02/09/1989 - Minutes CITY CENTER PLAN TASK FORCE
Thursday, February 9, 1989
Town Hall Conference Room
7:00 p.m
MINUTES
Members Present: Stuart Cohen, Mike Marr, Pam Juarez, Richard Morley
Consultants Present: Bob Moore
Others Present: Ed Murphy, Liz Newton, Duane Roberts, Peggy Weston Byrd, Dan
Dolan
Called to order by Chairman Cohen at 7:06 p.m.
Minutes of the previous two meetings were approved as written.
1. BREAKFAST MEETING FOLLOW-UP
2. REVIEW DRAFT OF DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Bob indicated that the socio-economic and certain other sections were
incomplete as yet. The numerical sections, as it were, are done.
He stated that the report answers the question "is the plan financially
feasible. " The answer is yes if the assumptions make in the report are
correct. The amount of tax increment funds available depends on the amount of
private investment anticipated. In the report this was arrived at by way of
the Hobson data. Other dollar amounts in the report are easier to estimate,
because they are fixed. The capture rate of projected development within the
market area, 345,000 square feet during the next 15 years, is somewhat above
the Hobson median trend line. The rate is consistent with the numbers Bart and
Wayne used throughout their respective studies.
The residential growth rate assumed is based on Hobson's estimate of 40 units
per year from the second year of the plan. A uniform rate of development is
assumed for the purposes of the plan. Part of the private development depends
on the installation of public facilities. Hard data from various sources on
the cost of street, park, and other development were available. A 4% per year
inflation rate also was included.
Over the last seven years property values in the development area have been
flat. Residential values have decreased. The estimates of property values
show a 2% annual inflation plus new investment in the area.
Mike asked if it were possible to add a column to Bob's to table 1 showing what
the estimated rate would be without tax increment financing. Bob's answer was
that this a requirement of the law and will be included. The final report
will include specific data on the impact of tax increment financing on
individual tax payers. In response to another question, he added that it is
not possible to estimate what the growth rate in the development area would
have been without tax increment financing, saying "it is too much of a guess."
Bob indicated that small business and upscale apartment construction costs were
used to derive the values shown in table 2.
Peggy stated that the report needs to define the meaning of class "B" office
space.
In response to Richard's question, Bob said that the estimate of tax rates
going up to $35 over a seven year period and remaining flat thereafter is based
on the history of what has happened with tax rates in other cities. Many
Oregon cities are already above $30 now.
Dan Dolan asked the basis for assigning a value of one million dollars to the
public square. Bob explained that we don't know the exact location, size, or
value of the square. Because it will be created on private property, it will
have a negative impact on valuation. The one million is a best guess.
Mike asked if Tri-Met or the state would provide any money for light rail
right-of-way acquisition. Bob stated that no compensation is available for
publicly owned land.
Table 3: $18,843,000 is the total sum left over for projects and
administration. Money is needed as soon as possible in order to apply to
projects and thereby generate private development. Not pay as you go. Key
number is total project expense.
In response to a question by Mike, Bob noted that the program administrator
title can be either a public or private position. Mike mentioned that the
figure looked low for a professional administrator.
By 2005 the debt service will be closed out. Any residual goes to the country.
The program can't legally go into the red at close out. The plan shows what
projects can be accomplished given the projected revenue stream. The breakout
is in 3-5 year phases. Costs are current costs plus inflation. Bob tried to
match projects to revenue. The numbers balance by 5-year periods.
Stuart commented that the framework is flexible and the next successor
committee can reshuffle projects if it desires. Bob noted that changes each
and every year may be assumed in response to the need to match projects to what
is needed to support specific private development.
Peggy mentioned that she would like to see the Main St. bridge project moved to
an earlier year.
Ed wanted the plan to make clear that transportation bond money is not part of
this package. It could be listed as a separate item or left in and
identified as such. He said it was placed in the third year only because there
is no agreement as yet on how the money will be spent. The project could move
up once agreement is reached.
Liz suggested that the table be organized in a matrix fashion to show how funds
and projects match-up.
Richard asked how the percentage formula for LIDs was determined. Bob stated
that the 50% figure is based on current city policy. The streets would be
improved to a standard above that needed to serve adjacent property. People
also are less likely to object to the formation of the LID. Another
consideration is that the Ash improvement goes through property that cannot be
assessed: Fanno Park.
Richard suggested that the "s" be deleted from the "towers" project.
Bob noted that $2-3,000 per space is included for parking. Public parking is
needed to support private investment. The revenue stream can't support the
construction of a parking structure.
Total assessed value figures include real property, railroad trackage, public
utility lines, pipes, business equipment and other similar items.
Mike asked if a different location for the off-ramp would be precluded by the
adoption of the plan as written. The present configuration of the ramp may be
logical in terms of traffic engineering, but the public has not had a full
opportunity to comment and suggest alternative designs. Pam agreed that more
time for public review of the plan in general was needed. Bob indicated that
the plan can be changed before Council adoption. It can be changed only by the
plan amendment process thereafter.
Dan expressed that there had not been enough public input and that the Task
Force had withheld information from the public. Stuart stated that ample
opportunity for input had been provided. The workshop and breakfast meeting
were cited. Peggy stated that there had been no conscious effort to hold
anything back. Richard also objected to the implication that the Task Force
had withheld information.
Bob reiterated that the project list will change each and every year.
A-BOY DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Dan noted that the new store will front on Main St. The old store will be
demolished. In a second phase, another building may be built on the site of
the existing store. All storage will be indoors. The use will be the same as
now: 80% retail and 20% warehouse. More hardware-type items will be sold. A
one-story, cinder block structure is planned. Plans for the project will be
submitted for city approval sometime this month.
Pam noted that the design plan calls for a multi-story office buildings on the
A-boy site and that the new store is adjacent to the proposed park. She asked
if these departures from the design plan create a problem or conflict. Mike
pointed out that the parking lot shown in Dan's plan is where the public square
is designed to be located.
Pam indicated that she is glad to see development, but is not sure how the A-
Boy project meshes with the plan. Richard expressed a similar reservation.
Mike noted a concern that the public might look with skepticism at the
investment of more than one million dollars in a park that abuts a vehicle-
oriented development that caters primarily to the construction trade. Given
the new circumstances, the development agency may wish to look at changing the
landscaping as shown in the park master plan and/or at relocating the
amphitheater.
Bob noted that if the City is concerned about the new A-Boy building being
placed too close to the park, it should purchase a strip of property for a bike
path or access to the park. Either the City should act or adjust the park
plan.
Mike indicated that if the City is initiating a plan that is to be followed
throughout its time horizon, there needs to be some control of development
consistent with the plan. If the plan is too flexible, there is essentially no
control. If it is too wide open, major changes and amendments will be
required each year.
Pam asked how restrictive the plan should be. Mike answered that depended on
how closely we want to follow the Vision. We will have no plan at all if we
are too flexible.
Stuart commented that long-term economic forces could change specific land uses
in ways that may be more compatible with the Vision.
Pan expressed the opinion that the plan should be "market driven."
Richard expressed that the choice was to be very flexible or to pursue the
plan as adopted. To assure that the plan is followed, it will be necessary to
bit the bullet and make hard choices.
PLAN ADOPTION SCHEDULE
Ed outlined the steps leading to the adoption of the plan and ballot measure.
These are shown below.
The next Task Force meeting is set for Thursday 2/23 from 6:00-10:00 PM.
Chairman Cohen adjourned the meeting at 10:10 PM.
Respectfully submitted by Duane Roberts