The URL can be used to link to this page

City Council Packet - 02/05/2013 • • TIGARD City of Tigard CITY CENTER DEVELOPMENT AGENCY February 5, 2013 MEETING WILL NOT BE TELEVISED I: \Design & Communications \Donna \City Council \ccda n fir' C•nr, TT 11 T1 1 _ 'T' 1 !1 n-lnnn _ r- /S'1 /'1 n A1'71 City of Tigard TIGARi) Tigard Special Meeting - Agenda TIGARD CITY COUNCIL, LOCAL CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD AND CITY CENTER DEVELOPMENT AGENCY Revised 1/30/2013: Agenda Item 3 postponed to March 5, 2013; Executive Sessions for the CCDA and the City Council were added; and Agenda Item 5B on the council's consent agenda was added. MEETING DATE AND TIME: February 5, 2013 - 6:30 p.m. MEETING LOCATION: City of Tigard - Town Hall - 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 PUBLIC NOTICE: Times noted are estimated. Assistive Listening Devices are available for persons with impaired hearing and should be scheduled for Council meetings by noon on the Monday prior to the Council meeting. Please call 503 - 639 -4171, ext. 2410 (voice) or 503 -684 -2772 (1'DD - 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 (l'DD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf). • This meeting will not be televised. SEE ATTACHED AGENDA City of Tigard Tigard Special Meeting - Agenda TIGARD � TIGARD CITY COUNCIL, LOCAL CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD & CITY CENTER DEVELOPMENT AGENCY Revised 1/30/13: Agenda Item No. 3 postponed to March 5, 2013; Executive Sessions for the CCDA and the City Council were added; and Agenda Item 5B on the council's consent agenda was added. MEETING DATE AND TIME: February 5, 2013 - 6:30 p.m. MEETING LOCATION: City of Tigard - Town Hall - 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 6:30 PM 1. SPECIAL MEETING A. Call to Order- City Council, Local Contract Review Board & City Center Development Agency B. Roll Call C. Pledge of Allegiance D. Council Communications & Liaison Reports E. Call to Council and Staff for Non - Agenda Items CITY CENTER DEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING 2. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Center Development Agency will go into Executive Session to discuss real property transactions under ORS 192.660(2) (e). All discussions are confidential and those present may disclose nothing from the Session. Representatives of the news media axe 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. This Executive Session was added to the agenda on 1/30/2013. 6:35 p.m. - time is estimated 3. CITY CENTER DEVELOPMENT AGENCY CONSENT AGENDA A. Approve City Center Development Agency Meeting Minutes: 1. December 4, 2012 4. RECEIVE REPORT ON DEVELOPER INTERVIEWS This item has been postponed to the March 5, 2013, CCDA Meeting. CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7:10 p.m. - time is estimated • EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session to discuss exempt public records under ORS 192.660(2) (f). All discussions are confidential and those present may disclose nothing from the Session. Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend Executive Sessions, as provided by ORS 192.660(4), but must not disclose any information discussed. No Executive Session may be held for the purpose of taking any final action or making any final decision. Executive Sessions are closed to the public. This Executive Session was added to the agenda on 1/30/2013. 5. CITY COUNCIL CONSENT AGENDA 7:25 p.m. - time is estimated A. Approve City Council Meeting Minutes: 1. November 13, 2012 2. November 20, 2012 No f c 27 2n" - Minutes will be rescheduled. December 18, 2012 - Minutes will be rescheduled. 3. January 10, 2013 B. Receive and File: This agenda item was added on January 30, 2013. 1. 2012 Fourth Quarter Goal Update 2. 2013 City Council Appointment Matrix 6. LOCAL CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD 7:30 p.m. - time is estimated CONSIDER AWARD OF DIRKSEN NATURE PARK PROPERTY DESIGN DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTATION TO WI-1 PACIFIC 7. CONSIDER ORDINANCE TO EXTEND PGE NON - EXCLUSIVE UTILITY FRANCHISE 7:50 p.m. - time is estimated 8. RECEIVE UPDATE ON CLEAN WATER SERVICES PLAN DISTRICT 9. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS 10. NON AGENDA ITEMS 11. ADJOURNMENT 8:15 p.m. - time is estimated AIS -1165 Special Meeting Meeting Date: 02/05/2013 Length (in minutes): Agenda Title: CCDA Consent Agenda Submitted By: Carol Krager, City Management Special Item Type: Motion Requested Meeting Type: Meeting Public Hearing Newspaper Legal Ad Required ?: No Public Hearing Publication Date in Newspaper: Information ISSUE Approve December 4, 2012 City Center Development Agency Minutes STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY OTHER ALTERNATIVES COUNCIL OR CCDA GOALS, POLICIES, MASTER PLANS DATES OF PREVIOUS CONSIDERATION Attachments Placeholder for December 4, 2012 Minutes 4 S Gu sSp AIS -1076 C14-- Special Meeting jt-talL-Q- Meeting Date: 02/05/2013 Length (in minutes): 60 Minutes Agenda Title: Report on Developer Interviews Submitted By: Sean Farrelly, Community Development Update, Discussion, Direct Staff City Center Development Item Type: Joint Meeting -Board or Other Juris. Meeting Type: Agency Public Hearing: No Publication Date: Information ISSUE Presentation on Developer Interviews with Leland Consulting STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST The Board is requested to receive the presentation and to participate in the subsequent discussion with members of the City Center Advisory Commission who will be in attendance. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY To advance the 2012 Council Goal #3 on revitalizing Downtown, Tigard retained Leland Consulting Group to interview local developers /firms in the region. Leland Consulting had previously prepared the "Development Strategy for Downtown" (a.k.a. the Leland Report) in 2007 and a "Strategy Update/ Five Year Assessment of Urban Renewal" in 2011, which have guided the development of CCDA work planning. The interviews sought to determine: • Levels of interest in working with and in the City of Tigard. • Particular interest and /or concerns about the City-owned or to be acquired sites (Saxony- Pacific properties, which the city is in discussions to purchase; the city-owned Ash Ave. Public Works Yard and the city-owned Burnham /Ash house (a.k.a. Zuber house)). • The state of the economy with regard to developers making investment and development decisions. • Ideas and concerns that could be helpful to the City as it makes decisions going forward. Six developers /firms with a history of successful urban development were interviewed: • Vern Rifer, Vernon L. Rifer Real Estate Development • Tony Marnella, Marnella Homes • Tom Cody, Jonathan Ledesma, and Anyeley Hallova, Project^ • Bob Johnson, Marathon Management • Tom Kemper, KemperCo, LLC • Kira Rembold Cador, Rembold Companies The interviews were conducted in individual sessions with each developer. The discussions included an open dialogue about the properties, their observations, opinions, and recommendations. Some of the interviews included site tours with the developer and in some cases the developer chose to view the properties alone. The results of the interviews are summarized in the attached Tigard Developer Interviews Report. The developers agreed that the Saxony- Pacific properties and the Public Works Yard have potential, in light of the improvement in the improvement in the national real estate market. Downtown Tigard has a competitive advantage compared to other nearby communities (Lake Oswego, Beaverton) in that it has an established "double- loaded" (commercial development on both sides of the street) Main Street with affordable land values. The south end of Main Street is seen as the area of greatest opportunity. Leland Consulting made several recommendations on implementation to the City/CODA based on the interviews and their expertise. The majority of these steps rely on agency and city staff to complete with Board consideration and approval: • Complete the Main Street acquisitions. Public ownership of these sites will put the City in the driver's seat in terms of defining the desired type of development. • Agency staff to meet with key property owners along Main Street to explore their interest in development, joint ventures, sale, or other initiatives that would leverage the upcoming Green Street project as well as the newly acquired sites. • City staff to determine if, how, and when Public Works can be moved from the current site so as to accelerate the disposition and redevelopment of that site. • City staff and board approval of a developer recruitment strategy that includes goals and objectives to be achieved through development —both on Main Street and the Public Works site. This is envisioned to be part of a city-wide overall economic development strategy as directed by the City Council in October 2012. • Prepare development scenarios, including financial forecasts, to better inform Council about prospective returns on public capital as well as increased tax base, leverage (public to private investment) and other indicators. This work will help ensure that the City's expectations for redevelopment are realistic and can reasonably be achieved by private developers. • Design the developer RFQ (request for qualifications) package and define and outline the DDA (development and disposition agreement) that will guide the public- private partnerships • Consider modifying codes to provide a more streamlined application, land use, and design review sequence and timing as a strategic advantage to the City for attracting private capital into the community. Reduced timing, clear procedural rules, and greater assurance of approval (while fully protecting the public interest) will be a major attractor and advantage over entitlement processes in other (competing) cities. • On a case -by -case basis, the Board and staff should be prepared to utilize one or more incentives (from the Policy Tools and Incentives Matrix) to help development overcome financial and market barriers. For each tool, the City should have clear policy guidelines regarding the conditions under which each tool would be made available (e.g., project financial need, provision of community benefits, target location, etc.). The most effective incentives would be: Land Assembly Streamlined permit process Property tax abatements Fee Waivers or subsidies Subsidized loans The report appendix also includes an overview of Tigard's demographics that can be used to engage with developers or to recruit new businesses. OTHER ALTERNATIVES The Board could direct staff to obtain further information for a future meeting. COUNCIL GOALS, POLICIES, APPROVED MASTER PLANS Council Goal 3: Downtown DATES OF PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION September 4, 2012 Attachments Developer Interviews Report 1 .f ti _' .- ' Alt ...'Y . r--- :, f. r , 'i it ` t Me�! " I ) IL .. _. ` # - CITY OF TIGARD I CITY CENTER DEVELOPMENT AGENCY �� • `' •' The Knoll s ��" .".\ „ / Senior • ;\ Housing Site 1 f InMII r. N,. Ti®. • Transit Center/ • WES''Statioa '9 Main Street" Green Street . Starts 2)1 Burnham Street P ublic Work\ Improvements /1 / , - ,�_; C! ..f .let!! in 2011) Site 2 ate Park asra TIGARD DEVELOPER INTERVIEWS REPORT FOR SELECT DOWNTOWN TIGARD AND CITY -OWNED SITES PREPARED FOR III CITY OF TIGARD / = CITY CENTER TIGARD DEVELOPMENT AGENCY PREPARED BY II LELAND CONSULTING GROUP People Places Prosperity January 2013 I Iyd1U LJ VCIU.)t F IIRCMVIeWS FW UII Contents Introduction and Project Purpose 1 Developer Responses 3 Conclusions 9 Appendix 12 List of Figures Figure 1. Map of Downtown Tigard and Three City -Owned Properties 3 Figure 2. Saxony Properties, Site #1 5 Figure 3. Public Works Yard, Site #2 6 Figure 4. Burnham and Ash, Site #3 7 Leland Consulting Group ■ January 2013 Introduction and Project Purpose The Community Development Department of the City of Tigard ( "City "), at the request of the Mayor and City Council (acting as the board of the City Center Development Agency — Tigard's urban renewal agency), initiated a developer interview process in order to provide the Board with a current understanding of how the development community views Tigard, its downtown, and several sites either owned by the City or potentially acquired by the City. The intent of the interviews was to gather vital information in support of adopted City Center Urban Renewal Plan goals: • Goal 1: Revitalization of the Downtown should recognize the value of natural resources as amenities and as contributing to the special sense of place. • Goal 2: Capitalize on Commuter Rail and Fanno Creek as catalysts for future investment and development. • Goal 3: Downtown's transportation system should be multi - modal, connecting people, places and activities safely and conveniently. • Goal 4: Downtown's streetscape and public spaces should be pedestrian - friendly and not visually dominated by the automobile. • Goal 5: Promote high quality development of retail, office and residential uses that support and are supported by public streetscape, transportation, recreation and open space investments. This report presents a summary of the pattern of opinion expressed in the interviews, key conclusions to be drawn from the developer responses, and a discussion of next steps. The Developer Interview Process To assist the City and urban renewal division, Leland Consulting Group, Urban Strategists and Development Advisors, was retained to conduct confidential developer interviews. This firm has a long standing working relationship with the City of Tigard on its downtown development and redevelopment efforts. The firm has also worked extensively with private developers in the region. Dave Leland, Managing Director of the firm, conducted the confidential developer interviews (Sean Farrelly, City Redevelopment Project Manager was present for four of the interviews). The term "confidential" in this context means that no particular remark is attributed to any individual. The process was intended to obtain as much candor and direct feedback as possible, with the promise for such directness assured by a commitment that individual comments would be consolidated into "patterns of observation." The patterns sought were opinions of: • Levels of interest in working with and in the City of Tigard. • Particular interest and /or concerns about the City -owned or to be acquired sites. • The state of the economy with regard to developers making investment and development decisions. • Ideas and concerns that could be helpful to the City as it makes decisions going forward. • Related information. Leland Consulting Group • January 2013 1 •rd Developer "Mery Report e All of the developers interviewed have a history of successful urban development and therefore are considered by the industry and by their peers as knowledgeable parties. The participants interviewed, either in person or by phone, included: • Vern Rifer, Vernon L. Rifer Real Estate Development • Tony Marnella, Marnella Homes • Tom Cody, Jonathan Ledesma, and Anyeley Hallova, Project^ • Bob Johnson, Marathon Management • Tom Kemper, KemperCo, LLC • Kira Rembold Cador, Rembold Companies The interviews were conducted in individual sessions with each specific developer. The discussions included an open dialogue, a back - and -forth about the properties, their observations, opinions, and recommendations. Some of the interviews included site tours with the developer and in some cases the developer chose to view the properties alone. Some had been to the properties before the interviews began and some chose to visit them after the interviews, having the benefit of information provided during the discussion. Leland Consulting Group has conducted similar interviews for more than 40 cities using a technique developed by the Urban Land Institute. It is not unusual during the course of such candid interviews to hear complaints or concerns from developers about working with a particular city. Leadership in the City of Tigard should be pleased to know that there were no such negative comments from any of those interviewed. Even if they had not worked in Tigard before, there was no expression of negative opinion or hearsay from others. The working relationship between the City, its elected officials, the staff, and the development community came across in these candid conversations as positive —a state of relationship that would be envied by many cities that do not enjoy as healthy a level of public - private cooperation. Goodwill between Tigard and the development and investment community is very important. While markets are coming back from the recession, developers have a lot of choices. A good working relationship, particularly in a public - private partnership, is a key asset for the City. Leland Consulting Group ■ January 2013 2 Tigard Developer Interviews Report Developer Responses As an organizing principle for the City Council /CCDA Board to understand the findings from this process, the patterns and lessons learned are categorized into a series of subjects. These subjects are in no particular order of priority or importance. However, most of the information does have some bearing on the overall pattern of responses. In effect, the answers are not simple —all or most of these subjects at some point intersect and have a bearing on decision making about what to do, where to do it, when, with what developer, at what cost, etc. Site - Specific Feedback In addition to gathering opinions about the overall downtown, which are discussed in more detail later, the interview process had a specific goal of finding out each developer's opinion on the three subject properties, described on the following pages. Each of the three properties were discussed in detail regarding their development potential, appropriate type of development, level of interest and potential City incentives that could increase project viability. The three sites are shown within the downtown context in Figure 1 below. A summary of each site is included in the following discussion. More detailed information regarding each property is included in the appendix of this report. Figure 1. Map of Downtown Tigard and Three City-Owned Properties -'4 . • ' .. 0 41);.- C T ., R ; � ' :t , i - ' . If , 0. 4' 1" ( / 40 , 10* v‘ , , - . , +6 .. . . \, ;;, ,�, W. -. 4,01, ■ ir •\ o e• , , Site 3 ir e * r * ,. No + * S ite 2 yl t," s� .% \ t.. . , ,.. , . - \\ i 1 p ' ' ;4, e s � ;.Al s * ' :...,..z...„, . M •--":4* * . - .. -.,. A, 4t. ._ .,.:! ...,.... s,...,,, • .,. _,. v gip vs ...- . , 1,44, Source: GoogleEarth, Leland Consulting Group Leland Consulting Group . January 2013 s w r 4 Developer InterVIwws Report Site 1: Saxony Properties The Saxony Properties are located on the southern end of Main Street, between Main Street and Highway 99W, directly adjacent to Fanno Creek. The property contains approximately 19,000 square feet. The initial concept for this property tested with the developers includes a future 2,000 to 5,000 square foot public space or plaza along Fanno Creek with the remainder of the property offered as a mixed -use development, with ground floor commercial and upper floor(s) office or residential components. For the Saxony Properties to achieve redevelopment, the existing structures have to be removed. There was some discussion of acquiring an additional building to the north (Perma- Treat, currently on the market) to further the intent of this acquisition and redevelopment opportunity. These Main Street properties currently being negotiated for acquisition and resale by the City are a very different kind of project than the Public Works site (site #2). Interest in this location was reasonably strong. In particular, the fact that George Diamond, a developer with many holdings around the region, has purchased the brewpub property across the street from the acquisition (Saxony) site and is in the middle of a major remodel of the adjacent building, suggests that the south end of Main Street (in particular) has opportunity for a more expansive success. One of the strategies that emerged from discussions and tested with various developers is a focus on the south end of Main Street to include the properties developed by Diamond, redevelopment for mixed - use (retail and housing) on the two, to -be- acquired Saxony Properties, encouragement of a working relationship with the Dolan family (on the now vacant A -Boy building), and several other opportunity sites that would dramatically strengthen Main Street from its south entry up to Burnham Street. Diamond's purchase and redevelopment encourages investment by others. Developers who expressed potential interest in the Saxony Properties site want more information. The City should prepare specific property details, as well as a series of photographs that help to explain the site. Follow up with the developers that expressed interest is very much encouraged. There were a number of questions about the relationship of the southern -most building and the concrete and steel footings that are in the creek and "public deck" concept. Leland Consulting Group is encouraging the City not to build the public deck as a stand -alone project but, rather, to make such an investment and amenity an integral part of a complete mixed -use solution. The dialogue with several of the developers regarding the Saxony Properties strengthened the perception that the south end of Main Street has a higher probability for short-term success than does the north end. Given that there is only so much money that can be applied to Main Street at any given time, Leland Consulting Group recommends that it be predominately focused on the south end where activity is underway and reinvestment is occurring. The Saxony Properties can play a very significant role in this process, and if the interviews are accurate, there should be parties interested in responding to such a City- sponsored request. Communication with the Dolan family about possible revitalization, redevelopment, and related solutions that can both benefit the Dolan family and Main Street is strongly encouraged. In effect, with the proper discussions, public - private partnering, and mutual and beneficial cooperation, it is conceivable that the entire south end of Main Street could be revitalized in a relatively simultaneous action. This strategy is further enhanced by the upcoming "Green Street" implementation that will take place along Main Street itself and, thereby, bring considerable revitalization, image, and personality to the public realm that connects each of these properties. This observation aligns with the City Council's 2012 Goals in which this area (Main Street at Fanno Creek) is identified as the area with the greatest redevelopment potential and, therefore, a place to concentrate resources. Leland Consulting Group • January 2013 4 Tigard Developer Interviews Report Figure 2. Saxony Properties, Site #1 { � \Dy _ _. '- • r� / / / f \ 4_i t / 4... ~ 4 ) #24 .---- * In_ . ., , i lot. - 4.• ; O Source: GoogleEarth, Leland Consulting Group Site 2: Public Works Yard The largest of the three sites is currently occupied by the Tigard Public Works Department with a total of 3.26 acres, of which only 2.64 acres is actually developable. The site lies directly adjacent to Fanno Creek (park is to the south) with easy access to the trail system serving Fanno Creek and beyond. Also adjacent to the site is a newly constructed dog park. The site concept tested with the developers is for a residential development of up to 100 multifamily units. This site received a good deal of discussion. All of the developers agree that it is a future housing site and that proximity to Fanno Creek Park is an attractor. The dog park was perceived as an amenity. Several developers spoke of serving smaller households in new housing projects in which pets are typically the norm. Having the dog park immediately next door is seen as an advantage because many of these developers have had to figure out how to deal with dogs in prior projects. The question raised by several, if not most, of the developers was, although it is a housing site, should it be rental or should it be some form of ownership or some combination of housing. There was initial interest by developers interested in apartments, another interested in a for sale product, and still another for some form of mixed ownership and rental housing. Since this was an initial inquiry with developers, it would be overstating interest to say that anyone is ready to move on this right now. There is the matter of Tigard Public Works still occupying the property as well as questions such as, does it need to be cleaned up environmentally, and how much of existing buildings and infrastructure have to be removed? The City, as recommended by Leland Consulting Group, should not remove buildings and infrastructure until such time that it has a binding agreement with a developer who has contractually agreed to build a product that is approved by the City. In effect, tearing everything out and cleaning up the site and waiting for a developer could be a long wait. It is much better for the public and private sectors to simultaneously commit to achieving the same objective. Leland Consulting Group • January 2013 5 Tigard Developer Interviews Report Many of the developers are seeking good infill sites. The Public Works site is technically an infill site. However, with 2.5 acres of net developable area, it is considerably larger than the typical infill site. It will therefore require a developer with strong experience, credit capacity, and realistic debt and equity financing. Some of the developers interviewed are certainly worth following up with regarding the Public Works site. There was a variety of discussion about the size of units that might go on to the Public Works site. Leland Consulting Group provided the developers with a general assessment of demographics for the City, and for a one, three, and five -mile radius around the properties (attached as an appendix). Still, more detailed market study and development programming will be necessary by any interested developer in specifically defining the appropriate housing product to go onto the property. That expenditure is not likely to occur until such time as a developer has expressed very serious interest in moving forward and is willing to risk some upfront investment to further examine the opportunity. Figure 3. Public Works Yard, Site #2 • S r r Source GoogleEarth. Leland Consulting Group Site 3: Burnham and Ash The smallest of the three properties is a single - family house located on a 12,600- square -foot lot on the corner of Burnham and Ash. The concept tested with developers for this site included a residential or mixed -use development. This property received virtually no interest from the interviewed developers as a near -term project. The City did have a serious proposal from a developer for a 37 -unit apartment building on this and the adjacent property in 2011, but the financial gap was too great. Given the size of projects the interviewed developers typically pursue, there was lack of interest due to the scale (too small) of the potential project. However, that does not rule out redevelopment of this site. It suggests that as a small project, outreach to an infill developer that specializes in small sites is recommended. It would probably garner more interest from the development community if adjoining properties could be acquired. This particular site may take a while to redevelop. Leland Consulting Group . January 2013 6 Tigard Developer Interviews Report Figure 4. Burnham and Ash, Site #3 /\. , , , 111 % . / : ! _ . J i e * V \\:\\NI1 de 1 ' Source GooaleEarth, Leland Consulting Group Other Feedback Urban Renewal Area Tigard's urban renewal area covers approximately 194 acres and is, by comparison to all of the City of Tigard, about 2.6 percent of the City's total land area. Investment in the urban renewal area today represents 1.9 percent of the City's total tax base. The 2011 -2012 total assessed value of the URA was $95.3 million. In 2011 -2012, the total assessed value of City was $5.127 billion. Due to the recession, virtually all downtowns have experienced very little development since 2008 because of highly constrained capital markets, lack of investment confidence, and consumer caution. Entering 2013 is at a time when the housing market is experiencing better access to capital, a growing market, and remarkably low interest rates. Given vacant and underutilized land, there is future potential for significant additional investment in the urban renewal area. The fact that it is an urban renewal district will play a significant role going forward to encouraging private sector investment to help realize the City's objectives in strengthening its downtown and adjacent areas. As is the nature of cities and particularly their more urban areas, a variety of land uses are included in the urban renewal area including the downtown and main street. However, the urban renewal area, in terms of uses and activities, accommodates a great many "urban personalities" including industry, civic uses, retail, office, a variety of housing, cultural facilities, entertainment, dining, and other uses. Therefore, what can and should work in one part of the urban renewal area may have little bearing in terms of what works in other parts. People that live in close proximity to downtown will become a positive contributor to shopping, dining, cultural activities, and other activities that can strengthen Tigard's investment in its Main Street. While one of the main purposes of the interview process was to inform prospective developers about Tigard and sites owned or in the process of being acquired by the City, other objectives were pursued as well. It was an opportunity to introduce or reintroduce developers to Tigard, to what is happening in the central area, to understand and appreciate the City Council /CCDA Board's willingness to become Leland Consulting Group • January 2013 7 T"t! Developer Interviews Report involved in public - private partnerships, and to convey the City of Tigard's strong interest in the growth and investment in Main Street and nearby properties. It was pointed out to the developers that the urban renewal area is comparatively smaller than one might find in other cities, which allows for a concentration of reinvestment capital, creating a financial condition for long -term successful public - private ventures. The other side of that coin is that a smaller district also has smaller potential bonding capacity (maximum of $22 million over 20 years). As one of the developers pointed out, "there are lots of properties and opportunities in the metropolitan area. Given the still emerging economy and real estate markets, being in an urban renewal district certainly enhances the opportunity through a public - private partnership." Apartments It was noted by multiple developers that the apartment market is very strong at this time. That can be explained in part by the fact that very few apartments were constructed in this region over the past 10 or more years because the condominium market had been so strong (in lieu of building apartments). Tigard did see some apartment investment during that 10 -year history -185 apartments and 197 condominiums. With vacancy rates now in the three percent range, many developers are building apartments throughout the region. A normal vacancy rate for apartments is in the five to six percent range, which allows for turnover and realistic movement in the market. Because the real estate industry has been slow in most other sectors, lenders and developers have switched to apartments as one of the few viable sectors. If an apartment project is to be developed in the City's urban renewal area, it should be in the planning stage fairly soon in order to catch the current wave of an underserved market. At some point, overbuilding is possible, if not likely, because real estate development is not a well - integrated industry, thus "booms and busts" are a typical characteristic of its cycles. However, overbuilding is not an immediate threat. The best protection in an overbuilt market is having a high - quality, well- designed, well- managed, and well - priced project. Concerns about Highway 99W There were two instances of concern expressed about noise from Highway 99W in the downtown. This can and should be resolved with soundproofing for multistory buildings, although this adds to the development cost. There are successful examples around the country where soundproofing has removed that problem and, in doing so, made upper floor housing very habitable even in close proximity to high traffic volumes or even heavy freight railroads. The cost of additional soundproofing can be mitigated by superior design. Successful small unit housing is one of architecture's most challenging assignments. In a public - private partnership with the selected developer, the City should contractually insist that the project architects are highly experienced with demonstrated success in urban housing. The focus for each building should be to look into the downtown and Main Street and not to Highway 99W. Leland Consulting Group • January 2013 8 Developer rOteNtwe Report Conclusions Tigard Has Potential All of the developers in one way or another expressed a belief that Tigard has potential for development. Without overstating, this is positive and reassuring. In some cases, interviewed developers said the sites were too small for the kinds of projects they typically developed —not an objection to place, but rather, a matter of scale. Several of the developers expressed interest in either the Main Street properties or the Public Works Yard. Since successful developers focus on one or two types of investments, these two properties are not likely to be pursued by a common developer. In effect, a successful apartment developer is not likely to simultaneously pursue a mixed -use infill project. As described in the following paragraphs, both the Main Street and the Public Works properties can be pursued simultaneously, just not by the same developer. In October of 2007, Leland Consulting Group prepared a "Development Strategy for Downtown Tigard." That study, completed before the devastating international recession, spoke optimistically because virtually no one anticipated the depth of damage that would come from the recession. Nonetheless, the study pointed out "that in order to attract private investment, the City will need to address existing economic and physical constraints, including existing land uses that are incompatible with the Tigard Downtown Vision, fractured ownership and poor parcel configuration, access constraints, substandard development, and the presence of a relatively large supply of underutilized properties with a low ratio of improvement value to land value." In that same study, five areas where the City of Tigard should focus its development priorities were cited: • Organization • Policy • Housing • Retail • Access, Transportation, and Parking The 2007 report goes on to elaborate on these recommendations. Based on serving as strategists and development advisors to more than 90 downtowns, Leland Consulting Group has learned that cities and their downtowns must go through a "Getting Ready Phase" before real development can occur — regulations, staffing, policy support, an urban renewal district (established in May of 2006) and related tools and organization need to be put in place. Further, and highly important, elected leadership will need to provide strong support to public - private efforts. Tigard has been doing all of these things. But then, the recession hit, developers lost access to capital, lenders became, for all purposes, unwilling to lend, and the markets for urban products— housing, retail, and office —went stagnant. In November of 2011, Leland Consulting Group prepared the "Tigard Downtown Strategy Update / Five Year Assessment of Urban Renewal." That report reinforces the comments above about the recession and its impacts. Still, Tigard made achievements during this difficult period (examples): • Reconstruction of Burnham Street • TriMet opened the Westside Express Service linking Tigard with Beaverton and Wilsonville • Community Partner for Affordable Housing opened the 48 -unit Knoll (senior housing) • Three property owners utilized urban renewal matching grants for building facade renovations Leland Consulting Group • January 2013 9 Developer Interviews Report And while some progress was made, the recession truly put the brakes on investment. What happened in Tigard was mirrored all over America and was particularly noticeable in the housing industry. In 2012, and particularly the second half of the year, there has been a promising jump in both single family and multifamily home construction. This year (2013) promises to be even better as exceedingly low interest rates stimulate home purchases. National homebuilders are active again. Investors that have sat on the sidelines for years are getting back in the game. It is in that context of hope for real estate that the developer interviews were conducted. And as a result, there is expressed interest in both the Public Works site and the Saxony Properties in downtown Tigard. Tigard's Competitive Advantage: "Main Street" It became evident during the interview process that Tigard's Main Street provides a perceived competitive advantage compared to other nearby communities. The three closest central areas to Portland are Lake Oswego, Tigard, and Beaverton. Lake Oswego has what is essentially a two -block Main Street from Millennium Park on the south next to the lake moving north along First Street to B Avenue. Property values in that area are high and redevelopment is being discussed, but has not as yet happened beyond the significant and successful Lake View Village. Land values in many cases exceed $100 per square foot as compared to downtown Tigard, which ranges around $20 per square foot —a distinct advantage. To the west, Beaverton's original downtown, the historic district, seems to be slowly disappearing and much of Beaverton's downtown is still without a heart. Historically dominated by auto retailers, new and used, the large central area is without a true urban center. Retail is successful, but it is scattered in multiple locations rather than concentrated. As part of this perspective, it became apparent during the interview process that Tigard is home to the only established double - loaded Main Street of these three close -in cities that still has affordable land values, and that can potentially attract significant redevelopment if it is effectively approached. The Main Street, granted, needs work, but there is investment occurring and that, in and of itself, is encouraging. The City's potential acquisition of the Saxony Properties is a strategically wise decision. It carries enough front footage on Main Street that, when redeveloped with pedestrian- serving retail and service uses on the ground floor and either housing or offices above, it can benefit the properties across the street and vice versa. What is important, however, is that the south end of Main Street should be approached assertively and as a unified project rather than a series of independent one -at -a -time transactions. By bringing all of the key property owners into the discussion, and by using urban renewal funds strategically to get maximum leverage from those dollars thereby putting additional private investment on the tax rolls, the result will be an overall plan and finished Main Street that is very successful for all parties concerned —the investors and developers, the tenants, the City, and the citizens of Tigard and its visitors who will frequent new shops and restaurants that will be a part of Tigard's Main Street experience. A recommended next step is to discuss these findings and recommendations with the City Center Development Agency Board and City Center Advisory Commission. With clear support from City Council /CCDA Board, staff can move to strategies for the Public Works site and the south end of Main Street. More physical plans are not a priority. Tigard has physical plans for the downtown — implementation should begin now with negotiations and deal- making as follows: • Complete the Main Street acquisitions. Public ownership of these sites will put the City in the driver's seat in terms of defining the desired type of development. • Meet with key property owners along Main Street to explore their interest in development, joint ventures, sale, or other initiatives that would leverage the upcoming Green Street project as well as the newly acquired sites. • Determine if, how, and when Public Works can be moved from the current site so as to accelerate the disposition and redevelopment of that site. Leland Consulting Group • January 2013 10 A Developer interviews Report fr • Prepare a developer recruitment strategy that includes goals and objectives to be achieved through development —both on Main Street and the Public Works site. As the property owner, the City will have the opportunity and obligation to set clear expectations for the type, character, scale, and timing of development that will occur on these sites. Defining these terms up -front will help inform potential developers of the City's expectations and will result in responses that better meet the financial and land use expectations for Main Street. • Prepare development scenarios, including financial forecasts, to better inform Council about prospective returns on public capital as well as increased tax base, leverage (public to private investment) and other indicators. This work will help ensure that the City's expectations for redevelopment are realistic and can reasonably be achieved by private developers. • Design the developer RFQ (request for qualifications) package and define and outline the DDA (development and disposition agreement) that will guide the public - private partnerships. Public - private partnerships can be complex — laying the roadmap to completion up -front can help avoid delays. • Consider modifying codes to provide a more streamlined application, land use, and design review sequence and timing as a strategic advantage to the City for attracting private capital into the community. Reduced timing, clear procedural rules, and greater assurance of approval (while fully protecting the public interest) will be a major attractor and advantage over entitlement processes in other (competing) cities. • On a case -by -case basis, be prepared to utilize one or more incentives to help development overcome financial and market barriers. For each tool, the City should have clear guidelines regarding the conditions under which each tool would be made available (e.g., project financial need, provision of community benefits, target location, etc.). The tools that are most likely to be of benefit to potential developers include: o Land assembly: Downtown is characterized by small parcels under different ownerships. Assembling land into parcels that are large enough for new development to be viable can be a long and expensive process —and one that keeps developers away. By assembling and aggregating properties through willing - seller acquisitions, the City can gain control of useful sites and can then sell the property to a developer for the desired type of project. o Streamline permit process: Providing assurances to developers that a project can be entitled within an accelerated timeline will have direct economic benefit to developers ( "time is money ") and can provide Tigard with a competitive advantage in the marketplace over other jurisdictions where the entitlement process is longer and more uncertain. o Property tax abatements: Property tax abatements can provide direct bottom -line benefits to developers by reducing or eliminating property taxes for a period of time (usually 10 years), which, in turn, has a direct and immediate impact on a developer's return on investment (ROI), particularly for rental properties where the developer will continue to own and operate the property after completion. While abating property taxes has the effect of eliminating tax increment generation on the property, it can be an effective tool for projects that meet certain public policy goats, which can range from measures of affordability to simply bringing development to a desired part of downtown. o Fee subsidies or waivers: Reducing or eliminating certain development impact fees has a direct impact on a project's bottom line. The waiving of such fees can be acceptable in a downtown environment since the infrastructure and services that would support the new development are typically already in place (e.g., roads, parks, etc.). o Subsidized loans: As discussed earlier, the current financial marketplace is very constrained for new development. As such, the City's ability to provide financing to developers (either at market, low interest, or zero interest) can help developer's fill critical financing gaps that can make the difference between a project that gets built and one that does not. If reduced or zero interest loans are considered, specific criteria will be needed to define the eligibility requirements. As the loan gets repaid over time, it can become a revolving funding program where revenues can be used to fund future projects. Leland Consulting Group • January 2013 11 Tigard Developer Interviews Report Appendix The appendix includes the following brief informational reports, generated by Leland Consulting Group and the City of Tigard respectively, which were given to the developers during the interview process. Some graphics and information from the following reports was used in this summary to illustrate key ideas and conclusions that surfaced during the interview process. A. Demographic Overview B. Information and Prospectus on City -Owned Sites C. Policy Tools and Incentives Matrix Leland Consulting Group • January 2013 12 . y i , , ,,s, ..,,To , 1` 1. ., . 1 .i . CITY OF TIGARD ,,,, "btpg.ag, -0 . - s /vi I ir N i 1 . r , t ail j ! SI ° "p � , +.. mss ) s •. , t � , .. . /-s ' : ' : , . \\, ,,,,\, . .. it ; _,/,/ \, " • , 1°-1. i. - 1 ', , i ,04 /IF \\\., ■ , APPENDIX A: DEMOGRAPHIC OVERVIEW PREPARED FOR CITY OF TIGARD 14 =.. TIGARD PREPARED BY 12 LELAND CONSULTING GROUP I igara Market Summary Varies from 1 -mile Market area by: >10% >20% >50% 1 mile 3 miles Tigard city Population Summary 2000 Total Population 11,995 112,695 41,223 2000 Group Quarters 92 633 221 2010 Total Population 13,108 126,546 45,830 2015 Total Population 13,611 132,932 48,105 2010 -2015 Annual Rate 0.76% 0.99% 0.97% Household Summary 2000 Households 4,694 47,125 16,507 2000 Average Household Size 2.54 2.38 2.48 2010 Households 5,069 52,172 18,081 2010 Average Household Size 2.57 2.41 2.52 2015 Households 5,258 54,701 18,940 2015 Average Household Size 2.57 2.42 2.53 2010 -2015 Annual Rate 0.74% 0.95% 0.93% 2000 Families 2,962 29,278 10,739 2000 Average Family Size 3.09 2.97 3.03 2010 Families 3,119 31,692 11,518 2010 Average Family Size 3.14 3.04 3.09 2015 . Families 3,194 32,818 11,934 2015 Average Family Size 3.15 3.06 3.11 2010 -2015 Annual Rate 0.48% Housing Unit Summary 2000 Housing Units 4,973 49,819 17,369 Owner Occupied Housing Units 45.8% 57.1% 55.4% Renter Occupied Housing Units 48.8% 37.5% 39.6% Vacant Housing Units 5.4% 5.3% 5.0% 2010 Housing Units 5,452 55,910 19,255 Owner Occupied Housing Units 45.4% 56.1% 55.8% Renter Occupied Housing Units 47.6% 37.2% 38.1% Vacant Housing Units 7.0% 6.7% 6.1% 2015 Housing Units 5,711 59,166 20,353 Owner Occupied Housing Units 45.0% 55.3% 55.1 Renter Occupied Housing Units 47.1% 37.1% 37.9% Vacant Housing Units 7.9% 7.5% 6.9% Median Household Income 2000 $44,054 $52,346 $51,632 2010 $58,860 $65,174 $64,830 2015 $66,139 $75,437 $74,436 Median Home Value 2000 $170,732 $188,413 $187,107 2010 $287,566 $325,788 $320,749 2015 $356,163 $396,979 $392,666 Per Capita Income 2000 $21,509 $27,884 $25,110 2010 $26,696 $33,753 $30,800 2015 $30,217 $37,961 $34,715 Median Age 2000 32.9 36.0 34.5 2010 34.7 37.9 36.6 2015 34.7 38.0 36.8 page 1 2000 Households by Income Household Income Base 4,690 47,094 16,499 <$15,000 9.7% 8.1% 8.8% $15,000 - $24,999 13.8% 11.6% $25,000 - $34,999 14.5% 12.8% 11.4% $35,000 - $49,999 17.5% 16.4% 16.3% $50,000 - $74,999 21.5% 21.6% 21.7 $75,000 - $99,999 13.7% 13.5% 14.5% $100,000 - $149,999 7.5 % 11.1% 10.6% $150,000 - $199,999 0.9% 3.6% 3.3% $200,000+ 0.9% 2.8% 1.8% Average Household Income $53,877 $66,236 $62,439 2010 Households by Income Household Income Base 5,069 52,173 18,080 <$15,000 6.6% 5.7% 5.8% $15,000 - $24,999 8.7 6.7% 7.6% $25,000 - $34,999 9.0% 7.4% 7.4% $35,000 - $49,999 17.2% 15.9% 14.9% $50,000 - $74,999 25.1% 22.5% 23.2% $75,000 - $99,999 13.4% 14.8% 15.0% $100,000 - $149,999 16.0% 17.8% 18.8% $150,000 - $199,999 2.7% $200,000+ 1.4% 4.4 °/a 3.3 Average Household Income $67,886 $81,748 $77,880 2015 Households by Income Household Income Base 5,258 54,703 18,942 <$15,000 4.9% 4.1% 4.2% $15,000 - $24,999 6.7% 5.7% $25,000 - $34,999 6.7% 5.2% 5.3% $35,000 - $49,999 11.9 10.5% 9.7% $50,000 - $74,999 28.4% 24.9% 25.5% $75,000 - $99,999 13.7% 14.7% 14.8% $100,000 - $149,999 22.3% 24.1% 25.4% $150,000 - $199,999 3.7% $200,000+ 1.7% 5.2% 4.0% Average Household Income $76,958 $92,163 $87,970 2000 Owner Occupied Housing Units by Value Total 2,244 28,431 9,654 <$50,000 2.7% 2.2% $50,000 - $99,999 4.1% 4.2% $100,000 - $149,999 23.5% $150,000 - $199,999 44.3% 35.0% 41.1% $200,000 - $299,999 20.4% 27.9% 26.8% $300,000 - $499,999 4.5% 12.5% 10.8% $500,000 - $999,999 0.4% 1.5 °/a 1.1% $1,000,000 + 0.1% Average Home Value $182,021 $212,792 $210,355 2000 Specified Renter Occupied Housing Units by Contract Rent Total 2,428 18,642 6,857 With Cash Rent 98.9% 98.5% 99.2% No Cash Rent 1.1% 1.5% Median Rent $593 $656 $613 Average Rent $618 $720 $668 2000 Population by Age Total 11,995 112,696 41,223 0 - 4 7.3% 6.6% 7.7% 5 - 9 6.8% 6.9% 7.2% 10 - 14 6.5% 6.7% 6.7% 15 - 24 14.7% 12.4% 12.9% 25 - 34 18.3% 15.7% 16.3% 35 - 44 17.3% 17.2% 17.7% 45 - 54 14.2% 15.4% 14.2% 55 - 64 7.3% 7.9% 7.2% 65 - 74 4.0% 5.1% 4.5% 75 - 84 2.6% 85 + 0.9% 18 + 75.4% 75.9% 74.5% page 2 2010 Population by Age Total 13,107 126,548 45,831 0 - 4 7.2% 6.5% 7.3% 5 - 9 6.2% 6.3% 6.7% 10 - 14 6.0% 6.2% 6.4 15 - 24 14.1% 12.0% 12.1% 25 - 34 17.1% 15.0% 15.1% 35 - 44 14.8% 14.5% 14.9% 45 - 54 14.7% 15.3% 14.8% 55 - 64 11.0% 12.1% 11.4% 65 - 74 5.2% 6.4% 5.9% 75 - 84 2.7% 3.8% 85 + 1.1% 18 + 77.1% 77.4% 75.9% 2015 Population by Age Total 13,611 132,932 48,104 0 - 4 7.2% 6.5% 7.2% 5 - 9 6.3% 6.3% 6.7% 10 - 14 6.1% 6.2% 6.5% 15 - 24 13.8% 11.6% 12.0% 25 - 34 17.2% 15.0% 14.8% 35 - 44 14.3% 14.4% 14.5% 45 - 54 13.6% 14.0% 13.6% 55 - 64 11.2% 12.1% 11.6% 65 - 74 6.6% 8.1% 7.6% 75 - 84 2.9% 3.9% 3.8% 85 + 1.0% 18 + 77.1% 77.5% 75.9% 2000 Population by Sex Males 50.7% 48.5% 49.0% Females 49.3% 51.5% 51.0% 2010 Population by Sex Males 50.4% 48.5% 49.1% Females 49.6% 51.5% 50.9% 2015 Population by Sex Males 50.2% 48.6% 49.1% Females 49.8% 51.4% 50.9% 2000 Population by Race /Ethnicity Total 11,996 112,694 41,223 White Alone 84.0% 86.7% 85.4% Black Alone 1.3% 1.2% 1.1% American Indian Alone 0.8% 0.6% Asian or Pacific Islander Alone 5.0% 5.8% 6.1% Some Other Race Alone 5.8% 2.6% 3.8% Two or More Races 3.1% 3.2% 3.0% Hispanic Origin 14.5% 6.2 °%o 8.9% Diversity Index 46.9 38.7 2010 Population by Race /Ethnicity Total 13,107 126,546 45,829 White Alone 77.9% 81.6% 80.0% Black Alone 2.1% 2.0% 1.9% American Indian Alone 0.8% 0.7% Asian or Pacific Islander Alone 6.2% 7.7% 7.7% Some Other Race Alone 9.2% 4.1 °%o 6.0% Two or More Races 3.8% 3.9% 3.7% Hispanic Origin 22.2% 10.0% 13.8°/o Diversity Index 60.1 50.9 2015 Population by Race /Ethnicity Total 13,611 132,932 48,104 White Alone 75.6% 79.4% 77.5% Black Alone 2.4% 2.3% 2.2% American Indian Alone 0.9% 0.7% Asian or Pacific Islander Alone 6.7% 8.7% 8.7% Some Other Race Alone 10.3% 4.7 °ro 6.8% Two or More Races 4.1% 4.3% 4.0% Hispanic Origin 25.6% 11.9 °ro 16.1% Diversity Index 64.3 49.5 55.6 2000 Population 3+ by School Enrollment Total 11,443 108,430 39,263 Enrolled in Nursery/Preschool 1.2% .c = z _ ° 1.6 /o Enrolled in Kindergarten 1.2% 1.5% Enrolled in Grade 1 -8 10.7% 11.3% 11.5% Enrolled in Grade 9 -12 5.1% 5.3% 5.1% Enrolled in College 5.4% 4.9% 4.8% Enrolled in Grad /Prof School 1.3% 1.5% 1.3% Not Enrolled in School 75.1% 73.7% 73.8% 2010 Population 25+ by Educational Attainment Total 8,732 87,464 30,955 Less Than 9th Grade 6.1% 9th to 12th Grade, No Diploma 5.6% High School Graduate 21.9% 18.0% Some College, No Degree 25.6% 24.1% 25.6% Associate Degree 9.3% 8.3% 9.0% Bachelor's Degree 20.5% 27.4% Graduate /Professional Degree 10.9% 15.4% 12.5% 2010 Population 15+ by Marital Status Total 10,577 102,613 36,478 Never Married 34.5% 29.6% 29.1% Married 48.5% 52.5% 53.8% Widowed 2.9% Divorced 14.1% 12.5% 12.4% 2000 Population 16+ by Employment Status Total 9,411 88,781 31,809 In Labor Force 74.8% 71.1% 72.2% Civilian Employed 70.5% 68.2% 68.8% Civilian Unemployed 4.3% 3.4% In Armed Forces 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Not In Labor Force 25.2% 28.9% 27.8% 2010 Civilian Population 16+ in Labor Force Civilian Employed 88.0% 89.9% 89.5% Civilian Unemployed 12.0% 10.1% 10.5% 2015 Civilian Population 16+ in Labor Force Civilian Employed 90.4 92.0% 91.7% Civilian Unemployed 9.6% 8.0% 8.3% 2000 Females 16+ by Employment Status and Age of Children Total 4,665 46,439 16,507 Own Children < 6 Only 10.3% 8.2% 9.8% Employed /in Armed Forces 6.2% 4.8% 5.6% Unemployed 0.3% 0.2% 0.3% Not in Labor Force 3.8% 3.2% 3.9% Own Children <6 and 6 -17 Only 5.6% 5.9% 6.8% Employed /in Armed Forces 3.1% 3.1% 3.8% Unemployed 0.6% 0.1% 0.3% Not in Labor Force 1.9% 2.6% 2.7% Own Children 6 -17 Only 16.5% 17.3 16.0% Employed /in Armed Forces 12.6% 13.1% 12.3% Unemployed 0.4% 0.3% 0.4% Not in Labor Force 3.5% 3.8% 3.4% No Own Children < 18 67.7% 68.7% 67.4% Employed /in Armed Forces 41.8% 39.8% 40.1% Unemployed 2.5% Not in Labor Force 23.3% 27.1% 25.4% 2010 Employed Population 16+ by Industry Total 6,317 59,917 21,377 Agriculture /Mining 0.5% 0.5% 0.7% Construction 5.8% 4.6% 5.1% Manufacturing 8.9% 9.1% 10.1% Wholesale Trade 4.7% 4.6% 4.8% Retail Trade 12.3% 11.7% 12.1% Transportation /Utilities 4.5% 3.6% 3.7% Information 3.3% 3.2% 3.1% Finance /Insurance /Real Estate 8.4% 10.6% 10.7% Services 49.4% 49.3% 46.8% Public Administration 2.0% 2.8% 2 .9% 2010 Employed Population 16+ by Occupation Total 6,315 59,914 21,379 White Collar 62.9% 76.5% 71.1% Management /Business /Financial 13.7%.11111111 18.3% Professional 19.6 °fo 27.6% 23.2% Sales 13.5% 14.5% 14.7% Administrative Support 16.2% 13.9% 14.7% Services 19.4% Blue Collar 17.7% �� ^~ 14.5% Farming /Forestry/Fishing 0.2 0.2% 0.2% Construction /Extraction 3.7% 3.1% 3.3% Installation /Maintenance /Repair 3.5% 2.9% Production 5.1% 3.0% 4.1% Transportation /Material Moving 5.3% 3.4% 2010 Consumer Spending Apparel & Services: Total $ $8,580,915 $104,130,956 $34,368,125 Average Spent $1,692.78 $1,995.91 $1,900.79 Spending Potential Index 71 83 79 Computers & Accessories: Total $ $1,145,656 $13,806,241 $4,572,285 Average Spent $226.01 $264.63 $252.88 Spending Potential Index 103 120 115 Education: Total $ $6,258,165 $76,880,078 $25,440,826 Average Spent $1,234.57 $1,473.58 $1,407.05 Spending Potential Index 101 121 115 Entertainment /Recreation: Total $ $16,051,523 $200,436,317 $66,179,498 Average Spent $3,166.53 $3,841.83 $3,660.17 Spending Potential Index 98 119 114 Food at Home: Total $ $22,134,085 $268,231,160 $88,682,859 Average Spent $4,366.46 $5,141.27 $4,904.75 Spending Potential Index 98 115 110 Food Away from Home: Total $ $16,416,968 $198,981,268 $65,693,581 Average Spent $3,238.63 $3,813.94 $3,633.29 Spending Potential Index 101 118 113 Health Care: Total $ $16,896,781 $216,979,298 $71,554,382 Average Spent $3,333.28 $4,158.91 $3,957.44 Spending Potential Index 89 112 106 HH Furnishings & Equipment: Total $ $8,945,681 $111,729,095 $36,909,700 Average Spent $1,764.74 $2,141.55 $2,041.35 Spending Potential Index 86 104 99 Investments: Total $ $7,628,866 $101,206,652 $33,365,069 Average Spent $1,504.97 $1,939.86 $1,845.31 Spending Potential Index 87 112 106 Retail Goods: Total $ $116,520,952 $1,440,703,479 $475,792,189 Average Spent $22,986.44 $27,614.41 $26,314.48 Spending Potential Index 92 111 106 Shelter: Total $ $81,176,266 $999,812,725 $330,372,178 Average Spent $16,013.89 $19,163.72 $18,271.79 Spending Potential Index 101 121 116 TV /Video /Audio:Total $ $6,192,255 $75,306,856 $24,841,932 Average Spent $1,221.57 $1,443.43 $1,373.93 Spending Potential Index 98 116 111 Travel: Total $ $9,302,518 $119,176,793 $39,379,778 Average Spent $1,835.14 $2,284.30 $2,177.97 Spending Potential Index 97 121 115 Vehicle Maintenance & Repairs: Total $ $4,682,013 $57,566,645 $19,015,239 Average Spent $923.64 $1,103.40 $1,051.67 Spending Potential Index 98 117 112 Note: Spending Potential Index compares spending potential of households within the market area to the national average. The degree to which the market area differs from the national average, represented by 100, is reflected by the difference above or below 100. page 5 , i eSil Traffic Count Map - Close Up \ - _ 1248$ SW Main ST, Portland, OR, 97223 PJno: 1, 3 POW re \ Sr * ,-.. ,: \ Vv London Ct 640 885 \ 'I \ I r"! I o ,- o ti n t y 4 i* . 13°V. Ct' 4.1 13,099 0 Tel 00 .....A. 660 _,S. Pc. .,AN>C*r' SW c (6. n tor St 4 ' .. eo? til' &,e. .,..........-,,, - i cirif 10.000 e 10 CI. 1560 -...-•.'---- or ' --- 4, 38,700 ' 4,4 T1 ,... . '''' T.794 , o. 4 4 , • 3,065 -0, 0 41,.. tO 10,227 N7.-' "A- ,- — Ti... gr 'S S t , 11,000 4`0,1„. W .3 5 1' ' 0 n Count \ iikk 40 4 'Ira - 5 440 \,\ -\\ , 44 A t" lo .1,4 _,,0 $' •N.- ye 41 ssik A_ -4, 4L \ N A 4t 10,800 -,` atifir —*4 et 'p1 • 4.. ,.., 4 40 9 4W-1 \ 1, 600 39.'0 - ,- _ --,-, 10,000 / ‘,.. 4 , 1 06 I . 42,600 4 \ \ gAv 0.1 ml .c. _ o, . \ \ It -4/Vir-ttri4 To 0 ,- r: 0 ri 1 141 1 , \ Fanno Park ,.." •73 \ . 4 er Average Dairy Traffic Voiurrse "'; U en amoo vaidcfas par day d p + — . ,, *4,00, - 15,000 00 c 1 akara 111 . y xs Ir •1114,00/ • 30,000 C d'p, 4Z7 ,.. Trees than 100,000 p. ay 14i) I , ,_— '91/0 99 a rd Source: 2012 Mark Penang Sa■-alans Inc. October 29, 2012 Top Three Tapestry Segments "Esri's Tapestry 1 mile Radius City of Tigard 3 mile Radius Segmentation Aspiring Young In Style In Style divides US Families 26% 24% residential areas 31% into 65 distinctive In Style Sophisticated Enterprising segments based on 28% Squires Professionals 11% 12% socioeconomic and Inner City Tenants Boomburbs Urban Chic demographic 17% 11 % 9% characteristics." 12 TIGARD DEVELOPER INTERVIEWS page 7 Top three Tapestry Segments within 1 mile Radius (Burnham & Main) ' j 'r Wi t• L 1 ,�. '1.> -. } f A N a V / , g" -' k •1 , ill t 0 r - 1 a � f Aspiring Young Families In Style Inner City Tenants • 31% (vs 2.3 %) • 28% (vs 2.3 %) • 25% (vs 1. %) • Ethnically diverse • Prosperous professional • Multicultural • 51% rent their homes couples • Younger than average • 47% own their homes • Live in suburbs but prefer the • Very few own their homes • Median age of 31 city • Likely to work in the service • Mix of Household Types • Two - thirds are households industry • Approximately two - thirds of without children • 17% do not own a vehicle HHs are families (married • Median age of 41 • Mix of households types couples with or without • 42% hold bachelor's degree or • 34 percent are singles children and single parents) higher • 28 percent are married - couple • 27% are single person HHs • 14% prefer townhouses to families • 9% are shared HHs traditional single - family homes • 21 percent are single parents page 8 APPENDIX B: INFORMATION AND PROSPECTUS ON CITY -OWNED SITES Tigard City Center Development Agency The City of Tigard's Urban Renewal Agency CCDA October 23, 2012 Greetings: The City of Tigard and its urban renewal agency, the City Center Development Agency, have put a high priority on redeveloping Downtown Tigard into "a mixed use, urban village accessible by all modes of transportation." As Tigard enters the seventh year of its urban renewal district program, the goal is to build on the city's public infrastructure projects and attract private investment. The city is currently working on securing property for redevelopment /public space purposes. The confidential interviews you have agreed to participate in will be conducted by Leland Consulting Group. These interviews will provide valuable background information and help influence the agency's decision - making on urban renewal policies, including potential public - private partnerships. Thank you for participating in this project. We know your time is valuable. Regards, Craig. Dirksen Mayor /Chair of City Center Development Agency 13125 SW Hall Boulevard I Tigard, Oregon 97223 I 503 - 718 -2420 w �, d 11�. �� it / „" /. ,.... Downtown Tigard a s� � .. & y y P 1 : _ '5 ill' � v`� � F a l Nt. II i , , 41/ .I • Future Vision '�v - � as. 3 The vision for Downtown Tigard is to develop a "vibrant � . � � • � �, � Ta , ., , de * /4_,__ ��.� '' , and active urban village at the heart of the community," vj S i j " a r i �� service, and the potential of high capacity transit in + \�, � _l *� , �j I the Pacific Highway /99W corridor. By 2058, a built - out / , ` ' } ; Downtown Tigard is projected to have 2,400 additional - ' ► 1 �. �1 " • dwelling units and an additional 800,000 square feet of , � � \ � Q Q office and commercial space. / �* i � ' a . ♦ °f Increased housing development is seen as the key to `' \ - �� the success of Downtown. New residents would help �: z" � revitalize the small scale commercial Main Street district. / % • , , y �' } do , To attract residential development, several catalyst ∎� e 0 , :00 I f �'' projects are planned in the short- to mid-terms: ' ;.. > ' • Main Street Green Street including streetscape j a � enhancements and public art. �wY S ; 111 it • A public plaza. iu; ' { . 1 � • Improvements to Fanno Creek Park. _ � . , I (and an extension of its green character throughout the district) N. 1r rn! 4 r �+ • An improved pedestrian /vehicle circulation system. V � ■ ' � .•' ` • ' • \ di, Xi 1 Visit www .tgard- or.gov /downtown_tigard for more Ito li p, , ' 4■ information or contact Sean Farrelly, Redevelopment ;; � � A ,� W - r ,� Project Manager, at 503- 718 -2420 or sean @tigard- or.gov. �; +l r % 4 j r `� ', ' ' t r ... -- , t ''' , -- - M City of Tai ` �; \ / 13125 SW'FWFFiled. '+ � .0 Tigud OR 97223 " (\ �y 0 �� % Downtown Ti ar r .�a�w � g f cD ,a ♦ � = Urban Renewal • - District Facts ♦ • • The Knoll ` Nd - -. Senior • Formed: 2006 - Housing Site 1 .. i ��. ' r�„•,•;:,•,,,, gym'' • Size: 193 acres TigarTransit Center/ • Number of Businesses: 300 ( approx.) / • WES`Station ✓ Site " • Employees: 1,300 (approx.) • Residents: 500 (approx.) Main Street Green Street • • 2005 -06 Total Assessed Value: $69.2 million (Starts in 2013) Burnham Street • 2011 -12 Total Assessed Value: $95.3 million Public Work l Improvements (Completed in 2011) • 2011 -12 Tax Increment: $325,173 `� // Site 2 ` Tigard Skate Park �,, 111 • Major Urban Renewal Projects FY 2010 -11: MAP KEY '�4P Property acquisition, Facade Improvement Program, _ Potential multi -use P E A — * Targeted Improvement Program, Development trail in corridor 4 Tigard City Hall Opportunity Studies, Main Street Green Street, — Fenno Creek Trail — Railroad Tracks public art. • Facade Improvements r. r. 'Cerium e er — completed y NM City-owned Property ° ' " l � ' NMI Parks * of Tigard * Points of Interest ' — Tigard Public Library City I3 25 O H al 23 // Ti OR 97223 , it . jr: ,:.. jr..4.:: aa...........40,,:: , ., 4, _ . irl,',,.,.. 'I., , : : '.?', r ' . : i , . '., . , ,,,. ., .., '. . . ' L , . , • . r ■ a It z # '', .. "s„. i - , . . ‘4., • -art' d fiat: - � ‘r;,-, — $y - . .. F , J . ti yt .x Y 4.,1 _ .�y W R e y .., 46, • ' � , - AP t11- T.• n.- - i i.)-0 fir J � / . .. ,N.-- 4 : 3„ i c., . ,i ,;: . . ,,,,o,,0 ' . : .s ' ' : i .,:11.4.::: - AN. g a t - t ' .4' .1 1; '; - 4 • . , , ei t 44, -6 e r 7/. ; ,fey i � / i �� '4 , o I a '4 • % e -:, } •t Site 1- Saxony Properties ` • S . - ;.4.0." ' l i.., - ,,., t s` 2 X 44 (r . ti c • n " I f i `� t r 1 P k S ,'. \ `` ' rj !I r . , . If y k ti � , \ / r ■ f 1 . "d Size 19,166 sq. ft. (0.44 acres) Land Value (Washington Co. $373,000 Assessor estimate) Concept 2 -5,000 sq. ft. public space fronting Fanno Creek with remaining property offered for private mixed use development (ground floor commercial/ upper office or residential) Status PSA signed. Due diligence in progress. Aiming for 2014 redevelopment Zoning Summary for Site 1 Zoning Mixed Use — Central Business District (MU -CBD) Minimum Residential Density 15 units per acre Maximum Site Coverage 100% Minimum Landscaping 0% (except parking lots) Minimum Front Setback 0 Maximum Front Setback 10 ft Minimum Rear Setback 0 ft. Minimum Parking Residential: 1 space per unit No minimum requirement for non - residential development under 20,000 sf Residential Development Maximum Building Height 45 feet /3 stories Maximum Residential Density 50 units per acre Private Residential Open Space Average of 28 sf per unit (minimum dimension of 32 ft.) Shared Residential Open Space 10% of development site Environmental Overlay Zones The portion of the site designated for a public piazza is located in a Clean Water Services (CWS) Vegetated Corridor. The entire site is in the FEMA 100 year flood zone and most of the site is in a Goal 5 Significant Habitat Area (Light and Moderate Impact area). Site 2: City of Tigard Public Works Yard . 7 - ,., , 4. igo l it . ,..„. , . 0 , '` ; . ,, 'Al"; . , Vi 4 ,, 4 II 4........ � { F y / r y r \ t e A Size 3.26 acres (2.64 developable) Land Value (Washington Co. Assessor $1.7 million estimate) Concept Residential development — townhouses and /or 3 -story flats (100 units ?) fronting existing public park Status City owned. City investigating options to relocate public works activities to make site available for redevelopment. Site 3: City -owned Burnham /Ash Street property ". F 1 ' , f �# .. v • ' - I / b ilk , .114111, . . Size 12,632 sq. ft. (0.29 acres) Land Value (Washington Co. Assessor $226,000 estimate) Concept Residential or mixed use development Status City owned and potentially available for redevelopment Zoning Summary for Sites 2 and 3 Zoning Designation Mixed Use — Central Business District (MU -CBD) Fanno- Burnham St. Subarea: provides an opportunity for medium scale residential or mixed use development. Compatible mixed uses (live -work, convenience retail, office and civic uses) are encouraged on the frontage of Burnham Street. The area in proximity to Fanno Creek Park will be an opportunity to create a high quality residential environment with views and access to the natural amenity of Fanno Creek Park. Building heights will step down to three stories so as not to overwhelm or cast shadows on the park. Minimum Residential Density 15 units per acre (applies to residential -only developments (not mixed -use)) Maximum Residential Density 50 units per acre Maximum Site Coverage 80% Minimum Landscaping 20% Minimum Front Setback 0 Maximum Front Setback 20 ft Minimum Setback on side facing 0 ft. street on corner Minimum Rear Setback 5 ft. Minimum Parking Residential: 1 space per unit No visitor parking required Non - Residential Uses: 75% of total computed from Table 18.765.2 (office 2.0/1,000 sf; retail sales 2.8/1,000; fast food 7.4/1,000; other eating and drinking establishments 11.5/1,000; daycare 1.5 /classroom) Fractional space requirements not counted as a whole space. Loading Requirement 1 space for commercial, industrial and institutional buildings with 10,000 — 40,000 sf 2 spaces if over 40,000 sf Minimum Building Height 20 ft. Maximum Building Height 80 feet /6 stories 45 feet /3 stories within 200 ft of Fanno Creek Park boundary Minimum Building Frontage 50% Private Residential Open Space Minimum of 80% of residential units shall have private open space. Minimum dimension of 32 sf Shared Residential Open Space' 1096 of development site (50% credit if directly adjacent to an improved public park) Private Open Space for Single- Minimum of 100 sf of private open space per unit such as a private Family Attached Dwelling Units porch, yard, deck, etc. Parking Dimensions 9' X 17.5' spaces /24' drive aisle 24' access drive Parking lot to have 6 -10' setback on all sides of the property APPENDIX C: POLICY TOOLS AND INCENTIVES MATRIX Attachment B Policy Tools and Incentives to Attract Mixed Use and Compact Residential Development to Downtown (Revised 11 /30/10) Policy Comments Effect on Attracting Cost Past Use in Tigard? Development 1. Development Code Increase in allowed Weak to moderate. Won't Small- requires change to Yes (Downtown Code) Revisions density, height. Decrease create a market by itself code in required parking. 2. Streamlined permit Streamline permitting Moderate: "Time is money" Small- requires change to Yes process and decision making to developer, however won't internal process. create a market by itself However, budget cutbacks can reduce effectiveness. 3. Fee Subsidies Reduce permit fees and Moderate to strong. Direct Moderate to high: loss in Yes, for low income System Development effect on the cost of government revenue housing Charges (SDC's) development 4. Land Assembly Acquisition from willing Strong increases Moderate Not by City sellers of contiguous marketability of Downtown parcels to create larger property for redevelopment. developable tracts. Can be sold for market or below market rates. 5. Property Tax Abatements Tax reduction or Moderate to strong. Increases Moderate: Increment is Yes, for non - profit abatement for residential net operating income or forgone, however there development and /or mixed use achievable rents /prices. is long term gain in development that meets value. community goals 6. Public /Private Street improvements, Weak to moderate. Won't Moderate to high Yes Partnership parking, parks, plazas are create a market by itself built, benefitting private development 7. Direct Urban Renewal Subsidy A Subsidized Land Publically owned land is Strong. Direct intervention to High. Direct No "written down ", (sold at fill feasibility gaps or to participation in financing below market) rate for ensure that project includes development developments that meet publically desired features. community goals Policy Tools and Incentives to Attract Mixed Use and Compact Residential Development to Downtown (Revised 11/30/10) B. Urban Renewal Low interest loans are Strong: Direct intervention to .High. Direct No Subsidized Loans provided from urban fill feasibility gaps or to participation in financing renewal funds for ensure that project includes development Loans are developments that meet publically desired features assumed to be repaid, community goals. "Second position debt" can but are typically low leverage additional loan interest and may not amounts from private lenders. reflect the risk of a project. Adapted /mm TTXard Transit Center Development Opportunity Study, Figum 4.2, (Johnson Reid) . AIS -1166 Special Meeting Meeting Date: 02/05/2013 Length (in minutes): Agenda Title: Approve City Council Minutes Prepared For: Cathy Wheatley Submitted By: Carol Krager, City Management Item Type: Motion Requested Meeting Type: Special Meeting Public Hearing: No Publication Date: Information ISSUE Approve City Council Minutes STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST N/A KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY OTHER ALTERNATIVES N/A COUNCIL GOALS, POLICIES, APPROVED MASTER PLANS N/A DATES OF PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION N/A Attachments Placeholder for November 13, 2012 Minutes November 20, 2012 Minutes • - - • • • . - •• . - ... - TO bil2 teso ada • (1 January 10, 2013 Minutes • AIS -1172 5. B. Special Meeting Meeting Date: 02/05/2013 Length (in minutes): Agenda Title: Receive and File - 2012 Fourth Quarter Goal Update and the 2013 City Council Liaison Appointment Matrix Submitted By: Cathy Wheatley, Administrative Services Item Type: Receive and File Meeting Type: Special Meeting Public Hearing: No Publication Date: Information ISSUE Receive and File - 2012 Fourth Quarter Goal Update and the 2013 City Council Liaison Appointment Matrix STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST N/A - Information purposes only. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY The 2012 Fourth Quarter Goal Update was finalized and distributed to the council for preliminary review at its special meeting of January 29, 2013. This document is formally submitted to the City Council's records as the final report on the 2012 status of the council goals for 2012. This document is attached. The 2013 council liaison appointments were reviewed at the January 10, 2013 council meeting. The council then reviewed the draft appointment matrix at its January 29, 2013, meeting and made some corrections and changes. The matrix is attached. OTHER ALTERNATIVES N/A COUNCIL GOALS, POLICIES, APPROVED MASTER PLANS Final report on status of 2012 council goals. DATES OF PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION January 29, 2013 Attachments 2012 Fourth Quarter City Council Goal Update 2013 City Council Appointment Matrix 2012 Tigard City Council Goals Fourth Quarter Goal Update Goal 1. Take the Next Step on Major Projects a. Continue oversight of design, permits, rate implementation and costs for the Lake Oswego - Tigard Water Partnership. • Water Rights: briefs filed at the State Court of Appeals, expect oral arguments by April 2013. • LO" T franchise fee negotiations with West Linn complete. • West Linn Planning Commission denied land use permits; appealed to the West Linn City Council, ruling by January 28, 2013. • River Intake Pump Station up for bid, award scheduled for February 2013. b. Implement the Comprehensive Plan through code revisions, including i. Tree code • On November 27, 2012 Council adopted Development Code, Municipal Code and Comprehensive Plan amendments as part of the Urban Forestry Code Revisions project. • The new code is scheduled to go into effect on March 1, 2013. ii. Contribute to the SW Corridor Plan by adopting Tigard's land use policies and designations and identifying priorities for high- capacity transit (HCT) station location alternatives by mid -2012. 1. Determine the economic development opportunities, development plan, city policies and regulations needed to position the Tigard Triangle as an HCT station location. • Staff began working with Oregon Department of Transportation on a draft statement of work for the Tigard Triangle TGM grant project. The draft will be finalized in 2013. c. Deliver on the promise of the voter - approved park bond by identifying all acquisition opportunities and completing the majority of park land acquisitions and improvements by the end of 2012. • The city closed on the purchase of the Fields property in partnership with Metro. We're working jointly on an IGA for future use and maintenance of the property. • Acquisitions via the park bond have added over 105 acres to the city's parkland inventory and leveraged over $6 million of grant and local agency contributions to the program. • East Butte Heritage Park project was submitted for a minor modification to the development plan. • The Jack Park expansion project was submitted for land use; the project calls for trail construction from Walnut Street to Jack Park. • The Park and Recreation Advisory Board continue to review opportunities to acquire open space. • The Sunrise property planning started with an award for development of a concept plan. • The City Center Advisory Commission and CD staff continues to identify possible park acquisitions in the downtown area. • Published an RFP for the Dirksen Nature Park development drawings. Will award in 2013. Goal 2. Financial Sustainability a. Maintain the long -term financial health of the General Fund and reserves. i. Develop a long -term financial strategy by mid -2012. • The Mayor's Blue Ribbon Task Force met to examine Tigard's service and financial challenges and recommend a course of action to Council. • Task Force members presented their final report and recommendations to Council on 12/18/12. Council accepted the Task Force report. b. Communicate regularly to residents about the alignment of city priorities with resources. c. Evaluate the city's sustainability efforts on an ongoing basis. • The sustainability action plan is 95% complete; will go to Council in 2013. Goal 3. Downtown a. Identify a geographic- opportunity area in the downtown with the greatest potential to create a catalyst for further development. Concentrate most resources there. b. Contact owners of key, structurally sound Main Street buildings with vacancies. Begin cooperative effort to secure tenants that will contribute to the vitality of downtown. • Pursuant to the potential purchase of the Main Street Saxony- Pacific property, due diligence activities were completed including appraisal, Phase 1 and 2 environmental site assessments, and an engineering study of property (piers.) • A Targeted Improvement Program RFP was sent to owners of vacant properties, brokers, and select businesses. Meetings held with a prospective business who will submit an application in January. • One new facade improvement grant approved. • One new business received design assistance (Chiropractors.) • Four facade improvement grant projects are in progress (Sherrie's Jewelry, Diamond project, Rojas Market and We Li Acupuncture.) • Downtown connectivity plan code amendments recommended for approval by Planning Commission and adopted by Council. • Downtown events contract transitioned to Chamber of Commerce. • Main St. public art artist selected from 50 applications to make a proposal for gateway sites. Goal 4. Annexation a. Re- evaluate the city's annexation policy. b. Develop a philosophy and approach to consider annexations, including islands. • Annexation of Area 63 is scheduled for early 2013. Goal 5. Recreation a. Evaluate options and resources to create a pilot recreation program: i. Inventory existing city and community recreational programs, facilities and resources. ii. Create recreational opportunities by partnering with the school district and other agencies or groups. iii. Identify funding options aligning with the recreational programming demand. • In November, completed a searchable inventory of recreational sources. Working on making it available through the city's website. • Discussions continue with Tigard - Tualatin School District regarding partnership opportunities, including a field improvement at Metzger Elementary. 2013 City Council Appointment Matrix Updated from Council discussion of January 29, 2013 Primary Committee Name Representative Alternate Rep Meeting Frequency Expect tion Staff Liaison Budget Committee All Council 3 -4 consecutive Monday evenings in April & May Toby LaFrance he Budget Committee provides a public forum to obtain public views in the preparation of fiscal policy. Budget Subcommittee- Social Councilor Snider 1 meeting in March Toby LaFrance Services .eviews applications submitted by social service agencies for contributions from the city. Consists of 1 Council member and 2 citizen- members of the , udget Committee. Budget Subcommittee - Events All Council Council Workshop or Study Toby LaFrance Session in March .eviews requests for contributions to community events. City Center Development All Council First Tuesday of the month. Approximately 2 Sean Farrelly Agency hours per month Council members serve as the urban renewal agency's board. Usually First Wednesday of the month, 9 -11 a.m. Clackamas River Water Held at North Clackamas Water Councilor Woodard Commission Building, 14275 S John Goodrich Providers Clackamas River Drive, Oregon City 97045; staff contact: Kim Swan 503- 723 -3510 ;omprised of six municipal water providers on the Clackamas River serving more than 300,000 people in Clackamas County. Participation is voluntary and .ended through membership dues. The CRWP projects and staff are jointly funded but each individual organization retains autonomy. Conservation rograms and services are provided to CRWP members. Members include Estacada, Lake Oswego, Gladstone, Tigard, and the North Clackamas Counter 'later Commission, Oak Lodge Water District, Sunrise Water Authority, South Fork Water Board and Clackamas River Water. 2013 Council Appointment Matrix — Page 1 DRAFT Updated after discussion at the 1/29/2013 council meeting. Committee Name Repr Primary esentative Alternate Rep Meeting Frequency Expect tion Staff Liaison :ommunity Development Block Council President 2 ° Thursday of the month Approximately Marissa Daniels Marissa Daniels Grant Policy Advisory Board Henderson at 7 p.m. Location rotates 2 hours month '. IGA, Washington Co. established the Community Development Policy Advisory Board (PAB) to represent the County Consortium, make ,commendations to the County Commissioners on all matters pertaining to the CDBG program. Includes a representative, generally an elected official, :om the County and each of the 11 participating cities in the Co. "nteigovernmental Water Board Councilor Buehner Councilor 2nd Wednesday /month, Monthly Dennis Koellermeier Snider 5:30 p.m., Water Building 'o make recommendations to the Tigard City Council on water issues and to carry out other responsibilities set forth in the IGA between Tigard, Durham, :ing City and the Tigard Water District. Each jurisdiction is represented by a member + 1 at large. 4etro Joint Policy Advisory Beaverton Mayor Cornelius Mayor 2n Thursday /month Judith Gray i ommission on Transportation Doyle Jef Dalin 7:30 9 a.m. @ Metro igard Mayor Cook to attend /monitor meetings on regular basis. A 17- member committee that provides a forum for elected officials and representatives of gencies involved in transportation to evaluate transportation needs in the region and to make recommendations to the Metro Council. Vlayor's Appointment Advisory Staff Liaison to the Committee committee interviewing 'he Mayor and one councilor. The councilor serving as the current City Council liaison will interview applicants for filling available seats on city boards, ommittees and commissions. For example, when interviewing applicants for the Planning Commission, the Mayor and the primary Council liaison will iterview candidates with a meeting time and date to conduct the interviews coordinated by the staff liaison. Metropolitan Area 6 times a year, usually Councilor Woodard Louis Sears Wednesday, 1 - 5 pm at Louis Sears Communications Commission MACC headquarters {ACC is the governing body that oversees the contracts for cable services and TVCTV. The Executive Committee meets separately to make commendations to the Commission on administrative issues including budget and the review of the Executive Director. 2013 Council Appointment Matrix — Page 2 DRAFT Updated after discussion at the 1/29/2013 council meeting. Committee Name RepPesrimary Time entatives Alternate Rep Meeting Frequency Expectation ation Staff Liaison Metro Policy Advisory * 2n and 4 Wednesday Ongoing Committee (MPAC) 5 -7 p.m. at Metro 4 hours /month Kenny Asher IPAC it is made up of elected officials. Representatives are elected by peers within Washington County cities. Note: Potential that Councilor Buehner to be nominated as the alternate (last update on this was 1/10/2013). Regional Water Providers Councilor Buehner No appointment Quarterly meeting held at John Goodrich Consortium made Metro ;onsortium is comprised of all water suppliers in the metro area. The Councilor appointee to this group represents the city on regional policy issues. SW Corridor Plan Steering Councilor Mayor Cook Judith Gray Committee Woodard :onsists of project partner elected and appointed officials who make final recommendations to the Metro Council and other jurisdictions for the SW ;orridor Plan Tigard - Lake Oswego Joint We have two primary seats: Water Partnership Oversight Councilor Buehner & Monthly — working on a Dennis Koellermeier Committee Councilor Snider new meeting schedule 2embership is comprised of staff and elected officials to govern water partnership between the cities. Washington County Mayor Cook Councilor 2n Monday @ noon 1-2 hours per month Mike McCarthy Coordinating Committee Woodard Beaverton City Hall VCCC reviews and comments on major land use and transportation issues and provides a forum for discussion which results in recommendations for a oordinated approach between jurisdictions. The Committee has specific authority on the Major Streets Transportation Improvement Program (MSTIP) nd the Countywide Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) program. Representatives to JPAC and MPAC from County and cities in the Co. will be on the policy body. Councilor 3` Wednesday of month PLUS: Optional Westside Economic Alliance Mayor Cook Woodard 7 :30 -9 a.m. @St. Vincent's Thursday Forum Kenny Asher Hospital Board Room breakfast w /speakers ;reate an environment conducive to business growth, working to influence decisions on policies and regulations impacting the economic vitality of the area. 2013 Council Appointment Matrix — Page 3 DRAFT Updated after discussion at the 1/29/2013 council meeting. Committee Name Represent five Alternate Rep Meeting Frequency Expe Expectation Staff Liaison Council Councilor Villamette River Water Coalition President Buehner Monthly Dennis Koellermeier Henderson 4ission of the coalition is to protect the Willamette River and to protect Tigard's water rights. 2013 Council Appointment Matrix — Page 4 DRAFT Updated after discussion at the 1/29/2013 council meeting. Tigard Board & Committee Liaison Assignments: Primary Time Committee Name Alternate Rep Meeting Frequency Staff Liaison Re •resentative Ex.ectation Meet a minimum of two times with reps of the Tigard Audit Committee Councilor Buehner CPA firm appointed to perform the annual Debbie Smith -Wagar audit of the city's annual financial report. 'articipate in the appointment, compensation, retention and oversight of any independent accountants engaged for the purpose of preparing and issuing an idependent audit report of performing other independent audit, review or attest services. City Center Advisory Council President Councilor 2 11d Wednesday /month@ Sean Farrelly Henderson Woodard* 6:30 pm y "his committee's role is defined in the City Charter and is to assist the Urban Renewal Commission in developing and carrying out an Urban Renewal Plan. If Councilor Woodard is also unable to attend, Council President Henderson will contact another City Council member to attend. *Council President Fafade Improvement Henderson & (2 representatives Subcommittee Councilor Ma Cook needed) Sean Farrelly Woodard 'o encourage businesses to make improvements to storefronts or commercial facades in downtown by providing design assistance and /or matching funds. Two council representatives required. Downtown Public Art *Council President Councilor Subcommittee Henderson Woodard/ Sean Farrelly Mayor Cook )iscuss and make recommendations for various public art options that may be purchased with the urban renewal funds for the Main St. /Green St. project. City Recorder Wheatley confirmed with Redevelopment Project Manager Farrelly on 1/30/13, only one council representative required. High Capacity Transit Land Meet during regularly Use Plan CitkensAdvisory Councilor Councilor Snider scheduled Transportation Judith Gray Committee Woodard Advisory Committee Mtgs 4etro has identified the "SW Corridor" (PDX - Sherwood via Tigard) as the next priority expansion line for the regional HCT system. The city is gearing up or an extensive planning process beginning with a state - funded land use plan to identify potential station area locations and development traits to warrant ICT investment and achieve the city's aspirations. The Transportation Advisory Committee serves as the Citz. Advisory Comm. for the land use plan. Library Board Councilor Snider Second Wednesday of each I I Margaret Barnes month at 7:00 p.m. advisory to the Council regarding library policies, budget, facilities and other needs of the community to provide quality library service, per TMC 2.36.030. 2013 Council Appointment Matrix — Page 5 DRAFT Updated after discussion at the 1/29/2013 council meeting. , is Prima Time Committee Name Representatty Expectation Alternate Rep Meeting Frequency Staff Liaison AEL Neighborhood Involvement 3` Wednesday /every other Mayor Cook 6 hours a year Joanne Bengtson Committee (formerly CCI) mo. @ 7p.m. ;barged with oversight for the Neighborhood Network program, encourages two - way communication between city and residents and encourages residents 3 be more involved. (The committee changed its name to reflect new mission — previous incarnation was Committee for Citizen Involvement.) Park & Recreation Advisory Councilor Council President 2nd Monday /month 7 p.m. Steve Martin Board Woodard Henderson in the Water Building 'o advise the Council on park and recreation policies, facilities, programs and budgets. 1st & 3rd Monday /month I 1 Planning Commission Councilor Buehner Councilor Snider @ 7p.m. I Tom McGuire Lssists the City Council to develop, maintain, update and implement the Comprehensive Plan, to formulate the Capital Improvements Program, and to eview and take action on development projects and development code provisions delegated to the Commission. Councilor Transportation Advisory Councilor Snider 1 Wednesday, 6:30 p.m., Committee Woodard library 2n Floor Conf Rm 1.5 hr. meetings Judith Gray Ldvisory to council & staff regarding planning and development of a comprehensive transportation network, including development of plans and orresponding financing programs; development of funding mechanisms and sources to implement transportation projects and ensure adequate :iaintenance of the existing transportation infrastructure; public involvement and education in transportation matters and ways to improve traffic safety and ccessibility in all transportation modes. Tree Board I * 15t Wednesday of month @ I I 6:30 p.m. "he mission of the Tree Board is to develop and administer a comprehensive program for the management, maintenance, removal, replacement & protection of trees on public property. *Tree Board mission to be added to /redefined in 2013? — get recommendation from staff. 15t & 3` Wednesdays @ City Hall (Wednesdays Various representatives - Youth Advisory Council Councilor Snider Mayor Cook conflict with other council liaison meetings; this meeting Police Department date might change ?)* tudents in grades 5 -12 represent their peers as resources to the community to advise the best ways to build developmental assets for each youth in Tigard. The Youth Ldvisory Council also facilitates the development and implementation of programs and activities that are important to youth. *Verification of meeting dates needed. \adm \city council \goals\2013 \council liaison appt matrix\2013 council liaison appt matrix draft.docx 2013 Council Appointment Matrix — Page 6 DRAFT Updated after discussion at the 1/29/2013 council meeting. (? AIS -1157 Special Meeting Meeting Date: 02/05/2013 Length (in minutes): 15 Minutes Agenda Title: Contract Award - Dirksen Nature Park Property Design Development and Construction Documentation Prepared For: Joseph Barrett Submitted By: Joseph Barrett, Financial and Information Services Special Item Type: Motion Requested Meeting Type: Meeting Public Hearing Newspaper Legal Ad Required ?: No Public Hearing Publication Date in Newspaper: Information ISSUE Shall the Local Contract Review Board award a contract for property design development and construction documentation for the city's Dirksen Nature Park project to WH Pacific? STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST Staff recommends the Local Contract Review Board award the contract for property design development and construction documentation for Dirksen Nature Park to WH Pacific and authorize the City Manager to carry out the necessary actions to execute the contract. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY In December 2010 the city purchased the 48 -acre Dirksen Nature Park (Fowler) property through multiple transactions with over $2.5 million in grant support for the project. Bordered by Fowler Middle School to the south, Tiedeman Avenue to the east, and Tigard Street to the north, the property contains a mix of mature forests, wetlands and open space. The majority of the property will remain a natural area, and approximately 35 acres are protected under a conservation easement with Metro. With the completion of the site's master plan, the city now is moving forward with design development, permitting, and construction documentation for the first phase of the park's development. It is the city's desire for construction of the project to be out to bid by the fall of 2013. As described and illustrated in the site master plan document and illustration, public recreation improvements to this property will be limited to specific areas of the site. Amenities and improvements to be included in Phase 1 are as follows, and additional elements per the master plan may be added depending upon probable costs and available budget: • Half street improvements along Tigard Street, designed to include undergrounding overhead utilities and to address stormwater management as described in the Master Plan. • Parking lot along Tigard Street and associated landscaping per the Tigard Development Code. • Interior trails and pathways, to include the 8' wide community trail along the northern edge, paved connection from the Fanno Creek Trail to Fowler Middle School, 5' wide paths as shown in the master plan, and trail decommissioning in selected areas to reduce impacts to natural areas. • Education center and immediate environs, to include bus pull-off along Tigard Street, community gardens, signage, facade /porch enhancements and landscaping. • Sport field area, to include field renovation and drainage, soccer overlay, restroom /shelter, nature play area. • Habitat restoration and mitigation plantings as required by permitting agencies. Staff released a qualification -based Request for Proposal (QBRFP) for park property design development and construction documentation in November 2012. Under a QBRFP, the city must look at criteria other than price, rank the proposers in accordance with these criteria, and then, and only then, may enter negotiations with the top ranked firm. The criteria used for this solicitation were as follows: • Work Scope Details — 50 points • Firm and Project Team Qualifications and Experience — 30 points • Project Approach — 20 points After a review of the submittals, staff's ranking of the firms was as follows: I Rank Firm Total Score 1 WH Pacific 278 Vigil Agrimis 259 I 3 Westlake Consultants 1 243 CES /NW 232 5 Walker Macy 229 Staff, based on this ranking, then entered into good faith negotiations with WH Pacific for the work. The negotiations resulted in an agreed upon price of $457,650 for the project. This is the award amount that staff brings forward to the Local Contract Review Board. OTHER ALTERNATIVES The Local Contract Review Board can determine that the $457,650 price tag for the work is too high and direct staff to continue negotiations with WH Pacific or end the negotiations with WH Pacific and move the second ranked firm (Vigil Agrimis) and open negotiations. COUNCIL GOALS, POLICIES, APPROVED MASTER PLANS Dirksen Nature Park (Summer Creek Park) Master Plan DATES OF PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION This is the first time this contract award has been presented to the Local Contract Review Board. Fiscal Impact Cost: $457,650 Budgeted (yes or no): Yes Where budgeted ?: Parks Bond and Parks SDC Funds Additional Fiscal Notes: The contract is estimated at $457,650 and is expected to cross between fiscal years 2012 -2013 and 2013 -2014. There is a total of $541,400 budgeted ($341,400 in FY 2012 -2013 and $200,000 anticipated in FY 2013 -2014) in the Parks Bond and Parks SDC funds. Attachments No file(s) attached. r7 AIS -1133 Special Meeting Meeting Date: 02/05/2013 Length (in minutes): 5 Minutes Agenda Title: Extension of PGE non - exclusive electric utility franchise Prepared For: Loreen Mills Submitted By: Loreen Mills, City Management Motion Requested Special Item Type: Ordinance Meeting Type: Meeting Public Hearing Newspaper Legal Ad Required ?: No Public Hearing Publication Date in Newspaper: Information ISSUE Should the council extend the Portland General Electric (PGE) franchise agreement four months to allow time for franchise renegotiations? STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST Adopt the attached ordinance which would extend the existing PGE franchise agreement four months to allow for renegotiations. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY The city has a non - exclusive electrical utility franchise agreement with Portland General Electric (PGE). The current franchise was granted for a period of twenty years and is scheduled to expire on 2/23/13. The city and PGE have been in negotiations for several months and have made significant progress towards agreement. However, agreement will not be reached prior to 2/23/13. An additional four months would adjust the expiration date of the existing contract to 6/23/13 and allow for conclusion of the negotiation process. OTHER ALTERNATIVES Take no action and allow the current franchise agreement to expire. PGE would then be under the provisions of the Tigard Municipal Code 15.04 (Work in Right -Of -Way) and 15.06 (Franchised Utility Ordinance). COUNCIL OR CCDA GOALS, POLICIES, MASTER PLANS Financial stability was a 2012 Council Goal. PGE franchise revenues support the City's General Fund. DATES OF PREVIOUS CONSIDERATION N/A Fiscal Impact Cost: N/A Budgeted (yes or no): Yes Where Budgeted (department /program): General Fund Additional Fiscal Notes: PGE franchise fee revenue is estimated to be $1.7 million in the General Fund this fiscal year. Allowing sufficient time to conclude the renegotiations on the franchise agreement is necessary to preserve this revenue source. Attachments PGE Extension 2013 . AIS -1093 Special Meeting Meeting Date: 02/05/2013 Length (in minutes): 20 Minutes Agenda Title: Clean Water Services Plan District Update Prepared For: John Floyd Submitted By: Cathy Wheatley, Administrative Services Council Business Mtg - Study Item Type: Update, Discussion, Direct Staff Meeting Type: Sess. Public Hearing: No Publication Date: Information ISSUE Receive update on a development code amendment package that proposes new land use regulations for the Durham Advanced Wastewater Treatment Facility. STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST Receive information in preparation for public hearing tentatively scheduled for March 12, 2013. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY The purpose of this briefing is to prepare the City Council for a public hearing which is tentatively scheduled for March 12, 2013. At the public hearing, Council will be asked to consider development code amendments that propose new land use regulations for an existing wastewater treatment plant located within city limits. These regulations will take the form of a new plan district that would replace the existing zoning districts assigned to the facility. As a secondary function, the amendment package will also provide some regulatory clarity as to how plan districts are adopted and where they apply within the city. Staff undertook the preparation of these code amendments based on previous Council direction and the terms of an intergovernmental agreement signed between the City of Tigard and Clean Water Services. As part of the briefing, staff will present pertinent background information and describe the overall goals of the project. To help Council familiarize themselves with the project site in advance of the briefing, two attachments are included. The first is an aerial photograph of the Durham Advanced Wastewater Treatment Facility and vicinity, labeled with existing land uses and the proposed district boundary. The second is a handout that provides some basic facts about the Durham Advanced Wastewater Treatment Facility. OTHER ALTERNATIVES Informational meeting only. COUNCIL GOALS, POLICIES, APPROVED MASTER PLANS This project implements Council goals. Because the 2013 goals are not yet adopted, applicable 2012 goals are listed below: 2012 Tigard City Council Goals Goal 1.b: Implement the Comprehensive Plan through code revisions. Goal 5.a.ii: Create recreational opportunities by partnering with the school district and other agencies or groups. Tigard City Council Long Range Objectives Basic city services provided to citizens are cost effective and are delivered without interruption. DATES OF PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION October 11, 2011 June 5, 2012 June 12, 2012 Attachments Aerial Photograph & Existing Land Uses Durham Facility Fact Sheet AgendaQuick©2005 - 2013 Destiny Software Inc., All Rights Reserved r xis g l, g use ti m " ' - t •1 ' . '" , # w ,. City of Tigard L "" ic,:v:o Proposed District Boundary -'" "` Q '1 `i e 9 Y Boundary �� /Mult Fmily , #, 's Tigard Bounda `� - Z � `��ngl al a 1 �� •° e l,',,. $ N _ �6 ► r R esid e ntial,. • 4 0 • 125 250 500 ar ,]► ' * ' A ,� '� � • l , ' A • eel r Sept. �4, 2012 gy s Q 0. - �, fi . . i #44 ` Iffy. ' ,'� � i 4, t, #- I ' T� es "181 •"'' . . �. iii •: 9 -- s al` . . _ �, �, Park "' "l"` It4. ' r _-,„ '. C W • � 3 ,, , ' 4...._ �'i 4 d v p N + - P ! d 1 1� _ _ • W ool' High School' _ 4T Durham ndustri t Q S I 1 . � .• , E lementary . Z - ., - _ -P - ';� ji RI kIT -, ' . ' i - ' ' . , y <1 Wastewater -1: x_ ; �, ( nt� • ' � ' � - S i n gle Family e —.r ' , � ` . Res w . '' <• ;-' - .4,.-- ' t CarEkaa y �► = !! , . , �i ,,A4,1,„,9 �, : Par .. i••►t T Park :R, , , f y f . d n * ear t s` I . } a . , Singl ' . 4 Res dentia ■■ 0.-„ t ` " 11 ii •.,. /ti#,,, , 1 6: �_'lc : - �:.,.» •e'�.._-+N- +� --+_. - 1 "_ 1 t l„ , tit �` _ ' lit ,�.z ~' 15J g1g r � t k - - 61.- , ''' . 71-' '', i' CLEAN WATER FACTS Durham at a Glance Durham Advanced Wastewater Treatment Facility demands of a growing population. E -,, ` The facility centralized a scattered 17ttrrin - -- - _ s ystem of u} inefficient wastewater P�lH !u A , treatment plants, creating one of the ==-" , ^ most efficient and advanced facilities i ,,,,,,;.µ.,u.:;. r,:�a K,«q�,w:.��1►1�, ':; -. .. in the world. :.,; �, , , ' • Provides a higher level of treatment than 98 percent of the facilities ,--= - in the nation • Must meet nearly i,000 strict permit conditions, including monthly, IN. ti_ weekly and daily limits established to protect the Tualatin River • Serves a population of approxi- mately 210,000 and growing Durham Advanced Wastewater as soil amendments at local sites and • Cleans an average of 26 million Treatment Facility is a nationally throughout the state. gallons of wastewater per day acclaimed, state -of- the-art facility, serv- The Durham Facility provides ing Washington County residents in advanced wastewater treatment, also • Recycles more than 5o million the cities of Beaverton, Durham, King known as tertiary treatment, exceeding gallons a year of cleaned wastewater City, Sherwood, Tigard, and Tualatin, the treatment level of 98 percent of for local irrigation and small portions of southwest Port- wastewater facilities in the United land and Lake Oswego. States. In 20o9, the first commercial • Recycles more than 4 dry tons of The facility, located in Tigard near nutrient recovery facility in the nation biosolids daily for use as a soil Cook Park and Tigard High School, was built at Durham through a amendment cleans an average of 26 million gallons partnership with Ostara Nutrient • Produces up to 500 tons of Crystal of wastewater per day to among the Recovery Technologies in Canada. Green a commercial, high value highest safety and quality standards The facility captures 8o% of the phos- fertilizer in the nation. Through innovative, phorus from the wastewater stream • advanced technology and processes, and converts it into a premium, slow Generates more than 4 million wastewater collected from homes and release fertilizer used on turfs and kilowatts -hours of power per year industry is cleaned and returned to nurseries throughout the northwest by reuse of methane gas, a treat Washington County's only river — the and elsewhere. ment byproduct (enough to power Tualatin, actually enhancing the health The Durham Advanced Wastewater 33o homes per year) of the river. Cleaned wastewater is also Treatment Facility began operations used for local irrigation, and natural in 1976 to reverse decades of severe byproducts of the treatment process are water pollution in the Tualatin River converted to electricity, heat, and used and its tributaries, and to meet the 16580 SW 85th Avenue -� Tigard, Oregon 97224 \� (503) 547 -8150 C1eanWTater Services cleanwaterservices.org CLEAN WATER FACTS Durham at a Glance Durham Facility: Proposed site development Award - winning Facility Since opening in 1976, Clean Water Services Durham Facility has been • 2009 - U.S. Green Building under nearly continual expansion and upgrades to keep pace with the corn- Council Leadership in Energy and munity's growth, meet increasingly stringent state and federal pollution control Environmental Design (LEED) standards and to ensure adequate and reliable infrastructure to support our re- Silver certification for new Influent gion's economic development. Clean Water Services is committed to working with our neighbors, host community and the region to ensure future expansions Pump Station and upgrades continue to deliver value for the river and our ratepayers. • 2006 — PNCWA / Oregon Clean Water Services has carefully evaluated the intermediate and long- Outstanding Reuse Customer term infrastructure needs of the basin to ensure future investments meet the Award. needs of the growing community and the river. CWS' proposed 2025 and build -out improvements are fully contained within the existing property foot- • 2005 - U.S. EPA National Clean print while expanding screening, buffers and retaining the park -like Water Act Recognition Award for entrance along Durham Road. Proposed improvements include: the best operated and maintained Intermediate Term (2,025) large, advanced treatment facility in the nation. • Upgrade solids handling facilities • Install 400 kW solar array, • 2004 — U.S. EPA Lower Columbia Section Plant of the Year Award. • Upgrade odor control facilities • National Association of Clean • Construct new 1.7 mW cogeneration and grease handling facilities Water Agencies (NACWA) Gold • Construct improvements to Headworks structure Award for l00% permit compliance 8 times since 1 995 • Construct new tertiary treatment clarifier and upgrade of existing facilities • Replace Treatment Plant Services Building \ , • Expansion of digestion facilities Long Term (zoz5 to build out) • Upgrade and expansion of treatment works including construction of additional primary, secondary, and tertiary clarifiers; aeration basins; and digester • Expansion of Headworks facility and Primary Effluent Pump Station • Construct new O &M Building at location of new Treatment Plant Services Building • Construct secondary treatment expansion to accommodate anticipated new , plant discharge requirements (regulation changes) • Construct solids handling expansion to accommodate evolving regulatory requirement 16580 SW 85th Avenue Tigard, Oregon 97224 (503) 547 -8150 CleanWater ' Services cleanwaterservices.org