Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Urban Renewal topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Focus groups and survey find appetite for restaurants, parks and clarity on urban renewal in Wilsonville Town Center debate
Summary
DHM Research and CFM Advocates reported focus‑group and survey results showing community appetite for local restaurants, parks and gathering spaces in Town Center, mixed views about housing, and widespread questions about urban renewal mechanics, timelines, tax impacts and funding transparency; staff will return with a public‑engagement plan.
DHM Research and CFM Advocates presented the results of three focus groups (34 participants) and an online outreach survey (555 respondents) on the proposed Wilsonville Town Center and potential use of urban renewal financing.
Key findings: participants repeatedly named local businesses (especially restaurants), parks and community gathering places as top priorities. Focus groups showed strong values around safety and maintaining a small‑town feel; respondents also expressed widespread uncertainty about urban renewal/TIF mechanics and potential tax impacts. Housing produced the most divided responses — some participants prioritized affordable housing to retain young people, while others preferred single‑family preservation or worried about density, traffic, and the loss of small‑town character.
Survey responses mirrored focus‑group themes: roughly 44% of respondents said they supported using urban renewal for Town Center, about 30% opposed and about 25% were undecided. Supporters described urban renewal as a pragmatic tool to coordinate incremental development; opponents cited concerns about long‑term indebtedness, tax policy and city fiscal transparency. Undecided respondents asked for clearer project lists, sequencing, timelines, and transparent tax‑impact analyses.
Presenters recommended a focused communications and outreach strategy that responds to specific information needs: clearly explain project timing and milestones, explain tax increment financing mechanics and taxpayer impacts, provide transparent funding scenarios and sequencing, and convene accessible public forums. Council asked staff to return with outreach recommendations and a plan; presenters said they will develop those materials and bring them back for council guidance before further actions.
Public comment following the presentation included multiple residents who both supported and opposed urban renewal and who offered perspectives on homelessness, neighborhood code compliance, and the urgency of revitalizing Town Center. The meeting record shows a range of community voices and requests for more transparent, accessible information prior to any final decisions.
