Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Urban Renewal topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission discusses substantial amendment to Astor East urban renewal to include Copeland parcel; consultant cost estimated at $33,000
Summary
Staff proposed a substantial amendment to the Astor East Urban Renewal District to add roughly 0.21 acres that would allow the commission to assist the Copeland Commons project; staff estimated the consultant-led amendment would cost about $33,000 and take approximately six months, and the commission agreed to consider taking the item to a regular meeting for formal action.
City staff told the Astoria Development Commission that a substantial amendment to the Astor East Urban Renewal District could be used to include the Copeland Commons parcel and potentially make urban-renewal resources available to support the project.
Patrick Spence, presenting the amendment option, said state law permits expansion of a district by up to 20% and that Astor East had roughly 0.842 acres of expansion capacity remaining. He said staff recommends a "substantial amendment" process—estimated consultant cost about $33,000 and an approximate six-month analysis—that would include a boundary analysis, maximum indebtedness examination and multiple public meetings before final recording.
A commissioner disclosed service on the Copeland Commons board and said the city attorney advised there was not a direct conflict; the commissioner said he would recuse from a vote if necessary. Commissioners discussed which public hearings are required (county, planning commission, city council) and whether the planning commission hearing should remain as an additional chance for public testimony even if not strictly required.
Commissioners debated where to pay the consultant fee. Staff informed the commission that the amendment cost is an eligible urban-renewal expense and could be paid from the renewal district, but at least one commissioner urged finding funds elsewhere in the city budget to avoid spending $33,000 to access a $200,000 city contribution candidate. Supporters said including the project in the renewal district could unlock longer-term benefits and allow future investments; some commissioners noted the long-term affordability payoff when spread over a 60-year period.
Spence and other staff said the amendment would also go to the planning commission and noted the process requires legal descriptions and work with the county assessor. Several commissioners agreed the proposal should be brought to a future regular Development Commission meeting for possible direction or approval after staff revises the timeline and cost estimates.
No formal motion or vote was taken at the work session. Staff will refine the scope with the consultant and return the item for formal consideration at a later meeting.
