Interstate Corridor

Interstate Corridor Urban Renewal Area Advisory Committee Meeting
OAME – 4134 N. Vancouver

ICURAC Meeting Notes
April 19, 2004 at 6:00 pm

Attendees: Co-Chairs Walter Valenta and Sheila Holden, Carl Flipper, Maxine Fitzpatrick, Pauline Bradford, Diane Feldt, Lisa Horne, Scott Jensen, Cathy Galbraith, Lenny Anderson, Cynthia Sulaski, Brad Halverson, Kay Newell, Pam Arden, Jennie Portis, Warren Fluker, Kurt Haapala, and Larry Mills. Public: Jen Parks, Pamela Kambur, Fred Leeson, Roger Goldingay, Carol Otis, Susan Law, Judi Pitre, Kandis Nunn and Tuck Wilson.

Staff: Lois Cortell, Leah Halstead, Larry Brown, Marguerite Feuersanger, Carol Herzberg, Colin Sears, Nancy McClain, Phyliss Gaines, Rita McCain-Walker, Mark Murray, Art Pearce, Stuart Gwin and Sandi Taylor.

Co-Chair Sheila Holden called the meeting to order.

Lois Cortell announced that the deadline to provide input on the Kenton Market Study has been extended to the end of April to allow more people to respond. Lois reported that the IMAX preview ride was a success and circulated photos of the event. Lois informed the ICURAC that PDC will have an insert in the Skanner in conjunction with the IMAX Opening. The insert will include information about program and clients along the Interstate Corridor, including a map of completed projects in the ICURA.

PUBLIC COMMENT

The meeting was opened up to public comments. Three different members of the public talked about the need to improve a small triangular shaped piece of property on Albina and Mississippi owned by PDC and PDOT that the community refers to as the “Concrete Park”. They described the property as having been a nuisance with poor access, poor lighting and a place for illegal activity. Recently there was a car accident that destroyed one of the concrete benches in this park. Following the accident it appeared the City was replacing the bench, but after doing some work the project was torn down and the holes filled with gravel. They wanted the group to support fixing this small park and offer ideas of how to help make the area a safe bridge to the four converging neighborhoods. They have been talking with neighborhood residents, have done surveys, organized a group and there is support for improving the park, especially improved lighting. They have been talking with numerous public agencies, but have been unsuccessful in finding funding for the park improvements. They all asked the ICURAC for support on the property and expressed frustration that the entire budget for parks in the ICURA had been cut from $150,000 to zero.

Art Pearce announced that he has been reassigned from PDOT to the South Waterfront area and introduced his Interstate Corridor replacement, Stuart Gwin.

PDC FISCAL YEAR 04/05 PROPOSED BUDGET

Walter Valenta introduced the PDC budget staff, Nancy McClain and Mark Murray. Nancy started by clarifying the actual ICURA project budget stating that $2,049,000 is available rather than the $36,000,000 because the light rail obligation and paying off debt proceeds goes directly to the city budget. She summarized the other line items in the budget and explained the sources of revenue including borrowed money on short term lines of credit.

Light Rail Debt
There was considerable discussion about the light rail debt being $32 million rather than the $30 the ICURAC felt was committed. Members of the ICURAC expressed feelings that this was another “bait and switch”. It was questioned why there was a change from the proposed budget which assumed paying off the light rail debt in three years versus the proposal before them now. Nancy responded that the City always intended to pay off the light rail debt in one year and that they structured the short term debt accordingly to save in interest payments. She said PDC made an error in presenting a three year payoff scenario earlier this year. She also noted the budget includes the interest associated with the $30 million dollar debt, noting this is debt the district will be carrying over the entire life of the district. Budget staff will look into the light rail debt question.

Members questioned whether some of the Tri-Met savings would lower the TIF portion of the light rail debt. Lois stated that Tri-Met has issued a draft of potential projects that the light rail savings might be directed toward. Lenny explained that if Tri-Met doesn’t spend the savings the FTA will take it back. Sheila asked that the discussion by the ICURAC be about the PDC budget and that we rely on the five ICURAC members who attend the Tri-Met/IMAC/IAA meetings to get additional information and represent the ICURAC.

PDC Overhead
Brad Halvorson asked about the overhead expenditure, what it covers and why it increased. Nancy explained that Overhead covers administrative functions including risk management, payroll, facility leases, office equipment, non-project staffing, and general organizational overhead expenses that can not be allocated to a specific project or program. She described that it is allocated based on a standard governmental process that has a very elaborate formula system that takes a number of factors into consideration. It is not just factored on staffing or the URA budget. Nancy explained that in the past the allocations weren’t distributed proportionately and that other URAs have been subsidizing Interstate. She said that Interstate is now paying its fair share

Cathy Galbraith asked what percentage the Overhead allocation is for Interstate and how it compares to other urban renewal areas. Walter noted he had specifically asked PDC for this information and was told PDC would not provide that information at the ICURAC meeting. Nancy responded that she did not know off the top of her head the various URA allocations and guessed that the average was approximately 10%.

Lenny noted that it appears that PDC and the city have made two good decisions in terms of organization practice—saving interest on the light rail debt and developing a fair allocation of PDC overhead. He understands how theses decisions were made, and suggested that the ICURAC take a deep breath and now come back and ask for financial help.

Killingsworth Block
Nancy went on to explain the remaining budget line items. She noted that the Killingsworth Block budget was a little misleading. She walked through the proposed Killingsworth Block expenditures as listed on a separate handout, including paying off the Smart Growth Fund acquisition loan and the offsetting property sale shown in the revenues. She explained that the overall project budget increased by only $25,000 since the last meeting and the changes in the budget represent how PDC must budget according to public finance law as well as logistical changes related to the project timing.

Community Livability, Redevelopment & Housing
Cynthia Sulaski said she would appreciate help understanding how PDC decided to decrease the Community Livability by 100% when other budget line items had smaller cuts. Nancy explained that the directors did not discuss a straight percent decrease of all budget line items. Instead they discussed each line item and looked at them in terms of Commission priorities and standing obligations, and that there wasn’t really any logic in how they settled on a figure. Leah Halstead commented that she thought directors saw the limited resources and they asked what the main priorities are for Interstate. They reviewed the input people have provided over time and the answer was Housing and Economic Development.

Larry Mills questioned that if Economic Development was a priority how could the Redevelopment budget go from $200,000 down to $4,000, noting that Redevelopment was a source for some economic development activities in Kenton. Lenny stated he felt we were making progress in Kenton and should find a way for the City to advance the district more money. Carl Flipper inquired and Lois explained the reason the Redevelopment line item was not zeroed out was because the $4,000 of remaining funds was to cover outreach expenses such as paying for the ICURAC meeting room at OAME, postage and printing costs associated with the ICURA Bulletin, and other direct expenses for Interstate outreach.

Cathy Galbraith and Maxine Fitzpatrick both expressed dismay that there were reductions to the housing line items given that Housing is a stated priority. Members discussed both implied and written promises to benefit the neighborhoods, not just the light rail. They commented that this budget falls seriously short and these promises are not being kept.

Budget Projects & Public Hearings
Nancy described how the budget used during the initial outreach was based on very preliminary numbers, and that the five year forecast is also based on preliminary numbers. For instance, the ICURA has a projected budget that is already over budget by $163,000 for 05-06 and there will need to be budget cuts. Nancy announced the PDC Public Hearing on the budget will be held April 26th at 5:30pm at the Multnomah County Building at SE Grand Avenue & SE Hawthorne Blvd. She stated that this was the most appropriate time for the public to express their concerns and present their recommendations to PDC. After that meeting the Executive Director will bring the budget to the PDC Commission on May 12th for acceptance. There will also be an opportunity for public comment at this meeting. Nancy explained that the June meeting is the final budget adoption. The opportunity to incorporate public feedback is at the April 26th hearing.

ICURAC members discussed a number of alternatives to project budgeting, including reallocation of funding. Brad Halvorson suggested moving the $50,000 from the Transportation budget to Community Livability this year, as long as Transportation was budgeted the following year. Committee members discussed the option of asking for a larger line of credit to be extended to the District next year. Currently $450,000 has been moved forward to fund the Killingsworth Streetscape. Walter explained that the City offered to move up $450,000 though a line of credit without much resistance, so one strategy might be to ask for more. Kurt Haapala asked what the likelihood of $600,000 instead of $450,000 would be. Nancy responded that she though the request should be substantiated by real firm projects and that requests should be very specific. She cautioned that the district can’t support much more than $600,000, and that the longer the “wish list” is the less likely more money would be approved. Cynthia said the parks projects represent six different neighborhoods and are hard projects with real expenses. Maxine stated that the decreased Home Repair and eliminated Interstate Housing budgets were just as important as parks. Some members stated they were not in favor of the district taking on additional debt. Walter asked if they have a compelling argument for subsidized debt.

Pauline Bradford commented that the Interstate Corridor was supposed to be the urban renewal district that was different and that there would be money for community projects and programs, not just big projects like light rail. She was concerned that Interstate wasn’t any different than the past urban renewal efforts in North and Northeast Portland. Diane Feldt commented that the most compelling voices were those that spoke about displacement and that this district said it would do as much as possible to prevent displacement. Larry Mills said we need to look at projects that give a good return on investment and that will generate tax increment so there is more money to spend. He went on to say there is a huge demand in the district and no money to meet that demand so we need to find a way to get more money into the district.

Walter Valenta said the Budget meeting on April 26th is critical to attend and give input. Unless we’re going to generate more money, we need to shift the dollars and have a sequence for restoring items if more money is available. He said he’s made a list of most compelling arguments to restore our budget and remind them of what was promised before. A sign-up sheet for those interested in attending the public hearing on the budget was passed around. Walter said he would coordinate the public comment and input on the budget and would try and contact people before the 26th.

NORTH/NORTHEAST ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ALLLIANCE & HOUSING AUTHORITY OF PORTLAND AGREEMENT

Sheila Holden stated that based on a straw vote there was an 8-1 vote on the Housing Authority Board to enter into an agreement with the North/Northeast Economic Development Alliance. The agreement would be for NNEDA to monitor HAP’s development and contracting activity at New Columbia. Sheila thanked HAP staff for coming to the ICURAC meeting. Scott Jensen asked that the nature of the agreement be distributed to the ICURAC once it is signed.

NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSING PROGRAM PRESENTATION

Phyliss Gaines gave an overview of the Neighborhood Housing Program. She distributed information on the home repair and homebuyer programs that are available, and reported that PDC had undertaken a large marketing campaign to inform residents of these projects. She reported there had been a very good response to mailers that were sent out, particularly from residents in Kenton and Portsmouth. Phyliss introduced Rita McCain-Walker, the new Home Ownership Coordinator at PDC. Rita explained that her job is to look at increasing homeownership in Portland, specifically focusing on increasing homeownership among minority residents. She reported that PDC has a goal to create 2,500 more new minority home owners in the next 10 years. Rita said she will be focusing on outreach and developing programs that help people move into homeownership, looking at some more flexible underwriting to address barriers.

Lenny commented that with the opening of light rail homes are getting more expensive. He stated that we don’t have much time and urged PDC to focus on the Corridor. Sheila questioned what happened to the homeownership funding from the state, and expressed concern that the ICURAC supported bringing these funds to the city with the promise they would be targeted to the N/NE area. Phyliss reported that those funds were the HOME 24 program and that PDC marketing was focused on the North and Northeast Portland and the Lents area. In the two funding rounds 192 people signed up for the program and to-date 40 people have purchased homes. She was unable at this time to report how many of those residents were from North and Northeast Portland. Sheila said she thought that was the whole purpose of the program was to be able to target people from specific areas of the city and be able to track where they came from and where they purchased. She asked how we can be more creative with our marketing.

Maxine asked how many of those households are minority households? Phyliss did not have that information with her, but Leah Halstead responded that PDC can get information of some of these specific questions people have raised—where people live, their income level and race/ethnicity information. PDC will distribute at the Housing Sub-committee meeting. Pauline stressed that results are what count and if results don’t come out right, we need to make a change.

OTHER UPDATES & ANNOUNCEMENTS

Parks Committee
Cynthia Sulaski said funds from PDC and matching funds from the Parks Dept. will help pay for new playground equipment at Trenton Park.

Tri-Met & MAX Opening
Lois announced that Tri-Met was not able to attend the ICURAC meeting but they did send flyers on the IMAX opening and pins. She reported that the benchmark report will come out soon that includes recommendations for spending the MAX savings. She urged people to attend the April 21st meeting at 7:30 pm where projects will be discussed. Sheila asked what the excess funds will be used for and who ICURAC preferences for spending should be communicated to. Brad said half the money is already allocated to projects and that people should attend the April 26th meeting to discuss other project options. The final decision will need to be approved by the FTA. There was discussion on who was invited to the VIP party and dismay expressed that all of the ICURAC was not invited. Sheila mentioned she had raised that question with PDC and Mr. Hansen at Tri-Met. Sheila stated that if people were interested in attending Walter and she would try and get tickets. Lenny said he was disappointed Tri-Met wasn’t at the ICURAC meeting

Station Area Assessment Committee
Lois reported that the SAAC was reconvened to discuss the role of the committee, the intent of the strategy, and future roles of the SAAC. She reported that there was good discussion and there were some summary points: 1) better clarify goals of RFP’s in the future, 2) use the Committee as a resource for future RFP’s., 3) most not interested in meeting regularly.

Maxine expressed concern that the people who attended the meeting were not representative of the community and that she didn’t think the SAAC should disband, especially without community input. Other ICURAC members echoed Maxine’s concern. Larry explained that the committee did not disband, but just discussed future participation. Lois added that the committee wasn’t interested in meeting regularly, but maybe instead the group’s members could be pulled together when issues arise such as new RFPs or new developments or issues.

Sheila explained that we have learned three very important things: 1) need to have a very consistent process with input, 2) Send forth recommendations as a framework, and 3) there will be changes so we need to have a way to keep the intent of the Strategy. There was discussion about the Killingsworth Block selection. Maxine felt there was a commitment made to residents through the Station Area Revitalization Strategy process that was not being kept in the project that was selected. Carl Flipper said he had heard a Committee was put together to select a successful developer, but there was no feedback and the guiding principles of the district were ignored. Leah stated that all of the urban renewal strategies including the station area strategy were reviewed during the selection process. She felt that one of the faults with the process was that the RFP tried to be all things to all people by asking for all goals to be met in the project. Lois said there was good dialogue about the process in the SAAC meeting and suggested that everyone read the distributed notes for more information/explanation.

Sheila discussed the original housing plan and said this was going to be our signature project. The reality is that people said the project was going off track. Some good lessons learned are 1) how true are we to what we say we want, and 2) how are we going to be sure that the process is fair and open.

Walter expressed his frustration that people continue to say the selection wasn’t fair and that the urban renewal goals and strategies were not considered. He stated he was on the selection committee for the Killingsworth Block and he felt that out of all the competent proposals, they chose the best one – the one with the lowest subsidy with the best mix of housing. He stated that some of proposals were asking for up to $5 million in subsidy and given the budget discussions earlier in the evening, it was important to choose a project we could afford. He also expressed his opinion that we have to balance all levels and not just low income housing. Pauline cautioned that people who “have” won’t have a problem because they have nothing to lose, but people with lower incomes have nothing. Larry Mills said if you want to improve the community there is a formula to create wealth, and we want to raise the bar for ALL levels in the community. Jennie ended the discussion by saying that when a committee is given guiding principles and things change, they need to get back to the ICURAC. We need to let all of the candidates know when a proposal of changes is submitted so they can all be on a level playing field. There was a suggestion to meet after the meeting to discuss what happened in greater detail.

Housing Subcommittee and Economic Development Subcommittee Meetings on May 17th:
Leah asked people to let her know the topics they want to discuss at the Housing Sub-Committee meeting, further commenting that the last two Subcommittee meetings have been on homeownership and home repair outreach and marketing, but few people attended or were interested. Pauline requested that there is a list of sub-committee meeting dates and times.

The meeting was adjourned at 8:55 pm.

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