North Macadam

North Macadam Urban Renewal Advisory Committee
Special Meeting on PDC Proposed FY 04-05 Budget
Thursday, May 6, 2004
8:30 – 10:00 a.m.
PDC, Commission Conference Room

1. Welcome & Opening Comments

Rick Saito opened the meeting at 8:40 a.m.

2. Review & Approval of April 22, 2204 Meeting Minutes

The minutes were approved as submitted, with the exception of the date in the header that needs to be corrected.

The purpose of the meeting today is to review the PDC proposed FY 04-05 budget and pass along a recommendation to the Development Commission.

Cheryl Twete (PDC) said that PDC Legal Counsel has recommended that at the beginning of each Urban Renewal Advisory Committee (URAC) meeting, the committee members introduce themselves and state whether they think they have a conflict of interest. She added that this practice will be employed at all advisory committee meetings. In this way, the benefits of a “conflict” must be for an individual, not a class or a group.

• Scenna Shipley – no conflict of interest
• Cheryl Twete – (PDC, sitting in for Abe Farkas) no conflict of interest since PDC is a governmental body
• Jerry Ward (CTLH representative) – no conflict of interest
• Nicole Peterson (Williams & Dame Development, Inc.) – no conflict of interest
• Lois Davis (OHSU) – no conflict of interest
• Bob Durgan (Andersen Construction) – no conflict of interest
• Pasquale Pascuzzi (Pascuzzi Investments) – no conflict of interest
• Steven Gray (nearby resident, Rhodda Paint Co.) – no conflict of interest
• Rick Saito (Group Mackenzie, North Macadam Development Council) – no conflict of interest
• Mark Edlen (Gerding/Edlen) – has a potential conflict of interest
• Vince Sheridan (Equity Office) – no conflict of interest

Meeting Announcements:

• May 12, 2004 at 3:00 p.m. – PDC takes action on FY 04-05 Proposed Budget
• June 9, 2004 at 3:30 p.m. – PDC takes action on Central District Development Agreement Amendment #3 and Neighborhood Park acquisition
• June 10, 2004 at 3:30 p.m. – City Council to take action on Tram and DA Amendment #3 (tentative)

The URAC meeting date for June will be changed to June 3, 2004 for discussion prior to PDC and City Council meetings. A notice will be distributed via email.

3. FY 04-05 Proposed Budget Update

The PDC proposed budget for FY 04-05 was provided as a handout.

• The most recent cost estimates for the Tram and a few other projects are not included in the proposed budget. When Development Agreement Amendment #3 is approved, the Funding & Financing Plan and the District budget will be amended.
• For the purposes of the URAC review, the focus should be on the potential for projects that will require tax increment funding (TIF).

Cheryl Twete (PDC, Development) discussed the funding needs of the Central District Development Agreement Amendment #3. When the original Funding & Financing Plan was approved, it was understood that it would need to be amended as project needs changed and as estimates for projects were refined. For the Central District Development Agreement Amendment, an additional dedication of $6M in TIF is required. The majority of this TIF will fund the gap for the Neighborhood Park acquisition and improvements, and will also provide funding for affordable housing development.

The Neighborhood Park was originally envisioned to be funded by the sale of Parcel J; however, the value of Parcel J was overestimated and the sale of the property is expected to be delayed. The Neighborhood Park land is being purchased early so as to avoid high land costs and to provide certainty for District developers. Some System Development Charges (SDCs) for Parks (generated by residential units) are dedicated to the acquisition of the Neighborhood Park property. Base level park improvements are anticipated to be completed by the first quarter of 2006.

ODOT will increase funding for Macadam Avenue improvements, so the Macadam Avenue LID is no longer necessary. The funding that was originally allocated for Macadam Avenue improvements has now been shifted to the Tram budget to address the funding gap.

A question was asked about the PP&L Tower and what is being done to remove it, replace it or relocate it. The plan is to reconstruct the PP&L Tower in a different location, further to the north, within the Greenway. The Tower supports a transmission line and is one of three towers that support this line. It was originally thought that the transmission line could be relocated to the Ross Island Bridge so that the Tower could be completely removed, but that option is financially prohibitive (at this time) and logistically difficult in terms of worker safety and access as well as earthquake safety. The Ross Island Bridge option may be explored in the future when funding permits. A few URAC members were concerned about investing funds in an interim solution.

An updated Funding & Financing Plan will be completed and provided to the URAC when the Central District Development Agreement Amendment #3 is approved by the Development Commission and City Council.

The Greenway will be a construction zone until at least 2006 so funding for improvements is not necessary until after that time. Greenway improvements are currently under-funded, but as the budget is revisited this project will be reassessed for funding availability. The Greenway Development Plan (masterplan) has not yet been completed, so we do not have a final cost-estimate for the improvements and a Strategy is not yet in place for its implementation.

A question was asked about whether the increase in grades is reflected in the budget for street improvements. The budget has always anticipated some fill in the District. PDC and the Portland Office of Transportation (PDOT) have examined the street construction budget and are confident that they can accommodate the subsequent costs associated with the additional fill; there is no increase to the cost of the street improvement project due to the additional fill required.

A concern was expressed about whether there would be more funding available for transportation improvements. Additionally, there was concern about the lack of immediate and full funding for affordable housing, parks and pedestrian connections from the Corbett Terwilliger Lair Hill (CTLH) neighborhood to the District. Cheryl Twete offered to have PDC staff meet with the CTLH Board to discuss the proposed budget.

A committee member made the point that the PDC budget is reflective of the decisions of several committees, in terms of project priorities, project timing and project budgets; PDC is not in full control of the priorities, timing and budgets for all District projects. Another committee member agreed and added that the completion of the projects funded in the proposed budget makes other projects – Greenway, parks, affordable housing – possible.

Steven Gray made a motion that the URAC recommend approval of the proposed FY 04-05 budget to the Development Commission. The motion was seconded. There was no discussion.

Vote: Jerry Ward opposed the motion. Mark Edlen abstained from voting. Scenna Shipley, Nicole Petersen, Cheryl Twete, Lois Davis, Barbara Walker, Bob Durgan, Pasquale Pascuzzi, Rick Saito and Steven Gray voted in favor.

Rick Saito noted that the URAC cannot get involved in the broader concerns expressed by Jerry Ward on behalf of CTLH because the concerns are outside of the boundaries of the Urban Renewal Area. He suggested that CTLH work with PDC on resolving these concerns.

4. Public Comments & Discussion

No comments or questions.

5. Closing Remarks

Proposed revised date for June URAC meeting:
June 3, 2004
8:30 – 10:00 a.m.
Portland Development Commission

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