Council holds first readings of East and West urban renewal plans tied to PDX63 data‑center revenues

Mayor Cadence opened a public hearing June 2 to consider the first reading of two urban renewal ordinances. Consultant Elaine Howard and city staff explained that the East and West plans use tax‑increment financing (TIF) to fund eligible infrastructure projects and that adoption of a plan authorizes the financing framework and places projects on an eligibility list — it does not obligate the city to build every item listed.

Howard said each plan carries the statutory maximum indebtedness amount of $77,898,370 and that the East plan (370.7 acres) assumes about 60% of a projected tax increment from the Amazon 'PDX63' data‑center campus will be available after that development comes onto the tax rolls (projected fiscal year 2034–35). The West plan (473.7 acres) is projected to receive a smaller share and extends to a 20‑year projection horizon. Staff emphasized revenue‑sharing rules and statutory caps will limit annual incremental receipts and that the city will need outside grants, bond decisions and leveraging to deliver many of the larger projects listed in each plan.

Priority projects identified for early phases include Columbia Boulevard reconstruction and intersection work, golf course wastewater improvements and Ash Park sports complex in the East plan, and marina replacement, 7th and 8th Street reconstructions, Powerline Road improvements (including a roundabout) and Canal Bridge replacement in the West plan. Staff stressed that projects were drawn from adopted master plans (transportation, parks, utilities) and that the URA process makes those projects eligible for TIF funds but does not guarantee construction.

Public testimony included repeated concerns from residents who said notices stating 'no increased property taxes' were misleading. Local business owner Dewey Tegland and Barton Loop residents questioned whether urban renewal will indirectly raise owners' bills, how street‑project grades will match existing private driveways and whether sidewalk/curb work could impose retrofits on adjacent private property. Susan Taylor and others opposed punching Riverside through to Bud Draper, citing safety and higher vehicle speeds in a quiet neighborhood. Staff and the consultant responded that urban renewal does not create a new tax on owners and that property taxes are increased on a parcel only by direct improvements or assessment changes, not by public street work; they also noted the URA diverts future assessed‑value growth within the area to repay projects and that school funding formulas at the state level generally offset direct pupil funding impacts.

Council discussed risk and timing. Staff described two revenue streams related to data centers — the 3% annual assessed‑value cap on real property and the cyclical personal‑property values tied to equipment depreciation — and said the most significant revenue spike in the model is expected when the PDX63 site reaches the end of its abatement period and comes onto the tax rolls. Council asked about staff and contractor capacity to deliver front‑loaded projects; staff said the city has budgeted project management resources, has a project manager position and plans to contract program/project management for large builds, as done on recent major projects.

After public testimony and deliberations, council closed the hearings and conducted the first readings of Ordinance 884 (East Urban Renewal Plan) and Ordinance 885 (West Urban Renewal Plan) by title only, recording them in the public‑hearing record. The motions for first reading passed on roll call. Next steps: the ordinances will return for a second reading (anticipated in July) where council can adopt, modify or reject the plans after the hearing record is complete.