City of Umatilla outlines two urban renewal areas tied to incoming Amazon facility, estimates $77.9M max indebtedness

City of Umatilla consultants presented two proposed urban renewal areas to the Umatilla County Board of Commissioners on May 20, outlining a plan that relies on an expected Amazon project to expand assessed value and fund infrastructure work.

"There is a specific process outlined in RS457 for the approval of an urban renewal plan," consultant Elaine Howard said, explaining the county’s role in the briefing as limited to asking questions and receiving information. Howard told the board each proposed area lists a identical maximum indebtedness of $77,898,370, a figure determined by statutory formula tied to assessed value.

Howard described the east area as roughly 370 acres with an 18-year projected timeframe and an early-project emphasis on transportation and parks. She said the city’s financial analysis assumes the Amazon facility (referred to in materials as PDX63) will be added to the property tax rolls in fiscal year 2034–35 and that the east area is modeled to receive about 60% of the new assessed value from that project. "So the net TIF is projected to be about $94.6 million," she said, and after debt service the city anticipates approximately $59.8 million available for projects over the plan’s life.

Howard said the first five years could support roughly $31.7 million in projects, with a potential bond sale of around $20.1 million in years 11–15 and about $7.88 million remaining in the final years under current projections. She cautioned the city’s project list exceeds the plan’s capacity and that the urban renewal agency expects to leverage federal and state grants and private investment for some projects.

For the west area, Howard said the boundary covers about 473 acres and the plan’s timeframe is longer (about 20 years) because it is modeled to claim 40% of the Amazon-related assessed value. Early projects listed for the west area include marina replacement work, multiple street reconstructions, a canal bridge replacement and park/marina infrastructure.

Howard described the tax-impact mechanics to the board: urban renewal captures increases in assessed value within the plan area; taxing districts do not lose current revenues but do not receive the incremental increase in property tax revenues within the urban renewal area during the TIF period. "The impact in 2035 to general county is $3.1 million," she said in slides and discussion, adding the impact declines in subsequent years under the revenue-sharing formula built into state statute.

Howard also summarized the review schedule: planning commission review May 26, a city council hearing June 2, and a city council vote scheduled in July. She noted statutory limitations on the percentage of acreage and assessed value that may be included in urban renewal and said the east area had been reduced to approximately 24.7% of allowable acreage.

The board asked clarifying questions about specific projects and the fee and revenue assumptions; commissioners received the briefing with no action required by the county. The city representatives said they would follow the statutory notice and review steps and that the county’s role at this stage was informational.