Meeting Notes
Urban Renewal Advisory Group

Rose Room – City Hall
2:00 p.m. – 3:30 p.m.
Tuesday, June 26, 2007

Advisory Committee in Attendance: PDC Commissioner Charles Wilhoite (Co-Chair); PDC Commissioner Mark Rosenbaum; City Commissioner Erik Sten (Co-Chair); City Commissioner Dan Saltzman; County Commissioner Jeff Cogen; Planning Commissioner Don Hanson; and Jon Kruse.  Committee Members Absent: None.

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

Presenters: Peter Englander, Lewis Bowers, Kathryn Krygier, Steven Shain, Erin Flynn.

Public Attendees:  Jerald M Powell, Lisa Hamel, Lynne Coward, Debbie Aiona, Patricia Gardner, Jan Oliver, Joe Zehnder, Karen Whitman, Barry Manning,  Ken Rust, Terri Warpinski, Patrick Gortmaker.

1) Welcome - Charles Wilhoite/Erik Sten

Wilhoite clarified the name and purpose of the Advisory Group and recapped the last meeting. The name has been changed to distinguish it from its former responsibilities for the FY 07-08 budget process. The Advisory Group’s new assignment is to examine the three downtown urban renewal areas (URAs) for extension and expansion opportunities as we close out both the Downtown Waterfront (DTWF) and South Park Block (SPB) URAs. He noted that the Advisory Group was formed to follow-up on the recommendations of the 2004 Central City Study but he expected the Advisory Group to have an open mind as it hears from a variety of community interests on the future of these URAs. The Advisory Group will be taking public testimony during its deliberations but would be starting with invited testimony.      

Wilhoite asked that members of the public who have questions or comments at today’s meeting submit them on cards provided by staff. Those comments, and response to any questions, will be distributed to the Advisory Group as part of the meeting notes. Wilhoite also directed staff to keep a running record of the questions and comments submitted throughout the process. See the attached spreadsheet of questions and comments received by staff.

Sten reiterated Wilhoite’s comment that the committee did not have any preconceived ideas for its recommendations. He noted that the Advisory Group would probably focus most of its attention on the Old Town/Chinatown (OTCT) area. While he anticipates some specific recommendations regarding specific boundary changes coming out of the Advisory Group, he also noted that the Advisory Group might not recommend expanding the River District (RD) URA to its maximum legal size (up to 61 acres) at this time.  The Advisory Group could defer some of the expansion capacity pending further work on the Central City Plan and evolution of the close-out strategies for the other two districts.

2) Approval of meeting notes   

The meeting notes for the 5/22/07 meeting were approved with no changes.

3) Summary of 2004 Central City Study

Janice Wilson, the chair of the 2004 Central City URA Study Committee, was unable to attend today’s meeting.  Keith Witcosky, who staffed the study group, provided a brief overview of their recommendations. DTWF was last extended in March 2004. One condition of the four-year extension was that PDC needed to assess the ability to add parts of OTCT neighborhood to the RD before Council would consider issuing more debt for the district. The 2004 group was formed to look at that issue.   

The study group reviewed the following questions: Should portions of OTCT be moved into the RD? What are the operational issues of moving portions of one district to another? The study group approached the issue by looking at how to best meet overall community needs, and it concluded that PDC should use DTWF to finance as many OTCT needs as possible through the duration of the extension. As more resources become available a priority should be placed on investments within the OT/CT neighborhood.

At the time, given existing commitments, new resources in RD were not projected to be available until 2009/2010. Moving boundaries to include OTCT projects in the RD would not have been possible without adjusting the existing priorities for that district. Some members wanted to see the move occur by 2005 or 2006; others believed it would be better to see how the two districts would evolve and make the move closer to 2008. 

In 2004, PDC had little experience with close-out strategies, several steps were taken to move DTWF in that direction (e.g., 3rd and 4th Street improvements, land acquisition strategies). Work was focused on projects farthest away from the RD border to conserve as much acreage as possible in anticipation of a boundary change. 

Wilhoite stated that PDC now needs to start considering criteria for moving the boundary and begin identifying how the 2004 study should be implemented.

4) Draft Criteria for Expansion, Extension or Formation of Urban Renewal Areas.

Bob Alexander provided a quick review of 10 criteria standards proposed by staff. The criteria reflect the ability to achieve citywide goals – jobs, affordable housing and neighborhood revitalization – as well as consideration of financial capacity and increment generation.  

Wilhoite said staff recommendations are a good starting point. The criteria should provide general guidance to Advisory Group but he does anticipate using them as a rigid screening tool. The draft criteria are consistent with the overall criteria that have been used by PDC over time. Wilhoite asked members to submit their feedback to Bob Alexander prior to the next meeting. Rosenbaum added all of our work includes consideration of leveraging and the potential for working collaboratively with other community entities. The overall goal should focus on positive community outcomes.

5) Review of Downtown Waterfront, South Park Blocks and River District URA – Goals, Accomplishments, Work in Progress and Work Unfunded

Presentations were made on each of the three downtown URAs: DTWF, SPB and RD. The format for each presentation included: district goals, accomplishments, close-out strategies, potential projects and key policy questions.

Downtown Waterfront URA:  Peter Englander reviewed DTWF.  Wilhoite noted that the district has significant resources available in terms of maximum indebtedness but it expires in 2008--an extension may be appropriate.  

Sten asked if the unfunded projects were potential new projects or existing projects with additional potential. Englander replied that the category include both types of projects and offered the examples of emerging projects: Ankeny/Burnside is well on the way but the opportunity is much greater now; PDC will help the County find a buyer for the Morrison bridgehead but it also has significant development potential; North Old Town has some potential for critical projects that are just beginning to emerge; and several of the Broadway Corridor parcels (e.g., the U&R Blocks) are assets held by PDC but represent some significant potential for development and density. 

Wilhoite asked, if we do not allocate more resources to promote the development of the U&R Blocks, would they just sit there?  Englander replied that a lot depends on the post office parcel in RD. It could be developed as is, but the home run would be to combine several needs/opportunities into a combined development that could include Union Station and the post office parcel. Lew Bowers clarified that the parcels could be sold for a market price but PDC would be taking a risk that a private developer might pursue a low-density development that would not maximize the development opportunities in the area.  

South Park Blocks URA:  Kathryn Krygier reviewed SPB. If the district’s last date to issue debt is extended to March of 2010, the district will still be $27M below its maximum indebtedness. The question was asked whether we could expand the districts maximum indebtedness. Krygier replied that we cannot because we would lose special levy authority and impair the districts capacity to repay its outstanding debt. 

Cogen asked how long would we need to extend the district to reach maximum indebtedness? Krygier stated approximately 2015. Wilhoite added that we should identify top priority projects for which tax increment financing may be necessary to complete.    

River District URA:  Steve Shain reviewed RD. Kruse asked for more information on the Post Office site and whether our congressional delegation could encourage the US Postal Service (USPS) to move its operations. Shain stated that Congress cannot mandate it because the USPS is not under direct congressional oversight. Cogen asked if the district reaches its maximum indebtedness in 2011, what happens if we bring in new property? Do you reach maximum indebtedness faster?  Alexander replied that acreage and maximum indebtedness need to be extended together. The end date could move as well but that isn’t anticipated at this time. Financial capacity must be available but capacity is available in RD. Wilhoite added that history shows this district does have considerable capacity and should be a topic for discussion by the Advisory Group. 

Economic Development: Wilhoite introduced PDC’s new Economic Development Director, Erin Flynn. Flynn commented that today’s presentations (6/26/07) were a good crash course on the URAs. Much good work has taken place but the emphasis on development and housing indicates a need to elevate the economic development focus of the city and region. We have factors aligning right now with the new CEO initiative, Greenlight Portland, the new Economic Development Strategy and various planning functions.  

We need to ask what is the future role of the downtown in the city and region’s economic health? What specific strategies are appropriate for Portland and the region? We should think more strategically in combining our physical development with economic development goals. How do we leverage downtown institutions? Office development? A study is underway on business environment as part of a headquarters recruitment effort.  

Sten asked for more information on Manufacturing 21: Center for Manufacturing & Infrastructure Engineering ($30M).  Flynn and Rosenbaum explained that this is a collaborative effort to combine a cluster of metals and other manufacturing companies with higher education to establish a research and development program focused on new work with exotic metals in association with Portland State University’s School of Engineering. This project has been successful with securing both State and Federal grants.  

Flynn also noted the potential to mix new and maturing industries (e.g, creative industry clusters).  

6) Next Steps

Alexander summarized key issues. Wilhoite mentioned that we just scratched surface today with a past/present/future overview of each district. The Advisory Group’s primary responsibility will be to identify the next generation of priority projects and recommend the best mechanisms to accomplish those priorities.  

Wilhoite reminded the Advisory Group and audience that the next meeting will be held on July 31, 2007 in Council Chambers. The Advisory Group will review criteria and hear from Old Town/Chinatown and Pearl neighborhood groups.

The following is a schedule of upcoming meeting dates, times and locations:

Panels will begin in September and run through the fall. Wilhoite wants the Advisory Group to participate in setting the panels. Also note the change in meeting time. The Advisory Group agreed to meet for 3-4 hours for the panel discussions. Wilhoite stated that the Advisory Group will need time to do research on follow-up assignments between meetings, but some additional meetings may be necessary as the Advisory Group discusses its specific recommendations for the PDC Commission, Planning Commission and City Council, which will be presented in January or February, 2008. 

Next Meeting: Tuesday, July 31, 2007, 2:00 P.M.- 3:30 P.M., Council Chambers, City Hall

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