Gresham presents proposed downtown civic urban renewal plan; estimates $381 million maximum indebtedness over 30 years

City of Gresham officials on July 8 briefed the Multnomah County Board of Commissioners on a proposed downtown civic urban renewal plan that, if adopted, would use tax-increment financing to support infrastructure, community-identity projects and private development incentives in roughly 900 acres in east Multnomah County District 4.

Justin Douglas, director of the Gresham Redevelopment Commission, and consultant Elaine Howard summarized the plan—s vision, boundary, timing and fiscal estimates. The draft calls for $211 million in spending in today—s dollars and a maximum indebtedness of $381 million over roughly 30 years; the plan estimates tax-increment impacts across taxing districts that the presenters said total about $437 million when education impacts and interest costs are included.

Why it matters: The proposed area overlays parts of downtown Gresham and the civic neighborhood and would use increment from developing property values to finance transportation, utilities, community-identity work and grants to leverage private development. Multnomah County, the city, library and other taxing districts would see delayed tax receipts while the district is active; the county—s estimated contribution over the life of the plan was shown as about $127 million.

Douglas said the plan builds on Gresham—s prior urban renewal work in Rockwood, where staff estimate $4 in private investment for every $1 in public contribution. The proposed downtown boundary is roughly Burnside to the north, Hogan/Highway 26 to the east, Powell to the south and Wallula to the west. City staff said the area excludes much single-family zoning and focuses on commercial and mixed-use parcels.

Consultant Elaine Howard described project categories and estimated allocations: in today—s dollars, $53 million for private development leverage (about 27% of the plan), roughly 25% for community identity, 14% for transportation, 12% for utilities and about 23% for debt administration, issuance and reserves. The presenters emphasized that maximum indebtedness ($381 million) represents borrowing and interest over time; the $211 million figure is the present-value allocation to projects.

Presenters outlined estimated impacts to taxing districts over the life of the plan that were included in the staff report: Multnomah County ~$127 million; City of Gresham ~$106 million; Multnomah County Library ~$36 million; Port of Portland and regional service districts smaller amounts; and indirect effects on state school funding estimated at about $133 million to the state school fund (affecting the Gresham Barlow School District and Multnomah Educational Service District). Staff said the total taxing-district impact shown in the report, including education impacts and interest, is about $437 million.

Gresham staff placed the proposed plan on a public schedule required by state law: the city sent notice to overlapping taxing districts on May 30 and provided a 45-day consult-and-confer window that expires July 10. The planning commission will review conformance to the comprehensive plan on July 14; the city council public hearing is scheduled for Aug. 26 (public hearing) with final action anticipated at a second reading Sept. 2.

Commissioners asked about anti-displacement measures, housing types and how housing goals appear in the budget categories. Justin Douglas and Elaine Howard said housing goals are embedded in the private development and community-identity categories rather than listed as a separate dollar line; the plan sets goals to encourage ownership opportunities, rehabilitate existing housing and develop a mix of housing types but does not specify unit counts.

Several commissioners supported the plan—s aims while cautioning about displacement risk and cumulative taxing impacts. Commissioner John Stickson said his office will send a written letter with recommendations before July 10 and highlighted interest in food-system and anti-displacement strategies. Commissioner Singleton asked whether the plan includes explicit targets for homeownership and anti-gentrification controls; staff said those are goals but not quantified in the draft and pointed to potential programmatic tools and partnerships the city would pursue.

Douglas and Howard noted Rockwood—s impending closure as a separate urban renewal district will return some tax increment to overlapping districts in coming years (staff projected about $2 million returning to the county in FY 202728). They also said voters in 2022 and a 2024 city charter amendment affected how Gresham approaches renewal and ballot requirements.

No formal action was requested of the board at the briefing; staff said Multnomah County may submit written recommendations to the Gresham City Council during the consult-and-confer window. The Gresham Redevelopment Commission is expected to forward the plan to city council for adoption consideration in early September.