10/12/2016 - Packet M.— p- Completeness Review
for Boards, Commissions
TIGARD and Committee Records
CITY OF TIGARD
CCAC - City Center Advisory Commission
Name of Board, Commission or Committee
October 12, 2016
Date of Meeting
I have verified these documents are a complete copy of the official record.
Joe Patton,Meeting Secretary
Print Name
p)Pq
gnature
November 10,2016
Date
14, City of Tigard
= City Center Advisory Commission Agenda
s � .
A
MEETING DATE/TIME: October 12, 2016—6:30 to 8:30 p.m.
MEETING LOCATION: Red Rock Creek Conference Room, 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard, OR 97223
1. CALL TO ORDER Carine 6:30
(Introductions)
2. PUBLIC COMMENT Carine 6:35
3. CONSIDER MINUTES Carine 6:40
4. MAIN STREET PROGRAM AND TDA Lloyd Purdy 6:45
5. URBAN RENEWAL PLAN AMENDMENT Sean 7:10
Action item- Consider KecommendingAdoption ofAmendment to City Council
6. TOPICS OF INTEREST: PARKING Carine,Joyce 7:30
7. PROJECT UPDATES Sean 8:00
8. NON-AGENDA ITEMS Carine 8:15
9. LIAISON REPORTS All 8:20
10. ADJOURNMENT Carine 8:30
*EXECUTIVE SESSION:The Tigard City Center Advisory Commission may go into Executive Session to discuss real
property transaction negotiations under ORS 192.660(2) (e).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.
Uucoming meetings of note:
Monday, October 17, 7:00 p.m.,Planning Commission public hearing on Development Code amendments,including
Main Street height limits
Tuesday,November 1, 6:30 p.m.,CCDA Board/ City Council Meeting,Tigard City Hall, public hearing on
Development Code amendments,including Main Street height limits
Wednesday,November 9, 6:30 p.m.,Regular CCAC Meeting,Red Rock Creek Conference Room
CITY CENTER ADVISORY COMMISSION AGENDA— October 12, 2016
City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 1 503-639-4171 1 www.tigard-or.gov I Page 1 of 1
CITY OF TIGARD
CITY CENTER ADVISORY COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes
October 12, 2016
Members Present: Carine Arendes (Chair),Joyce Casey,Tim Myshak (Alternate),Linli Pao (Vice
Chair),Richard Shavey,Mark Skorupa, and Sarah Villanueva (Ex Officio).
Members Absent: Cameron Anderly, Sherrie Devaney, Gina Schlatter, and David Walsh.
Staff Present: Redevelopment Project Manager Sean Farrelly,Economic Development Manager Lloyd
Purdy; and Administrative Specialist Joe Patton.
Others Present: Councilor Marland Henderson, Council Liaison to the CCAC.
1. CALL TO ORDER
Vice Chair Pao called the meeting to order at 6:30 pm. and presided over the meeting until Chair
Arendes arrived at 6:45 p.m. The meeting was held in the Tigard Red Rock Conference Room,at 13125
SW Hall Blvd.Joe recorded the roll call.
2. PUBLIC COMMENT—None.
3. CONSIDER MINUTES
The September 14, 2016 CCAC Minutes were approved.
4. MAIN STREET PROGRAM AND TDA
The TDA is working on their goals for the next twelve to sixteen months and were unable to attend until
next month. They are utilizing the Main Street Four Point Approach: Organization,Promotion,Design
and Economic Restructuring. Lloyd briefly discussed how the TDA, a group of volunteers formed about
three and a half years ago,is focusing on each area. He distributed the 2015 Oregon Main Street Annual
Report.
5. URBAN RENEWAL PLAN AMENDMENT
Sean noted that the Consultant is estimating that the District will be able to incur$16.3 million of
indebtedness without the amendment versus $19.1 million with the must be updated as part of the
process and a new report produced justifying the Urban Renewal Plan Amendment. He reviewed the
process for review. It was unanimously agreed to recommend to the Planning Commission that they
recommend approval to City Council of the City Center Urban Renewal Plan Substantial Amendment.
6. TOPICS OF INTEREST: PARKING
Carine stated that Parking is a subtopic of the Downtown Circulation topic. She briefly reviewed the
Methodology, Findings and Concluding Recommendations of the research on the topic.Joyce discussed
the most recent parking study indicating there is plenty of parking although higher utilization than the
previous study. She suggested consistent signage directing downtown visitors to public parking areas,
time limit signs and time limit enforcement. Sean remarked the planning for the Southwest Corridor
project includes parking structures in downtown and the Triangle areas. Shared private parking
agreements between property/business owners remains an issue due to costs.
Page 1 of 2
CITY CENTER ADVISORY COMMISSION
October 12, 2016
7. PROJECT UPDATES
The hearings officer approved the Main at Fanno project land use case with the condition that the height
not exceed 45 feet. The building is vacant and the cleanup report is out for public comment, after which
hiring of contractors will begin.A developer toured the project with interest in building office space, but
the site requires cleanup first. Work is continuing on the Urban Lofts project with many unknowns such
as the route of the Southwest Corridor project looming. Richard announced the Rotary Club would like
to partner with Tigard to make a people gathering site at the Tigard Street Heritage Trail.A public
private partnership. The Fanno Creek remeander is scheduled for completion in the summer of 2018.
8. NON-AGENDA ITEMS
A. Sean stated CCAC recruitment is taking place through November 15. Carine offered to answer
questions regarding serving as Chair/Vice Chair along with the scope of responsibilities to
anyone interested.
B. Sean noted the Planning Commission will hear a package of Code Amendments,including
returning the Main Street building height from 45 feet to its original 80 feet, on October 17.
9. LIAISON REPORTS
A. Joyce noted that she is the Chair of the PBS and they can provide feedback from a cyclist and
pedestrian point of view.They meet the third Thursday of each month.
B. Carine stated that Council discussed housing for unhoused individuals, the Triangle Lean Code
draft and ways to make the development process smoother and accessible as possible. The
development code may also include walkability approval criteria. Sean will find out if the Triangle
Lean Code draft is available for review by the CCAC.
10. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 pm.
Joe Pa n, CCAC Meeting Secretary
�t.
F
5
F.
ATTEST: Carine Arendes, Chair
Page 2of2
Tigard City Center Development Agency
The City of Tigard's Urban RenewalAgenq
CODA M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Chair Arendes and the City Center Advisory Commission
FROM: Sean Farrelly,Redevelopment Project Manager
RE: Agenda Item 5: City Center Urban Renewal Plan Substantial Amendment
DATE: October 5, 2016
PROPOSAL
The existing Tigard City Center Area is 191.22 acres in size, containing 191 tax lots. The Amendment area is
37.74 acres in size, containing 7 tax lots. After the Amendment the total Area, shown in Figure 1,will be
228.96 acres,including 198 tax lots consisting of 185.60 acres and 43.36 acres of right of way for a total of
228.96 acres. State law ORS 457.220(3) limits increases to the size of an urban renewal district to 20% of a
district's original size.
The maximum amount of indebtedness (amount of TIF for projects and programs) that was authorized by
Tigard voters in 2006 for the Plan is $22,000,000 (twenty-two million dollars).Without the Amendment, the
Area is forecast to be able to incur$16,300,000 in indebtedness through FYE 2026,which would be
$5,700,000 less than the total maximum indebtedness of the Area.
With the Amendment, the Area is forecast to be able to incur$19,100,000 in indebtedness through FYE
2026,which would be $2,900,000 less than the total maximum indebtedness of the Area. Thus, the increased
tax increment revenue that will be generated due to the amendment is projected to increase the borrowing
capacity of the Area by$2,800,000 through FYE 2026,helping the Agency fund more of the projects
identified in the Plan.
The purpose of urban renewal is to improve specific areas of a city that are poorly developed or
underdeveloped. These areas can have old deteriorated buildings, public spaces which need improvements, a
lack of investment, streets and utilities in poor condition or they can lack streets and utilities altogether. The
Area has many properties that are undeveloped or underdeveloped, and lacks sufficient infrastructure within
the Area. The specific projects proposed in this Plan are outlined in Section V of the Plan and include
infrastructure,planning and development assistance, and public amenities.
Urban renewal is unique in that it brings its own financing source: tax increment financing (TIF). Tax
increment revenues—the amount of property taxes generated by the increase in total assessed values in the
urban renewal area from the time the urban renewal area is first established—are used to repay borrowed
funds. The funds borrowed are used to pay for urban renewal projects.
Per Section XII of the Plan, amendments that add land to the urban renewal area that totals more than 1%
of the total plan are classified as Substantial Amendments that require voter approval.
FINANCING
The maximum indebtedness of the adopted Plan is $22,000,000, and is not being increased by this
Amendment. The City of Tigard estimates that$3,244,382 of indebtedness has been incurred by the Agency
for the Area to date, through the end of FYE 2016,resulting in $18,755,618 in remaining capacity for
additional indebtedness for the Area.
The maximum indebtedness does not include interest paid on any borrowing by the urban renewal agency.
There is a proposed financing plan in the Report that shows that the Plan is financially feasible. It is
understood that the Agency may make changes to the financing plan as needs and opportunities arise,
typically during the annual budgeting process.
Impact on Taxing Jurisdictions
The impact of tax increment financing on overlapping taxing districts consists primarily of the property tax
revenues foregone on permanent rate levies as applied to the growth in assessed value in the Area.
These projections are for impacts due to the addition of properties in this Amendment, and are shown in
Tables 1a and 1b. This Amendment does not change the maximum indebtedness of the Plan, nor does it
change the allowed duration of the Plan to incur indebtedness, and the date to pay off all indebtedness and
cease collecting tax increment revenues is anticipated to be the same with and without the Amendment.
Therefore, the impact of the Amendment on overlapping taxing districts is measured by the increase in
annual tax increment revenues that would be foregone by those districts until all debt is repaid.
The Tigard Tualatin School District and the Northwest Regional Education Service District are not directly
affected by the tax increment financing, but the amounts of their taxes divided for the urban renewal plan
are shown in the following tables. Under current school funding law,property tax revenues are combined
with State School Fund revenues to achieve per-student funding targets. Under this system,property taxes
foregone, due to the use of tax increment financing, are substantially replaced with State School Fund
revenues, as determined by a funding formula at the State level.
Tables 1a and 1b show the projected impacts to permanent rate levies of taxing districts as a result of this
Amendment to the City Center Urban Renewal Plan. Table 1a shows the general government levies and
Table 1b shows the education levies.
2
Table 1a-Projected Impact on Taxing District Permanent Rate Levies - General Government
General Government V
Washington City of Port of Tigard/Tualatin
County Tigard TVFR Portland Metro Aquatic District
FYE Perm Perm Perm Perm Perm Perm Subtotal
2019 $6,219 $6,951) $4,219 $194 $42 $249 $17,8741)
2020 ($10,135) ($11,329) ($6,876) $316 ($68) ($406) ($29,130)
2021 ($14,204) ($15,877) ($9,636) ($443) ($96) ($569) ($40,825)
2022 ($18,432) $20,602 $12,503 ($575) ($123) ($738) ($52,973)
2023 $22,825) $25,512 $15,483 $712 $153 $913 $65,598
2024 $27,389 $30,613 $18,579 $854 $184 $1,09 $78,71
2025 $32,131 $35,913 $21,79 $1,002 $21 $1,28 $92,344
2026 $37,059 $41,421 $25,138 $1,15 $249 $1,484 $106,507
2027 $42,178 $47,144 $28,612 $1,315 $283 $1,688 $121,220
2028 ($47,499) ($53,091) $32,221 ($1,481) ($319) ($1,901) ($136,512)
2029 ($53,028) ($59,271) ($35,972) ($1,653) ($356) $2,122 ($152,402
2030 ($58,773) ($65,693) ($39,869) ($1,833) ($395) ($2,352) ($168,915)
2031 $64,744 $72,366 $43,919 ($2,019) ($435) ($2,592 $186,075
2032 $70,949 ($79,302) ($48,128 $2,212) $47 $2,840 $203,907
2033 $77,39 $86,509 $52,502 $2,413 $520 $3,098 $222,439
20341 $84,158 $94,066 $57,089 $2,624 $566 $3,369 $241,872
Total 1 ($498,804) ($557,528) ($338,364) ($15,554) ($3,349) ($19,965) ($1,433,564)
Source: Tiberius Solutions LLC
Table 1b-Projected Impact on Taxing District Permanent Rate Levies-Education
Education
PCC NW Regional 1 SD
btotal Total
2019 ($782) ($426) ($13,799) ($15,007) ($32,881)
2020 $1,275) $694 $22,490) $24,459) $53,589)
2021 $1,787 $972 ($31,520) ($34,279 ($75,104)
2022 $2,319 $1,261 $40,901 ($44,481) ($97,454
2023 $2,871 $1,561 $50,648 $55,080 $120,678
2024 $3,445 $1,873 $60,775 $66,093 $144,808
2025 $4,041) $2,198 $71,298 $77,537 $169,881
2026 $4,661) $2,535 $82,233 $89,429 $195,936
2027 $5,305) $2,885) $93,594) ($101,784) $223,004)
2028 ($5,975) ($3,249) ($105,401) ($114,625) ($251,13
2029 ($6,670) ($3,628) ($117,669 $127,96 $280,369
2030 ($7,392) ($4,020) ($130,419) ($141,831) ($310,746)
2031 $8,144 $4,429 $143,668 $156,241 $342,316
2032 $8,923 $4,853 $157,436 $171,212 $375,119
2033 $9,735 $5,294 $171,744 $186,773 $409,212
2034 $10,585 $5,757 $186,747 $203,089 $444,961
Total ($62,740) ($34,121) ($1,106,848) ($1,203,709) ($2,637,273)
Source: Tiberius Solutions LLC
3
Table 2 shows the projected increased revenue to the taxing jurisdictions after tax increment proceeds are
projected to be terminated in FYE 2035.
Table 2—Additional Revenues Projected After Termination of Tax Increment Financing
Tax Revenue in Iexpiration)
From
Taxing District Tax Rate i .se Fri Excess Value Total
General Government
Washington County 2.2484 $155,606.00 $538,718.00 $694,324.00
City of Tigard 2.5131 $173,925.00 $602,140.00 $776,065.00
TVFR 1.5252 $105,555.00 $365,439.00 $470,994.00
Port of Portland 0.0701 $4,851.00 $16,796.00 $21,647.00
Metro 0.0151 $1,045.00 $3,618.00 $4,663.00
Tigard/Tualatin Aquatic District 0.0900 $6,229.00 $21,564.00 $27,793.00
Subtotal 6.4619 $447,211.00 $1,548,275.00 $1,995,486.00
Education
PCC 0.2828 $19,572.00 $67,759.00 $87,331.00
NW Regional ESD 0.1538 $10,644.00 $36,851.00 $47,495.00
Tigard-Tualatin SD 4.9892 $345,289.00 $1,195,415.00 $1,540,704.00
Subtotal 5.4258 $375,505.00 $1,300,025.00 $1,675,530.00
Total 11.8877 $822,716.00 $2,848,300.00 $3,671,016.00
Source: Tiberius Solutions LLC
PROCESS FOR REVIEW
The process for final review of the Plan and Report include the following steps:
October 4 City Center Development Agency initiated public review
October 5 Taxing Jurisdictions Notified
October 12 Review by City Center Advisory Commission
October 18 Presentation to Washington County Commission
November 14 Planning Commission review
November 29 Notice of City Council Hearing
December 13 City Council Public Hearing and Vote
May 16,2017 City wide vote on the Tigard Triangle Plan
4
Figure 1 —Tigard City Center Urban Renewal Plan Area with Amendment Properties
Tigard City Center Urban Renewal Area
Boundary of Amendment Area
Q�y�" •44 •i
v •• e
� � a
r
■
•
s
s ■ �.k
r s ■ Q�R
5t�*
r� a
•; r
'a
■
■
■ ■
.■■ �r
ala
Boundary of Amendment Area
■ ■ Existing Tigard City Center URA
Ito■w+
5
Proposed new text is shown in double-underline.
Deleted text is shown in strikethr-oug
Explanatory language shown in italics.
CITY CENTER URBAN RENEWAL PLAN
Only changes shown, current plan can be viewed at:
hiip://www.ti ark d or.gov/document_center/CommunityDevelopment/urban®renewal�plan.pdf
I. Introduction
The Plan has a duration of 20 years (see Chapter XI),meaning that no new debt will be
incurred after Fiscal Year 2025/2026. The maximum amount of indebtedness (amount of tax
increment financing for projects and programs)that may be issued for the Plan is Twenty-
Two Million Dollars and No Cents($22,000,000).
The first substantial amendment was developed in 2016 and went to voters in the May 2017
election. It amended the boundary and updated the plan as needed.
II. Goals and Objectives
No changes to this section
III. Outline of projects
No changes to this section
IV. Map and Legal Description of Urban Renewal Area
Map and Legal Description are replaced in their entirety.
V. Urban Renewal Projects
No changes to this section
VI. Relationship to Local Objectives
B. Tigard Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies
(Comprehensive Plan has been updated since original City Center Urban Renewal Plan
adoption)
Pokey 3.4.2
The City ShaR,
n,a o areas
trees and n4tual vegetation aleng natural 47ainage eour-ses a-Ed water-ways be
maintained to the maximum extent p sibk
D,.1:— 2 G 1
r-micy—sTr
whiek
willpr-avide vi-vP� S�uc�rcE��t6irrsic" x ities�,1
seiVc
natural, seenie and histor-ie areas in a manner-consistent with the availability o
fesoufees
Policy 3.5.3
The City has designated the 100 Yeaf Floodplain,.f>~'anflo creek its t.-ib tar-ie.,
„1 the Tti l.,ti River- s !_',-oo....ay .,b ieh. ,ill be the 1..,,,Ll one of the open
spaee system. Whefe Landfill and'of development at:e allowed within or-adjae
to the Inn Year-Floodplain,the City shallr-equir-e the , side f do of de,lieatiol
of'sufficiepAopen land area for-gr-eenway adjoining and within the floodplain.
Policy 3.5.4
The City shall provide an inter-eonneeted pedestr-ian/bike path thfoughout the
Gitt-
peliey 3.7.1
and cultural!),significant obj eets and distr-iets within Tigard.
NATURAL RESOURCES AND HISTORIC AREAS.
Goal 5.1:Protect natural resources and the environmental and ecological functions they
provide, and to the extent feasible, restore natural resources to create naturally functioning
systems and high levels of biodiversity.
Policy 7: The Citi,shall protect and restore riparian and upland habitats to the maximum
extent teasible on 12ublic and=private lands.
Goal 5.2:Promote the preservation and protection of historical&and culturally signiFcant
resources.
The Plan identifies Parks,Public Spaces and Bicycle/Pedestrian Facilities projects, including
but not limited to the Fanno Park Improvements,Urban Creek/Green Corridor and Urban
Green Spaces projects,which will further the Comprehensive Plan's Natural Areas policy
objectives. In addition to preserving and upgrading existing parks and natural areas such as
Fanno Creek Park,the Plan will facilitate the creation of"green" amenities and
pedestrian/bicycle facilities that will provide new active and passive recreational
opportunities for residents, downtown workers and visitors and improve connectivity between
downtown and adjacent neighborhoods.
D-1;-
eew.-Aefeial,high density fesidei#ial,business, eivie and
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Goal 9.1:Develop and maintain a strong. diversifiedand sustainable local economy.
Policy 1: The City shall establish strategies to retain and encourage the growth of existing
businesses.
Policy 5: The City shall promote well-designed and efficient development and redevelopment
of vacant and underutilized industrial and commercial lands.
One of the Plan's stated goals is to "Promote high quality development of retail, office
and residential uses that support and are supported by public streetscape,transportation,
recreation and open space investments."The Plan identifies intersection improvements,
such as the Hall Blvd/99 W Intersection Improvements project,road widening and
realignment projects and other street projects that will improve circulation and access in
and around downtown. In addition,the Plan authorizes streetscape projects and
pedestrianibicycle improvements that will make downtown safer and more accessible to
pedestrians and bicyclists by filling in gaps in the existing sidewalk system,providing
new or upgraded bike lanes, and establishing new multiuse trails and pedestrian
crossings. Finally,the Plan includes parks,public spaces and public facilities projects
that will make downtown a more appealing place to do business and facilitate the
transition of existing industrial and auto-oriented uses to locations outside of the Central
Business District.
Pokey-v.rT
The City shall provide an appef:Panity for-a diversity E)f housing densities an
r-esiden4ial"es at various pr-iees and r-ent levels.
HOUSING
Goal 10.1:Provide opportunities for a variety ofhousing types to meet the diverse housing
needs of current and future City residents.
Policy 1: The City shall adopt and maintain land use policies. codes, and standards that
provide opportunities to develop a variety of housing types that meet the needs.Preferences.
and financial capabilities of Tigard's present and future residents.
Policy 5: The City shall provide for high and medium density housing in areas such as town
centers (Downtown), regional centers (Washington Square), and along transit corridors
where employment opportunities, commercial services, transit, and other public services
necessary to support higher population densities are either present or planned for in the
uture.
In addition to financing the programs described in Section IV,the Plan includes public
improvements projects that will make the Area a more attractive and viable location for
new, high quality medium- and high-density residential development in downtown
Tigard.
Po 4 1.1
�T
the livability of T-igafd by:
D 1 ,1 ,1 f tfaa ,-t.
i�rivpe�-rvcu�ienisncrctcs�g�3�rcrccrrspvrcutieii-fcc r i ; an
b. Eneettfaging pedestrian aeeessibility by pr-evidifig safe, seeiife and desirable
pedestrianFoutes.
Policy 9.
modes)by!
a. The development of'and implementation of'publie street st,,n.1,,.. s that
0t:
o the ffpa p 0 .,tuFe of the street Fight of .for :l;t
„t ..
pedestrian,rbieyele,transit,,,tru"clicz"rr d auto
L !'',.,,,-,7in do ,:tl. Tr; .,mot and/or-. other-t-ans t pfovider-s s g Tiga a
t o t .,,mss;t sefvtee to Tigard. Fixe r-oute t-ansit. „11 p fi ,use
e.res c f'L.' all 1 .7 11 to within T:gar-.1
ti6ir-vrvic� 0-� rt'l�tEriTcr9-cci:crcvrrcccvxsePrcrmrTrgcrra
.,.1 fetail ., shall stfiye to have Eli fe.t ., s to bikeway;eonn
0 Li
publie f4eilities and retail areas shall str-ive to have difeet ae6ess to a sidewalk.
fl. Design Weal streets to eneour-age a feduetion in trip lefig4h by pr-oviding
eenneetivity and limiting out of direetion tfavel and provide eenneetivity to
o
t', s; and
Pokey 4 1T 2
Pokey 8.1.3
•
b. Design safe and seetir-e pedestrian and bikeways between par-ks and othe
rmxcy�T5
eommunity and minimize E)t4 of dir-eetion travel by:
a. The design and astf+tet;,,,. .f tF ,.s,..,,A ioo 4:,,,;l;ties to meet tL o
0 0 0
its of the A me- , .;th Disabilities A et• .,*
b. The development of neighbor-hood and loeal conneetions to provide adequate
eir-oulation in and out of the neighbor-hoods.
Policy 1 4�7 T1
-o C
The City shall plan for-a safe and eflpeiefit street and foadway System that meets
poliey 9.3.1
The City shall 000r-dinate.with Tr-; met to pr-ovide for-. public t--.,ns;r
Meetswithin the p! i hieh--
the needs ,.4'both the ,.t andr e g -,1 ,„t..•>
• oes o projected, f thTi
b Addresses e s .,1 df transit dependent population;
• the o roos o
e. Reduees pollution and tr-affie; and
,1 D o,1uees efier-gy eefistimption.
Poky 9.3.2
The City shall o e the expansion and, ,.4'public t,-.,ns t b.
Loeatiii` land intensiveses in close pf i i11 1 tcrrcrr"rsitways; an
�cippC X4'4 fts by T,-, r ,1 other- r„ de fo f the oar f ti o
vf�iii�l„ met i�iipscovrcn�rccccs��rcnc
i disadvantaged,
Poky 8.5.1
odest. and 1.:eyele, safe anda ,tet movement; .,11 ..a44s of the
o � o 0
City,by developing the pathway s ste shown o the .,depte l
Pedestr4an'Bi-keway Plan.
TRANSPORTATION
Goal 12.3: Provide an accessible, multi-modal transportation system that meets the
mobft needs of the community.
Policy 4: The City shall support and prioritize bicycle, pedestrian, and transit improvements
Lor transportation disadvantaged populations who may be dependent on travel modes other
than private automobile.
Policy 6: The City shall require development ad
iacent to transit routes to provide direct
pedestrian accessibility.
Policy 8: The City shall design all proiects on Tigard city streets to encourage pedestrian and
bicycle travel.
Goal 12.4:Maintain and improve transportation system safety.
Policy 2: The City shall coordinate with appropriate agencies to provide safe, secure,
connected and desirable pedestrian, bicycle, and public transit facilities.
In conjunction with proposed street improvements, the Plan provides for new bike lanes
and sidewalks as well as upgrades to inadequate bicycle and pedestrian facilities. These
projects will increase multimodal access and circulation throughout the Area. Further,to
improve neighborhood livability and create a visually appealing streetscape environment
that draws residents and visitors to downtown and promotes more active commercial,
recreation and entertainment uses, landscape improvements, street trees, street furniture
and other streetscape improvements are identified as key components of the Plan.
The redevelopment,.4'downtown Tigard shall be . plishe l ; order-to Mal ;t
complementary to newer-shopping areas. Convenience, appear-anee a-ad the nee
Poliey 14.6.3
pedestf:ian movement within the eei4er-and to tfaasil.
SPECIAL PLANNING AREAS-DOWNTOWN
Goal 15.1: The City will promote the creation of a vibrant and active urban village at the
heart the community that is pedestrian oriented, accessible by many modes of
transportation, recognizes natural resources as an asse4 and features a combination of
uses that enable people to live, work, nlav, and shop in an environment that is uniquely
T' r
Goal 15.2:Facilitate the development of an urban village.
Policy 5:Downtown design, development and provision shall emphasize public safety.
accessibility, and attractiveness as primary objectives.
Goal 15.4:Develop comprehensive street and circulation improvements for pedestrians.
automobiles, bicycles, and transit.
Policy 1: The downtown shall be served by a complete array of multi-modal transportation
services including auto, transit, bike, and pedestrian facilities.
Policy 5: Streetscape and public area design shall focus on creating apedestrian friendly
environment without the visual dominance by automobile-oriented uses.
Proposed pedestrian and bicycle improvements, such as the Commuter Rail Access and
Tigard Street/Grant Pedestrian/Bicycle Crossing projects,will provide safe and convenient
pedestrian access to local shops and transit. In addition, streetscape improvements along
Main Street, Burnham Street, Commercial Street and other Area roadways will make
downtown a more accommodating,pedestrian-oriented commercial district than it is today.
Lastly,public facilities projects such as the Performing Arts Center and Public Market will
generate support for new and existing businesses that provide entertainment and recreational
options for downtown visitors.
Plan,Goal 1: Livabih-ty
,los ,.,-, .,n nsfuefacilities ; 1 is
; tt transportationmanner-
enhanees the livability of Tigafd.
eliey-2 -Enceiir-age pedestfian aeeess:1,�ybyY safe, seetir-e
,,1 desirable...edest,ian „tom
Goal 2: Balanced Transportation System
transportation(including motor-vehicle, icycle,ped€�t iizi�tciz sctc ai�C�
purposeother-modes)
-Pohey 4 Develop and implement publie street standards tha4 Fe
the f+mIti oat-ttr-e of the street right of�,N,ay for titility,pedestfia4+,
vnycre,transit, cruczc-and racrcouse.
r-vircy 3
within Tigafd eonsistent with the Bieyele Trite-Plan(y.,iti. , nstfuet:..,.,
o ,.,-.
stfuet; p All ..1. r.,ects) sools -ks publie foe lities and of a
areas shall have direct aeeess to a bikeAu�-
Poliey=T Sidewalks e eonstfuctedon all stree-ts v,ithin Tigara�rteoastndetian of n
o
faeilities and retail afeas shall have dir-eet aeeess to a sidewalk.
Policy=6 Loea streets shall be designed to eneetir-age a-iv"etien in IF-
length by p :,ing, eetiy ty and limiting out of di feetion t.a of
bioyele and pedestrian eenneetions.
as ,-t of the regional t-afis t network.
Goal 3: Safe�
standards, ..,,hetes .,n speed, „trots.,N,hev.
0 management
-Poliey3 Safe and seetir-e pedestr-ian and bikeways shall be design ,
Goal 5: keeessibility
the eoiffiffydnity and minimize eut of direetion travel.
-Pohey 1 Design and eeastr-uEt iivaspe atien facilities to meet the
is of the A mer4eans with Disabilities A et
vlliey 2 Develop aeighbeFh9^vd and leeali-eopmeetions to provide
PFON'ide f effieiefltM ,tet .,4'... OdS afi
-Policy 1 Design.moria. „tom L.;..l..�.ay adjacent 1,,n uses
� access n
that facilitate the efficient m ..t of goods and sen,ie
C. Transportation System Plan Goals and Policies
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN
Goal 2: Transportation Efficiency—Develop and maintain a transportation system for the
ef
ficient movement of people and goods.
Policy 4: The city shall design arterial routes, highway access: and ad
iacent land uses in
ways that facilitate the efficient movement of people_goods. and services.
Goal 3:Multi-modal Transportation System—Provide an accessible, multi-modal
transportation system that meets the mobility needs of the community.
Policy S: The city shall require development adiacent to transit routes to provide direct
pedestrian accessibility.
Policv 7: The city shall design all proiects on Tigard city streets to encourage pedestrian and
bicycle travel.
Goal 4:Safe Transportation System—Maintain and improve transportation system safety.
Policy 2: The citv shall coordinate with appropriate agencies to provide safe, secure,
connected and desirable pedestrian, bicycle, and public transit facilities.
The Plan includes streetscape improvements and bicycle/pedestrian system improvements
designed to encourage alternative modes of transportation to the automobile. By filling gaps
in the existing sidewalk system, installing new bike lanes and upgrading existing bikeways to
standard, the Plan will help create a complete system of bicycle and pedestrian facilities that
enables pedestrians and bicyclists to commute safely and efficiently to and within downtown.
The Plan includes street improvements that will address motor vehicle needs in and around
downtown Tigard. Projects such as the Scoffins Street/Hall Boulevard/Hunziker Realignment
and Highway 99W intersection improvements will reduce congestion and improve circulation
while creating a safer environment for drivers,pedestrians and bicyclists.
"Thr-ough building eenneetions,the City of Tigard will provide a par-k system th
gfeenspaees;
gr-eeflw ;
the City;
- Pfevides safe andwellmaifft-ained parks a eer-eatienf4cilities;
. D,-.,yides fof effective .,n 0 ally sound management of x„1.1
Chapter- Six Reeenamendations pr-ovides detailed recommendations for-park facilities,
management, and recreation pr-ogr-afns. Of paftiettlaf Felevance to the Plan
o the following Paf4Es nd rieft..
0k e0fidition, i0
for-people with-disabiitis
. «D-„vide . nte-,.onmooel+ l ,moo lour : tnd bicycle system that links T:...,r 's
parks, gFeenspaees, neighbor-hoods,work.,lace schools, neofmner-eial
centers;”
- "Mitigate the effeets of development by pr-oviding pocket par-ks/ttr-ban plazas tin
eommefeial af:ea
D. City of Tigard Park System Master Plan
PARKS, RECREATION. TRAILS.AND OPEN SPACE
Goal 8.2: Create a Citywide network ofinterconnected on-and off-roadpedestrian and
bicycle trails.
Policy 1: The City shall create and interconnected regional and local system of on-and off=
road trails and paths that link together neighborhoods, parks, open spaces, maior urban
activity centers and regional recreational opportunities utilizing both public property and
easements on private property.
The Plan includes multiple projects that support the City's park system vision and
recommendations. In particular,the Fanno Creek Park Improvements and Enhanced
Pedestrian Bridge, Urban Creek/Green Corridor and Urban Green Spaces projects will
upgrade and increase multimodal access to existing parks and open space areas and create
new green space and recreational areas that will draw residents, shoppers and visitors to
downtown Tigard.
VII. Proposed Land Uses
No changes to this section
VIII. Property Acquisition and Disposition
No changes to this section
IX. Relocation Methods
No changes to this section
X. Tax Increment Financing of Plan
No changes to this section
XI. Duration of Plan
No changes to this section
XII. Future Amendments to Plan
No changes to this section
Report Accompanying the Tigard
City Center Urban Renewal Plan
Substantial Amendment
Adopted by the City of Tigard
DATE
Ordinance No.
Approved by Voters
DATE
Consultant Team
Elaine Howard Consulting, LLC
Elaine Howard
Scott Vanden Bos
Tiberius Solutions LLC
Nick Popenuk
Rob Wyman
ECONorthwest
Ali Danko
Kate Macfarlane
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................. 1
IL EXISTING PHYSICAL, SOCIAL, AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS AND IMPACTS
ON MUNICIPAL SERVICES..................................................................................................4
III. REASONS FOR SELECTION OF EACH URBAN RENEWAL AREA IN THE PLAN
15
IV. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN URBAN RENEWAL PROJECTS AND THE
EXISTING CONDITIONS IN THE URBAN RENEWAL AREA....................................... 15
V. THE ESTIMATED TOTAL COST OF EACH PROJECT AND THE SOURCES OF
MONEYS TO PAY SUCH COSTS....................................................................................... 16
VI. THE ANTICIPATED COMPLETION DATE FOR EACH PROJECT ....................... 17
VII. THE ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF TAX INCREMENT REVENUES REQUIRED
AND THE ANTICIPATED YEAR IN WHICH INDEBTEDNESS WILL BE RETIRED.. 20
VIII. FINANCIAL ANALYSIS OF THE PLAN ................................................................ 25
IX. IMPACT OF THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING................................................. 26
X. COMPLIANCE WITH STATUTORY LIMITS ON ASSESSED VALUE AND SIZE
OF URBAN RENEWAL AREA............................................................................................29
XI. RELOCATION REPORT.............................................................................................. 29
Report on Tigard City Center Urban Renewal Area Amendment
I. INTRODUCTION
The Report on the Tigard City Center Urban Renewal Plan Amendment(Report) contains
background information and project details that pertain to the Tigard City Center Urban
Renewal Plan (Plan)Amendment (Amendment). The Report is not a legal part of the Plan,
but is intended to provide public information and support the findings made by the City
Council as part of the approval of the Plan.
The Report provides the analysis required to meet the standards of ORS 457.085(3),
including financial feasibility. The format of the Report is based on this statute. The Report
documents not only the proposed projects in the Plan, but also documents the existing
conditions in the Tigard City Center Urban Renewal Area (Area).
The Report provides only guidance on how the Plan might be implemented. As the Tigard
City Center Development Agency(Agency) conducts its annual budget process each year, it
has the authority to make adjustments to the assumptions in this Report, particularly in
regards to forecast revenues and planned expenditures. The Agency may allocate budgets
differently, adjust the timing of the projects, decide to incur debt at different timeframes than
projected in this Report, and make other changes, as allowed in the amendments section of
the Plan.
qg
WH'
',�Ghhhhh��t
kkkMH
Report on Tigard City Center Urban Renewal Area Amendment 1
Figure 1 —Tigard City Center Urban Renewal Plan Area with Amendment Properties
Tigard City Center Urban Renewal Area
Boundary of Amendment Area
sw��e
r n
' +♦ Po"- •
♦ '• +� s'44 -31
i
�•• •••''• ♦♦�♦ ��"'""r
Mv
■
♦ y'I ■
g ■i
♦ ■ ri,¢Q
i 'Sly � rRd
�♦•* Adm st+♦
r +
■
•4 ■
z '
■
■
000 ■
r ■
Boundary of Amendment Area
�■■■,
■ ■ Existing Tigard City Center URA
•■■■♦
0 500 1,000 1,500 feet
I I I I
Source:ECONorthwest
Report on Tigard City Center Urban Renewal Area Amendment 2
Figure 2—Tigard City Center Urban Renewal Plan Area After Amendment
Tigard City Center Urban Renewal Area
Boundary as Amended
sw��e
■ — .♦ A3
n.a
♦•♦ ° •• n
as No m14411
♦• ♦•♦♦'
♦ ♦� C;I. ■
i♦ ��~ 0•
0 0 ♦♦♦
♦`♦♦ ♦♦
t i
A/4111 4
♦ ■ 2jk
� `sGG � QrRd
A♦• ars,St�♦
•S••♦0.* IL
♦w •
4 ■
!04P♦■��■ ry♦ 1
r ■
M
�■■■0
■ ■ Tigard City Center URA
•■■■4P
0 500 1,000 1,500 feet
I I I I
Source:ECONorthwest
Report on Tigard City Center Urban Renewal Area Amendment 3
II. EXISTING PHYSICAL, SOCIAL, AND ECONOMIC
CONDITIONS AND IMPACTS ON MUNICIPAL SERVICES
This section of the Report describes existing conditions within the Tigard City Center Urban
Renewal Area and the Amendment Area and documents the occurrence of"blighted areas,"
as defined by ORS 457.010(1).
A. Physical Conditions
1. Land Use
The existing Tigard City Center Area is 191.22 acres in size, containing 191 tax lots
consisting of 147.91 acres. The Amendment area is 37.74 acres in size, containing 7 tax lots
consisting of 37.69 acres. After the Amendment the total Area will be 228.96 acres, including
198 tax lots consisting of 185.60 acres and 43.36 acres of right of way for a total of 228.96
acres.
An analysis of property classification data for FYE 2016 from the Washington County
Department of Assessment and Taxation was used to determine the land use designation of
tax lots in the Area as amended. By acreage, commercial use accounts for the largest land use
within the area(51.51%). This is followed by exempt(28.11%), and multifamily residential
(11.73%). The total land uses of the Area, by acreage and parcel, are shown in Table 1.
Table 1 -Existing Land Use of Area
Land Use Existing Exisitng Amendment Amendment Total Total Percent of
Commercial 120 1 73.16 1 5 1 22.45 125 95.61 51.51%
Exempt 30 52.18 0 1 0.00 30 52.18 28.11%
Industrial 1 6.41 0 0.00 1 6.41 3.45%
Multi family Residential 10 6.68 1 15.10 11 21.78 11.73%
Sin le Family Residential 18 5.45 0 0.00 18 5.45 2.94%
Vacant 12 4.02 1 0.15 1 13 4.17 1 2.25%
Total 191 147.90 7 37.70 1 198 185.60 1 100.00%
Source:Compiled by Tiberius Solutions LLC with data from the Washington County Department of Assessment and Taxation(FYE 2016)
Report on Tigard City Center Urban Renewal Area Amendment 4
2. Zoning and Comprehensive Plan Designations
As illustrated in Table 2 and Figure 2, the majority (67.56%) of the Area by acreage is zoned
as Mixed Use Central Business District.
Table 2-Existing Zoning Designations of Area
Zoning Existing Existing Amendment Amendment Total Total Pei-cent of
Taxlots Acres Taxiots Acres Taxlots Acres Acres
Mixed Use Central Business District 187 125.40 0 0 187 125.40 67.56%
M/U CBD-Planned Development Overlay 0 0.00 1 15.1 1 15.1 8.14%
General Commercial 0 0.00 5 21.61 5 21.61 11.64%
Parks and Recreation 4 22.50 0 0.00 4 22.50 12.12%
Industrial Park 0 0.00 1 0.99 1 0.99 0.53%
Total 1 191 1 147.90 1 7 37.70 1 198 1 185.60 1 100.00%
Source:Compiled by Tiberius Solutions LLC with data from the Washington County Department of Assessment and Taxation(FYE 2016)
and Metro RLIS 2016 Q1.
As illustrated in Table 3, 67.47% of the acreage is designated as Mixed Use Central Business
District in the City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan.
Table 3 -Existing Comprehensiv n Designations of Area
Comprehensive Plan Designation Existing Existing yNndment Total ,
Tax Lots Acres Taxiots Acres Taxlots Acres Acres
Mixed Use Central Business District 179 110.12 1 15.10 180 125.22 67.47%
General Commerical 0 0.00 5 21.61 5 21.61 11.64%
Open Space 12 37.78 0 0.00 12 37.78 20.36%
Light Industrial 0 0.00 1 0.99 1 0.99 0.53%
Total 191 147.90 ( 7 37.70 198 185.60 100.00%
Source:Compiled by Tiberius Solutions LLC with data from the Washington County Department of Assessment and Taxation(FYE 2016)
and Metro RLIS 2016 Q 1.
X11
Report on Tigard City Center Urban Renewal Area Amendment 5
Figure 3 —Area Zoning Designations
Tigard City Center Urban Renewal Area
Zoning Designations
s+
♦s yFF
i
Zoning + +■
Mixed Use CBD- ■
■
Planned Development r a
M
Mixed Use CBD
General Commercial
Industrial Park
Parks and Recreation
■ ■ City Center URA
•■■■+
0 500 1,000 1,500 feet
Source:ECONorthwest with data from the City of Tigard and Metro RLIS 2016 Q1.
Report on Tigard City Center Urban Renewal Area Amendment 6
Figure 4 Area Comprehensive Plan Designations
Tigard City Center Urban Renewal Area
Comprehensive Plan Designations
e
t
r �
■ +1
♦�•
•
♦• ■Rewe;■ 1
i •
s Rs
•
■
■
s ■
■
♦rear ar• e
■ ■
Comprehensive Plan sniff 0
Mixed Use CBD
General Commercial -
Light Industrial
Open Space `s
■■■• �- I ��L ILLI � I I - �,
■ City Center URA I
+■■■r
0 500 1,000 1,500 feet 7 w�
Source: ECONorthwest with data from the City of Tigard and Metro RLIS 2016 Q1.
Report on Tigard City Center Urban Renewal Area Amendment 7
B. Infrastructure
This section identifies the existing conditions in the Area to assist in establishing blight.
There are projects listed in City of Tigard master plans and Tigard Transportation Systems
Plan that identify these existing conditions. This does not mean all of these projects are
included in the urban renewal plan. The specific projects to be included in the urban
renewal plan are not changed by this Amendment. They are listed in Table 11.
1. Transportation
The Tigard Transportation Systems Plan details the transpor needs within the Area.
Streets and Intersections
There are significant transportation needs within the Area:
Table 4—Transportation Needs in the Area
Cost
Name Description Time mEstimate
Ash Ave railroad Extend Ash Avenue across the railroad
crossing(Burnham tracks from Burnham to Commercial Near-term $3,000,000
to Commercial Street
Hall Boulevard
widening,Pacific Widen to up to 4/5 lanes, depending on Near-term $2,500,000
Highway to Fanno corridor plan
Creek
Install a traffic signal at Main
Street/Tigard Street. Project need
Main Street/Tigard should be reevaluated after Pacific Near-term $350,000
Street Highway/Greenburg Road/Hall
Boulevard improvements and Main
Street improvements are completed
Source:City of Tigard Transportation Systems Plan
Report on Tigard City Center Urban Renewal Area Amendment 8
Table 4 Continued—Transportation Needs in the Area
st
Name Description '
timate
Provide 2 travel lanes,turn lanes where
Main Street Green necessary, on-street parking, good
Street(Phase I1) sidewalks, and lots of pedestrian-friendly Near-term $2,000,000
amenities on Main Street from the
railroad tracks south to Pacific Highway
Tigard Transit Provide bicycle hub at Tigard Transit Near-term $50,000
Center bicycle hub Center
Convert a segment of inactive railroad
Tigard Street Trail right-of-way adjacent to Tigard Street Near-term $1,250,000
from Tiedeman Avenue to Main Street to
a multiuse path
UaL
Commercial Street Install sidewalks on both sides of the Near-term`..,,,, $400,000
street from Main Street to Lincoln Street
Source:City of Tigard Transportation Systems Plan
aR,t.
2. Water
There are no water needs in the Area.
3. Storm Water
There are two storm water projects in the Area:
a. 94028—Main Street Storm Rehabilitation (Fanno Creek)
Project Need: Upgrade multiple stormwater outfalls in a way that promotes visual appeal
in the downtown area.
Project Description: The project will upgrade functional stormwater outfalls and abandon
inactive stormwater outfalls along Fanno Creek in the vicinity of Main Street. The goal of
the project will be to develop a plan for outfall design that improves the aesthetics of
downtown Tigard and takes advantages of this well-used location to provide public
education about the creek. The plan will develop a vision to be used to attract grant
funding.
Total Project Cost: $130,000 (conceptual planning and grant application only)
b. 95042—Commercial Street Sidewalk and Storm Detention Facility(Main to Lincoln)
Project Need: Commercial Street currently lacks sidewalks west of Main Street. This
project would connect a large residential neighborhood to downtown Tigard and the
Tigard Transit Center. Rather high pedestrian volumes are observed despite the lack of
adequate pedestrian facilities. Commercial Street is particularly narrow under this reach
of the Pacific Highway overcrossing. There is also a lack of sidewalk along Pacific
Highway between Naeve Street and Beef Bend Road.
Report on Tigard City Center Urban Renewal Area Amendment 9
Project Description: This project will construct a sidewalk along one side of Commercial
Street from Main Street under the Pacific Highway overcrossing to Lincoln Avenue. The
railroad and ODOT may dictate the location of the sidewalk which could result in the
roadway being shifted to the southwest so that the sidewalk can be added on the northeast
side of the roadway. While the street is under construction, a stormwater facility will be
added to treat the stormwater runoff from 47 acres that discharges into Fanno Creek. This
project meets outfall retrofitting goals identified in the regional Healthy Streams Plan. A
pedestrian path connecting Commercial Street to Center Street and sidewalk along east
side of Pacific Highway from Naeve Street to Beef Bend Road will be constructed. This
is part of a larger TriMet-managed project to improve access to transit along the Pacific
Highway corridor.
Total Project Cost: $1,975,000
4. Sewer
There is one sanitary sewer project in the Area:
93056—Commercial Street Sanitary Sewer Line
Project Need: The sanitary sewer line was constructed in the 1950s and after years of
monthly and quarterly cleaning, the pipe walls have become thin. There is also a long sag
within the line that requires frequent cleaning. This line is identified in the master plan to be
upsized to 12".
Project Description: Approximately 358 linear feet of new 12" line will be constructed.
Total Project Cost: $135,000.
5. Parks and Open Space
Fanno Creek Park is the centerpiece of Tigard's downtown redevelopment and revitalization.
The park is in the process of being expanded in multiple directions, toward downtown with
the upland park and plaza projects and south along the creek past the library. The upland park
and plaza area will feature developed gathering and play areas to be implemented along with
major redevelopment projects. The floodplain area is a grassy, wooded wetland that provides
habitat for a variety of wildlife. The Fanno Creek Park Extension will be developed as a
"natural environment"park with open spaces, wetlands, flora and fauna, and limited bridges,
boardwalks and soft trails. The new library is located here, as well as a large, meadow field
where public gatherings and events can take place. Recommendations for this park include:
• Upland Park and Plaza—Continue to follow the recommended"catalyst project" in
the Downtown Improvement Plan to recognize and improve a central open space
resource and gathering place adjacent to Fanno Creek, supporting a range of passive
and active open space and public uses, including a farmers market. The projects and
phasing of implementation are described in the Fanno Creek Park& Plaza Master
Plan;
• Lower Park—In addition to the trail and restoration improvements in the site master
plan, the City should consider adding additional local park amenities (play area,
picnic site) to serve the area south east of Highway 99 and north of McDonald.
Report on Tigard City Center Urban Renewal Area Amendment 10
Consider a nature themed play area in this area. Potential locations include in the
entrances to the park and Ash street or adjacent to the Senior center;
• Park Gateway—The master plan also calls for an improved park gateway with a
cantilevered deck and a pathway into the park; and
C. Social Conditions
Data from the US Census Bureau is used to identify social conditions. The geographies used
by the Census Bureau to summarize data do not strictly conform to the boundary of the
Tigard City Center Urban Renewal Area. As such, the Census Bureau geographies that most
closely align with the Urban Renewal Area boundary are used. The Area is situated at the
intersection of seven different Census block groups, each of which extend a great distance
beyond the boundary of the Area, including significant residential populations that live
adjacent to, but outside of the Area.
Within the Tigard City Center Urban Renewal Area, there are 18 tax lots shown as single-
family residential use, and another 11 tax lots with multifamily residential use. Only three of
the seven overlapping Census block groups include a significant amount of residential land
uses within the Area. Thus, we limit our demographic analysis to those three block groups:
block groups 1 and 2 in Census Tract 307 and block group 4 in Census Tract 308.01. These
block groups have a total residential population of 3,006 as depicted in Tables 5 and 6.
Again, the majority of this population lives in areas adjacent to but outside of the Area.
_,.A ttttti�h
f
F.
f�ffY. fff�
Report on Tigard City Center Urban Renewal Area Amendment 11
The majority of the Area, 78%, is White Alone, followed by Some Other Race Alone, 11%.
Table 5 —Race in the Area
Race Number Percent
White Alone 2,348 78%
Black or African American Alone 59 2%
American Indian and Alaska Native Alone 82 3%
Asian Alone 67 2%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander Alone 32 1%
Some Other Race Alone 336 11%
Two or More races 82 3%
Total J1W 11. 11'
Source:US Census Bureau,Social Explorer,American Community Survey 2010-2014,5-Year Es a, s
The largest age group in the area is 25 to 34 years, 25%, followed %�
0 24 years and 35 to
44 years, each at 13%. ,-
Table 6—Age in the Area5§bRg
Age Ntunber Percent
Under 5 Years 240 8%
5 to 9 Years 150 5%
10 to 14 Years 103 3%
15 to 17 Years 64 2%
18 to 24 Years 396 13%
25 to 34 Years 737 25%
35 to 44 Years 389 13%
45 to 54 Years 366 12% ,
55 to 64 Years 243 8%
65 to 74 Years 160 5%
75 to 84 Years 108 4%
85 Years and over 50 2%
Total 11. 11'
Source:US Census Bureau,Social Explorer,American Community Survey 2010-2014,5-Year Estimates
Report on Tigard City Center Urban Renewal Area Amendment 12
A relatively large portion of the adult population in the Area has not achieved a high school
diploma, 20%. However, 30% of adult residents in the area have earned a bachelor's degree
or higher, another 28% have some college experience without a degree, and an additional
21%have graduated from high school with no college experience.
Table 7—Educational Attainment in the Area
Educational Attainment Number Percent Than High School 420 20%
High School Graduate (includes equivalency) 429 21%
Some college 584 28%
Bachelor's degree 415 20%
Master's degree 114 6%
Professional school degree 51 2%
Doctorate degree 40 2%
Total 2,05311
Source:US Census Bureau,Social Explorer,American Community Survey 2010-2014,5-Year Estimates
The majority of residents, 64%,tr ess than 30 minutes to work, includin se who
worked at home.
Table 8—Travel Time to Work in the Area
Travel Time to Work Number ' r
Less than 10 minutes 281 17%
10 to 19 minutes 525 31%
20 to 29 minutes 274 16%
30 to 39 minutes 230 14%
40 to 59 minutes 103 6%
60 to 89 minutes 142 8%
90 or More minutes 56 3%
Worked at home 61 4%
Total 1,672 11' .
Source:US Census Bureau,Social Explorer,American Community Survey 2010-2014,5-Year Estimates
Report on Tigard City Center Urban Renewal Area Amendment 13
The majority of residents, 58%, drove alone to work.
Table 9—Means of Transportation to Work in the Area
Means of Transportation to Work Number Percent
Drove Alone 971 58%
Carpooled 285 17%
Public transportation (Includes 206 12%
Taxicab
Motorcycle 0 0%
Bicycle 66 4%
Walked 83 5%
Other means 0 0%
Worked at home 61 4%
Total • 11'
Source:US Census Bureau,Social Explorer,American Communi ' 2010-2014,5-Year Estimates
D. Economic Conditions ����°
1. Taxable Value of Property within the Area
The estimated total assessed value of the Existing Area calculated with data from the
Washington County Department of Assessment and Taxation for FYE 2016, including all
real,personal, manufactured, and utility properties, is estimated to be $100,844,506. The
estimated total assessed value of the Amendment Area is estimated to be $46,413,073.
2. Building to Land Value Ratio
An analysis of property values can be used to evaluate the economic condition of real estate
investments in a given area. The relationship of a property's improvement value (the value of
buildings and other improvements to the property) to its land value is generally an accurate
indicator of the condition of real estate investments. This relationship is referred to as the
"Improvement to Land Value Ratio," or"I:L." The values used are real market values. In
urban renewal areas, the I:L is often used to measure the intensity of development or the
extent to which an area has achieved its short- and long-term development objectives.
Table 10 below shows the improvement to land ratios for properties within the Area. The
majority of tax lots in the area that are not exempt (41.66% of the total acreage)have I:L
ratios of less than 1.0. In other words, the improvements on these properties are worth less
than the land they sit on. We identify a target I:L ratio of 2.0 for properties in this Area. Only
31 tax lots in the area, including 16.61% of the acreage have I:L ratios of 2.0 or more in FYE
2016. The Area as a whole, is underdeveloped and not contributing its full potential to the tax
base in Tigard.
Report on Tigard City Center Urban Renewal Area Amendment 14
Table 10-I:L Ratio of Parcels in the Area
Existing Existing Amend Amendment Total Total Percent of
Taxlots Acres ment Acres Taxlots Acres Acres
Taxiots
Exempt 30 52.18 0 0.00 30 52.18 28.11%
No Improvement Value 13 7.96 1 0.15 14 8.11 4.37%
0.01-0.50 41 25.49 2 5.98 43 31.47 16.96%
0.51-1.00 29 22.25 2 15.48 31 37.73 20.33%
1.01-1.50 25 17.77 0 0.00 25 17.77 9.57%
1.51-2.00 22 7.51 0 0.00 22 7.51 4.05%
2.01-2.50 2 1.04 1 0.99 3 2.03 1.09%
2.51-3.00 9 4.32 0 0.00 9 4.32 2.33%
3.01-4.00 13 1 8.26 1 0 0.00 13 8.26 4.45%
>4.00 7 1.12 1 15.10 8 16.22 8.74%
Total 191 147.9 7 37.7 185.6 100.00%
Calculated by Tiberius Solutions LLC with source data from Washington County Office of Assessm ,tj Taxation(FYE 2016).
e,
E. Impact on Municipal Services
The fiscal impact of tax increment financing on taxing districts that levy taxes within the
Area(affected taxing districts) is described in Section IX Impact of Tax Increment Financing
of this Report. This subsection discusses the fiscal impacts resulting from potential increases
in demand for municipal services. Since the properties being added in the Amendment are all
in the city limits and are now receiving municipal services, there will be no negative impact
on municipal services as a result of bringing the properties into the urban renewal area.
III. REASONS FOR SELECTION OF EACH URBAN RENEWAL
AREA IN THE PLAN
The reason for selecting the Area is to provide additional revenue to enhance the ability to
fund improvements necessary to cure blight within the Area.
°�uO
IV. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN URBAN RENEWAL
PROJECTS AND THE EXISTING CONDITIONS IN THE
URBAN RENEWAL AREA
This section does not change as there are no new projects.
Report on Tigard City Center Urban Renewal Area Amendment 15
V. THE ESTIMATED TOTAL COST OF EACH PROJECT AND
THE SOURCES OF MONEYS TO PAY SUCH COSTS
The estimated allocation of funds to specific projects shown in this Report are the best
estimates of future expenditures at the time of preparation of the Amendment. The Agency
will be able to review and update the allocations on an annual basis when they prepare the
annual budget. Nominal dollars are year of expenditure dollars inclusive of inflation, which
is assumed to be 3.0%per year.
Table 11 —Projects to be Completed Using Urban Renewal Area Funds
' i I
Potential Saxony Purchase $515,000 $515,000
Saxon demo/clean/prepdemo/clean/prep $525,600 $525,000
Other budgeted projects $223,000 $223,000
Tigard Street Trail Match $154,500 $150,000
Street Improvements $1,800,000 $1,380,000
Streetsca e Improvements $600,000 Vft, $533,000
Bike/Ped Facilities $400,000 $355,000
Parks $400,000 $355,000
Public Spaces k $2,100,000 $1,866,000
Public Facilities $3,090,000 $2,368,000
Planning and Development Assistance $2,650,000 $2,278,000
Property Acquisition $4,500,000 $3,998,000
Finance Fees $262,000 $221,000
Total Project Expenditures $17,220,100 $14,767,000
Source:Compiled by Tiberius Solutions LLC with input from City of Tigard.
Report on Tigard City Center Urban Renewal Area Amendment 16
VI. THE ANTICIPATED COMPLETION DATE FOR EACH
PROJECT
The projects will be ongoing and will be completed as directed by the Agency.
The Area is anticipated to complete all projects on or before FYE 2026 and have sufficient
tax increment finance revenue to terminate the district in FYE 2034. Changes in market
conditions could affect the assumed development schedule.
Anticipated project completion dates are shown in Table 12. The Agency may change the
completion dates in their annual budgeting process or as project decisions are made in
administering the urban renewal plan. The first year of tax increment collections for the
property being added in the Amendment is FYE 2019.
Report on Tigard City Center Urban Renewal Area Amendment 17
Table 12-Projects and Costs in Year of Expenditure Dollars
2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21
PROJECTFUND
Resources
Beginning Fund Balance 140,333 6 299,306 244,584 44,395
Pay-as-you-go(Transfer from TIF Fund) $2,732,884 590,119 32,4 06 98,781 53,588 144,836
Bond/Loan Proceeds $13,100,000 0 0 0 0 8,300,000
Rental Income $741,314 78,157. 78,157 0 95,000 95,000
Proceeds from Property Sales $0 0. 0 0 0
Intergovernmental Revenues $500,000 500,000
Interest Eamin s $5,569 702 332 1,4971,223 222
Total Resources $17,079,767 1,309,311 474,406 594,584 94,395 8,584,453
Expenditures(nominal$)
Potential Saxony Purchase $515,000) -515,000
Saxon demo/clean/prep ($525,600) -505,000 -20,600
Other budgeted projects ($223,000) -223,000
Tigard Street Trail Match ($154,500) -154,500
Street Improvements ($1,800,000)
Streetsca a Improvements ($600,000) -600,000
Bike/Ped Facilities ($400,000) -400,000
Parks ($400,000) -400,000
Public Spaces ($2,100,000) -2,100,000
Public Facilities ($3,090,000)
Planning and Development Assistance $2,650,000) -350,000 -350,000 -350,000
Property Acquisition $4,500,000) .E4 -4,500,000
Finance Fees ($262,000) -166,000
Total Expenditures ($17,220,100) -1,243,000 -175,100 -350,000 -350,000 -8,516,000
Source:Tiberius Solutions LLC with input from City of Tigard.
'4W
Report on Tigard City Center Urban Renewal Area Amendment 18
Table 12—Projects and Costs in Year of Expenditure Dollars, page 2
2021-22 2022-23 2024-25 1
PROJECTFUND
Resources
Beginning Fund Balance 68,453 35,958 28,431 98,915 86,882
Pay-as-you-go(Transfer fromTIF Fund) 217,163 292,293 370,342 437,472 98,684
Bond/Loan Proceeds 0 0 0 0 4,800,000
Rental Income 100,000 100,000 100,000 0 0
Proceeds fromProperty Sales 0 0 0 0 0
Intergovernmental Revenues
Interest Earnings 342 180 142 495 434
Total Resources 385,958 428,431 498,915 536,882 4,986,000
Expenditures(nominal$)
Potential Saxony Purchase
Saxony demo/clean/prep
Other budgeted projects
Tigard Street Trail Match
Street Improvements -1,800,000
Streetscape Improvements
Bike/Ped Facilities
Parks
Public Spaces
Public Facilities -3,090,000
Planning and Development Assistance -350,000 -400,000 -400,000 -450,000
Property Acquisition
Finance Fees -96,000
Total Fk nditures -350,0001 400,000 -400,000 -450,000 4,986,000
Source:Tiberius Solutions LLC with input from City of Tigard.
Report on Tigard City Center Urban Renewal Area Amendment 19
VII. THE ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF TAX INCREMENT
REVENUES REQUIRED AND THE ANTICIPATED YEAR IN
WHICH INDEBTEDNESS WILL BE RETIRED
Table 13 shows the allocation of tax increment revenues to debt service and the debt service
reserve fund. Table 13 shows no new debt being incurred after FYE 2026, as required by the
Plan. It is anticipated that the Agency will have sufficient resources to retire all debt by FYE
2034, which would then allow the Agency to cease collecting tax increment revenues and
close down the Area.
The time frame for retiring all debt for the Area is not absolute; it may vary depending on the
actual terms of the indebtedness incurred, and the actual tax increment revenues received. If
the economy is slower, it may take longer to repay all debt; if the economy is more robust
than the projections, it may take a shorter time period. The Agency may decide to issue
bonds or take on loans on a different schedule, and that will alter the financing assumptions,
however the existing Plan prohibits any new debt after FYE 2026.
The maximum indebtedness of the Plan is $22,000,000 (twenty-two million dollars), and is
not being increased by this Amendment. The City of Tigard estimates that $3,244,382 of
indebtedness has been incurred by the Agency for the Area to date, through the end of FYE
2016,resulting in $18,755,618 in remaining capacity for additional indebtedness for the
Area.
Information on scheduled debt service payments for all existing debt was provided by the
City of Tigard Finance Department. Additionally, we assume the Agency will undertake two
additional loans in future years to finance the costs of projects identified in the Plan. For
speculative future borrowings, the amounts, timing, and terms of the debt are unknown. The
assumptions used in this Report are for planning purposes only, and subject to change based
on market conditions. These assumptions were developed by Tiberius Solutions LLC and
informed by conversations with staff from the City of Tigard Finance Department. Specific
key assumptions for the financial analysis include:
• Debt Service Coverage Ratio: Payments for future indebtedness are structured so that
annual tax increment revenues are projected to equal or exceed 1.25 x total annual
debt service payments in all years, with one exception. In FYE 2026, final year
allowed by the Plan to incur new debt, the projected debt service coverage ratio is
reduced to 1.10 to maximize the borrowing potential of the Area.
• New Loan FYE 2021: Assumes principal amount of$8,300,000 with 3.0% interest
rate, 20-year amortization period, level annual debt service payments, and no
prepayment penalties.
• New Loan FYE 2026: Assumes principal amount of$4,800,000 with 5.0% interest
rate, 20-year amortization period, level annual debt service payments, and no
prepayment penalties.
Report on Tigard City Center Urban Renewal Area Amendment 20
Without the Amendment, the Area is forecast to be able to incur$16,300,000 in indebtedness
through FYE 2026, which would be $5,700,000 less than the total maximum indebtedness of
the Area.
With the Amendment, the Area is forecast to be able to incur $19,100,000 in indebtedness
through FYE 2026, which would be $2,900,000 less than the total maximum indebtedness of
the Area. Thus, the increased tax increment revenue that will be generated due to the
amendment is projected to increase the borrowing capacity of the Area by $2,800,000
through FYE 2026, helping the Agency fund more of the projects identified in the Plan.
The assumptions used in this analysis present just one potential scenario for the long-term
cash flow of the Area. If actual results differ from these assumptions, it could affect the
ability of the Agency to achieve these projects at these dollar amounts on this schedule.
Based on these assumptions, we find the Plan Amendment financially feasible.
®hhh hhh
Report on Tigard City Center Urban Renewal Area Amendment 21
Table 13 -Tax Increment Revenues and Allocations to Debt Service and Debt Service Reserve
Fund
Total I I I ' 2019-20 2020-21
DEBT i
Resources
Beginning Fund Balance 359,791 0 0 212,169 0
TIF for URA $106,092,176.00 397,103 492,519 570,001 637,033 706,659
Total Resources $106,664,136.00 756,894 492,519 570,001 849,202 706,659
Expenditures
Debt Service
2014 US Bank Loan ($1,268,621.00) -162,842 -15 -155,118 -791,681
Loan#5 Sewer ($109,434.11) -512 Am 9, -512 -512 -512
Loan#5 General Fund ($42,904.56) -201 1 -201 -201 -201
Loan#6 General Fund $389,352.89) -1,949 -1,949 -1,949 -1,949
Loan#7 General Fund ($273,737.25) -1,27 -1,270 -1,270 -1,270
2021 New Loan ($11,157,807.46) -557,890
2026 New Loan ($3,466,479.77)
$0.00
$0.00
Total Debt Service ($16,708,337.04) 166,775 -162,913 -159, -795,614 -561,823
Coverage Ratio 2,38 3.58 0.80 1.26
Transfer to DIS Reserve Fund ($89,743,627.00) -590,119E�� ,606 -198,781 ,588 -144,836
Total Expenditures $106,451,964.04) -756,894 -492`-19 -357,832 -849,202 -7069659
Eadin ItirndB dance 1 $0.00 $0.00 12,169.00 $0.00 $0.00
201
I 2019-20 2020-21
I
Resources
Beginning Fund Balance 98a�, So $0 $0 $0 $0
Interest Earnings X3,954,801.00 So $0 $0 $0 $0
Transfer fromD/S Fund _ X89,743,627.00 $590,119 $329,606 $198,781 $53,588 $144,836
Total Resources $93,698,428.00 $,590,119 $329,606 $198,7811 $53,588 $144,836
Expenditures
Transfer to Project Fund For URA admin (,S2.732,884.00)L -$590,119 4329,606 -$198,781 -$53,588 -$144,836
Total Expenditures $590,119 -$329,606 -$198,781 -$53,588 -$144,836
Ending Fund Balance $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Cumulative D/S Remaining 1 -$16,541,565 -$16,378,652 -$16,219,601 -$15,423,987 -$14,862,164
TIF Sufficient to Pay Off D/S NO NO NO NO NO
Source:Tiberius Solutions LLC
Report on Tigard City Center Urban Renewal Area Amendment 22
Table 13 -Tax Increment Revenues and Allocations to Debt Service and Debt Service Reserve
Fund, page 2
I2026-27
DEBTSER VICE FUND
Resources
Beginning Fund Balance 0 0 0 0 0 0
TIF for URA 778,986 854,116 932,165 1,013,245 1,097,480 1,184,991
Total Resources 778,986 854,116 932,165 1,013,245 1,097,480 1,184,991
UAL
Ekipen(litures
Debt Service
2014 US Bank Loan
Loan#5 Sewer -512 -512 -512 -10,533 -10,533 -10,533
Loan#5 General Fund -201 -201 -201 -4,130 -4,130 -4,130
Loan#6 General Fund -1,949 -1,949 -1,949 >,.-1,949 -37,181 -37,181
Loan#7 General Fund -1,270 -1,270 -1,270 -1,270 -1,270 -26,104
2021 New Loan -557,890 -557,890 -557,890 -557;890 -557,890 -557,890
2026 New Loan -385,164 -385,164
Total Debt Service -561823 -561,823 -561,823 -575,773 -996,169 -1,021,003
Coverage Ratio 0011 °°' 1.52 1.66 1.76 1.10 1.16
Transfer to DIS Reserve Fund -217,163 -292,293 -370,342 -437,472 -101,311 -163,988
Total Expenditures -778,986 -854,116 -932,165 -1,013,245 -1,097,480 -1,184,991
Endin Ft►ndBalance $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 1 $0.00
I I2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 2026-27
Debt Service Reserve Fund
Resources
Beginning Fund Balance $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,627
Interest Earnings $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $13
Transfer fromD/SFund $217,163 $292,293 $370,342 $437,472 $101,311 $163,988
Total Resources $217,163 $292,293 $370,342 $437,472 $101,311 $166,628
Expenditures
Transfer to Project Fund For URA admin -$217,163 -$292,293 -$370,342 4437,472 -$98,684 $0
Total nditures 2179163 -$2929293 -$370,342 -$437,472 -$98,684 $0
Ending Fund Balance $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,627 $166,628
Cumulative D/S Remaining 414,300,341 -$13,738,518 413,176,695 -$12,600,922 -$11,604,753 -$10,583,750
TIF Sufficient to Pay OffD/S NO NO NO NO NO NO
Source:Tiberius Solutions LLC
Report on Tigard City Center Urban Renewal Area Amendment 23
Table 13 -Tax Increment Revenues and Allocations to Debt Service and Debt Service Reserve
Fund, page 3
I 2028-29
DEBTSERVICEFUAD
Resources
Beginning Fund Balance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
TIF for URA 1,386,954 1,485,861 1,588,629 1,695,414 1,806,374 1,921,676 469,458
Total Resources 1,386,954 1,485,861 1,588,629 1,695,414 1,806,374 1,921,676 469,458
Expenditures
Debt Service
2014 US Bank Loan
Loan#5 Sewer -10,533 -10,533 -10,533 -10,513 -10,533 -10,533 -10,533
Loan#5 General Fund -4,130 4,130 4,130 4,130 -4,130 -4,130 4,130
Loan#6 General Fund -37,181 -37,181 -37,181 -37,181 -37,181 -37,181 -37,181
Loan#7 General Fund -26,104 -26,104 -26,104 -26,104 -26,104 -26,104 -26,104
2021 New Loan -557,890 -557,890 -557,890 557,890 -557,890 -557,890 -557,890
2026 New Loan -385,164 -385,164 -385,164 -385,164 -385,164 -385,164 -385,164
Total Debt Service -1,021,003 -1,021,003 -1,021,003 -1,021,003 -1,021,003 -1,021,003 -1,021,003
Coverage Ratio 1.36 1.46 1.56 1.66 1.77 1.88 0.46
Transfer to DIS Reserve Fund -365,951 464,858 -567,626 11 -785,371 -900,673 551,545
Total Expenditures -1,386,954 1,485,861 -1,588,629 5,414 -11806,374 -1;921,676 469,458
Tndin FundBalsnce $0.00 `§ ti,&&t1.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
I 2029-30 2030-31 I
Debt Service Reserve Fund
Beginning Fund Balance " 5166,628_ $533,412 $1,000,937 $1,573,568 $2,255,847 $3,052,497 $3,968,432
Interest Earnings 5833 $2,667 $5,005 $7,868 $11,279 $15,262 $19,842
TransferfromD/S Fund S365,951 $464,858 $567,626 $674,411 $785,371 $900,673 -$551,545
Total Resources $533,412 $1,000,937 $,1,573,568 $2,255,847 $3,052,497 $3,968,432 $3,436,729
Expenditures
Transfer to Project Fund For URA admin $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Total EKpenditures $0 $0 '8B 0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Ending Fund Balance $533,412 $1,000,937 $1,573,568 $2,255,847 $3,052,497 $3,968,432 $3,436,729
Cumulative D'S Reinainmg -$9,562,747 -$8,541,744 -$7,520,741 -$6,499,738 -$5,478;735 -$4,457,732 $3,436,729
TIF Sufficient to Pay OffD/S NO NO NO NO NO NO YES
Source:Tiberius Solutions LLC
Report on Tigard City Center Urban Renewal Area Amendment 24
VIII. FINANCIAL ANALYSIS OF THE PLAN
The estimated tax increment revenues through FYE 2034 as shown above, are based on
projections of the assessed value of development within the Area and the consolidated tax
rate that will apply in the Area. The analysis assumes average annual growth in assessed
value of 4.0% for real property, 1.0% for personal and utility property, and 0.0% for
manufactured property. These growth rates assume both the appreciation of existing property
values and new construction activity in the Area.
Additionally, in FYE 2018, the forecast includes an increase in assessed value of$4,877,582
for real property that would be the result of a new 165-unit mixed-use development in the
Area that is currently under construction. This increase in value would be on top of the
projected 4.0%background growth rate for assessed value of real property in the Area. This
increase is based on information provided to the City of Tigard by the developer regarding
the total anticipated construction cost of the project. These projections reflect the plans of the
developer to take advantage of the State of Oregon Vertical Housing Tax abatement program,
which results in 60% of the value of the project being tax exempt for a period of ten years.
Table 14 shows the projected incremental assessed value, tax rates and tax increment
revenues each year, adjusted for discounts, delinquencies, and compression losses. These
projections of increment are the basis for the projections in Tables 12 and 13. The first year
the impact of the Amendment would be reflected in the calculation of tax increment revenues
is FYE 2019,with an increase in the frozen base value, as well as a corresponding increase in
total assessed value of the Area. Gross TIF is calculated by multiplying the tax rate times the
excess value. The tax rate is stated per thousand dollars of assessed value, so the calculation
is "tax rate times excess value divided by one thousand". The consolidated tax rate includes
only permanent rates and general obligation bonds rates approved by voters prior to October
6, 2001. In FYE 2017 and 2018 the tax rate is forecast to decrease, due to the expiration of
those general obligation bonds.
Report on Tigard City Center Urban Renewal Area Amendment 25
Table 14—Projected Incremental Assessed Value, Tax Rates, and Tax Increment Revenues
Tax Increment Finance Revenue
FYE AssessedValue Frozen Base Excess Value Tax Rate Gross TtF Adjustments Net TIF Cumulative TIF
2016 $100,844,506 $69,207,378 $31,637,128 12.1668 384,923 (19,246) 365,677 365,677
2017 $104,326,036 $69,207,378 $35,118,658 11.9026 418,003 (20,900) 397,103 762,780
2018 $112,818,927 $69,207,378 $43,611,549 11.8877 518,441 (25,922) 492,519 1,255,299
2019 $167,485,234 $117,012,843 $50,472,391 11.8877 600,001 (30,000) 570,001 1,825,300
2020 $173,420,769 $117,012,843 $56,407,926 11.8877 670,561 (33,528) 637,033 2,462,333
2021 $179,586,127 $117,012,843 $62,573,284 11.8877 743,852 1 (37,193) 706,659 3,168,992
2022 $185,990,425 $117,012,843 $68,977,582 11.8877 819,985 (40,999) 778,986 3,947,978
2023 $192,643,144 $117,012,843 $75,630,301 11.8877 899,070 (44,954) 854,116 4,802,094
2024 $199,554,145 $117,012,843 $82,541,302 11.8877 981,226 (49,061) 932,165 5,734,259
2025 $206,733,679 $117,012,843 $89,720,836 11.8877 1,066,574 (53,329) 1,013,245 6,747,504
2026 $214,192,409 $117,012,843 $97,179,566 11.8877 1,155,242 (57,762) 1,097,480 7,844,984
2027 $221,941,422 $117,012,843 $104,928,579 11.8877 _1,247,359 (62,368) 1,184,991 9,029,975
2028 $239,824,845 $117,012,843 $122,812,002 11.8877A1,459,952 (72,998) 1,386,954 10,416,929
2029 $248,582,783 $117,012,843 $131,569,940 11.8877 (78,203) 1,485,861 11,902,790
2030 $257,682,729 $117,012,843 $140,669,886 11.8877 (83,612) 1,588,629 13,491,419
2031 $267,138,280 $117,012,843 $150,125,437 11.8877 (89,232) 1,695,414 15,186,833
2032 $276,963,577 $117,012,843 $159,950,734 11.8877 1,901,446 (95,072) 1,806,374 16,993,207
2033 $287,173,323 $117,012,843 $170,160,48011.8877 2,022,817 (101,141) 1,921,676 18,914,883
2034 $297,782,813 $117,012,843 $180,769,970 11.8877. 2,148,939 - (107,447) 2,041,492 '; 20,956,375
Source:Tiberius Solutions LLC
Notes:
TIF is tax increment revenues
Tax rates are expressed in terms of dollars per$1,000 of assessed value.
Changes in total tax rates are due to general obligation bonds with variable rates.These bonds are scheduled to be retired in FYE
2017,after which the total tax rate for the area will stabilize as the sum total of all permanent rates for affected taxing districts.
IX. IMPACT OF THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING
This section describes the impact of tax increment financing of the Amendment(properties
being added to the Area),both until and after the indebtedness is repaid,upon all entities
levying taxes upon property in the urban renewal area. The impact of tax increment financing
on overlapping taxing districts consists primarily of the property tax revenues foregone on
permanent rate levies as applied to the growth in assessed value in the Area.
These projections are for impacts due to the addition of properties in this Amendment, and
are shown in Tables 15a and 15b. This Amendment does not change the maximum
indebtedness of the Plan, nor does it change the allowed duration of the Plan to incur
indebtedness, and the date to pay off all indebtedness and cease collecting tax increment
revenues is anticipated to be the same with and without the Amendment. Therefore, the
impact of the Amendment on overlapping taxing districts is measured by the increase in
annual tax increment revenues that would be foregone by those districts until all debt is
repaid.
The Tigard Tualatin School District and the Northwest Regional Education Service District
are not directly affected by the tax increment financing, but the amounts of their taxes
divided for the urban renewal plan are shown in the following tables. Under current school
funding law, property tax revenues are combined with State School Fund revenues to achieve
per-student funding targets. Under this system, property taxes foregone, due to the use of tax
Report on Tigard City Center Urban Renewal Area Amendment 26
increment financing, are substantially replaced with State School Fund revenues, as
determined by a funding formula at the State level.
Tables 15a and 15b show the projected impacts to permanent rate levies of taxing districts as
a result of this Amendment. Table 15a shows the general government levies and Table 15b
shows the education levies.
General obligation bonds will not be impacted by this Amendment, because only bonds
approved by voters prior to October 6, 2001 are affected by this Plan, and those bonds will
have all expired by the time the Amendment is reflected in the calculation of tax increment
revenues by the Washington County Department of Assessm t and Taxation, expected in
FYE 2019.
Table 15a-Projected Impact on Taxing District Perm 'A ate Levies - General
Government 411,. �P�
General Gowrnment
Washingtonof Portof Tigard/Tualatin
County1 TVFR Portland Metro Aquatic
FYE PermPerm PermPerm Perm Perm Subtotal
2019 ($6,219) ($6,951) ($4,219) ($1W ($42) ($249)glW$17,874)
aaaaaa ,
2020 ($10,135) ($11,329) ($6,876) ($316) ($68) ($406) :`��,u t` 9,130)
2021 ($14,204) ($15,877) ($9,636) ($443) ($96) ($569) ($40,825)
2022 ($18,432) ($20,602) ($12,503) ($575) ($123) ($738) ($52,973)
2023 ($22,825) ($25,512) ($15,483) ($712) ($153) ($913) ($65,598)
2024 ($27,389) ($30,613) ($18,579) ($854) ($184) ($1,096) ($78,715)
2025 ($32,131) ($35,913) ($21,796) ($1,002) ($216) ($1,286) ($92,344)
2026 ($37,059) ($41,421) ($25,138) ($1,156) ($249) ($1,484) (0,106,507)
2027 ($42,178) ($47,144) ($28,612) ($1,315) ($283) ($1,688) ($121,220)
2028 ($47,499) ($53,091) ($32,221) ($1,481) ($319) ($1,901) ($136,512)
2029 )($53,028) ($59,271) ($35,972 ($1,653) ($356) ($2,122) ($152,402)
2030 ($58,773) ($65,693) ($39,869) ($1,833) ($395) ($2,352) ($168,915)
2031 ($64,744) ($72,366) ($43,919) ($2,019) ($435) ($2,592) ($186,075)
2032 ($70,949) ($79,302) ($48,128) ($2,212) ($476) ($2,840) ($203,907)
2033 ($77,397) ($86,509) ($52,502) ($2,413) ($520) ($3,098) ($222,439)
2034 $84,158 $94,066 $57,089 $2,624 $566 $3,369 $241,872
Total ($498,804) ($557,528) ($338,364)1 ($15,554) ($3,349) ($19,965) ($1,433,564)
Source:Tiberius Solutions LLC
Report on Tigard City Center Urban Renewal Area Amendment 27
Table 15b-Projected Impact on Taxing District Permanent Rate Levies -Education
RegionalEducation
PCC NW
FYE Perm Perm Perm S ubtotal Total
2019 ($782) ($426) ($13,799) ($15,007) ($32,881)
2020 ($1,275) ($694) ($22,490) ($24,459) ($53,589)
2021 ($1,787) ($972) ($31,520) ($34,279_) ($75,104)
2022 ($2,319) ($1,261) ($40,901) ($44,481) ($97,454)
2023 ($2,871) ($1,561) ($50,648) ($55,080) ($120,678)
2024 ($3,445) ($1,873) ($60,775) ($66,093) ($144,808)
2025 ($4,041) ($2,198) ($71,298) ($77,537) ($169,881)
2026 ($4,661) ($2,535) ($82,233) ($89,429) ($195,936)
2027 ($5,305) ($2,885) ($93,594) ($101,784) ($223,004)
2028 ($5,975) ($3,249) ($105,401) ($114,625) ($251,137)
2029 ($6,670) ($3,628) ($117,669) ($127,967) ($280,369)
2030 ($7,392) ($4,020) ($130,419) ($141,831) ($310,746)
2031 ($8,144) ($4,429) ($143,668) ($156,241) ($342,316)
2032 ($8,923) ($4,853) ($157,436)1 ($171,212) ($375,119)
2033 ($9,735) ($5,294) ($171,744) ($186,773) ($409,212)
2034 10,585 5,757 $186,747 $203,089 $444,961
Total ($62,740) ($34,121) ($1,106,848) ($1,203,709) ($2,637,273)
Source:Tiberius Solutions LLC.Please refer to the explanation of the schools funding in the preceding section
Table 16 shows the projected increased revenue to the taxing jurisdictions after tax increment
proceeds are projected to be terminated. These projections are for FYE 2035.
Table 16-Additional Revenues Obtained after Termination of Tax Increment Financing
;Fax Revenue in FVE2035(year after expiration)
From Frozen
Taxing District Base From Excess Value Total
Generaf`06wrnment
Washingtan County $155,606.00 $538,718.00 $694,324.00
City of Tigard 2.5 $173,925.00 $602,140.00 $776,065.00
TVFR 1.5252 $105,555.00 $365,439.00 $470,994.00
Port of Portland 0.0701 $4,851.00 $16,796.00 $21,647.00
Metro 0.0151 $1,045.00 $3,618.00 $4,663.00
Tigard/Tualatin Aquatic t 0.0900 $6,229.00 $21,564.00 $27,793.00
Subtotal 6.4619 $447,211.00 $1,548,275.00 $1,995,486.00
Education
PCC 0.2828 $19,572.00 $67,759.00 $87,331.00
NW Regional ESD 0.1538 $10,644.00 $36,851.00 $47,495.00
Tigard-Tualatin SD 4.9892 $345,289.00 $1,195,415.00 $1,540,704.00
Subtotal 5.4258 $375,505.00 $1,300,025.00 $1,675,530.00
Total 11.8877 $822,716.00 $2,848,300.00 $3,671,016.00
Source:Tiberius Solutions LLC
Report on Tigard City Center Urban Renewal Area Amendment 28
X. COMPLIANCE WITH STATUTORY LIMITS ON ASSESSED
VALUE AND SIZE OF URBAN RENEWAL AREA
State law limits the percentage of both a municipality's total assessed value and the total land
area that can be contained in an urban renewal area at the time of its establishment to 25% for
municipalities under 50,000 in population. As noted below, the frozen base, including all
real, personal, personal, manufactured, and utility properties in the Area after the
Amendment, is projected to be $117,012,843. The total assessed value of the City of Tigard,
minus excess value of the existing urban renewal areas is $5,875,954,608. Excess value is
the assessed value created above the frozen base in the urban renewal area. The total urban
renewal assessed value is 9.30% of the total assessed value of the City, minus excess value,
below the 25% statutory limitation.
The Tigard City Center Urban Renewal Area contains 228.96 acres, including right-of-way,
and the City of Tigard contains 8,129 acres. After accounting for the acreage in the potential
Tigard Triangle Urban Renewal Area, 9.56 % of the City's acreage would be in an urban
renewal area,below the 25% statutory limitation.
Table 17–Urban Renewal Area Conformance with Assessed Value and Acreage Limits
4.,Val — UR Excess Acreage
City ofTigard $5,907,591,736 8,129
City of Tigard minus UR
excess $5,875,954,608
Tigard City Center $117,012,843 $31,637,128 228.96
Proposed Tigard Triangle $429,654,966 547.90
City Center Plus Tigard
Triangle $546,667,809 776.86
Percentage in UR 9.300/. 9.56%
Source:Compiled by Elaine Howard Consulting,LLC with data from City of Tigard and Washington County Department of Assessment
and Taxation(FYE-2016)
-4110
XI. RELOCATION REPORT
There is no relocation report required for the Plan.No specific acquisitions that would result
in relocation benefits have been identified, however, there are plans to acquire land for
infrastructure which may trigger relocation benefits in the future in the Area.
Report on Tigard City Center Urban Renewal Area Amendment 29
Agenda Item 6
STEP 3: GET THE PARKING nIGHT
What park-ing coxes and Ivitaf j,vsts 1,'.Induce demand redlix,
Addlefion made lan,; Tile cost If)-cqUired Parking;Some vnarkr places;
Vie problem oviih cheap curbside parking;Vie right}Trice;A tale of t,,,
cities;Whar should ove do with(Oil this vioney? A harmin at$1.2 billion
k,
This chapter exists because of one inan. He is in his mid-
seventies, green-eyed, gray-bearded, and often pictured riding
a bicycle. He liolds four degrees from Yale in engineering and
econol-rijes, and teaches at UCLA, where he was chair of t lie
Department of Urban Planning and ran the Institute of Trans-
portation Studies. His name is Donald Shoup anti, inside an
achnittedly stnall circle, I)e is a rock star. He is alternately
hailed as [lie "June Jacobs of parking policy" and the "prophet
of parking." There is even a micebook group called "The
?'
S1101IFistas."l -
Shwip has earned his exalted status by being perhaps
(lie first person to really think about how parking works in cit-
ies. This effort has led turn to some emiclusions that have now
been backed up with decades of evidence, and lie is just begin-
ning to get the attention he deserve.s. In the words of a for-
rner Ventura, Caldbri-iia, mayor, Bill Fulton, "Don has been
saying the exae( same "ag for 40 years, and finally the world
is listening to hire."" That doesn't mean that die world is yet
doing what he says, but, with a little luck, that is about to
change.
Parking covers more Of Uf ban America than any other
one thingljust look at an aerial P110tG of downtown 11oustoll—
116 VALKkSLE HITT STEP 3: GET THE PARXING RIGHT 111
}tet, until Shoup, nobody d}f seems to have made any effort t4 Pig- sand dollars or more to build. Farlcin spaces under Seattle's Pa-
are it out; certainly not the planners,who happily institute and cific Place Shopping Center, built by the city, cost over sixty
enforce outdated parking requirements nationwide like a barn- thousand dollars each.' In between those: extremes is the stan-
arrl ofheadless chickens, Shoup himself nates how the 'bible"
dard aboveground urban parking structure, which can usually
cif city plaraiiiig, F. ,Stuart Chapin's Lrdvan Land U.se Pla taila.g, be built for between twenty sand thirty thousand dollars per
doesn't even mention harking once.`We did better than that in space,
Suburban.Nation, but our focus was more on the a;Uhilt than the Given the size of most parking lots, these numbers add up
Why,,,v ich Shoup has refined to the lcvel of science. quickly. The twelve.-hundred-space Pacific Place garage cost
ave°hat Shoup has discovered about parking—using bath an $73 million. Shoup calculates that"the cost of all parking stances
e,crsrtamist°s cold logic and the careful, sustained observation of
in the U.S.exceeds the value of all cars and May even exceed the
reality—is that every city in America handles it wrong. Rather value of all roads."`a There .are also the ongoing costs of taxes,
than parking in the service of cities, cities have been nnanagement, and maintenance. If the journal Parking Prcgfes-
working in the senAcc of parking, almost entirely to their detri-
sional is to be believed, more than a million Americans make
arrent. I-Ie has also determined, and demonstrated, that this their living in sorne aspect of the "parking profession." These-:
problen, can lie fixed fairly easily and with great rewards for all people have to be Paul. Somewhat conservatively, and based on
involved, And he is just beginning to see his ideas bear fruit in the study ofhundreds;of parking lots,Shoup estian:.atcs the monthly
places like San Francisco,which we will discuss below. east oft structured parking space to be at least$125 per month,'
or a'aughly$4 per day.
This amotarat seems reasonable, a rtd actually Tote easy to pay
for. Presuming a conservative St} percent occupancy from nine
MAT VARKING COSTS ANN WHAT IT COSTS US to five, that's only a dollar per hour. So, do most parking stnic-
p g p g tures cover their costs?Far Croon it. One study of parking garages
The first step to understanding how Parking works is to et a
rasp of how much it costs and Tylia' pays for it. Because it is so in the Mid-Atlantic region determined that annual operating
plcntif11l Land ofteax free- to use, it is easy to imagine that it costs revenue per space range([ between `6 and 36 percent of annaial
t-c�ry little. 8u,t this is clot the ease. The cheapest urban parking cost?
spaace in America,an 81le-by-18-foot piece of asphalt call relatively I found a similar circumstance in Lowell, where I was told
worthless land, costs about four thousand dollars to create—and that the revenue from the city's six public garages was paying
not much urban land is worthless. The most expensive parking all the debt service on those garages. Digging a bit deeper. I
Spice, in an underground harking garage, can cast forty thou-
learned that five of those garages, front the eighties, bad already
paid oft' their bonds—with considerable taxpayer help. So, in
Doibald Shoop,Tho I-1igir Cost tsf F_e Ynv irrg,25.5houp's book is 751 paces loris and
kve.ighs t I}ree and a quarterirounds,but after we ae done,yote will want to reser it.Nut "1p.T++o Nig1+Cost nlf FreK Parking,190.Shoup notes than the rwortcl rr�cxrrt3 i1t)lilers
everything in this chetater is from tliat book,but so mucro of it comes Frohn there 0120 a-iR Japan,with erre ursdergr,)u�L41 structure in Kawasaki coohtig$414.000 pL-r space.
arrr 1a,tpp}`if its author gets credit for the vwho7e chapter The entire garage cost over$157 million.
116 WALUBU CITY STEP 1 GET HE PARKING RMT 119
actuality,the revenue from all six of the,city's glArage-s was cover- I N R U C F D DEMAND HFOUX.
ing only the debt service on the city's one tleW gar<lgc.
This circurnstarice exist-,;A over the United States,principally Is dais beginning to sound familiar?Like roadways in general, all
because cities and other sponsors keep parking prices artificially this free and underpriced Parking c4)ntributes
to a circumstance
low, Because there am
Lire so many parking spaces, this cumulative in which a massive, segment ofour national economy Ila-
heen
subsidy was calcu i ated a decade ago at between$127 bi Ilion and disconneced Crorn the free market, sitch that individuals, are no
$374 billion a year,8 which puts it in the range of our national longer able to act rationally. Or, more accurately,in acting ratio-
defense budget. This number seems preposterous, until you con- nally, individuals are, acting against their own self-interest,
cider that the typical parking space in the United States is not in All in all, Shoup calculates that the subsidy 1br e
aL pay-to-park garage at altbut alongside. a condo cluster, inside paid park-ii igamountsaount� to twe-ity-two ulployer-
1 epilts per mile driven to
an office park, or in front of a walmart,where.admission is free. work,and thus reduve.s the Price ofatitouiotive commuting by a
If parking,is"free" or underpriced in so much of the United remarkable 71 percent. Eliminating this s(II)s
�idy would have the
States, who is actually paying for it? The answer is: we au are, same i i apact as an add itional grasoline, tax of between X1.27 and
w,liether we use it or not. Shoup puts it this way: $3.74 a gallon.!" That is a price hike that would change
D ut ge many
people's driving habits.
Initially, the developer pays for the required parking, This subsidy cotild perhaps he justified if it produced sonic
but SGC)n the tenants do, and then their customers, and ;greater good Far society,but it only produces one benefit: cheaper
so an, until the price of parking has diffused everywhere parking. How does it perform ill terms of other important mea-
-hen we shop in a store,eat in a restau- sures?Well, J
in flic economy NAr it air and water quality,speeds global w,rm-
rant, or see a inovie, Nve pi-y for parking indirectly, be- ing, increases energy consumption, raises the cost ol'housing,
cause its cost is included in the price of merchandise, decreases public revetine, uIldeTnIftles public transportation, in-
meals, and theater tickets.We unknowingly support our creases traffic congestion,damages the quality of the public realm,
cars with almost every commercial transaction we make, escalates suburban Trawl, threatens historic buildings,weakerts
because a sinall share of the money changing hands pays social cal)ital, and worsens public health, to name a few things,*
For parking.9 And you wanted free parking Nv[Ly?
The rarnifications of this situation are disturbing. Nobody can opt
out of paying for parking. People who walk, bike, or take transit AUDIC110N MADE LAW
ai-e bankrolling those. who drive, fn so doing, they are making But businesses should beJ1o*wed to provide parkin cus-
driving cheaper and thus more prevalent, which in turn under- 9 to lure
mines the quality of walking, biking,and transit. toiners, you might protest. Fair enough, But in America, sue],
Parking is not just allowecL.it's required Santo'cities,JiJ,e
Monterey
"SImp,585.Alt these criteria except Ole final tIlFeC are IiSte.d by Shoup.
120 WALKABLE CITY' STEP 3: GET THE PAWING RIGH1 III
Park, Ca I ifornia. not only require on-site parking,but insist that requirerneuts aiv then passed from city t(j City and town to toWn,15
it be provided to visitors free of charge.11 almost always resulting ill the same outs ame: too muc), parking.
These requirements are powerfully disruptive to the way cit- flow much? In 2010, the first nationwide count determined
ies function, A true master of the long-form analogy, Shoup de- that there are half a billion empty parking spaces in Arnerica at
r 16 More.to ourpurposes,uTOSe
scribes the situation this war any given time. a 2002 survey of Seattle's
Central Business District found that, during times of peak de-
If cities required restaurants to offer a free dessert With mand, almost four out of ten parking spaces were einpty.17 This
each dinner. the price of every dinner would soon in- condition of oversupply occurs most often in central cities, and is
crease to include the cost of dessert. To ensure that res- typically the result of downtowns importing zoning standards
Laurants didn't skimp on the size of the required desserts, From the suburbs, WIlere DO alternatives to driving exist.
cities world have to set precise'"minimum calorie require- Even Washington, D.c.,suffersfrom this phenomenon.When
ments.- Sore diners would pay for desserts they didn't my wite. and I built mu house in the District, we were. required
eat, and others would eat sugary desserts they wouldn't to provide an on-site parking space,even though we didn't own a
have ordered had they paid for them separately.The con- car, our property Nvas three blocks horn a subwiy stop,and none
.sequences would undoubtedly include an epidemic of of our neighbors bad one; ample parkiiig was avitilAle Oil tile
obesity,diabetes,and heart disease.A few food-conscious street, Ironically,parking on our lot Nvould have required remov-
cities like New York and San FraDeisco might prohibit ing an on-street parking space—replacing a public good with a
free desserts, but most cities would continue to require private one—trashing a granite curb, and violating a publicside-
thern. Nlany people would got angry at even the thought Walk With CAll- driveway, Not owning a car, I designed a earless
of paying for the desserts they had eaten free for so long." house,and threw our fate to the Board of Zoning AlTeais. EVeo-
tually, reason prevailed, but it took nine months and a public
Look at any, city, suburban, or rural zoning code, and you will battle that was written tip in USA Today." I think it is accurate
S(w Page after page of rules about parking. Of the six hundred or to say that almost no other designer would have, bothered. Four
so land uses that we planners have managed to identify, each leas years later,the code has yet to be fixed,
its own minimum parking requirement 13 Shoup documents bow Whenever I feet like complaining about our own Washington
these requirements have often been generated from a bare mini- parking struggle,I remind myself of the story of DC USA.In the
mum of data and can bear little, resemblance to reality.14A gas mid-2000s, construction began OD What WaS to 1-iecolne the Dis-
station requires 1.5 spaces per nozzle. A bowling alley requires tracts largest retail complex, a$145 million,500,000-square-foot
I space per employee, plus 5 spaces per lane. A swimming pool colossus anchored by Target, Best B uy, and Bed Bath& Beyond,
requires I space per t,,Aenty-five hundred gallons of water!These Because the development was located at a Metro stop in the
heart of Columbia Heights, with thirty-six, thousand residents
mup, 80 1 am particularly enamoredof t1kis requirvinent,which appareutily sap- withirt a tern-minute Nvalk,ll the city gei irrously modified its parking
poses that a sten-[Qat pool holds
twice as many 5�vi mtners as a five-fout-deep poot. re,41 I irernents. Rather than insisting oll its obligatory four spaces
pre.%Llrnably stacked Ln t%vo layers like deluxe assortment dehovalates Per rine thousand square feet—a trtt�y suburban stanchird—the
M WALURE 911Y STEP 3: GET THE PARKINS RIGHT M
District alknwd the number to be cut in half 10 Despite the de- without it. As Shoup likes to SaY, "Off-street parking require-
signers` predictions that this was still way too much parking, the meats are a fertility drug for cars,_14 We have, already discussed
prclectwent ahead Arith a $40 million, taxpayer-fended under- most of driving's attendant Woes, from global warming to obesity,
ground garage holding one thousand cars but it wvould be useful here to focus briefly on some of the spe-
.Fast-forward to 2008: DC USA has become U TeS011ading chic social and personal costs innicte(I lay the on-site parking
success, having brought new life to a struggling neighborhood, requirement in particular.
thanks in part to its pedestrian-oriented desiga. Shops are doing In iuhU)-beM Nation, we coined the term "Pensacola Park-
even mores 'business than expected. And the parking garage is ing Syndrome"to describe the fate of so many historic cities that
empty—so empty that its managers routinely shut off one- Of its had eventually managed to satisfy their par"Ig demand. They
two levels completely, an unvisited $20 maciiieve
,million underground air achieved this condition byreplacingbeautiful Old buildings with
Oy parking lots—in stich number that nobod�y wanted to go
museimi. From February through July, average peak use never u(I
rises above three hundred cars, and at no.tune does occupancy
tlowmown any. 1nore.25
top 47 percent." 'Certainly, the destruction of architectural masterpieces is
This was an expensive lesson, a $100,000/month I told You one of the trust obvions and upsetting manifestations of modern
so for the District and its taxpayers—nov., in its fifth year—as parkin9pressures. In Detroit,,,Parking garage even sits beneatli
parking revenues fail to cover debt service on the garage. It was the rococo vaults of the reamed-aut 1926 Michigan Theatre.—
just the kick in the pants the city needed to finally rewrite its built, ironically,on the site Henry 0
I e ry Ford invented his aut
fifty-year-old regulations to eliminate parking mirdmurns for mobile, In Buffalo, where 50 percent of the historic city center
fleW shops, offices, acrd apartments near Metro stationSY-1 They has become parking lots, one commenter wryly observed, "i£our
have decided to le-,tve commercial parking provision tea the free master plan is to dernolish all of dcAnitown, then Nvere onlylialf-
market, as Donald Shoup recommends. way there,""
Even smaller suburban cities are beginning to find that their These days, however, wit], Preservationists wielding greater
parking re.quiretnents are routinely too high.A useful experiment power, the harm perpetrated by parking demands is often more
was conducted in progressive Palo Alto, California, Real estate subtle, taking the form not of destniction, but of obstruction:
developers were allowed to cheat on their par:k-ing requirements things failing to happen. Most empty urban buildings—historic
by as inuch as 50 percent if the land area saved ,w� turned into or otherwise—sit on properties of limited size, with limited op-
a'natural"landscape reserve"that could be converted to parking porhinities for increasing their parking supply, Yet many changes
if the-need arose, Not one such reserve has yet to make that con- in use bring with them an uptick in the parking requirement,
version-23 Shoup notes how replacing a defunct furniture store with a new
bicycle shopwould typically require tripling the size of the park-
ing lot.*Where are those Spaces supposed to come from?
THE COST OF REHIRED PARKING
1&3' tt'11N tile StOly Ofall eF1t1PPr0JJetJr i ou k Y Lt) I
1'C TI in cities with high residential densities and great transit to repL4 failed g1litarsli(lp witi,a restaurant bud n S th Ber etc %vbud was dereated[,y a twelve-s ntd
E
systems, ample parking enecurages driving that would not omir tncteil sp in fl2c parking requirement. 1XW
174 WALKABLI CITY STEP 3: GET THE PARXING fljGNT 125
The result.of COUTSO,is that nothing gets done and old build- fusal to allow the developer to charge for parking. The housing
ings A-,�Nr empty. Similarly,a thriving restaurant that wants to add vorporatiGn was prohibited from charging a parking ree
41 of Otte
sidewalk dijiingorkdred dollars per month, which would have reduced non-
do so witbout increasing its parking supply, often an impossibil- drivers' rents by about 10 percent.- So, even ain ung the city's
ity.'_`The only path to providing more parking in urban areas is
V"Ore-st citiWas, the pedestrians are subsidizing the drivers. SO
typically to replace surface parking lots with multistory decks, at 111ttell for"progressi%'e'.Palo Alto.
tromendous cost.That money is increasingly difficult to come by. But before we lomat that city up too badly, lets wrn ourne-
`11b;parking-induced conintercial stasis is only half the Story, gaze bar
cusing g.a _k to the creel, Njetropolis itself, where tj le New
The other half is the, great burclen that parking minimums Place York Cit}
On affordabilityT especially for housing, and most especially in ity 1-fousing Authority still maintains parking rnininitons
i for its publicly assisted housing stock, These minimums have
those communities&-it most need it.Developers in San Francisco caused the city to abandon plans to add much-needed street-
estimate that t1he city's' ogre-space-per-Unit requirement adds 20 edge,buildings to several of its 1960s"tower in the,park"projects.
percent to the cost of affordable housing. Shoup calculates that Currently, One SUCK projeet, in Brownsville, Brookh-,n, 11111Igs in
eliminating this requirement would allow 24 percent more San the balance, It would rePhice stirface parking lots with Ilousing,
Franciscans to buy homes, Even the city's chief comprehensive S11OPs, -Schools, alid gardens. but it is being held up by parking
J)Lnuer, Ai-nit Ghosh. admits that "we're forcing people to build 11"linilTIUMS—despite being directly adjacent to two stops of the
parkiuq that people cannot afford,'" 2,3,4, and 5 subway lines straight to Manhattan, The chairman
Similarly; a study in Oakland found that requiring one-park- of the housing authority admits sheepishly that "certain zoning
ing space per home "increased housing costs by IS percent and rules may need to be reconsidered."32
reduced density by 130 percell t."20 Back in Palo Alto, Alma Place,
a nonprofit 10i-i-mit single-room occupancy hotel,was granted a
reduced paxking requirement of 0,G77 spaces per unit. It was later
determined that this scant requirement still increased consh-tic- SOME SMARTER PLACES
tion costs byawhopping 38 per(.,ent?) If you've been to the former artists' colony of Carriel-by-the-
The larger question is why the future residents of Alma Sea, California,you've probably enjoyed strolling its picturesque
Place—Walk- Score 95- for God's sake—shouJ6 need parking at main street, Ocean Avenue.This would have been due not to the
all, Does a household located three blocks from a train station smooth qiialfty of the pavelloent—spike heels require a city per-
in one of America's most walkable and employment-loaded Corn- unit,thanks to a spate of trip-and-Wl lawsuits in the twentiesn.13
munities need to ov,,n a car?Did I mention that the train station
bW rather to all its other positive pedestrian qualities, incIliding
is Ranked by more than three hundred commuter parkiag,spaces an absence of visible parking lots.
that all sit empty overnigIlt?n Ocean Avenue is ftee of off-street parking because it is
The answer is not that future residents would come with
cars, but that current residents were worried about spillover 6SIknq tp.71te ffigli Grist of F,,, 15()'Rent red"Cli011 was 111VdiCtCd W fifty dol-
parking on their streets. Even more troubling was the city s re-
61r.with initild avenge rents in 16 five-hundrefl-dallar range..
126 WHOLE CITY SIEP 1 GET Till PARKING RIGHT 121
illegal. Instead of providing parking lots for their customers and
t7� is an ingenious law,because it is all Carrot and aria stick.Cities are
employee-,;, businesses pay in-lieu fees that help finance shared required to reduce each business's parking requirement by the,
city parking spaces located a few blocks away. This strategy has number of employees who cash out, thus placing no greater bur-
helped to create a unique collection of rriidblc)ck-courtyards and allcways, as kvell as onsurhig a maxinnirn amount of sidewalk den on the employer, while providing a great incentive for alter-
wactiity, since nobody arrives at their destination from rear. native transportation. On average, businesses that offered the
v
cas
Carmel is now one of dozens of American cities that handle, h-out uptiou saw their uumber of driving cornnititers drop by
dov;,ntown parking this way,including Orlando,Chapel Hill, and I I percent. In downtown Los Angeles,one employer saw its park-
Lake Forest, Illinois. In-lieu fees iri these cities typically range ing demand drop by 24 percent,36
from about semen to ten thousand dollars per space not provided, These-two strategies,in-lieu payments and parking cash-out,
which is roughly in line with the Cost Of bUildillg '.L space in an are a great start at &Coupling the cost of parking from all the
asphalt surface lot, In Beverly Hills,where land is more valuable other activities in which it has become imbedded—that is,
hidden—so that parking demand can once again behave accord-
and most parking is structured,developers pay over$20,000 per
ing to the prifldpleS of the free market. This concept of decou-
space. In the more lefty Carmel, it's 627,520.34 pling makes so much sense that one watild expect it to have
Wllclt'S Most interesting—and perhaps a bit frustratin — becorgi e commonplace, Instead, it is rare, because residents of
about this solution is that it does not address the parking supply places like Palo Alto fear that costly off-street parking will cause
directly. Even, one of these cities still has a downtoAvn parking bargain seekers to overwelm their precious curbside paTkin&
requirement, some quite high," But instead of providing park-
And they are correct in this fear,because most cities lack a corn-
ing, businesses are only required to pay for it, %vhich allows the prehensive parking policy that deals with off-street and on-street
parking to be located in the right place and,importantly,shared. parking together, Until this mandate is met, in-lie-ti payments
When parking is no longer the, exclusive property of an individ- and parking cash-out can serve as good transitional strategies
tial business,it becomes much more efficient.A space that serves toward a more ambitious goal, which is the elimination of off-
an office during the day can serve a restaurant in the evening street parking requireinenis entirely.
Wid,a resident overnight. So, by simultaneously setting parking Abolishing the oil'-street parking requirement is one of die
minimums and outlawing private parking lots, cities are able to three cornerstones of Shoup's theory,because it would allow the
indirectly reduce the amount of parking that has to be provided,
market to determine[tow fruicl,parking is needed. He notes that
-Eventually, as real life determines the number of shared spaces "TeMoving orf-street parking requirements will not eliminate off-
that are actually needed, a city can adjust its in-lieu fees down- street parking, but will instead stimulate an active commercial
ward. Or it can keep them steady and pocket the difference. market for it.""This would bring U.S, policy more in line with
For large employers,California has pioneered a second pow- that of Western Europe, Shoup describes the sit%tation as follows:
erful strategy for managing parking, called "parking cash-out,-
The California Health and Safety Code requires many busi- American cities put a floor tinder the parking supply to
riesses that offer free employee parking to give their workers the satisfy the peak demand for free parking, and then cap
option of trading that parking space for its cash equivalent. This development density to)unit vehicle trips. European cities,
170 WVKWE CITY STEP 3.- CIT THE P40KING RIGHT 129
in Contrast, often cap the number of parking spaces to A shady of Six (Werent urban sites found that roughly a third of
it-vcid congesting the roads and Combine this strategy all [raffle congestion was made ul) of people trying to And a
,vith t floor on allowed development density to encourage parking spot. In one Los Angeles neighborhood, "Iest-wood vil-
,,alkinar, cycling, arid public transport. That is, Arneri- lage,it was twice that amount—and between 1:00 and 2:00 p.m.,
0 an astounding 96 percent of cars on the road were circling for
cans require parking and limit density,while Europeans parking
require density an� lialit parking.38
Some version of dais condition exists in most American cit-
such a concept seems unlikely to win many followers On this.Side ies, In downtown Chicago,curbside parking costs one-thirtoenth
0 F the pond, but it is exactly what the free market creates all by as much as off-street parlij-ig,411 The 011teorne of t13jS market inef-
itself in Americds most walkable con-n-Rullities, In Manhattan, riciencyis not just congestion andall its attendantwees—pollution,
developers do not feel any need to provide parking for their apart- time wasted, slow emergency response—but also-reduced reve-
1 ore Dfisseldorf nue to area businesses.This counterintuitive fact can be supris
-
rnents, stores- arid offices, so the, oiatcoine is in ing to the businesses themselves, who routinely fight bitrteriy
thaTi Dallas- That outcome would be uniniaginabie with a park- against any effort to raise meter rates. Tbese inerchants forget
incr requirement in Place, Eliminating parking minitnuins sirtiply the origin of the parking meter, in Oklahoma City, as a tool to
:_1
allovvs developers to give their CuAolnerS what they want. But,as improve business revenue. Shoup quotes an American City re-
we Nvill discuss ahead,it is only politically viable when combined porter From 1937:
"ith a safety net that protects current residents' status quo.
Merchants and shoppers are both in favor of them,
When,one side of the street has them, merchants on the
THE PROBLEM WITH CHEAP CHROSIDE FARKIRG other side dernand them. When one town has them,the
Cheap and plentiful off-street part:inmerchants of nearby to,,N,ns demand them, showing that
g is only half the problem. 11
they draw out-of-town shoppers rather than driving them
The oilier half is what happens on the streets, and here. even
,N,e.,,york City gets it dead wrong. Because if curbside parking is
not priced properly, the resulting perversity of the overall park_ Why Nvere these first meters so popular? Because they reduced
inti regime creates vast inefficiencies that are costly for drivers
overcrowding and hassle, but also because they increased turn-
and nondrivers alike- ly over, ensuring more mist.oniers per hour. The result was more
Let's take Manhattan. Off-street parking is rough $15 for I sales and dramatically higher downtown property ValueS.42 Tile
the first.hour in most locations,while curbside parking"t's jest same calcidus holds true todiy, as UDderpriced curbside parking
s�, is it any wonder that the city's streets are choked with
J scares away potential customers who believe that there is no
double-parked, cars and people, hunting for P-Irkille Under- place to pa;k-,even as nearby parking lots sit half empty.As Shoup
priced curb parkin,-is no fairer thDLn -giving random discounts On
,Other njunicipal , electricity based upon mates,"If it Lakes only five ininutes to drive somewhere else,why
services like water or spend fifteen cruising for parkine""
,,vl-,,o circles tbe block the longest, and}List as counter productive,
130 VINMOLIE CITY STEP 3; Gil THE PARKM RIGHT 131
1 encountered just this condition in Lowell,where on-Street had beert wrong. Now the 1111111it ipal parking struchire is well
parking became, free at 6:00 p.m., while parking structures still used, the on-street parking and cruising are nailer control, the
charged adr-tission. The result was that residents corning'home businesses are. thriving, aar.1 [lie city receives over Half rniMun
(rout'A,.Ork),Vould rush into the parking spaces on restaurant raw, dollars a year in new parking revenue. most of it from toUriStS,46
leavirino room for the dinner crowd. In Venhira, Shoupista Mayor Bill Fulton introduced on-street
parking rales of-one dollar per hour. aiming toward 85 percent
occupancy4l In addition to being rna'vo r, Fulton is a city planner,
m RIG111 PRICE and his blog is worth following. on the momentous morning
of September 14, 9-010,he posted that",only 30 niinittes after we,
NkIiieb leads us to Shoup's,second koy recownwildation, 01.1t on- instituted the parking management proty�7'ra I in, it is %vork-ing."The
street parking be priced at a level that results in an 85 percent employee vehicles that had previously
all tirneS,44 This croWded the Curbs were
OcclipaTicy rate at number may seen, a bit low, happily stowed away i n nearby lots,411 Fulton went on to add:
but it corresponds With TOUglAV one. empty space per block face,
jus(the near the
, right j rnount to ensure Daddy Warbucks a spot Some shoppers have complained over the past few months
furrier. Because it is precisely the shoppers with dollars to Tare that parking at the mall is free,so why should they pay to
,who have the most to offer your Main street merchants. park downtown?The answer. . . is that you're paying for
in its most sophisticated form, this approach means (rile access to a few hundred premium spaces. . . .After all,
variable congestion pricing, ,vbicj-j Nve xvill discuss in a ininute. all the mall parking spaces are far away frorn the stores-
33ut for ma-ny cities, a perfectly adequate outcome can tie fil"010-than even the most remote free lot downtown. If
i1ellieved sin-tply by raising meter rates i notch, especially if-they it was possible to drive right inside the niall and park
et at zero.This was the case in bot-h Aspen in the
are currolitlY S in front of your favorite store, doWt you think the mall
nineties and, more recently, Ventura. California. would charge for that space.?And don't you think some
Shoup reports on how, by 1990, Aspen's downtown nl"-T- people whothink it's worth it"could pay the price? 9
chants were suffering fron, Overcrowded curbside parking. The
city reSponde(I J)y building;an expensive parking garag,,but that
e The city plans to adjust rates as necessary: il'parking use falls
structure sat haff empty as the parking crush continued. Finally, beloNv 80 percent, the prices \,oll be. lowered tintil occupancy
the city proposed charging one dollar per hour on-street, and ail ]tits the exalted 85,11'It's important to stress that the math works
hell broke loose.45 Both ways, ht Davenport, Iowa, the conabinat ion of free parking
Opponents, mostly local employees, innunted a noisy"Honk lots and curbside meters caused a gliost-town effect: nobody
if You Hate Paid Parking" campaign, This was quickly net by a parked at the curb, the place kelt dead, and drivois sped reck-
41onk if You Love Dirty Me' campaign, in reference to rogue lessly
along empty strects. Our planning team convinced the city
all the cruising and double parking that had became the harm. toreprice the on-street parking at zero,a regime that will remain
Paid parking .ventuac, lly prevailed and the new rates took effect in effect until scarcity sets in.That change immediately improved
in 1995. Almost immediately, the opponents realized that they activity downtowri. It also inade us some friends,but perhaps for
13Z VIALKABLE MY STEP 3: G11 THE PARKING RIGHT 133
the wrong reasons. Unfortunately, we were unable to stop the
Brice tag in short order, througli increased meter receipts. This
mayor frons decapitating a meter ,vitlk the jaws of Life. which
income is not the goal of the exercise, but it's nice to IQ-low it's
array have sent the misleading message of free parkingfiwever
Neither Aspen,Ventura,nor Davenport has been fully studied, there. Indeed,it is only because these systenis pay for thernselves
that we can expect them to catch on.
but the great investigation on sight-priced curb parking occurred
in contxal London in 19 65. It was fbi i nd that -I fol i rfold increase If there are no surprises in San Francisco, full-fledged
congest iort-pr iced parking is something that many cities will
in parking price shortened the averag r C want to try But, given its novelty and significant start-up cast,
park-a i [-��isit time by 66
Percent. vastly increasing turnover for merchants. The average sunaller cities may elect not to spend millions chasing perfection,
time spent searching for parking dropped front 6.1 minutes per when good enough is close at hand, A simple repricing of down-
trip to;a mere 62 seconds.-" town spaces and parking lots may solve 90 percent of most cities'
For a twenty-first-century version,we turn to San Francisco, parking problerns. That said, since the start-tip costs are easily
which, thanks to Shoup,has recently introduced -,I true conges-
bondable and the potential income so great, opting out of a full-
tion-pricin,cs regime;. For seven thousand spaces in eight key fledged congestion-prising regime could turn out to be pound-
neighborhoods-25 percent of the city's metered parking—prices foolish choice.
are being adjusted block by block and hour by hmir to achieve. a
goal of SO percent maximum occupancy.*This means rates rang-
ing from as tittle as twenty-five,cents to as much as six dollars per
hour. The system also includes the fourteen city-ow ued garages A TALE OF TWO CITIES
in the pilot area, as it must, since their pricing needs to be soar- As if we weren't convinced, Shoup has a final morality lesson to
dinated if drivers are to make wise choices. As you might expect, teach, and that is the story of(lie two Southern California shop-
this being San Francisco,the,project is fully supported by online ping districts of Old Pasadena and Westwood Village. In the late,
real-tiinc data, including a smartphone app that tells you how eighties, these two downtowns were fairly similar. They were
majiy spaces are available on any given street, and how much roughly the serine size, both were in historic sections of larger cit-
they cost.s'-The sfpark.orgwebsite is really quite it marvel.
ies(Pasadena and Loskngeles),and both had the staii-dard collec-
Suet, a parking systern, which includes thousands of newly tion of review boards and business-improvement districts. Both
embedded car sensors, does not come cheap. It was supported had limited on-street parking and ample off-street parking. Both
largely by -1 $20 ariltion US. Department of Transportation were challengml.economically, but by no means in trouble. If any-
gran t5l—one wonders what it would have cost without federal thing,Westwood Village was in better shape,as itwas surrounded
funding—and we will soon bow how well it works. if it performs by both a higher density of housing and a wealthier customer
anywhere near as well as expected, it will earn back its huge base. In fact,Shoup describes how residents of Pasadena used to
drive hventy minutes in order to shop in Westwood Village.,54
'The current SFPark on-street pricing policy(as of April 11.2010amuses prices In rise Then,in the earty nineties, the two districts went in dramati-
(or faIl whenever oc'c"Par0c), rises ahove 90 percent or helm 60 permtht. Wby diene sally different directions. While both were struggling with over-
numberg,are below Shotip's&5 percent is nut explained. crowded on-street parking, only Old Pasadena raised its parking
134 'NALKABLE CITY STEP 3: UI THE PARKING 011111 135
rates. installing 690 new meters. While both maintained a con- rule, still
I in force, effectively arriounts to a requirement for ex-
" ntional off-street parking rcquirement, only Old Pasadena al- pensive parking decks where there is already an oversupply of
lowed in-lieu fees, so that developers could pay cash in support off-street parking,
of mimicipal lots rather than build additional parking then-i- Westwood's ineptitude calls attention to the fact that park-
sebves.' iDg decisions are never made in a vacuum and Political pressures
What happened over the next decade was as shocking in re- from an uninformed public can often sway the outcome,Indeed,
atity as it was predictable in theory, Old Pasadena staged a bril- in Old Pasadena, things almost went tile. OtheT way. When the
liant revival,while Westwood Village entered a steady economic city first proposed installing natters, it was fought vehemently by
decline that continues to this day. Now residents of Westwood do`nto'�%m merchants,Who were convinced that they would lose
drive to Old Pasadena to shop.'Xestwood's curbs are crumbling, all their business to the mall-This battle dragged on for two years
while the sidewalks of Old Pasadena boast new tree grates,fancy before a compromise was reached."`' interestingly, it was this
lighting, and street furniture. Not only does each parking meter COTTIPMMise that gave the new parking regime what may be its
in Pasadena generate an average of$312 in annual revenue for most powerful feature,
the citk;but sales tax receipts are way up. Indeed,the city's sales-
tax re,�vnue tripled in the first six years after the meters were
installed." WHAT SNUB WE 00 WITH ALL BIS MUMEY?
While it is always easy to park in Old Pasadena, the average
shopper in Westwood Village circles for 8.3 ininutesbefore either The final bone that the city threw to its reluctant merchants was
finding a spot or giving tip, Shoup delights in telling i is how "Fest- this: all the net revenue from the parking meters would pay for-
wood cruisers cumulatively log a total of 426 vehicle hours per physical i rnprovements and rievv pizblic sen'ices in Old Pasadena.
day,covering more distance than a trip across the United States. And why 1100 This was free money
, over a million dollars a year,
Over a wear,this adds np to thirty-eight trips around the globe.-7 and it was easy to identify where it was corniag from. It wasn't
In the interest of telling the whsle story,it is worth spending like anybody else deserved it,
another minute describing exactly how bonebeaded Westwood This creative leap leads us to Shoup's third cornerstone, the
Village was, Faced with the perception that a parking shortage institution of"parking benefit districts" that put meter revenues
was to blame for their economic woes, community leaders re- to work locally!"In addition to improving sidewalks,trees, light-
sponded by cutting the price of on-street parking in half. ("Adam ing,and street furniture, these districts can bury overhead wires,
sillitL please call your office!") Mcanwhfle, the city continued to renovate storefronts, hire public service officers, and of course
enforce its draconian off-street "rePlacenieni parking" require- keep everything Spic-and-span. They can also construct the,pub-
nienL, which effectively made redevelopment impossible. Even lic parking lots a block away that serve employees and shopper
though the %,rillage's vast supply of asphalt parking lots typically overflow. In Pasadena, ineter revenues even paid for converting
held 1,2950 unused spaces at peak how`, any developers who a collection of run-drawn rear alleys into an intricate network of
v-anted to build on these lots Nvere required to both ineet their Pedestrian spaces.61
parking quota and replace half of the removed spaces."' This Since most of the Parkers are from out of town and pricing is
1A .11ALUBLE CITY STEP 3: GET HE PAMMUC RIM 137
hased on what they are willing to pay,there are few losers in this policy, was a parking plan, and such &comprehensive plan is ul-
bargain, as Iona, as employees can rind parking within a reason- timately what every"over-parked" place in Anierica needs,This
able n Flan must include an-street pricing, Off-street pricing, in-lieu
- walking distance. As Shoup puts it, "If nonresidents pay for
curb parking, and the city spends its money to benefit the resi- payments supporting a collective supply,parldng benefit districts,
dents, charging for curb parking can become a popular policy and residential permits where needed. Above all, it must he
rather than the political third rail it often is todaV."62 managed comprehensively wit], an eye toward community suc-
This is true enough for retail areas, but what about princi- cess, not just meter revenue. Parking is a public good,and it must
Fall%7 Te-Sidential streets that have become overcrowded? What be managed for the public good. Such management takes fall,
about the residents of Palo Alto wlio,fearing competition for on- advantage of the free market but—this is important—it is not
street the free marke The single largest land use in every American
spaces, fought against reduced off-street parking require- t,64
ments? The third rail that threatens to kill Shoups two main cil),is very much that city's business.
proposals is not about where the money goes, but about the fact
that it is just so hard to take away anybody's free anything. This
is the reason that on-street parking remains free of charge in A BARGAIN V $1,2 BILLION
aitch of York City, of all places.
Shoup is not ignorant of this fact, quoting GeorgB Costanza's Su, if parking is a public good,why did Mayor Richard M. Daley
im-nous rant: 'Aly father didn't pay for parling, my mother, my sell it off? This is a question many of us asked when the other-
brother,nobody-, It's like going to a prostitute. N%y should I pay wise heroic Daley presided over the lease of Chicago's thirty-six
when, if I apply myself, maybe I can get it for free.-I It is one thousand meters to Morgan Stanley for the next seventy-five
thing :o pnt parking meters in front of a bunch of stores and quite years. The answer probably lies in the date—December '2008,
another to put them on a street of houses. That is why, where the depths of the city's financial crisis—and the price tag—
theory ineets reality, ,ve may need to bend the rules a little,by $1,200,000,0005
using residential parking pennits. These, tot.), can be priced at This $1.2 billion tells us a number of things. One of thein is
market value for maximurn efficiency, but they must sorfictinies that$20 million for a congestion-pricing regime in San Francisco
be deployed at a low cost to win over residents who stand in [lie is chump change.Another is that there is obviously a lot of money
wa,,, of a larger public henefit, like keeping affordable housing in privately managed parking, and, that as Chicago goes, so may
af'f'ordable. And, you didn't bear it from ine, but once residents go the nation. As of this writing, New Haven is one of several
get iised to the idea of paying for a.coveted parking pass—even cash-strapperl cities working toward a deal. Many have already
just a "processing [ie" of twenty bucks a year—you would be privatized their public garages.
surprised how quickly they are willing to pay considerably more. UnsurpTisingly, Chicagds sale brought with it a dramatic
Not having been involved in the Palo Alto fiasco,I am reluc- hike, in on-street parking rates. Neighborhood spots previously
tant to suggest that there was an easy solution.but it is likely that available at 25 cents an hour are on their way up to$2,00. Prices
a properly managed parking pass proposal might have, turned inside the Loop,already high,will more than double.to$6.50 an
the tide. What was certainty missing, among all the parking botir.61"
US WALKABLE WY
jj� the short term,this strategy coldd perhaps be described
as the.wrong path to the right result. Greedy investors are pull-
ill- ofl,�,Iiat the city couldn't do, which is to bring the Price Of
I parking in line with its value. As demand falls closer to
V I , STEP 4: LET TRANSITw nRK
SApply, sljoLlp-s s5 percent ideal may be achieved. But who's to
s there: As any purveyor of private parking lots will
a%, it will stop tl Where America sits, it's rite neighborhoods,stupid;Don't iness
I
tell you, an 85 percent–occupied lot at ten dollars a pop is less ivith Duflai;The other kind of transit, What streetcars do,Ty-fl."Nif
profitable than a half-empty lot at twenty dollars—and few
d for drivers;Trains mrs us buses;zilk it if you can
parking-IoL owners have a citywide. monopoly. Morgan Stanley
maxin-Lizing its return ou the street does not necessarily bear any
relationship to the city getting the most out of its parking in
terms of A the other things that parking affects, i-acluding driv- if I had to pick one word, that best describes why good public
ers speed. retail profitabflity,and property values.
That's the scary part. The more practical frustration brought transportation is a vital part of waIkable cities,it would be tlds:
on by the Chicago sale concerns our larger discussion about dating,When I lived in Miami in my thirties,it would have been
neighborhood parking as a carnprehenshe system. Communities possible for me to live, work, and play all in the same neighbor-
can only he their best if on-street parking, off-street parking, hood. That neighborhood could have been South Beach, Cow-
parking.permits, and parking regulations are all managed col- nut Grove, downtown Coral Gables, or a few other walkable
lectively. in the, past, this has hardly ever happened, but things places. But I Nvas single and looking to meet someone, and I
are beginRiDg to change. Places like, Old Pasadena are showing wasn't willing to limit the gene pool to a neighborhood the size
us t4at well-managed parking is both possible and profitable. of a small town when an entire eityvvas theoretically at my dis-
The Shoupistas are ready for their day in the, sun. It Would bta a posal. Given the.sorry state of public transit in Miami,this meant
pity jtV if, oil the cusp of this parking revolution, cities were to sell buying a car.
away to the highest bidder their ability to make use Of this Pow- I wasn't the only one. Put in moi-e universal terms, it could
be said that people who live in a city want to have access to ev-
erything that city has to offer. If the vast majority of those things
cannot be reached conveniently via transit,then people of means
buy cars and you end tip with a driving city. AS the city grows,it
grows around the car. Its neighborhood structure. dissolves and
its sheets widen. Walking becomes less useful or pleasant and,
soon,less likely or even imaginable.
This relationship between transit and walking is borne out
by the data, which clearly show that American cities with larger
numbers of rail and bus commuters also have more pedestrian
Agenda Item 7
10/5/16 Downtown Project Updates
1. Main at Fanno project
Hearings Officer approved land use for building footprint.
Building has been vacated. Relocations payments made for Drive Axle.
Development code to return to 80 foot height limit on Main Street to go to Planning
Commission on October 17.
ODOT surplus process underway for ROW behind the property.
Analysis of Brownfields Cleanup Alternatives public comment to start in October.
RFP for demolition/cleanup in November/December
2. Tigard Transit Center/Nicoli redevelopment study(Metro CET grant)
Transit Center Reconfiguration Options report completed.
Two site alternatives agreed on, final attentive to be determined.
Kick-off meeting for market study/building concepts.
3. Parking management
Mailers communicated parking policies with downtown stakeholders
4. Developer recruitment
Working on draft RFP for developers for Main at Fanno property.
Toured Main at Fanno property with prospective developer
5. Ash/Burnham Redevelopment
Construction continues. Building 2 estimated completion- November 2016, Building 1
estimated completion- March 2017
6. Tigard Street Heritage Trail
Connect Oregon VI grant application funded for$700,000.
RFP for design to go out next month
7. Fanno Creek Park Improvements
CWS design, engineering begins July 2016. Project completion summer 2018
8. Community Engagement
Main at Fanno meeting held on October 5