Loading...
CCDA Minutes - 09/20/2005 Agenda Item No. 3, D, For Agenda of /D, i3,cE CITY CENTER DEVELOPMENT AGENCY - AN URBAN RENEWAL AGENCY- MEETING MINUTES SEPTEMBER 20, 2005 1. CITY CENTER DEVELOPMENT AGENCY (CCDA) MEETING 1.1 Chairperson Dirksen called the meeting to order at 9:49 p.m 1.2 CCDA Members present: Chairperson Dirksen, Directors Sherwood, Wilson, and Woodruff. City Center Advisory Commission (CCAC) Members present: Carolyn Barkley, Gretchen Buehner, Alexander Craghead, Alice Ellis Gaut, Marland Henderson, Mike Marr and Roger Potthoff. 2. UPDATE ON THE STATUS OF THE URBAN RENEWAL PLAN Community Development Director Hendryx introduced this item and provided the CCDA members with an updated Urban Renewal Plan Adoption Process and Timeline, dated September 20, 2005. The handout is on file in the City Recorder's office. Mr. Hendryx provided the following highlights of the timeline: • 9/21/05 — CCAC approves the Urban Renewal Plan • 9/27/05 - CCDA accepts and refers the plan • 9/27/05 -- Mail notice to urban renewal property owners plus 500 feet • 10/17/05 — Planning Commission hearing on the plan 11/22/05 or 12/13/05—City Council takes action on the plan Mr. Hendryx advised this is an aggressive schedule. Mr. Hendryx informed the CCDA the Downtown Improvement Plan and the CCAC recommendation are based upon different urban renewal boundaries. The CCAC recommendation expanded the original area to include: CITY CENTER DEVELOPMENT AGENCY—SEPTEMBER 20, 2005 page 1 Railroad crossings at Tiedeman and North Dakota intersection. The other side of Commercial Street. i The former Safeway property to the Shell gas station at Highway 217. The majority of the Russ Chevrolet dealership property. Expansion of the urban renewal boundaries was not a unanimous decision. Mr. Hendryx stated the CCAC had discussed the matter at three separate meetings. He added the Downtown Task Force may not support the boundary expansion. The schedule for urban renewal did not factor in time to resolve areas of disagreement. Mr. Hendryx advised these differences of opinion and the lack of a unified decision from the group may impact public outreach. Mr. Hendryx suggested one option might be to postpone the Planning Commission meeting to November 7, 2005, building in another three weeks to try and resolve the boundary issue. This would make the schedule even tighter and would delay mailing of the notices which are slated to go out next week. Mr. Hendryx described some of the tasks associated with the Public Outreach Plan. The CCAC had discussed scheduling 50 to 70 dialogues. Mr. Hendryx stated he and the City Manager had discussed increasing the services of the public outreach consultant by no more than $20,000, to assist with some of the key components related to public involvement. Mr. Hendryx advised the Public Outreach Plan views the following tasks as essential to the success of Tigard's urban renewal efforts: • Training for City Center Advisory Commission members. • Assembling facts and highlights for the public. Shape the message. Training on how to engage the public. Mr. Hendryx acknowledged the need for consensus-building among the CCAC and the Downtown Task Force in order to identify a solid plan which both groups can support. Next Mr. Hendryx addressed the election schedule. He relayed a new court decision resulted in a mandate to have all ballot title challenges completed before the ballot title is filed with the elections division. This compresses an already tight I timeline, as a challenge may add another 60 days to the election process. Mr. Hendryx advised once the decision is made to put an item on the ballot, the task force, CCAC and staff can only prepare factual materials; these groups are not permitted to advocate for the ballot measure. Mr. Hendryx suggested the following three options: I CITY CENTER DEVELOPMENT AGENCY--SEPTEMBER 20, 2005 page 2 I. Retain the existing schedule. • Planning Commission on October 17 • Complete the plan on September 21 • Plan comes to the CCDA the week of September 26 • Notices sent out the week of September 26 • Drawback— consensus has not been achieved regarding the urban renewal boundary 2. Push the timeline back. • Move the Planning Commission meeting back three weeks • More time for notices and public outreach • More time to work toward a consensus • City Council hearing would take place on 11/22 or 12113 3. Move the election to November 2006 election. The CCDA discussed at what point in the process the boundaries needed to be determined. Chairperson Dirksen confirmed the process as follows: • CCAC adopts the plan • CCDA refers the plan to the Planning Commission • Planning Commission refers the plan to the Council • City Council considers the plan Chairperson Dirksen verified there were no projects planned for the expanded boundary area. Mr. Hendryx advised the boundary has to be identified so notices can be sent out. Notices are scheduled to go out next week. City Attorney Ramis added, as a part of the notice, the financial analysis needs to be completed. The analysis is dependent upon the urban renewal boundaries. CCDA member Buehner informed the Council that among the CCAC members, there was never a clear decision regarding the northern boundary of the urban renewal area. Director Wilson confirmed the original boundary only contained one corner at the intersection of Hall Boulevard and Highway 99W. With regard to the expanded boundary, Ms. Buehner explained right-of-way improvements in the Hall Boulevard and Highway 99W intersection were going to have a substantial impact on properties in that area. She predicted redevelopment of the expanded area would take place sooner than expected and it made sense for the area to be included within the urban renewal boundaries. She added developers had advocated for the expanded area. CITY CENTER DEVELOPMENT AGENCY—SEPTEMBER 20, 2005 page 3 CCAC member Potthoff declared the entire Hall Boulevard and Highway 99W intersection should be included in the urban renewal boundary because the area represents an underdeveloped use of the property. Areas falling short of their "highest and best use" qualify for urban renewal. Private investment is driven by the market and traffic is a determining factor. Mr. Potthoff argued the act of identifying Main Street as an urban renewal area would not, by itself, bring investment to that area. He asserted the boundary expansion would increase the financial capacity of the whole urban renewal area by making the bonds more viable. Mr. Potthoff stated the area in question could be the revenue source which drives urban renewal over the next 20 years. Mr. Potthoff concluded by saying citizens are very interested in improving Highway 99W and to exclude the expanded area means citizen concerns would be ignored. It was noted five property owners along Hall Boulevard had signed petitions indicating they wished to be included in the urban renewal district. CCAC Chairperson Marr stated he did not recall any discussion with developers regarding the Hall Boulevard and Highway 99W intersection. Mr. Marr, not speaking as the CCDA Chairperson, said he was open to the Tiedeman/North Dakota and Center Street (from Greenburg Road to Commercial Street) amendments to the plan, but did not support the northern boundary expansion. He asserted the commission should stick with the existing plan, as this is what has been represented to the citizens for the past three years. By amending the boundary, the plan may lose credibility with the public and its chances for success may be reduced. CCAC member Gaut remarked how the demographics of the area had changed as compared to earlier urban renewal plans. Marland Henderson, CCAC member and Chairperson of the Downtown Task Force, expressed concern about changing a plan the group had been working on for the past three years. He noted by expanding the boundary, an already daunting workload would be increased and the urban renewal area would more than double in size. The Tiedeman offshoot was discussed. The addition of this intersection makes the boundary appear awkward. Some Council members suggested there might be other funding options, such as capital improvement dollars or Metro funds, to address the railroad crossing issue. Director Wilson confirmed the tax increment funding dollars from the expanded area would benefit the urban renewal district. However, no urban renewal projects are proposed for this area. CITY CENTER DEVELOPMENT AGENCY—SEPTEMBER 20, 2005 page 4 CCAC member Barkley asserted the most compelling argument for not expanding the boundary was there had been no outreach to property owners. She advised these property owners may be excited at the prospect of inclusion in the district and the group should not assume there would be opposition. Director Woodruff inquired if there was any possibility of the CCAC reaching a concensus. Mr. Potthoff stated the group was trying to second guess the politics of their recommendation. He explained the best approach to urban renewal may not be the most palatable plan for voters. Mr. Ramis advised the city needed to have a plan. He added the plan could be amended. Chairperson Dirksen asked Mr. Henderson and Mr. Marr to summarize the concerns the Downtown Task Force had regarding the boundary expansion. There concerns are as follows: • Potential opposition of property owners within the expanded area. • Public perception of the change and maintaining credibility with voters. • Expanded area falls outside of the central business district. • Improvements to the Highway 99W and Hall Boulevard intersection fall under state jurisdiction. Chairperson Dirksen expressed his desire for the group to reach a consensus and proposed a meeting between the CCAC and the Downtown Task Force. He encouraged the City Council to attend also. It was agreed a meeting would be arranged and the item would be placed on the Planning Commission agenda on November 7 rather than October 17. City Attorney Ramis reminded the group that the "selling" of urban renewal could not be done by a city commission or task force. However, members of these groups can form a separate political entity to promote urban renewal. Mr. Prosser summarized by saying staff would identify a date for the meeting as soon as possible. He added a contract amendment might be done to allow the public outreach consultant to facilitate the meeting. Thursday, September 29th at 6:30 p.m. was suggested as the possible meeting date and time. 3. ADJOURNMENT: CITY CENTER DEVELOPMENT AGENCY--SEPTEMBER 20, 2005 page 5 Motion by Director Woodruff, seconded by Director Wilson, to adjourn the meeting. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote: Chairperson Dirksen - Yes Director Sherwood - Yes Director Wilson - Yes Director Woodruff - Yes The meeting adjourned at 11:02 p.m. J Greer A. Gaston, Recorder City Center Development Agency Attest: Craigdirk—sen, Chairperson City Center Development Agency Date: ItladMl=1h&cm%2005W50920 ocda,doc CITY CENTER DEVELOPMENT AGENCY—SEPTEMBER 20, 2005 page 6