North Bend school board declines to concur with city urban renewal amendments after hours of public testimony

The North Bend School District 13 board of directors on Feb. 6 declined to concur with two proposed amendments to the City of North Bends Urban Renewal Agency (URA) plan that would have increased the agencys maximum indebtedness and authorized a public building project connected to a proposed housing development.

The board heard more than two hours of public testimony before voting on the first resolution, which would have raised the agencys maximum indebtedness from $11,800,723 to $45,500,000 and sought the districts concurrence. Jeff Bridal, finance director for the city of North Bend, urged the board to approve the amendment, saying local control of tax dollars was at stake: "Should $250,000 of the school district's taxes stay here in North Bend to support our home each year, or would you rather send those funds to Salem for redistribution to other school districts across Oregon?" Bridal said. "Keeping local funds local and using them to support new housing in our city directly benefits the school district by aiding in its enrollment."

The public record included dozens of speakers. Supporters said the URA amendment would help unlock federal and state funding and create workforce housing needed to retain employees and grow enrollment in the district. Lexi Woodward, executive director of the South Coast Development Council, described the plan as "an amplifier for downtown revitalization" and said the South Coast faces development barriers that require public-private partnership. Jeff Lang, chief executive of Coquille Valley Hospital and Coquille Valley Health, said the proposed 72 workforce housing units would "greatly enhance area health care providers' ability to recruit and retain the medical professionals needed in our community."

Opponents raised fiscal and governance concerns. Rod Taylor, a Coos County commissioner, said the county had unanimously declined to join the effort and warned the project would "take $65,000 a year out of the county's general fund budget every single year." Chris Castleman called URA financing a form of debt that bypasses voter approval and described the measure as a "gift card from taxpayers" that could be increased without a public vote. Several small-business owners and long-time downtown property owners said they lacked enough detail about unit sizes, tenant eligibility and long-term management to support the plan. Mary Jo "MJ" Golder, a local business owner, said she was not opposed to housing but asked for more specifics about who would qualify for workforce units.

Board members debated the policy and fiscal tradeoffs at length. Several members said they supported addressing housing and downtown blight, but worried about ceding control of school district tax revenue to a long-term URA plan and about the city operating rental housing in competition with private landlords. One board member noted the countys vote against the plan and the countys recent budget pressures, including layoffs and jail closures, as part of the districts calculus.

When the roll-call vote was taken on Resolution 2025-02 (increase in maximum indebtedness), the board recorded one affirmative and six negative votes: Nathan McClintock voted yes; Carol (vote recorded as "No" in minutes), Julie (No), Dallas (No), Michelle Roberts (No), Mary Schillman (No) and Board Chair Jim Jordan (No) voted against the measure. The motion failed.

The board later considered a second resolution (2025-03) to concur with inclusion of a public building project (rehabilitation or replacement of City Hall) in the URA plan. That resolution likewise failed on a roll-call vote, recorded as seven "No" votes.

Votes at a glance

- Resolution 2025-02 (increase URA maximum indebtedness from $11,800,723 to $45,500,000): Motion to approve failed on roll call, yes: Nathan McClintock; no: Carol, Julie, Dallas, Michelle Roberts, Mary Schillman, Jim Jordan; tally: yes 1, no 6. The resolution text referenced ORS chapter 457 and the requirement for taxing district concurrence.

- Resolution 2025-03 (inclusion of a public building project for rehabilitation/reconstruction of City Hall in URA plan): Motion to approve failed on roll call; tally recorded as no 7, yes 0.

- Consent agenda (routine finance/operations items earlier in the meeting): Approved by voice vote, recorded as 7-0.

- Budget committee appointments (positions 3 and 7, three-year terms ending 06/30/2027): Appointments approved 7-0.

- Academic calendar change (see separate article): Board approved transition of North Bend Middle and High School from trimesters to semesters for the 2025-26 school year, recorded 7-0.

Why the decision matters

Proponents argued the URA amendment would directly support district enrollment, local economic development and taxpayer relief by lowering a special levy and unlocking $4 million in federal grants tied to the development. Opponents countered that the URA mechanism diverts tax growth and can shift long-term fiscal risk away from the URA and onto other taxing districts, and they urged a public vote or more transparent protections for the district's funding and for county interests. The boards no votes leave the city without the districts formal concurrence; the URA and city may pursue other options.

What the city and district said next

City staff and the URA finance director said they would continue to engage the community and seek alternatives; the city presented the plan as a way to retain local tax dollars and spur housing and downtown revitalization. Board members said they appreciated the volume of public input and urged the city to explore other approaches, including private-public partnerships and additional clarity on tenant eligibility, property management, and projected tax impacts.

Ending note

The URA debate drew large public turnout and detailed local testimony on housing, small business, health care workforce, county fiscal impacts and the mechanics of tax-increment financing. The boards decision leaves the URA proposal without the district's concurrence and signals continued public discussion over downtown redevelopment and housing strategies in North Bend.