Wilsonville council debates Town Center finance scenarios as Measure 3-632 drives public comment

Wilsonville, April 6 — Councilors spent the work session debating financial scenarios for the city's Town Center urban renewal plan and heard public appeals on a charter amendment, Measure 3-632, that would require voter approval for major changes to urban renewal plans.

Economic development manager Matt Lorenzan presented three alternatives for the Town Center's financial plan, including a newly modeled 17.5% reduction scenario that staff said would leave an estimated maximum indebtedness of about $85 million in 2026. Lorenzan told the council "these scenarios represent financial plans rather than a development plan," and stressed that the estimates are intended to show fiscal capacity, not commit to specific land use outcomes.

The council's discussion focused on how many residences the scenarios would underpin — a point several councilors said matters politically and financially. Councilor Cunningham warned the forecasts could imply more than the 1,600 residential units in the 2019 plan and argued that "the people have to make the final decision on this and we shouldn't leave it up to five people to come in on a whim." Councilor Skull, Chevlin and others said they favored advancing the scaled-back 10% reduction scenario to the November ballot so voters can decide, noting that urban renewal borrowing is typically phased over decades and that the zoning still requires land-use approvals.

Measure 3-632, a citizen-drafted charter amendment that would require voter approval for what it defines as "substantial changes" to urban renewal plans, drew multiple public commenters on both sides. Tristan Roland, speaking in favor of the plan and against the charter amendment, urged residents to oppose 3-632, saying it "will limit growth in Wilsonville" and could create costly, recurring votes. Conversely, speakers who worry about density and taxpayer risk pressed the council to preserve tighter public control over amendments.

Councilors deliberated the legal and practical implications: staff noted that a substantial amendment under state statute requires formal notice and hearings, while the proposed charter language in 3-632 would overlay a different, broader test for what triggers a mandatory public vote. Several members said the council should present a clear, reduced scenario to voters in November and let the electorate decide.

Next steps: Staff will refine the materials for public hearings and for a November ballot placement, and the council indicated a preference among some members to move forward with the smaller scenario for voters to consider.