North Macadam

North Macadam Urban Renewal Area
Urban Renewal Advisory Committee
MEETING MINUTES
Thursday, March 18, 2004
8:00 a.m. – 10:30 a.m.
Portland Development Commission
Commission Conference Room

Committee members in attendance: Abe Farkas (PDC), Bob Durgan (ZRZ/Anderson Construction), Jerry Ward (CTLH Neighborhood Association), Barbara Walker, Nicole Peterson for Homer Williams (Williams & Dame Developers), Vince Sheridan (Equity Office), Rick Saito (Group Mackenzie), Jay Kenton (Portland State University), Steven Gray (Rodda Paint), Ron Balash (Multi-Services), Mark Edlen (Gerding/Edlen), Lois Davis (OHSU), Alternate for Glenn Taylor ( National College of Naturopathic Medicine)

Committee members not in attendance: Scenna Shipley (Portland Business Alliance), Pasquale Pascuzzi (Pascuzzi Investments)

1. Welcome & Opening Comments

Rick Saito, Chair, opened the meeting and welcomed the Urban Renewal Advisory Committee to the meeting.

2. Review and Approval of January 15, 2004 Revised Meeting Minutes

Review and Approval of February 19, 2004 Meeting Minutes
The meeting minutes were approved as submitted.

3. Budget Review

Handouts (3): Summary of Assumptions--North Macadam District Funding Strategy, NMAC URA Consolidated Priorities, North Macadam District Funding Strategy—Public Investment Program Sources

• Cheryl Twete (PDC) reviewed a handout summarizing the preliminary North Macadam District Funding Strategy discussed with the URAC in May 2003.
• She noted that there have been changes in assumptions since the District Funding Strategy was first developed in 1999 as part of the Framework Plan process, including the 2003 South Waterfront Plan, updated development forecasts, updated TIF projections, and the Central District Development Agreement.
• Phase 1, through 2007/2008 has a focus on infrastructure, and Phase 2, through 2020, addresses a broader range of priorities, including parks, housing, and economic development.
• The District Funding Strategy will need to be updated consistent with PDC budget projections and updates to the Central District Development Agreement.

Committee Discussion:

Concern: M/W/ESB requirements can be problematic to unions.
Response: PDC’s program is aspirational, and includes workforce and apprenticeship goals oriented to increasing the capacity of the M/W/ESB community.

Concern: Achieving M/W/ESB goals in high-rise construction is challenging, especially if second and third-tier contractors are not counted.
Response: The Committee agreed to include a contracting discussion as a future URAC agenda item.
Ms. Twete reviewed a second handout outlining the Central District Development Agreement funding plan for Phase 1 public projects (through 2007/2008). She noted that all revenue sources have not been committed. As an example, Local Improvement Districts have not yet been approved by property owners.

Committee Discussion:

Question: What is the Central District affordable housing goal?
Answer: 200 apartments and 30 condominiums in Phase 1.

Question: Where is the OHSU commercializable research space? Are OHSU buildings taxable? What is $5 million of TIF for?
Answer: Commercializable research space is in the first OHSU building, which will not be subject to property tax. $5M of TIF will be used for capital costs of research/wet lab space to encourage research that can produce commercial job and tax-producing ventures.

Question: PDC usually makes loans, not grants, for affordable housing. What are the terms of the OHSU funding?
Answer: A grant.

Question: Is affordable housing funding still in Phase 1?
Answer: Yes -- $3 million of TIF and $7 million of federal is being requested.

Question: Will the timing of funds be consistent with the Block 33 development (where affordable housing proposed)?
Answer: PDC needs to find out more about Block 33 development timing. Affordable housing funding is currently programmed for 2006/2007.

Concern: The elevation of the district will have to be raised to deal with flood plain issues. This affects Moody Avenue and the Zidell property.
Response: PDC needs to meet with property owners to discuss the issue.

Question: Please explain the land sales/loans item. Shouldn’t loans show as costs, not revenues?
Answer: The land sales are of PDC and PDOT-owned properties in the RiverPlace area. Some revenues have been advanced as lines of credit for infrastructure development.

Cheryl Twete reported that a Central District Development Agreement amendment, including changes to the Funding and Financing Plan, is expected to go to Commission in May, and will be discussed at a future URAC meeting.

Ms. Twete requested that the Committee members provide input on the Fiscal Year 2004/2005 PDC budget for North Macadam, as presented at the last URAC meeting. She reviewed a handout summarizing the budget, noting that only the 04/05 budget would be adopted by the Commission in June, and that the five-year budgets shown are forecasts only.

Discussion:

Question: Is there currently enough information to allow a vote? For example, the Tram budget has gone up.
Answer: There will be an opportunity to provide further comments on the budget through May 11, and Tram funding will be addressed in the Development Agreement update.

Mark Murray, PDC Budget Officer, noted that in September or October, there will be a process to update the budget. We are trying to use all of our money -- this is the focus of the new budget process.

Jerry Ward, (CTLH Neighborhood Association) stated the CTLH Board position:

• Traffic and Greenway funding should be in the list of budgeted projects, not the unfunded.
• Add Gibbs Street mitigation costs to the funded portion of the budget.
• The $5 million of OHSU commercializable space funding should be allocated to transportation and the greenway.

Response: The Tram CAC will present a final report in April. That work is forthcoming, and the issues brought up by the CTLH Board are addressed in the report.

• Gibbs property owner compensation can’t be handled by the URAC, since the area is outside of the URA.
• In the proposed budget $2M has been allocated for neighborhood improvements.

Rick Saito, NMAC URAC Chair, noted that in April or May a conclusion for the Tram budget will be reached with final estimates in the fall. Without this forthcoming information it is difficult to predict the numbers we will be working with-- everything is in flux. The Commission will ask the same questions we will. Do we want to present them with our questions?

Cheryl Twete: Many of the proposed 04/05 budget items have been planned for several years and many relate to contractual obligations of the Central District Development Agreement.

Mark Murray, PDC, explained that all that at the April 14th Commission meeting the Executive Director will present the current budget information. As long as the URAC submits their recommendation to the Commission before the May 12 meeting it will be included.

Committee Discussion: Is there enough certainty in the budget estimates and projections to provide our recommendation to the Commission?

Jay Kenton: The development in the district is obvious, and based on that, the budget figures make sense. I think we should let the Commission know that we’re okay with the numbers we see here. There are contractual commitments with OHSU and developers.

Steven Gray: The URAC has been talking about these same projects for six years. Just as in business, budgets are based on estimates and projections.

Bob Durgan: If OHSU and developers are OK with unfunded items, then the URAC should be, too. It is OHSU and developers who are currently taking the risk.

Jerry Ward: The neighborhood is impacted. Transportation funding is needed now.

Barbara Walker: We need to lobby for federal dollars.

Consensus:

PDC staff will draft a letter to summarize the URAC discussion, and send it out to the URAC for comments before sending it to the Commission.

PDC staff suggested that CTLH also send a letter. Jerry Ward requested that the URAC present the CTLH position as part of the URAC letter.

Note: Rick Saito left the meeting and Steven Gray chaired from this point

4. Central District Development Update

Nicole Peterson gave a slide presentation to illustrate development progress in the Central District, noting that construction of the bioswale started in the 4th quarter of 2003, and the street project in the 1st quarter of 2004.

5. Tram Project Update – Agenda item deferred to April meeting.

6. Project Updates:

Harbor-Naito Feasibility Study

• Rachel Blakeman (PDC) reported that the State Department of Land Conservation and Development has funded a redevelopment feasibility study of the Harbor-Naito area generally bounded by SW Clay Street, SW Harbor Drive, Naito Parkway, and I-405.
• Potential redevelopment sites include PDC’s parcel J, property controlled by the International School and properties owned by PDOT and ODOT.
• The study will begin with a public meeting in April.
• Additional workshops are scheduled for May and June.

Greenway

• Henry Kunowski (Parks) reviewed the draft Greenway Development Plan, describing the variety of planned park features, including habitat, bike and pedestrian trails, meadows, overlooks, and tot lots.
• He noted that universal accessways are under consideration to link east-west streets on the river side of River Parkway blocks, along the greenway.
• Cheryl Twete reported that the Implementation Strategy Partnership Group is developing ownership and implementation strategies and will have fuller report in a few weeks.
• The Committee and interested parties were invited to attend a public open house on April 3.

7. Election of Officers

The nominating committee recommended Rick Saito for chair and Steven Gray for vice-chair, for one-year terms. The URAC elected both by a unanimous vote.

8. URAC Operating Procedures

Handout: Chapter 244 – Ethic provisions of Statute

Chip Lazenby, PDC General Counsel, presented the URAC with a briefing on the legalities associated with Urban Renewal Advisory Committee members and Conflict of Interest.

• URAC members are agents of a public body and therefore considered public officials.
• In terms of URAC meetings, this means that URAC members need to recognize potential and actual conflicts of interest.
• “Actual conflict of interest” means any action or any decision or recommendation by a person acting in a capacity as a public official, the effect of which would be to the private pecuniary benefit of detriment of the person or the person’s relative or any business with which the person or a relative of the person is associated unless the pecuniary benefit or detriment arises out of circumstances described in subsection (7) of this section. (Please see handout for additional details).
• “Potential conflict of interest” means any action or any decision or recommendation by a person acting in a capacity as a public official, the effect of which could be to the private pecuniary benefit or detriment of the person or the person’s relative, or a business with which the person or the person’s relative is associated. (Please see handout for exceptions and additional details).

Examples

• Potential – Those with an interest in property (example: property owners). As URAC members are making recommendations and looking at proposals there is the potential that a recommendation could be influenced by interests. In this instance members will need to note on the record that there is a potential conflict of interest.
• Actual – Recommendation specifically, directly benefits interests/ business.

 

• Whether the conflict of interest is potential or actual, the issue needs to be out on the table and part of the public record.
• Questions can always be referred to the ethics commission.
• Conflict of Interest violations can result in a fine of up to $1,000.00.
• URAC members need to look at each agenda, and think about any declarations that may need to be made.
• The statute does not apply to URAC members who represent a 501(c)(3)
• Introductions at the beginning of a meeting (statement of name, representation, and interests) are an opportunity to be sure that potential conflicts of interest are out on the table and a part of the record.

9. Closing Remarks

The Chair adjourned the meeting at 10:40 a.m.

 

---

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