Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Urban Renewal Plan topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
ERDAC reviews urban renewal plan: $20 million to underground utilities seen as infeasible; members debate expansion, eminent domain and public art
Summary
ERDAC reviewed its downtown urban renewal plan, with staff saying full undergrounding of utility lines would cost about $20 million and is unlikely without major grants; members discussed parking signage, expanded grants, tax‑increment financing limits (maximum indebtedness ~ $9 million), possible boundary changes and citizen concerns about eminent domain and historic preservation.
ERDAC heard a staff presentation on the city’s urban renewal plan and next steps for downtown development, with staff warning that a full undergrounding of remaining above‑ground utility lines would be prohibitively expensive without major grant funding. “A project like that is around $20 million,” staff said, adding that any undergrounding would likely be developer driven or require significant outside funding.
The presentation covered several plan sections including public utility upgrades, public parking facilities, grants and technical assistance, and tax‑increment financing. On parking, staff said the city has completed available striping work and plans clearer lot signage in the next fiscal year for three major lots, but does not yet have funds to acquire new lots.
On incentives and property assistance, staff said the agency will continue to use grants (expanded to cover both capital construction and technical assistance such as site studies and engineering) rather than launching a loan program immediately. Staff also described the plan’s tax‑increment financing provisions and noted the plan shows a maximum indebtedness of just over $9 million; one participant estimated current indebtedness is “maybe about 4 million.” Tori, whom a colleague asked to clarify, confirmed the figure as the plan’s maximum indebtedness.
Members discussed the procedure and limits for amending the plan. Staff said substantial amendments — including adding land, increasing maximum indebtedness or extending the plan’s duration — require the same notice, hearings and ordinance adoption the original plan did, while minor edits can be handled by commission resolution. Staff pointed to a 2018 resolution that extended the plan to fiscal year end 2042 and noted the original district was adopted in 2004.
Debate over boundary changes and eminent domain followed. Staff cautioned that Oregon law limits the percentage of a city that can be inside urban renewal districts and said the creation of the South Dallas district brings the city closer to that limit, so expansion is possible but constrained. A committee member and a member of the public urged caution about eminent domain: one participant described older houses in the district “built in the 20s and even before” and said they feared that redevelopment or parking projects could erase historic properties. A committee member suggested the agency consider language that would prohibit acquiring property through eminent domain for this renewal area; staff replied, “We can certainly explore what that might look like.”
Members also raised the absence of a clearly identified commercial downtown master plan in city files. Staff said they could not locate a formal city master plan but did find an art plan produced by the DDA (started 2017, published 2020) funded by a Ford Family Foundation grant; staff noted the city has a public‑art process for murals and sculptures and that adding art language could be handled as a minor amendment.
Staff outlined next steps: staff will research potential plan changes (including boundary analysis and amendment pathways), provide a report on feasibility and parcel‑level tax information if the group wants to explore expansion, and return to the committee with a report on the first round of grants by the July meeting. The committee adjourned at 6:08 p.m.
