Development Agency Board d) Final agreements e) CCDA Board review and approval of the development agreements and Page 2—2013 CPD GRANT IGA—Metro—City of Tigard Mixed-Use Development Project 10/31/13 recommendations to the City Council f) City Council acceptance of the development agreements TOTAL REIMBURSABLE AMOUNT $100,000 *If the Grant contained any Funding Conditions,Grantee shall demonstrate satisfaction with those conditions at the applicable milestone or deliverable due dates. **Due dates are intended by the parties to be hard estimates of expected milestone completion dates. If the City anticipates that a due date cannot be met due to circumstances beyond its control, it shall inform Metro in writing no later than ten(10)days prior to the due date set forth above and provide a revised estimated due date;and Metro and the City shall mutually agree upon a revision to the milestone due dates set forth in this Agreement. Note:City of Tigard match=$130,340 Exhibit B City Grant Request [attach] Page 3—2013 CPD GRANT IGA—Metro—City of Tigard Mixed-Use Development Project 10/31/13 41 Downtown Tigard Urban Lofts Development Project- Community Planning and Development a Grant Application June 1, 2015 PROJECT NARRATIVE A. Project Description This grant application is proposed by the City of Tigard/City Center Development Agency(CCDA,the City of Tigard's Urban Renewal Agency) with the support of TriMet. The Downtown Tigard Urban Lofts Development project is for pre-development feasibility assistance that will lead to: A concept plan for mixed-use transit oriented urban-style loft development of two sites: a 0.45 acre privately owned site fronting Main Street and the 0.81 acre site that is currently the Tigard Transit Center.The desired project would have a low on-site parking ratio. A plan for the reconfiguration of the Tigard Transit Center. The location of the HCT station, currently being studied in the SW Corridor Plan, will likely cause the need to rethink the form and the function of the existing transit center. Ideas to be explored are relocating the bus stops on to the street, reducing the footprint of the center, or building a housing or office structure over the center. Plan objectives would include improving transit run times, accommodating bus layovers, providing a TriMet driver restroom, and preserving on-street parking opportunities. Definition of the Urban Renewal District's role and financial commitments to the project. Downtown Tigard Urban Lofts Development Work Scope Task 1. Transit Center Bus Function Reconfiguration The following tasks will be jointly undertaken by TriMet and the City of Tigard. The goal of this task is to establish the feasibility of relocating bus parking from the transit center site in order to make the site available for mixed use development. 1.1 Analyze Bus Operations and Transportation Conditions Analyze current and future bus operations at the Transit Center Analyze current and future vehicle, pedestrian and bicycle access and traffic patterns in the vicinity of the Transit Center Identify opportunities and constraints related to changing current Transit Center bus operations Deliverable:Report Analyzing Bus Operations and Transportation Conditions 1.2 Develop Options for Bus Function Reconfiguration Develop 2-3 options for bus function reconfiguration Analyze options for bus operations Analyze options for overall transportation impacts and compatibility in the vicinity of the Transit Center Prepare cost estimates for each option Select a preferred option 1 1.3 Prepare Final Plans and Implementation Recommendations Refine preferred option Refine cost estimates Identify implementation roles and responsibilities Identify funding sources and responsibilities 1.4 Decision to Proceed Meet with property owners to establish development and financial goals Review reconfiguration plan and feasibility to consider redevelopment of combined sites Decision on whether to proceed with subsequent tasks Milestone#1-Deliverable-Transit Center Bus Function Reconfiguration Plan;Decision to proceed. Task 2. Pre-Development Feasibility for Main Street and Transit Center Sites 2.1 Environmental Investigations Conduct phase 1 and 2 assessments on two downtown sites. Project Team Meetings. 2.2 Appraisals and Land Surveys Conduct appraisals and surveys for 2 separate properties. Project Team Meetings. Milestone#2-Deliverables:Phase 1 and 2 Environmental Assessment Report, Appraisal Reports and Surveys for two Downtown sites. Task 3. Development Program and Design Concepts 3.1 Market Study Conduct market study for the combined properties. The scope for the market study is to identify value, preferred uses, unit size and mix, and anticipated rent and lease rates. Project Team Meetings. Milestone#3-Deliverable:Market Study 3.2 Conceptual Design and Cost Estimates Develop conceptual site plans and massing diagrams for the combined sites. Based on the results of the market study, site plans and conceptual massing studies will be prepared. Design will be sufficient to identify building placement, unit sizes, parking arrangements, and construction types. Identify development code barriers to desired development types Prepare planning level cost estimates Milestone#4-Deliverable:Design Plans and Cost Estimates 2 Task 4. Financial Analysis and Implementation Strategies 4.1 Pro-forma Analysis Prepare pro-forma analysis Project Team Meetings. Deliverable:Pro forma Analysis for Downtown site. 4.2 Public/Private Financing Strategies Evaluate private financing and identify financing gaps. Based on results from the pro-forma analysis, CCDA still will be responsible for evaluating results of the analysis, and identifying funding gaps as applicable. A financial consultant will assist the analysis. Evaluate public financing to address financing gaps. Develop recommended financing strategies. This task will be undertaken by CCDA staff and financing consultant. It is anticipated that a primary source of potential public investment will be urban renewal funds, and the CCDA board will be consulted throughout this task. Project Team Meetings. Deliverable:Draft and Recommended Financing Strategies Milestone#5-Financial Analysis and Implementation Strategies Report Task 5. Developer Recruitment and Approvals 5.1 Developer Recruitment During Tasks 2 and 3, CCDA will work with TriMet and property owner to identify and solicit interest from qualified developers Select developer partner Project Team Meetings. Deliverable:Developer Selection 5.2 CCDA Board Approvals Provide briefings to CCDA board on all project elements. CCDA staff will provide regular updates and hold worksessions throughout the project with the CCDA board and other city boards and commissions as needed. Review and approve of any urban renewal activities identified in the recommended financial strategy Project Team Meetings. B. Project Site Description The project addresses redevelopment opportunities for two Downtown Tigard sites, a 0.45 acre site known as the Nicoli Site which is privately owned, and the adjacent 0.81 Tigard Transit Center site owned by TriMet. Figure 1 shows an aerial photo of both sites, Figure 2 shows both sites and their location within the Urban Renewal District. 3 C. Project Background The City of Tigard adopted a "Downtown Improvement Plan" and "Downtown Urban Renewal Plan" in 2005 to reflect the area's designation as a Town Center in Metro's 2040 Growth Concept, and plans for the Washington County Commuter Rail (WES) project with a station in Downtown Tigard. The plans call for a "vibrant and active urban village at the heart of the community" and provides a funding stream to implement planned improvements. Over the past 9 years, approximately$25 million in public improvements have been completed in the urban renewal district including the commuter rail station and park& ride; Burnham Street and Ash Avenue streetscape improvement; intersection improvements at Pacific Highway/Main Street and Pacific Highway/Hall Blvd. Most recently,the MTIP-funded Main Street Green Street project was completed in the fall of 2014.The Agency has also worked with private sector partners to fund 18 fagade improvement projects on Main Street. The City of Tigard has been working with Metro,TriMet and other regional partners on the SW Corridor HCT Plan, which identified options for extending high capacity transit into Tigard. Figure 3 shows several alignment options. Each of these options serve the Tigard Transit Center site. As a direct result of Metro Community Planning and Development Grant funding in the FY 13-14 cycle, the CCDA signed a Development and Disposition Agreement with Capstone Partners/DIG Tigard to construct a $26 million, 157 unit mixed use project on urban renewal agency-owned land.This project is expected to break ground in September of 2015. The Downtown Tigard Transit Center Urban Lofts Development project will build and expand on a development opportunity study completed in 2010 jointly funded by Metro,the City of Tigard and TriMet. At that time the two sites: a privately owned site (the "Nicoli site") and the Tigard Transit Center, owned by TriMet were studied separately.The report concluded that development on the Transit Center site was not feasible due to the low achievable rents, which were at that time determined to be$1.05/per square foot. A more recent pro forma that was developed as the result of the Metro Community Planning and Development grant,found achievable rents to be significantly higher at$1.61 per square foot, which indicates that the identified feasibility gap has narrowed. In addition the city has instituted a Vertical Housing Development Zone in downtown that improved ROI. The grant project will include the following: property survey, conceptual design and evaluation of alternative construction types; pro-forma analysis; identification of financing gaps; identification of public investments/financing to overcome gaps; identification of development code barriers to desired development at this site; and a plan to reconfigure the bus functions of the transit center. D. Evaluation Criteria 1) Expected Development Outcomes: a. Opportunity sites with catalyst potential:The City of Tigard considers the opportunity sites, one publically owned and one privately owned,to have significant catalytic potential that will lead to additional private investments in Downtown Tigard. The project will identify conceptual designs and private investment objectives, and actions the CCDA can take to achieve public objectives, including the SW Corridor Plan, and result in a financially feasible development. The intent of the project is to demonstrate how desirable development types can be achieved in Downtown Tigard with a 4 public/private partnership.The project will also result in a plan to reconfigure the Transit Center to make redevelopment of the site possible. b. Desired Outcomes:The desired outcome is a mixed use project that meets objectives of the SW Corridor Plan, and regional housing and local urban renewal goals that would break ground within 18-24 months of completing the grant funded work. c. Level of community readiness and local commitment:The site is located in Downtown Tigard within the voter-approved urban renewal district. Appropriate land use entitlements are in place, and attracting mixed-use development projects such as those anticipated with this application, is a primary urban renewal objective.The site is also located within the city's Vertical Housing Development Zone. 1. Track record of successful implementation of community development projects and/or past CPDG plan implementation; As the direct result of a Cycle 3 Community Planning and Development Grant,the CCDA entered in to disposition and development agreement for a $26 million 157 unit mixed use project to be constructed on an agency owned downtown site.This project is planned to break ground in September 2015.The proposed grant funded work will build on the momentum of this public/private partnership. 2. Development sites of adequate scale to generate critical mass of activity; The development study site is approximately 1.26 acres. Its location on Main Street and proximity to multiple transit modes means it is strongly likely to generate 18-hour neighborhood activity. 3. Existing and proposed transportation infrastructure to support future development; The existing transit service of 8 TriMet lines, 3 Yamhill County Transit Area lines, and WES Commuter Rail support the construction of housing at this location.The prospective investment in the SW Corridor Plan HCT amplifies the development potential of this site and leverages downtown's existing transportation infrastructure. Phase I of the Main Street Green Street project recently upgraded sidewalks including safer pedestrian crossings.The second phase of the project (scheduled for FY 18-19) improves the frontage of this site. Recent and upcoming improvements to the Fanno Creek Trail 1/3 of a mile from this site also support development. Across the street from the site,Tigard's newest trail, the Tigard Street Trail connects this location to adjacent neighborhoods and nearby parks. 4. Existing urban form providing strong redevelopment opportunities; Downtown Tigard has a strong traditional walkable retail district. Nearby Main Street there are several larger underdeveloped sites with low intensity uses that are potential candidates for subsequent redevelopment. 5. Sound relationship to adjacent residential and employment areas; The creation of a walkable urban center with access to new public spaces would benefit Tigard's residential areas as well as be an attractive amenity to attract additional employment. More than 200 firms are located within walking distance of this site. 6. Compelling vision and long-term prospects. The city and development agency has worked with its citizens to develop a vision of downtown Tigard as a walkable urban village.There have been significant recent investments by downtown 5 business and property owners in addition to the aforementioned $26 million mixed use project that demonstrate the desired development types are financially feasible. 2) Regional Significance: a. People live and work in vibrant communities where their everyday needs are easily accessible; Downtown Tigard is envisioned as a "vibrant and active urban village at the heart of the community." Recent public investments in downtown made by the CCDA include new streetscapes that include pedestrian and bicycle facilities, making it possible to walk to the WES station/Tigard Transit Center, parks and recreation opportunities along Fanno Creek, local employers and commercial services along Main Street from any location Downtown. b. Current and future residents benefit from the region's sustained economic competitiveness and prosperity, This grant project will define how a public/private partnership can stimulate new mixed-use residential developments Downtown, a necessary component of a prosperous community. The project also shows how private investments can take advantage of the public investments already made in the town center area. The project will also support future HCT investments envisioned in the SW Corridor Plan. c. People have safe and reliable transportation choices that enhance their quality of life,- The ife,The site is highly transit friendly, directly adjacent to the WES Commuter Rail Station,transit center and proposed HCT station. Recent improvements to Main Street have improved its walkability, including safer pedestrian crossings.The site is also near the regional Fanno Creek Trail, and the Tigard Street Trail. The feasibility for apartments with greatly reduced on-site parking requirements will be investigated. d. The region is a leader in minimizing contributions to climate change; The project integrates housing into transit planning, decreasing the reliance on SOVs, which will lead to reduced greenhouse gasses. e. Current and future generations enjoy clean air, clean water and healthy ecosystems, The project integrates housing into transit planning, increasing the usage of transit, bicycle and walking modes,which will result in reducing greenhouse gasses, air and water pollution; and preserving existing open space. f. The benefits and burdens of growth and change are distributed equitably. Currently 92%of Tigard employees commute from outside the city. Many of these jobs are lower paying retail and service jobs, and require SOV travel, with the accompanying expenses. Redevelopment at this site provides for new housing opportunities in a location highly convenient for commuting by transit. 3)and 4)Location: Both catalytic sites are located within the Tigard Town Center, urban renewal district, and the Vertical Housing Development Zone. Downtown Tigard was also identified as a potential station community in the High Capacity Transit Land Use Plan, and is the SW Corridor HCT terminus location. The site is also located on a 2035 Growth Concept main street. In 2009-10 Tigard updated its comprehensive plan and development code for the downtown district. It instituted mixed use zoning with design standards requiring new development to be pedestrian oriented and reduced minimum parking requirements. 6 5) Best Practices Model:This project demonstrates how public/private partnerships can develop mixed- use residential projects that meet design, density and use requirements in town centers. The primary benefit of this project to is to establish the financial feasibility for very urban style project with lower on- site parking ratios in Downtown Tigard. To the extent that similar conditions exist in other town centers, the project will demonstrate best practices that can be utilized in other locations. 6) Leverage:This planning grant will leverage additional investments by CCDA, which is currently authorized to invest$22 million over 20 years in urban renewal projects.The$1.2 million Phase II of the Main Street green street project is in the city's capital improvement plan will improve the frontage of this site. It will also leverage the potential $1 billion the region will invest in the SW Corridor Plan. The project may also be able to leverage the city's Brownfield grant funding to perform environmental assessments on the properties. 7)Matching Fund/Potential: It is estimated that the total project will require approximately$180,000 with the grant funding 56 percent of the total cost. CCDA will provide a 6%funding match ($10,000)for the project. City staff costs, amounting to 39 percent of the total project costs, will be born by the City. 8) Growth absorption: Based on estimates in Appendices B and C of the CPDG Application Handbook, between 2010 and 2035 Tigard is expected to absorb and additional 4,245 multi-family units and 17,063 jobs.The proposed mixed use project would help make progress towards these goals. 9)Public Involvement:The City Center Advisory Commission is an appointed group representing Downtown property and businesses owners, residents and the general public. The Commission will be involved in all aspects of the project and will make recommendations to the CCDA Board. 10)Governing body: The CCDA Board (City Council) will have final approval over the use of any urban renewal funds to support the development of the project. 11)Capacity of applicant:The desired consultant team includes an architecture firm with transit oriented development experience, a real estate advisor, and an engineer who specializes in transit planning. CCDA and City staffs are experienced with forming successful public/private partnerships and delivering development projects. TriMet staff has extensive experience with transit operations. E. Collaborations The public partners that have agreed to participate in this project are the City of Tigard, the CCDA and TriMet. CCDA will participate financially in this project.TriMet will participate in the Transit Center reconfiguration planning. F. Proposed Milestones and Deliverables The detailed work program found in Section A of this grant application indicates task deliverables and the following five milestones: Milestone#1-Deliverable-Transit Center Bus Function Reconfiguration Plan; Decision to Proceed Milestone#2-Deliverables: Phase 1 and 2 Environmental Assessment Report, Appraisal Reports and Surveys Milestone#3-Deliverable: Market Study Milestone#4-Deliverable: Design Plans and Cost Estimates Milestone#5-Financial Analysis and Implementation Strategies Report 7 The City staff will be available to describe lessons learned from this project at a time and format that is most convenient to Metro. G. Project Management The project manager for the Downtown Tigard Urban Lofts Development Projects is Sean Farrelly, Downtown Redevelopment Manager. sean@tigard-or.gov, 503-718-2420. Mr. Farrelly works under the direct supervision of Kenny Asher, Community Development Director. Both Sean and Kenny will be involved in all work tasks. Sean has been the City of Tigard's Redevelopment Project Manager since 2010 managing all aspects of the downtown urban renewal program. Projects he has managed include: Downtown Code Amendments; Downtown Future Vision; Downtown Connectivity Plan; Pacific Highway Vision; Fagade Improvement Program; Numerous Development Opportunity Studies; and the HCT Land Use Plan (asst. project manager). Sean also managed the CET funded Downtown Mixed Use Development Project and currently manages the city's brownfield program. BUDGET DOCUMENTS Budget Narrative A detailed task by task budget is shown on a spreadsheet that is included with this application and summarized in the budget forms provided by Metro. The overall work plan for the entire project is summarized below. Costs for the full project will be shared by the CCDA and the Community Planning and Development (CPD) Grant. Consultant deliverables for tasks 1, 2, 3 and 4 are proposed to be funded by the CPD Grant of$100,000, and completion of each task deliverable is proposed as a project milestone for purposes of the CPD Grant. The CCDA will commit$10,000 for consulting work for task 2.2. All staff costs will be the responsibility of the City of Tigard and TriMet. It is anticipated that all deliverables, regardless of funding source, will be solely owned by the City of Tigard. Downtown Tigard Urban Lofts Development Work Scope Task 1. Transit Center Bus Function Reconfiguration The following tasks will be jointly undertaken by TriMet and the City of Tigard. 1.1 Analyze Bus Operations and Transportation Conditions Analyze current and future bus operations at the Transit Center Analyze current and future vehicle, pedestrian and bicycle access and traffic patterns in the vicinity of the Transit Center Identify opportunities and constraints related to changing current Transit Center bus operations Deliverable:Report Analyzing Bus Operations and Transportation Conditions 1.2 Develop Options for Bus Function Reconfiguration Develop 2-3 options for bus function reconfiguration Analyze options for bus operations 8 Analyze options for overall transportation impacts and compatibility in the vicinity of the Transit Center Prepare cost estimates for each option Select a preferred option 1.3 Prepare Final Plans and Implementation Recommendations Refine preferred option Refine cost estimates Identify implementation roles and responsibilities Identify funding sources and responsibilities 1.4 Decision to Proceed Meet with property owners to establish development and financial goals Review reconfiguration plan and feasibility to consider redevelopment of combined sites Decision on whether to proceed with subsequent tasks Milestone#1-Deliverable-Transit Center Bus Function Reconfiguration Plan;Decision to Proceed Task 2. Pre-Development Feasibility for Main Street and Transit Center Sites 2.1 Environmental Investigations Conduct phase 1 and 2 assessments on two downtown sites. Project Team Meetings. 2.2 Appraisals and Land Surveys Conduct appraisals and surveys for 2 separate properties. Project Team Meetings. Milestone#2-Deliverables:Phase 1 and 2 Environmental Assessment Report, Appraisal Reports and Surveys for two Downtown sites. Task 3. Development Program and Design Concepts 3.1 Market Study Conduct market study for the combined properties. The scope for the market study is to identify value, preferred uses, unit size and mix, and anticipated rent and lease rates. Project Team Meetings. Milestone#3-Deliverable:Market Study 3.2 Conceptual Design and Cost Estimates Develop conceptual site plans and massing diagrams for the combined sites. Based on the results of the market study, site plans and conceptual massing studies will be prepared. Design will be sufficient to identify building placement, unit sizes, parking arrangements, and construction types. Identify development code barriers to desired development types 9 Prepare planning level cost estimates Milestone#4-Deliverable:Design Plans and Cost Estimates Task 4. Financial Analysis and Implementation Strategies 4.1 Pro-forma Analysis Prepare pro-forma analysis Project Team Meetings. Deliverable:Pro forma Analysis for Downtown site. 4.2 Public/Private Financing Strategies Evaluate private financing and identify financing gaps. Based on results from the pro-forma analysis, CCDA still will be responsible for evaluating results of the analysis, and identifying funding gaps as applicable. A financial consultant will assist the analysis. Evaluate public financing to address financing gaps. Develop recommended financing strategies. This task will be undertaken by CCDA staff and financing consultant. It is anticipated that a primary source of potential public investment will be urban renewal funds, and the CCDA board will be consulted throughout this task. Project Team Meetings. Deliverable:Draft and Recommended Financing Strategies Milestone#5-Financial Analysis and Implementation Strategies Report Task 5. Developer Recruitment and Approvals 5.1 Developer Recruitment During Tasks 2 and 3, CCDA will work with TriMet and property owner to identify and solicit interest from qualified developers Select developer partner Project Team Meetings. Deliverable:Developer Selection 5.2 CCDA Board Approvals Provide briefings to CCDA board on all project elements. CCDA staff will provide regular updates and hold worksession throughout the project with the CCDA board and other city boards and commissions as needed. Review and approve of any urban renewal activities identified in the recommended financial strategy Project Team Meetings. Line Item Budget, Commitment and Matching Funds Table 1 below summarizes the project task budget for CCDA and TriMet staff, consultant work paid for by the CCDA and Community Planning and Development Grant, and total task budget. This table is a line-item summary of the more detailed budget spreadsheet included with this application. 10 The CCDA commits the staff resources as indicated in the table and attached spreadsheet totaling approximately$74,000. Consulting expenses by CCDA of$10,000 are included in the 2015-16 CCDA budget. TriMet commits staff support totaling approximately$24,000 to this project as indicated in their letter of support. The grant request is for a total of$100,000,which represents less than half of the total budget. Table 1- Downtown Tigard Urban Lofts Development Project-Budget Summary Staff Consultant Budget Tasks Budget CCDA CPD Grant Totals 1.1 Analyze Bus Operations&Conditions $8,819 $5,500 $14,319 1.2 Develop Bus Options $12,554 $9,000 $21,554 1.3 Prepare Plans& Recommendations $8,881 $5,500 $14,381 1.4 Decision to Proceed $5,695 $5,695 2.1 Environmental Investigations $3,756 $25,000 $28,765 2.2 Appraisals and Land Surveys $2,875 $10,000 $12,875 3.1 Market Study $4,866 $15,000 $19,866 3.2 Conceptual Design and Cost Estimates $12,646 $20,000 $32,646 4.1 Pro-forma Analysis $4,832 $10,000 $14,832 4.2 Public/Private Financing Strategies $17,142 $10,000 $27,142 5.1 Developer Recruitment $9,060 $9,060 5.2 CCDA Board Approvals $6,432 $6,432 Totals $97,559 $10,000 $100,000 $207,559 11 APPENDICIES AND FORMS Attached to this grant application are: Figure 1- Downtown Tigard Transit Center Urban Lofts Development Project-Location Figure 2- Downtown Tigard Transit Center Urban Lofts Development- Urban Renewal District and Project Location Figure 3-SW Corridor HCT Options in Downtown Tigard Downtown Tigard Urban Lofts Development Projects Budget Spreadsheet Budget Form Match Form Tigard City Council Resolution 15-18 approving Community Planning and Development grant application Letter of Support and Commitment: 1. Dave Unsworth,TriMet 2. Dave Nicoli, owner of 12260 SW Main Street 3. Steve DeAngelo, President of Tigard Downtown Alliance 4. Carine Arendes, Chair of City Center Advisory Commission 12 AIS-2532 6. CCDA Agenda Meeting Date: 03/01/2016 Length (in minutes): 60 Minutes Agenda Title: DISCUSSION OF CITY PRIORITIES Prepared For: Marty Wine, City Management Submitted By: Carol Krager, Central Services Item Type: Update, Discussion, Direct Staff Meeting Type: Council Business Meeting - Main Public Hearing: No Publication Date: Information ISSUE Through individual decisions, the Council has discussed many issues, programs, and investments in services that Tigard could make, and also the need to prioritize them or decide the appropriate timing for implementation. There are investments in existing and expanded programs and services, and facilities and capital needs that could be made. Council is asked to discuss and if possible, reach consensus for how and when city should undertake these priorities. STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST Deliberate about the programs, services and projects and investments that could be made in Tigard and create a business plan to determine the order of priority and timing of investments. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY In prior Council discussions over the last year about the 2016-17 budget, consideration of a sidewalk connections program, the proposal for a community and recreation center, and creation of a park and recreation fee, Council has acknowledged that: - The structural imbalance in the General Fund (in which costs grow at least one-half of one percent faster than revenues) will require new resources - Investing in new or expanded programs and services will require new resources - All of what needs to be done in Tigard can't be accomplished in a single year - There may be limits to what, and how much, of a request to be made to voters - If voter approval is sought for a measure, it should be for something that the whole Council can advance supportively. Attached is a representative sample list of the kinds of investments that could be made. There are not costs or proposed funding sources attached to these investments, and they are not in any order of priority. More of this information will be developed in advance of the proposed 2016-17 budget to help the Budget Committee have a similar discussion. OTHER ALTERNATIVES As part of the 2016-17 proposed budget, the Budget Committee will also have choices to make about what to fund with General Fund resources made available with the creation of the Park and Recreation Fee. COUNCIL GOALS, POLICIES, APPROVED MASTER PLANS Strategic Plan Goal 4 - Fund the Vision while Maintaining Core Services DATES OF PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION n/a Attachments City Priorities Potential Investment Examples - For City Priorities Discussion Maintaining and Developing City Infrastructure, such as: Sewer System funding sufficiency Stormwater issues: master planning, CIP projects, and funding sufficiency Street Maintenance: backlog and maintain Pavement Condition Index Parks Planning and Development Sidewalk and Trail Connections Strategic Facilities Planning and Implementation Immediate Facility Repairs and Space Needs Asset Management Plan Parks Maintenance Grounds Maintenance future needs Update Facility Maintenance Plan Facilities Maintenance Resources Vehicle Replacement Schedule Information Technology- Backlog, Repair/Replacement &Resources Technology Strategic Plan &Implementation Resources Digital Asset Management Existing Program and Service Enhancements, such as: Meeting Rooms Open to the Public (including parking) Standardize Police Response Time through District Car Concept Staffing for Community Policing Engineering staffing for planning and CIP projects Library staffing: reduce reliance on volunteers Neighborhood and Community Outreach Recreation: Resources to Implement recreation program Proactive Code Enforcement Staff resources to address future UGB expansions and potential annexations Analytical Support (Franchise, property, lease management, rate analyses, risk analyst) Library Branch Increase in Design Resources Citywide Permitting and Review Resources Pedestrian Planner Bilingual Services Trail Safety(lighting and presence) Downtown Parking Planning and Enforcement Library service expansion (in current facility) Communications Advisor (for future ballot measures about city funding needs) AIS-2579 7. CCDA Agenda Meeting Date: 03/01/2016 Length (in minutes): 25 Minutes Agenda Title: Discussion of City Gas Tax Prepared For: Marty Wine, City Management Submitted By: Marty Wine, City Management Item Type: Update, Discussion, Direct Staff Meeting Type: Council Business Meeting - Main Public Hearing: No Publication Date: Information ISSUE At the February 16, 2016 meeting, a non-agenda question was raised: Should Tigard consider proposing to voters an increase to the city gas tax? STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST Discuss whether and when to refer a city gas tax increase to voters. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY Tigard's 3-cent-per-gallon local gas tax was developed by a citizen task force in 2006 as a way to fund Greenburg Road/Pacific Highway/Main Street intersection improvements. The plan was to sunset the tax after paying for the project, but a 2009 state law change prevented cities from changing local gas taxes. This limitation was removed by a change in state law in 2015. Cities are required to submit any proposed new or increased gas tax for voter approval. Tigard estimates that the revenue anticipated to be received from the city gas tax is $612,771 for the 2015-16 budget. The Tigard Transportation Advisory Committee (TTAC) advises the City Council of potential transportation projects that can be funded by this revenue. Based on TTAC's recommendation, the city funded two additional transportation projects with city gas tax funds: Pacific Highway/Gaarde Street/McDonald Street Intersection improvements, and the 72nd Avenue/Dartmouth Street Intersection Improvements. The question of whether to increase the city gas tax was raised as part of a Council workshop discussion and no specific proposal was made. The City Council identified questions that would need to be answered for further discussion. Where answers were available by the time of agenda publication, some answers are listed below in italics. More information will be available in response to questions at the March 1 meeting. What does each one cent per gallon of gas tax raise in revenue? About$'200,000. Should the proposal to voters be 5 cents, 7 cents, 10 cents? This would need to be decided by the City council Would there be enough time to prepare the ballot title, explanatory statement, adopt it to refer to voters, develop the reasons for proposing an increase, and a plan to explain the proposal to the public? It is too late for the Council to consider a proposal for the May 2016 ballot, as the city's governing body must file the ballot title or referral text with the city elections official by February 26. If the Council wished to place the matter on the November, 2016 ballot, Council could deliberate in,june and July to consider a ballot title with a deadline of August 9 to file a ballot title notice. What are the local gas tax rates in surrounding jurisdictions? Twenty four cities in Oregon currently levy localgas taxes ranging from one cent to S cents pergallon. Cities and counties in the Metro region with localgas taxes are Multnomah County (3 cents, Wlashington County (1 cent, Tigard(3 cents, Cornelius (2 cents, Milwaukee (2 cents, and Troutdale (3 cents. What are the city needs that an increase in the city gas tax could be used for? The City Council discussed- Pay of bonds for transportation projects already using localgas tax (Burnham, Greenburg/Pacific Highway/Main Hep fund a sidewalk improvement/pedestrian connection program Other streetprojects that may be eligible (Examples included Main Street Phase 2, or others on the CIP qualified list Reduce the street maintenance backlog or reduce the impact of the proposed increase in street maintenance fee If a tax increase was authorized by voters, when would it begin to be collected? What has been the impact of the Costco gas station on Tigard's revenue? Gas tax collections have been declining. What is the reason for the decline, and is it a similar situation with both the local and state gas tax? OTHER ALTERNATIVES Council could choose not to discuss sending a proposal to increase the city gas tax to voters. COUNCIL GOALS, POLICIES, APPROVED MASTER PLANS Council Goal: Expand Opportunities to Engage People in the Community - the City Council's last direction was to seek input on and outreach about the sidewalk connection program to prepare for a possible May, 2017 ballot measure. Strategic Plan Goal 4: Fund the vision while maintaining core services. DATES OF PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION This is the first discussion of a change to the local gas tax since the Council was briefed about the use of the local gas tax for the 2015-16 Proposed Budget. Attachments No file(s) attached. SUPPLEMENTAL PACKET FOR .r91A, 1, �Ie 111 City of Tigard (DATE OF MEETING) Memorandum To: Mayor and City Council From: Marty Wine,WiCity anag Mer Re: Supplemental Information: Consideration of City Gas Tax Increase Date: February 29, 2016 The City Council discussed the possibility of increasing the City Gas Tax on a non-agenda discussion at its meeting of February 16, where the Council identified questions that would need to be answered for further discussion. The Council's discussion about whether and when to refer a city gas tax increase to voters will continue at the March 1, 2016 meeting. The purpose of this memo is to provide supplemental information to the Council for its discussion at the March 1 meeting that was not available at the time of agenda publication. What does each I cent in gas tax raise in revenue? Before accounting for Costco, each penny per gallon produces just under $200,000 annually. What has been the impact of the Costco gas station on Tigard's revenue? Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) only has two months of data collections from Costco. In those two months, Costco has sold 605,000 and 732,000 gallons. If we treat that as the range, Costco will produce between $72,600 - $87,840 per penny per year. What is unknown at this time is how much in sales that Costco may be taking from other gas stations in Tigard. We will need more months of turnover from ODOT to have an idea of the total increase in City Gas Tax revenue the Costco gas station will add. Gas Tax collections have been declining. What is the reason for the decline and is that a similar situation with the local and also the state gas tax? City Gas Tax collections have been variable and not necessarily declining. Our recent collections have been: FY2013 - $581,204 (not including $248,826 received from back collections derived from ODOT audit), FY2014 - $638,852, FY2015 - $558,740. These three years average out to approximately $593,000. If year to date collections for FY2016 are trended, we will receive approximately $590,000, before accounting for Costco. What are the local gas tax rates in surrounding jurisdictions? Attached to this memo is a 2015 League of Oregon Cities survey report. As noted in the Agenda Item Summary, twenty cities and several counties currently levy local gas taxes ranging from one cent to five cents per gallon. In the Metro region,Multnomah and Clackamas Counties, and Tigard, Cornelius, Milwaukee, and Troutdale are cities with a local gas tax. Most cities that have a local gas tax appear to be at $0.03/gallon. Only Eugene is above this at $0.05/gallon. What are the city needs that such an increase would/could be used for? Council suggestions included paying off bonds for projects already using gas tax, funding sidewalk connections, other street projects that may be eligible, or reducing the backlog for street maintenance, or reduce the impact of the proposed street maintenance fee increase. Tigard's existing transportation bonds (for Burnham Street and Greenburg/Main/Pacific Highway Intersection) have approximately $3.2 million of principal due to be paid from FY2017-FY2020. If the Council wanted to review other street projects from the CIP qualified Est, more time would be needed to generate a list of qualified projects. Regarding the Street Maintenance Fee, please find attached the recent report that Council reviewed. $11 million in backlog projects have been identified in the next decade to raise the city's pavement condition index (PCI) to 80-82. Appendix B, starting on page 12, outlines the first four of ten years of backlog streets. The SMF increase will be considered by Council on March 15. If a tax increase was authorized by voters, when would it begin to be collected? According to ODOT, if an increase was approved by voters in May, then they would start collections in July. So it appears that collections will start about 2 months after an election. cc: Toby LaFrance, FIS Director Brian Rager,Public Works Director Kenny Asher,Community Development Director Buff Brown, Senior Transportation Planner Mike McCarthy,Senior Project Engineer LEAGUE OF OREGON CITIES GAS TAX & TRANSPORTATION UTILITY FEE SURVEY RESULTS MARCH 2015 Mtn, LEAGUE Of Oregon CITIES Published by the League of Oregon Cities Gas Tax and Transportation Utility Fee Survey Results The League's gas tax and transportation utility fee (TUF) surveys were conducted in advance of the 2015 legislative session to be responsive to the Governor's Transportation Vision Panel concerning local transportation funding tools. These brief surveys sought specific information to support the League's legislative efforts. Surveys were sent to cities which currently have either a gas tax or TUF; three cities—Canby, Milwaukie and Tigard—have both. Below is a summary of the results. Gas Tax Survey Results: Twenty cities responded to the following three survey questions: 1. What is your rate (cents/gallon)? 2. How much revenue did it generate in FYI 3-14? 3. For what purpose(s) was the revenue usedconstruction, repair-maintenance- preservation, bike-pedestrian, sidewalks? Among the cities surveyed, the average tax is 3 cents per gallon, with a range of 1-5 cents per gallon. The average revenue generated by these cities is $390,797, with a range of$36,638 to $2,868,768. Table 1 below provides a breakdown of taxing levels, while Table 2 provides the breakdown of uses. Refer to Appendix 1 for complete results. Table 1 Table 2 Tax-cents per Number of Number of gallon Cities Funds used for: Cities 0.01 1 Construction 15 0.02 3 Repair-maintenance- 19 0.03 15 preservation 0.05 1 Bike-pedestrian 7 Sidewalks 6 Transportation Utility Fee (TUF) Survey Results: Thirty cities responded to the survey, which consisted of three questions: 1. Briefly describe the methodology by which you charge the TUF (for both residential and commercial) 2. How much revenue did you generate in FY13-14? 3. For what purpose(s) were these revenues used—construction,repair-maintenance- preservation, sidewalks,bike-pedestrian, operations, administration, other? Gas Tax and Transportation Utility Fee Survey Results Page 11 For the responding cities, the average total revenue raised was $853,370, with a range of$1,900 to $8,121,940. Below, Table 3 breaks down the methods used for both residential and commercial categories, while Table 4 breaks down the uses of TUF revenue. Refer to Appendix 2 for complete results. Table 3 Table 4 Method Residential Commercial Number of Flat 20 8 Funds used for: Cities Trip Generation 7 17 Construction 12 Other 3 5 Repair/maintenance/ 28 preservation Sidewalks 8 Bike-pedestrian 7 Operations 12 Administration 9 Other 2 Table 5 below shows the average revenue generated based upon their combined methodologies. As seen, cities that used the trip generation methodology for both residential and commercial generated on average the most revenue, while a flat fee methodology for both resulted in the lowest average. Table 5 Method—Residential- Count Average Revenue Commercial Flat-Flat 8 $240,109 Trip Gen-Trip Gen 7 $1,661,856 Other-Other 3 $741,929 Flat-Trip Gen. 10 $891,960 Flat-Other 2 $703,440 Note-None of the cities used the trip generation methodology for residential(R)and a flat fee for commercial(C). Gas Tax and Transportation Utility Fee Survey Results Page 12 Appendix 1 Gas Tax Revenue used for: Revenue Repair/maintenance/ Bike/ City Cents/gallon generated in Construction preservation pedestrian Sidewalks FY2013-14 Astoria 0.03 $200,000 Yes Yes No No Canby 0.03 $231,438 Yes Yes No No Coburg 0.03 $67,297 Yes Yes Yes No Coquille 0.03 $93,955 Yes Yes No No Cottage 0.03 $353,461 Yes Yes No No Grove Dundee 0.02 $36,638 Yes Yes Yes Yes Eugene 0.05 $2,868,768 Yes Yes No No Hood River 0.03 $275,100 Yes Yes Yes Yes Milwaukie 0.02 $166,019 No Yes No No Newport 0.03 $155,462 Yes Yes No Yes Oakridge 0.03 $47,976 Yes Yes Yes Yes Sandy 0.02 $259,504 Yes Yes No No Sisters 0.03 $140,000 No Yes No No Springfield 0.03 $1,042,494 Yes Yes Yes Yes The Dalles 0.03 $449,660 Yes Yes No No Tigard 0.03 $830,000 Yes No No No Tillamook 0.03 $125,799 No Yes Yes Yes Veneta 0.03 $94,300 No Yes No No Warrenton 0.03 $276,314 Yes Yes Yes No Woodburn 0.01 $101,761 No Yes No No Gas Tax and Transportation Utility Fee Survey Results Page3 Transportation Methodology: Revenue used for: Utility Fee Revenue Repair/ Bike/ City: Residential Commercial generated in Construction maintenance/ Sidewalks Operations Administration Other FY2013-14 preservation pedestrian Ashland Flat Fee Other $1,358,379 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Bay City Flat Fee Other $48,500 No Yes No No No No No Brookings Flat Fee Flat Fee $186,000 No Yes No No No No Yes Canby Flat Fee Trip Generation $538,102 Yes Yes No No No No No Central Point Flat Fee Trip Generation $495,000 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Corvallis Trip Generation Trip Generation $482,169 No Yes No No No Yes No Eagle Point Flat Fee Trip Generation $300,000 No Yes No No Yes Yes No Florence Flat Fee Flat Fee $287,800 Yes Yes No No No No No Grants Pass Trip Generation Trip Generation $899,979 Yes Yes No No Yes No No Hillsboro Trip Generation Trip Generation $1,748,281 No Yes No Yes Yes No No Hubbard Flat Fee Flat Fee $68,660 No Yes No No No No No La Grande Flat Fee Flat Fee $400,000 Yes No No No No No No Lake Oswego Flat Fee Trip Generation $2,400,000 Yes Yes No No Yes Yes No Medford Trip Generation Trip Generation $8,121,940 No Yes No No Yes Yes No Milwaukie Flat Fee Trip Generation $618,943 No Yes No No No No No Myrtle Creek Flat Fee Flat Fee $4,000 No Yes No No Yes No No North Plains Trip Generation Trip Generation $25,538 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Oregon City Flat Fee Trip Generation $2,033,790 No Yes No No No No No Philomath Flat Fee Trip Generation $52,600 No Yes No No Yes Yes No Phoenix Trip Generation Trip Generation $143,883 Yes Yes No No Yes Yes No Sherwood Other Other $277,603 No Yes No No No No No Silverton Flat Fee Flat Fee $210,564 Yes Yes No No No No No Stayton Flat Fee Flat Fee $84,000 No Yes No No No No No Talent Flat Fee Trip Generation $155,384 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Tigard Other Other $1,946,284 No Yes No No No No No Toledo Other Other $1,900 No No Yes Yes No No No Tualatin Flat Fee Trip Generation $975,000 No Yes Yes No No No No West Linn Flat Fee Trip Generation $1,350,783 Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No Wilsonville Flat Fee Flat Fee $679,846 No Yes No No No No Yes Wood Village Trip Generation Trip Generation $211,199 No Yes Yes No No No No Gas Tax and Transportation Utility Fee Survey Results Page 14 Street Maintenance Fee Update — Draft For Council Hearing February 9, 2016 1 BACKGROUND 1.1 PURPOSE OF THE STREET MAINTENANCE FEE The Street Maintenance Fee (SMF)is a charge that is paid by Tigard residents and businesses on their monthly utility bill. The fee is used primarily to fund routine maintenance of Tigard's roads through the Pavement Management Program (PMP). In addition to the PMP,the SMF pays for$100,000 of right-of-way (ROW) maintenance. The ROW maintenance keeps plantings and grounds around and in the medians of larger roads in good condition. Lastly,about seven percent of the fee is used to help pay for the cost of billing the fee. 1.2 PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT The SMF was last calculated in 2009 based on the 2010 PMP,once fully implemented,the fee has been increased by an annual index. In the presentation of the 2014 Paving Report,staff pointed out the growing backlog of streets in poor condition and the need for additional funding to address the backlog. In addition, during Council meetings on the PMP contract awards for 2014 and 2015,as well as a workshop in November 2013,Council discussed the ambiguity in the Tigard Municipal Code (TMC) in regards to using the SMF revenues to pay for ADA required curb cuts when doing PMP projects. These issues lead to Council and staff have holding meetings in January and March of 2015 to discuss policy issues around the PMP and the SMF as well as the results of public outreach regarding the fee. At the last meeting on March 17,2015, Council provided staff with key policy directions that permitted staff to recalculate the SMF. The purpose of this report is to document Council policy directions and show how they will impact the Street Maintenance Fee. 2 POLICY SUMMARY During the Council Study Sessions in January and March 2015,Council provided policy direction on key aspects of the Street Maintenance Fee. This policy direction was aided by outreach to the community through surveys and meetings. The results of the community outreach were presented in a Study Session on January 27,2015. Some of the key results of the outreach include: Both residential and commercial survey results clearly show a belief that residential customers should not pay a greater share than they currently pay. Respondents to the business survey overwhelmingly (over 70%) think that the current split is correct. Respondents to the residential survey feel almost as strongly(over 60%) that commercial customers should pay a larger share. Over 70%of those residential customers and over 50%of the business customers who responded to the survey felt that businesses should pay for some of the ROW maintenance. Of the respondents who favor businesses paying for some of the ROW maintenance, slightly more than half responded that businesses should pay for ROW maintenance on commercial streets only. 11 Page Respondents to the business survey did not have a clear preference on the subject of the cap; however,there is a small majority that is in favor of increasing the cap. The Table 1 summarizes the key decisions from the Study Sessions in January and March 2015. 21Page TABLE 1 - SUMMARY OF POLICY DIRECTION • • • • Pavement The current PCI goal of the Increase the goal Tigard has a backlog of streets that are Condition Index PMP is 72-75 per Res# 10-01. PCI to be 80-82. in poor condition and are in need of an (PCI) goal of the The current PCI of Tigard's This is where street overlay. The cost to fix these streets is PMP system is 70.5 per the 2014 maintenance costs about$11 million. Council directed Annual Paving Report. are considered to be staff to add these streets on top of the least expensive, existing program. once the level is achieved. ADA Sidewalk The ADA requires that Council directed TMC will be amended. The cost of the Cuts sidewalk corner cuts be installed that TMC be PMP will include this additional to ADA standards when work clarified to allow the requirement. is performed on the road use of SMF dollars adjacent to the sidewalk. TMC for work related to is ambiguous regarding the use paving,including of SMF for sidewalks. sidewalk corner cuts required by federal law. Split of Program TMC splits the cost of the Council directed The upcoming workplan will require a Costs between program based on work done that the splits in larger proportion of work on Arterials Residential and on road types. For example, TMC remain and local Commercial streets than the Non-Residential Arterial roads are paid 38% unchanged. prior workplan. Non-Residential Customers Residential and 62%Non- customers pay the majority of the costs Residential. When the last for these road types. The impact of update was performed,the maintaining the splits in TMC will be planned work resulted in a 2/3rd an increase in the share of the program Residential and 1/3rd Non- costs for Non-Residential customers Residential split. and a larger fee increase than Residential customers will bear. Right of Way The current SMF pays for Council directed This will have no impact on Residential Maintenance $100,000 of ROW maintenance that$50,000 be customers. Non-Residential customers annually. This cost is entirely added annually to will see a modest increase in their SMF. borne by Residential customers. the ROW Since the last program was maintenance. This calculated, Council has agreed additional cost will to maintain ROW in be paid by Non- commercial areas around Pacific Residential Hwy and Main Street. No customers. funding source has been identified for this re uirement. Cap on Non- The current TMC caps the Council directed The TMC will need to be amended to Residential SMF charge on Non-Residential that the cap be remove the cap on required parking customers to 250 required removed and that spaces charged. Since the removal of parking spaces. the additional spaces the cap is intended to create additional charged create revenue,the Non-Residential fee will additional revenue, be calculated as if the cap is in place. not a lower fee. Index The SMF is indexed and can Council agreed to No action is needed. Staff increase by 2-7%per year. continue to index recommends applying the index to the the fee. ROW program as well as the PMP. 31Page 3 FEE CALCULATION 3.1 EXISTING PROGRAM Tigard's streets that are maintained by the Pavement Management Program are divided into four categories. The cost of maintaining each category is divided between Residential and Non-Residential Customers by TMC 15.20.050. The allocation is as follows in Table 2 TABLE 2 -DETERMINATION OF STREET MAINTENANCE FEE Residential Share Non-Residential Share Arterial 38% 62% Collector 50% 50% Local Commercial 0% 100% Local Residential 100% 0% Staff has assembled the next four years of the PMP for 2016-2019. The list of projects at the existing program level is in Appendix A of this report. The Capital Improvement Program (CIP) adopted by Council as part of the FY2016 Budget includes$8,100,000 of PMP projects for 2016-2019. The list of projects in Appendix A is consistent with the adopted CIP with$8,068,000 in projects for the same four year period. When the fee was last calculated,the largest category of street work was in the Local Residential. This was largely responsible for the overall program resulting in Residential customers paying for 67%of the PMP through the fees. The projects in Appendix A reflect the need to work on Tigard's arterial roads. The result is that the Non-Residential customers will take on a larger share of the program,approximately 42%. Table 3 shows the share of the program by road type and the resulting customer shares for the program calculated in 2010 and the new program starting in 2016. The shift from Local Residential streets to Arterial roads is in bold. TABLE 3 - COMPARISON OF COST SHARES FOR 2010 AND 2016 FEE CALCULATIONS ' . . . . 2010 Arterial 27% 44% Collector 24% 23% Local Commercial 6% 5% Local Residential 43% 28% Residential Share 67% 58% Non-Residential 33% 42% Share Under the current program,the SMF pays for two other cost centers. First,the fee pays for$100,000 in ROW maintenance. Second,the fee pays the proportionate share for the cost of billing,which can vary slightly by year and is about 7% of the cost of the program. Table 4 displays each of the costs centers in the current program supported by the SMF. Each of the cost centers are allocated to the customer types to determine the cost share for each customer category. Those costs are then divided by the number of units in each category: residences for Residential customers and required parking for Non-Residential customers. 41Page This is done to derive the Street Maintenance Fee that would be calculated without any change in policy or program. TABLE 4-SMF CALCULATION FOR CURRENT PROGRAM SERVICE LEVEL Arterial 3,512,000 38% 1,334,600 62% 2,177,400 Collector 1,863,000 50% 931,500 50% 931,500 Commercial 424,000 0% - 100% 424,000 Residential 2,269,000 100% 2,269,000 0% - Current Residential 431,100 100% 431,100 0% - ROW Maintenance Billing(7%) 564,800 58% 330,000 42% 234,800 Total 9,063,900 58% 5,296,200 42% 3,767,700 Annual Average 11324,050 941,925 Units Residences 20,813 Required 39,723 Parking Fee For Current $5.30 $1.98 Pavement Program The current Street Maintenance Fee is $6.39 per month per residential unit for residential customers and $1.44 per month per required parking space for non-residential customers. While the cost of the 4-year program is the same as anticipated under the current fee,the redistribution of the projects needed in the next four years from residential streets to arterial roads results in a decrease of$0.82 in the residential SMF and an increase of$0.60 for non-residential SMF. 3.2 PAVING BACKLOG As stated in Table 1,Council is setting a goal for the PMP to bring the city's PCI up to 80-82. This will be accomplished by addressing a backlog of streets in need of repair that the current funding level supported by the SMF cannot address. The plan is to address the approximately$11 million in backlog projects over the next ten years. Appendix B has the list of all the PMP projects that would be completed as part of the current service level pLus the backlog projects. In Appendix B,the added backlog projects are highlighted. Table 5 shows the cost of the backlog projects only when allocated to the street classifications. The resulting SMF calculation is the amount that would need to be added to the fee for the current program calculated in Table 4. 51Page TABLE S- SMF CALCULATION FOR BACKLOG PROJECTS ONLY �. Arterial - 38% - 62% - Collector 203,000 50% 101,500 50% 101,500 Commercial 1,074,000 0% - 100% 1,074,000 Residential 2,254,000 100% 2,254,000 0% - Billing(7%) 247,100 67% 164,800 33% 82,300 Total 3,778,100 67% 2,520,300 33% 1,257,800 Annual Average 630,075 314,450 Units Residences 20,813 Required 39,723 Parking Fee For Additional $2.52 $0.66 Backlog Projects As shown in Table 5,the majority of the backlog streets are local streets for commercial and residential areas. The result is that the share of the costs is 67%paid by residential customers and 33%paid by non-residential customers. The fees calculated at the end of Table 5 will be in addition to the fees for the current program level calculated in Table 4. 3.3 ADDITIONAL RIGHT OF WAY MAINTENANCE IN COMMERCIAL AREAS As stated in Table 1,Council has directed that the ROW maintenance program be expanded. Currently,the ROW maintenance program is $100,000 annually and is paid entirely by residential customers. Since the program was implemented in 2010,Tigard has placed an emphasis on beautifying roadways in commercial areas. This beautification includes requiring ODOT to place planted medians in Pacific Hwy and improvements along Main Street in Downtown Tigard. At this point, Council is recommending expanding the ROW maintenance program by$50,000 annually to be paid by non-residential customers. Residential customers will continue to pay for the current$100,000 annually. Table 6 displays the impact of the additional ROW maintenance on the calculation of the SMF. Under the new program,it is anticipated that the ROW maintenance will increase annually by the index with the other cost centers. TABLE 6-SMF CALCULATION FOR ADDITIONAL COMMERCIAL STREET RIGHT-OF- WAY MAINTENANCE ONLY Cost Center 4-year Cost %-,= Proposed Commercial 215,500 0% - 100% 215,500 Billing(7%) 15,200 0% - 100% 15,200 Total 230,700 0% - 100% 230,700 Annual Average - 57,675 Units Residences 20,813.00 Required 39,723.00 Parking Fee For Additional $0.00 $0.12 ROW Maintenance 61Page 4 SUMMARY OF STREET MAINTENANCE FEE CALCULATION The prior section calculated the impact of on the Street Maintenance Fee for various components: current program level,adding backlog projects,and adding right-of-way maintenance in commercial areas. During the study sessions in January and March,staff informed Council that it was likely that the cost share for the current program level would likely shift toward the non-residential rate payers based upon the list of upcoming needed projects,but the extent of the shift was unknown at the time of the study sessions. Staff advised Council that addressing the backlog of streets to bring the PCI up to the goal area of 80-82 will add about 50%to the overall program costs and the fee calculation. Lastly, staff stated that the ROW maintenance would create a modest increase in the fee paid by non-residential customers. TABLE 7-SUMMAR Y OF SMF CALCULATION AND COMPARISON OF NEW FEE CALCULATION TO CURRENT FEE BASED ON 2010 PMP Components of SMF Residential Non-Residential Current Current 2016 Fee 2016 Fee Current SMF From $6.39 Per month per $1.44 Per month per required 2010 PMP Incl. household parking space (as a Current ROW Maint. proxy for trips generated aid by Res. by the business Proposed Fees Based on 2016-2019 PMP and Policy Changes New Fee $ Change %Change New Fee $ Change %Change to Current to Current to Current to Current Current Pavement $5.30 -$1.09 -17% $1.98 $0.54 38% Program Level Adding Backlog $2.52 $2.52 39% $0.66 $0.66 46% Pavement Projects Proposed Commercial NA* $0.00* 0% $0.12 $0.12 8% ROW Maintenance Total Proposed Street $7.82 $1.43 22% $2.76 $1.32 92% Maintenance Fee *The Current SMF includes funding$100K annually for Right of Way Maintenance paid by Residential Customers. It is part of the current$6.39 fee paid monthly by residential customers. Based upon Council policy direction and the work of the PMP shifting from residential streets to arterial roads,the SMF will increase by 22% for residential customers and 92% for non-residential customers. 7l Page 5 APPENDIX A- PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM AT CURRENT SERVICE LEVEL 2016 Paving and Maintenance Plan Pavement overlays unless stated otherwise Total % of Street _4 From To ' Classification Cost Cost Total Upper Boones Ferry 72nd Ave I-5 Interchange Arterial $187,000 72nd Ave City Limits Durham Rd Arterial $124,000 72nd Ave Hwy 99W 500' South Arterial $40,000 Bonita Rd 76th Ave Hall Blvd Arterial $293,000 Walnut St 116th 122nd Arterial $183,000 Greenfield Gaarde St Dr Walnut St Arterial $115,000 Crack Sealing/Maintenance $50,000 Arterial Total $992,000 54.5% Dartmouth St Atlanta St Hwy 99W Collector $49,000 121st Ave Tippitt Ann Collector $133,000 78th Ave Hwy 99W Pfaffle Collector $40,000 Crack Sealing/Maintenance $30,000 Collector Total $252,000 13.9% Crack Sealing/Maintenance $15,000 Commercial Local $15,000 0.8% Slurry Seals on Residential Streets $360,000 Crack Seals on residential streets $200,000 Residential Total $560,000 30.8% 2016 Total $1,819,000 8 1 Page 2017 Paving and Maintenance Plan Pavement overlays unless stated otherwise Total % of Street From To - Classification Cost Cost Total Greenburg Rd Hwy 217 Center St Arterial $686,000 Durham Rd Hall Blvd Summerfield Dr Arterial $580,000 Crack Sealing/Maintenance $50,000 Arterial Total $1,316,000 67% Greenburg Tiedeman Ave Rd RR Tracks Collector $54,000 Crack Sealing/Maintenance $30,000 Collector Total $84,000 4% Crack Sealing/Maintenance $15,000 Commercial Local Total $15,000 1% Slurry Seals on Residential Streets $400,000 Crack Seals on residential streets $150,000 Residential Total $550,000 28% 2017 Total $1,965,000 91Page 2018 Paving and Maintenance Plan Pavement overlays unless stated otherwise Total % of Street _,_.,,groin. To Classification Cost Cost Total 72nd Ave Fir Beveland Arterial $160,000 Gaarde 110th 123rd Terr Arterial $441,000 72nd Ave Baylor 500' South of 99W Arterial $111,000 Upper Boones Ferry 72nd Ave Durham Rd Rd Arterial $150,000 Crack Sealing/Maintenance $40,000 Arterial Total $902,000 43% 121 st Ave Ann Springwood Collector $274,000 121 st Ave Gaarde St Whistlers Lp (North) Collector $96,000 Hunziker St 72nd 100'West Collector $64,000 Tiedeman Ave Walnut St Meadow St Collector $157,000 Crack Sealing/Maintenance $25,000 Collector Total $616,000 30% Crack Sealing/Maintenance $15,000 Commercial Local Total $15,000 1% Slurry Seals on Residential Streets $400,000 Crack Seals on residential streets $150,000 Residential Total $550,000 26% 2018 Total $2,083,000 10 1 Page 2019 Paving and Maintenance Plan Pavement overlays unless stated otherwise Total % of Street From To Classification Cost Cost Total Gaarde St 123rd Terr Greenfield Dr Arterial $262,000 Crack Sealing/Maintenance $40,000 Arterial Total $302,000 14% 135th Ave Walnut St Scholls Ferry Rd Collector $375,000 68th Pkwy Haines St Hwy 99W Collector $207,000 Locust St Greenburg Hall Collector $304,000 Crack Sealing/Maintenance $25,000 Collector Total $911,000 41% Tigard St Main St Tiedeman Ave Commercial $260,000 Royalty Pkwy Hwy 99W Naeve St Commercial $104,000 Crack Sealing/Maintenance $15,000 Commercial Total $379,000 17% North Dakota St 121 st Ave 115th Ave Residential $109,000 Slurry Seals on Residential Streets $350,000 Crack Seals on residential streets $150,000 Residential Total $609,000 28% 2019 Total $2,201,000 111 Page 6 APPENDIX B - PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM WITH BACKLOG PROJECTS ADDED Backlog projects are highlighted in Green. 2016 Paving and Maintenance Plan Pavement overlays unless stated otherwise Total % of Street From To Class Cost Cost Total Upper Boones Ferry 72nd Ave I-5 Interchange Arterial $187,000 72nd Ave City Limits Durham Rd Arterial $124,000 72nd Ave Hwy 99W 500' South Arterial $40,000 Bonita Rd 76th Ave Hall Blvd Arterial $293,000 Walnut St 116th 122nd Arterial $183,000 Gaarde St Greenfield Dr Walnut St Arterial $115,000 Crack Sealing/Maintenance $50,000 Arterial Total $992,000 37.0% Dartmouth St Atlanta St Hwy 99W Collector $49,000 121st Ave Tippitt Ann Collector $133,000 78th Ave Hwy 99W Pfaffle Collector $40,000 Oak St Hall Blvd 90th Ave Collector $85,000 Crack Sealing/Maintenance $30,000 Collector Total $337,000 12.6% Hampton St 72nd Ave 66th Ave Commercial $140,000 Sandburg St 72nd Ave End of Street Commercial $155,000 Garden Place Hwy 99W Hall Blvd (inc CDS) Commercial $160,000 Cardinal Ln Sequoia Pwy End of Street Commercial $30,000 Crack Sealing/Maintenance $15,000 Commercial Local $500,000 18.6% Canterbury Ln 103rd Ave Hwy 99W Residential $253,000 79th Ave Leiser Ln Bonita Rd Residential $40,000 Slurry Seals on Residential Streets $360,000 Crack Seals on residential streets $200,000 Residential Total $853,000 31.8% 2016 Total $2,682,000 12 1 Page 2017 Paving and Maintenance Plan Pavement overlays unless stated otherwise of Street From To Class Cost Total Total Greenburg Rd Hwy 217 Center St Arterial $686,000 Durham Rd Hall Blvd Summerfield Dr Arterial $580,000 Crack Sealing/Maintenance $50,000 Arterial Total $1,316,000 45% Tiedeman Ave Greenburg Rd RR Tracks Collector $54,000 Scoffins St Main St Ash Ave Collector $87,000 Commercial Ash Ave St Scoffins St Collector $31,000 Crack Sealing/Maintenance $30,000 Collector Total $202,000 7% 1,200'South of 74th Ave Durham Rd Bonita Commercial $219,000 Landmark Ln 72nd Ave End of Road Commercial $74,000 Crack Sealing/Maintenance $15,000 Commercial Local Total $308,000 10% 130th Ave Hawksbeard Scholls Ferry Residential $74,000 Alderbrook Dr Durham Rd Oakhill Ln Residential $49,000 Summerfield Dr Durham Rd 114th Ct Residential $105,000 Oak St 69th Ave 71 st Ave Residential $62,000 71st Ave Oak St M Oak St(E) Residential $10,000 Fanno Creek Dr Bonita Rd Fanno Creek PI Residential $104,000 Summercrest Dr Tigard Dr 121 st Ave Residential $35,000 Kable St 98th Ave 100th Ave Residential $47,000 109th Ave Highland Dr Naeve St Residential $30,000 96th Ave Sattler St Murdock St Residential $56,000 Slurry Seals on Residential Streets $400,000 Crack Seals on residential streets $150,000 Residential Total $1,122,000 38% 2017 Total $2,948,000 13 1 Page 2018 Paving and Maintenance Plan Pavement overlays unless stated otherwise Total % of Street From To Class Cost Cost Total 72nd Ave Fir Beveland Arterial $160,000 Gaarde 110th 123rd Terr Arterial $441,000 72nd Ave Baylor 500' South of 99W Arterial $111,000 Upper Boones Ferry 72nd Ave Durham Rd Rd Arterial $150,000 Crack Sealing/Maintenance $40,000 Arterial Total $902,000 33% 121 st Ave Ann Springwood Collector $274,000 121st Ave Gaarde St Whistlers Lp (North) Collector $96,000 Hunziker St 72nd 100'West Collector $64,000 Tiedeman Ave Walnut St Meadow St Collector $157,000 Crack Sealing/Maintenance $25,000 Collector Total $616,000 22% Milton Ct Bonita End of Street $126,000 Crack Sealing/Maintenance $15,000 Commercial Local Total $141,000 5% Fonner St 115th Walnut Residential $239,000 74th Ave Barbara Ln Taylor's Ferry Rd Residential $175,000 Grant Ave End of Street Walnut Residential $30,000 Grant Ave Park St End Residential $50,000 Commercial St Lincoln 95th Residential $29,000 107th Ct Pathfinder Ct Fonner St Residential $13,000 Slurry Seals on Residential Streets $400,000 Crack Seals on residential streets $150,000 Residential Total $1,086,000 40% 2018 Total $2,745,000 14 1 Page 2019 Paving and Maintenance Plan Pavement overlays unless stated otherwise Total % of Street From To Class Cost Cost Total Gaarde St 123rd Terr Greenfield Dr Arterial $262,000 Crack Sealing/Maintenance $40,000 Arterial Total $302,000 9% 135th Ave Walnut St Scholls Ferry Rd Collector $375,000 68th Pkwy Haines St Hwy 99W Collector $207,000 Locust St Greenburg Hall Collector $304,000 Crack Sealing/Maintenance $25,000 Collector Total $911,000 28% Tigard St Main St Tiedeman Ave Commercial $260,000 Royalty Pkwy Hwy 99W Naeve St Commercial $104,000 Atlanta St 69th Ave 68th Pkwy Commercial $33,000 69th Ave Atlanta St Baylor St Commercial $26,000 Lincoln St Locust St End of Street Commercial $38,000 71 st Ave Hwy 99W Spruce St Commercial $43,000 Kable Ln 72nd Ave End of Street Commercial $30,000 Crack Sealing/Maintenance $15,000 Commercial Total $549,000 17% North Dakota St 121 st Ave 115th Ave Residential $109,000 North Dakota St Tiedeman 114th Residential $287,000 Greenfield Dr Gaarde Benchview Residential $80,000 Benchview Terr Greenfield Clearview Residential $11,000 Royalty Pkwy Naeve 400' S of Murdock Residential $119,000 Johnson St Hwy 99W Grant Ave Residential $51,000 Grant Ave Johnson St Tigard St Residential $88,000 115th Ave Tigard St North Dakota St Residential $64,000 North Dakota 115th Ave St Cottonwood Residential $119,000 71 st Ave Spruce Pine Residential $34,000 Slurry Seals on Residential Streets $350,000 Crack Seals on residential streets $150,000 Residential Total $1,462,000 45% 2019 Total $3,224,000 15 1 Page