City Council Packet - 02/17/2009 ■
p.
TIGARD
City of Tigard
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL
WORKSHOP MEETING
February 17 2009
COUNCIL MEETING WILL BE TAPED
AND TELEVISED LATER
I: \Ofs \Donna's \ccpkt2
13125 SW Hall Blvd. • Tigard, Oregon 97223 • 503.639.4171
TTY Relay: 503.684.2772 • www.tigard- or.gov
Reused 2/12/09: A dried Exeruttze Session at end of
:� N g ee meting under ORS 192.660 (2) (h) regarding
pending litigation or litigation likely to be filed
® °, Ci ty of T
rT��
Tigard Workshop Meeting — Agenda
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL
TIGARD BUDGET COMIVIITTEE
TIGARD CITY CENTER DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
MEETING DATE /TIME: February 17, 2009 - 6:30 p.m. - Workshop Meeting
MEETING LOCATION: City of Tigard - Town Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223
ittt
PUBLIC NOTICE:
Times noted are estimated.
Assistive Listening Devices are available for persons with impaired hearing and should be scheduled for
Council meetings by noon on the Monday prior to the Council meeting. Please call 503- 639 -4171, ext. 2410
(voice) or 503 - 684 -2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf).
Upon request; the City will also endeavor to arrange for the following services:
• Qualified sign language interpreters for persons with speech or hearing impairments; and
• Qualified bilingual interpreters.
Since these services must be scheduled with outside service providers, it is important to allow as much lead
time as possible. Please notify the City of your need by 5:00 p.m. on the Thursday preceding the meeting by
calling: 503 - 639 -4171, ext. 2410 (voice) or 503- 684 -2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf).
Workshop meetings are cablecast on Tualatin Valley Community TV as follows:
Replay Schedule for Tigard City Council Workshop Meetings - Channel 30
• Every Sunday at 11 a.m.
• Every Monday at 6 a.m.
• Every Tuesday at 2 pm ( *Workshop nxetings are not aired line Tuesday broadcasts are a replay (f the most recent
workshop n eting)
• Every Thursday at 12 p.m.
• Every Friday at 3 a.m.
SEE ATTACHED AGENDA
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL /BUDGET COMMITTEE AND CITY CENTER
DEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENDA - FE BRUARY 17, 2009
City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 I 503 - 639 -4171 I www.tigard-or.gov I Page 1 of 3
ihi " .gee
City of Tigard
„„,,.„.,,.., .,,, ,,,,,,, ,,,„ ,:,,.,
Ti and Workshop Meetin Agenda
.,,,,,o
,,,,, ,
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL
TIGARD BUDGET COMMITTEE
TIGARD CITY CENTER DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
MEETING DATE /TIME: February 17, 2009 - 6:30 p.m. - Workshop Meeting
MEETING LOCATION: City of Tigard - Town Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223
• EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council may go into Executive Session. If an Executive
Session is called to order, the appropriate ORS citation will be announced identifying the applicable
statute. All discussions are confidential and those present may disclose nothing from the Session.
Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend Executive Sessions, as provided by ORS
192.660(4), but must not disclose any information discussed. No Executive Session maybe held for the
purpose of taking any final action or making any final decision. Executive Sessions are closed to the public.
6:30 p.m.
1. WORKSHOP MEETING
1.1 Call to Order - City Council
1.2 Roll Call
1.3 Pledge of Allegiance .
1.4 Council Communications & Liaison Reports
1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non- Agenda Items
Recess City Council Meeting
2. CALL TO ORDER BUDGET COMMI'F1"EE MEETING
2.1 Roll Call
2.2 Approve October 7, 2008, Budget Committee Minutes
2.3 IFAS Update (Integrated Financal and A dnarustratize S*teare)
2.4 2008 -2009 Budget Updates
2.5 2009 -2010 Budget Process
2.6 Adjourn Budget Committee Meeting
3. CALL TO ORDER CITY CENTER DEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING
3.1 Roll Call
3.2 City Center Advisory Commission 2008 Annual Report
3.3 Downtown Commercial Facade Improvement Program
3.4 Downtown Organizational Leadership - Preliminary Recommendation
3.5 Adjourn City Center Development Agency Meeting
Reconvene City Council Meeting
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL /BUDGET COMMITTEE AND CITY CENTER
DEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENDA — FEBRUARY 17, 2009
City of Tigard I 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 I 503 - 639 -4171 I www.tigard-or.gov I Page 2 of 3
4. DISCUSS RENAMING THE QTY -OWNED RESIDENCE AND PROPERTY AT 13335 SW HALL
BOULEVARD AND THE CANTERBURY SURPLUS PROPERTY
• Staff Report: Public Works Department
5. UPDATE ON ADDRESSING COUNCIL AND CITIZEN CONCERNS ABOUT PROPOSED STREET
MAINTENANCE FEE INCREASES
• Staff Report: Community Development Department
6. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session under ORS 192.660 (2)
(h) for consultation with counsel concerning legal rights and duties regarding current litigation or litigation
likely to be filed. All discussions are confidential and those present may disclose nothing from the Session.
Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend Executive Sessions, as provided by ORS
192.660(4), but must not disclose any information discussed. No Executive Session may be held for the
purpose of taking any final action or making any final decision. Executive Sessions are closed to the public.
7. ADJOURNMENT
I: \ADM \CAM Y \CC:A \2009 \0902 17 P.doc
TIGARD CITY COUNCIL /BUDGET COMMITTEE AND CITY CENTER
DEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENDA — FEBRUARY 17, 2009
City of Tigard I 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 I 503 - 639 - 4171 I www.tigard- or.gov I Page 3 of 3
•
Agenda Item #
Meeting Date February 17, 2009
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
City Of Tigard, Oregon
Issue /Agenda Title Quarterly Meeting with the Budget Committee
Prepared By: Toby LaFrance Dept Head Approval: City Mgr Approval:
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
This is a regularly scheduled quarterly meeting with the Budget Committee.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
No action is necessary.
KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY
This is a regularly scheduled meeting with the citizen members of the Budget Committee to review the financial results
of operations for the first half of the 2008 -2009 fiscal year and to discuss the upcoming budget review and adoption
process.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
N /A.
CITY COUNCIL GOALS
None
ATTACHMENT LIST
Budget Committee Meeting agenda, Minutes from the October 7, 2008 meeting, summary of budget to actual for
the current budget, 2009 -2010 budget process calendar.
FISCAL NOTES
None
\\tig20Vnetpub \ig201we wroot\omrs\form docs\council agenda item summary sheet 07.doc
City of Tigard
Budget Committee Meeting Agenda
February 17, 2009 - 6:30 - 8:30 PM.
Town Hall
1. Introductions
o Members & Staff Introductions
2. Approval of Minutes
o October 7, 2008 Budget Committee Meetings
3. IFAS Update — Debbie Smith -Wagar
o IFAS (citywide financial software implementation status)
4. 2008 -2009 Budget Updates — Toby LaFrance
o Summary of budget to actual for the current budget
o Discuss the budgetary impact of the reductions in the Building Department
o Property Tax collections in light of Measures 5 and 50
5. 2009 -2010 Budget Process — Toby LaFrance
o Present the budget message that was given to departments for their Requested
2009 -2010 budget
o Outline the 2009 -2010 budget process calendar
o Solicit guidance from the Budget Committee on what they would like to see
presented in the Budget Committee hearings
6. Adjourn Meeting
I: /Fin/Budget 09/budget Committee /10 -7 -08 BC Agenda.doc
BUDGET COMMITTEE MEETNG
2/17/09
AGENDA ITEM
#2
City of Tigard, Oregon
Budget Committee
Meeting Minutes
October 7, 2008
Members Present: Rick Parker, Sydney Sherwood, Jason Snider , Gretchen Buehner, Cameron
James, Craig Dirksen
Members Absent: Tom Woodruff, Nick Wilson, Dena Struck, Brian McCarry, John Bailey
Visitors: Mike Marr, Jeremy Vermilyea, Marland Henderson
Staff Present: Craig Prosser, Loreen Mills, Liz Newton,Joe Barrett, Liz Lutz, Tom Coffee
Call to Order: Jason Snider called the meeting to order.
Approval of Minutes: It was moved for approval of the minutes with the spelling correction of
May 12, 2008. The motion was seconded and approved.
Mid -Year Updates:
Staffing Changes and Status of Recruitments /Interim Organizational Adjustments and
Actions — Craig Prosser
With Bob Sesnon's departure, Roger Dawes left and our Accounting Supervisor decided this
was not the job so three supervisory positions within the department have been vacant at the same
time. Loreen Mills, Assistant to the City Manager, has stepped in to help in Finance, Liz Newton is
overseeing Utility Billing and Information Services and Tom Imdieke, Business Manager in the
Police Department is helping with Budget, Debt and Investments. A head hunter has been hired to
locate Community Development (CD) and Financial and Information Services Directors. The
Accounting Supervisor position will hopefully be filled soon. Tom Coffee will be leaving in January.
The recruitments have closed and we received 26 applications for the Finance Director which has
been narrowed to 8 candidates. We will then narrow that to 3 -5 candidates and have panel
interviews on October 27, 2008. The goal is to have a new Director by the first of December. The
CD Director recruitment received 40 applications. We have narrowed that to 8 candidates and have
narrowed it further to 5. We will use a similar process -have panel interv- iews on October 29, 2008.
Financial Update (07/08 year end and 08/09 status) — Loreen Mills
Last fiscal year, 07 -08, all the funds ended in a positive fund balance. We found in the Gas
Tax Fund, in street lights and signals, we overspent our appropriation by $58,000. We did not
overspend in the fund itself. It was caused by staff changes and no one was watching that at the
time. We have procedures in place now to make sure that doesn't happen again. We have advised
our auditors of this. Utility rates have gone up, but we did not account for that additional need to
spend the money through a budget amendment. We did not overspend the fund, just that line item.
Some of the revenue streams were down, but liquor tax revenue stream was up by 16 %.
State Gas Tax Fund revenue was down 9.8% over our estimation, and the City Gas Tax Fund was
down 4.5 %. Other jurisdictions are experiencing this same downturn.
The budget implementation for 08/09 -there was some sloppiness in the budget document.
For instance we found a number of funds that did not have contingency appropriated -water fund,
parks capital, tree replacement, parks SDC. We did have appropriation in the GO Debt Service
1
(Library) bond and we should not have contingency in that fund. We need to be prudent and
careful how we do water projects, for example, since there is no contingency. We will be very careful
and live within the appropriation. With the GO Debt Service fund, we appropriated property taxes
to get repayment through the property tax mechanism for the Library bond. We appropriated what
was in the GO Debt Service, including contingency, which is something we cannot do. We restated
the levy so that we were not levying for that contingency amount.
There have been some technical issues in the budget: Tree Replacement fund -we didn't
actually have appropriation to do some of the tree replacement projects -we took that out of general
fund contingency so that was fixed. Clute Property-we bought it as a water asset because of the
reservoir but we're going to build a park so some of the fund transfers to change it from a water
asset to a park asset had not been done in last year's budget or this year's budget. So we are fixing
that with the appropriate transfers.
There are no negative fund balances and we are spending what has been appropriated in
each fund. The General Ledger Beginning Fund Balance Report shows the beginning fund balance
as an estimate that we project in February. The actual is what we actually ended with at the end of
the fiscal year. It's very hard to anticipate these numbers. The Building fund was lower than what
we anticipated by $451,467. We had built a reserve in this fund and the reserves have been drawn
down. We are watching this very carefully. In the Facilities Fund the actual fund balance was
$209,641 lower because we had two HVAC units die and they had to be replaced. There were
projects whereby with the timing of the projects -we either didn't do as much as we thought we
would last fiscal year or we completed some projects earlier than anticipated. The Water CIP fund is
down in its anticipated starting fund balance because we did more work on the reservoir than we
thought we would get done.
In 2007/08, we had 8 bankruptcies and so far in the first quarter of this fiscal year there have
been 27 bankruptcies. Last fiscal year the City Gas Tax fund was down by 4.5% and this year in the
first quarter it's down 9.5 %. The State Gas Tax was down 9.8% in the last fiscal year and it's down
3.0% in this year's first quarter of the fiscal year.
Financial Forecast Kickoff and Timeline - Loreen Mills
We are looking at Capital Improvement Program -the next 5 years- as part of the financial
forecast as well as the anticipated revenue, which is hard to do at this time. We are talking to
financial advisors and experts at the state that work solely with gas tax revenue, etc., to help with this
forecasting endeavor. Our forecast will be very conservative, due to the uncertainty of the economy.
We will look at what is needed and will bring the forecast to this committee when it's completed.
The general fund is mainly funded by property tax as its major revenue source and those remain
rather steady. Franchise fees are a revenue stream in the general fund and may be affected
somewhat by the economy but the general fund will not be hurt as bad as other funds, like the gas
tax fund.
IFAS (citywide financial software implementation status) - Loreen Mills
As approved by the City Council, the City has a Technology Strategic Plan. Part of that plan
includes The GIS system, which is in place and IFAS -the financial software package. We are in the
process of implementing IFAS. Bob Sesnon was the in -house project manager, and with his
departure, we've had to slow down the implementation schedule. We have hired a project manager
from IFAS that will be onsite a couple of weeks per month during implementation. The General
Ledger piece is scheduled to live on 4/1/09 and the Payroll /HR portion is scheduled for January 1,
2010. The original target dates were 7/1/08 for the GL and HR /Payroll was always 1/10. We
created the budget internally in Prophix and that software didn't work real well for us because we
were on SQL Server and it didn't work well. We are working with them to build the budget in that
2
system in a year from now. For the upcoming budget season, we will return to the spreadsheets.
We rolled the budget into IFAS and it is in there and we're putting our expenses in there so it will be
used this year.
Water Source Negotiation Results, Water Rates & Water Supply Debt Service -Craig Prosser
In August of this year, we negotiated a deal with Lake Oswego. We will be buying into their
water system and will take an initial payment of 2 -2.5 million dollars. Part of the deal was that they
would get current appraisals for the properties that we will share in and they finished that portion.
This payment has been budgeted. We are joining them in a project to upgrade their water intake
which is on the Clackamas River. It will be piped under the Willamette River to West Linn where
their treatment plant is located. We will work with them to upgrade their plant to include increasing
their capacity. We will share this cost and will get the lion's share of the new water. The expansion
will occur in two phases. Water rates were approved in this upcoming budget. We will need to do
some debt financing which was also built into the budget. Loreen has been working with our
Financial Advisor to obtain the funding. We went to the City Council to get an 18 million bond
approved which is appropriated in the budget. However, this is not a good time to sell bonds. We
suggested we go to the banks and solicit a line of credit for the next three years of 22 million instead
of 18 million to do the projects that we need to do. We only received one response from US Bank.
They are the bank we have our accounts with for the most part. Typically we would only be
required to make an interest payment on the used portion of the line of credit. In today's economy,
US Bank requests that we pay interest on the entire line of equity amount - whether we've used it or
not. The interest rate is 4.7 %- 5.25 %. Therefore, we are not going to get 22 million -we don't know
now how much we will need. We will probably do a bond sale in 2010 so will get a smaller line of
credit to get us through this time. We need some of the money within the next two months. We are
going through the Water CIP and put off some projects that were originally scheduled for this year.
Loreen said the amount will be down at least 8 million but not sure yet the reduced line amount.
Gretchen suggested that the City Council meet with the Bond Counsel for education
purposes. Craig would like staff to work this through first with our Bond Counsel and Financial
Advisors.
Transportation Financing- Tom Coffee
Transportation Financing Strategies Task Force Status: The task force has been
reinstated. In June, we got 6 applicants and as now we have 10. They have been forwarded to the
Mayor. Nick Wilson is the liaison for this committee. The Mayor said that about half of the
applicants have sat on this committee before and they don't need to be interviewed again. Rick
Parker and John Bailey from the Budget Committee have also volunteered to serve on this task
force.
3
BUDGET COMMITTEE MEETING
2/17/09
AGENDA ITEM
#4
' General Ledger
Expense vs. Budget Thru 12/31/08
2008 -09 2008 -09 2008 -09
Division Division Name Budget Year to Date % Spent
GENERAL FUND
1110 Police Administration 630,919.61 297,594.45 47%
1120 Police Operations 7,201,094.59 3,671,706.25 51%
1130 Police Support Services 5,900,913.53 3,048,064.51 52%
1410 Library Administration 728,169.55 313,496.87 43%
1420 Library Readers' Services 2,329,801.50 1,158,697.68 50%
1430 Library Technical Services 778,791.94 386,668.80 50%
1440 Library Circulation 1,477,618.96 734,549.67 50%
1500 Social Svcs & Community Events 220,150.00 187,618.46 85%
1600 Parks & Grounds 1,597,930.93 730,011.18 46%
2110 Public Works Administration 1,580,960.69 604,557.67 38%
2140 Street Maintenance 1,275,825.92 528,404.22 41%
2210 Community Develoment Admin 566,679.04 302,521.68 53%
2230 Current Planning 1,211,132.54 629,506.04 52%
2240 Long Range Planning 1,047,360.66 449,466.47 43%
2250 Capital Const. /Transportation 1,471,474.66 710,470.08 48%
2270 Development Engineering 639,051.80 313,390.10 49%
2290 Downtown Redevelopment 292,961.00 55,478.20 19%
3110 Mayor & Council 257,536.00 127,672.97 50%
3220 FIS- Interim Plan 265,426.00 86,025.71 32%
3340 Municipal Court 499,656.59 212,096.09 42%
6100 CIP - General 910,845.00 2,174.89 0%
8000 Transfers / Contingency 2,133,043.97 415,328.12 19%
GENERAL FUND 33,017,344.48 14,965,500.11 45%
GAS TAX FUND
2260 Street Lights & Signals 587,979.00 346,907.74 59%
6300 CIP - Streets 3,357,296.00 227,963.35 7%
8000 Transfers / Contingency 2,000,411.00 65,747.50 3%
GAS TAX FUND 5,945,686.00 640,618.59 11%
TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE FUND
6300 CIP - Streets 2,365,000.00 309,671.73 13%
8000 Transfers / Contingency 96,309.00 50,767.89 53%
TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE FUND 2,461,309.00 360,439.62 15%
TREE REPLACEMENT FUND
6410 CIP - Tree Replacements 45,000.00 0 0%
TREE REPLACEMENT FUND 45,000.00 0 0%
ELECTRICAL INSPECTION FUND
8000 Transfers / Contingency 206,426.00 43,386.52 21%
ELECTRICAL INSPECTION FUND 206,426.00 43,386.52 21%
Page 1 of 4
General Ledger
Expense vs. Budget Thru 12/31/08
2008 -09 2008 -09 2008 -09
Division Division Name Budget Year to Date % Spent
PARKS CAPITAL FUND
5200 Bond Debt Service 278,053.00 278,052.63 100%
6400 CIP - Parks 1,493,956.00 87,842.92 6%
PARKS CAPITAL FUND 1,772,009.00 365,895.55 21%
UNDERGROUND UTILITY FUND
6300 OP - Streets 300,000.00 0 0%
8000 Transfers / Contingency 45,000.00 0 0%
UNDERGROUND UTILITY FUND 345,000.00 0 0%
CRIMINAL FORFEITURE FUND
8000 Transfers / Contingency 10,000.00 0 0%
CRIMINAL FORFEITURE FUND 10,000.00 0 0%
BUILDING FUND
2220 Building Inspection 2,620,932.80 1,221,785.61 47%
8000 Transfers / Contingency 390,000.00 0 0%
BUILDING FUND 3,010,932.80 1,221,785.61 41%
URBAN SERIVCES TIF FUND
4150 Division 750,000.00 0 0%
URBAN SERIVCES TIF FUND 750,000.00 0 0%
URBAN SERVICES FUND
4150 Division 94,870.00 0 0%
8000 Transfers / Contingency 0 0 #DIV /0!
URBAN SERVICES FUND 94,870.00 0 0%
STREET MAINTENANCE FUND
6300 CIP - Streets 810,511.00 713,768.50 88%
8000 Transfers / Contingency 166,798.82 19,664.33 12%
STREET MAINTENANCE FUND 977,309.82 733,432.83 75%
PARKS SDC FUND
6400 CIP - Parks 1,704,885.00 48,362.66 3%
PARKS SDC FUND 1,704,885.00 48,362.66 3%
CITY GAS TAX FUND
6300 CIP - Streets 1,150,000.00 120,453.65 10%
CITY GAS TAX FUND 1,150,000.00 120,453.65 10%
Page 2 of 4
General Ledger
Expense vs. Budget Thru 12/31/08
2008 -09 2008 -09 2008 -09
Division Division Name Budget Year to Date % Spent
FACILITY FUND
6100 CIP - General 569,321.00 155,474.97 27%
8000 Transfers / Contingency 498,500.00 444,605.34 89%
FACILITY FUND 1,067,821.00 600,080.31 56%
TIGARD TRIANGLE LID #1
5200 Bond Debt Service 100,000.00 0 0%
5250 CIP - LID Bond Debt Servi 2,200,000.00 0 0%
8000 Transfers / Contingency 155,500.00 0 0%
TIGARD TRIANGLE LID #1 2,455,500.00 0 0%
BANCROFT DEBT SERVICE FUND
5200 Bond Debt Service 193,378.00 62,230.84 32%
8000 Transfers / Contingency 29,000.00 0 0%
BANCROFT DEBT SERVICE FUND 222,378.00 62,230.84 28%
GNRL OBLIGATION DBT SVC FUND
5200 Bond Debt Service 974,913.00 974,913.22 100%
8000 Transfers / Contingency 146,000.00 0 0%
GNRL OBLIGATION DBT SVC FUND 1,120,913.00 974,913.22 87%
SANITARY SEWER FUND
2120 Sanitary Sewer 1,068,532.64 486,127.89 45%
6100 CIP - General 70,000.00 0 0%
6200 CIP - Sanitary Sewer 1,495,000.00 241,422.97 16%
8000 Transfers / Contingency 370,000.00 0 0%
SANITARY SEWER FUND 3,003,532.64 727,550.86 24%
STORM SEWER FUND
2130 Storm Sewer 1,605,981.88 757,269.74 47%
6250 CIP - Storm Drain Sewer 685,000.00 132,611.63 19%
8000 Transfers / Contingency 300,000.00 0 0%
STORM SEWER FUND 2,590,981.88 889,881.37 34%
WATER QUALITY /QUANTITY FUND
6250 CIP - Storm Drain Sewer 640,000.00 157,598.43 25%
8000 Transfers / Contingency 125,736.00 13,566.27 11%
WATER QUALITY /QUANTITY FUND 765,736.00 171,164.70 22%
WATER FUND
2170 Water 7,538,914.90 3,529,618.40 47%
6270 CIP - Water 476,700.00 173,953.18 36%
WATER FUND 8,015,614.90 3,703,571.58 46%
Page 3 of 4
• ‘ General Ledger
Expense vs. Budget Thru 12/31/08
2008 -09 2008 -09 2008 -09
Division Division Name Budget Year to Date % Spent
WATER SDC FUND
6270 CIP - Water 165,000.00 0 0%
WATER SDC FUND 165,000.00 0 0%
WATER CIP FUND
6270 CIP - Water 10,541,579.00 952,308.66 9%
8000 Transfers / Contingency 1,690,991.00 0 0%
WATER CIP FUND 12,232,570.00 952,308.66 8%
CENTRAL SERVICES FUND
3120 City Management 740,970.00 341,800.57 46%
3130 Human Resources 781,022.00 293,703.06 38%
3140 Information Technology 1,443,370.00 605,770.05 42%
3150 Risk Management 242,010.00 85,250.19 35%
3210 Finance Administration 669,478.00 458,467.73 68%
3230 Financial Operations 523,827.00 228,897.14 44%
3240 Utility Billing 558,668.00 235,862.97 42%
3320 Administrative Services 522,694.00 299,833.64 57%
3330 Records 622,374.00 209,248.01 34%
CENTRAL SERVICES FUND 6,104,413.00 2,758,833.36 45%
FLEET /PROPERTY MANAGMENT FUND
2150 Fleet Maintenance 194,067.00 82,430.41 42%
2160 Property Management 1,259,504.39 626,697.60 50%
FLEET /PROPERTY MANAGMENT FUND 1,453,571.39 709,128.01 49%
URBAN RENEWAL DEBT SRVC
5200 Bond Debt Service 80,000.00 0 0%
URBAN RENEWAL DEBT SRVC 80,000.00 0 0%
URBAN RENEWAL CAP PROJ
6800 Urban Renewal 379,269.00 0 0%
URBAN RENEWAL CAP PROJ 379,269.00 0 0%
TRUST FUND
1410 Library Administration 448,500.00 0 0%
TRUST FUND 448,500.00 0 0%
Page 4 of 4
General Ledger
Revenue vs. Budget - Thur 12/31/08
2008 -09 2008 -09 2008 -09
Object Revenue Description Budget Year to Date % Collected
GENERAL FUND
400000 Current Taxes 11,471,766.00 10,251,185.45 89%
401000 Prior Year Taxes 155,000.00 164,138.59 106%
404000 Federal Grants 32,714.00 125,044.69 382%
410000 Cigarette Tax 74,980.00 45,239.42 60%
411000 Liquor Tax 535,000.00 237,535.40 44%
412000 State Revenue Sharing 371,075.00 190,404.67 51%
414000 State Grants 43,286.00 9,003.00 21%
414040 State Marine Board Grant - 3,900.00
415000 911 Emergency Tax 244,000.00 63,330.94 26%
416000 Intergovernmental Revenue 617,294.00 436,570.71 71%
417000 Tree Replacement Revenue 70,000.00 254,156.00 363%
420000 Hotel / Motel Tax 385,000.00 271,119.40 70%
422000 County - WCCLS 2,507,837.00 2,030,609.00 81%
430000 Business Tax 575,000.00 494,946.43 86%
433010 Erosion Control Plan Check Fee 500.00 192.40 38%
433060 CDC Review Fees 15,000.00 5,118.00 34%
433070 Address Fee 15,000.00 1,100.00 7%
434000 Alarm Permit 40,000.00 26,825.00 67%
435000 Liquor Permit Fees 3,150.00 525.00 17%
436000 Engineering Public Improvement 275,000.00 31,183.64 11%
437000 Sign Permit Fees 7,000.00 2,661.00 38%
438000 Land Use Application Fee 250,000.00 137,848.00 55%
438050 Long Range Planning Surcharge 32,000.00 19,620.00 61%
440000 Lien Search Fees 65,000.00 26,445.00 41%
445003 Fee In -Lieu Undergrounding 90,000.00 - 0 %
445004 Fee In -Lieu Bicycle Striping 6,700.00 - 0 %
451000 Miscellaneous Fees & Charges 103,000.00 14,668.47 14%
451004 Library Copier Receipts 2,300.00 1,037.95 45%
451005 Engineering Copier Receipts - 2.50
451015 Vehicle Release Fee 30,000.00 25,265.00 84%
451020 Passport Processing Fee 131,000.00 35,548.00 27%
451021 Passport Photograph Fee 14,540.00 6,621.50 46%
451390 Miscellaneous Fees & Charges 48,000.00 - 0 %
451400 Cash Over & Short - 8.25
452000 Facility Reservation Fee - 18,723.10
454000 Candidate Filing Fees - 150.00
455010 Fines & Forfeitures - Traffic 794,000.00 327,597.60 41%
457000 Library Fines 109,030.00 63,919.73 59%
457050 Library Misc Income 14,000.00 7,608.16 54%
458000 Civil Infractions 35,000.00 2,128.30 6%
460000 Franchise Fees - Electric 1,533,455.00 - 0 %
461000 Franchise Fees - Gas 1,197,196.00 644,769.64 54%
Page 1 of 7
General Ledger
Revenue vs. Budget - Thur 12/31/08
2008 -09 2008 -09 2008 -09
Object Revenue Description Budget Year to Date % Collected
462000 Franchise - Telecomm 368,400.00 82,735.40 22%
463000 Franchise Fees - Garbage 383,300.00 109,577.54 29%
465000 Franchise Fees - Cable TV 374,042.00 178,728.58 48%
466000 Franchise Fees - Water 360,125.00 232,889.75 65%
467000 Franchise Fees - Sanitary Swr 69,665.00 44,802.78 64%
470000 Interest 268,435.00 146,232.10 54%
471000 Interest Earned from Other - 14,312.08
472000 Rentals 37,715.00 12,269.00 33%
479000 Recovered Expenditures 20,000.00 5,843.57 29%
499000 Interfund Transfers 832,119.00 533,636.49 64%
499200 Transfer In -Gas Tax Fund 1,235,685.00 - 0%
499220 Transfer In- Electrial Insp 5,984.00 - 0 %
499235 Transfer In- CriminalForfeiture 10,000.00 - 0 %
GENERAL FUND 25,859,293.00 17,337,777.23 67%
GAS TAX FUND
404000 Federal Grants 255,730.00 - 0 %
413000 State Gas Tax Share 2,213,500.00 972,450.79 44%
414000 State Grants 270,566.00 - 0 %
423000 County Road Gas Tax - 93,742.79
442000 Street Lighting Fees 13,000.00 1,018.56 8%
445003 Fee In -Lieu Undergrounding 10,000.00 - 0 %
445004 Fee In -Lieu Bicycle Striping - 1,154.00
470000 Interest Earnings 36,000.00 76,796.76 213%
478000 Other Revenues 1,130,000.00 - 0 %
479045 Barrows Rd Improvements - 71,814.00
499335 Transfer In- Tigard Triagle #1 155,500.00 - 0%
GAS TAX FUND 4,084,296.00 1,216,976.90 30%
TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE FUND
448000 System Develop Chrg Reimb 620,000.00 - 0 %
448001 Residential Tif Fees - 74,272.06
448002 Commercial Tif Fees - 43,774.11
448003 Office Use Tif Fees - 6,042.46
448004 Industrial Tif Fees - 126.67
448005 Mass Transit Tif - 14,678.30
448006 Institutional Tif - - 884.10
470000 Interest Earnings 125,000.00 54,450.19 44%
479000 Recovered Expenditures - 500.00
TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE FUND 745,000.00 194,727.89 26%
TREE REPLACEMENT FUND
499100 Transfer In- General Fund 575,000.00 - 0 %
Page 2 of 7
General Ledger
Revenue vs. Budget - Thur 12/31/08
2008 -09 2008 -09 2008 -09
Object Revenue Description Budget Year to Date % Collected
TREE REPLACEMENT FUND 575,000.00 - 0%
ELECTRICAL INSPECTION FUND
431510 Electrical Permit Fees 201,055.00 70,628.59 35%
433040 Electrical Plan Check Fee 6,218.00 1,762.93 28%
470000 Interest Earnings 3,750.00 3,080.94 82%
ELECTRICAL INSPECTION FUND 211,023.00 75,472.46 36%
PARKS CAPITAL FUND
404000 Federal Grants 179,349.00 - 0%
414000 State Grants 230,671.00 - 0%
417000 Tree Replacement Revenue - -
470000 Interest Earnings 20,000.00 31,834.36 159%
478000 Other Revenues 808,816.00 - 0%
479000 Recovered Expenditures 34,702.00 35,231.36 102%
PARKS CAPITAL FUND 1,273,538.00 67,065.72 5%
UNDERGROUND UTILITY FUND
445003 Fee In -Lieu Undergrounding 70,000.00 35,226.45 50%
470000 Interest Earnings 14,580.00 11,425.97 78%
UNDERGROUND UTILITY FUND 84,580.00 46,652.42 55%
CRIMINAL FORFEITURE FUND
455000 Forfeiture Revenues 5,000.00 974.00 19%
470000 Interest Earnings 1,517.00 1,114.48 73%
CRIMINAL FORFEITURE FUND 6,517.00 2,088.48 32%
INSURANCE FUND
470000 Interest Earnings 23,350.00 16,396.24 70%
479000 Recovered Expenditures 30,000.00 66,169.00 221%
INSURANCE FUND 53,350.00 82,565.24 155%
BUILDING FUND
431000 Plumbing Permits 117,865.00 31,235.98 27%
431010 Mechanical Permits 119,688.00 44,012.82 37%
432000 Building Permits 652,000.00 105,548.87 16%
432050 Metro Construction Excise 5% 2,000.00 439.00 22%
432060 Beaverton School CET 1% - 92.84
432070 Tigard - Tualatin School CET 1% - 463.07
433000 Building Plan Check Fee 423,800.00 86,771.21 20%
433010 Erosion Control Plan Check Fee 6,100.00 1,934.37 32%
433020 Fire Life Safety Plan Ck Fee 90,000.00 37,725.40 42%
433030 Plumbing Plan Check Fee 5,131.00 - 0%
Page 3of7
General Ledger
Revenue vs. Budget - Thur 12/31/08
2008 -09 2008 -09 2008 -09
Object Revenue Description Budget Year to Date % Collected
433050 Mechanical Plan Check Fee 16,000.00 4,763.36 30%
433060 CDC Review Fees 2,800.00 1,148.00 41%
441001 Sewer Inspection Fee 5,685.00 1,127.00 20%
451000 Miscellaneous Fees & Charges 2,400.00 1,420.76 59%
470000 Interest Earnings 40,000.00 16,890.28 42%
479000 Recovered Expenditures 500.00 250.00 50%
499220 Transfer In- Electrical Insp 173,542.00 43,385.52 25%
499222 Interfund Transfers - Building - 3.00
BUILDING FUND 1,657,511.00 377,211.48 23%
URBAN SERIVCES TIF FUND
470000 Interest Earnings 82,595.00 14,358.96 17%
URBAN SERIVCES TIF FUND 82,595.00 14,358.96 17%
URBAN SERVICES FUND
418000 Intergovernmental Revenue - 94.00
431000 Plumbing Permits - -
431010 Mechanical Permits - -
432000 Building Permits - -
433000 Building Plan Check Fee - -
433010 Erosion Control Plan Check Fee - -
433020 Fire Life Safety Plan Ck Fee - -
433050 Mechanical Plan Check Fee - -
433060 CDC Review Fees - -
470000 Interest Earnings 16,000.00 2,054.40 13%
URBAN SERVICES FUND 16,000.00 2,148.40 13%
STREET MAINTENANCE FUND
446014 Cr Leaks /Misreads Py (2,000.00) - 0%
446015 Bad Debt - (2,517.61)
449000 Street Maintenance Fee 800,000.00 435,150.69 54%
470000 Interest - 1,403.33
479000 Recovered Expenditures - 500.00
STREET MAINTENANCE FUND 798,000.00 434,536.41 54%
PARKS SDC FUND
450000 System Development Charge 800,000.00 104,300.00 13%
470000 Interest Earnings 57,586.00 66,583.36 116%
PARKS SDC FUND 857,586.00 170,883.36 20%
CITY GAS TAX FUND
424000 City Gas Tax 710,000.00 319,698.92 45%
470000 Interest Earnings 58,750.00 16,155.57 27%
Page 4 of 7
General Ledger
Revenue vs. Budget - Thur 12/31/08
2008 -09 2008 -09 2008 -09
Object Revenue Description Budget Year to Date % Collected
CITY GAS TAX FUND 768,750.00 335,854.49 44%
FACILITY FUND
470000 Interest Earnings 9,000.00 7,945.65 88%
499100 Transfer In- General Fund 400,000.00 400,000.00 100%
FACILITY FUND 409,000.00 407,945.65 100%
TIGARD TRIANGLE LID #1
474000 Bond Proceeds 2,455,500.00 - 0%
TIGARD TRIANGLE LID #1 2,455,500.00 - 0%
BANCROFT DEBT SERVICE FUND
470000 Interest Earnings 95,689.00 22,025.12 23%
471120 Int Rec'd Dartmouth 2003 - 8,319.81
471690 Interest Series 69 - 34,737.21
471980 Int Rec'd-Dartmouth 1998 - 93.33
475000 Bancroft Collections 123,618.00 - 0%
475120 Prin Rec'd Dartmouth 2003 - 24,002.22
475690 Principlal Series 69 - 16,124.44
475980 Prin Rec'd - Dartmouth 1998 - 2,986.11
BANCROFT DEBT SERVICE FUND 219,307.00 108,288.24 49%
GNRL OBLIGATION DBT SVC FUND
400000 Current Taxes 976,563.00 723,680.32 74%
401000 Prior Year Taxes 13,000.00 14,588.88 112%
470000 Interest Earnings 6,250.00 3,928.58 63%
GNRL OBLIGATION DBT SVC FUND 995,813.00 742,197.78 75%
SANITARY SEWER FUND
443000 Sewer Connection Fees 135,000.00 27,098.27 20%
446015 Bad Debt - (22,462.19)
446020 Sewer Revenue USA 30% 1,323,635.00 785,843.65 59%
470000 Interest Earnings 219,178.00 193,848.91 88%
479000 Recovered Expenditures - 172.08
479005 Bad Debt Rec Expenditures - 31.89
479010 Reimb. District Revenue 150,000.00 63,964.49 43%
SANITARY SEWER FUND 1,827,813.00 1,048,497.10 57%
STORM SEWER FUND
446015 Bad Debt - (5,973.73)
447000 Storm Drainage Service Ch 1,589,700.00 583,219.33 37%
447010 Tigard SWM Surcharge - 221,869.17
470000 Interest Earnings 15,500.00 15,684.90 101%
Page 5 of 7
General Ledger
Revenue vs. Budget - Thur 12/31/08
2008 -09 2008 -09 2008 -09
Object Revenue Description Budget Year to Date % Collected
STORM SEWER FUND 1,605,200.00 814,799.67 51%
WATER QUALITY /QUANTITY FUND
445001 Fee In -Lieu H2O Quantity 29,000.00 1,375.00 5%
445002 Fee in Lieu Water Quality 3,500.00 900.00 26%
470000 Interest Earnings 51,250.00 41,443.69 81%
WATER QUALITY /QUANTITY FUND 83,750.00 43,718.69 52%
WATER FUND
446009 Fire Hydrant Flow Testing Srvc - 325.00
446010 Water Sales- Metered 7,857,494.00 4,143,099.30 53%
446011 Water Sales -Other 38,250.00 5,100.24 13%
446013 Meter Sales 75,000.00 16,600.00 22%
446014 Cr Leaks /Misreads Py (15,000.00) (10,226.65) 68%
446015 Bad Debt - (10,333.66)
447001 Developer 10% Overhead /6% Fee 75,000.00 7,688.64 10%
447002 Developer Engineering Fee 15,000.00 - 0%
447005 Water -Fire Svc Hook -Up 4,500.00 - 0%
448000 System Develop Chrg Reimb 200,000.00 34,619.00 17%
451000 Miscellaneous Fees & Charges 8,500.00 2,400.00 28%
452000 Facilities Rental Fees 35,000.00 - 0%
470000 Interest Earnings 41,100.00 104,510.83 254%
472000 Rental Income - 22,678.00
478001 Water Late Pay Penalties - 27,750.00
478002 Water Ret'd Ck Fees - 1,260.00
WATER FUND 8,334,844.00 4,345,470.70 52%
WATER SDC FUND
450000 System Development Charge 250,000.00 54,420.00 22%
470000 Interest Earnings 4,000.00 8,382.96 210%
WATER SDC FUND 254,000.00 62,802.96 25%
WATER CIP FUND
450000 Water Supply SDC Revenue 250,000.00 54,295.80 22%
470000 Interest Earnings 220,000.00 39,987.84 18%
478000 Other Revenues 18,000,000.00 - 0%
499000 Interfund Transfers 109,841.00 - 0 %
WATER CIP FUND 18,579,841.00 94,283.64 1%
CENTRAL SERVICES FUND
451000 Miscellaneous Fees and Charges 10,000.00 38,968.37 390%
470000 Interest Earnings 35,000.00 8,381.81 24%
479000 Recovered Expenditures - 16,438.91
Page 6 of 7
General Ledger .
Revenue vs. Budget - Thur 12/31/08
2008 -09 2008 -09 2008 -09
Object Revenue Description Budget Year to Date % Collected
499000 Interfund Transfers 5,814,973.00 2,323,586.29 40%
CENTRAL SERVICES FUND 5,859,973.00 2,387,375.38 41%
FLEET /PROPERTY MANAGMENT FUND
470000 Interest Earnings 1,450.00 1,721.46 119%
479000 Recovered Expenditures - 19,097.28
499000 Interfund Transfers 1,453,571.30 584,622.77 40%
FLEET /PROPERTY MANAGMENT FUND 1,455,021.30 605,441.51 42%
URBAN RENEWAL DEBT SRVC
400000 Current Taxes 41,000.00 103,937.82 254%
470000 Interest 3,000.00 939.54 31%
URBAN RENEWAL DEBT SRVC 44,000.00 104,877.36 238%
URBAN RENEWAL CAP PROJ
416000 Intergovernmental Revenue 380,000.00 - 0%
URBAN RENEWAL CAP PROJ 380,000.00 - 0%
TRUST FUND
470000 Interest Earnings - 9,483.73
499300 Transfer In- Facilities Fund 448,500.00 444,605.34 99%
TRUST FUND 448,500.00 454,089.07 101%
Page 7 of 7
I
General Ledger
Income Statement by Fund -
Th ru 12/31/08
2008 -09 2008 -09
Description Budget Year To Date
GENERAL FUND
Revenue 25,859,293.00 17,337,777.23
Expense 33,017,344.48 14,965,500.11
GENERAL FUND (7,158,051.48) 2,372,277.12
GAS TAX FUND
Revenue 4,084,296.00 1,216,976.90
Expense 5,945,686.00 640,618.59
GAS TAX FUND (1,861,390.00) 576,358.31
TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE FUND
Revenue 745,000.00 194,727.89
Expense 2,461,309.00 360,439.62
TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE FUND (1,716,309.00) (165,711.73)
TREE REPLACEMENT FUND
Revenue 575,000.00 -
Expense 45,000.00 -
TREE REPLACEMENT FUND 530,000.00 -
ELECTRICAL INSPECTION FUND
Revenue 211,023.00 75,472.46
Expense 206,426.00 43,386.52
ELECTRICAL INSPECTION FUND 4,597.00 32,085.94
PARKS CAPITAL FUND
Revenue 1,273,538.00 67,065.72
Expense 1,772,009.00 365,895.55
PARKS CAPITAL FUND (498,471.00) (298,829.83)
UNDERGROUND UTILITY FUND
Revenue 84,580.00 46,652.42
Expense 345,000.00 -
UNDERGROUND UTILITY FUND (260,420.00) 46,652.42
CRIMINAL FORFEITURE FUND
Revenue 6,517.00 2,088.48
Expense 10,000.00 -
CRIMINAL FORFEITURE FUND (3,483.00) 2,088.48
Page 1 of 4
General Ledger
Income Statement by Fund -
Thru 12/31/08
2008 -09 2008 -09
Description Budget Year To Date
INSURANCE FUND
Revenue 53,350.00 82,565.24
INSURANCE FUND 53,350.00 82,565.24
BUILDING FUND
Revenue 1,657,511.00 377,211.48
Expense 3,010,932.80 1,221,785.61
BUILDING FUND (1,353,421.80) (844,574.13)
URBAN SERIVCES TIF FUND
Revenue 82,595.00 14,358.96
Expense 750,000.00 -
URBAN SERIVCES TIF FUND (667,405.00) 14,358.96
URBAN SERVICES FUND
Revenue 16,000.00 2,148.40
Expense 94,870.00 1.00
URBAN SERVICES FUND (78,870.00) 2,147.40
STREET MAINTENANCE FUND
Revenue 798,000.00 434,536.41
Expense 977,309.82 733,432.83
STREET MAINTENANCE FUND (179,309.82) (298,896.42)
PARKS SDC FUND
Revenue 857,586.00 170,883.36
Expense 1,704,885.00 48,362.66
PARKS SDC FUND (847,299.00) 122,520.70
CITY GAS TAX FUND
Revenue 768,750.00 335,854.49
Expense 1,150,000.00 120,453.65
CITY GAS TAX FUND (381,250.00) 215,400.84
FACILITY FUND
Revenue 409,000.00 407,945.65
Expense 1,067,821.00 600,080.31
FACILITY FUND (658,821.00) (192,134.66)
Page 2of4
General Ledger
Income Statement by Fund -
Thru 12/31/08
2008 -09 2008 -09
Description Budget Year To Date
TIGARD TRIANGLE LID #1
Revenue 2,455,500.00 -
Expense 2,455,500.00 -
TIGARD TRIANGLE LID #1 - -
BANCROFT DEBT SERVICE FUND
Revenue 219,307.00 108,288.24
Expense 222,378.00 62,230.84
BANCROFT DEBT SERVICE FUND (3,071.00) 46,057.40
GNRL OBLIGATION DBT SVC FUND
Revenue 995,813.00 742,197.78
Expense 1,120,913.00 974,913.22
GNRL OBLIGATION DBT SVC FUND (125,100.00) (232,715.44)
SANITARY SEWER FUND
Revenue 1,827,813.00 1,048,497.10
Expense 3,003,532.64 727,550.86
SANITARY SEWER FUND (1,175,719.64) 320,946.24
STORM SEWER FUND
Revenue 1,605,200.00 814,799.67
Expense 2,590,981.88 889,881.37
STORM SEWER FUND (985,781.88) (75,081.70)
WATER QUALITY /QUANTITY FUND
Revenue 83,750.00 43,718.69
Expense 765,736.00 171,164.70
WATER QUALITY /QUANTITY FUND (681,986.00) (127,446.01)
WATER FUND
Revenue 8,334,844.00 4,345,470.70
Expense 8,015,614.90 3,703,571.58
WATER FUND 319,229.10 641,899.12
WATER SDC FUND
Revenue 254,000.00 62,802.96
Expense 165,000.00 -
WATER SDC FUND 89,000.00 62,802.96
Page 3 of 4
• General Ledger
Income Statement by Fund -
Th ru 12/31/08
2008 -09 2008 -09
Description Budget Year To Date
WATER CIP FUND
Revenue 18,579,841.00 94,283.64
Expense 12,232,570.00 952,308.66
WATER CIP FUND 6,347,271.00 (858,025.02)
CENTRAL SERVICES FUND
Revenue 5,859,973.00 2,387,375.38
Expense 6,104,413.00 2,758,833.36
CENTRAL SERVICES FUND (244,440.00) (371,457.98)
FLEET /PROPERTY MANAGMENT FUND
Revenue 1,455,021.30 605,441.51
Expense 1,453,571.39 709,128.01
FLEET /PROPERTY MANAGMENT FUND 1,449.91 (103,686.50)
URBAN RENEWAL DEBT SRVC
Revenue 44,000.00 104,877.36
Expense 80,000.00 -
URBAN RENEWAL DEBT SRVC (36,000.00) 104,877.36
URBAN RENEWAL CAP PROJ
Revenue 380,000.00 -
Expense 379,269.00 -
URBAN RENEWAL CAP PROJ 731.00 -
TRUST FUND
Revenue 448,500.00 454,089.07
Expense 448,500.00 -
TRUST FUND - 454,089.07
Page 4 of 4
BUDGET COMMITTEE MEETING
2/17/09
AGENDA ITEM
#5
City of Tigard
FY 2009 -10
Financial Forecast/Budget Calendar
• November 2008
o Forecast Training
• December, 2008
o Financial Forecast Due
o Individual Department Training
• January 2009
o 12- Department budget worksheets are available on the I drive
o 21 and 22- Department budget training
o 23 -New FTE and position reclassification due to HR
• February 2009
o 13- Budget requests and revenue due to Finance
o 17- Budget committee meeting
o 20 -HR FTE and reclass reports to the Finance Department
o 23- 27- Department meetings with Finance staff
• March 2009
o 2 -8 -City Manager /Finance /Department meetings
o 11- Budget wrap up meeting with Craig
o 13, 20, 27- Requested budget and proposed budget development (Finance and Craig)
• April, 2009
o 3- Requested budget and proposed budget development (Finance and Craig)
o 6- Proposed budget to printer
o 10- Budget to budget committee
o 20 -Exec Staff Budget Hearing preparation
o 27- Budget Committee hearing (CD, PW)
o 27 -CCDA Budget Committee hearing
• May, 2009
o 4- Budget Committee hearing (Recap 4/27 mtg., Police, Library, City Admin, Policy &
Legislation)
o 11- Budget Committee hearing (Recap 5/4 mtg., Citywide issue papers, Discussion and wrap
up)
o 18- Budget Committee hearing if needed
o 26- Budget materials due in council packet
• June 9, 2009
o Budget presented to Council
Agenda Item # .
Meeting Date February 17, 2009
CITY CENTER DEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
City Of Tigard, Oregon
Issue /Agenda Title City Center Advisory Commission (CCAC) 2008 Annual Report
Prepared By: Phil Nachbar Dept Head Approval: y/ City Mgr Approval:
ISSUE BEFORE THE CITY CENTER DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
Review the City Center Advisory Commission (CCAC) annual report.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Review and discuss the CCAC Annual Report with members of the Commission.
KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY
The CCAC By Laws require the preparation of an annual report which describes the key activities and proceedings of
the Commission. Typically, the CCAC meets with the City Center Development Agency (CCDA) to discuss the report
and any recommendations which the Commission thinks would enhance its mission.
The CCAC addressed a range of issues and concerns throughout the year. These included: review and
recommendation of the Fanno Creek Park & Plaza Master Plan; review of the Leland Development Strategy (Sept 07);
recommendations for the annual work program and urban renewal budget; study and review of the new Downtown
Design Guidelines and the Tigard Downtown Future Vision: A Visual Refinement of the TDIP; a joint meeting with Council
regarding the Burnham Street project; tours of two senior housing developments; and study of downtown
organizational leadership in response to the recommendations in the Leland Report. For the above issues, the CCAC
took the following actions in furtherance of the urban renewal effort in Downtown:
1. The CCAC Chair played a key role in conveying issues between the Fanno Creek Park & Plaza Steering Committee
and the Commission. The Commission recommended adoption of the master plan.
2. Provided oversight to the Leland report for inclusion of the recommendations into the annual work program.
3. The CCAC has been closely involved with the development of the new Downtown land use regulations, still under
review, and initially had recommended consideration of a "form- based" code, which was pursued by staff.
4. Participated in a joint - meeting with Council on Burnham St. in June, which resulted in improved relationships and
significant progress towards acquiring needed right -of -way.
5. Maintained an interest in affordable and senior housing for Downtown; met with Community Partners for
Affordable Housing (CPAH), which is now planning a 50 -unit project within the Urban Renewal District.
6. Researched the Leland report recommendations on the need for organizational leadership in Downtown and is
providing recommendations to Council.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
None
CITY COUNCIL GOALS
Goal 2: Implement Urban Renewal
ATTACHMENT LIST
Attachment 1: CCAC 2008 Annual Report
FISCAL NOTES
No fiscal impact.
l\ tig20 \inetpub \tig20 \wwwrootVormsVomt does \coda agenda item summary sheet 07.doc
Attachment 1
2008 Annual Report of the City Center Advisory Commission
The CCAC addressed a range of issues and concerns throughout the year. These included: review
and recommendation for adoption of the Fanno Creek Park & Plaza Master Plan; ongoing review of
the Leland Development Strategy (Oct 07); review and recommendations for the annual work
program and urban renewal budget; study and review of the new Downtown Design Guidelines and
the Tigard Downtown Future Vision: a visual refinement of the TDIP; a joint meeting with Council
regarding the Burnham Street project; tours of two sustainably designed and built senior housing
developments; and on -going study of downtown organizational leadership in response to the
recommendation in the Leland Report.
Council adopted the Fanno Creek Park & Plaza Master Plan in February 2008. Although there was
a separate steering committee for the project, the former CCAC Chair (Carl Switzer) played a key
role in conveying important issues between the two bodies. The Commission recommended
adoption of the Master Plan.
As part of the Commission's input in developing the annual work program for the Downtown, the
Commission reviewed the recommendations of the earlier Leland Report (October 07) and
provided oversight for inclusion of the recommendations into the annual work program. In support
of the Leland recommendations, the Commission recommended the allocation of an additional
$100,000 for consulting services in the Division's budget. Council approved that allocation in the
final budget.
The Commission formed a subcommittee to participate with the Planning Commission in the review
of new Downtown Design Guidelines. The CCAC has been closely involved in the development of
the new regulations, and initially had recommended consideration of a "form- based' code. As a result,
City staff has pursued the idea, and is developing a "hybrid' code with form -based aspects. Members
of the Commission have participated in two separate seminars on form -based codes.
The Commission also saw the results of a partnership between the City and the University of
Oregon's Portland Architecture Program to further develop the vision for Downtown. The final
Tigard Downtown Future Vision: A Visual Refinement of the TDIP was presented to the Commission at its
November meeting with good response. The document is intended to provide visual suggestions of
what the Downtown could look like in 5, 10 and 20+ years overlaying a grid -based circulation
system. The Vision incorporates the basic design ideas of the Tigard Downtown Improvement
Plan, with a high density core intended to create a resident population. The Vision plan comes a
year after the City Council, along with former members of the downtown taskforce, and staff, took a
trip to Port Moody, B.C. to see how that City had created a high density, residential community
while retaining a small -town feel.
In June, Council invited the CCAC to a joint meeting to discuss the challenges faced in acquiring
right -of -way for Burnham Street widening and improvements, the initial project in the urban
renewal plan. The meeting was attended by key downtown property owners, and was productive in
providing a forum for voicing concerns and developing a plan to address them. Improving
communications with property owners as part of the acquisition process emerged as the clear
priority. As a direct result of the CCAC's efforts, it was agreed that the Mayor and a member of the
CCAC would offer to meet directly with property owners to address their concerns. During August
and September, Mayor Dirksen and CCAC Chair Alice Ellis Gaut met with a number of individual
2008 CCAC Annual Report
property owners, resulting in improved relationships and significant progress towards acquiring
needed right -of -way.
The Commission has maintained an interest in affordable and senior housing for Downtown. The
CCAC toured two senior housing facilities, Elite Care in Tigard, and The Watershed in Hillsdale.
Commissioners who attended felt each of these projects was a unique and valuable model for
Tigard, both as to the residential environments and the environmentally sustainable design and
construction. Community Partners for Affordable Housing (CPAH) has met several times with the
CCAC, and is now planning a 50 -unit project within the Urban Renewal District. The Commission
has tracked the development of the project beginning with the property's initial request to be
included in the urban renewal district, and is now pleased to see an affordable housing project come
to fruition . Vice Chair Lily Lilly has considerable expertise in the area of sustainable design, and
will attend the CPAH sponsored "eco- charette" for the project. In addition, the Commission will
continue to develop policies and goals for downtown housing in the coming year.
One of the most challenging issues for the CCAC is the Leland Development Strategy
recommendation that the City consider strengthening the organizational and leadership capacity in
Downtown Tigard. The CCAC is evaluating this recommendation, and will make its own
recommendations to Council. The Commission has been actively studying this issue since
February, and the subcommittee has produced well- researched documents comparing the
operations, missions, and effectiveness of downtown business organizations in a number of cities
comparable to Tigard in population, budget, and other criteria. The Commission intends to finalize
its preliminary recommendations to Council in early 2009, and will conduct outreach to the business
community and solicit public input as it continues to refine its work product throughout 2009.
The Commission began 2008 with some empty chairs due to resignations the previous year. Since
Council's most recent appointments, the CCAC has enjoyed a full complement of committed,
enthusiastic commissioners whose diverse perspectives, ideas, and areas of expertise have shaped the
direction and quality of the work this year. There were no resignations in 2008, and all members
whose terms would expire at year's end have requested and received reappointment. This illustrates
the dedication of the membership, and bodes well for the continuity of the Commission's ongoing
work.
A L I • ,
Alice Ellis Gaut, Chair of the City Center Advisory Commission
•
•
2008 CCAC Annual Report
21 I /a mt' (lot( nrc'J
SUPPLEMENTAL PACKET .
Summary of CCAC Retreat Topics (DATE OF MEETING) ,) � - - � ��2e�JGz
2/16/09
• Need better new Member Orientation
• Issues that are on the horizon —
✓ Plaza Land acquisition / funding uncertainty; there is some political credibility associated
with Plaza;
✓ Parks Bond; will it be proposed? What levels of priority will Plaza, Fanno Creek Park
have?
✓ Funding uncertainty for complete lower Fanno Creek Park development;
✓ Need for private sector development to drive redevelopment;
✓ Support local property owners and businesses to redevelop;
✓ Some public projects well be built; complexity and cost of Burnham St.;
✓ Relationship with other City initiatives such as Highway 99 W; light rail planning;
• Need better and more complete information of issues from staff; staff presentation takes up a
lot of meetings;
• Who controls the redevelopment agenda ?;
• CCAC needs to be more relevant; is the CCAC actually doing what it is supposed to do
• CCAC needs meaningful tasks that can result in success; Planning Commission as an example
• Too much time listening to status reports; commission members need to be meaningfully
engaged in substantive issues; to many agenda items; meeting time not well spent
• What does the City Council want the CCAC to do?
• There needs to be better communication between the CCAC and City Council;
• CCAC needs to be more fully informed of issues, such as the complexity of Burnham St.; an
example is the public doesn't know that it is a very complex engineering /construction project;
perception is it is just a pavement overlay;
• Concern that CCAC perceived not being relevant to redevelopment effort; too much effort spent
on City projects; more public engagement /property owner /business owner needed; outreach
communication and problem - solving is important also.
• How will downtown redevelopment affect small business? Will it result in existing businesses
being forced out of downtown? Is this what we want? Perhaps more of an economic gardening
entrepreneurial approach is needed? A business retention plan is needed;.
• Need multiple approaches to achieving downtown redevelopment;
• Goal should not be necessarily economic development but quality -of -life for citizens; would
getting chain retail outlets in the downtown be better for Tigard ?;
•
• CCAC needs to better manage its own meetings; more thought is needed to how many meetings
are required; also subcommittees can do a lot of the work and report back; meetings go too
long.
• Need to set an annual agenda and establish meaningful goals and tasks; essential for CCAC to
develop relevance to the task of redevelopment; more education and field trips to places Tigard
might want to emulate;
• Agenda and meeting management is essential;
• It is essential to foster positive relationships with the city Council; need to have an active and
engaged Council liaisons; CCAC needs to understand its role and what it should and should not
do per Council ;
• Need to identify early on tasks and action measures needed to redevelopment goals and check
back with Council. CCAC and Council communication is essential
• Bylaw revision is important
• Need to understand big picture of growth and development in Tigard and Metro region.
Summary of CCAC retreat topics
•
Agenda Item #
Meeting Date February 17, 2009
CITY CENTER DEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
City Of Tigard, Oregon
Issue /Agenda Title Downtown Commercial Facade Improvement Program
Prepared By: Phil Nachbar Dept Head Approval: City Mgr Approval:
s
ISSUE BEFORE THE CITY CENTER DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
Review and provide input on a proposed Downtown Commercial Facade Improvement Program for FY 09 -10. The
issue is before the City Center Development Agency to consider application of such a program within the City Center
Urban Renewal District.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Review the proposed program and provide direction to proceed or revise as appropriate.
KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY
The City Center Urban Renewal Plan authorizes several types of planning and development assistance within the City
Center Urban Renewal District including financial assistance for commercial facade improvements. Attachment 1
provides an overview and criteria that could be used. This workshop is an opportunity to discuss how such a program
might be used in Downtown Tigard. As follow -up to this discussion, and pending City Center Development Agency
direction, staff will contact business and property owners on Main Street to gauge their level of interest and concerns
that would help in devising an effective program.
Many of the urban renewal districts have some type of commercial facade improvement program. In general, most
programs require that the private property owner or business owner match the grant provided by the public agency.
The reason for this is to establish that both the public agency and private property owner place the same value and
importance on the proposed improvements. Portland Development Commission (PDC) provides a 50 -50 matching
grant up to $20,000 per project. For example, an applicant to the PDC program can obtain a grant for up to $20,000
for improvements to the front facade only of a building if the applicant matches the amount of grant provided. While
PDC and Beaverton fund larger grant amounts ($20,000) and Hillsboro funds a smaller grant amount
($5,000), both types of programs fund similar types of improvements, and require a 50 - 50 match.
Grant funds may be applied to building facades visible to the street only, and can be used to reimburse permit and
design fees. In general, work which does not affect the visual appearance of buildings is not eligible.
One of the key aspects of the program which will affect participation is the amount of private match required. While
most programs require a 50 — 50% match of grant to private funds, it may be difficult to obtain participation especially
during current economic conditions. It is expected that the least amount of private funds required would result in the
highest level of participation. The following provides three options for structuring the amount private participation:
• Option 1: (required match of 50 — 50 with a maximum grant amount of $10,000).
• Option 2: (no match required up to $5,000 but projects with substantial participant match given priority; 50 —
50 match required above $5,000 to a maximum grant amount of $10,000).
• Option 3: (no match required up to $5,000; 50 - 50 match required above $5,000 to a maximum grant amount
of $10,000).
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
None considered
CITY COUNCIL GOALS
Council Goal 2: Implement Downtown Urban Renewal.
ATTACHMENT LIST
Attachment 1: Tigard Downtown Commercial Facade Improvement Program Proposal
Attachment 2: Matrix of Downtown Commercial Facade Improvement Program Options
FISCAL NOTES
The proposed starting annual budget is $60,000. Currently there are no available funding sources for the start of a
program in FY 09 -10 except the City's General Fund. For years FY 2010 through FY 2014, there will be sufficient
urban renewal funds to fund a commercial facade improvement program in addition to other projects. City General
Funds allocated for the first year of the program starting FY 09 -10 could be paid back through execution of an
interagency loan fund between the City and the City Center Urban Renewal Agency (CCDA) authorized by Council.
ATTACHMENT 1
II
MEMORANDUM
T I GARD
TO: City Center Development Agency (CCDA)
FROM: Phil Nachbar, Redevelopment Manager
RE: Downtown Commercial Facade Improvement Program
DATE: February 3, 2009
Tigard Downtown Commercial Facade Improvement Program
Background / Goals: The City Center Urban Renewal Plan authorizes several types of
planning and development assistance within the District including loans or grants for
rehabilitation of private property, commercial facade improvements, redevelopment, new
development or technical assistance for property development. The Commercial Facade
Improvement Program is used in Oregon and throughout the country and, in particular,
where states are authorized to utilize tax increment financing. The use of commercial
storefront renovation is usually a part of a larger redevelopment program, and supports
economic development of existing businesses. The Program serves a dual purpose: to assist
property and businesses to improve the storefront appearance of property within a
commercial district, and to create a distinct identity for a Downtown that is visually
appealing and unified. The provision of a grant to businesses for improvements can be
viewed as economic incentive in that it both assists existing businesses but may also be used
as a way to attract new businesses to a vacant building. Businesses considering renting a
vacant space would view the opportunity to improve their storefront at no or minimal cost
as an incentive to locating in that particular building. Improvements would be used to
enhance the architectural integrity and character of commercial buildings within a defined
area of the Urban Renewal District.
It should be remembered that the appearance of buildings is only one factor that contributes
to the perception people have of an area. Other factors include the street itself and its
design including sidewalks, landscaping, lighting, and maintenance of the area. In contrast to
a commercial facade program focused on Main Street, the planned redesign and construction
of Main Street will have a major impact on the commercial district and the perception of the
area.
Other Programs and Eligibility Criteria: The cities of Portland, Lake Oswego, Hillsboro, and
Beaverton all have some type of commercial facade improvement program. Tualatin has
Downtown Facade Program Proposal
Page 1
had a program for over 10 years but discontinued it last year. The Portland Development
Commission (PDC) manages their Storefront Improvement Program in several Urban
Renewal Districts. PDC provides a 50 -50 matching grant up to $20,000 per project. In
general, most programs require that the private property owner or business owner match the
grant provided by the public agency. The reason for this is to establish that both the public
agency and private property owner place the same value and importance on the proposed
improvements. For example, an applicant to the PDC program can obtain a grant for up to
$20,000 for improvements to the front facade only of a building if the applicant matches the
amount of grant provided. Both the PDC grant, and the private contribution must be used
on the exterior facade of the building only. PDC has an extensive program with 250 active
projects and 4 staff persons managing projects. •
Grant funds may be applied to building facades visible to the street only, and can be used to
reimburse permit and design fees. In general, work which does not affect the visual
appearance of buildings is not eligible. Roofs, structural foundation work, security systems,
non- permanent fixtures, sidewalks or paving are not eligible under PDC's program. Unique
to PDC's program is the reimbursement of the cost of an architect to assist in the design and
contracting process. Architects are able to assist property owners in defining the type of
improvements that will have the greatest visual impact, and work through the bidding /
contracting process.
Lake Oswego's program provides grants up to $15,000 with no private match required but
projects that have a participant match are given priority. Lake Oswego grants may be used
for the exterior facades of buildings, signage, landscape or parking lot improvements, city
fees, and design fees. Hillsboro provides a smaller grant amount of up to $5,000 and
requires an equivalent private match. Hillsboro's program budgets a total of $25,000
annually for their program. Beaverton's Facade Program utilizes CDBG funds and has a
maximum grant amount of $20,000.
While both the PDC and Beaverton programs fund larger grant amounts ($20,000), and the
Hillsboro program funds a smaller grant amount ($5,000), both types of programs fund
similar types of improvements. All programs fund improvements such as signage, canopies
/ awnings, painting, masonry repair and cleaning, exterior lighting, doors, and windows. The
difference would be the total amount of work done on each project. When projects have
multiple construction items, the total cost can easily add to $20,000 to $30,000 and above.
Depending on the goals of the program, the total grant amount could be structured
accordingly. Total project costs to make basic repairs and improve the "drive -by"
appearance would range from $5,000 - $20,000; more extensive repairs and modifications
would range from $20,000 - $40,000.
Design Requirements: Most programs do not have strict design requirements but go
through some type of review process. Lakes Oswego's program requires that improvements
implement the objectives of the Urban Design Plan. Tigard would have similar
requirements and as a requirement of the grant program would ensure that all proposed
Downtown Facade Program Proposal
Page 2
improvements meet the City's new Downtown Design Guidelines, now under development.
All applicable Development and Building Code standards would also be required. If a
commercial facade program were implemented in Tigard beginning July 1, 2009, it would be
possible to condition the receipt of grant funds on conformance with the City's new
Downtown Design Guidelines, even though adoption of the new Downtown Design
Guidelines is not anticipated until later in the year.
Funding Source: Currently there are no available funding sources for the start of a program
in FY 09 -10 except the City's General Fund. For years FY 2010 through FY 2014, there will
be sufficient urban renewal funds to fund a commercial fac improvement program in
addition to other projects. City General Funds allocated for the first year of the program
starting FY 09 -10 could be paid back through execution of an interagency loan fund between
the City and the City Center Urban Renewal Agency (CCDA) authorized by Council.
Program Options: Key options to consider in setting up a program include the total annual
budgeted amount for the program, the maximum amount of a grant per project, eligibility
criteria for applicants and work performed, and the application and approval process. The
application and approval process would be developed if a program were established. In
general, it is beneficial to simplify application requirements so that participation in the
program is maximized.
Requirements for Grant Match: One of the key aspects of the program which will affect
participation is the amount of private match required. While most programs require a 50 —
50 match of grant to private funds, it may be difficult to obtain participation especially
during current economic conditions. For example, Hillsboro experienced great initial interest
in their program last fiscal year; eight (8) grants were awarded, but none executed. Though it
is preferred that a public grant amount be matched with an equivalent private amount,
obtaining the highest level of participation is a key goal. The following provides three
options for structuring the amount private participation; Option 1 would required the
greatest amount of private match, and Option 3 the least; it would expected that Option 3
would result in the highest level of participation among property owners, and Option 1 the
least.
Option 1: (required match of 50 — 50 with a maximum grant amount of $10,000)
Option 2: (no match required up to $5,000 but projects with substantial participant match
given priority; 50 — 50 match required above $5,000 to a maximum grant amount of $10,000)
Option 3: (no match required up to $5,000; 50 -50 match required above $5,000 to a
maximum grant amount of $10,000)
Total Grant Amount Grant amounts provided by other cities range from $5,000 to $20,000.
The lower end would provide the minimum amount for basic improvements with the higher
amount providing for more significant improvements. A suggested total grant amount of
Downtown Facade Program Proposal
Page 3
$10,000 represents a mid -range grant amount that could address a range of improvements.
The total grant amount could be lowered to $5,000 to reflect a more basic program with the
opportunity for the amount to be used by more businesses than a higher amount.
Eligible Work: Rehabilitation of building facades visible to the street, including storefronts;
cornices, gutters and downspouts; signs and graphics; exterior lighting; canopies and
awnings; painting and masonry cleaning; interior window display lighting, permit and design
fees.
Ineligible Work: Maintenance work; roofs; structural foundations; billboards; security
systems; non - permanent fixtures; interior window coverings; vinyl awnings; personal
property and equipment; security bars; razor ./ barbed wire fencing; landscaping, sidewalks
and paving.
Eligible Participants: Commercial property owners and business lessees of property with
written authorization of the property owner (for properties located on Main Street in Tigard
only).
Ineligible Participants:
• National franchises / for profit corporations with multiple locations outside the
Portland Metro Area, unless the corporation is headquartered in Portland;
• Government offices and agencies (non - governmental tenants are eligible);
• Properties primarily in residential use
Downtown Facade Program Proposal
Page 4
Attachment 2
Commercial Facade Improvement Program Options
Estimated Annual Budget $60,000
Private Match Requirements
Option 1 Required Match of 50 — 50 with a Maximum Grant Amount of
$10,000
No Match Required Up to $5,000 but projects with substantial
Option 2 participant match given priority; 50 — 50 match required above $5,000
to a maximum grant amount of $10,000
Option 3 No Match Required Up to $5,000; 50 -50 match required above $5,000
to a maximum grant amount of $10,000
Maximum Grant Amount $10,000
Commercial property owners and business lessees of property with
Eligible Participants written authorization of the property owner (for properties located on
Main Street in Tigard only)
Ineligible Participants National franchises, Government offices and agencies, residential
properties
Rehabilitation of building facades visible to the street, including
Eligible Work storefronts; cornices, gutters and downspouts; signs and graphics;
exterior lighting; canopies and awnings; painting and masonry cleaning;
interior window display lighting, permit and design fees
Maintenance improvements; Roofs; structural foundations; billboards;
Ineligible Work security systems; non - permanent fixtures; interior window coverings;
vinyl awnings; personal property and equipment; security bars; razor /
barbed wire fencing; landscaping, sidewalks and paving
Design Requirements Must meet new Downtown Design Guidelines, and applicable
Development and Buiildnng Code standards
Design Work Use of a registered architect is reimbursable at 15% of project costs
not to exceed $1,600 per project.
Agenda Item # 3. L1
Meeting Date February 17, 2009
CITY CENTER DEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
City Of Tigard, Oregon
Issue /Agenda Tide Downtown Organizational Leadership - Preliminary Recommendations
Prepared By: Phil Nachbar Dept Head Approval: lL% Cite Mgr Approval: etia
ISSUE BEFORE THE CITY CENTER DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
Discuss and provide direction to the City Center Advisory Commission (CCAC) with regard to their preliminary
recommendations for organizational leadership and capacity in downtown Tigard. The City Center Advisory
Commission (CCAC) was tasked with reviewing the recommendations of the Leland report (Sept 07) and suggesting
the best course of action.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Consider and provide direction regarding the CCAC's preliminary recommendations: Option 4: 'Take a different
approach. The best way of achieving goals is to utilize a variety of approaches rather than fund a specific association'.
KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY
The Leland Development Strategy for Downtown Tigard identified several organizational recommendations as a way to
improve the Downtown redevelopment effort. A premise of the Leland recommendations is that "successful
downtowns are a result of strong leadership on the public and private levels." The recommendations indicate that
strengthening the private sector organization and improving communications between the City and the private sector is
a prerequisite to successful redevelopment.
The CCAC's effort to evaluate the best way to strengthen organizational leadership and capacity in Downtown
identified four (4) key objectives from the Leland report: 1- Better champion and implement projects, 2 - Manage
Downtown at the public and private levels, 3 - Bring stakeholders together for place - making, and 4 - Strengthen
relationships and improve communications between the City and Stakeholders.
There were four (4) options that the CCAC identified to achieve the above objectives. The Commission recommended
option 4, which does not call for funding a Downtown organization at this time, but suggests utilizing a variety of
approaches to achieve goals. A summary of the Commission's research, recommendations, and proposed action plan
is provided in Attachment 1.
The CCAC recommendations provide an action plan as follow -up for implementation. The action plan includes a
process for public input, a period of time to refine the option, additional public input, and final recommendations to the
City Center Development Agency. The proposed process, if directed by the City Center Development Agency, would
start in April and end in November 2009.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Option 1: Fund an association immediately
Option 2: Do not fund an association.
Option 3: Consider funding an association, but not until certain conditions or criteria are met
Option 4: Take a different approach. The best way of achieving goals is to utilize a variety of approaches rather
than fund an association.
CITY COUNCIL GOALS
Council Goal 2: Implement Downtown Urban Renewal.
ATTACHMENT LIST
Attachment 1 - Preliminary Recommendations to the City of Tigard: Organizational Leadership and Capacity in
Downtown Tigard.
FISCAL NOTES
N/A
Attachment 1
Preliminary Recommendation
to the
City of Tigard
Organizational Leadership and Capacity in Downtown Tigard
January 14, 2009
Prepared by:
City Center Advisory Commission
OLCD Subcommittee:
Alexander Craghead
Thomas Murphy
Elise Shearer
CCAC Preliminary Recommendation on 2
Organizational Leadership and Capacity in Downtown Tigard
Context & Background
Downtown Tigard is a diverse environment with many interests and little community. This makes
communication between stakeholders and the city, as well between the stakeholders and other stakeholders
difficult. It also means that a coordinated vision of the future of downtown does not now exist amongst
stakeholders.
In 2007, the City of Tigard hired the Leland Consulting Group to assist in the creation of a development
strategy for the Tigard downtown core. In the resulting Downtown Strategy, Leland recommends the
creation of a downtown organization partly in response to the concerns previously mentioned. Additional
concerns included providing a forum independent of the city government for advocacy and conflict
resolution, as well as a venue for the private sector to demonstrate their support of downtown
revitalization.
This recommendation was forwarded by the City Council to the City Center Advisory Commission
(CCAC), with the charge of determining if the recommendation should be implemented, and if so how.
The CCAC has been concerned with the complexity of such an effort, and created a subcommittee in May
of 2008 to investigate the issues surrounding the establishment of or support of a downtown association.
This subcommittee conducted extensive research over the course of the summer, presenting their final
research report to the CCAC on September 18, 2008.
Following the receipt of this report, the CCAC conducted a series of meetings to discuss the matter
further. In December 2008, the CCAC asked the subcommittee to reconvene and draft three options for a
recommendation to the CCDA. These recommendations were considered by the CCAC at the January 14,
2008 meeting, at which this preliminary recommendation was chosen.
Goals & Objectives
This recommendation seeks to address concerns raised by the Leland Consulting Group in their
Development Strategy for Downtown Tigard. Leland recommends a series of specific options to
"strengthen organization and leadership capacity in Downtown Tigard ". They state the basis as follows:
Successful downtowns are the result of strong leadership and great champions at both the public and
private levels. While the city council is solidly behind downtown, private sector leadership is more
fractured. Strengthening the private sector organization and improving communication between the City
and the private sector is a prerequisite to successful redevelopment.
Leland provides a somewhat more specific view of this issue in the strategic framework section of their
report. They state that a "strong organization" is needed to "champion and implement projects" as
"downtowns must be managed at both the public and private levels." They further support their
recommendations by stating that it is critical to "[bring] these stakeholder groups of varied interests and
perspectives together [as]... an integral part of Place Making strategy for Downtown Tigard." They
conclude by stating that their specific recommendations are aimed at "strengthening relationships among
existing (and future) stakeholder groups."
Leland's specific statement of support for funding a downtown association states that the goals of this
funding would be to subsidize the costs of an executive staff member for the association who would "lead
initiatives and outreach, [and] actively [engage] business and property owners."
Thus, we conclude that the objectives of any City funded effort at strengthening organizational leadership
and capacity in Downtown Tigard would be to:
1. Better champion and implement projects;
2. Manage the downtown at both the private and public levels;
3. Bring stakeholders together for Place Making;
4. Strengthen relationships and improve communication between City and stakeholders.
In examining the options before the CCAC, these four goals are vital.
CCAC Preliminary Recommendation on 3
Organizational Leadership and Capacity in Downtown Tigard
Summary of Research
The subcommittee's research determined that there is no clear route that stands out above all others; in
short there are multiple ways of achieving revitalization goals. Some cities have chosen to participate in
established, traditional forms, such as the National Trust's Main Street program, while others have chosen
to create their own, innovative programs tailored to their specific needs
In very few cases did associations have a direct impact on urban renewal efforts; however, by their nature
they are often positioned well to undertake routine efforts such as promotion, maintenance, advocacy,
business outreach, and other "soft" skills that cities without economic development departments generally
lack.
Failure is common in such associations, and is usually the result of a lack of broad leadership (reliance on
one or too few individuals), a lack of vision or purpose, and a lack of stable funding. Funding levels seem
less important than funding stability.
The subcommittee's conclusion was that the creation or support of a downtown association in Tigard
would be a challenging effort. Making matters more complex is the high degree of failure rates that these
associations experience, along with the broad path of options available. One important fact to note is that
regardless of whether the city chooses to take a traditional role, or a more innovative path, there are other
cities in the state with similar experiences and with whom the city would likely be able to share knowledge
for mutual benefit.
Summary of Alternatives
The CCAC identified five primary options for action. They are:
Option 1: Begin funding immediately. Under this option, it is conceived that the City ought to
immediately begin funding the development of a downtown association.
Option 2: Do not fund an association. Under this option, the position is that it is not an appropriate use
of City funds to help an association to develop itself.
Option 3: Consider funding an association but not until certain conditions are met. Under this option, it
is contemplated that an association would need to meet certain criteria in order to be viable and thus a
sound investment of public funds.
Option 4: Take a different approach. This option contemplates that the best way of achieving the goals
set out for the Commission is to utilize a variety of approaches rather than funding a specific
association.
Option 5: Make no recommendation. This option contemplates the inability to reach consensus on the
matter.
CCAC Preliminary Recommendation on 4
Organizational Leadership and Capacity in Downtown Tigard
Evaluation of Alternatives
Option 1: Begin funding immediately. Under this option, it is conceived that the City ought to
immediately begin funding the development of a downtown association.
Analysis. The CCAC identified some positive reasons to support this option, including recognition of the
business community and a sense of keeping the plan moving in spite of economic conditions. However,
the body found far more arguments could be made against this route, including but not limited to:
• The research report demonstrated that there is no nexus between a successful downtown association and
a successful urban renewal effort.
• Funding an association at this time may be premature and simply set up the association for failure once
city funds cease.
• Issues regarding incentive, perceived political endorsement, and lack of sufficient interest in the existing
business community.
Option 2: Do not fund an association. Under this option, the position is that it is not an appropriate use
of City funds to help an association to develop itself:
Analysis. The primary principle under this option is that any association that would be strong and healthy
would need to come from the community itself. Funding of an association before there is demand or
critical mass would not be helpful but rather would be setting that association up for failure once city
funding ceased.
The CCAC also identified numerous other reasons to support this option. The subcommittee's research
showed, for example, that there was no demonstrable nexus between the existence of an association and
success in an urban renewal project such as that the CCAC is charged with overseeing, thus making the
extension of seed money to an association both a distraction and outside the purview of the CCAC.
Numerous additional reasons were also contemplated suggesting that funding the formation of an
association would be a poor use of City funds.
* **
Option 3: Consider funding an association but not until certain conditions are met. Under this option, it
is contemplated that an association would need to meet certain criteria in order to be viable and thus a
sound investment of public funds.
Analysis. The CCAC found many reasons to support this option. The commission felt that this option
best reflected the realities of the current conditions within downtown while leaving the door open for a
more activist role for the City in the future. In the meanwhile, the City would be strongly encouraged to
undertake activities that would lead towards conditions more hospitable to the flourishing of an
association.
The CCAC did identify a few negatives to this route, including the appearance of being ineffective and the
potential for introducing delays into the process.
* **
CCAC Preliminary Recommendation on 5
Organizational Leadership and Capacity in Downtown Tigard
Option 4: Take a different approach. This option contemplates that the best way of achieving the goals
set out for the Commission is to utilize a variety of approaches rather than funding a specific
association.
Analysis. This was the widest ranging of options, considering the possibility that the needs identified by
Leland would be better met by approaches other than an association. It would free the City to focus on
more tangible improvements and projects.
An almost equal amount of weaknesses were identified as well, most notably that, due to its custom
nature, the identification and implementation of a "third way" would be time consuming for the CCAC.
Option 5: Make no recommendation. This option contemplates the inability to reach consensus on the
matter.
Analysis. This option anticipated that the commission would be unable to reach consensus on the decision
of funding an association. The CCAC believes no further analysis of this option is necessary.
CCAC Preliminary Recommendation on 6
Organizational Leadership and Capacity in Downtown Tigard
Preliminary Recommendation
The option that the Commission recommends is Option 4:
Take a different approach. This option contemplates that the best way of achieving the goals set
out for the Commission is to utilize a variety of approaches [as outlined below] rather than
funding a specific association.
After careful consideration, the CCAC believes that there are other approaches to better achieve
organizational and leadership capacity in Downtown Tigard.
The CCAC believes that this approach would invest far too much time, money, and effort in organizational
development, rather than making direct and meaningful improvements in the concerns outlined in the goals
section of this recommendation. However, the CCAC also believes that the City does have a role in
supporting the development of downtown that goes beyond providing major infrastructure improvements.
These actions may include activities ranging from marketing and branding to maintenance, event hosting,
and the fostering of better communication.
The CCAC believes that the best way to achieve these goals is on a case -by -case basis with solutions
tailored to specific problems. While identifying a customized, unified strategy towards engaging the
downtown will take more time than an "off -the- shelf' approaches such as an association, a decentralized
approach has the benefit of being able to be implemented far quicker. Targeted efforts at outreach, business
support, and communication can be implemented and adjusted based on how staff resources are allocated as
well as on the project priorities of the City /CCDA.
There are specific actions that the CCAC recommends the City take to help foster an environment in which
all stakeholders may thrive. These include:
• Setting of a downtown business strategy /policy. Although the CCAC has made many
recommendations for downtown projects as part of the urban renewal district, so far the commission has
not developed an area business policy for the City. Yet urban renewal projects will greatly shape land
use, rent rates, and the character of the business environment within downtown. The CCAC feels that it
should take the time as soon as practical to examine what its economic development goals are within
downtown, including what kind of businesses it is hoping to retain and/or attract, and then use this
policy as as approach to shape urban renewal activities.
• Improve public outreach efforts. The City can work towards fostering better relationships between
itself and stakeholders by utilizing creative approaches to public input that would maximize
communications. This might include greater one -on -one communication with key stakeholders, as well
as using less traditional input approaches such as charrettes and public workshops.
• Improve the local business climate. The City should examine the local business climate with an eye
towards making improvements that would lead to greater success in downtown. Actions might include
the revision of "red tape" in downtown to make doing business easier, as well as engaging directly in
marketing & economic development activities
• Consideration of a project -based grant program. The CCAC recognizes that third parties such as
associations frequently are able to field interesting project ideas that are beneficial to downtown. The
CCAC therefore recommends that if the City wishes to fund such activities within downtown, that it
establish a clear and fair grant -based approach to the process. This would allow any organization
meeting qualifying criteria to apply for and potentially receiving funding for activities on a project
basis. This approach would largely eliminate many of the political pitfalls of direct funding and further
would clearly measure the disbursement of funds against clear goals for downtown.
• Fast - tracking URD catalyst projects. The City should make catalyst projects such as the public plaza
and various street improvements their number one priority and do everything within reason to achieve
them in the near term. This may include being willing to undertake an unusually high degree of
stakeholder communication as well as using a greater variety of approaches to complete these projects.
CCAC Preliminary Recommendation on 7
Organizational Leadership and Capacity in Downtown Tigard
This recommendation meets the four goals identified earlier in this document:
1. Better champion and implement projects. By concentrating on making improvements directly in the
ground" rather than on organization building, the City will be able to make a direct and beneficial
impact on Downtown Tigard more efficiently.
2. Manage the downtown at both the private and public levels. This recommendation recognizes the
inherently individualistic nature of Downtown Tigard's private sector. Rather than attempt to change
that, this option honors that uniqueness and instead works to find nontraditional solutions that will
encourage individual private sector stakeholders to manage their portions of downtown better.
3. Bring stakeholders together for Place Making. Rather than expending funds and time on the creation
of a new organization, the City has shown it is more than capable of bringing stakeholders together to
undertake Place Making, most notably through the award - winning TDIP process. The City would best
achieve Place Making by building on this experience and taking a central role in such efforts.
4. Strengthen relationships and improve communication between City and stakeholders. Currently
there are numerous URD projects and efforts that will require public input. The City should utilize these
requirements to take creative approaches that will build synergies between public input and community
building.
CCAC Preliminary Recommendation on 8
Organizational Leadership and Capacity in Downtown Tigard
Action Plan
The CCAC suggests the following steps for refining the City's plans for supporting organizational and
leadership capacity in Downtown:
April/May, 2009: Seek out public input on this option. It is recommended that the CCAC develop a
public outreach program that will present Option 4 to key stakeholders and the public at large. The goal
will be to seek reactions, suggestions, and other forms of input from these groups to help refine the option.
This will be especially critical in determining what obstacles currently exist in downtown, as well as what
the business strategy /policy for downtown ought to be.
This outreach will also give the CCAC an opportunity to foster better communication between the City
and stakeholders. It is recommended that the City utilize nontraditional, participatory input methods that
may include tactics borrowed from the charrette model of input.
June - September, 2009: Refine option. Following initial public input, the CCAC will refine this option
over the Summer to develop:
• A business strategy /policy.
• Improved public outreach policies. The CCAC will make a list of recommendations for improving
public outreach policy in the City, including but not limited to the handling of public input and the
opportunities to create relationship building synergies in public outreach programs.
• List of obstacles needing review.
• List of enforcement recommendations.
• List of "direct actions ". The CCAC will identify a "menu" of possible non - capital activities that the
City could directly engage in that would benefit the downtown area.
• A grant program.
October 2009: Present draft plans to stakeholders, public. Following the refinement of this option, the
draft recommendation would be presented to the public to receive a final round of input and make any
necessary adjustments.
October/November 2009: Make final refinement of plan and present to Council. Present an actionable
plan to the Council for consideration.
Agenda Item # 9
• Meeting Date February 17, 2009
LOCAL CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
City Of Tigard, Oregon
Issue /Agenda Title Discuss Naming the City -Owned Residence and Property at 13335 SW Hall Boulevard and the
Canterbury Surplus Property
Prepared By: Dennis Koellermeier Dept Head Approval: �, ///� City. Mgr Approval:
ISSUE BEFORE THE LOCAL CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD
No action is required, but the Council is asked to provide staff with direction on the naming of the City -owned
residence and property at 13335 SW Hall Boulevard and the Canterbury Surplus Property.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
None
KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY •
In accordance with Resolution No. 99 -37 (Attachment 1), the Council has the authority to name City facilities.
City -Owned Residence and Property at 13335 SW Hall Boulevard
• In December 2007, the Tigard City Council authorized the purchase of a residence and property located at
13335 SW Hall Boulevard.
• The house and property are adjacent to Fanno Creek and Fanno Creek Park.
• Since the City purchased the property, the 1938 residence has been referred to informally as the "Fanno Creek
House," the "White House," and the "Schaltz House."
• Staff distributed at memo (Attachment 2) to the Council soliciting input regarding an official name for the
house and property; several Councilors indicated their naming preference was the Fanno Creek House.
• At the December 9, 2008 Council meeting, a resolution to officially name the residence and property appeared
on the Council's consent agenda. At the request of the Council, the item was removed from consideration and
was to be discussed at a future meeting.
• Staff is now requesting the Council revisit this item and provide direction regarding the naming of the residence
and property.
Canterbury Surplus Property
• The Tigard City Council was scheduled to consider the purchase of the Canterbury surplus property after the
submission deadline for this agenda item. The City is interested in developing a park on this site.
• If the Council elected to submit a bid to purchase the Canterbury surplus property on February 10, 2009, then
staff would also like to engage in a preliminary discussion on possible names for the Canterbury surplus
property.
• The property includes the John Tigard House and members of the Tigard Historical Association have
expressed an interest in naming the park the "Curtis Tigard Heritage Park," in honor of Curtis Tigard's 100
birthday on April 25, 2009.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
None
CITY COUNCIL GOALS
None
ATTACHMENT LIST
1. Resolution 99 -37, A Resolution Establishing a Policy of the City Council on Placing Memorials in City Parks
2. Memo from Park and Facilities Manager Steve Martin, regarding "Naming of the Residence at 13335 SW Hall
Boulevard"
FISCAL NOTES
There are no direct costs associated with this agenda item.
City -Owned Residence and Property at 13335 SW Hall Boulevard
Once the residence and property are named, staff plans to install signage at a cost of approximately $1,000.
Canterbury Surplus Property
Signage for this property would occur as part of the park development; $50,000 has been budgeted for park design
and preconstruction in FY '08 -'09, and an additional $280,000 is proposed in future budgets to construct the park.
Attachment 1
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
RESOLUTION NO. 99 - 3?_
A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A POLICY OF THE CITY COUNCIL ON PLACING
MEMORIALS IN CITY PARKS.
WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council desires to have a policy for designating memorials within City park
facilities, City -owned properties and with the naming of building and park properties; and •
WHEREAS, the City Council recognizes that over the past several years, various park lands have been
acquired by the City of Tigard and various facilities have been built at City parks and properties which
could appropriately be named in memory of individuals who have provided service to the community; and
WHEREAS, in the past the City has named properties or facilities in memory of individuals without the
benefit of an established City policy; and
WHEREAS, the Council wishes to have a formal policy to apply for official naming of City parks, facilities
and features within parks.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council That
SECTION 1: The City Council hereby adopts the Memorial Policy described in Exhibit "A" attached
hereto.
PASSED: This day of luit1 1 ! 1999.
.I, �_r /
/ - City of Tigard
ATTEST:
City Recorder - City of Tigard
i:ladmkathykouncillresolution memorial policy .dot
RESOLUTION NO. 99- 7
Page l
EXHIBIT "A"
TIGARD MEMORIAL POLICY FOR NAMING CITY PARK FACILITIES,
DISTINCT ELEMENTS WITHIN CITY -OWNED PROPERTIES, AND CITY
BUILDINGS
PURPOSE:
To outline the policy, criteria and process for designating memorials within City
park facilities, distinct elements within City -owned properties and naming of
buildings and park properties.
•
BACKGROUND:
As the City adds parks, open spaces and public facilities by acquisition and
donation, the City has found that there is a need for a process to honor
individuals or groups by naming City parks, distinct elements within City -owned
properties or City buildings and to place memorials to advise the public of the
recognition. In addition, the City has been the recipient of bequests which have
required that the City recognize the financial contributions by memorializing the
gift in some way. Finally, in the past, the City has accepted as a term of
purchase of park land a requirement that the City acquired property be
developed into a park with a specified park name.
In order that the City Council and staff have guidelines to follow when
considering requests that memorials be placed within City park facilities or that
City parks or buildings be named after individuals, a policy should be in place.
POLICY:
Land, facilities and features within property owned by the City of Tigard will be
named through an administrative process in accordance with established criteria
that emphasize community identity and service to the community.
Criteria for naming City park facilities, distinct elements within City -owned
properties, and City buildings:
1. Memorials within City park facilities — Memorials included within this category
are memorials which would be placed on or near basic park amenities, such
as benches, picnic tables, trees, shrubs and plaques. If the memorial meets
park standards for construction and materials, the Parks Division will assume
maintenance responsibility for the useful life of the memorial. Replacement of
the memorial shall be at the discretion of the Parks Division staff. Interested
parties must submit a written request to the Parks Division regarding the type
of memorial, proposal occasion and significance of the memorial.
Parties interested in placing memorials shall be financially responsible for the
purchase of the memorial. An extensive review process is not necessary for
these types of memorials. These requests shall be handled administratively
by the Parks Division to ensure that City standards are met. The Parks
Division has the right to adjust the location of the proposed memorial. The
Parks Division shall notify the City Council of any actions taken to accept and
place new memorials within City parks.
The standards that the Parks Division will follow in regard to park memorials
are:
a) Benches — benches must be made of wood, contoured or flat - styled
pedestal, outdoor benches unless an alternative material is approved
by the Parks Division upon a finding that there are circumstances that
exist that make it appropriate to use the alternative material. Any
bench to be contributed as a memorial and to be placed within City
park facilities shall be purchased through a Parks Division approved
manufacturer. A brass plaque may be attached to the bench but shall
be no larger than 2 1 /2 x 6 inches in size. Prior to purchasing any
bench for display in City parks, an interested party must contact City
staff and review the example of approved benches maintained by the
City staff.
b) Trees — trees planted at City facilities as memorials must be at least 2
inches caliper, native to the area and fit into the existing landscape
scheme of the park area or fit into the adopted plan for tree planting in
that area.
c) Plaques -- plaques may be placed in conjunction with a shrub or tree
which are donated to the City as a memorial. Plaques shall not be
placed as stand alone features. Plaques must be made of bronze and
be no larger than 8 1 /z x 11 inches in size. Plaques must be set in
concrete, aggregate rock, or a boulder. City staff shall review the
design of plaque and setting. Examples of the type of plaques
approved by the City shall be made available by Parks staff.
2. Distinct elements within City -owned parks — Memorials can be placed at
distinct elements of City -owned properties, such as shelters, sports fields,
gardens, wetlands, tennis courts, rooms, fountains, ponds, paths, art, etc.
Individuals interested in having a distinct element named in honor of an
individual are required to submit a written request to the Tigard City Council
regarding the particular type of amenity in which they are interested in
sponsoring. Applications shall be made through the Parks Division.
Requests for such amenities may be made to honor an individual who has
passed away or as an honorarium for someone who is living and has made a
contribution to the City, either financially or through civic duty. Review of
•
such requests shall be made by the City Council. Council approval is
needed. Guidelines regarding signage shall be adopted by Council based on
recommendations made by the Parks Division.
The standards that the Parks Division will follow in regard to signage will be
kept on record at the Public Works office. Examples of suitable signage will
be available for public viewing.
3. Naming of buildings and park properties — City buildings and park properties
may be named to honor individuals or groups. Interested parties shall submit
a written request to the Tigard City Council regarding the property or building
which they are interested in having Council name in honor of an individual or
group. In addition, the City Council on its own motion, may consider naming
a building or park. This type of memorial requires extensive review and
Council approval in the form of a resolution. City staff will deal with guidelines
for Council consideration.
The standards that the Parks Division will follow in regard to signage will be
kept on record at the Public Works office. Examples of suitable signage will
be available for public viewing.
I: \adm\memorial policy.doc
Attachment 2
City of Tigard
TIGARD Memorandum
To: The Honorable Mayor and City Councilors
From: Acting Parks and Facilities Manager Steve Martin
Re: Naming of the Residence at 13335 SW Hall Boulevard
Date: October 23, 2008
•
We are seeking the Council's direction in determining the official name for the residence at 13335
SW Hall Boulevard. Since the Council approved the property purchase in December 2007, the 1938
residence has been referred to informally as the "Fanno Creek House," the "White House," and the
"Schaltz House."
•
The proposed suggestions are:
❑ The Fanno Creek House ❑ The House at Fanno Creek
❑ The Creekside House ❑ Graham Property House
❑ The Pinebrook House ❑ Hold a Contest for Citizens to Name the House
❑ In honor /memory of
Please let me know your preference by phone at 503.718.2583 or email at steve
or.gov by Friday, October 31. Once the Council identifies a name, staff will prepare a resolution
for Council consideration.
Historical Perspective
With the assistance of Washington County Assessment and Taxation, the Tigard Area Historical &
Preservation Association, library volunteers, and long -time area residents, we were able to assemble
a rather sketchy history of the property:
1849 - Donation Land Claim by William Graham
No date — W.J. Cotrell (original deed)
1962 — Property sold to Noell and Donna Nelson
1981 — Property sold to Rich and Ann Francis Sturgis
1992 — Property partitioned and site owned by Sturgis Living Trusts
1992 — Property sold to Ronald and Joan Hunts
1996 — Property sold to Randy and Margaret Schaltz
People by the name of Knutsen and Grimstead supposedly resided on the property sometime
between the 1930's and the 1950's. Neither they, nor any of the property owners, appear to have
played a key role in Tigard history. Although the Graham Donation Land Claim offers our earliest
record of the property, the residence was constructed nearly 90 years after the land claim. It is
unlikely William Graham had any involvement in the construction of the residence.
Geographical Perspective
The Mayor has often referred to the residence as the Fanno Creek House. Given the home's
proximity to Fanno Creek, this name makes complete sense from a geographical perspective. Other
possible geographical names include the House at Fanno Creek, the Creekside House, or the
Pinebrook House. The later name is derived from a creek that ran through the original Graham
Donation Land Claim, although not specifically on the property at 13335 SW Hall Boulevard.
Other Options
The residence could also be named in honor /in memory of someone the Council wishes to
recognize for their place in Tigard history, contribution to the City, etc. Alternately, the City could
sponsor a contest, with the Council serving as judges, and solicit names from the public.
Agenda Item # 5
Meeting Date February 17, 2009
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
City Of Tigard, Oregon
Issue /Agenda Title Addressing Council and Citizen Concerns about Proposed Street Maintenance Fee Increases
Prepared By: Ron Bunch Dept Head Approval: City Mgr Approval:
ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL
Information from staff regarding how to address Council and citizen concerns about the proposed street maintenance
fee increases
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Receive information from staff.
KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY
At its January 20, 2008 meeting City Council posed several questions about the proposed increase in the city's street
maintenance fee. Concerns were also expressed about increasing the fee in the midst of a major economic
recession.
Questions posed by Council included:
• Why are churches and other non -profit land uses assessed the street maintenance fee?
• Why is the increase needed now? Could the fee increase be delayed six months or longer; perhaps until the
economic situation is better?
• What would be the consequences of assessing only the pavement management portion of the fee and
deleting the right of way portion?
• Can the phasing of the fee increase occur during a longer period of time?
▪ Does the recent decrease in the price of oil have any bearing on the appropriateness of the fee increase?
• What are the consequences of deferring the business portion of the increase, but continuing on course with
the residential portion?
• Is it fair for Downtown businesses to be assessed the fee on the number of parking spaces they would
require under the current development code, rather than on the ones they actually have, or use?
In the days following the Council's meeting, correspondence was received from citizens about the street
maintenance fee increase. In general, concern was expressed about efforts made to provide information and seek
input from citizens; fairness of the proposal; and whether it is appropriate in the current economic climate. Council
delayed its consideration of fee adoption for staff to propose a way to address its questions and those from citizens.
I: \LRPLN \Council Materials \2009 \2 -17 -09 AIS Addressing Concerns over Street Maintenance Fee Increases . docx 1
In response, staff is proposing that Council and citizen questions and concerns be addressed under the auspices of
the Transportation Financing Strategies Task Force. Staff will involve both the Task Force and the city's
Committee for Citizen Involvement (CCI) in development and implementation of a citizen information and
engagement effort focusing on street maintenance issues. This will include a proactive outreach effort to the
business community. During this time, staff will keep Council informed with progress reports.
The result will be a Council report and recommendation concerning increasing the street maintenance fee. It is
anticipated that Council could use this information to make a decision within three to six months of its direction to
proceed with the above work.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
N/A
CITY COUNCIL GOALS
Goal 1: Implement the Comprehensive Plan:
Plan Goal: 1.2: Ensure all citizens have access to:
A. opportunities to communicate directly to the city; and
B. information on issues in an understandable form.
ATTACHMENT LIST
N/A
FISCAL NOTES
N/A
I: \LRPLN \Council Materials \ 2009 \ 2-17-09 AIS Addressing Concerns over Street Maintenance Fee Increases . docx 2