McMinnville and Yamhill County begin joint review of downtown properties ahead of 'Downtown 2045' plan

McMinnville and Yamhill County officials met in a joint session April 8 to begin coordinating on a Downtown 2045 update and to review city- and county-owned parcels in and adjacent to downtown McMinnville.

The discussion centered on a city-led Downtown 2045 planning effort that the McMinnville Urban Renewal Agency has funded and expects to start selecting a consultant team in the second quarter of 2025. The city said the study will run about 18 to 24 months and will examine land uses, redevelopment opportunities, market analysis and, if warranted, an amendment to the downtown urban renewal plan.

“We're here to sort of start a dialogue about Downtown McMinnville and how it serves this community for the next 20 years,” Community Development Director Heather Richards said. The city provided maps showing properties owned by the City of McMinnville (blue), Yamhill County (red) and other tax-exempt parcels (purple), and flagged historic‑inventory sites and reduced parking requirement zones that affect redevelopment options.

County Administrator Ken Huffer described the county’s near‑term property plan tied to the county’s purchase of the OMI campus. Huffer said the county intends to consolidate several county functions into the OMI campus — including the County Clerk’s Office, Planning, IT, Tax & Assessment, Health & Human Services administration, veterans services and county administration — and that consolidation will free up eight county‑owned downtown parcels for potential sale or redevelopment.

“We're looking at a couple hundred employees that we're gonna be consolidating in this location, which is, right now, gonna free up 8 properties,” Huffer said. He said the county intends a deliberate, staged move so it does not flood the market with several properties at once; the Public Health building has already been vacated and the county expects to list it shortly, with an asking price of about $1.7 million, he said.

County leaders framed their approach around fiscal recovery from the OMI purchase. “For me, it comes down to show me the money,” Commissioner Starett said, describing the county board’s priority of recouping debt from the acquisition while working where possible with the city and the McMinnville Urban Renewal Advisory Committee (MURAC).

City and county members discussed shared redevelopment goals and constraints. Heather Richards and MURAC chair Peter Kircher urged officials to consider the long view: Kircher described the update as an opportunity to set a 20‑year vision and identify properties that may become obsolete so the agencies can plan transitions.

Historic preservation rules and downtown parking policy are likely to shape any redevelopment. Richards noted several city and county properties are on the local historic landmarks inventory and some fall within the National Register historic district, triggering separate review pathways and, for some buildings, a noticed public hearing. She said historic‑landmark decisions and redevelopment applications are commonly reviewed as a bundle; the city’s code brings landmark applications to the Historic Landmarks Committee within 30 days of a complete filing, with the hearing process commonly completed in about 60 days. If a redevelopment application is complete and meets downtown design standards, the building‑permit first review for commercial projects typically issues comments in about six to eight weeks, she said.

Several councilors and commissioners raised site‑specific questions. Councilors asked whether the county had interest in the community center site, the role of the downtown parking garage and whether vacating the public right‑of‑way on Ford Street (between Fourth and Fifth) to create a larger developable parcel would be feasible. City staff confirmed right‑of‑way vacations follow state law and require a city council public hearing.

Policy and service uses were discussed but not decided. County staff said a detox facility has been discussed for the county’s annex building, but no location or funding decision was finalized. County officials also said a stand‑alone county dog control kennel is not currently feasible given capital and operating costs; the county has existing contracts (currently with Newberg Animal Shelter) and said a new facility would be a long‑term prospect. On the parking structure, county staff said it continues to serve court‑related uses and event parking even after consolidation of some county offices.

Officials noted tax and urban renewal rules that affect outcomes: properties inside the downtown urban renewal district do not immediately return full property tax revenue to the taxing jurisdictions until tax‑increment financing sunsets; city staff said the district’s expected implementation horizon projects out to about 2038. That timeline and the city’s broader Downtown 2045 boundary study will factor into decisions about whether to expand an urban renewal district or reposition publicly owned land for private redevelopment.

Votes at a glance: the City Council later approved two procedural resolutions that do not change property dispositions. The council adopted the consent agenda (Resolution 2025‑10) unanimously and later approved Resolution 2025‑11, creating a stormwater utility operating fund and a stormwater capital fund to account for stormwater work and the ARPA transfer; Councilor Chenoweth moved Resolution 2025‑11 and Councilor Cunningham seconded; the resolution passed unanimously.

What happens next: city staff will issue an RFQ in the near term to select a consultant team for Downtown 2045 and the Urban Renewal Agency will oversee the planning work. County staff said it will proceed with a staged move to the OMI campus over the coming 12 months and will list the first vacated building in the next week; the county emphasized sales timing and price as primary constraints while inviting coordination on redevelopment objectives. MURAC members, city planning staff and commissioners encouraged continued joint meetings and community engagement as the planning and disposition processes move forward.

The joint session concluded with a commitment to keep communication channels open as staff from both jurisdictions and MURAC refine timelines, gather assessed values and draft redevelopment concepts.