Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Urban Renewal topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

North Bend officials outline urban renewal amendment, defend 30-year plan amid school board concerns

2626575 · February 12, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

City consultants and officials briefed the North Bend School District board on a proposed urban renewal amendment and a planned workforce-housing project, answering questions about tax impacts, eminent domain, unit counts and a $4 million federal grant.

City consultants and North Bend officials spent much of a work session explaining a proposed amendment to the city's urban renewal agency (URA) plan and a related workforce-housing project, saying the changes are intended to address blight and attract residents and workers while disputing some concerns the school board raised.

The consultants, David Bewlhyar and Jeff Bridal, told board members the district is "the least impacted by any of the taxing districts within the urban renewal agency boundary," while saying the proposed project could increase enrollment and revenue by bringing residents into the community. Bewlhyar said he was "surprised by the number of questions posed by the district," given what he described as minimal expected financial impact.

Board members and district staff asked detailed questions about the URA amendment's duration (discussed as 30 years), how tax-increment financing would affect the district and other taxing authorities, whether the city could use eminent domain to acquire district property and who would manage and maintain any new housing. Several speakers raised concerns that extending the URA for 30 years is a much larger commitment than the district's previous experience with shorter terms.

Why it matters: The URA amendment would freeze the taxing base for the properties inside the URA and allow tax-increment revenues to be used for redevelopment and to repay debt. Some district members worried a long URA term could constrain revenues available for city services and other taxing jurisdictions. City presenters said the net fiscal effect on the school district would be small in dollar terms and that the URA is intended to spur development that can increase local population and economic activity.

Most policy and finance questions remained at the informational stage; no formal vote was taken. Bewlhyar and Bridal described the URA approach used in the city's plan and said the agency's implementation documents and annual reports are posted online at northbendoregon.us/ura. They identified several concrete figures and plans discussed in the work session: a conceptual housing footprint that already has been modeled with a minimum of 67 units, earlier planning estimates that ranged "40 to 70" units, and a federal grant of about $4,000,000 that is intended to support workforce housing. Bridal said workforce housing in the plan is targeted at about 30% of area median incomes ("workforce housing is about 30% and it's a sliding scale," Bridal said).

Board members asked how many additional students might live in the new units; presenters said planning-stage estimates suggested roughly two children for many 3-bedroom units and that bringing about 25 new students would materially reduce the district revenue shortfall discussed earlier in the meeting. Presenters also said a larger footprint for the project (by incorporating city hall space) could add about 40 more units.

County and other taxing authorities: City staff acknowledged some taxing entities would see foregone tax increment during the URA term. Bridal cited an example saying the Port of Coos Bay's loss might be on the order of "less than $40,000" a year, and other figures discussed in the meeting placed county impacts at roughly $40,000 to $65,000 annually depending on assumptions and which line items are included. Presenters described a revenue-sharing cap that would require some excess annual increment above a statutory cap to be returned to the county in later years under a change to how the URA distributes revenue.

Eminent domain and property acquisition: Board members repeatedly asked whether the city could acquire school district property for redevelopment. Bridal and Bewlhyar said the city has no present interest in the district's administration building and that contract language permitting condemnation could be removed: "If we feel strongly about it, we can have that language removed," Bridal said. They also said state law gives school districts certain eminent-domain powers and that any use of condemnation would involve statutory processes, fair-market-value appraisals and required relocation assistance.

Private investment and feasibility: Board members asked why private developers had not already built on the site. Bridal said the property was marketed widely in past procurements, and earlier solicitations produced no viable bidders. He described the site's predevelopment challenges'asbestos, underground tanks, demolition and utilities'and said these factors, plus the need for tax-credit structures for affordable housing, often require public intervention or incentives. Bridal said the city secured a federal award of about $4 million earmarked for workforce housing, a configuration he called unusual nationally.

Management, operations and maintenance: Several board members pressed for details on who would manage and maintain housing and how operating costs and long-term maintenance would be funded while property tax base inside the URA is effectively frozen. City presenters said URA revenues and grant proceeds would be used for project and loan repayment and that project-level rents and operating income factor into long-term operating budgets, but they did not present a detailed management agreement during the session.

What the board asked for next: Board members asked the city to provide clearer, written answers to outstanding questions about student-seat estimates, the project's unit mix by bedroom size, the planned tenant-selection process, and precise annual tax-impact tables for the district and county. Bridal and Bewlhyar said they would provide follow-up materials; there was no formal directive from the board recorded in the work session.

Ending: The session closed with an offer from the city to provide project documentation and monitoring materials, and with the board reiterating concerns about long-term fiscal impacts and the district's association with the URA plan. No formal votes or amendments were made during the work session.