Meeting Notes
PDC/City Council Budget
Work Group Meeting: Phase II

Rose Room – City Hall
2:00 p.m. – 3:30 p.m.
Tuesday, May 22, 2007

Attendance: PDC Commissioner Charles Wilhoite (Co-Chair); City Commissioner Erik Sten (Co-Chair); County Commissioner Jeff Cogen; City Commissioner Dan Saltzman; Planning Commissioner Don Hanson; and Jon Kruse.

Project Staff: Bob Alexander, PDC; Bob Durston, PDC; Keith Witcosky, PDC; Bruce Warner, PDC.

Guests: Harvey Rogers, Preston Gates Ellis; Ken Rust - CFO, City of Portland; Joe Zehnder, Bureau of Planning.

1) Welcome and Introduction of New Members

Co-Chair Wilhoite noted that the original PDC/City Council Budget Work Group was expanded to include County Commissioner Jeff Cogen and Planning Commissioner Don Hanson because the Work Group’s current assignment was to consider the possible expansion of the River District Urban Renewal Area (River District) and the extension of Downtown Waterfront (DTWF) URA and South Park Blocks (SPB) URA from 2008 to 2010, and these decisions will have implications for other taxing jurisdictions and the City’s emerging Central City Planning effort.

2) Opening Remarks

PDC Executive Director Bruce Warner reviewed the Work Group’s assignment as outlined in his letter to the group dated May 14, 2007. The Work Group has been asked to consider the 2004 Central City URA Study that recommended the expansion of the River District by as much as 61 acres to facilitate funding of Old Town/Chinatown projects which are currently located within the DTWF URA.

Warner noted that the urban renewal tools will be significantly diminished with the expiration of the DTWF and SPB URAs. The community needs to be strategic in meeting the remaining challenges of the Central City. To that end, the Work Group will begin by focusing its attention on the 2004 recommendations and take a broader look by coordinating its work with the Bureau of Planning’s Central City update process.

Over the coming months, the Work Group will receive briefings on legal and financial considerations (May 22, 2007 meeting) and an overview of the downtown URAs (June 26, 2007 meeting). The Work Group will then host a number of panel discussions with key stakeholders representing downtown and citywide interests. Specific options will be evaluated and considered from October through the end of the year. The goal will be for the Work Group to make its recommendations to the Portland Development Commission, Planning Commission and City Council by January or February of 2008.

Wilhoite noted that the Work Group has evolved from a budget review group to a strategic advisor to the City Council and the two commissions with respect to downtown development opportunities and challenges.

Sten agreed and noted that the collaborative approach to the budget process was very productive. The expanded Work Group now has the opportunity to focus on the future with a concentration on the 2-3 year horizon while setting the stage for the emerging Central City planning effort. Specifically, the Work Group should strive to identify those projects for which a clear community consensus exists. In today’s market, any delay on those projects will only add costs. Other more long-term endeavors should be evaluated for integration with the Central City Plan and associated community processes.

Shelley Lorenzen, representing the League of Women Voters, noted that the League opposed the extension of the SPB and DTWF URAs but supported efforts to address needs in Old Town Chinatown by including portions of it into River District. The clock is running on the River District and the needs of Old Town/Chinatown should be a priority over “gilding the lily” in the River District.

3) Central City Plan Update Relationship to River District Expansion—Joe Zehnder

Joe Zehnder, representing the Portland Planning Bureau, described the relationship between the Work Group’s assignment and the City’s effort to update the Central City Plan which will guide the next 20-30 years of the City’s evolution.

The Central City planning process is underway and the Planning Bureau anticipates completion of a final draft plan by December 2008. The effort will create a new development plan for downtown. The recommendations will probably identify: a) possible new downtown urban renewal areas; b) new development tools; and c) new public-private partnership opportunities. (Sub-district planning will follow this effort, concluding in December, 2009.)

Linking the Work Group’s efforts with the larger planning process will create a bridge between the two sets of recommendations, and help ensure that work on high priority projects need not be delayed for the planning process. Zehnder also suggested that the Planning Bureau would like to use the Work Group as a sounding board for Central City Plan recommendations as they emerge.

4) Financial and Technical Presentation and Discussion—Harvey Rogers and Ken Rust

City’s Chief Administrative Officer Ken Rust and bond counsel Harvey Rogers gave an overview of the legal and fiscal implications of the Work Group’s assignment.

Rust noted that we are fast approaching a time (with the impending expirations of SPB and DTWF URAs) when the tools of urban renewal will not be available to large sections of downtown.

The pieces of the puzzle that will require careful consideration by the Work Group are: 1) expiration dates; 2) priority projects; and 3) recognition that moving property from one URA to another is a “zero sum game.”

Kruse asked if there were limits on the duration of a district. Rogers responded that there are no statutory limits. Rust added that extending the life of a district, however, does have an impact on taxing jurisdictions and restricts overall urban renewal options.

Rogers was asked whether additions to a URA needed to be contiguous to the existing boundary. There is no explicit statutory restriction on an urban renewal boundary, but the legislative framework for the state’s urban renewal statute suggests that boundaries somehow “relate” to the overall purpose for the creation of the district. He also outlined the significant legal implications of overstepping the legislative framework.

Cogen asked why we are focused exclusively on Old Town/Chinatown for possible inclusion in the River District. Sten noted that the focus was based on a PDC Report that was tied to the 2004 decision to extend the DTWF URA to April 2008. The goal should be to identify those priority projects for which a general consensus exists. They should be undertaken as soon as possible because they will only become more expensive if delayed. Other potential projects, however, should be flagged for possible integration into the Central City Plan and implementation strategy. Lorenzen generally agreed with this approach and noted that the League of Women Voters was generally opposed to the extension of any of the existing URAs, and to increasing maximum indebtedness in the River District. Rust suggested that the Work Group balance the relative value of current high-priority projects against the out-year costs to taxing jurisdictions.

Rogers reviewed the legal implications of the Work Group’s deliberations. He suggested that the Work Group take a “sustainable” perspective to its task and proceed with the understanding that urban renewal resources are a finite resource and any decision should be made after carefully weighing the trade-offs. When moving URA boundaries, the group needs to be cognizant of the applicable rules and focus on priority projects. Make sure that everything that can be done within Old Town/Chinatown under the constraints of DTWF URA is done before contemplating a move to the River District.

5) Questions and Next Steps

Warner noted that the next meeting would include an in-depth overview of the three downtown URAs. Wilhoite requested that staff highlight time-sensitive projects that may need, or significantly benefit from, immediate attention.

Wilhoite suggested that the Work Group use the next couple of meetings to articulate its criteria for making recommendations. If the Work Group makes recommendations to move parts of Old Town/Chinatown into the River District, the Work Group should articulate why the move is necessary and why the move needs to occur before the completion of the Central City Plan update.

Sten suggested that the Work Group look for those projects that have a community consensus to move quickly. Saltzman agreed and noted that the Work Group did not have to recommend disposition of all 61 acres of the maximum acreage that could be added to River District. He also noted that not all 61 acres needed to be from Old Town/Chinatown. Sten agreed stating, “Let’s look at short-term opportunities versus those that are 5-10 year priorities.”

Next Meeting: Tuesday, June 26, 2007, 2:00-3:30 pm, Council Chambers, City Hall

for PDC's News & Information E-Mail Lists
Archive of sent E-Mails
Unsubscribe from our E-Mail Lists