City Council Packet - 03/01/2016
TIGARD CITY CENTER DEVELOPMENT AGENCY BOARD AND CITY COUNCIL Revised
2/25/16: Agenda Item No. 5 Consider Authorizing the City Manager to Sign an Intergovernmental
Agreement with Metro to Receive a Community Planning and Development Grant for the Purpose of
Completing the Downtown Tigard Urban Lofts Development Project was moved to Consent
Agenda. Subsequent items have been renumbered.
MEETING DATE AND TIME:March 1, 2016 - 6:30 p.m.
MEETING LOCATION:City of Tigard - Town Hall
13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223
PUBLIC NOTICE:
Times noted are estimated.
Assistive Listening Devices are available for persons with impaired hearing and should be scheduled for City
Center Development Agency Board meetings by noon on the Monday prior to the City Center Development
Agency Board meeting. Please call 503-718-2419 (voice) or 503-684-2772 (TDD - Telecommunications
Devices for the Deaf).
Upon request, the City will also endeavor to arrange for the following services:
• Qualified sign language interpreters for persons with speech or hearing impairments; and
• Qualified bilingual interpreters.
Since these services must be scheduled with outside service providers, it is important to allow as much lead
time as possible. Please notify the City of your need by 5:00 p.m. on the Thursday preceding the meeting by
calling: 503-639-4171, ext. 2410 (voice) or 503-684-2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf).
SEE ATTACHED AGENDA
TIGARD CITY CENTER DEVELOPMENT AGENCY BOARD AND CITY COUNCIL Revised 2/25/16:
Agenda Item No. 5 Consider Authorizing the City Manager to Sign an Intergovernmental Agreement with Metro to Receive a Community Planning and Development Grant for the Purpose of Completing
the Downtown Tigard Urban Lofts Development Project was moved to Consent Agenda. Subsequent items have been renumbered.
MEETING DATE AND TIME:March 1, 2016 - 6:30 p.m.
MEETING LOCATION:City of Tigard - Town Hall - 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR
97223
6:30 PM
1.CITY CENTER DEVELOPMENT AGENCY BOARD AND CITY COUNCIL MEETING
A.Call to Order- City Center Development Agency and City Council
B.Roll Call
C.Pledge of Allegiance
D.Call to Board and Staff for Non-Agenda Items
CCDA AGENDA ITEMS
2. UPDATE ON THE FANNO CREEK OVERLOOK PROJECT - 6:35 p.m. estimated time
3. REPORT ON HOUSING AND DEMOGRAPHICS IN THE CITY OF TIGARD AND
PORTLAND REGION - 6:50 p.m. estimated time
4. REPORT ON EMPLOYMENT TRENDS IN THE CITY OF TIGARD'S URBAN
RENEWAL DISTRICT - 7:10 p.m. estimated time
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEMS
5.CONSENT AGENDA: These items are considered routine and may be enacted in one motion
without separate discussion. Anyone may request that an item be removed by motion for
discussion and separate action. Motion to:
A. CONSIDER AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO SIGN AN
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH METRO TO RECEIVE A
COMMUNITY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT GRANT FOR THE PURPOSE OF
COMPLETING THE DOWNTOWN TIGARD URBAN LOFTS DEVELOPMENT
PROJECT
6. DISCUSSION ON CITY PRIORITIES - 7:40 p.m. estimated time
7. DISCUSSION ON CITY GAS TAX - 8:40 p.m. estimated time
8.NON AGENDA ITEMS
9.EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Center Development Agency Board may go into
Executive Session. If an Executive Session is called to order, the appropriate ORS citation will be
announced identifying the applicable statute. All discussions are confidential and those present may
disclose nothing from the Session. Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend
Executive Sessions, as provided by ORS 192.660(4), but must not disclose any information
discussed. No Executive Session may be held for the purpose of taking any final action or making
any final decision. Executive Sessions are closed to the public.
10.ADJOURNMENT - 9:10 p.m. estimated time
AIS-2125 2.
CCDA Agenda
Meeting Date:03/01/2016
Length (in minutes):15 Minutes
Agenda Title:Fanno Creek Overlook Update
Submitted By:Sean Farrelly, Community
Development
Item Type: Update, Discussion, Direct Staff Meeting Type: City Center
Development
Agency
Public Hearing: No Publication Date:
Information
ISSUE
Fanno Creek Overlook Update
STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST
The Board of the CCDA is requested to share their opinions and ideas on the concept.
KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY
In 2014, the City Center Development Agency commissioned a feasibility study for a public
space fronting Fanno Creek adjacent to Max’s Fanno Creek Brewpub. The project would
provide better access to the natural and recreational resources of Fanno Creek and the trail, at
the same time serve as an attractive amenity for downtown visitors and residents. This project
is consistent with both the City Center Urban Renewal Plan’s goal to increase the number of
Downtown public spaces and the city’s Strategic Plan vision to make Tigard the most
walkable community in the Pacific Northwest.
The feasibility study included research into regulatory issues, options for design, an estimated
budget, and images depicting the potential space. The main challenge for building the public
space is the need to reconfigure the existing driveway egress for the brewpub and the
neighboring building (12564 SW Main Street). A new two-way access would have to be
constructed to serve the parking in the rear of the two buildings. Three driveway
reconfiguration options were studied. The preferred option is to widen the existing ingress on
the south west side of Main Street Village to provide two-way access. This would require
acquisition of a narrow strip of land from Main Street Village Apartments.
In November 2015, Community Development Director Kenny Asher met with the owners of
the Main Street Village property, to discuss the concept. Although one partner in the LLC
was initially receptive to allowing the city to acquire an easement, a majority of the ownership
interest in the apartments has indicated that it sees no benefit in selling a property interest to
the city.
The feasibility study estimated the budget for the project to be $737,000. The cost of
acquiring the land from Main Street Village would be an additional cost. Of the construction
budget, $395,000 is attributed to the public open space and $248,000 to the parking lot and
new driveway. The share of the public and private contribution to constructing parking lot
improvements would be negotiated with George Diamond, who is a main owner of the
brewpub building and the neighboring 12564 SW Main Street.
The space would be a key component in a conceptual public space that could be created on
the Main Street Bridge along with the proposed public space that is part of the Saxony
redevelopment. The Main Street bridge public space concept would provide gathering and
activity space, with occasional street closures for larger community events. The project could
involve converting some of the road right-of-way into wider sidewalks, and installing
decorative railings and art.
This space would also serve as one of a “string of pearls” or small open spaces along Main
Street, including public space at the head of the Tigard Street Trail and the recently renovated
area in front of Tigard Wine Crafters/Maki Sushi/Elvia’s Salon.
The next steps include working with George Diamond on addressing concerns about
potential loss of parking; refining the concept into design drawings; and additional attempts to
negotiate a voluntary sale of the strip of land. If a voluntary sale cannot be negotiated, staff
and the Board will need to discuss options.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES
No alternatives for consideration at this time.
COUNCIL GOALS, POLICIES, APPROVED MASTER PLANS
Tigard City Council 2015-17 Goals and Milestones
Goal #2. Make Downtown Tigard a Place Where People Want to Be
City Center Urban Renewal Plan
Goal 1: Revitalization of the Downtown should recognize the value of natural resources as
amenities and as contributing to the special sense of place.
Goal 5: Promote high quality development of retail, office and residential uses that support
and are supported by public streetscape, transportation, recreation and open space
investments.
Tigard Comprehensive Plan
Special Planning Areas- Downtown
Goal 15.3 Develop and Improve the Open Space System and Integrate Natural Features into
downtown.
Tigard Strategic Plan
Goal 2: Ensure development advances the vision
DATES OF PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
September 2, 2014 - Executive Session
Attachments
Fanno Creek Public Space Concept
Concept Site Plan
Saxony Property Redevelopment Study Progress Report
A Tigard Mixed Use / Public Space Design 2 . 2 . 2016
AIS-2134 3.
CCDA Agenda
Meeting Date:03/01/2016
Length (in minutes):20 Minutes
Agenda Title:Housing and Demographics: Downtown, Tigard and the Region
Submitted By:Sean Farrelly, Community
Development
Item Type: Update, Discussion, Direct Staff Meeting Type: City Center
Development
Agency
Public Hearing: No Publication Date:
Information
ISSUE
A snapshot report on housing and demographics in Downtown Tigard, the city of Tigard and
the Portland region.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST
The Board of the CCDA is requested to share their feedback on the report.
KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY
To provide context for urban renewal decisions on housing, staff compiled information for a
brief snapshot of housing and demographics in Downtown Tigard, the city, and the region.
The following are highlights of the report:
Downtown Tigard Housing and Demographics
There are 453 housing units (mostly apartments) and 1024 residents of Downtown (the
urban renewal district plus Main Street Village)
Compared to Tigard as a whole, Downtown residents are more likely to be renters (75%
vs. 42%) Hispanic (28% vs. 13%), and under age 17 (30% vs 24%.) The median
household income is $37,213 compared to $69,304 for Tigard.
Urban Renewal District Property Values
Commercial properties in the urban renewal district have higher assessed values on a per
square foot basis than multi-family development.
Many of these commercial properties have low Improvement to Land Ratios, indicating
they may be candidates for redevelopment.
Regional Housing Market
Regional Housing Market
Regional housing market rents are rising faster than incomes. In the 7-County Portland
Metro region, rents have risen 63% between 2006 and 2015, while renter income has
only risen 39%.
The Beaverton-Tigard market saw rent increases of 28% between 2011 and 2015, the
third largest increase in the Portland suburban markets.
Tigard Housing
Since 2000 4,106 housing units have been permitted in Tigard. About 16% of these units
were multi-family.
After many years of low or no multi-family unit construction in Tigard, in 2015 there
was a sharp spike, with 468 multi-family units permitted.
Tigard Housing Statistics and Demographics Compared to Select Neighboring Cities
42% of occupied rental units in Tigard have gross rent (rent plus basic utilities) that is
35% or greater than household income (a commonly accepted benchmark of housing
affordability.)
Tigard permitted more multi-family units in 2015 than Beaverton, Lake Oswego, and
Sherwood combined.
Considering the amount of one person households and families without children under
17, there may be an unmet need for more alternatives to traditional single family
development in Tigard and other suburban markets.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES
No alternatives for consideration at this time.
COUNCIL GOALS, POLICIES, APPROVED MASTER PLANS
Tigard Comprehensive Plan
Housing
Goal 10.1 Provide opportunities for a variety of housing types to meet the diverse housing
needs of current and future City residents.
Special Planning Areas- Downtown
Goal 15.2 Facilitate the development of an urban village.
DATES OF PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
N/A
Attachments
Housing and Demographic Snapshot
1
Housing and Demographics: Downtown, Tigard and the Region
Downtown Tigard Housing and Demographics
The population of Downtown Tigard (defined
here as the Urban Renewal District plus the
Main Street Village Apartments) grew 14.7%,
from 2000 to 2010. This is slightly behind the
population growth of the overall city of Tigard
in the same period, which was 16.5%. The
number of housing units in the Downtown
increased 8% (attributable to the construction
of the Knoll at Tigard senior affordable
housing project). Citywide, the number of
housing units increased by 10% in the same
time period.
The housing stock in Downtown consists of ten apartment complexes (Main Street Village and the
Knoll), approximately ten single family houses/duplexes, and the Cascade Mobile Villa with 30 mobile
homes. The multi-family developments have a range of densities. Main Street Village, with 237 units on
15.15 acres has a density of about 15 units an acre. The older Tigard Manor Apartments on Ash Avenue
are about 40-units an acre. The Knoll and the under construction Ash/Burnham project are closer to 50-
units an acre.
Downtown’s demographics are distinct from
Tigard as a whole. Downtown Tigard residents
are more likely to be renters (75% vs. 42%) and
Hispanic (28% vs. 13%). Downtown’s population
is trending younger - the percentage of
residents under age 17 has grown since 2000
from 25% to 30%. Downtown Tigard’s median
household income is $37,213 compared to
$69,304 for Tigard as a whole.
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
2000 Census 2010 Census
Percent of Households Renting
Downtown Tigard
89
3
41
9
10
2
4
45
3
POPULATION HOUSING UNITS
DOWNTOWN TIGARD
2000 Census 2010 Census
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
2000 Census 2010 Census
Percent of Population Under Age
17
Downtown Tigard
0%
10%
20%
30%
2000 Census 2010 Census
Percent of Population Hispanic
Downtown Tigard
2
Urban Renewal District Property Values
City Center Urban Renewal District
2015 property values were analyzed
(not including Main Street Village,
which sits just outside the urban
renewal district boundaries). Public or
exempt property (including right of
way) comprises 54% of the land area of
the district. Commercial development
comprises 38% of the district’s acreage
and multi-family development
comprises only 4.5%.
Looking at the assessed values on a per
square foot basis reveals that
commercial properties have the
highest values at $21.15/square foot,
with multi-family at $19.27/square foot.
One indication of whether a property is a good candidate for redevelopment is to look at the property’s
Improvement to Land Ratio. This ratio compares the Tax Assessor’s value assigned to a property’s
improvements (structures) to the value of the land. Generally, if the land is worth more than the
improvement (an I:L ratio of less than 1), it is a sign the property is not being used to its highest
potential. In the downtown,
66 of the commercial
properties (47.6 acres) had
an Improvement to Land
Ratio of less than 1. Most of
the multi-family properties
have Improvement to Land
ratios between 2 and 4. The
commercial properties with
lower I:L ratios are likely to
be more feasible to
redevelop into the higher
density residential and
mixed use development
that is envisioned in the City
Center Urban Renewal Plan.
$21.15
$19.27
$15.09 $13.81
COMMERCIAL MULTI-FAMILY SINGLE FAMILY MANUFACTURED
HOUSING PARK
Downtown Assessed Value per Square
Foot by Property Type
3
Regional Housing Market Facts
Rental Market Rent Increase
2011-2015
North Portland 71%
Downtown Portland 40%
East Portland 34%
Southwest Portland 34%
Hillsboro-Forest Grove 34%
Tualatin-Wilsonville-
Sherwood
29%
Beaverton-Tigard 28%
Lake Oswego-West Linn 22%
Vancouver 22%
Milwaukie-Gladstone-
Oregon City
20%
67% of the Portland region’s housing
is made up of single family homes.
Residential rents in the Portland
region have increased sharply
between 2011 and 2015, with the
largest increases in the city of
Portland. The Beaverton-Tigard
market saw increases of 28%, the
third largest increase in the Portland
suburban markets.
Regional housing market rents are
rising faster than incomes. As shown
in the chart, rents in the 7-County
Portland Metro region have risen 63%
between 2006 and 2015, while renter
income has only risen 39%.
Portland Regional Housing
Single Family housing
Other than in Multnomah County,
single family residential construction
has far outpaced multifamily
development since 1998.
4
Tigard Citywide Housing Statistics
Since the year
2000, a total of
4,106 housing
units have been
permitted in
Tigard. Of these
3,424 were single
family houses
and 682 were
multi-family (two
or more family
developments)
units, about 16%
of the total units
permitted.
Several years saw no multi-family units built in Tigard. In 2015, there was a spike in multi-family
unit permits – to 468 – including the 168-unit Ash/Burnham project, 60-unit Greenburg
Apartments, and 240-unit Scholls Ferry Apartments.
In Tigard, the median gross rent (which includes the costs of basic utilities) was reported as $945
in the American Community Survey (note: when 2015 data becomes available, this median rent
is expected to rise significantly.)
Tigard’s for sale housing
market has recovered to pre-
recession levels, with Tigard’s
2015 median home value
estimated at $325,000. (Zillow)
$0
$50,000
$100,000
$150,000
$200,000
$250,000
$300,000
$350,000
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Tigard Median Home Value 2006-2015
403
504
340 380
276
344
262
198
52 44
98 88
144 147
63 81
28
108
6 12 48 30
468
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
New Residential Building Permits
2000-2015
1 Family 2 Family 2 to 4 Family 5 or More Family
5
Tigard Housing Statistics and Demographics Compared to Select Neighboring Cities
Select housing statistics for Tigard were
compared to neighboring cities with
urban renewal districts (Beaverton, Lake
Oswego, and Sherwood) as well as
Portland. According to the American
Community Survey between 2010 and
2014 all of these cities (and the state of
Oregon and the U.S.) have had an
increase in the percentage of
households who are renting.
The American Community
Survey found that in 2014, 42%
of occupied rental units in Tigard
have gross rent (rent plus basic
utilities) that is 35% or greater
than household income. (35% of
household income is a commonly
accepted benchmark of housing
affordability.) This percentage
increased between 2010 and
2014 in all of the cities studied,
except for Sherwood, which saw
a decrease (from 34% to 28%).
Tigard’s percentage is on par
with the U.S. average of 42.6%.
Tigard permitted 468
multi-family units in
2015 (Burnham and
Ash). Among Tigard’s
peer cities, Beaverton
permitted 410 multi-
family units, while
Sherwood permitted
10, and Lake Oswego
issued 6. The city of
Portland permitted
3,377 multi-family
units.
38%
28%
21%
49%45%
36%33%
39%
33%
25%
52%47%
39%36%
Percent of Households Renting
2010 2014
37%42%34%37%44%42%42%42%47%
28%
40%46%46%43%
Percent of Rental Units Where Gross
Rent is Above 35% of Household
Income
2010 2014
81 89 25 129 8770 14004 17468610410
3377
TIGARD LAKE OSWEGO SHERWOOD BEAVERTON PORTLAND
New Residential Building Permits 2015
SFR 2 Family 2 to 4 Family 5 or More Family
6
29% of Tigard households are made up of one person, which is slightly lower than the Oregon
and U.S. portion of 28% and significantly higher than Sherwood (19%).
30% of Tigard households have children under 18 present, on par with Beaverton and Lake
Oswego, and significantly lower than Sherwood (49%).
Tigard’s percentage of households
with no vehicles are available is 5%,
compared with Beaverton’s 8.7% and
Portland’s 15%. Tigard is below the
U.S. average of 9%. This could be
attributable to the fact that some
areas of Tigard were developed
without pedestrian facilities and
commercial services within walking
distance, so an automobile is
considered essential.
The U.S. Department of
Transportation estimates that the
average yearly cost to own and operate a car (including gas, insurance, and maintenance) is
$8,698. For lower income households that are struggling to pay for housing this is an added
burden. Many housing experts advocate for including the costs of transportation to determine
the true cost of housing. In the Metro region, 20% of households are spending more than 45% of
their income on housing and transportation.
These statistics indicate that there may be unmet demand in Tigard for housing in more walkable and
transit friendly areas. Market trends indicate that both millennial and downsizing baby boomer
households have a preference for this type of housing. Tigard’s Vertical Housing Development Zone,
which allows a partial property tax exemption for mixed use development, can help encourage this type
of mixed use residential development. The zone includes Downtown and the Tigard Triangle, where the
first two projects have qualified for the exemption – the Burnham and Ash development and the
Adrienne mixed use building in the Triangle.
5%6%6%9%
15%
8%9%
Percent of Households With No Vehicles
Available (2014)
30%29%
49%
30%25%29%32%
Percent of Households with Children
Under 18 (2014)
27%30%
19%
30%
35%
28%28%
Percent of One Person Households
(2014)
City
ofn Tigard Respect and Care | Do the Right Thing | Get it Done
City Center Development Agency Board
March 1, 2016
Housing and Demographics Snapshot: Downtown, Tigard and the Region
City of Tigard
Purpose
A brief snapshot of housing and demographic
trends to provide context for future urban renewal
decisions
City of Tigard
89
3
41
9
10
2
4
45
3
POPULATION HOUSING UNITS
DOWNTOWN TIGARD
2000 Census 2010 Census
City of Tigard
Downtown resident demographics are distinct from the city
Downtown Tigard Citywide
Percent of Households Renting 75% 39%
Percent of Population Hispanic 28% 13%
Percent of Population under 17 30% 24%
Median Household Income $37,213 $69,304
City of Tigard
$21.15 $19.27
$15.09 $13.81
COMMERCIAL MULTI-FAMILY SINGLE FAMILY MANUFACTURED
HOUSING PARK
Downtown Assessed Value per Square
Foot by Property Type
Urban Renewal District
Property Values
Commercial properties in
the urban renewal district
have higher assessed
values on a per square
foot basis than multi-
family development.
City of Tigard
Many
underutilized
commercial
properties are
candidates for
redevelopment.
Many of these
commercial
properties have low
Improvement to
Land Ratios.
City of Tigard
•Regional housing market
rents are rising faster than
incomes. As shown in the
chart, rents in the 7-County
Portland Metro region have
risen 63% between 2006
and 2015, while renter
income has only risen 39%
•The Beaverton-Tigard
market saw rent increases
of 28% between 2011 and
2015, the third largest
increase in the Portland
suburban markets.
Rents are rising faster than incomes
City of Tigard
Tigard Housing Statistics Compared to Select Neighboring Cities
38%
28%
21%
49%
45%
36%
33%
39%
33%
25%
52%
47%
39%
36%
TIGARD LAKE OSWEGO SHERWOOD BEAVERTON PORTLAND OREGON UNITED STATES
Percent of Households Renting
2010 2014
City of Tigard
37%
42%
34% 37%
44% 42% 42% 42%
47%
28%
40%
46% 46% 43%
TIGARD LAKE OSWEGO SHERWOOD BEAVERTON PORTLAND OREGON UNITED STATES
Percent of Renters Gross Paying Above 35%
of Household Income
2010 2014
Tigard Housing Statistics Compared to Select Neighboring Cities
City of Tigard
Regional Housing Trends
67%
33%
Portland Regional
Housing Units
Single-Family
Housing
Multifamily
Housing
0%20%40%60%80%100%
Tigard (4,106 units)*
Washington (49,000 units)
Clackamas (29,000 units)
Multnomah (53,000 units)
Units by Type Developed Since
1998
Single Family Muli-Family *since 2000
City of Tigard
•Since 2000 4,106 housing units have been permitted in Tigard. About
16% of these units were multi-family.
•After many years of low or no multi-family unit construction in Tigard,
in 2015 there was a sharp spike, to 468 multi-family units permitted.
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
New Residential Building Permits
2000-2015
1 Family 2 Family 3 or More Family
Citywide Housing Trends
City of Tigard
In 2015 Tigard permitted more multi-family units than Beaverton,
Lake Oswego, and Sherwood combined.
Tigard Housing Statistics Compared to Select Neighboring Cities
81
89
25
12
9
87
7
0 0 0 0 14
0
46
8
6 14
41
0
33
9
4
TIGARD LAKE OSWEGO SHERWOOD BEAVERTON PORTLAND
NEW RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PERMITS 2015
SFR 2 Family 3 or More Family
City of Tigard
Single family housing is still the dominant form of housing in Tigard.
67
%
70
%
80
%
52
%
60
%
68
%
69
%
32
%
30
%
17
%
47
%
38
%
23
%
21
%
0%
0%
3%
1%
1%
8%
6%
TIGARD LAKE OSWEGO SHERWOOD BEAVERTON PORTLAND OREGON UNITED
STATES
HOUSING UNITS TYPE
SFR MF Mobile home
City of Tigard
What does this mean for Tigard?
•There is a demand for affordable housing in the region and in Tigard.
•Downtown is a good candidate for transit oriented development, live/work
units, and new affordable housing.
•Although Downtown is attractive for new housing, it has more hurdles
than in many other parts of the city.
•Citywide, allow more opportunities for more housing options, particularly
duplexes, ADU’s, cottage clusters. (2013 Housing Strategies Report)
City of Tigard
Questions?
AIS-2135 4.
CCDA Agenda
Meeting Date:03/01/2016
Length (in minutes):20 Minutes
Agenda Title:Employment and Workforce: Downtown, Tigard and the Region
Prepared For: Lloyd Purdy, Community Development
Submitted By:Sean Farrelly, Community Development
Item Type: Update, Discussion, Direct Staff Meeting Type: City Center
Development
Agency
Public Hearing: No Publication Date:
Information
ISSUE
Report documenting trends in employment in the City of Tigard's Urban Renewal District.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST
The Board of the CCDA is requested to share feedback on the data presented in this report.
Follow-up questions can be researched if business and employment data is available.
KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY
Tigard’s Urban Renewal District is currently home to more than 176 firms, employing more
than 1,700 residents from around the region. The average salary of a Tigard Urban Renewal
District employee in 2014 was $43,268. Combined, firms in Tigard’s Urban Renewal District
expensed over $75 million in payroll in 2014. Covering 198 acres, this general commercial area
supports a mix of firms/employers. A diverse mix of employers provides employment options
for residents with a range of skills, education levels, interests and earning potential.
The attached report outlines Tigard's Urban Renewal District (URD) trends over the last 10
years in:
The types of business operating in the URD,
Employment in the URD,
Wages of employees (workforce) in the URD,
Workforce education levels, and
Distribution by age of the URD's workforce.
Tigard's Urban Renewal District Business/Employment Analysis (summary)
Firms in the consumer services (i.e.. retail, restaurant, product repair, and
entertainment) employ 35% of the workforce in Tigard’s Urban Renewal District. These
businesses are typically first-floor tenants serving a local customer base with retail goods and
services. The other major employment sector can be generally characterized as employing a
large portion of "office employees". Firms in the "office employee" category account for 41%
of the workforce in Tigard’s Urban Renewal District. Businesses in this sector are represented
by firms in finance, insurance, professional services and public administration.
Eight industries account for 86% of the employment opportunity in Tigard's Urban Renewal
District. These same industries account for only 54% of employment city wide. Employment
in the URD is concentrated and less diverse compared to city-wide employment.
Tigard’s Urban Renewal District supports 8.3 employees per acre. City wide, employment per
acre is 20 when counting all employment lands. (Lincoln Center accounts for a high density
per acre calculation when looking at the city overall.) For comparison sake, The City of
Sherwood’s Urban Renewal District currently employs 5.3 people per acre on 411 acres of
Urban Renewal District. Beaverton’s Urban Renewal District employees 13.6 people per acre
in a 988 acre district.
In 2007 at “peak employment” 1,900 people worked in Tigard’s Urban Renewal District. From
2002 to 2013, Tigard’s Urban Renewal District has seen a decrease in the number of people
working in the URD. Overall employment in the URD has decreased 16%. This is counter to
a city-wide increase in employment of 16% since 2002.
The workforce in firms in the food service industry (+8%), insurance (+7%) and healthcare
(+6%) has increased, while the workforce in the other industries has decreased since 2002.
The employment mix in Tigard’s Urban Renewal District is not limiting the ability of the
district to mature into an urban village format. The mix of business activity and employment is
balanced but underrepresented in key urban village commercial activities like retail sales and
restaurants. The district should be able to support at least 20% more employees than
currently. As employment decreases in business sectors that need large amounts of space like
warehousing, wholesale trade and manufacturing, empty capacity should be converted to use
for activities that support higher densities of employment and other uses valued by the
community. Prioritizing for first-story consumer oriented business activities with upper story
office and residential uses supports an urban village style form.
Workforce Earnings in Tigard's Urban Renewal District (summary)
The trend in wages follows a national and city-wide trend of a decrease in middle income
earners and increases in lower wage and higher wage positions. Since 2002, the number of
employees in the middle range earning $15,000 to $40,000 per year in Tigard’s Urban Renewal
District decreased 35%.
The number of employees working in low wage jobs (less than $15,000/yr) in Tigard’s Urban
Renewal District has increased the most dramatically since the end of the recession in 2010.
In recent years, employment in low wage jobs has increased by 22% in Tigard’s Urban
Renewal District.
City-wide, the employment trend shows a 45% increase in the number of employees making
more than $3,333 per month and only a 3.5% increase in the lowest wage group earning less
than $1,250/month ($15,000/yr.)
As property owners and business owners reinvest in Tigard’s Urban Renewal District creating
more retail and restaurant offerings, the age of the workforce, education level and wages paid
will continue to decline due to the nature of those businesses and jobs. This can be balanced
by ensuring office capacity on upper stories and less pedestrian/consumer oriented activities
around the edges of Tigard’s Urban Renewal District as it transitions into neighboring
industrial zones.
Employee Education and Age in Tigard’s Urban Renewal District (summary)
In Tigard’s Urban Renewal District an increasing number of employees have a high school
education or less. This group accounts for 27% of the Urban Renewal District’s
workforce. The proportion of employees with a high school education or less is about the
same at 25% for the city overall.
Inconsistent with city-wide trends, the number of employees in Tigard’s Urban Renewal
District with at least a bachelor’s degree decreased by 9.9%. For the city overall, the number of
employees with at least a bachelor’s degree has increased by 8.8%.
The majority of Tigard’s Urban Renewal District employees (56.2%) are in their primary
earning years age 30 to 54.
Similar to the national trend, the workforce is aging, and since the end of the recession,
employees with experience have crowded out job opportunities for younger employees. About
a quarter (26%) of the employees in Tigard's Urban Renewal District are older than age 55.
This age group has increased about 69% since 2002. Only 17% of the Tigard Urban Renewal
District’s employees are 29 years old or younger, this group has seen the largest decrease of
about 40%.
The attached report includes graphics and comparisons to similar trends in the City of Tigard
as well as the Urban Renewal Districts in Beaverton and Sherwood. This provides an
opportunity to see how these workforce trends relate to Tigard's overall economy as well as
the Urban Renewal Districts in two neighboring cities - one larger and one smaller.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES
No alternatives for consideration at this time.
COUNCIL GOALS, POLICIES, APPROVED MASTER PLANS
Tigard's Urban Renewal District covers 198 acres of "employment land" which is land zoned
to support commercial and economic activity. As a sub-region within Tigard's employment
lands, economic activity in the Urban Renewal District relates to the City of Tigard's
Comprehensive Plan Goal 9 and the 2011 Economic Opportunity Analysis. Commercial
activity in the Urban Renewal District can also support the City's Strategic Vision Goal that
seeks to ensure development advances the vision of a "more walkable, interconnected and
healthier city".
An understanding of the trends in employment and business activity in Tigard's Urban
Renewal District support's the City Center Urban Renewal Plan Goal 5: Promote high quality
development of retail, office and residential uses that support and are supported by public
streetscape, transportation, recreation and open space investment.
DATES OF PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
N/A
Attachments
URD Workforce Analysis
Tigard Urban Renewal District
Employment/Workforce Analysis
Page 1 of 6
Employment Summary for Tigard’s Urban Renewal District
Tigard’s Urban Renewal District is currently home to more than 176 firms, employing more than 1,700 residents
from around the region. The average salary of an employee in the Tigard Urban Renewal District in 2014 was
$43,268. Combined, firms in Tigard’s Urban Renewal District expensed over $75 million in payroll in 2014.
Tigard’s Urban Renewal District sits between two industrial zones (outside of the urban renewal district) with
another 61 firms employing more than 600 people in manufacturing, distribution and traded sector occupations.
Daily more than 4,000 commuters make a transit trip via the Tigard Transit Center primarily as they commute to
work somewhere else in the region or into Tigard for their job.
Types of Jobs in Tigard’s Urban Renewal District
Covering only 198 acres, this general commercial area supports a mix of firms/employers. A diverse mix of
businesses provides employment options for residents with a range of skills, education levels, interests and
earning potential. The table shows the mix of industries employing people in Tigard’s Urban Renewal District
compared to employment in the city overall.
The orange highlighted business sectors on the table show the
percentage of employees in Tigard’s Urban Renewal District
that work for a firm with a primarily consumer focus.
Consumer services like retail trade, entertainment,food
service and general/other services (shoe repair, barber, car
mechanics)are the retail amenities that most residents expect
to find in an “urban village” downtown format. These
businesses are typically the first floor tenants serving a local
customer base with retail goods and service, often on evenings
and weekends. Firms in the consumer services sector employ
35%of the workforce in Tigard’s Urban Renewal District.
In order to support this type of business activity, a downtown also needs a healthy mix of office employment
like finance and insurance, professional services, management, creative services and administration. These are
business sectors (marked in blue in the table) that may have some interaction with retail customers (like an
insurance office, or interior design firm). Employees at these firms also shop, eat and seek out services in a
downtown. Firms with a large number of office employees account for 41% of the workforce in Tigard’s Urban
Renewal District.
In a typical urban village downtown format, firms specializing in manufacturing, warehousing, and wholesale
trade are atypical in the core. Their physical footprint and the infrastructure they need run counter to a
pedestrian oriented consumer focused urban village. In many downtowns, this business activity takes place on
the edge of the district.
A mix of firms and business sectors and a higher density of employment are important factors to consider when
thinking about Tigard’s Urban Renewal District. Every employee downtown is a potential customer for a range of
downtown goods and services.
Employment by Business Sectors 2013
URD City Wide
Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting 0.7%0.1%
Mining, Quarrying, and Oil and Gas Extraction 0.0%0.0%
Utilities 0.0%0.1%
Construction 2.3%6.2%
Manufacturing 8.9%5.4%
Wholesale Trade 1.6%6.3%
Retail Trade 16.5%16.9%
Transportation and Warehousing 0.0%1.3%
Information 7.2%3.3%
Finance and Insurance 6.1%13.2%
Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 0.6%1.3%
Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services 2.7%9.1%
Management of Companies and Enterprises 0.0%1.5%
Administration & Support 4.9%14.8%
Educational Services 0.8%3.8%
Health Care and Social Assistance 9.7%6.1%
Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 0.2%1.2%
Accommodation and Food Services 9.9%5.7%
Other (Consumer) Services 8.1%2.7%
Public Administration 19.7%1.2%
Tigard
Tigard Urban Renewal District
Employment/Workforce Analysis
Page 2 of 6
Large Employment Sectors in Tigard’s Urban Renewal District
Employment in the eight largest business sectors for Tigard’s Urban Renewal Districts can be compared to
Sherwood and Beaverton’s URD and the City of Tigard overall in the table below.These 8 business sectors
account for 86% of all employment in the Tigard Urban Renewal District. These same business sectors only
represent 54% of the employment capacity of the entire workforce in the city overall. Employment in Tigard’s
Urban Renewal District is highly concentrated in these sectors.
Retail and commercial trade
(retail, restaurants and
consumer services) make up
the largest private sector
source of employment in
the Tigard Urban Renewal
District. Combined, firms in
these consumer oriented
businesses provide jobs to
35% of all employees who
work in Tigard’s Urban Renewal District.
In almost each instance, the same business sectors in Sherwood and Beaverton’s urban renewal districts employ
a larger percentage of people. Tigard’s Urban Renewal District has a relatively large share of public
administration jobs due to City Hall’s location downtown, which reduces the proportion of private sector
employment. Tigard City Hall (Public Administration 19.7%) makes up the single largest employer in Tigard’s
Urban Renewal District.
Tigard’s Urban Renewal district supports 8.3 employees per acre. City wide, employment per acre is 20 when
counting all employment lands. (Lincoln Center accounts for a high density per acre calculation when looking at
the city overall.) For comparison sake, The City of Sherwood’s urban renewal district currently employs 5.3
people per acre on 411 acres of urban renewal district. Beaverton’s Urban Renewal District employees 13.6
people per acre in a 988 acre district.
Tigard’s Urban Renewal District supports a mix of employees working in a range of business sectors that support
an urban village downtown format. Proportionally more office based employees work in information services,
finance, public administration and insurance in Tigard’s Urban Renewal District than in Beaverton and
Sherwood’s Urban Renewal Districts and the City overall.
The employment mix in Tigard’s Urban Renewal District is not limiting the ability of the district to mature into an
urban village downtown format. The mix of business activity and employment is balanced but underrepresented
in key urban village shopping district commercial activities like retail sales and restaurants.
Largest Employment Sectors (2013)Tigard
URD
Beaverton
URD
City of
Tigard
Share Share Share Share
Manufacturing 8.9%14.3%16.8%5.4%
Retail Trade 16.5%22.7%21.6%16.9%
Information 7.2%4.2%0.6%3.3%
Finance and Insurance 6.1%2.2%3.0%13.2%
Health Care and Social Assistance 9.7%9.1%13.8%6.1%
Accommodation and Food Services 9.9%14.2%11.6%5.7%
Other (Consumer) Services 8.1%3.4%6.7%2.7%
Public Administration 19.7%4.7%4.4%1.2%
Listed as a percentage of Total 86.1%74.8%78.4%54.4%
Sherwood
URD
Tigard Urban Renewal District
Employment/Workforce Analysis
Page 3 of 6
Employment Trends in Tigard’s Urban Renewal District
In 2007 at “peak employment”1,900 people worked in
Tigard’s Urban Renewal District. By 2013 (the most current
year of data) employment dropped to 1,600 employees.
Employment is up slightly from a post-recession low of 1,500
in 2012. Over the same time period, city-wide employment
rose from 35,300 in to 41,079 employees in 2014.
From 2002 to 2013, Tigard’s Urban Renewal District has seen
a decrease in the number of people working within the
district. Downtown’s overall decrease in employment of
16% is counter to a city-wide increase in employment of 16%
since 2002.
At “peak employment” firms located in Tigard’s Urban Renewal District employed 5.33% of the City of Tigard’s
workforce. Currently, firms in the Urban Renewal District employ 3.8% of the overall workforce.This annualized
decrease in workforce by sector equates to a loss of 300 jobs or 16% of the employees working in Tigard’s Urban
Renewal District.
The chart to the right shows which business sectors are
expanding and contracting their workforce in Tigard’s Urban
Renewal District. Food services, healthcare and
financial/insurance services are increasing. Every other business
sector represented in the table has been reducing its workforce.
Decreased employment indicates lower businesses activity for
these sectors.These firms may be reducing their workforce but
operating out of the same space, moving to another location, or
closing. Unusual for Tigard’s Urban Renewal Districts is the wide-
spread trend in decreasing employment, not limited to just a few
sectors.
The trend in increasing food service downtown is one good signal. Increased restaurant and food offerings in a
downtown setting set the stage for retail and residential uses.
Employment levels in Tigard’s Urban Renewal District are not increasing along with the overall trend. The district
should be able to support at least 20%more employees than currently.As employment decreases in business
sectors that need large amounts of space like warehousing, wholesale trade and manufacturing, empty capacity
should be converted to use for activities that support higher densities of employment and other uses valued by
the community. Prioritizing for first-story consumer oriented business activities with upper story office and
residential uses supports an urban village style form.
Area of Study 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Percent Change
Jobs URD 1,883 1,737 1,714 1,771 1,881 1,900 1,883 1,648 1,526 1,565 1,509 1,580 -16.09%
Jobs Tigard 35,341 34,342 35,306 35,971 37,333 38,550 38,553 36,059 36,988 39,975 40,090 41,079 16.24%
Tigard Population 44,609 44828 45724 46709 47657 47916 48528 49254 48035 49025 49774 50,000 12.09%
Business Sector Change in Employment Over
Time (Targeted Sectors)
Annualized
2002-2013
Manufacturing -2.5%
Wholesale Trade -4.6%
Retail Trade -1.3%
Transportation and Warehousing -9.1%
Information -2.9%
Finance and Insurance 7.2%
Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services -4.4%
Management of Companies and Enterprises -9.1%
Administration & Support -4.3%
Health Care and Social Assistance 6.3%
Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation -6.6%
Accommodation and Food Services 8.4%
Other (Consumer) Services 0.9%
Public Administration 0.6%
Tigard Urban Renewal District
Employment/Workforce Analysis
Page 4 of 6
What do employees working in Tigard’s Urban Renewal District Earn?
Wages paid to employees in Tigard’s Urban Renewal District are divided into three categories by the US Census.
Less than $15,000/year ($1,250/month)
Between $15,000 and $40,000 per year
More than $40,000/year ($3,333/month)
The trend in wages follows a national and city-wide trend
of a decrease in middle income earners and increases in
lower wage and higher wage positions. Since 2002, the
number of employees in the middle range earning
$15,000 to $40,000 per year in Tigard’s Urban Renewal
District has decreased by 35%.
Since the end of the recession in 2010, in Tigard’s Urban
Renewal District,the trend shows a slight decrease in the
number of employees earning more than $3,333 per
month ($40,000/yr). The number of employees working in
low wage jobs (less than $15,000/yr) in Tigard’s Urban
Renewal District has increased the most dramatically since
the end of the recession in 2010.In recent years,
employment in low wage jobs has increased by 22%in
Tigard’s Urban Renewal District.Higher wage employment
($15,000 and above) has decreased by 1% and while it’s lower
than pre-recession levels, it is trending up.
This trend in Tigard’s Urban Renewal District is not consistent
with the trend in Beaverton and Sherwood’s Urban Renewal
Districts. In Sherwood, the number of employees entering the
relatively higher income cohorts is growing (with a 23%
increase from 2010 to 2013) and the low wage group is
shrinking (11% decrease). The disbursement of wages in
Beaverton has been relatively constant between the three categories.
For comparison, at the end of calendar year 2014, the average wage for an employee in Tigard was $47,968
($4,000/month). Contrary to the trend in the Tigard Urban Renewal District, when looking across the whole City
of Tigard, the trend shows a 45% increase in the number of employees making more than $3,333 per month
and only a 3.5% increase in the lowest wage group earning less than $1,250/month ($15,000 yr.)
As property owners and business owners reinvest in Tigard’s Urban Renewal District creating more retail and
restaurant offerings, the age of the workforce, education level and wages paid will continue to decline. This can
be balanced by ensuring office capacity on upper stories and less pedestrian/consumer oriented activities
around the edges of Tigard’s Urban Renewal District as it transitions into neighboring industrial zones.
Tigard Urban Renewal District
Employment/Workforce Analysis
Page 5 of 6
Employee Education and Age in Tigard’s Urban Renewal District
The education level of employees in Tigard’s Urban
Renewal District follows the trend in wages. In Tigard’s
Urban Renewal District an increasing number of
employees have a high school education or less.This
group accounts for 27% of the urban renewal district’s
workforce.Sherwood and Beaverton Urban Renewal
Districts have a similar proportional share of minimally
educated employees.The trend is consistent with city-
wide trends in education levels.
Inconsistent with city-wide trends, the number of
employees in Tigard’s Urban Renewal District with at
least a bachelor’s degree decreased by 9.9%since 2009.City wide, the proportion of employees with a high
school education or less is about the same at 25% and the number with at least a bachelor’s degree has
increased by 8.8%. Education data from the US Census is only available from 2009 to 2013.
Wages, education Level and age are often correlated. The majority of
Tigard’s urban renewal district employees (56.2%) are in their primary
earning years age 30 to 54. This “working age”group is about the same
proportion in the Beaverton and Sherwood urban renewal districts. The
proportion of this group related to the younger and older working
demographic is true for the city overall as well.
Also, like national trends, the workforce is aging, and since the end of
the recession employees with experience have crowded out job
opportunities for younger employees.
Just of a quarter (26%) of the
employees in the Tigard Urban
Renewal District are older than
age 55. This age group has
increased about 69% since 2002
in and increased 84% city wide. Only 17% of the Tigard urban renewal
district’s employees are 29 years old or younger, this group has seen the
largest decrease of about 40%.This groups makes up anywhere from 23
to 29% of the employees in Beaverton and Sherwood’s urban renewal
district and the City overall.
Tigard Urban Renewal District
Employment/Workforce Analysis
Page 6 of 6
Workforce Trend Summary
Firms in consumer services (retail, restaurant, product repair, and entertainment)employ 35% of the
workforce in Tigard’s Urban Renewal District.
Firms with a large number of office based employees account for 41% of the workforce in Tigard’s Urban
Renewal District. Businesses in this sector include professional services and public administration.
Eight industries account for 86% of the employment opportunity in Tigard's Urban Renewal
District. Employment in the URD is concentrated and less diverse compared to city-wide employment.
Tigard’s Urban Renewal District supports 8.3 employees per acre. City wide, employment per acre is 20
when counting all employment lands. (Lincoln Center accounts for a high density per acre calculation
when looking at the city overall.)
In 2007 at “peak employment” 1,900 people worked in Tigard’s Urban Renewal District. Overall
employment in the URD decreased 16%. This is counter to a city-wide increase in employment of 16%
since 2002.
The workforce employed by firms in the food service industry (+8%), insurance (+7%) and healthcare
(+6%) has increased, while the workforce in other industries in the URD has decreased since 2002.
The trend in wages follows a national and city-wide trend of a decrease in middle income earners and
increases in lower wage and higher wage positions. Since 2002, the number of employees in the middle
range earning $15,000 to $40,000 per year in Tigard’s Urban Renewal District decreased 35%.
The number of employees working in low wage jobs (less than $15,000/yr) in Tigard’s Urban Renewal
District increased by 22% post-recession.
In Tigard’s Urban Renewal District an increasing number of employees have a high school education or
less. This group accounts for 27% of the urban renewal district’s workforce.
Inconsistent with city-wide trends, the number of employees in Tigard’s Urban Renewal District with at
least a bachelor’s degree decreased by 9.9%. For the city overall, the number of employees with at least
a bachelor’s degree has increased by 8.8%.
The majority of Tigard’s urban renewal district employees (56.2%) are in their primary earning years age
30 to 54. Similar to the national trend, the workforce is aging, and since the end of the recession,
employees with experience have crowded out job opportunities for younger employees.
About a quarter (26%) of the employees in Tigard's Urban Renewal District are older than age 55. This
age group has increased about 69% since 2002. Only 17% of the Tigard urban renewal district’s
employees are 29 years old or younger, this group has seen the largest decrease of about 40%.
City of Tigard Respect and Care | Do the Right Thing | Get it Done City of Tigard Respect and Care | Do the Right Thing | Get it Done
Urban Renewal
District
Workforce Analysis
City of Tigard
Workforce
Summary
Tigard URD includes:
•198 acres
•176 firms
•1,700 employees
•$43,268 average salary
•$75 million in payroll
•4,000 daily public transit trips.
City of Tigard
What does this mean for
Tigard?
A large portion of the
workforce in the URD
supports business
activities that can
contribute to the
“urban village” feel.
City of Tigard
Employment over Time
Peak Employment
1,9000 jobs
Recession Level
1,500 jobs
Current Level
1,600 jobs
City of Tigard
Wages and Salaries in the URD
Less than $15,000/year
≤ $1,250/month
≤ $7.80/hr.
$15,001 to $40,000 per year
7.80-20.83/hr.
More than $40,000/year
≥ $3,333/month
≥ $20.83/hr.
City of Tigard
Workforce by Education and
Age
City of Tigard
What does this mean for
Tigard?
•The Urban Renewal District has a basic mix of businesses and
employment opportunities.
•The Urban Renewal District can support more employment
than currently offered.
•As Tigard’s Urban Renewal District matures into an “urban
village” shopping district, wages to lower skilled workers may
increase.
•Efforts to support an “urban village” development pattern
should be balanced with upper story development of
professional and business services.
AIS-2504 5.
CCDA Agenda
Meeting Date:03/01/2016
Length (in minutes):10 Minutes
Agenda Title:Metro IGA for Downtown Grant Award
Submitted By:Sean Farrelly, Community
Development
Item Type: Resolution Meeting Type: Council
Business
Meeting -
Main
Public Hearing
Newspaper Legal Ad Required?:
No
Public Hearing Publication
Date in Newspaper:
Information
ISSUE
Shall Council authorize the City Manager to sign an Intergovernmental Government
Agreement (IGA) with Metro to receive $100,000 in Community Planning and Development
Grant (CPDG) funds for the purpose of completing the Downtown Tigard Urban Lofts
Development project?
STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST
Staff recommends that Council authorize the City Manager to sign the IGA with Metro,
substantially similar to the attached IGA.
KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY
At its February 23 meeting, staff briefed Council on the attached IGA, which formally
acknowledges the Metro CPDG award, describes the funding terms, and summarizes the
city’s performance responsibilities. Staff also briefed Council on Exhibit A of the IGA, which
identifies the milestones, deliverables, and reimbursement schedule specific to this grant award.
The award will fund pre-development feasibility work for a mixed use/housing development
on two downtown sites: a 0.45 acre privately owned site fronting Main Street (the “Nicoli
site”) and the 0.81 acre site that is currently the Tigard Transit Center. The three main tasks
are:
1. Reconfiguration plan for the Tigard Transit Center.
2. A concept plan for mixed-use transit oriented urban-style loft development of two sites.
3. Definition of the Urban Renewal District’s role and financial commitments to the project.
The deliverables and milestones are described in Exhibit A of the IGA which is attached.
These grant-funded deliverables will be developed with the assistance of a consultant team.
There are a couple of minor IGA issues that still need to be finalized and reviewed by the City
Attorney, but the final documents will be substantially similar to Attachments A and B. Once
the IGA is signed, a more detailed scope of work will be developed and a request for
proposals will be publicized.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES
Council may choose not to enter into this IGA with Metro, which would result in the
Downtown Tigard Urban Lofts Development project not moving forward.
COUNCIL OR CCDA GOALS, POLICIES, MASTER PLANS
Tigard City Council 2015-17 Goals and Milestones
Goal #2. Make Downtown Tigard a Place Where People Want to Be
Tigard Comprehensive Plan
Special Planning Areas - Downtown
Goal 15.2 Facilitate the development of an urban village.
Tigard Strategic Plan
Goal 2: Ensure development advances the vision
City Center Urban Renewal Plan
Goal 5: Promote high quality development of retail, office and residential uses that support
and are supported by public streetscape, transportation, recreation, and open space
investments
Tigard Downtown Improvement Plan
Downtown Housing Development Catalyst Project
DATES OF PREVIOUS CONSIDERATION
February 23, 2015, Review of draft IGA documents
May 26, 2015, Resolution Authorizing Metro Community Planning & Development Grant
Application
Fiscal Impact
Cost:$ 207,559
Budgeted (yes or no):partial
Where Budgeted (department/program):Community Development
Additional Fiscal Notes:
The $97, 559 in staff time match is budgeted in the Community Development Department.
If the $10,000 city funds match is required, it will be funded by the FY 16-17 CCDA budget
request. The city/CCDA budget will be amended to reflect the $100,000 grant award.
Attachments
IGA
Exhibit A Deliverables and Milestones
Exhibit B: Grant Application
DRAFT
Page 1 – CET PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT GRANT IGA – Metro & City of Tigard
CONSTRUCTION EXCISE TAX GRANT
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT
Metro – City of Tigard
Downtown Tigard Urban Lofts Development Project
This Construction Excise Tax Grant Intergovernmental Agreement (“CET Grant IGA”) is effective on
the last date of signature below, and is entered into by and between Metro, a metropolitan service district
organized under the laws of the state of Oregon and the Metro Charter, located at 600 Northeast Grand Avenue,
Portland OR, 97232 (“Metro”), and the City of Tigard (“City”), located at 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard
Oregon, 97223, collectively referred to as “Parties.”
WHEREAS, Metro has established a Construction Excise Tax (“CET”), Metro Code Chapter 7.04,
which imposes an excise tax throughout the Metro regional jurisdiction to fund regional and local planning that
is required to make land ready for development after inclusion in the Urban Growth Boundary; and
WHEREAS, the CET is collected by local jurisdictions when issuing building permits, which the local
jurisdictions then remit to Metro pursuant to Construction Excise Tax Intergovernmental Agreements to
Collect and Remit Tax (“CET Collection IGAs”) entered into separately between Metro and the local
collecting jurisdictions; and
WHEREAS, the City has submitted a CET Grant Request (“Grant Request”) for the Downtown Tigard
Urban Lofts Development Project (“Project”); and
WHEREAS Metro has agreed to provide the City CET Grant funding for the Project in the amount of
$100,000, subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein, and the parties wish to set forth the funding
amounts, timing, procedures and conditions for receiving grant funding from the CET fund for the Project.
NOW THEREFORE, the Parties hereto agree as follows:
1. Metro Grant Award . Metro shall provide CET grant funding to the City for the Project as described in
the City’s CET Grant Request, attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein (“Grant Request”), in the
amounts and at the milestone and deliverable dates as set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated
herein, subject to the terms and conditions in this Agreement.
2. City Responsibilities. The City shall perform the Project described in the Grant Request and as specified
in this Agreement and in Exhibit A, subject to the terms and conditions specified in this Agreement and subject
to the “funding conditions” recommended by the Metro Chief Operating Officer and adopted by the Metro
Council in Resolution No. 15-4640. The City shall obtain all applicable permits and licenses from local, state
or federal agencies or governing bodies related to the Project, and the City shall use the CET funds it receives
under this Agreement only for the purposes specified in the Grant Request and to achieve the deliverables
and/or milestones set forth in Exhibit A.
3. Payment Procedures. Within 30 days after the completion of each deliverable/milestone as set forth in
Exhibit A, the City shall submit to Metro an invoice describing in detail its expenditures as may be needed to
satisfy fiscal requirements. Within 30 days of receiving the City’s invoice and supporting documents, and
DRAFT
Page 2 – CET PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT GRANT IGA – Metro & City of Tigard
subject to the terms and conditions in this Agreement, Metro shall reimburse the City for its eligible
expenditures for the applicable deliverable as set forth in Exhibit A. Metro shall send CET payments to:
City of Tigard
Finance Department
Attention: Linda Compton
13125 SW Hall Blvd.
Tigard, OR 97223
4.Funding Provisions.
(a) CET Funds. Metro’s funding commitment set forth in this Agreement shall be fulfilled solely
through the programming of CET funds; no other funds or revenues of Metro shall be used to satisfy or
pay any CET Grant funding commitments. The parties recognize and agree that if the CET is ever held
to be unenforceable or invalid, or if a court orders that CET funds may no longer be collected or
disbursed, that this Agreement shall terminate as of the effective date of that court order, and that
Metro shall not be liable in any way for funding any further CET grant amounts beyond those already
disbursed to the City as of the effective date of the court order. In such case the City shall not be liable
to Metro for completing any further Project deliverables as of the date of the court order.
(b) Waiver. The parties hereby waive and release one another for and from any and all claims,
liabilities, or damages of any kind relating to this Agreement or the CET.
5.Project Records. The City shall maintain all records and documentation relating to the expenditure of CET
Grant funds disbursed by Metro under this Agreement. The City shall provide Metro with such information and
documentation as Metro requires for implementation of the CET grant process. The City shall establish and
maintain books, records, documents, and other evidencein accordance with generally accepted accounting
principles, in sufficient detail to permit Metro or its auditor to verify how the CET Grant funds were expended.
Metro and its auditor shall have access to the books, documents, papers and records of the Citythat are directly
related to this Agreement, the CET grant moneys provided hereunder, or the Project for the purpose of making
audits and examinations.
6.Audits, Inspections and Retention of Records. Metro and its representatives shall have full access to and the
right to examine, during normal business hours and as often as they deem necessary, all Cityrecords with respect
to all matters covered by this Agreement and Exhibit A. Such representatives shall be permitted to audit, examine,
and make excerpts or transcripts from such records, and to make audits of all contracts, invoices, materials,
payrolls and other matters covered by this Agreement. All documents, papers, time sheets, accounting records, and
other materials pertaining to costs incurred in connection with the project shall be retained by the Cityand all of
their contractors for three years from the date of completion of the project, or expiration of the Agreement,
whichever is later, to facilitate any audits or inspection.
7.Term. This Agreement shall be effective on the date it is executed by both parties, and shall be in effect
until all deliverables/milestones have been achieved, all required documentation has been delivered, and all
payments have been made as set forth in Exhibit A, unless terminated earlier pursuant to this Agreement.
8.Amendment. This CET Grant IGA may be amended only by mutual written agreement of the Parties.
9.Other Agreements. This CET Grant IGA does not affect or alter any other agreements between Metro and
the City.
DRAFT
Page 3 – CET PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT GRANT IGA – Metro & City of Tigard
10. Authority. City and Metro each warrant and represent that each has the full power and authority to enter
into and perform this Agreement in accordance with its terms; that all requisite action has been taken by the
City and Metro to authorize the execution of this Agreement; and that the person signing this Agreement has
full power and authority to sign for the City or Metro, respectively.
Metro City of Tigard
By:____________________________By: _______________________________
Martha Bennett Martha Wine
Title: Metro Chief Operating Officer Title: City Manager
Date: ____________________________Date: _____________________________
Approved as to Form:Approved as to Form:
By: ____________________________
Alison R. Kean
By: ______________________________
Title: Metro Attorney Title: City Attorney
Date:__________________________Date: _____________________________
Attachments:
Exhibit A – Milestones and Deliverables Schedule
Exhibit B – City’s Grant Request
Page 1 – 2013 CPD GRANT IGA – Metro – City of Tigard Mixed-Use Development Project
10/31/13
Exhibit A
IGA for Community Planning and Development Grants funded with CET
City of Tigard – Mixed-Use Development Projects
Milestone and Deliverables Schedule for Release of Funds
This project provides pre-development services for two sites located in Downtown Tigard. Site 1, the
public works site, is owned by the City. Site 2 is an as yet to be identified site. The Developer
partner has the responsibility to secure control of Site 2. Secure control means the Developer partner
has a vested interest and has shown serious commitment to purchase Site 2; a purchase option
including earnest money commitment if warranted has been executed (or similar commitment), with
site purchase contingent on the outcomes of the deliverables described below. As such, milestone
due dates may be different for tasks accomplished for both sites, depending on when Developer
achieves control of Site 2. The table below includes the best estimates for milestone due dates.
Milestone*Deliverable Date Due**Grant
Payment
1.Execution of IGA Grant November 26, 2013
1 $0
2.Retain Project Management Consultant
a) RFP and consultant selection
b) Agreement and authorization
c) Negotiate an Memorandum Of
Understanding (MOU) with Developer
d) Matching funding commitments provided to
Metro
e) Criteria approved by City Center Advisory
Commission (CCAC) for making
recommendations to the City Center
Development Agency (CCDA) Board and
City Council on project feasibility and how
to proceed.
October 30, 2013
December 1, 2013
(MOU complete)
$0
3.Undertake Environmental Investigations
2
a) Developer to demonstrate control of Site 2
b) Consultant selection for environmental
investigations
c) Phase 1 and 2 Environmental Assessment
Report for Site 2
d) Comments by City and Metro on reports for
Sites 1 and 2 and determination whether or
not to proceed
January 1, 2014
(Site 1)
February 1, 2014
(Site 2)
$30,000
1 Tigard City Council Hearing on IGA
2 This task refers to Site 2 only. The City will fund a level 2 environmental assessment for Site 1 to be completed by
January 1, 2014.
Page 2 – 2013 CPD GRANT IGA – Metro – City of Tigard Mixed-Use Development Project
10/31/13
e) Progress report including environmental
assessment report and decision whether or
not to proceed
4.Undertake Appraisals and Land Surveys
a) Consultant selections for appraisals and
surveys
b) Appraisal reports for Sites 1 and 2
c) Surveys for two downtown sites
d) Comments by City and Metro on reports
e) Progress report for milestone
February 15, 2014
(Site 1)
March 1, 2014
(Site 2)
$15,000
$15,000
5.Conduct Market Studies for 2 Sites
a) Consultant selection for market studies
b) Market studies for Sites 1 and 2
c) Comments by City and Metro on reports
d) Progress report for milestone
April 1, 2014 $15,000
6.Prepare Conceptual Design and Cost Estimates
a) Architect selected with participation by
Developer
b) Draft design plans and cost estimates for
Sites 1 and 2
c) Comments by City and Metro on draft plans
d) Final design plans and cost estimates
e) Progress report for milestone
June 1, 2014 $20,000
7.Evaluate Development Feasibility
a) Pro-forma analysis for Sites 1 and 2
b) Report evaluating financing and if gaps exist,
public financing strategies
c) Comments by City and Metro of draft reports
d) Final pro-forma and financing strategies
e) Progress report for milestone
July 15, 2014 $0
8.Development Agreements and Approvals
a) Draft and final development agreements for
Sites 1 and 2
b) Comments by City and Metro of draft
agreements
c) Comments by City Center Advisory
Commission and recommendations to the
City Center Development Agency Board
d) Final agreements
e) CCDA Board review and approval of the
development agreements and
September 1, 2014 $5,000
Page 3 – 2013 CPD GRANT IGA – Metro – City of Tigard Mixed-Use Development Project
10/31/13
recommendations to the City Council
f) City Council acceptance of the development
agreements
TOTAL REIMBURSABLE AMOUNT $100,000
*If the Grant contained any Funding Conditions, Grantee shall demonstrate satisfaction with those conditions at the
applicable milestone or deliverable due dates.
**Due dates are intended by the parties to be hard estimates of expected milestone completion dates. If the City
anticipates that a due date cannot be met due to circumstances beyond its control, it shall inform Metro in writing no later
than ten (10) days prior to the due date set forth above and provide a revised estimated due date; and Metro and the City
shall mutually agree upon a revision to the milestone due dates set forth in this Agreement.
Note: City of Tigard match = $130,340
Exhibit B
City Grant Request
[attach]
1
Downtown Tigard Urban Lofts Development
Project- Community Planning and Development
Grant Application
June 1, 2015
PROJECT NARRATIVE
A. Project Description
This grant application is proposed by the City of Tigard/City Center Development Agency (CCDA, the City
of Tigard’s Urban Renewal Agency) with the support of TriMet. The Downtown Tigard Urban Lofts
Development project is for pre-development feasibility assistance that will lead to:
A concept plan for mixed-use transit oriented urban-style loft development of two sites: a 0.45
acre privately owned site fronting Main Street and the 0.81 acre site that is currently the Tigard
Transit Center. The desired project would have a low on-site parking ratio.
A plan for the reconfiguration of the Tigard Transit Center. The location of the HCT station,
currently being studied in the SW Corridor Plan, will likely cause the need to rethink the form
and the function of the existing transit center. Ideas to be explored are relocating the bus stops
on to the street, reducing the footprint of the center, or building a housing or office structure
over the center. Plan objectives would include improving transit run times, accommodating bus
layovers, providing a TriMet driver restroom, and preserving on-street parking opportunities.
Definition of the Urban Renewal District’s role and financial commitments to the project.
Downtown Tigard Urban Lofts Development Work Scope
Task 1. Transit Center Bus Function Reconfiguration
The following tasks will be jointly undertaken by TriMet and the City of Tigard. The goal of this task is to
establish the feasibility of relocating bus parking from the transit center site in order to make the site
available for mixed use development.
1.1 Analyze Bus Operations and Transportation Conditions
Analyze current and future bus operations at the Transit Center
Analyze current and future vehicle, pedestrian and bicycle access and traffic patterns in the
vicinity of the Transit Center
Identify opportunities and constraints related to changing current Transit Center bus operations
Deliverable: Report Analyzing Bus Operations and Transportation Conditions
1.2 Develop Options for Bus Function Reconfiguration
Develop 2-3 options for bus function reconfiguration
Analyze options for bus operations
Analyze options for overall transportation impacts and compatibility in the vicinity of the Transit
Center
Prepare cost estimates for each option
Select a preferred option
2
1.3 Prepare Final Plans and Implementation Recommendations
Refine preferred option
Refine cost estimates
Identify implementation roles and responsibilities
Identify funding sources and responsibilities
1.4 Decision to Proceed
Meet with property owners to establish development and financial goals
Review reconfiguration plan and feasibility to consider redevelopment of combined sites
Decision on whether to proceed with subsequent tasks
Milestone #1-Deliverable-Transit Center Bus Function Reconfiguration Plan; Decision to proceed.
Task 2. Pre-Development Feasibility for Main Street and Transit Center Sites
2.1 Environmental Investigations
Conduct phase 1 and 2 assessments on two downtown sites.
Project Team Meetings.
2.2 Appraisals and Land Surveys
Conduct appraisals and surveys for 2 separate properties.
Project Team Meetings.
Milestone #2-Deliverables: Phase 1 and 2 Environmental Assessment Report,
Appraisal Reports and Surveys for two Downtown sites.
Task 3. Development Program and Design Concepts
3.1 Market Study
Conduct market study for the combined properties. The scope for the market study is to
identify value, preferred uses, unit size and mix, and anticipated rent and lease rates.
Project Team Meetings.
Milestone #3-Deliverable: Market Study
3.2 Conceptual Design and Cost Estimates
Develop conceptual site plans and massing diagrams for the combined sites. Based on the
results of the market study, site plans and conceptual massing studies will be prepared. Design
will be sufficient to identify building placement, unit sizes, parking arrangements, and
construction types.
Identify development code barriers to desired development types
Prepare planning level cost estimates
Milestone #4-Deliverable: Design Plans and Cost Estimates
3
Task 4. Financial Analysis and Implementation Strategies
4.1 Pro-forma Analysis
Prepare pro-forma analysis
Project Team Meetings.
Deliverable: Pro-forma Analysis for Downtown site.
4.2 Public/Private Financing Strategies
Evaluate private financing and identify financing gaps. Based on results from the pro-forma
analysis, CCDA still will be responsible for evaluating results of the analysis, and identifying
funding gaps as applicable. A financial consultant will assist the analysis.
Evaluate public financing to address financing gaps.
Develop recommended financing strategies. This task will be undertaken by CCDA staff and
financing consultant. It is anticipated that a primary source of potential public investment will
be urban renewal funds, and the CCDA board will be consulted throughout this task.
Project Team Meetings.
Deliverable: Draft and Recommended Financing Strategies
Milestone #5-Financial Analysis and Implementation Strategies Report
Task 5. Developer Recruitment and Approvals
5.1 Developer Recruitment
During Tasks 2 and 3, CCDA will work with TriMet and property owner to identify and solicit
interest from qualified developers
Select developer partner
Project Team Meetings.
Deliverable: Developer Selection
5.2 CCDA Board Approvals
Provide briefings to CCDA board on all project elements. CCDA staff will provide regular updates
and hold worksessions throughout the project with the CCDA board and other city boards and
commissions as needed.
Review and approve of any urban renewal activities identified in the recommended financial
strategy
Project Team Meetings.
B. Project Site Description
The project addresses redevelopment opportunities for two Downtown Tigard sites, a 0.45 acre site
known as the Nicoli Site which is privately owned, and the adjacent 0.81 Tigard Transit Center site
owned by TriMet. Figure 1 shows an aerial photo of both sites, Figure 2 shows both sites and their
location within the Urban Renewal District.
4
C. Project Background
The City of Tigard adopted a “Downtown Improvement Plan” and “Downtown Urban Renewal Plan” in
2005 to reflect the area’s designation as a Town Center in Metro’s 2040 Growth Concept, and plans for
the Washington County Commuter Rail (WES) project with a station in Downtown Tigard. The plans call
for a “vibrant and active urban village at the heart of the community” and provides a funding stream to
implement planned improvements. Over the past 9 years, approximately $25 million in public
improvements have been completed in the urban renewal district including the commuter rail station
and park & ride; Burnham Street and Ash Avenue streetscape improvement; intersection improvements
at Pacific Highway/Main Street and Pacific Highway/Hall Blvd. Most recently, the MTIP-funded Main
Street Green Street project was completed in the fall of 2014. The Agency has also worked with private
sector partners to fund 18 façade improvement projects on Main Street.
The City of Tigard has been working with Metro, TriMet and other regional partners on the SW Corridor
HCT Plan, which identified options for extending high capacity transit into Tigard. Figure 3 shows several
alignment options. Each of these options serve the Tigard Transit Center site.
As a direct result of Metro Community Planning and Development Grant funding in the FY 13-14 cycle,
the CCDA signed a Development and Disposition Agreement with Capstone Partners/ DIG Tigard to
construct a $26 million, 157 unit mixed use project on urban renewal agency-owned land. This project is
expected to break ground in September of 2015.
The Downtown Tigard Transit Center Urban Lofts Development project will build and expand on a
development opportunity study completed in 2010 jointly funded by Metro, the City of Tigard and
TriMet. At that time the two sites: a privately owned site (the “Nicoli site”) and the Tigard Transit
Center, owned by TriMet were studied separately. The report concluded that development on the
Transit Center site was not feasible due to the low achievable rents, which were at that time determined
to be $1.05/ per square foot.
A more recent pro forma that was developed as the result of the Metro Community Planning and
Development grant, found achievable rents to be significantly higher at $1.61 per square foot, which
indicates that the identified feasibility gap has narrowed. In addition the city has instituted a Vertical
Housing Development Zone in downtown that improved ROI.
The grant project will include the following: property survey, conceptual design and evaluation of
alternative construction types; pro-forma analysis; identification of financing gaps; identification of
public investments/financing to overcome gaps; identification of development code barriers to desired
development at this site; and a plan to reconfigure the bus functions of the transit center.
D. Evaluation Criteria
1) Expected Development Outcomes:
a. Opportunity sites with catalyst potential: The City of Tigard considers the opportunity sites, one
publically owned and one privately owned, to have significant catalytic potential that will lead to
additional private investments in Downtown Tigard. The project will identify conceptual designs and
private investment objectives, and actions the CCDA can take to achieve public objectives, including the
SW Corridor Plan, and result in a financially feasible development. The intent of the project is to
demonstrate how desirable development types can be achieved in Downtown Tigard with a
5
public/private partnership. The project will also result in a plan to reconfigure the Transit Center to
make redevelopment of the site possible.
b. Desired Outcomes: The desired outcome is a mixed use project that meets objectives of the SW
Corridor Plan, and regional housing and local urban renewal goals that would break ground within 18-24
months of completing the grant funded work.
c. Level of community readiness and local commitment: The site is located in Downtown Tigard within
the voter- approved urban renewal district. Appropriate land use entitlements are in place, and
attracting mixed-use development projects such as those anticipated with this application, is a primary
urban renewal objective. The site is also located within the city’s Vertical Housing Development Zone.
1. Track record of successful implementation of community development projects and/or past CPDG
plan implementation;
As the direct result of a Cycle 3 Community Planning and Development Grant, the CCDA entered in
to disposition and development agreement for a $26 million 157 unit mixed use project to be
constructed on an agency owned downtown site. This project is planned to break ground in
September 2015. The proposed grant funded work will build on the momentum of this
public/private partnership.
2. Development sites of adequate scale to generate critical mass of activity;
The development study site is approximately 1.26 acres. Its location on Main Street and proximity
to multiple transit modes means it is strongly likely to generate 18-hour neighborhood activity.
3. Existing and proposed transportation infrastructure to support future development;
The existing transit service of 8 TriMet lines, 3 Yamhill County Transit Area lines, and WES
Commuter Rail support the construction of housing at this location. The prospective investment in
the SW Corridor Plan HCT amplifies the development potential of this site and leverages
downtown’s existing transportation infrastructure. Phase I of the Main Street Green Street project
recently upgraded sidewalks including safer pedestrian crossings. The second phase of the project
(scheduled for FY 18-19) improves the frontage of this site. Recent and upcoming improvements to
the Fanno Creek Trail 1/3 of a mile from this site also support development. Across the street from
the site, Tigard’s newest trail, the Tigard Street Trail connects this location to adjacent
neighborhoods and nearby parks.
4. Existing urban form providing strong redevelopment opportunities;
Downtown Tigard has a strong traditional walkable retail district. Nearby Main Street there are
several larger underdeveloped sites with low intensity uses that are potential candidates for
subsequent redevelopment.
5. Sound relationship to adjacent residential and employment areas;
The creation of a walkable urban center with access to new public spaces would benefit Tigard’s
residential areas as well as be an attractive amenity to attract additional employment. More than
200 firms are located within walking distance of this site.
6. Compelling vision and long-term prospects.
The city and development agency has worked with its citizens to develop a vision of downtown
Tigard as a walkable urban village. There have been significant recent investments by downtown
6
business and property owners in addition to the aforementioned $26 million mixed use project that
demonstrate the desired development types are financially feasible.
2) Regional Significance:
a. People live and work in vibrant communities where their everyday needs are easily accessible;
Downtown Tigard is envisioned as a “vibrant and active urban village at the heart of the community.”
Recent public investments in downtown made by the CCDA include new streetscapes that include
pedestrian and bicycle facilities, making it possible to walk to the WES station/Tigard Transit Center,
parks and recreation opportunities along Fanno Creek, local employers and commercial services along
Main Street from any location Downtown.
b. Current and future residents benefit from the region’s sustained economic competitiveness and
prosperity;
This grant project will define how a public/private partnership can stimulate new mixed-use residential
developments Downtown, a necessary component of a prosperous community. The project also shows
how private investments can take advantage of the public investments already made in the town center
area. The project will also support future HCT investments envisioned in the SW Corridor Plan.
c. People have safe and reliable transportation choices that enhance their quality of life;
The site is highly transit friendly, directly adjacent to the WES Commuter Rail Station, transit center and
proposed HCT station. Recent improvements to Main Street have improved its walkability, including
safer pedestrian crossings. The site is also near the regional Fanno Creek Trail, and the Tigard Street
Trail. The feasibility for apartments with greatly reduced on-site parking requirements will be
investigated.
d. The region is a leader in minimizing contributions to climate change;
The project integrates housing into transit planning, decreasing the reliance on SOVs, which will lead to
reduced greenhouse gasses.
e. Current and future generations enjoy clean air, clean water and healthy ecosystems;
The project integrates housing into transit planning, increasing the usage of transit, bicycle and walking
modes, which will result in reducing greenhouse gasses, air and water pollution; and preserving existing
open space.
f. The benefits and burdens of growth and change are distributed equitably.
Currently 92% of Tigard employees commute from outside the city. Many of these jobs are lower paying
retail and service jobs, and require SOV travel, with the accompanying expenses. Redevelopment at this
site provides for new housing opportunities in a location highly convenient for commuting by transit.
3) and 4) Location: Both catalytic sites are located within the Tigard Town Center, urban renewal district,
and the Vertical Housing Development Zone. Downtown Tigard was also identified as a potential station
community in the High Capacity Transit Land Use Plan, and is the SW Corridor HCT terminus location.
The site is also located on a 2035 Growth Concept main street.
In 2009-10 Tigard updated its comprehensive plan and development code for the downtown district. It
instituted mixed use zoning with design standards requiring new development to be pedestrian oriented
and reduced minimum parking requirements.
7
5) Best Practices Model: This project demonstrates how public/private partnerships can develop mixed-
use residential projects that meet design, density and use requirements in town centers. The primary
benefit of this project to is to establish the financial feasibility for very urban style project with lower on-
site parking ratios in Downtown Tigard. To the extent that similar conditions exist in other town centers,
the project will demonstrate best practices that can be utilized in other locations.
6) Leverage: This planning grant will leverage additional investments by CCDA, which is currently
authorized to invest $22 million over 20 years in urban renewal projects. The $1.2 million Phase II of the
Main Street green street project is in the city’s capital improvement plan will improve the frontage of
this site. It will also leverage the potential $1 billion the region will invest in the SW Corridor Plan. The
project may also be able to leverage the city’s Brownfield grant funding to perform environmental
assessments on the properties.
7) Matching Fund/Potential: It is estimated that the total project will require approximately $180,000
with the grant funding 56 percent of the total cost. CCDA will provide a 6% funding match ($10,000) for
the project. City staff costs, amounting to 39 percent of the total project costs, will be born by the City.
8) Growth absorption: Based on estimates in Appendices B and C of the CPDG Application Handbook,
between 2010 and 2035 Tigard is expected to absorb and additional 4,245 multi-family units and 17,063
jobs. The proposed mixed use project would help make progress towards these goals.
9) Public Involvement: The City Center Advisory Commission is an appointed group representing
Downtown property and businesses owners, residents and the general public. The Commission will be
involved in all aspects of the project and will make recommendations to the CCDA Board.
10) Governing body: The CCDA Board (City Council) will have final approval over the use of any urban
renewal funds to support the development of the project.
11) Capacity of applicant: The desired consultant team includes an architecture firm with transit
oriented development experience, a real estate advisor, and an engineer who specializes in transit
planning. CCDA and City staffs are experienced with forming successful public/private partnerships and
delivering development projects. TriMet staff has extensive experience with transit operations.
E. Collaborations
The public partners that have agreed to participate in this project are the City of Tigard, the CCDA and
TriMet. CCDA will participate financially in this project. TriMet will participate in the Transit Center
reconfiguration planning.
F. Proposed Milestones and Deliverables
The detailed work program found in Section A of this grant application indicates task deliverables and
the following five milestones:
Milestone #1-Deliverable-Transit Center Bus Function Reconfiguration Plan; Decision to Proceed
Milestone #2-Deliverables: Phase 1 and 2 Environmental Assessment Report, Appraisal Reports
and Surveys
Milestone #3-Deliverable: Market Study
Milestone #4-Deliverable: Design Plans and Cost Estimates
Milestone #5-Financial Analysis and Implementation Strategies Report
8
The City staff will be available to describe lessons learned from this project at a time and format that is
most convenient to Metro.
G. Project Management
The project manager for the Downtown Tigard Urban Lofts Development Projects is Sean Farrelly,
Downtown Redevelopment Manager. sean@tigard-or.gov, 503-718-2420. Mr. Farrelly works under the
direct supervision of Kenny Asher, Community Development Director. Both Sean and Kenny will be
involved in all work tasks.
Sean has been the City of Tigard’s Redevelopment Project Manager since 2010 managing all aspects of
the downtown urban renewal program. Projects he has managed include: Downtown Code
Amendments; Downtown Future Vision; Downtown Connectivity Plan; Pacific Highway Vision; Façade
Improvement Program; Numerous Development Opportunity Studies; and the HCT Land Use Plan (asst.
project manager). Sean also managed the CET funded Downtown Mixed Use Development Project and
currently manages the city’s brownfield program.
BUDGET DOCUMENTS
Budget Narrative
A detailed task by task budget is shown on a spreadsheet that is included with this application and
summarized in the budget forms provided by Metro. The overall work plan for the entire project is
summarized below. Costs for the full project will be shared by the CCDA and the Community Planning
and Development (CPD) Grant. Consultant deliverables for tasks 1, 2, 3 and 4 are proposed to be funded
by the CPD Grant of $100,000, and completion of each task deliverable is proposed as a project
milestone for purposes of the CPD Grant. The CCDA will commit $10,000 for consulting work for task
2.2. All staff costs will be the responsibility of the City of Tigard and TriMet. It is anticipated that all
deliverables, regardless of funding source, will be solely owned by the City of Tigard.
Downtown Tigard Urban Lofts Development Work Scope
Task 1. Transit Center Bus Function Reconfiguration
The following tasks will be jointly undertaken by TriMet and the City of Tigard.
1.1 Analyze Bus Operations and Transportation Conditions
Analyze current and future bus operations at the Transit Center
Analyze current and future vehicle, pedestrian and bicycle access and traffic patterns in the
vicinity of the Transit Center
Identify opportunities and constraints related to changing current Transit Center bus operations
Deliverable: Report Analyzing Bus Operations and Transportation Conditions
1.2 Develop Options for Bus Function Reconfiguration
Develop 2-3 options for bus function reconfiguration
Analyze options for bus operations
9
Analyze options for overall transportation impacts and compatibility in the vicinity of the Transit
Center
Prepare cost estimates for each option
Select a preferred option
1.3 Prepare Final Plans and Implementation Recommendations
Refine preferred option
Refine cost estimates
Identify implementation roles and responsibilities
Identify funding sources and responsibilities
1.4 Decision to Proceed
Meet with property owners to establish development and financial goals
Review reconfiguration plan and feasibility to consider redevelopment of combined sites
Decision on whether to proceed with subsequent tasks
Milestone #1-Deliverable-Transit Center Bus Function Reconfiguration Plan; Decision to Proceed
Task 2. Pre-Development Feasibility for Main Street and Transit Center Sites
2.1 Environmental Investigations
Conduct phase 1 and 2 assessments on two downtown sites.
Project Team Meetings.
2.2 Appraisals and Land Surveys
Conduct appraisals and surveys for 2 separate properties.
Project Team Meetings.
Milestone #2-Deliverables: Phase 1 and 2 Environmental Assessment Report,
Appraisal Reports and Surveys for two Downtown sites.
Task 3. Development Program and Design Concepts
3.1 Market Study
Conduct market study for the combined properties. The scope for the market study is to
identify value, preferred uses, unit size and mix, and anticipated rent and lease rates.
Project Team Meetings.
Milestone #3-Deliverable: Market Study
3.2 Conceptual Design and Cost Estimates
Develop conceptual site plans and massing diagrams for the combined sites. Based on the
results of the market study, site plans and conceptual massing studies will be prepared. Design
will be sufficient to identify building placement, unit sizes, parking arrangements, and
construction types.
Identify development code barriers to desired development types
10
Prepare planning level cost estimates
Milestone #4-Deliverable: Design Plans and Cost Estimates
Task 4. Financial Analysis and Implementation Strategies
4.1 Pro-forma Analysis
Prepare pro-forma analysis
Project Team Meetings.
Deliverable: Pro-forma Analysis for Downtown site.
4.2 Public/Private Financing Strategies
Evaluate private financing and identify financing gaps. Based on results from the pro-forma
analysis, CCDA still will be responsible for evaluating results of the analysis, and identifying
funding gaps as applicable. A financial consultant will assist the analysis.
Evaluate public financing to address financing gaps.
Develop recommended financing strategies. This task will be undertaken by CCDA staff and
financing consultant. It is anticipated that a primary source of potential public investment will
be urban renewal funds, and the CCDA board will be consulted throughout this task.
Project Team Meetings.
Deliverable: Draft and Recommended Financing Strategies
Milestone #5-Financial Analysis and Implementation Strategies Report
Task 5. Developer Recruitment and Approvals
5.1 Developer Recruitment
During Tasks 2 and 3, CCDA will work with TriMet and property owner to identify and solicit
interest from qualified developers
Select developer partner
Project Team Meetings.
Deliverable: Developer Selection
5.2 CCDA Board Approvals
Provide briefings to CCDA board on all project elements. CCDA staff will provide regular updates
and hold worksession throughout the project with the CCDA board and other city boards and
commissions as needed.
Review and approve of any urban renewal activities identified in the recommended financial
strategy
Project Team Meetings.
Line Item Budget, Commitment and Matching Funds
Table 1 below summarizes the project task budget for CCDA and TriMet staff, consultant work paid for
by the CCDA and Community Planning and Development Grant, and total task budget. This table is a
line-item summary of the more detailed budget spreadsheet included with this application.
11
The CCDA commits the staff resources as indicated in the table and attached spreadsheet totaling
approximately $74,000. Consulting expenses by CCDA of $10,000 are included in the 2015-16 CCDA
budget. TriMet commits staff support totaling approximately $24,000 to this project as indicated in
their letter of support. The grant request is for a total of $100,000, which represents less than half of
the total budget.
Table 1- Downtown Tigard Urban Lofts Development Project-Budget Summary
Tasks
Staff
Budget
Consultant Budget
Totals CCDA CPD Grant
1.1 Analyze Bus Operations & Conditions $8,819 $5,500 $14,319
1.2 Develop Bus Options $12,554 $9,000 $21,554
1.3 Prepare Plans & Recommendations $8,881 $5,500 $14,381
1.4 Decision to Proceed $5,695 $5,695
2.1 Environmental Investigations $3,756 $25,000 $28,765
2.2 Appraisals and Land Surveys $2,875 $10,000 $12,875
3.1 Market Study $4,866 $15,000 $19,866
3.2 Conceptual Design and Cost Estimates $12,646 $20,000 $32,646
4.1 Pro-forma Analysis $4,832 $10,000 $14,832
4.2 Public/Private Financing Strategies $17,142 $10,000 $27,142
5.1 Developer Recruitment $9,060 $9,060
5.2 CCDA Board Approvals $6,432 $6,432
Totals $97,559 $10,000 $100,000 $207,559
12
APPENDICIES AND FORMS
Attached to this grant application are:
Figure 1- Downtown Tigard Transit Center Urban Lofts Development Project-Location
Figure 2- Downtown Tigard Transit Center Urban Lofts Development - Urban Renewal District and
Project Location
Figure 3- SW Corridor HCT Options in Downtown Tigard
Downtown Tigard Urban Lofts Development Projects Budget Spreadsheet
Budget Form
Match Form
Tigard City Council Resolution 15-18 approving Community Planning and Development grant application
Letter of Support and Commitment:
1. Dave Unsworth, TriMet
2. Dave Nicoli, owner of 12260 SW Main Street
3. Steve DeAngelo, President of Tigard Downtown Alliance
4. Carine Arendes, Chair of City Center Advisory Commission
AIS-2532 6.
CCDA Agenda
Meeting Date:03/01/2016
Length (in minutes):60 Minutes
Agenda Title:DISCUSSION OF CITY PRIORITIES
Prepared For: Marty Wine, City Management Submitted By:Carol
Krager,
Central
Services
Item Type: Update, Discussion, Direct Staff Meeting Type: Council
Business
Meeting -
Main
Public Hearing: No Publication Date:
Information
ISSUE
Through individual decisions, the Council has discussed many issues, programs, and
investments in services that Tigard could make, and also the need to prioritize them or decide
the appropriate timing for implementation. There are investments in existing and expanded
programs and services, and facilities and capital needs that could be made. Council is asked to
discuss and if possible, reach consensus for how and when city should undertake these
priorities.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST
Deliberate about the programs, services and projects and investments that could be made in
Tigard and create a business plan to determine the order of priority and timing of investments.
KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY
In prior Council discussions over the last year about the 2016-17 budget, consideration of
a sidewalk connections program, the proposal for a community and recreation center, and
creation of a park and recreation fee, Council has acknowledged that:
- The structural imbalance in the General Fund (in which costs grow at least one-half of one
percent faster than revenues) will require new resources
- Investing in new or expanded programs and services will require new resources
- All of what needs to be done in Tigard can't be accomplished in a single year
- There may be limits to what, and how much, of a request to be made to voters
- If voter approval is sought for a measure, it should be for something that the whole Council
can advance supportively.
Attached is a representative sample list of the kinds of investments that could be made. There
are not costs or proposed funding sources attached to these investments, and they are not in
any order of priority. More of this information will be developed in advance of the proposed
2016-17 budget to help the Budget Committee have a similar discussion.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES
As part of the 2016-17 proposed budget, the Budget Committee will also have choices to
make about what to fund with General Fund resources made available with the creation of
the Park and Recreation Fee.
COUNCIL GOALS, POLICIES, APPROVED MASTER PLANS
Strategic Plan Goal 4 - Fund the Vision while Maintaining Core Services
DATES OF PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
n/a
Attachments
City Priorities
Potential Investment Examples – For City Priorities Discussion
Maintaining and Developing City Infrastructure, such as:
Sewer System funding sufficiency
Stormwater issues: master planning, CIP projects, and funding sufficiency
Street Maintenance: backlog and maintain Pavement Condition Index
Parks Planning and Development
Sidewalk and Trail Connections
Strategic Facilities Planning and Implementation
Immediate Facility Repairs and Space Needs
Asset Management Plan
Parks Maintenance
Grounds Maintenance future needs
Update Facility Maintenance Plan
Facilities Maintenance Resources
Vehicle Replacement Schedule
Information Technology - Backlog, Repair/Replacement & Resources
Technology Strategic Plan & Implementation Resources
Digital Asset Management
Existing Program and Service Enhancements, such as:
Meeting Rooms Open to the Public (including parking)
Standardize Police Response Time through District Car Concept
Staffing for Community Policing
Engineering staffing for planning and CIP projects
Library staffing: reduce reliance on volunteers
Neighborhood and Community Outreach
Recreation: Resources to Implement recreation program
Proactive Code Enforcement
Staff resources to address future UGB expansions and potential annexations
Analytical Support (Franchise, property, lease management, rate analyses, risk analyst)
Library Branch
Increase in Design Resources Citywide
Permitting and Review Resources
Pedestrian Planner
Bilingual Services
Trail Safety (lighting and presence)
Downtown Parking Planning and Enforcement
Library service expansion (in current facility)
Communications Advisor (for future ballot measures about city funding needs)
AIS-2579 7.
CCDA Agenda
Meeting Date:03/01/2016
Length (in minutes):25 Minutes
Agenda Title:Discussion of City Gas Tax
Prepared For: Marty Wine, City Management Submitted By:Marty Wine,
City
Management
Item Type: Update, Discussion, Direct Staff Meeting Type: Council
Business
Meeting -
Main
Public Hearing: No Publication Date:
Information
ISSUE
At the February 16, 2016 meeting, a non-agenda question was raised: Should Tigard consider
proposing to voters an increase to the city gas tax?
STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST
Discuss whether and when to refer a city gas tax increase to voters.
KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY
Tigard's 3-cent-per-gallon local gas tax was developed by a citizen task force in 2006 as a way
to fund Greenburg Road/Pacific Highway/Main Street intersection improvements. The plan
was to sunset the tax after paying for the project, but a 2009 state law change prevented cities
from changing local gas taxes. This limitation was removed by a change in state law in 2015.
Cities are required to submit any proposed new or increased gas tax for voter approval.
Tigard estimates that the revenue anticipated to be received from the city gas tax is $612,771
for the 2015-16 budget.
The Tigard Transportation Advisory Committee (TTAC) advises the City Council of potential
transportation projects that can be funded by this revenue. Based on TTAC's
recommendation, the city funded two additional transportation projects with city gas tax
funds: Pacific Highway/Gaarde Street/McDonald Street Intersection improvements, and the
72nd Avenue/Dartmouth Street Intersection Improvements.
The question of whether to increase the city gas tax was raised as part of a Council workshop
discussion and no specific proposal was made. The City Council identified questions that
would need to be answered for further discussion. Where answers were available by the time
of agenda publication, some answers are listed below in italics. More information will be
available in response to questions at the March 1 meeting.
What does each one cent per gallon of gas tax raise in revenue? About $200,000.
Should the proposal to voters be 5 cents, 7 cents, 10 cents? This would need to be decided by the
City Council.
Would there be enough time to prepare the ballot title, explanatory statement, adopt it to refer
to voters, develop the reasons for proposing an increase, and a plan to explain the proposal to
the public? It is too late for the Council to consider a proposal for the May 2016 ballot, as the city’s
governing body must file the ballot title or referral text with the city elections official by February 26. If the
Council wished to place the matter on the November, 2016 ballot, Council could deliberate in June and July to
consider a ballot title with a deadline of August 9 to file a ballot title notice.
What are the local gas tax rates in surrounding jurisdictions? Twenty-four cities in Oregon currently
levy local gas taxes ranging from one cent to 5 cents per gallon. Cities and counties in the Metro region with
local gas taxes are Multnomah County (3 cents), Washington County (1 cent), Tigard (3 cents), Cornelius (2
cents), Milwaukee (2 cents), and Troutdale (3 cents).
What are the city needs that an increase in the city gas tax could be used for? The City Council
discussed:
Pay off bonds for transportation projects already using local gas tax (Burnham, Greenburg/Pacific
Highway/Main)
Help fund a sidewalk improvement/pedestrian connection program
Other street projects that may be eligible (Examples included Main Street Phase 2, or others on the CIP
qualified list)
Reduce the street maintenance backlog, or reduce the impact of the proposed increase in street maintenance
fee
If a tax increase was authorized by voters, when would it begin to be collected?
What has been the impact of the Costco gas station on Tigard’s revenue?
Gas tax collections have been declining. What is the reason for the decline, and is it a similar
situation with both the local and state gas tax?
OTHER ALTERNATIVES
Council could choose not to discuss sending a proposal to increase the city gas tax to voters.
COUNCIL GOALS, POLICIES, APPROVED MASTER PLANS
Council Goal: Expand Opportunities to Engage People in the Community - the City
Council's last direction was to seek input on and outreach about the sidewalk connection
program to prepare for a possible May, 2017 ballot measure.
Strategic Plan Goal 4: Fund the vision while maintaining core services.
DATES OF PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
This is the first discussion of a change to the local gas tax since the Council was briefed about
the use of the local gas tax for the 2015-16 Proposed Budget.
Attachments
No file(s) attached.
What are the local gas tax rates in surrounding jurisdictions?
Attached to this memo is a 2015 League of Oregon Cities survey report. As noted in the Agenda
Item Summary, twenty cities and several counties currently levy local gas taxes ranging from one
cent to five cents per gallon. In the Metro region, Multnomah and Clackamas Counties, and
Tigard, Cornelius, Milwaukee, and Troutdale are cities with a local gas tax. Most cities that have
a local gas tax appear to be at $0.03/gallon. Only Eugene is above this at $0.05/gallon.
What are the city needs that such an increase would/could be used for? Council
suggestions included paying off bonds for projects already using gas tax, funding
sidewalk connections, other street projects that may be eligible, or reducing the backlog
for street maintenance, or reduce the impact of the proposed street maintenance fee
increase.
Tigard’s existing transportation bonds (for Burnham Street and Greenburg/Main/Pacific
Highway Intersection) have approximately $3.2 million of principal due to be paid from
FY2017-FY2020. If the Council wanted to review other street projects from the CIP qualified
list, more time would be needed to generate a list of qualified projects. Regarding the Street
Maintenance Fee, please find attached the recent report that Council reviewed. $11 million in
backlog projects have been identified in the next decade to raise the city’s pavement condition
index (PCI) to 80-82. Appendix B, starting on page 12, outlines the first four of ten years of
backlog streets. The SMF increase will be considered by Council on March 15.
If a tax increase was authorized by voters, when would it begin to be collected?
According to ODOT, if an increase was approved by voters in May, then they would start
collections in July. So it appears that collections will start about 2 months after an election.
cc: Toby LaFrance, FIS Director
Brian Rager, Public Works Director
Kenny Asher, Community Development Director
Buff Brown, Senior Transportation Planner
Mike McCarthy, Senior Project Engineer
GAS TAX &
TRANSPORTATION
UTILITY FEE
SURVEY RESULTS
MARCH 2015
Published by the League of
Oregon Cities
LEAGUE OF OREGON CITIES
Gas Tax and Transportation Utility Fee Survey Results Page | 1
Gas Tax and Transportation Utility Fee Survey Results
The League’s gas tax and transportation utility fee (TUF) surveys were conducted in advance of
the 2015 legislative session to be responsive to the Governor’s Transportation Vision Panel
concerning local transportation funding tools. These brief surveys sought specific information to
support the League’s legislative efforts. Surveys were sent to cities which currently have either a
gas tax or TUF; three cities—Canby, Milwaukie and Tigard—have both. Below is a summary of
the results.
Gas Tax Survey Results:
Twenty cities responded to the following three survey questions:
1. What is your rate (cents/gallon)?
2. How much revenue did it generate in FY13-14?
3. For what purpose(s) was the revenue used—construction, repair-maintenance-
preservation, bike-pedestrian, sidewalks?
Among the cities surveyed, the average tax is 3 cents per gallon, with a range of 1-5 cents per
gallon. The average revenue generated by these cities is $390,797, with a range of $36,638 to
$2,868,768.
Table 1 below provides a breakdown of taxing levels, while Table 2 provides the breakdown of
uses. Refer to Appendix 1 for complete results.
Table 1
Tax – cents per
gallon
Number of
Cities
0.01 1
0.02 3
0.03 15
0.05 1
Table 2
Funds used for: Number of
Cities
Construction 15
Repair-maintenance-
preservation 19
Bike-pedestrian 7
Sidewalks 6
Transportation Utility Fee (TUF) Survey Results:
Thirty cities responded to the survey, which consisted of three questions:
1. Briefly describe the methodology by which you charge the TUF (for both residential
and commercial)
2. How much revenue did you generate in FY13-14?
3. For what purpose(s) were these revenues used—construction, repair-maintenance-
preservation, sidewalks, bike-pedestrian, operations, administration, other?
Gas Tax and Transportation Utility Fee Survey Results Page | 2
For the responding cities, the average total revenue raised was $853,370, with a range of $1,900
to $8,121,940.
Below, Table 3 breaks down the methods used for both residential and commercial categories,
while Table 4 breaks down the uses of TUF revenue. Refer to Appendix 2 for complete results.
Table 3
Method Residential Commercial
Flat 20 8
Trip Generation 7 17
Other 3 5
Table 5 below shows the average revenue generated based upon their combined methodologies.
As seen, cities that used the trip generation methodology for both residential and commercial
generated on average the most revenue, while a flat fee methodology for both resulted in the
lowest average.
Table 5
Method—Residential-
Commercial Count Average Revenue
Flat-Flat 8 $240,109
Trip Gen-Trip Gen 7 $1,661,856
Other-Other 3 $741,929
Flat-Trip Gen. 10 $891,960
Flat-Other 2 $703,440
Note – None of the cities used the trip generation methodology for residential (R) and a flat fee for commercial (C).
Table 4
Funds used for:
Number of
Cities
Construction 12
Repair/maintenance/
preservation 28
Sidewalks 8
Bike-pedestrian 7
Operations 12
Administration 9
Other 2
Gas Tax and Transportation Utility Fee Survey Results Page | 3
Appendix 1
Gas Tax Revenue used for:
City Cents/gallon
Revenue
generated in
FY2013-14
Construction Repair/maintenance/
preservation
Bike/
pedestrian Sidewalks
Astoria 0.03 $200,000 Yes Yes No No
Canby 0.03 $231,438 Yes Yes No No
Coburg 0.03 $67,297 Yes Yes Yes No
Coquille 0.03 $93,955 Yes Yes No No
Cottage
Grove 0.03 $353,461 Yes Yes No No
Dundee 0.02 $36,638 Yes Yes Yes Yes
Eugene 0.05 $2,868,768 Yes Yes No No
Hood River 0.03 $275,100 Yes Yes Yes Yes
Milwaukie 0.02 $166,019 No Yes No No
Newport 0.03 $155,462 Yes Yes No Yes
Oakridge 0.03 $47,976 Yes Yes Yes Yes
Sandy 0.02 $259,504 Yes Yes No No
Sisters 0.03 $140,000 No Yes No No
Springfield 0.03 $1,042,494 Yes Yes Yes Yes
The Dalles 0.03 $449,660 Yes Yes No No
Tigard 0.03 $830,000 Yes No No No
Tillamook 0.03 $125,799 No Yes Yes Yes
Veneta 0.03 $94,300 No Yes No No
Warrenton 0.03 $276,314 Yes Yes Yes No
Woodburn 0.01 $101,761 No Yes No No
Ga
s
T
a
x
a
n
d
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
U
t
i
l
i
t
y
F
e
e
S
u
r
v
e
y
R
e
s
u
l
t
s
P
a
g
e
|
4
Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
Ut
i
l
i
t
y
F
e
e
Me
t
h
o
d
o
l
o
g
y
:
Re
v
e
n
u
e
u
s
e
d
f
o
r
:
Ci
t
y
:
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
ge
n
e
r
a
t
e
d
i
n
FY
2
0
1
3
-
1
4
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
Re
p
a
i
r
/
ma
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
/
pr
e
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
Si
d
e
w
a
l
k
s
Bi
k
e
/
pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
Op
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
Administration Other
As
h
l
a
n
d
Fl
a
t
F
e
e
Ot
h
e
r
$1
,
3
5
8
,
3
7
9
Ye
s
Ye
s
Ye
s
Ye
s
Yes Yes No
Ba
y
C
i
t
y
Fl
a
t
F
e
e
O
t
h
e
r
$
4
8
,
5
0
0
No
Y
e
s
N
o
N
o
N
o
N
o
N
o
Br
o
o
k
i
n
g
s
Fl
a
t
F
e
e
F
l
a
t
F
e
e
$
1
8
6
,
0
0
0
No
Y
e
s
N
o
N
o
N
o
N
o
Y
e
s
Ca
n
b
y
Fl
a
t
F
e
e
T
r
i
p
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
$
5
3
8
,
1
0
2
Ye
s
Y
e
s
N
o
N
o
N
o
N
o
N
o
Ce
n
t
r
a
l
P
o
i
n
t
Fl
a
t
F
e
e
T
r
i
p
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
$
4
9
5
,
0
0
0
Ye
s
Y
e
s
Y
e
s
Y
e
s
Y
e
s
N
o
N
o
Co
r
v
a
l
l
i
s
Tr
i
p
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
T
r
i
p
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
$
4
8
2
,
1
6
9
No
Y
e
s
N
o
N
o
N
o
Y
e
s
N
o
Ea
g
l
e
P
o
i
n
t
Fl
a
t
F
e
e
T
r
i
p
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
$
3
0
0
,
0
0
0
No
Y
e
s
N
o
N
o
Y
e
s
Y
e
s
N
o
Fl
o
r
e
n
c
e
Fl
a
t
F
e
e
F
l
a
t
F
e
e
$
2
8
7
,
8
0
0
Ye
s
Y
e
s
N
o
N
o
N
o
N
o
N
o
Gr
a
n
t
s
P
a
s
s
Tr
i
p
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
T
r
i
p
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
$
8
9
9
,
9
7
9
Ye
s
Y
e
s
N
o
N
o
Y
e
s
N
o
N
o
Hi
l
l
s
b
o
r
o
Tr
i
p
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
T
r
i
p
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
$
1
,
7
4
8
,
2
8
1
No
Y
e
s
N
o
Y
e
s
Y
e
s
N
o
N
o
Hu
b
b
a
r
d
Fl
a
t
F
e
e
F
l
a
t
F
e
e
$
6
8
,
6
6
0
No
Y
e
s
N
o
N
o
N
o
N
o
N
o
La
G
r
a
n
d
e
Fl
a
t
F
e
e
F
l
a
t
F
e
e
$
4
0
0
,
0
0
0
Ye
s
N
o
N
o
N
o
N
o
N
o
N
o
La
k
e
O
s
w
e
g
o
Fl
a
t
F
e
e
T
r
i
p
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
$
2
,
4
0
0
,
0
0
0
Ye
s
Y
e
s
N
o
N
o
Y
e
s
Y
e
s
N
o
Me
d
f
o
r
d
Tr
i
p
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
T
r
i
p
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
$
8
,
1
2
1
,
9
4
0
No
Y
e
s
N
o
N
o
Y
e
s
Y
e
s
N
o
Mi
l
w
a
u
k
i
e
Fl
a
t
F
e
e
T
r
i
p
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
$
6
1
8
,
9
4
3
No
Y
e
s
N
o
N
o
N
o
N
o
N
o
My
r
t
l
e
C
r
e
e
k
Fl
a
t
F
e
e
F
l
a
t
F
e
e
$
4
,
0
0
0
No
Y
e
s
N
o
N
o
Y
e
s
N
o
N
o
No
r
t
h
P
l
a
i
n
s
Tr
i
p
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
T
r
i
p
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
$
2
5
,
5
3
8
Ye
s
Y
e
s
Y
e
s
Y
e
s
Y
e
s
Y
e
s
N
o
Or
e
g
o
n
C
i
t
y
Fl
a
t
F
e
e
T
r
i
p
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
$
2
,
0
3
3
,
7
9
0
No
Y
e
s
N
o
N
o
N
o
N
o
N
o
Ph
i
l
o
m
a
t
h
Fl
a
t
F
e
e
T
r
i
p
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
$
5
2
,
6
0
0
No
Y
e
s
N
o
N
o
Y
e
s
Y
e
s
N
o
Ph
o
e
n
i
x
Tr
i
p
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
T
r
i
p
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
$
1
4
3
,
8
8
3
Ye
s
Y
e
s
N
o
N
o
Y
e
s
Y
e
s
N
o
Sh
e
r
w
o
o
d
Ot
h
e
r
O
t
h
e
r
$
2
7
7
,
6
0
3
No
Y
e
s
N
o
N
o
N
o
N
o
N
o
Si
l
v
e
r
t
o
n
Fl
a
t
F
e
e
F
l
a
t
F
e
e
$
2
1
0
,
5
6
4
Ye
s
Y
e
s
N
o
N
o
N
o
N
o
N
o
St
a
y
t
o
n
Fl
a
t
F
e
e
F
l
a
t
F
e
e
$
8
4
,
0
0
0
No
Y
e
s
N
o
N
o
N
o
N
o
N
o
Ta
l
e
n
t
Fl
a
t
F
e
e
T
r
i
p
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
$
1
5
5
,
3
8
4
Ye
s
Y
e
s
Y
e
s
Y
e
s
Y
e
s
Y
e
s
N
o
Ti
g
a
r
d
Ot
h
e
r
O
t
h
e
r
$
1
,
9
4
6
,
2
8
4
No
Y
e
s
N
o
N
o
N
o
N
o
N
o
To
l
e
d
o
Ot
h
e
r
O
t
h
e
r
$
1
,
9
0
0
No
N
o
Y
e
s
Y
e
s
N
o
N
o
N
o
Tu
a
l
a
t
i
n
Fl
a
t
F
e
e
T
r
i
p
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
$
9
7
5
,
0
0
0
No
Y
e
s
Y
e
s
N
o
N
o
N
o
N
o
We
s
t
L
i
n
n
Fl
a
t
F
e
e
T
r
i
p
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
$
1
,
3
5
0
,
7
8
3
Ye
s
Y
e
s
Y
e
s
Y
e
s
N
o
N
o
N
o
Wi
l
s
o
n
v
i
l
l
e
Fl
a
t
F
e
e
F
l
a
t
F
e
e
$
6
7
9
,
8
4
6
No
Y
e
s
N
o
N
o
N
o
N
o
Y
e
s
Wo
o
d
V
i
l
l
a
g
e
Tr
i
p
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
T
r
i
p
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
$
2
1
1
,
1
9
9
No
Y
e
s
Y
e
s
N
o
N
o
N
o
N
o
1 | P a g e
Street Maintenance Fee Update – Draft
For Council Hearing February 9, 2016
1 BACKGROUND
1.1 PURPOSE OF THE STREET MAINTENANCE FEE
The Street Maintenance Fee (SMF) is a charge that is paid by Tigard residents and businesses on their
monthly utility bill. The fee is used primarily to fund routine maintenance of Tigard’s roads through the
Pavement Management Program (PMP). In addition to the PMP, the SMF pays for $100,000 of right-of-way
(ROW) maintenance. The ROW maintenance keeps plantings and grounds around and in the medians of
larger roads in good condition. Lastly, about seven percent of the fee is used to help pay for the cost of
billing the fee.
1.2 PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT
The SMF was last calculated in 2009 based on the 2010 PMP, once fully implemented, the fee has been
increased by an annual index. In the presentation of the 2014 Paving Report, staff pointed out the growing
backlog of streets in poor condition and the need for additional funding to address the backlog. In addition,
during Council meetings on the PMP contract awards for 2014 and 2015, as well as a workshop in November
2013, Council discussed the ambiguity in the Tigard Municipal Code (TMC) in regards to using the SMF
revenues to pay for ADA required curb cuts when doing PMP projects. These issues lead to Council and
staff have holding meetings in January and March of 2015 to discuss policy issues around the PMP and the
SMF as well as the results of public outreach regarding the fee. At the last meeting on March 17, 2015,
Council provided staff with key policy directions that permitted staff to recalculate the SMF.
The purpose of this report is to document Council policy directions and show how they will impact the Street
Maintenance Fee.
2 POLICY SUMMARY
During the Council Study Sessions in January and March 2015, Council provided policy direction on key
aspects of the Street Maintenance Fee. This policy direction was aided by outreach to the community
through surveys and meetings. The results of the community outreach were presented in a Study Session on
January 27, 2015. Some of the key results of the outreach include:
Both residential and commercial survey results clearly show a belief that residential customers should
not pay a greater share than they currently pay. Respondents to the business survey overwhelmingly
(over 70%) think that the current split is correct. Respondents to the residential survey feel almost as
strongly (over 60%) that commercial customers should pay a larger share.
Over 70% of those residential customers and over 50% of the business customers who responded to
the survey felt that businesses should pay for some of the ROW maintenance. Of the respondents
who favor businesses paying for some of the ROW maintenance, slightly more than half responded
that businesses should pay for ROW maintenance on commercial streets only.
2 | P a g e
Respondents to the business survey did not have a clear preference on the subject of the cap;
however, there is a small majority that is in favor of increasing the cap.
The Table 1 summarizes the key decisions from the Study Sessions in January and March 2015.
3 | P a g e
TABLE 1 – SUMMARY OF POLICY DIRECTION
Policy Area Issue Council Direction Action/Impact
Pavement
Condition Index
(PCI) goal of the
PMP
The current PCI goal of the
PMP is 72-75 per Res# 10-01.
The current PCI of Tigard’s
system is 70.5 per the 2014
Annual Paving Report.
Increase the goal
PCI to be 80-82.
This is where street
maintenance costs
are considered to be
least expensive,
once the level is
achieved.
Tigard has a backlog of streets that are
in poor condition and are in need of an
overlay. The cost to fix these streets is
about $11 million. Council directed
staff to add these streets on top of the
existing program.
ADA Sidewalk
Cuts
The ADA requires that
sidewalk corner cuts be installed
to ADA standards when work
is performed on the road
adjacent to the sidewalk. TMC
is ambiguous regarding the use
of SMF for sidewalks.
Council directed
that TMC be
clarified to allow the
use of SMF dollars
for work related to
paving, including
sidewalk corner cuts
required by federal
law.
TMC will be amended. The cost of the
PMP will include this additional
requirement.
Split of Program
Costs between
Residential and
Non-Residential
Customers
TMC splits the cost of the
program based on work done
on road types. For example,
Arterial roads are paid 38%
Residential and 62% Non-
Residential. When the last
update was performed, the
planned work resulted in a 2/3rd
Residential and 1/3rd Non-
Residential split.
Council directed
that the splits in
TMC remain
unchanged.
The upcoming workplan will require a
larger proportion of work on Arterials
and local Commercial streets than the
prior workplan. Non-Residential
customers pay the majority of the costs
for these road types. The impact of
maintaining the splits in TMC will be
an increase in the share of the program
costs for Non-Residential customers
and a larger fee increase than
Residential customers will bear.
Right of Way
Maintenance
The current SMF pays for
$100,000 of ROW maintenance
annually. This cost is entirely
borne by Residential customers.
Since the last program was
calculated, Council has agreed
to maintain ROW in
commercial areas around Pacific
Hwy and Main Street. No
funding source has been
identified for this requirement.
Council directed
that $50,000 be
added annually to
the ROW
maintenance. This
additional cost will
be paid by Non-
Residential
customers.
This will have no impact on Residential
customers. Non-Residential customers
will see a modest increase in their SMF.
Cap on Non-
Residential SMF
The current TMC caps the
charge on Non-Residential
customers to 250 required
parking spaces.
Council directed
that the cap be
removed and that
the additional spaces
charged create
additional revenue,
not a lower fee.
The TMC will need to be amended to
remove the cap on required parking
spaces charged. Since the removal of
the cap is intended to create additional
revenue, the Non-Residential fee will
be calculated as if the cap is in place.
Index The SMF is indexed and can
increase by 2-7% per year.
Council agreed to
continue to index
the fee.
No action is needed. Staff
recommends applying the index to the
ROW program as well as the PMP.
4 | P a g e
3 FEE CALCULATION
3.1 EXISTING PROGRAM
Tigard’s streets that are maintained by the Pavement Management Program are divided into four categories.
The cost of maintaining each category is divided between Residential and Non-Residential Customers by
TMC 15.20.050. The allocation is as follows in Table 2
TABLE 2 – DETERMINATION OF STREET MAINTENANCE FEE
Street Type Residential Share Non-Residential Share
Arterial 38% 62%
Collector 50% 50%
Local Commercial 0% 100%
Local Residential 100% 0%
Staff has assembled the next four years of the PMP for 2016-2019. The list of projects at the existing
program level is in Appendix A of this report. The Capital Improvement Program (CIP) adopted by Council
as part of the FY2016 Budget includes $8,100,000 of PMP projects for 2016-2019. The list of projects in
Appendix A is consistent with the adopted CIP with $8,068,000 in projects for the same four year period.
When the fee was last calculated, the largest category of street work was in the Local Residential. This was
largely responsible for the overall program resulting in Residential customers paying for 67% of the PMP
through the fees. The projects in Appendix A reflect the need to work on Tigard’s arterial roads. The result
is that the Non-Residential customers will take on a larger share of the program, approximately 42%. Table 3
shows the share of the program by road type and the resulting customer shares for the program calculated in
2010 and the new program starting in 2016. The shift from Local Residential streets to Arterial roads is in
bold.
TABLE 3 – COMPARISON OF COST SHARES FOR 2010 AND 2016 FEE CALCULATIONS
Road Type 2010 - % of Cost 2016 – % of Cost
Arterial 27% 44%
Collector 24% 23%
Local Commercial 6% 5%
Local Residential 43% 28%
Residential Share 67% 58%
Non-Residential
Share
33% 42%
Under the current program, the SMF pays for two other cost centers. First, the fee pays for $100,000 in
ROW maintenance. Second, the fee pays the proportionate share for the cost of billing, which can vary
slightly by year and is about 7% of the cost of the program. Table 4 displays each of the costs centers in the
current program supported by the SMF. Each of the cost centers are allocated to the customer types to
determine the cost share for each customer category. Those costs are then divided by the number of units in
each category: residences for Residential customers and required parking for Non-Residential customers.
5 | P a g e
This is done to derive the Street Maintenance Fee that would be calculated without any change in policy or
program.
TABLE 4 – SMF CALCULATION FOR CURRENT PROGRAM SERVICE LEVEL
Cost Center 4-year Cost % $ % $
Arterial 3,512,000 38% 1,334,600 62% 2,177,400
Collector 1,863,000 50% 931,500 50% 931,500
Commercial 424,000 0% - 100% 424,000
Residential 2,269,000 100% 2,269,000 0% -
Current Residential
ROW Maintenance
431,100 100% 431,100 0% -
Billing (7%) 564,800 58% 330,000 42% 234,800
Total 9,063,900 58% 5,296,200 42% 3,767,700
Annual Average 1,324,050 941,925
Units Residences 20,813 Required
Parking
39,723
Fee For Current
Pavement Program
$5.30 $1.98
The current Street Maintenance Fee is $6.39 per month per residential unit for residential customers and
$1.44 per month per required parking space for non-residential customers. While the cost of the 4-year
program is the same as anticipated under the current fee, the redistribution of the projects needed in the next
four years from residential streets to arterial roads results in a decrease of $0.82 in the residential SMF and an
increase of $0.60 for non-residential SMF.
3.2 PAVING BACKLOG
As stated in Table 1, Council is setting a goal for the PMP to bring the city’s PCI up to 80-82. This will be
accomplished by addressing a backlog of streets in need of repair that the current funding level supported by
the SMF cannot address. The plan is to address the approximately $11 million in backlog projects over the
next ten years. Appendix B has the list of all the PMP projects that would be completed as part of the
current service level plus the backlog projects. In Appendix B, the added backlog projects are highlighted.
Table 5 shows the cost of the backlog projects only when allocated to the street classifications. The resulting
SMF calculation is the amount that would need to be added to the fee for the current program calculated in
Table 4.
6 | P a g e
TABLE 5 – SMF CALCULATION FOR BACKLOG PROJECTS ONLY
Cost Center 4-year Cost % $ % $
Arterial - 38% - 62% -
Collector 203,000 50% 101,500 50% 101,500
Commercial 1,074,000 0% - 100% 1,074,000
Residential 2,254,000 100% 2,254,000 0% -
Billing (7%) 247,100 67% 164,800 33% 82,300
Total 3,778,100 67% 2,520,300 33% 1,257,800
Annual Average 630,075 314,450
Units Residences 20,813 Required
Parking
39,723
Fee For Additional
Backlog Projects
$2.52 $0.66
As shown in Table 5, the majority of the backlog streets are local streets for commercial and residential areas.
The result is that the share of the costs is 67% paid by residential customers and 33% paid by non-residential
customers. The fees calculated at the end of Table 5 will be in addition to the fees for the current program
level calculated in Table 4.
3.3 ADDITIONAL RIGHT OF WAY MAINTENANCE IN COMMERCIAL AREAS
As stated in Table 1, Council has directed that the ROW maintenance program be expanded. Currently, the
ROW maintenance program is $100,000 annually and is paid entirely by residential customers. Since the
program was implemented in 2010, Tigard has placed an emphasis on beautifying roadways in commercial
areas. This beautification includes requiring ODOT to place planted medians in Pacific Hwy and
improvements along Main Street in Downtown Tigard. At this point, Council is recommending expanding
the ROW maintenance program by $50,000 annually to be paid by non-residential customers. Residential
customers will continue to pay for the current $100,000 annually. Table 6 displays the impact of the
additional ROW maintenance on the calculation of the SMF. Under the new program, it is anticipated that
the ROW maintenance will increase annually by the index with the other cost centers.
TABLE 6 – SMF CALCULATION FOR ADDITIONAL COMMERCIAL STREET RIGHT-OF-
WAY MAINTENANCE ONLY
Cost Center 4-year Cost % $ % $
Proposed Commercial 215,500 0% - 100% 215,500
Billing (7%) 15,200 0% - 100% 15,200
Total 230,700 0% - 100% 230,700
Annual Average - 57,675
Units Residences 20,813.00 Required
Parking
39,723.00
Fee For Additional
ROW Maintenance
$0.00 $0.12
7 | P a g e
4 SUMMARY OF STREET MAINTENANCE FEE CALCULATION
The prior section calculated the impact of on the Street Maintenance Fee for various components: current
program level, adding backlog projects, and adding right-of-way maintenance in commercial areas. During
the study sessions in January and March, staff informed Council that it was likely that the cost share for the
current program level would likely shift toward the non-residential rate payers based upon the list of
upcoming needed projects, but the extent of the shift was unknown at the time of the study sessions. Staff
advised Council that addressing the backlog of streets to bring the PCI up to the goal area of 80-82 will add
about 50% to the overall program costs and the fee calculation. Lastly, staff stated that the ROW
maintenance would create a modest increase in the fee paid by non-residential customers.
TABLE 7 – SUMMARY OF SMF CALCULATION AND COMPARISON OF NEW FEE
CALCULATION TO CURRENT FEE BASED ON 2010 PMP
Components of SMF Residential Non-Residential
Current
2016 Fee
Current
2016 Fee
Current SMF From
2010 PMP Incl.
Current ROW Maint.
paid by Res.
$6.39 Per month per
household
$1.44 Per month per required
parking space (as a
proxy for trips generated
by the business)
Proposed Fees Based on 2016-2019 PMP and Policy Changes
New Fee $ Change
to Current
% Change
to Current
New Fee $ Change
to Current
% Change
to Current
Current Pavement
Program Level
$5.30 -$1.09 -17% $1.98 $0.54 38%
Adding Backlog
Pavement Projects
$2.52 $2.52 39% $0.66 $0.66 46%
Proposed Commercial
ROW Maintenance
NA* $0.00* 0% $0.12 $0.12 8%
Total Proposed Street
Maintenance Fee
$7.82 $1.43 22% $2.76 $1.32 92%
* The Current SMF includes funding $100K annually for Right of Way Maintenance paid by Residential Customers. It is part of the current $6.39 fee
paid monthly by residential customers.
Based upon Council policy direction and the work of the PMP shifting from residential streets to arterial
roads, the SMF will increase by 22% for residential customers and 92% for non-residential customers.
8 | P a g e
5 APPENDIX A – PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM AT CURRENT SERVICE
LEVEL
2016 Paving and Maintenance Plan
Pavement overlays unless stated otherwise
Street From To Classification Cost
Total
Cost
% of
Total
Upper Boones
Ferry 72nd Ave I-5 Interchange Arterial $187,000
72nd Ave City Limits Durham Rd Arterial $124,000
72nd Ave Hwy 99W 500' South Arterial $40,000
Bonita Rd 76th Ave Hall Blvd Arterial $293,000
Walnut St 116th 122nd Arterial $183,000
Gaarde St
Greenfield
Dr Walnut St Arterial $115,000
Crack Sealing/Maintenance $50,000
Arterial Total $992,000 54.5%
Dartmouth St Atlanta St Hwy 99W Collector $49,000
121st Ave Tippitt Ann Collector $133,000
78th Ave Hwy 99W Pfaffle Collector $40,000
Crack Sealing/Maintenance $30,000
Collector Total $252,000 13.9%
Crack Sealing/Maintenance $15,000
Commercial Local $15,000 0.8%
Slurry Seals on Residential
Streets $360,000
Crack Seals on residential streets $200,000
Residential Total $560,000 30.8%
2016 Total $1,819,000
9 | P a g e
2017 Paving and Maintenance Plan
Pavement overlays unless stated otherwise
Street From To Classification Cost
Total
Cost
% of
Total
Greenburg Rd Hwy 217 Center St Arterial $686,000
Durham Rd Hall Blvd Summerfield Dr Arterial $580,000
Crack Sealing/Maintenance $50,000
Arterial Total $1,316,000 67%
Tiedeman Ave
Greenburg
Rd RR Tracks Collector $54,000
Crack Sealing/Maintenance $30,000
Collector Total $84,000 4%
Crack Sealing/Maintenance $15,000
Commercial Local Total $15,000 1%
Slurry Seals on Residential
Streets $400,000
Crack Seals on residential streets $150,000
Residential Total $550,000 28%
2017 Total $1,965,000
10 | P a g e
2018 Paving and Maintenance Plan
Pavement overlays unless stated otherwise
Street From To Classification Cost
Total
Cost
% of
Total
72nd Ave Fir Beveland Arterial $160,000
Gaarde 110th 123rd Terr Arterial $441,000
72nd Ave Baylor 500' South of 99W Arterial $111,000
72nd Ave Durham Rd
Upper Boones Ferry
Rd Arterial $150,000
Crack Sealing/Maintenance $40,000
Arterial Total $902,000 43%
121st Ave Ann Springwood Collector $274,000
121st Ave Gaarde St Whistlers Lp (North) Collector $96,000
Hunziker St 72nd 100' West Collector $64,000
Tiedeman Ave Walnut St Meadow St Collector $157,000
Crack Sealing/Maintenance $25,000
Collector Total $616,000 30%
Crack Sealing/Maintenance $15,000
Commercial Local Total $15,000 1%
Slurry Seals on Residential
Streets $400,000
Crack Seals on residential streets $150,000
Residential Total $550,000 26%
2018 Total $2,083,000
11 | P a g e
2019 Paving and Maintenance Plan
Pavement overlays unless stated otherwise
Street From To Classification Cost
Total
Cost
% of
Total
Gaarde St 123rd Terr Greenfield Dr Arterial $262,000
Crack Sealing/Maintenance $40,000
Arterial Total $302,000 14%
135th Ave Walnut St Scholls Ferry Rd Collector $375,000
68th Pkwy Haines St Hwy 99W Collector $207,000
Locust St Greenburg Hall Collector $304,000
Crack Sealing/Maintenance $25,000
Collector Total $911,000 41%
Tigard St Main St Tiedeman Ave Commercial $260,000
Royalty Pkwy Hwy 99W Naeve St Commercial $104,000
Crack Sealing/Maintenance $15,000
Commercial Total $379,000 17%
North Dakota St 121st Ave 115th Ave Residential $109,000
Slurry Seals on Residential
Streets $350,000
Crack Seals on residential streets $150,000
Residential Total $609,000 28%
2019 Total $2,201,000
12 | P a g e
6 APPENDIX B – PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM WITH BACKLOG
PROJECTS ADDED
Backlog projects are highlighted in Green.
2016 Paving and Maintenance Plan
Pavement overlays unless stated otherwise
Street From To Class Cost
Total
Cost
% of
Total
Upper Boones
Ferry 72nd Ave I-5 Interchange Arterial $187,000
72nd Ave City Limits Durham Rd Arterial $124,000
72nd Ave Hwy 99W 500' South Arterial $40,000
Bonita Rd 76th Ave Hall Blvd Arterial $293,000
Walnut St 116th 122nd Arterial $183,000
Gaarde St Greenfield Dr Walnut St Arterial $115,000
Crack Sealing/Maintenance $50,000
Arterial Total $992,000 37.0%
Dartmouth St Atlanta St Hwy 99W Collector $49,000
121st Ave Tippitt Ann Collector $133,000
78th Ave Hwy 99W Pfaffle Collector $40,000
Oak St Hall Blvd 90th Ave Collector $85,000
Crack Sealing/Maintenance $30,000
Collector Total $337,000 12.6%
Hampton St 72nd Ave 66th Ave Commercial $140,000
Sandburg St 72nd Ave End of Street Commercial $155,000
Garden Place Hwy 99W Hall Blvd (inc CDS) Commercial $160,000
Cardinal Ln Sequoia Pwy End of Street Commercial $30,000
Crack Sealing/Maintenance $15,000
Commercial Local $500,000 18.6%
Canterbury Ln 103rd Ave Hwy 99W Residential $253,000
79th Ave Leiser Ln Bonita Rd Residential $40,000
Slurry Seals on Residential Streets $360,000
Crack Seals on residential streets $200,000
Residential Total $853,000 31.8%
2016 Total $2,682,000
13 | P a g e
2017 Paving and Maintenance Plan
Pavement overlays unless stated otherwise
Street From To Class Cost Total
% of
Total
Greenburg Rd Hwy 217 Center St Arterial $686,000
Durham Rd Hall Blvd Summerfield Dr Arterial $580,000
Crack Sealing/Maintenance $50,000
Arterial Total $1,316,000 45%
Tiedeman Ave Greenburg Rd RR Tracks Collector $54,000
Scoffins St Main St Ash Ave Collector $87,000
Ash Ave
Commercial
St Scoffins St Collector $31,000
Crack Sealing/Maintenance $30,000
Collector Total $202,000 7%
74th Ave Durham Rd
1,200' South of
Bonita Commercial $219,000
Landmark Ln 72nd Ave End of Road Commercial $74,000
Crack Sealing/Maintenance $15,000
Commercial Local Total $308,000 10%
130th Ave Hawksbeard Scholls Ferry Residential $74,000
Alderbrook Dr Durham Rd Oakhill Ln Residential $49,000
Summerfield Dr Durham Rd 114th Ct Residential $105,000
Oak St 69th Ave 71st Ave Residential $62,000
71st Ave Oak St (W) Oak St (E) Residential $10,000
Fanno Creek Dr Bonita Rd Fanno Creek Pl Residential $104,000
Summercrest Dr Tigard Dr 121st Ave Residential $35,000
Kable St 98th Ave 100th Ave Residential $47,000
109th Ave Highland Dr Naeve St Residential $30,000
96th Ave Sattler St Murdock St Residential $56,000
Slurry Seals on Residential Streets $400,000
Crack Seals on residential streets $150,000
Residential Total $1,122,000 38%
2017 Total $2,948,000
14 | P a g e
2018 Paving and Maintenance Plan
Pavement overlays unless stated otherwise
Street From To Class Cost
Total
Cost
% of
Total
72nd Ave Fir Beveland Arterial $160,000
Gaarde 110th 123rd Terr Arterial $441,000
72nd Ave Baylor 500' South of 99W Arterial $111,000
72nd Ave Durham Rd
Upper Boones Ferry
Rd Arterial $150,000
Crack Sealing/Maintenance $40,000
Arterial Total $902,000 33%
121st Ave Ann Springwood Collector $274,000
121st Ave Gaarde St Whistlers Lp (North) Collector $96,000
Hunziker St 72nd 100' West Collector $64,000
Tiedeman Ave Walnut St Meadow St Collector $157,000
Crack Sealing/Maintenance $25,000
Collector Total $616,000 22%
Milton Ct Bonita End of Street $126,000
Crack Sealing/Maintenance $15,000
Commercial Local Total $141,000 5%
Fonner St 115th Walnut Residential $239,000
74th Ave Barbara Ln Taylor's Ferry Rd Residential $175,000
Grant Ave End of Street Walnut Residential $30,000
Grant Ave Park St End Residential $50,000
Commercial St Lincoln 95th Residential $29,000
107th Ct Pathfinder Ct Fonner St Residential $13,000
Slurry Seals on Residential Streets $400,000
Crack Seals on residential streets $150,000
Residential Total $1,086,000 40%
2018 Total $2,745,000
15 | P a g e
2019 Paving and Maintenance Plan
Pavement overlays unless stated otherwise
Street From To Class Cost
Total
Cost
% of
Total
Gaarde St 123rd Terr Greenfield Dr Arterial $262,000
Crack Sealing/Maintenance $40,000
Arterial Total $302,000 9%
135th Ave Walnut St Scholls Ferry Rd Collector $375,000
68th Pkwy Haines St Hwy 99W Collector $207,000
Locust St Greenburg Hall Collector $304,000
Crack Sealing/Maintenance $25,000
Collector Total $911,000 28%
Tigard St Main St Tiedeman Ave Commercial $260,000
Royalty Pkwy Hwy 99W Naeve St Commercial $104,000
Atlanta St 69th Ave 68th Pkwy Commercial $33,000
69th Ave Atlanta St Baylor St Commercial $26,000
Lincoln St Locust St End of Street Commercial $38,000
71st Ave Hwy 99W Spruce St Commercial $43,000
Kable Ln 72nd Ave End of Street Commercial $30,000
Crack Sealing/Maintenance $15,000
Commercial Total $549,000 17%
North Dakota St 121st Ave 115th Ave Residential $109,000
North Dakota St Tiedeman 114th Residential $287,000
Greenfield Dr Gaarde Benchview Residential $80,000
Benchview Terr Greenfield Clearview Residential $11,000
Royalty Pkwy Naeve 400' S of Murdock Residential $119,000
Johnson St Hwy 99W Grant Ave Residential $51,000
Grant Ave Johnson St Tigard St Residential $88,000
115th Ave Tigard St North Dakota St Residential $64,000
115th Ave
North Dakota
St Cottonwood Residential $119,000
71st Ave Spruce Pine Residential $34,000
Slurry Seals on Residential Streets $350,000
Crack Seals on residential streets $150,000
Residential Total $1,462,000 45%
2019 Total $3,224,000