2017-098546 ~ ORDINANCE NO. 16-25 Washington County,Oregon 2017-098546
D-ORD
stn=2 S AKINS 12/18/2017 11:52:46 AM
$305.00$11.00$5.00$20.00 $341M0
I,Richard Hobernicht,Director of Assessment and Taxation and Ex-
Officio County Clerk for Washington County,Oregon,do hereby
certify that the within instrument of writing was received and
recorded in the book of records of said county.
Richard Hobernicht,Director of
Assessment and Taxation,Ex-Officio
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL
ORDINANCE NO. 16-a5"
AN ORDINANCE MAKING CERTAIN DETERMINATIONS AND FINDINGS RELATING TO
AND APPROVING THE TIGARD CITY CENTER URBAN RENEWAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND
DIRECTING THAT NOTICE OF APPROVAL BE PUBLISHED
WHEREAS, the Tigard City Center Development Agency (the "Agency"), as the duly authorized and acting
urban renewal agency of the City of Tigard, Oregon,is proposing to undertake certain urban renewal activities
in a designated area within the City pursuant to ORS Chapter 457;and
WHEREAS, the Agency,pursuant to the requirements of ORS Chapter 457,has caused the preparation of the
Tigard City Center Urban Renewal Plan Amendment attached hereto as Exhibit A (the "Plan Amendment").
The Plan Amendment authorizes certain urban renewal activities within the Tigard City Center Urban Renewal
Area (the"Area");and
WHEREAS, the Agency has caused the preparation of a certain Urban Renewal Report dated December 13,
2016, attached hereto as Exhibit B (the"Report") to accompany the Plan Amendment as required under ORS
457.085(3);and
WHEREAS, the Agency forwarded the Plan Amendment and Report to the City's Planning Commission (the
"Commission") for review and recommendation. The Commission considered the Plan Amendment and
Report on November 14, 2016 and made a recommendation that the Plan Amendment conformed with the
Tigard Comprehensive Plan,attached hereto as Exhibit C (the"Planning Commission Minutes");and
WHEREAS, on October 18, 2016, representatives of the City met with the Washington County Board of
Commissioners to review the Plan Amendment, including proposed maximum indebtedness for the Plan
Amendment;and
WHEREAS,the Plan Amendment and the Report were forwarded on October 5,2016 to the governing body
of each taxing district affected by the Plan Amendment, and the Agency has therefore consulted and conferred
with each taxing district;and
WHEREAS,the Tigard City Council (the"City Council")has not received written recommendations from the
governing bodies of the affected taxing districts;and
WHEREAS,on November 29,2016 the City caused notice of the hearing to be held before the Council on the
Plan Amendment,including the required statements of ORS 457.120(3),to be mailed to registered voters within
Tigard's incorporated limits;and
WHEREAS, on December 13, 2016 the City Council held a public hearing to review and consider the Plan
Amendment, the Report, the recommendation of the Tigard Planning Commission, and the public testimony
received on or before that date and to receive additional public testimony; and
WHEREAS, after consideration of the record presented through this date, the City Council does by this
Ordinance desire to approve the Plan Amendment.
NOW,THEREFORE,THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
ORDINANCE No. 16-
Page 1
SECTION 1: The Plan Amendment complies with all requirements of ORS Chapter 457 and the specific
criteria of 457.095(1) through(7),in that,based on the information provided in the Report,
the Planning Commission Recommendation, and the public testimony before the City
Council:
1. The process for the adoption of the Plan Amendment, has been conducted in
accordance with the provisions of Chapter 457 of the Oregon Revised Statutes;
2. The area designated in the Plan Amendment as the Tigard City Center Urban Renewal
Area is blighted,as defined by ORS 457.010(1) and is eligible for inclusion within the Plan
Amendment because of conditions described in the Report in the Section "Rxisting
Physical, Social, and Economic Conditions and Impacts on Municipal Services",includym
the existence of inadequate streets,trails, sidewalks,parks,and utilities,and a prevalence of
depreciated values resulting from underdevelopment and underutilization of property
within the Area (ORS 457.010(1)(e)and(g);
3. The rehabilitation and redevelopment described in the Plan Amendment to be
undertaken by the Agency is necessary to protect the public health,safety or welfare of the
City because absent the completion of urban renewal projects, the Area will fail to
contribute its fair share of property tax revenues to support City services and will fail to
develop and/or redevelop according the goals of the City's Comprehensive Plan;
4. The Plan Amendment conforms to the Tigard Comprehensive Plan and documented
ancillary documents and provides an outline for accomplishing the projects described in the
Plan Amendment, as more fully described in the Plan Amendment and in the Planning
Commission recommendation;
5. No residential displacement will occur as a result of the acquisition and disposition of
land and redevelopment activities proposed in the Plan Amendment and therefore the Plan
Amendment does not include provisions to house displaced persons;
6. The acquisition of real property provided in the Plan,including real property in the area
that is the subject of this Plan Amendment, is necessary for the development of
transportation-related infrastructure improvements in the Area and for the development of
public spaces because the Agency does not own all the real property interests (e.g.,rights-
of-way, easements, fee ownership, etc.) that will be required to undertake and complete
these projects as described in Chapter IV of the Plan Amendment and Section V of the
Report;and
7. Adoption and carrying out the Plan Amendment is economically sound and feasible in
that eligible projects and activities will be funded by urban renewal tax revenues derived
from a division of taxes pursuant to section lc,Article IX of the Oregon Constitution and
ORS 457.440 and other available funding as more fully described in the Sections V,
and VIII of the Report
8. The City shall assume and complete any activities prescribed it by the Plan Amendment;
and
9. The Agency consulted and conferred with affected overlapping taxing districts prior to
the Plan Amendment being forwarded to the City Council.
ORDINANCE No. 16-
Page 2
SECTION 2: The Tigard Urban Renewal Plan Amendment is hereby approved based upon review and
consideration by the Tigard City Council of the Plan Amendment and Report, the Tigard
Planning Commission recommendations,each of which is hereby accepted,and the public
testimony in the record.
SECTION 3: The City Manager shall forward forthwith to the Agency a copy of this Ordinance.
SECTION 4: The Agency shall thereafter cause a copy of the Plan Amendment to be recorded in the
Records of Washington County,Oregon.
SECTION 5: The City Manager,in accordance with ORS 457.115,shall publish notice of the adoption of
the Ordinance approving the Plan Amendment including the provisions of ORS 457.135,in
the Tigard Times no later than four days following adoption of this Ordinance.
SECTION 6: This ordinance shall be effective upon certification by the County Elections Official that it
has received voter approval at an election conducted on M I (o ,2017.
PASSED: By Luta n 1 h 13 5 vote of all council members present after being read by number
and title only,this 13 tiday of -DeCAt C X ,2016.
Kelly/Burgo Deputy R order
APPROVED: By Tigard City Council this t31ii day of DeC-eryt b e-r' ,2016.
John a 'ook,Mayor
Approved as to form:
6<',c
City Attorney 1J
)2,1i5f/G
Date
ORDINANCE No. 16-
Page 3
Attachment A
Proposed new text is shown in double-underline.
Deleted text is shown in trikcthrough.
Explanatory language shown in italics.
CITY CENTER URBAN RENEWAL PLAN
Only changes shown, current plan can be viewed at:
IM://www.tigard-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.
IV. MAP AND LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF CITY CENTER URBAN RENEWAL AREA
FIGURE 1. SHOWS THE URBAN RENEWAL AREA BOUNDARIES.
EXHIBIT A. IS A LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE AREA.
` mss/
POINT OF BEGINNING-N. ill • ...
s.
AL
4 0:// 'ti= ....,
/ , atf Jr
i
4111
,,
v
r
f
s �ti
A
at
t „
\,L'y;_
ti,
Is �. \.
FIGURE 1.
EXHIBIT A
CITY CENTER URBAN RENEWAL AREA
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
A tract of land in Section 35 Township 1 South,Range 1 West and Sections 1 and 2 Township 2
South, Range 1 West Willamette Meridian City of Tigard, Washington County,Oregon.
Described as follows:
Beginning at the intersection of the southerly right-of-way of SW Greenburg Road with the
southeast line of the John L. Hinklin DLC;thence N 07°41' 55" W a distance of 100.77 feet to
the north right-of-way of SW Greenburg Road;thence N 10° 32' 02" E a distance of 419.98 feet;
thence S 88° 04' 51"E a distance of 168.91 feet;thence N 46° 34' 35"E a distance of 73.95 feet;
thence S 85° 47' 11 E a distance of 190.07 feet; S 02° 45' 30" W a distance of 72.32 feet;thence
N 75° 18' 06"E a distance of 36.45 feet;thence N 46° 48' 53"E a distance of 173.62 feet;
thence N 64° 02" 12"E a distance of 177.40 feet to the westerly right-of-way of SW Hall Blvd.;
thence N 36° 35' 04"E a distance of 83.84 feet to the easterly right-of-way of SW Hall Blvd.;
thence N 64° 31' 19"E a distance of 148.06 feet; thence S 26° 03' 02"E a distance of 160.00
feet;thence N 64° 17' 30"E 148.04 feet to the southerly right-of-way of Highway 217;thence S
35° 21' 18" E, along said highway, a distance of 171.44 feet;thence S 42° 33' 04"E,along said
right-of-way, a distance of 99.48 feet; thence S 26° 55' 45"E, along said right-of-way, a distance
of 225.54 feet to the northerly right of way of Highway 99 W;thence S 33° 05' 43"E,to the
southerly right-of-way of Highway 99 W and the west line of Highway 217 a distance of 127.63
feet;thence S 18° 46' 14"E, along said right-of-way, a distance of 157.53 feet; thence N 79°
41' 28"E, along said right-of-way, a distance of 57.29 feet to an angle point on an offset spiral
curve; thence along said right-of-way, S 33° 44' 44"E a distance of 221.73 feet(spiral curve
chord);thence S 52° 02' 57"E. along said right-of-way, a distance of 315.25 feet; thence S 41°
09' 43"E, along said right-of-way,a distance of 302.54 feet;thence S 33° 34' 36"E, along said
right-of-way, a distance of 703.90 feet to the north line of the Wm. Graham D.L.C. and the
southeast corner of Lot 2 Crow Park 217;thence N 81° 39' 34"W,along the south line of Crow
Park 217,a distance of 963.07 feet to the northwest corner of said Wm. Graham D.L.C.and an
angle point in said Lot 2; thence N 79° 02' 14" W,along said south line of Crow Park 217, a
distance of 506.40 feet to the northeast corner of Lot 1 Knoll Acres; thence S 00° 42' 32"W,
along the easterly line of Lots 1,2,3, &4 Knoll Acres, a distance of 407.90 feet to the northeast
corner of Lot 5 Knoll Acres;thence S 30° 16' 07" W, along the easterly line of said Lot 5, a
distance of 149.08 feet to the northerly right-of-way of SW Hunziker Street;thence S 48°40'
12" W a distance of 85.64 feet to the intersection of the southerly right-of-way of SW Hunziker
Street with the easterly right-of-way of SW Hall Blvd.; thence N89°25' 34"E, along the
southerly right-of-way of SW Hunziker Street,27.85 feet to an angle point;thence S 59° 29' 34"
E a distance of 261.39 feet to the west line of Deed Doc.No. 89-14950, Washington County
Deed Records(as depicted on SN 25,383);thence S 30° 30' 24" W,along last said west line a
distance of 216.56 feet; thence N 59°28' 54" W a distance of 120.00 feet; thence N 30° 27' 59"
E a distance of 100.00 feet;thence N 59°29' 34" W a distance of 133.60 feet; thence N 89° 17'
28" W a distance of 24.63 feet to the center line of SW Hall Blvd;thence along the center line of
SW Hall Blvd. the following nine (9) courses;thence S 00°42' 32" W a distance of 35.34 feet to
a point of curve of a curve to the right;thence along said curve to the right with a radius of
163.70 feet, a central angle of 44° 01' 33" (a chord which bears S 22°43' 19"W, 122.71 feet)
and a length of 125.79 feet to a point of tangency;thence S 44°44' 05"W a distance of 455.02
feet to a point of curve of a curve to the left;thence along said curve to the left with a radius of
179.05 feet, a central angle of 42° 08' 24"(a chord which bears S 23° 39' 53" W, 128.74 feet)
and a length of 131.69 feet to a point of tangency; thence S 02° 35' 41"W a distance of 510.56
feet to a point of curve of a curve to the left;thence along said curve to the left with a radius of
190.99 feet, a central angle of 40° 59' 58"(a chord which bears S 17° 54' 18"E, 133.77 feet)
and a length of 136.67 feet to a point of tangency; thence S 38°24' 17"E a distance of 62.89 feet
to a point of curve of a curve to the right;thence along said curve to the right with a radius of
190.99 feet,a central angle of 40° 07' 28"(a chord which bears S 18° 20' 33"W, 131.03 feet)
and a length of 133.75 feet to a point of tangency; thence S 01° 43' 11" W a distance of 704.79
feet;thence N 88° 16' 45"W a distance of 35.01 feet to the northeast corner of Parcel 1 Partition
Plat 1992-069 on the westerly right-of-way of SW Hall Blvd;thence along the northerly and
westerly lines of said Partition Plat the following 7 courses; thence N 19° 59' 47" W a distance
of 36.96 feet;thence N 77° 33' 03" W a distance of 39.55 feet; thence N 68° 35' 31" W a
distance of 63.16 feet;thence S 89° 17' 05" W a distance of 56.25 feet; thence N 81° 13' 33" W
a distance of 92.73 feet; thence S 36° 40' 28" W a distance of 116.84 feet;thence S 57° 58' 03"
W a distance of 43.20 feet;thence N 77° 47' 58" W a distance of 110.95 feet;thence S 02° 30'
20"W a distance of 422.27 feet to the northerly right-of-way of SW Omara Street;thence N 87°
45' 14" W, along the northerly right-of-way, a distance of 19.65 feet; thence S 03° 57' 44"W,
along the westerly right-of-way of SW Omara Street a distance of 24.61 feet and a point on a
non-tangent curve to the right;thence along said curve to the right with a radius of 145.90, a
central angle of 67° 12' 06" (a chord which bears N 28° 27' 10"W, 161.48 feet) and a length of
171.12 feet to a point of tangency;thence N 05° 09'15"E a distance of 10.48 feet;thence N 87°
56' 13" W a distance of 189.71 feet to the west line of Chelsea Hill; thence N 05° 09' 16"E,
along the easterly line of Chelsea Hill a distance of 219.78 feet to the northeast corner of Lot 10
Chelsea Hill; thence N 64°24' 41" W, along the northerly line of said Lot 10, a distance of 74.22
feet to the northwest corner of said Lot 10;thence S 49° 33' 17" W, along the westerly line of
said Lot 10, a distance of 89.36 feet to the south west corner of said Lot 10 and a point on a non-
tangent curve to the left;thence along said curve to the left with a radius of 140.02, a central
angle of 73° 14' 45"(a chord which bears N 77° 04' 28"W, 167.06 feet)and a length of 179.00
feet to the southeast corner of Lot 27 Chelsea Hill;thence N 60° 54' 15" W, along the easterly
line of said Lot 27, a distance of 149.70 feet to the northeast corner; thence S 76°32' 45" W,
along the northerly line of Lots 27 and 28 Chelsea Hill, a distance of 90.00 feet to the northwest
corner of said Lot 27 being on the northerly line of Chelsea Hill No. 2;thence N 41°41' 53"W a
distance of 365.61 feet to the southeasterly line of Duck Creek Homes;thence along the
southeasterly and the northeasterly line of Duck Creek Homes the following 5 courses;thence N
44°27' 43"E a distance of 50.76 feet;thence N 25° 06' 01"W a distance of 73.15 feet;thence N
05° 03' 58"E a distance of 40.00 feet;thence N 66° 13' 57"E a distance of 18.50 feet;thence N
42° 08' 14"W a distance of 112.77 feet to the northwest corner of Duck Creek Homes;thence N
44°27' 43"E a distance of 20.57 feet;thence N 45° 36' 55"W a distance of 359.09 feet to the
northwesterly right-of-way of SW Ash Avenue;thence S 44°27' 43"W, along said
northwesterly right-of-way of SW Ash Avenue, a distance of 258.18 feet to the southwest line of
Lot 9 Burnham Tract;thence N 42° 08' 14" W a distance of 380.48 feet to the most westerly
corner of said Lot 9;thence N 50°24' 52"E, along the northwest line of said Lot 9,a distance of
143.90 feet; thence N 42° 59' 15"W a distance of 821.63 feet,more or less,to the southeasterly
right-of-way of SW Main Street, being a point on a non-tangent curve to the right;thence along
said curve to the right with a radius of 1,870.00 feet,a central angle of 6° 35' 46" (a chord which
bears N 55° 58' 35"E,215.15 feet) and a length of 215.28 feet;thence N 59° 16' 28"E,along
said southeasterly right-of-way, a distance of 202.32 feet to a point of non-tangent curve to the
left;thence along said right-of-way and said curve to the left with a radius of 180.29 feet, a
central angle of 19° 44' 52"(a chord which bears N 78° 43' 27"E, 61.83 feet) and a length of
62.14 feet;thence N 52° 43' 34"W a distance of 231.87 feet to the intersection point of the
northwesterly right-of-way of HWY 99 W with the northerly right-of-way of SW Johnson Street;
thence N 55°27' 12"W, along said northerly right-of-way of SW Johnson Street, a distance of
219.79 feet to the northwest line of Lot 53,Amended Plat of North Tigardville Addition; thence
N 42° 05' 45"E, along said northwest line of Lot 53, a distance of 645.17 feet to the westerly
line of a Greenway Dedication as per Document No. 92014958, Washington County Deed
Records; thence along said westerly line of Greenway Dedication the following four courses;
thence S 32° 56' 44"E a distance of 40.58 feet;thence S 03° 52' 52" E a distance of 85.60 feet;
thence S 0° 32' 56"E a distance of 59.64 feet; and thence S 07°33' 33"E a distance of 151.19
feet to the northwesterly right-of-way of HWY 99 W; thence along said northwesterly right-of-
vt ay of HWY 99 W the following 5 courses;thence N 44° 08' 14"E a distance of 48.33 feet;
thence N 07° 33' 33"W a distance of 27.78 feet;thence N 46° 23' 16"E a distance of 366.71
feet; thence N 49° 49' 08"E a distance of 29.37 feet; thence N 51° 23' 28"E a distance of
295.46 feet to the southerly right-of-way of SW Tigard Street;thence N 62° 37' 00" W, along
the southerly right of way of SW Tigard Street, a distance of 20.82 feet;thence N 46° 55' 01" E,
along the southerly right of way of SW Tigard Street, a distance of 11.00 feet to a point 20.00
feet south of the center line of SW Tigard Street;thence N 49° 55' 59" W, parallel with and
20.00 feet from the center line of SW Tigard Street(when measured at right angles), a distance of
99.33 feet;thence N 62° 33' 24" W,parallel with and 20.00 feet from the center line of SW
Tigard Street(when measured at right angles), a distance of 820.72 feet to a point at the
extension of the westerly right-of-way;thence N 36° 24' 01"E a distance of 240.58 feet to the
point of intersection of the northerly right-of-way of SW Commercial Street, 30.00 feet from the
center line of SW Commercial Street(when measured at right angles), with the extension of the
westerly right-of-way of SW 95th Ave;thence S 62° 32' 35"E,parallel with and 30.00 feet from
the centerline of SW Commercial Street(when measured at right angles), a distance of 594.81
feet to the east right-of-way of SW Lincoln Avenue to a point on a curve to the left; thence along
said curve to the left with a radius of 9.49 feet,a central angle of 100° 21' 02"(a chord which
bears S 14° 53' 25"E, 14.57 feet; and a length of 16.61 feet to the northerly right-of-way of SW
Commercial Street;thence S 61°24' 10"E, along said northerly right-of-way, a distance of
187.19 feet; thence S 55° 11' 17" E, along said northerly right-of-way, a distance of 54.14 feet;
thence S 51°43' 30"E, along said northerly right-of-way, a distance of 153.60 feet to the
southeast line of the John L. Hinklin DLC; thence N 46° 44' 38"E,along said Hinklin DLC line,
a distance of 1204.91 feet to point of beginning.
Total area equals 231 acres,more or less.
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)
Policy 3.4.2
The-City Shall:
Policy 3.5.1
reseurces.
Policy 3.5.3
!.
.
• . �
Policy 3.5.1
City.
Policy 3.7.1
NATURAL RESOURCES AND HISTORIC AREAS.
Goal 11:Protect_natural resources and the environmental and ecological functions they
. '
I III I t ".44.'•'I " Y / ' r '. . t ' I I 't. ' r ,. i . r. Irr '
yystems and high levels.aindiversit.v -
'/ ' • I- •1 IA . f ' .!./, ♦ ' 'of 'I/ I . -. III II/' I.
extent feasible on public and private lands.
Goal 5.2:Promote the preservation and protection of historically and culturally significant
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.
Policy 5.1
gr-ewtli-ef-the4esal jab-market,
Policy 5.3
- - .
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Goal 9.1:Develop and maintain a strong,diversified,and__sustainable local economy.
Policy 1• Ciy shall establish strategies to retain a d encourage the owth existing
businesses.
Poli y S• The City ch l,promote well-designed and efcient development and rec'evelo ment
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
pedestrian/bicycle 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.
P �
HOUSING
Goal 10.1:Provide o i nortunities for a variety of housin• typed to meet the diverse housin•
needs of current andfutureCity residents.
Policy.1: The City shall adopt and maintain land use policies. codes.and standards that
• • ••- I•/• ( • • !• • •• ! •"'•• • is . •i• III' /I ••" or• -r-,,
!,(! •!.(_i! !•••' •j•_ • '•![ ! ' ! • •t !L! . , • • ,!•,
Poli 5:The City shall provide for high and medi densi housing in areas,such as
centers Downtown), regional center (Washington Square), and along transit corridors
where emp,k2yment opportunities, commercial services transit,and other public services
t- • !r • _•,sir t'••L•••. !. '!i !•i •s• ! - •• I' • •r • ! -! •r .i •'
future.
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.
Policy 4 t l
z-vsivTcn-r
pede 'iflit-route .
Policy 8,1.2
modes)-13y:
. . - -
.
. . � ~
.
. ^ , •
.
^�.. . .\'
.�^...^.�..
...^^ ' �, _ . .
. �
~.. . . . . . 4P. � „ � •
` /,: ° �
~ � . , . .
. 4;.t 40 � . .. � . .. . .''.IP� . � .
•• 40 •. ° . .. . •40 •••• .� ^ •• ~ . ^ �41 .' . � : .-
/ ^. ~ CO `. ` '
' ` ' r ^' " ' � ' '• ~
.• . . ^ ~ .~
.
. ., � . ~ . ~ , •' ^ ^ . . 4P . .
.040 /;'; •'^. , . ` ^ . ! �� � � •
�' •' '^ � � ~ ^^^ . . ' :
' 46 � .^ . ~. �' 41 ., 41 . .
40 ^ . ^ ' \ � ^ ' � ~ •• ^ �. . � ' ..�� . � , , : ••' ^ •
~ ^ '
' ^ '� � ,
� ^ .• 44 � , . . . _ •.. ., . .
. � ~ . . .
. ; � . I .. .. . . . . . � . •
. .' . •. ~ '.. ` ' .• ^
~ ^ � .^ ~ '
' . .„ : . ' ' ~
~ ' ' . : n ' ' ~
. . ••` •• ' ~ .
•• . � . . . ~
41 ••• ..~ • . � . . . ~. . � ~ . ^ �
. , , � . ~
. ^ .^ .. . . . ~ , 1 . �
�� ~ . ' �' ' � ~ '4
� � • � ^ •o• ^ . Ili ' ., . ' ^
. . 41 •; ~ •, 4/ . � .� � . � . �� ^ . � 4;' ` . ' I. � '�~ ^. ^^
J` ^ ^ ^ ~ •'\ ~ '� ` � ~ ” ^
to . ~ . . ^ .~' ,.
.'.
.
'. ~ ' 40 .'. �
, '' ' '' , r ^ '. . . ' f 1. . ~ . . •
^ ..| . `~ .. . . • . � .
^ . ` •. . . ^ . �� . � .` II .. .. ^ ' �^ .4 ' ^ ^ ' 1' ^ '. ^ � ' •' • ' /. ^ . . 41 •
�. . 1 � . � � ^ . . %I ^ .
.�.~ .. . . . ~ � � . ~ . ^ �
". ^ '. . . ~ • . . . ~ . . . .�� . . . . . .� ^ ~ .� � . y �
^
� .� . �, . ^ . � ^ .0 .. ^� .. 40
.. . . . . ~ � . . ~.
.' ^ � ^� ~ ~' ^ � ' , � '.. � • ''. ^ � to to \ ^ '' .
� � .' ^ ^ ' ^ ' 41 •''
� :: ' ~ .•'
� ~ ' Ail .� ^ '. ^ . . �
^ ^. . i. . . ^
• :~ ' I � _ � , . • ^ ' � ^
^.
.dr . � � ..� � ' . . .� . . . . . 1..` ., •. . ..
. ^ • �
. ' � `
. .
^ . ^ �o � � .. . . � . i . �• 00I ' ~� ' •• ^ 'm. � ' . ^
� � n i
.�. ^.. '
•
^ es 44 1 .
=
TRANSPORTATION
Goal 12.3:Provide_an accessible,multi-modal transportation system that meet _the
ty c ofthcnmmvnity.
Policy 4. Ii' i hall ,!'o a S ' "• ' • • ' ''!'strja.n. anal rnn_sjt a' n a,ents
for trans,t2ortation disadvantaged populations who may be dependent on travel modes other
thin Drivateautomobile.
Policy •: The City Shall require development adjacent to transit routes to pr vide '"rect
pedestrian accusibility,
Policy&: The City shall des gn all projects on Tigard city streets to encourage pedestrian and
bicycle travel.
Goof 12.4:Maintain and improve transportation system safety.
Policy 2: The City shall coordinate with appropriate ag' • •.• • • .. •
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.
Pelief-1-1-44
- - - -
Policy 11:6.3
SPECIAL PLANNING AREAS-DOWNTOWN
Goal 111: The City will promotelhe creation of a_vihrant and active urban village at the
heart of the community thatis pedestrian oriented,accessible by many modes of
uses that enable people to live, work,play,and shop in an environment that is uniquely
Goal 15.2:Facilitqle_the development ofd urban village.
Policy 5:D.wntown design develan en and provision_hall_einphasizepublic safety,
accessibility, and attractivenee c cprimary .. • ' •
Goal 15 4:Develop coynnrehensive street andrireulattpn imnrovetjrjt,£fnj pedesirian ,
automobiles,bicycles,and transit.
'. 'y /' 4' • / I. / i! 1"11 ,_! .i• " !.I '1 • //_ f-//.!! f !/. .. !l./
services including auto, transillike, a ! .'!' f !/ ! •f'
'. •.l • f ' !.' !//! i.. !1 '! !• Y/ /! _. .. Si '! .I•
environment without the visual dominance by aytomob -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.
Fill-1:Li 3�
ori
e -
Geal3-Safety
Cffeel--5A-seessibility
• •• - .. •• • •• - -- .., . ., .. .• ..• - . ---- --
•
.. .
C. Transportation System Plan Goals and Policies
TRANSPORTATION SY 'LAN
Goal 12.2: Transportation Efficiency—Develop and maid, r r l I •1
the efficient movement of people and goods.
Policy 4• The city shall design arterial routes highway access and acent land uses in
ways that facilitate the efficient movement of people.goods, and services.
• 1/ '_rr./r., i r v// r �. /i 'If - / :1 ' r i ' rr.. • It r
transportatipu_systemlhatineets the mobility needs of the community,
Policy 5: The ciiy sha r •uire development adjacent to transit Nagai. • • .' •
l #, • , •// .. • '.' 'I
Poll v ': The ci shall des'• all projects on Tigard city_streets to encourage pedestrian and
bicycle travel.
Goal 12.4:Safe Transportation System—Maintain and improve transportation system
Policy 2: The city shall coordinate with appropriate agencies toproyide scife, 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.
D.City of Tigard Park System Master Plan
ff • .
green►spaees;
• .
•
.. e
[G I .. ..
eenters; d
.. - -
PARKS..RECREATION, TRAILS AND OPEN SPACE
Goal 8.2: Create a City.vide networlr ofit�terconnected on-and off-road pedestrian and
bicycle trails.
Policy 1: The City shall create and interconnected regional a d local system of on-and off-
road trails and paths that link together neighborhoods,parks_ open spaces, major 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
Exhibit B
Report Accompanying the Tigard
City Center Urban Renewal Plan
Substantial Amendment
Adopted by the City of Tigard
December 13,2016
Ordinance No. 16-
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
II. 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.
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
-ys9A� •i• �ILaIPS
'W
an a"ll's4 •ii
i
• ;11 Lco e: s1
iZ •• V
•
*«
♦
n
.
N` • aG
i♦ii
.214
♦ iQ ii •i �iiitiii•
1i♦i♦ s♦o }•••••t•
•
Iii•Niir♦.`
i• s
+ii 4
iiiS`
.r 0 • •:
®wi
e••.. .. I
. ! :s
•
•
S``slc S7q'
i • O
# k ! 4�Rd
..
•
♦♦ ■
0w* '' •
'M*,St•
• •
•
♦i
♦i
i
t
iii•t•I*•t. r i+i•i•*
■ •
■
L•• •
i•
Boundary of Amendment Area
i•■■i
• • Existing Tigard City Center URA
••••i
0 500 1,000 1,500 feet
I I I I
Source:ECONorthwest
Figure 2—Tigard City Center Urban Renewal Plan Area After Amendment
Report on Tigard City Center Urban Renewal Area Amendment 2
Tigard City Center Urban Renewal Area
Boundary as Amended
9.'Po' •
•• •
•
s a •� s1
• e. • a',
• Ee ‘se'*
• ,
•• +•••• }'• ''s •'•
S•••h.•1+•••• **,*� 1 1Z +r+� is
• ••
•� •
••'• •
.e.....rs.a*e
•'••• •• ••* 1•
• •
s,••s +®•• ..
•
t••'• Ivo a •
.•.. .��� • Rd
• ■
•
1* :
S .
•
■
■
S
N
dooma ..` 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 3
IL 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
[ tinting Estsitng Amendment Amendment Total Total Pcreent of
1 awl I 4
allots Acres Tastots Acres Taxlots Acres Acres
Commercial 120 73.16 I 5 22.45 125 95.61 51.51%
Exempt 30 52.18 I 0 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%
Single Family Residential 18 5.45 0 0.00 18 5.45 2.94%
Vacant _ 12 4.02 1 0.15 13 4.17 2.25%
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)
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
Latsting Lsisting Amendment Amendment Total Total Percent of
Zoning Taslots Acres Tazlots Acres Tazlots Acres Acres
Mixed Use Central Business District 187 I 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 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 RL1S 2016 Ql.
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 Comprehensive Plan Designations of Area
Comore bensitie Plan Designation I sk1ing Esisting Amendment Anse'Ante tit t `n
utak otal Percent of
fas Lots Acres Taslots Acres 1itslots Acres Acre,
Mated Use Central Business District 179 110.12 1 15.10 ' 180 125.22_1 67.47%
General Commerical 0 0.00 5 21.61 5 21.61 1 11.64%
Open Space 12 37.78 0 _ 0.00 12 37.78 2036% _
,Light Industrial 0 0.00 1 0.99 1 0.99 0.53%
Total I 191 I 147.90 I 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 QI.
Report on Tigard City Center Urban Renewal Area Amendment 5
Figure 3—Area Zoning Designations
Tigard City Center Urban Renewal Area
Zoning Designations
°I I
, a#
..44•400,
iliciii001101(11‘
. ■
Zoning •• aar .•
N. a 10 ~e
inMixed Use CBD- ♦R�R :
Planned Development I.0;
Figure 4—Area Comprehensive Plan Designations
Tigard City Center Urban Renewal Area
Comprehensive Plan Designations
41.
400
•
11d�re�q�s
•
a�
.4it
�* ,
m �
A
es ram
. are
fro v
Comprehensive Plan .a
w
Mixed Use CBD
General Commercial
Light Industrial
Open Space
aerie
*
r r r� City Center URA
•0 500 1,000 1,500 feet
I I I I
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 transportation needs within the Area.
Streets and Intersections
There are significant transportation needs within the Area:
Table 4—Transportation Needs in the Area
Cost
Name Deseri•tion Time Frame Estimate
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
Cost
Name Deseri tion Time Frame Estimate
Provide 2 travel lanes,turn lanes where
Main Street Green necessary,on-street parking,good
Street(Phase II) 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
Center bicycle hub Center Near-term $50,000
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
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
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 pla72 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.
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 3.006 100%
Source:US Census Bureau,Social Explorer,American Community Survey 2010-2014,5-Year Estimates
The largest age group in the area is 25 to 34 years,25%, followed by 18 to 24 years and 35 to
44 years, each at 13%.
Table 6—Age in the Area
Age N umber 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 3.006 100%
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
Less 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 2.053 I 00%
Source:US Census Bureau,Social Explorer,American Community Survey 2010-2014,5-Year Estimates
The majority of residents, 64%,travel less than 30 minutes to work, including those who
worked at home.
Table 8—Travel Time to Work in the Area
Travel rime to Work Number Percent
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 1.672 100%
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 1,672 100%
Source:US Census Bureau,Social Explorer,American Community Survey 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 xisting emend
E Amendment Total Tolai Percent of
Taxlots Acres meat Acres Taxlots Acres Acres
Taxlots
Exempt I 30 52.18 f 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 8.26 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 37.7 198 185.6 100.00%
Calculated by Tiberius Solutions LLC with source data from Washington County Office of Assessment and Taxation(FYE 2016).
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.
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
Projects (nominal S (constant 2016 S)
Potential Saxony Purchase $515,000 $515,000
Saxony demo/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
Streetscape Improvements $600,000 $533,000
Bike/Ped Facilities $400,000 $355,000
Parks $400,000 $355,000
Public Spaces $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 Cit) Center Urban Renewal Area Amendment 17
Table 12 -Projects and Costs in Year of Expenditure Dollars
/of I1. 2016-I' 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21
lwonf 111 \l)
Resources
Beginning Fund Balance 140,333 66,311 299,306 244,584 44,395
Pay-as-you-go(Transfer from TIF Fund) $2,732,884 590,119 329,606 198,781 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 95,000 95,000 95,000
Proceeds from Property Sales $0 0 0 0 0 0
Intergovernmental Revenues $500,000 500,000
Interest Earnings $5,569 702 332 1,497 1,223 222
Total Resources $17,079,767 1,309,311 474,406 594,584 394,395 8,584,453
Expenditures(nominal$)
Potential Saxony Purchase ($515,000) -515,000
Saxony 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) ,
Streetscape 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) ' -4,500,000
Finance Fees ($262,000) -166,000
Total Expenditures ($17,220,100) -1,243,000 -175,100 -350,000 -350,000 4,516,000
Source:Tiberius Solutions LLC c.ith input from City of Tigard.
Report on Tigard City Center Urban Renewal Area Amendment 18
Table 12 Projects and Costs in Year of Expenditure Dollars,page 2
2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26
PRIM (7 1 Z X11)
Resources
Beginning Fund Balance 68,453 35,958 28,431 98,915 86,882
Pay-as-you-go(Transfer from TIF Fund) 217,163 292,293 370,342 437,472 98,684
Bond/Loan Proceeds 0 0 0 0 4,800,000
Rental Income 100,000 100,000 100,000 0 0
Proceeds from Property Sales 0 0 0 0 0
Intergovernmental Revenues
Interest Earnings 342 180 142 495 434
Total Resources 385,958 428,431 498,915 536,882 4,986,000
Expenditures(nominal$)
Potential Saxony Purchase
Saxony-demo.'clean.'prep
Other budgeted projects
Tigard Street Trail Match .
Street Improvements -1,800,000
Streets cape 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 Expenditures -350,000 -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.
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 2016-17 20174 8 201849 2.019-20 2020-21
PERT SERVICE FUND
Resources _
Beginning Fund Balance 359,791 0 0 212,169 0
T1Ffor 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 ($1,268,621.001 -162,842 -1585980 -155,118 -791,681
Loan#5 Sewer ($109,434.11 -512 -512 -512 -512 -512
Loan#5 General Fund ($42,904.56), -201 -201 -201 -201 -201
Loan 46 General Fund ($32V52.891 -1,949 -1,949 -1,949 -1,949 -1,949
Loan#7 General Fund ($273,737.25) -1,270 -1,270 -1,270 -1,270 -1,270
2021 New Loan r ($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 -159,051 -795,614 -561,823
Coverage Ratio 2.38 3.02 3.58 0.80 1.26
Transfer to D'S Reserve Fund ($89,743,627.00 -590,119 -329,606. -198,781 -53,588 -144,836
Total Expenditures J$106,451,964.04) -756,894 -492,519 -357,832 -849,202 -706,659
Endin.Fund Balance S0.00 50.00 5212,169,00 $0.00 $0.00
2016-17 201741 2018,49 211J).21) 2020-21
.Debt Service Re.fcrve Fund
Resources
I p
Beginning Fund Balance $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Interest Earnings 53,954.801.00 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Transfer from13/SFund $89,743,627.00 $590,119 $329,606 $198,781 $53,588 $144,836
Total Resources $93,698,428.00 $590,119 $329,606 $198,781 553,588 $144,836
Expenditures
Transfer to Project Fund For URA admin ($2,732,884.0.0) -$590,119 -$329,606 -$198,781 -$53,588 -$144,836
Total Expenditures -$590,119- $329,606 -$198,781 -$53,588 -$144,836
Ending Fund Balance $0 SO SO SO $0
Cumulative D.'S Remaining -$16,541,565 -$16,378,652 -$16,219,601 -$15,423,987 -$14,862,164
TIF Sufficient to Pay Off13'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
2412122 2012-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025.26 2026-27
DEBT SERVICE FUND
Resources
Beginning Fund Balance 0 0 0 0 0 0
TIFfor 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
Expenditures
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 -37181
loan#7 General Fund -1,270 -1270 -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 561,823 -561,823 561,823 575,773 -996,169 -1,021,003
Coverage Ratio _ 1.39 1.52 1.66 1.76 1.10 1.16
7Y'onsfi'r to D/S Reserve Fund -217163 -292,293 -370,342 -437,472 -101,311 -163,988
Totall]tpeadlturea -778,986, -854,116 -932,165, -1,013,245 -1,097,480 -1,184,991
Dan Fond Balance $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 .102(,-2-
De1,1.'-rrisf'R,%c'rer I-uflit
Resources
Beginning Fund Balance $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,627
Interest Earnings _ $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $13
Transfer from D/S Fund $217.163 $292,293 $370,342 $437,472 $101,311 $163,988
Total Resources $217,163 S292,293 $370,342 $437,472 $101,311 $166,628
Expenditures
Transfer toP%lectFund For URA admin -$217,163 -$292,293 -$370,342 -$437,472 -$98,684 $0
Total Expenditures -$217,163 -$292,293 -$370,342, -$437,472 -$98,684 SO
Endfn-g find Balance $0 So SO SO $2,627 $166,628
Cumulative DIS Remaining -$14,300.341 -$13,738,518 -$13,176,695 -$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
2027.28 2028-10 1020-30 2039-51 2031-37 2032-33 2033-34
PENT SLR Via FUND
Restazreea
Beginning Fund Balance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
T1Ffor 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
I
14jendtura
Debt Service
2014 LIS Bank Loan
loan#5 Sewer -10,533 -10,533 -10,533 -10,533 -10,533 -10,533 -10,533
Loan#5( neraI Fund -4,130 4,130 -4,130 -4,130 -4,130 -4,130 -4,130
Loan#6 General Pend -37181 -37,181 -37,181 -37,181 -37,181 -37,181 -37,181
Loan#'OmteralFund -26,104 -26,104 -24104 -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
1
Total Debt Sallee -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 is D S Reserve Fund -365,951, -464,858 -567626 -674,411 -785,371 -900,673 551,545
Total Repeatitura -1,386,954_ -1,485,861 -1,588,629 -1,695,414 -1,806,374 -1,921,676 -469,458
Nod Adam $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 50.00 50.00
2027.28 2028-29 1029-30 2030-31 2031-32 7032-33 2033-34
llehr.Seem,e R<:yrrt'r}Unit
Resources f 4
cram Fund Balance $164628 $533,412 $1,004937 $1,573,568 $2,255,847 S3,052,497 $3,968.432
Interest Earnings 5833 52,667 85,005 $7,868 $11,279 $15,262 $19,842
Transfer from D'S Fund $365,951 $464,858 $567626 $674,411 8785,371 $900,673 -$551,545
Total Rea omen $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 adnin 50 0 SO SO SO SO $0
Total Rapenditura SO SO SO SO SO $0 SO
&dna Food Balance S53S,412 $1,000,937 $1,573,568 82,255,847, $3,052,497 $3,968,432 $3,436,729
Cumulative D'S Remaining -$9,562,747 48,541,744 $7,520,741 -$6,499,738 -$5,478,735 -$4,457,732 .53,434729
TIF Sufficient to Pay Off DS NO NO NO I 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
2:. Assessed Value Frozen Base excess Value Tax]tate Cross Tit' Adjustments Net T1} (uruulatise T1F
2016 $100,844,506 $69,207,378 I $31,637,128 12.1668 384,923 f (19,246) 365,677 365,677
2017 $104,326,036 $69.207,378` $35,118,658 1I.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 (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 11.8877 1,459,952 (72,998), 1,386,954 10,416,929
2029 $248,582,783 $117,012,843 $131,569,940 11.8877 1,564,064 (78,203) 1,485,861 11,902,790
2030 $257,682.729 $117,012,843 $140,669,886 11.8877 1,672,241 (83,612) 1,588,629 13,491,419
2031 $267,13,,280 $117,012,843 $150,125,437 11.8877 1,784,646 (89,2.32) 1,695,414 15,186,833
2032 $276,963,577 $117,012,843 $159,950,734 11.8877 4901,446 (95,072)) 1,806,374 16.993,207
2033 $287,173,323 $117,012,843 $170,160,480 11.8877 2,022,8171 (101,141) 1,921,676 18,914,883
2034 $297,782,813 $117,012,843 $180,769,97877 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
increment financing,are substantially replaced with State School Fund revenues, as
determined by a funding formula at the State level.
Report on Tigard City Center Urban Renewal Area Amendment 26
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 Assessment and Taxation, expected in
FYE 2019.
Table 15a-Projected Impact on Taxing District Permanent Rate Levies- General
Government
General Gou rnment
Washington City of Port of 'rig ardiTnn
Count) Tigard T1'FR Portland Metro Aquatic District
FYI;~:. Perm Perm Perm Perm Perm Perm Subtotal
2019 ($6,219) ($6,951) ($4,2191 ($194) ($42) ($249) ($17,8742
2020 ($10,135) ($11,329) ($6,876) ($3162 ($68) ($406) ($29,130)
2021 ($14,2042 ($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) ($65,5981
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) ($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) ($35,9721 ($1,653) ($356) ($2,122) ($152,402)
2030 ($58,773). ($65,693) ($39,869) ($1,833) ($3951 ($2,352) ($168,915)
2031 ($64,744) ($72,366)] ($43,9191 ($2,019) ($435) ($2,592) ($186,075)
2032 ($70,949) ($79,302) ($48,128) ($2,212) ($476) ($2,840) ($203,907)
2033 ($77,3971 ($86,509) ($52,502) ($2,413) ($520) ($3,098) ($222,439)
2034 $84,158 $94,066 $57,08T $2,624 $5 $3,369 $241,872
Total ($498,804) ($557,528) ($338,364) ($15,554) (53,3491 ($19,965) ($1,433,5641
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
Education
Tigard-Tualatin
PCC NW Regional 1SD SD
FIT. Perm Perm Perm 'Sutaotal 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)1 ($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) ($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)1
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
Tax Revenue in F'YE2035(,near tiller expiration►
From Frozen
Taring District Tat Rate Base From 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
1` 6.4619 $447,211.00 $1,548,275.00 $1,995,486.00
Education
PCC 1 0.2828 $19,572.00 $67,759.00 $87,331.00
NV`Regional FSD 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
Assessed Value UR Excess Acreage
_City of Tigard $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 9.30% 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)
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
Exhibit C
CITY OF TIGARD
PLANNING COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes
November 14,2016
CALL TO ORDER
President Fitzgerald called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.The meeting was held in the Tigard
Civic Center,Town Hall,at 13125 SW Hall Blvd.
ROLL CALL
Present: President Fitzgerald
Vice President Feeney
Alt. Commissioner Enloe
Commissioner Hu
Commissioner Jelinek
Commissioner Lieuallen
Commissioner McDowell
Commissioner Middaugh
Commissioner Muldoon
Commissioner Schmidt
Absent: Alt. Commissioner Mooney
Staff Present: Tom McGuire,Assistant Community Development Director, Gary
Pagenstecher,Associate Planner; Susan Shanks,Associate Planner; Sean
Farrelly,Redevelopment Project Manager;Doreen Laughlin, Executive
Assistant;Lauren Scott, Community Engagement Coordinator
COMMUNICATIONS —Since President Fitzgerald wasn't present for the original Triangle
Medical Office Building PD hearing,it was decided that Vice President Feeney would preside
over that portion of the meeting.
CONSIDER MINUTES
October 17, 2016 Meeting Minutes: President Fitzgerald asked if there were any additions,
deletions, or corrections to the October 17 minutes; there being none, President Fitzgerald
declared the minutes approved as submitted.
OPEN PUBLIC HEARING
PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED FROM OCTOBER 17
TRIANGLE MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING PLANNED DEVELOPMENT-
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW(PDR) 2016-00011; SITE DEVELOPMENT
REVIEW(SDR)2016-00007
November 14,2016 Page 1 of 11
REQUEST: The applicant requests concurrent Planned Development Concept Plan and
Detailed Development Plan review for a 36,000 square foot medical office building on a 3.73-
acre vacant parcel located southwest of SW Dartmouth Street and SW 72nd Avenue. Proposed
site improvements include a single-story building with surface parking taking access from SW
Dartmouth through the eastern access to the adjacent Walmart development. A pedestrian path
is proposed through the site from SW 72nd to the Walmart parking lot. A vegetated corridor
along the northern property line is protected and improved. LOCATION: SW of the
intersection of SW 72nd Avenue and SW Dartmouth Street;Washington County Tax Map
2S101BA,Tax Lot 00300. ZONES: C-G: general commercial district,with planned
development overlay.APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development
Code Chapters 18.350, 18.390, 18.520, 18.620, 18.705, 18.745, 18.755, 18.765, 18.780, 18.790,
18.795 and 18.810.
Vice President Feeney opened the public hearing.
QUASI-JUDICIAL HEARING STATEMENTS
Vice President Feeney read the required statements and procedural items from the quasi-judicial
hearing guide. There were no abstentions;there were no challenges of the commissioners for
bias or conflict of interest. Ex-parte contacts: None. Site visitations: Commissioners Jelinek,
Muldoon, Feeney,McDowell, Schmidt, Hu, Middaugh,Lieuallen, and Fitzgerald. No one
wished to challenge the jurisdiction of the commission.
STAFF REPORT regarding the Concept Plan
The staff report is available on-line at the City website one week prior to the hearing.
Gary Pagenstecher,City of Tigard Associate Planner,went over the staff report. He recapped
what had happened at the previous meeting and distributed a supplemental packet that the
applicant had supplied for them (Exhibit A). Regarding process - Gary explained the applicant
requests the Concept Plan and Detailed Plan votes be cast at the same hearing for purposes of
appeal and noted that this is at the commission's discretion. He reminded them this hearing is a
continuation of the Concept Plan and said the applicant requested a straw poll at the end of the
Concept Plan deliberation to see whether the commission is comfortable with the applicant's
proposal with respect to the 6th criteria.After that,the expectation for tonight would be that
they would open the record for discussion of the detailed plan,close the record,and if they're
comfortable with both plans they might be able to vote on both at the same hearing. If they're
not ready to vote, they could provide direction to the applicant and continue the hearing to a
time certain.
Additionally, Gary said the representative of Mt. Martin had requested that there be a
continuation from the evening's hearing to a time certain with a 7-day open record period-and
Gary said he believes the applicant is amenable to that.
Gary also noted that he had received electronic comment letters dated 11/14/16 (that will be
attached to the next staff report).
November 14, 2016 Page 2 of 11
PD purposes consider: weighing the amount of development on a site to balance interests of
owner, developer,neighbors, and city; and relating the built environment to the natural
environment.
The 6 Concept Plan review approval criteria are guidelines,with discretion for the Planning
Commission on how outcomes are achieved and even to what level the achievement is expected;
This is how staff's CP recommendation to Approve -it comes with a caveat that the Planning
Commission may find alternative approaches that better meet the approval criteria.
In light of the detailed plan review, staff is asking the Commission to consider concept plan
criteria 1 and 6. With respect to Criterion 1: Do the proposed open space areas adequately
protect the natural features of the site, or should the applicant find ways to preserve additional
vegetated corridor to the north, or step improvements with the grade to improve the project's
relationship to SW 72nd Avenue on the east?
With respect to Criterion 6: Does the proposed Concept Plan sufficiently protect natural
features, or provide additional amenities that enhance the neighborhood that are not otherwise
available?An example would be a pedestrian path.
These Concept Plan criteria have corollaries with the Detailed Plan approval criteria,which we
will discuss next with the applicant's presentation of revised materials in response to the PC's
direction and staff's findings and recommended conditions of approval for the Detailed Plan.
POINT OF ORDER
Dana Krawzcuk, representing Base Camp I,LLC,made a point of order and clarification:
Our understanding was the Concept Plan was being considered on its own and then once that
was decided you would turn to the final development plan. Our understanding is the record was
closed on the Concept Development Plan and that this evening the commission would first
deliberate on only the Concept Plan and then make a tentative vote on that—not finalize that
vote—because we are concerned about having dualing appeals proceeding. Once that tentative
vote on what you heard last time, and the materials submitted two weeks ago, then we would
have a staff report on the Detailed Plan and give our presentation, let anyone else testify and
then deal with the Detailed Plan separately.
DELIBERATION ON CONCEPT PLAN
Vice President Feeney:What are our thoughts on the Concept Plan?We have the option of a
tentative vote on the Concept Plan.
• Fine with the concept plan but still concerned with the 20-foot retaining wall—safety risk
and sounds like it may be an eyesore.
• I have concerns with the natural features. This is the heart of the Triangle
• Criteria 1—I would like more natural vegetation,less parking lot—either under the building
or partially under the building
• Criteria 6 —Would like to see more done—maybe natural landscape.
November 14,2016 Page 3 of 11
• It's been disturbed already as part of Walmart's application. They meet the criteria for
buffers.
TENTATIVE VOTE
Vice President Feeney asked, "Who would tentatively approve the Concept Plan?"
Abstain: Lieuallen&Jelinek
Yay: Yi, Muldoon, Feeney, Middaugh,&McDowell;
Nay: Fitzgerald and Schmidt.
VOTE TO TENTATIVELY APPROVE THE CONCEPT PLAN
PASSES FIVE -TWO
TWO ABSTENTIONS
OPEN PUBLIC HEARING FOR DETAILED PLAN
Vice President opened the public hearing for the Detailed Development Plan.
DETAILED PLAN
STAFF REPORT
Gary Pagenstecher noted that prior to issuing the staff report,Staff discussed Detailed Plan
issue areas with the applicant to better understand the circumstances and tradeoffs associated
with the proposed design and to create an opportunity for the applicant to revise their plans to
meet the standards and provide them for Commission review and consideration tonight.
Gary went over the staffs findings from the staff report and noted that attention to the district
standards is the focus of the staff report and a few other conditions as well,but the applicant
feels that with the revised materials, that they have met most of those district standard
conditions that were included in the staff report.
APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION
Brian Bennett, the developer on the site, on behalf of Compass Oncology to develop the
comprehensive oncology cancer treatment center briefly stated that there were four various
questions that the commission had at the end of the last session and addressed them. He noted
they decided to prioritize the natural resource—the wetland, the buffer, the enhancement of the
buffer over the site topography. He said they met with the adjacent property owners offering
several different opportunities to work together.
Mimi Doukas—ASS Engineering, representing Base Camp 1,LLC noted they had
submitted additional material to the commissioners. They are treating the issues in a prioritized
fashion with more priority on the wetlands. They'd sat down with adjacent property owners;it
was a stalemate,but the conversation took place. Ms. Doukas believes they've come to a good
November 14,2016 Page 4 of 11
solution. They've tried to address all the commission concerns and staff had good feedback in
regards to the treatment along 72nd so they think the application has improved in that regard.
Chuck Gregory,civil engineer with AKS Engineering—spoke about the sidewalk being
pushed further away from the site. He also spoke about the retaining wall and how it actually
opens up the view for the pedestrians as they come down 72nd. He noted other improvements
such as adding many trees and that the pathway is concrete rather than asphalt. There are stone
columns, benches— similar to the intersection of 72nd and Dartmouth. He spoke about safety,
the required parking spaces,integration of a healing garden on the west side of the building, and
improved streetscape.
Scott Harris JRJ Architects went over the exhibits one by one that had been submitted in the
supplemental material.
Mimi Doukas added that they are comfortable with the conditions of approval with the
exception of Condition 17—there's a little bit of wordsmithing requested by Dana Krawzcuk in
the Perkins Koie memo.They want to make sure they are not exceeding rights that they don't
have for adjacent property. The substance is there—just a little wordsmithing is needed.
Dana Krawzcuk said the intent with clarifying Condition #17—the access easement that the
subject site has over Walmart is specified just to our property—it's not a public access easement
— so while we are willing to grant others access over our property, we want it to be abundantly
clear that if they want to keep going over Walmart's property, to the street, they have to
independently negotiate with Walmart for that access right because Walmart wasn't conditioned
to require public access easement That appears in some of the other conditions—for example
Condition 15 it's talking about site work that the city would like to see us do on Walmart's
property but it says "If permitted by Walmart." Condition #7 talks about the pedestrian
easement and it'd like us to continue the public easement over Walinart's property"if permitted
by Walmart"—and that "if permitted by Walmart"language was missing from Condition 17—
so we want it to be abundantly clear that we are not obligated to give rights that we don't have.
Brad Perrigo, Executive Director—Compass Oncology spoke to parking and wayfinding.
He noted they are trying to keep patients dose to the building with easy access and a single story
parking lot is very important to their patients. As for wayfinding—they provide a packet to
their patients very carefully explaining how to get to the building.
TESTIMONY IN FAVOR—None.
TESTIMONY IN OPPOSITION—None
APPLICANT FINAL COMMENTS
Dana Krawzcuk reiterated that they would like a continuation. She noted that they want to
make sure that they've hit all of the issues that are of concern to the commission and how they'd
addressed them in the material already provided. She went over the various ways they'd
November 14,2016 Page 5 of 11
addressed the known issues. She said they are very interested in anything the commissioners
would like them to address in the upcoming written materials.
The commissioners gave some suggestions as to what would be helpful for them to see when
they come back while the applicant took notes. Some of the comments:
• More discussion about is an oncology office actually going to happen—if not,would that
matter for our consideration—legally speaking? From my point of view an oncologist
office looks good but I'm not sure if it will be an oncology office. Please address that
• I would like more images—3D showing grading—the entire building
• I'd like more thoughts going into that wetland on the n/e corner.
MOTION TO CONTINUE HEARING TO DECEMBER 5
Vice President Feeney moved- I move we continue the hearing, leave the public record
open;written testimony is due within 7 days of today, that allows the applicant 7 days to
respond to any additional information and then an additional 7 days for staff and planning
commission to review that information for the December 5th hearing.
President Fitzgerald seconded the motion.
All in favor—none opposed.
HEARING HAS BEEN CONTINUED TO DECEMBER 5
PUBLIC HEARING
TIGARD TRIANGLE URBAN RENEWAL PLAN
PROPOSAL: Over the past six months, staff and an urban renewal consultant team worked
with a Citizen Advisory Council and Technical Advisory Committee to develop a Tigard
Triangle Urban Renewal Plan (Plan). On October 4,the City Center Development Agency
initiated public review of the proposed Plan, and the Planning Commission is required to hold a
public hearing as part of this review process. On November 14,the Planning Commission will
be asked to publicly review the proposed Plan for conformance to local goals and objectives and
make a recommendation to City Council on its adoption.
President Fitzgerald opened the public hearing.
STAFF REPORT
The staff report it available on-line at the City website one week prior to the hearing
Susan Shanks,Associate Planner,introduced herself and Consultant Elaine Howard of Elaine
Howard Consulting,LLC. Susan explained the type of hearing this is and that it is not a land use
hearing. It's a hearing required by the ORS457 rules pertaining to Urban Renewal Plans.The
statute requires that the city come to the Planning Commission for this public hearing. It's a
slightly different kind of hearing. Elaine Howard explained that it's similar to a regular in that
staff makes a presentation, the commission asks questions, and then it's open to the public and
then rebuttal,if needed—then the commission deliberates and hopefully then makes a motion.
November 14,2016 Page 6 of 11
Susan Shanks briefly spoke to the commissioners providing them with a general overview of
what"urban renewal"is.
Elaine Howard went through a PowerPoint and spoke about how urban renewal works, what it
is exactly, the plan background, the schedule, and the plan content. She explained how this goes
along with the city's goals and strategic plan.
QUESTIONS
What do we see from the school district on this with the diversion of the tax revenue
monies?They were part of our technical advisory committee and they have not submitted any
official comments, they asked us to clarify one of our public handouts about how urban renewal
may indirectly affect them.They helped wordsmith that language but they have not expressed
any concern. Property taxes are one funding source to that state school fund but there are other
funding sources to the state school fund and I think that's why the school districts feel like they
can support urban renewal—because they're funding out of the state school fund—not directly
from those property taxes.
So it's your experience that school districts always support urban renewal districts? I've
been doing urban renewal for 11 years and I've never had a school district oppose it during that
timeframe.
What does the financing cost to the district? It depends on whatever the interest rate is
when you are actually borrowing funds —so in the report there are assumptions for interest rates
at 5%.
What are TVF&R's concerns at this point? They are not opposed but don't want to wait 50
years to unfreeze the tax base.
Why would someone not support an Urban Renewal district? People don't understand how
it works. They think it's a new tax to them, and it's not. However,if you live in a city that has
urban renewal, you'll see urban renewal on your tax bill and that helps perpetuate the thought
that maybe it's an additional tax but what it shows them is the division of taxes and that you'd
be paying that total amount regardless of whether or not there was urban renewal. Urban
renewal is very complex and a lot of people just don't understand how it works. Additionally,
people don't like the concept of taking money away from other taxing districts—because that's
what urban renewal does? If it didn't exist that growth within that area—the taxes off that
would go to all those taxing districts.
Have there been studies done that Urban Renewal districts conclusively show a better
rate of growth or a higher value return—let's say over a 35-year period?In every
situation—or does it vary? It varies depending on the size of the cities. For instance, Coos
Bay unfortunately is always in a state of recession so they have an urban renewal area—it's been
going a long time—the citizens really support that but there just isn't a lot of growth in that city
so it's hard for those property tax values to go us.The urban areas are more likely to get more
growth in that area. Tigard is prime property—especially with the location of the freeways
November 14,2016 Page 7 of 11
around it. So if you provide the infrastructure there,you're going to get more growth in that area
than you would have without.
The payments on the debt would be from the incremental increases on the subject
property?Yes.
If Tigard borrows a bunch of money and ends up being wrong 10—15 years later;that's
not our growth rate and we basically over borrowed.What's the fall-back on that in
terms of how we're going to make up that difference and still fund what we've already
spent?We cannot place a bond unless we actually have the money coming in that shows you
can pay that debt service with a debt service ratio —so you as a city would not go out and place a
bond until you already have the amount of money coming in on an annual basis with a savings
account—a debt service coverage ratio—to be able to cover those payments. So you don't issue
that$188 million up front—you do it as you get enough money to actually make those bond
payments. So that protects the city.
TESTIMONY IN FAVOR—Jim Long—10730 SW 72nd Ave.,Tigard—turned in written
testimony (Exhibit C). He made an argument to add from one to five contiguous commercially-
zoned properties to the Tigard Triangle. He showed the commissioners a copy of a petition on
which he had several signatures. The petition called for a walk-to residential park on the 1.54
acres behind the Tigard Fred Meyers. He said there were many comments from that petition
that he'd included on pages three and four of his testimony. He said there are even more than
that at this time.
TESTIMONY IN OPPOSITION—None.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
DELIBERATION
President Fitzgerald noted that she knew Mr.Long had raised some issues and she would like
Susan Shanks to revisit what was discussed at the CAC. Susan said Mr. Long had suggested this
same idea of expanding the boundary to include those five properties that he spoke just recently
about. There was a good discussion among the CAC members but Susan couldn't recall exactly
what had been said. She said she did have notes from that meeting however that she would
forward along to the commission.The notes describe the pros and the cons that were discussed
but ultimately the count was 6 to 2 against expanding the area. So in honoring the CAC's input
on that particular note,we did not expand the area to include those specific properties.
MOTION
Commissioner Muldoon moved:
"I move that the Tigard Planning Commission finds that the proposed Tigard Triangle Urban
Renewal Plan conforms to the Tigard Comprehensive Plan based upon the information
provided in and attached to the staff report and through public testimony,and further
recommends that the Tigard City Council adopt the proposed Tigard Triangle Urban Renewal
Plan." Commissioner Hu seconded. A vote was taken.
November 14,2016 Page 8 of 11
All in favor—none opposed.
MOTION PASSES
SECOND MOTION
Commissioner Jelinek moved that the City Council consider expanding the Tigard Triangle
Urban Renewal Plan Boundary with property adjacent to and north of the proposed boundary
that includes 1 —5 commercially-zoned lots on Spruce Street. The specific lots to be determined
by staff upon consultation with Mr. Long.
Commissioner McDowell seconded the motion and a vote was taken.
).'ay—Commissioners Lieuallen,Jelinek,Muldoon, Middaugh, and McDowell
Nay—Commissioners Hu Fitzgerald, Feeney, and Schmidt
Abstain—none.
MOTION PASSES 5 TO 4
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
CITY CENTER URBAN RENEWAL PLAN SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT
PROPOSAL: The City of Tigard proposes a Substantial Amendment to the existing City
Center Urban Renewal Plan in Downtown Tigard. The purpose of the Planning
Commission hearing is to review the proposed Substantial Amendment to the City Center
Urban Renewal Plan for its conformance with the Tigard Comprehensive Plan, take public
testimony,and make a recommendation to the Tigard City Council on adoption.
STAFF REPORT
The skit'report is available on-line at the City website one week prior to the hearing.
Redevelopment Project Manager Sean Farrelly Sean went over his staff report noting that at the
direction of the City Center Development Agency Board, staff had worked with consultants to
prepare a draft Substantial Amendment to the City Center Urban Renewal Plan (Plan
Amendment) to expand the boundary of the City Center Urban Renewal Area. On October 4,
the CCDA initiated public review of the proposed Plan Amendment, and the Planning
Commission is required to hold a public hearing as part of this review process. This evening the
Planning Commission is asked to publicly review the proposed Plan Amendment for
conformance to local goals and objectives and make a recommendation to City Council for its
adoption. Sean went over a Power Point (Exhibit D) to help clarify.
Elaine Howard explained that they have refreshed the Urban Renewal plan to conform to the
existing Comprehensive Plan.There were also some Transportation System Plan goals that had
been addressed and those were 12.2, 12.3, and 12.4. And there was a Tigard Park System
Masterplan goal that was added in—and again, it was just refreshed to the current documents.
Not adding new projects. She noted the adoption schedule is the same as the Tigard Triangle
November 14,2016 Page 9 of 11
Plan where you have the planning commission hearing tonight— it goes to City Council
December 13 and then out for a citywide vote again in May of 2017.
Sean Farrelly reported on an action that the City Center Advisory Commission took last week—
even though they don't have a formal say in this—they did recommend that the Planning
Commission recommend this to council.
QUESTIONS
What if the voters don't approve? There would be some projects that won't get done.We'd
have to prioritize, strategize and focus on projects that could be completed. But the existing area
would remain intact with the existing maximum indebtedness— they just wouldn't reach as
much of that as they could have if they added in those other properties.
TESTIMONY IN FAVOR-None
TESTIMONY IN OPPOSITION—None.
CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING
DELIBERATION—None.
MOTION (RECOMMENDATION)
Commissioner Muldoon: "I move that the Tigard Planning Commission finds,based upon
the information provided in the staff report, public testimony, and the Tigard City Center Urban
Renewal Plan Fourth Amendment,that the Tigard City Center Urban Renewal Plan Fourth
Amendment conforms with the Tigard Comprehensive Plan and further recommend that the
Tigard City Council adopt the proposed Tigard City Center Urban Renewal Plan Fourth
Amendment" Commissioner Feeney seconded.
There was a vote.
All in favor—none opposed.
MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL PASSES
BRIEFING—Tom McGuire introduced the new City of Tigard Community Engagement
Coordinator, Lauren Scott. She was hired in early September and he is excited to have her come
to talk about what she is doing for the city—and to basically talk about her program.
Lauren spoke briefly to the Commission about how she has never worked in a government
position before. Over the past two and a half months she's been immersing herself in the
culture—trying to learn the jargon. She thinks of herself as a bridge between the Community
Development Department to the citizens of Tigard. If she can't understand what the planners
are saying, she knows the citizens can't understand what they're saying. She believes community
engagement comes in many forms—events,messaging, and then open communication and
November 14,2016 Page 10 of 11
dialog. She believes it's important to get the community engaged early and often. She tries to
make things more understandable—more concise. Her job is to help the city in communicating
to the public. She believes communication needs to be dynamic—not simply notices that are a
piece of paper that just says what's going on—people get it—they throw it out. She tries to
make things more interesting. She had worked on the open house—adding elements that make
it more interesting to the public. She's on several committees regarding community
involvement. She has a 2017 plan in how people can get involved in different events in the city
and also how we can expand our opportunities to reach diverse communities.
OTHER BUSINESS —Tom McGuire went over the Planning Commission calendar.
ADJOURNMENT
President Fitzgerald adjourned the meeting at 10:17 p.m.
1
• • - �
Doreen Laughlin,Planning Commi_ ion Secretary
.as/ii///-4
./Z! (#44
ATTEST: President F' gerald
November 14,2016 Page 11 of 11