Depoe Bay urban renewal budget committee reviews FY 2024–25 plan, flags ADA restrooms, sidewalks and a $500,000 contingency

At a meeting of the Depoe Bay Urban Renewal Agency Budget Committee, members reviewed the proposed fiscal year 2024–25 urban renewal budget, discussed pedestrian and accessibility problems along Highway 101, and debated an operating contingency of $500,000 held for waterfront work.

The budget message, read by staff member Kim Wallner, framed the agency’s role and revenue source: “The purpose of the Depoe Bay Urban Renewal Agency is to administer the statutory tax increment revenues …” Wallner said the agency operates under Oregon urban renewal law and the adopted Depoe Bay Urban Renewal Plan, and that tax increment revenues and other receipts will fund proposed projects and transfers.

Committee members focused discussion on three near-term issues: restroom replacements at the harbor, pedestrian and ADA access along Highway 101 (including power poles that sit on sidewalks), and proposed transfers from urban renewal funds to other city funds. Wallner told the committee the proposed budget contains transfers of $100,000 to the street fund, $100,000 to the harbor fund, $20,000 to the city parks fund and $500,000 to be held for waterfront construction and a proposed new water treatment plant. The draft budget also lists a contingency of $500,000 and identifies approximately $252,072 in unappropriated funds while tax and interest estimates are still being finalized.

On restrooms and harbor access, Wallner said the city is ending a lease with Wilson Brothers and has two modular restrooms available; “neither of the ones that we’re thinking of are handicap accessible,” she said, and staff proposed moving one unit and replacing the harbor restroom with an accessible unit. Committee members asked staff to return with cost estimates and placement options.

Sidewalk safety along Highway 101 drew sustained attention. A committee member said that when the city previously sought sign permits, ODOT told staff that “power poles couldn’t be in the right of way,” and urged staff to verify ownership and ODOT rules before budgeting for pole moves. Staff and committee members agreed that utility ownership varies (some poles belong to the phone company, now Lumen) and that moving poles can be costly; one staff member recalled a prior estimate near $20,000 for a single pole move. Committee members directed staff to contact ODOT and utility owners to clarify whether poles are permitted in the sidewalk, what approvals would be required, and whether ODOT would require the city to assume maintenance or other responsibilities if changes are made.

Members also raised lower-cost accessibility items on Highway 101: replacing faded accessible parking striping and adding two on-street accessible spaces north of the bridge and one to the south. Staff said these would require either city labor or a contractor and that ODOT review will be needed where Highway 101 is affected.

On capital and program items, Wallner said the agency has two project funds (project and debt service). The budget keeps a small amount for professional services and design/engineering — staff specifically flagged design work and preliminary engineering for a new water treatment element of a waterfront project. Wallner told the committee that some projects funded through urban renewal would be transferred to city ownership upon completion.

Committee members asked for clarification on staff-cost accounting and transfers. The draft budget proposes paying the city up to $25,500 for staffing, office expenses and maintenance services; the committee discussed whether those payments should appear as transfers into the general fund and how staff time will be tracked going forward. Staff said time-keeping for urban renewal work will be implemented in the new budget year so payroll allocations can be documented.

A beautification grant program also drew comment: the draft shows $40,000 budgeted for the program in the prior year that was not used. Staff proposed carrying an allocation forward to support façade/beautification grants for property owners in the district; a committee member noted that grant terms should be clarified so recipients would not be required to transfer ownership of improved property to the agency.

Committee members pressed on the $500,000 contingency. One budget committee member said the contingency “seems like an awful large number” and suggested the committee should reconvene to allocate significant contingency dollars to specific projects through a public process rather than leave them unassigned. Staff explained that contingency funds are commonly used as an operating reserve and that reallocating them later would require a resolution.

Members also identified several properties and projects for future study, including rolling a city-owned parcel on Kent Street into the urban renewal district for redevelopment and exploring reuse options for the vacant fish processing plant; staff said both items could be discussed at a future urban renewal work session.

The meeting closed with agreement to schedule follow-up work session(s) for detailed project scoping and to coordinate with ODOT on Highway 101 issues. The committee set a target date for the next budget committee convening and flagged May 15 as a possible meeting date to continue review.

Votes at a glance

• Nomination and voice vote to appoint Valerie Solver as chair — motion by Mister Gallina; second not specified; approved by voice vote (individual tallies not recorded in the meeting transcript).

What’s next

Staff was directed to: (1) contact ODOT and utility owners about power-pole locations and permit/maintenance implications; (2) return with cost estimates and preferred siting for restrooms to address ADA access at the harbor; (3) provide a clearer accounting method for staff time charged to urban renewal; and (4) prepare materials for a follow-up urban renewal work session to scope Kent Street and the vacant fish plant property.