Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem B: URA - West Broadway Preliminary Financing Plan EURA UGENE RBAN ENEWAL GENCY AIS GENDA TEM UMMARY Work Session: West Broadway Preliminary Finance Plan Meeting Date: May 29, 2007 Agenda Item Number: B Department: Central Services Staff Contact: Sue Cutsogeorge www.eugene-or.gov Contact Telephone Number: 682-5589 ISSUE STATEMENT The Urban Renewal Agency (URA) is asked to begin the process for making a substantial amendment to the Downtown Urban Renewal Plan. This action is time sensitive because it will take about 100 days to amend the plan, and the plan must be amended before the URA can enter into any borrowing agreements to accomplish the West Broadway redevelopment project. Additional action will be required to complete a financing plan and to accomplish all of the financing activities for the proposed project. BACKGROUND URA and City Council Action History The full URA and council action history for the West Broadway redevelopment project, as well as for the Brownfields Economic Development Initiative (BEDI) grant, HUD Section 108 Loan, and Downtown Urban Renewal District is included as Attachment A. Most recently, on May 14, the council (acting as the Urban Renewal Agency Board) selected Beam and KWG as developers and directed the Agency Director to, among other things, initiate actions related to the financial tools needed to accomplish the West Broadway redevelopment project. Concept details for a combined approach have yet to be formalized. At this point in the process, therefore, specific financial details about the redevelopment effort are not yet available. Preliminary Finance Plan Although specific financial details for the joint developer redevelopment plan are not yet available, the City and the URA must begin the urban renewal substantial plan amendment process to accommodate a project of this scale. The amendment will allow the City to utilize urban renewal funds, one of the financial tools available for redevelopment efforts. The timeline for amending the plan is several months long. If the City and the URA want the ability to utilize urban renewal funds for the West Broadway redevelopment this fall, the process must begin now. To begin the process of putting the necessary financing tools in place for this project, a preliminary finance plan has been developed. The preliminary finance plan is derived from assumptions about how the requests from the two developers might work together, based on information in the supplemental materials submitted by each developer. Additional refinement of the finance plan will occur over the next several months, as the City and developers continue their discussions on key aspects of the development agreement. Once the financial information is refined, staff will bring a revised finance plan to the council for approval (anticipated for September). L:\CMO\2007 Council Agendas\M070529\S070529B.doc The preliminary finance plan is included as Attachment B. It includes a variety of financing sources, such as a HUD Section 108 Loan, a BEDI grant, urban renewal revenue bonds and cash contributions, Downtown Revitalization Loan Program funds, HOME Investment Partnership Program (HOME) funds, and general funds or general fund guarantee. The finance plan assumes that the City’s financial participation in this public/private partnership will consist of several items. There would likely be some contribution towards the land acquisition and public site-related costs (utilities, sidewalks, etc.). The City would be asked to pay for a publicly owned parking garage. For the housing portions of the project, the developers may request a low-income hous- ing loan, which would be repaid over time. They may also request a 10-year Multi-Unit Property Tax Exemption or a 20-year low-income housing exemption. (This information is speculative, because the City and the developers have not yet negotiated specific financial arrangements.) The URA is not asked to make any decisions about the finance plan or the assumed City/URA financial participation at this time. The preliminary finance plan is presented for the purpose of informing the agency about the potential financial actions that may be needed for accomplishing the downtown development project. Downtown Urban Renewal Plan Amendments Today’s requested action is to forward the possible amendments to the Downtown Urban Renewal Plan to the Planning Commission and overlapping taxing districts for their review and input prior to holding a public hearing before the City Council. Urban renewal is an important tool to be used to fund the City’s contribution to the West Broadway public/private partnership and the amendment process is necessary to accommodate this project. Three potential amendments to the Downtown Urban Renewal Plan are being proposed at this time: (i) increase maximum indebtedness by $95 million, for a total of $128 million; (ii) extend the termination date from June 30, 2024, to June 30, 2030; and (iii) expand the boundaries of the district in two directions to incorporate portions of the Eugene Clinic area and the Lane County Annex area. The first two amendments, increasing the maximum indebtedness and extending the termination date, are necessary to allow the Urban Renewal Agency to increase its financial capacity to fund a large project such as the West Broadway redevelopment effort. “Maximum indebtedness” is a spending cap for all expenditures in the district beginning in FY99 and is required by Oregon statutes. The current “maximum indebtedness” of $33 million has nearly been fully spent, with the bulk spent on the library. Adopting a “maximum indebtedness” figure does not authorize or obligate the district to enter into debt. Rather, it allows the current and future URA Boards to have the ability to fund projects over time, either with cash or by issuing debt. Extending the termination date allows the agency to issue debt with a 20-year repayment schedule, which maximizes the ability of the agency to pay for a large-scale development project. The third proposed amendment is a boundary expansion. This type of plan change requires a fairly lengthy and involved substantial amendment process. Because the URA is going through the substantial amendment process to increase maximum indebtedness at this time, staff recommends that the agency also consider a boundary expansion. Three options are shown for expansion areas, and staff recommends an option that captures two areas contiguous to the current district. Additional information about each of the proposed plan amendments is included in the attachments. Attachment C includes an explanation of each of the three proposed plan amendments. Attachment D L:\CMO\2007 Council Agendas\M070529\S070529B.doc includes a draft of the amended plan. Attachment E includes a draft report on the plan that sets out financial information about the impact of the plan. Attachment F includes maps of the potential expansion areas. If the URA adopts the proposed motion, the plan and report will be sent to the Planning Commission and overlapping taxing districts for comment, and will be available for citizen review prior to the public hearing and ordinance amending the plan. The plan amendment process is described in Attachment C. By circulating a plan amendment to the various groups, the council is not committing to enacting the specific proposed amendments; rather, the agency is requesting those various groups to provide input to the council on the possibility of making proposed amendments to the plan. The council has the authority to adopt plan amendments that differ from the ones circulated to the public. The Eugene Redevelopment Advisory Committee (ERAC) met on April 19 and discussed the possibility of an urban renewal plan amendment. As a result of this discussion, the committee unanimously recom- mended that the Downtown District Urban Renewal Plan be amended to increase the financial capacity. Timeline An updated timeline for the major activities for the West Broadway redevelopment project is included as Attachment G. With respect to the Downtown Urban Renewal District Plan amendment, the URA is requested to take action today to forward the plan and report to the Planning Commission and the overlapping taxing districts. In addition, the council would hold a public hearing in July and consider an ordinance to amend the urban renewal plan in August, before summer break. The HUD Section 108 Loan, another significant financial tool for this project, is also included in the timeline. The next step is for the council to hold a public hearing in July on the specific project to be funded with the HUD Section 108 funds. City Council authorization of the loan would follow shortly thereafter. RELATED CITY POLICIES The redevelopment of West Broadway is related to one of the 2007-2008 Council Goals: Downtown – InitiativeFacilitate significant revitalization of downtown core. Downtown development is guided by policies in the Downtown Plan and Growth Management Policies (#1, 2, 3, 10, and 14). A number of financial policies would guide the creation of the final economic development finance plan, including the City’s debt policies. AGENCY OPTIONS The URA may forward to the Planning Commission and overlapping taxing districts the proposed amendments to the Downtown Urban Renewal Plan or may decline to do so. If this amendment process does not start as soon as possible, the urban renewal funds will not be available this fall for the financial requirements of the West Broadway project. The agency would then need to either delay the project or find other resources to pay for the City’s share of the public/private partnership. The URA may direct staff to include alternative amendments to the plan. The main policy choices pertain to the maximum indebtedness amount, termination date, and boundary expansion area. L:\CMO\2007 Council Agendas\M070529\S070529B.doc If the agency declines to expand the boundaries, there will be no effect on the West Broadway ? development plans. The plan would, however, need a “substantial amendment” at a later date before it could cover other potential redevelopment areas. If the agency decides to choose a shorter termination date, the financial capacity of the Downtown ? District to take on the large-scale project will be affected. If the agency decides to increase the maximum indebtedness by less than $40 million, the district ? may not have sufficient flexibility and spending authority to accomplish the West Broadway project with district resources (see Attachment C for explanation). AGENCY DIRECTOR’S RECOMMENDATION The Agency Director recommends that the URA Board forward to the Planning Commission and overlapping taxing districts the proposed amendments to the Downtown Urban Renewal Plan, consistent with the draft plan and report included as attachments D and E. The amendments include (i) an increased maximum indebtedness of $95 million, for a total of $128 million; (ii) an extension of the termination date from June 30, 2024, to June 30, 2030; and (iii) a boundary expansion to include the Eugene Clinic and Lane County Annex areas. SUGGESTED MOTION Move to forward to the Planning Commission and overlapping taxing districts the proposed amendments to the Downtown Urban Renewal Plan, consistent with the draft plan and report included in attachments D and E. The amendments include (i) an increased maximum indebtedness of $95 million, for a total of $128 million; (ii) an extension of the termination date from June 30, 2024, to June 30, 2030; and (iii) a boundary expansion to include the Eugene Clinic and Lane County Annex areas. ATTACHMENTS A.City Council and URA Action History on West Broadway Redevelopment Project, BEDI grant, HUD Section 108 Loan and Downtown Urban Renewal District B.Preliminary Finance Plan for the West Broadway Redevelopment Project C.Explanation of the Proposed Downtown Urban Renewal Plan Amendments D.Draft of Amended Downtown Urban Renewal District Plan E.Draft of Downtown Urban Renewal District Plan Report F.Map of Potential Boundary Expansion Areas G.Updated Timeline for the West Broadway Redevelopment Project FOR MORE INFORMATION Finance Contact: Sue Cutsogeorge, Financial Analysis Manager Telephone: 682-5589 Staff E-Mail: Sue.L.Cutsogeorge@ci.eugene.or.us Development Contact: Denny Braud, Senior Development Analyst Telephone: 682-5536 Staff E-Mail: Denny.Braud@ci.eugene.or.us L:\CMO\2007 Council Agendas\M070529\S070529B.doc Attachment A Council and URA Action History: West BroadwayRedevelopment Project, BEDI, HUD Section 108, & Downtown Urban Renewal District 1. West Broadway Redevelopment Project th URA – 1999: The first Request for Proposals (RFP) for the sale and development of the 10 & Charnelton site was issued. Responses were limited, and the URA deferred review of the responses due to pending discussion on potential sites for the new Federal Courthouse and City Hall. th URA – December, 2002: URA approved the issuance of a second 10 and Charnelton RFP. In May 2003, the URA received four responses and selected the Oregon Research Institute (ORI) project. ORI later decided to forgo the purchase and development of the site. CC –January 9, 2006: Council discussed the Connor and Woolley/Opus development proposal for West Broadway, including tools that the City Manager and staff might use to facilitate the acquisition of property that may be needed for any comprehensive redevelopment of the West Broadway area. The council passed a motion 7:1 to “direct the City Manager to work with Connor and Woolley on developing a more detailed proposal related to West Broadway development to be brought back to the council. This motion in no way endorses the concept of the proposal.” The City Manager understood from the discussion and action that everything short of condemnation should be pursued in order to assist in the redevelopment of the West Broadway area. th ERAC – April 20, 2006: Eugene Redevelopment Advisory Committee (ERAC) discussed the 10 and Charnelton RFP and encouraged a comprehensive review of how each project proposal advances the Downtown Plan and contributes to this area of downtown. th PC – April 24, 2006: Planning Commission (PC) reviewed the 1999 and 2002 versions of the 10 & Charnelton RFP and provided input regarding the issuance of a new RFP for the site. Generally, PC encouraged use of the policies and strategies in the Downtown Plan as the primary source for gauging desirable projects for the site. It also favored a less prescriptive RFP approach in comparison to the 1999 criteria to attract a broad mix of possible uses encourage creativity in the development of the site and inspire investor confidence. April 2006: Connor and Woolley/Opus announced that the West Broadway project was no longer viable, primarily because of an inability to acquire the property needed for the development envisioned. Following the announcement, staff began exploring ways the City could assist in assembling land for the potential redevelopment, including the possibility of acquiring purchase options on the properties, with the intention of bringing the purchase options, once acquired, to the URA for direction. th URA – May 24, 2006: URA approved the issuance of the third 10 & Charnelton RFP: Ms. Solomon, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to approve the RFP for the sale and development th of the 10 Avenue and Charnelton Street development site and direct the City Manager to issue a request for proposals consistent with the preliminary schedule included in the draft RFP with final review of the RFP responses and approval of a project for the site provided by the Urban Renewal Agency. Vote: Passed 8:0. ~ Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to amend the Development Objectives to include “As a publicly solicited project with the potential for public subsidies and incentives this development addresses the needs of the community. More housing units and varied housing options are needed to accommodate projected population demographics. Central housing is a key element in the Growth Management Policies and the Downtown Plan. Downtown housing is essential for creating the critical mass of residents to support retail and to concentrate populations where services already exist within walking distance and where transit and pedestrian amenities are easily and efficiently available. Housing downtown requires public sector support in order to be competitive. Preferred proposals for the site will recognize this development site as a rare opportunity to address the significant need for downtown housing units by providing for multi-storied, very high density housing, preferably accommodating ownership options as well as affordable units. Vote: Passed 7:0 (Pape not yet arrived) ~ Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to change the third point on page 390 of the AIS under “Active Uses” to read as follows: “3. Major employment center for very high quality jobs and extended hours of occupancy.” Vote: Passed 5:4 (Mr. Kelly, Ms. Bettman, Ms. Taylor, Ms. Ortiz, and the Mayor voting in favor and Mr. Poling, Ms. Solomon, Mr. Pape and Mr. Pryor voting in opposition.) ~ Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to amend the Development Objectives to delete the third point regarding a strong relationship with key tenants. Vote: Passed 8:0. th June 2, 2006 : 10 and Charnelton RFP issued with a submission due date of August 15, 2006. The due date was subsequently extended to September 15, 2006. The City received responses from Beam Development, TK Partners, and Sockeye. th Memo – July 26, 2006: Staff memo addressed the 10 & Charnelton RFP extension. The 30-day extension was intended to be responsive to development interest in the site and maximize the opportunity to attract quality proposals. th ERAC – September 28, 2006: ERAC reviewed the 10 & Charnelton RFP responses. ERAC was expanded specifically for review of the RFP responses to include expertise in the areas of sustainability (Josh Proudfoot, Good Company), financing (Erik Riechers, Pacific Continental Bank), and housing development (Jim McCoy, Housing and Community Services Agency). ERAC recommended that staff move forward with the selection of the TK Partners proposal. th URA – October 11, 2006: URA considered the 10 & Charnelton RFP proposals. Voting on a motion to select a proposal was postponed until October 16, 2006. th URA – October 16, 2006: URA selected the TK Partners proposal for the 10& Charnelton site: Moved to direct the Agency Director to enter into a 90-day exclusive negotiation period with TK Partners for the sale and development of the 10th and Charnelton development site based upon the proposal submitted and to return to the City Council, acting as the Urban Renewal Agency, with the proposed terms of the sale and development following the negotiation period. Vote: Passed 8:0. ERAC – November 21, 2006: ERAC reviewed the draft West Broadway RFQ. Committee members provided comments on criteria and timing of the RFQ. URA – November 27, 2006: URA provided direction to issue an RFQ for the redevelopment of West Broadway with approved criteria, with the following motion: Ms. Solomon seconded by Ms. Ortiz moved to direct the Agency Director to issue a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for the redevelopment of West Broadway based on the draft RFQ criteria included in this agenda item with the responses to the RFQ to be brought back to the URA for consideration in early Spring 2007. The RFQ shall permit responses to deal with (a) property included only in a single option agreement for example the Centre Court Building and adjacent hole, (b) property included in more than one but less than all of the option agreements, or (c) property included in all of the option agreements. Include an additional criterion “Consistency with City Policies and Goals” in the RFQ evaluation criteria on council agenda packet pages 15 and 16; substitute the word “will” for the word “should” in subparagraphs 1 “Urban Design”, 2 “Active Uses”, and 3 “Sustainable Development” in the RFQ Evaluation criteria on council agenda packet pages15 and 16; add the phrase “and will contribute to an active around the clock 24-hour downtown” at the end of the first sentence in the paragraph under the heading “Active Uses” in the RFQ evaluation criteria on council agenda packet page15; delete the words “and assistance” from subparagraph 2 under the paragraph captioned “Public Benefit” in the RFQ evaluation criteria on page 16 of the council agenda packet; and add the following definition of the term mixed use in the RFQ evaluation criteria “Mixed use development refers to the practice of containing more than one type of use or activity in a building or set of buildings or blocks. The mix of uses can vary widely but typically includes a higher density combination of residential, commercial, industrial, office, institutional, or other activities. The uses are typically in close proximity, pedestrian-friendly and compatible with multi-modal transportation.” Vote: Passed 8:0. December 8, 2006: West Broadway RFQ issued with a submission due date of February 9, 2007. February 2007: The City received responses from Beam Development, CenterCal Properties, Greg Bryant, KWG Development Partners, and MidTown Development. KWG’s response addressed the entire West Broadway Redevelopment Area as well as the th 10 and Charnelton site, with the understanding that if not selected, they would move forward with the initial TK Partners concept. ERAC – February 23, 2007: ERAC met to review the West Broadway RFQ responses. ERAC was expanded specifically for review of the RFQ responses to include representation from the arts (Tina Rinaldi), a Broadway tenant (Beth Little, Saturday Market), and a Downtown Vision Committee member (Greg McLauchlan). ERAC concluded that KWG had the strongest response to the objectives and criteria in the RFQ. The committee also expressed interest in the reuse potential of the Washburne and Centre Court buildings proposed by Beam. ERAC unanimously recommended that staff explore further the KWG and Beam responses. URA – March 12, 2007: URAwork session to review responses to the West Broadway RFQ. URA recognized Beam and KWG as qualified developers. Action was taken to direct staff to work with Beam and KWG to explore project concepts in more detail, with opportunities for community input, and to bring the following supplemental information back to the URA for review and approval: project cost and scale; development footprint; mix of uses; transfer of property; design and sustainability; parking requirements; feasibility of building reuse; preservation of Centre Court and Washburne buildings; preservation of local businesses; and level of financial participation from the URA. Memo – April 12, 2007: Staff memo addressed the financial capacity of the Downtown Urban Renewal District and the other tools to support downtown redevelopment. CC –April 16, 2007: Council workshop on downtown development issues. The council heard presentations from a mix of local developers and interested parties who described development opportunities, challenges, and policy alternatives. ERAC – April 19, 2007: ERAC reviewed the supplemental information submitted by Beam and KWG. ERAC unanimously voted in favor of moving forward in a positive manner with downtown development and concluded that the qualifications of both Beam and KWG were acceptable, with a primary preference for awarding the project to KWG and a secondary preference for awarding the project to Beam. CC & URA – April 25, 2007: Council work session on the financial tools available to support downtown redevelopment. URA work session reviewed the supplemental information submitted by Beam and KWG. URA deferred a decision on developer selection until after the scheduled April 30, 2007 public workshop. However, the URA did provide direction to the Agency Director to renew the purchase options on the Centre Court building and adjacent parcel (the hole), the Washburne Building, and the properties under option on the south side of Broadway between Olive and Charnelton streets (Diva to Shawmed property). Public Workshop – April 30, 2007 : A public workshop was held to gather input on the Beam and KWG concepts and the selection options being considered by the URA. The workshop was co- sponsored by ERAC, Citizens for Public Accountability (CPA), and the Eugene Area Chamber of th Commerce. Results of the workshop were included in the council packet for the May 9 meeting. Project Tour – May 5, 2007: The Mayor and Councilor Zalenka, along with City staff and representatives from CPA and the Chamber, toured projects completed by Beam and KWG. URA – May 9, 2007: URA considered input received at the April 30, 2007 public workshop and considered the Beam and KWG responses. Voting on a motion selected a developer was postponed until the March 14, 2007 work session. URA – May 14, 2007: Council selected Beam and KWG, with the following motion: Move to select Beam and KWG as the developers for the West Broadway project, and to direct the Agency Director to initiate actions related to agreements with the developers; public process that includes a citizen advisory committee with an independent urban planner/facilitator whose work shall be completed by the end of August and presented to the Agency in September; option agreements; financial tools; and a relocation/transition plan, all th consistent with the Agency’s May 9 discussion, with all proposed actions, other than option agreement renewals and extensions, brought back to the Agency for final authorization. This motion further directs the Agency Director to secure the services of a qualified urban planner/facilitator to oversee the public process for the West Broadway development site footprint, and to establish a West Broadway Development Advisory Committee to work with a qualified urban planner/facilitator, and the developers, to identify preferred design elements, mix of uses, public open spaces, options for parking, as well as a transition plan for existing businesses. The Agency and the Advisory Committee would also seek additional public input. The Advisory Committee shall be composed of 11 members, appointed by the Mayor after consulting with the City Council. In addition, the Agency Director shall secure the services of a qualified consultant to perform market analysis and economic feasibility studies. This research and analysis will inform the Agency and the Advisory Committee’s deliberations. Vote:Passed 6:2 (Bettman, Taylor opposed). 2. Brownfields Economic Development Initiative (BEDI) IGR – May, 2005: Intergovernmental Relations Committee approved the Brownfields Grant application submission. June 2005: Application submitted. January 2006: City received award notice for a $2 million BEDI grant to assist redevelopment projects within the City's Downtown and Riverfront urban renewal districts. BEDI funds must be used in conjunction with, and for projects financed by, a HUD Section 108 guaranteed loan commitment. Memo – February 1, 2006: S taff memo regarding “Council Assignment Response: Recently- Awarded Brownfield Grant.” 3. HUD Section 108 Loan Guarantee Program (HUD Section 108) CDBG-AC – February 1 & March 1, 2006: In accordance with application requirements, the City’s Community Development Block Grant Advisory Committee (CDBG-AC) held two public hearings regarding the HUD Section 108 loan proposal. Opportunity for public comment was also made available during a 30-day written public comment period. On March 1, 2006, the CDBG-AC unanimously recommended submittal of the proposed $7,895,000 Section 108 application to HUD, with funding of future projects to be reviewed by the CDBG Advisory Committee and the City Council. CC – March 13, 2006: Council approved Resolution No. 4860 “A resolution authorizing submission of an application to United States Department of Housing and Urban Development for loan guarantee assistance and related matters.” Vote: Passed 7:0 (Absent: Taylor). July, 2006: HUD selected the City’s Section 108 application for funding to create a $9,895,000 loan pool, together with BEDI grant funds, for redevelopment projects within the Downtown and Riverfront urban renewal districts. Memo – December 28, 2006: Staff memo regarding “HUD Section 108 Loan Authorization” described the public hearing and ordinance process. CC – February 20, 2007: Council held a public hearing on the ordinance authorizing the use of HUD Section 108 as a financing tool. CC – February 26, 2007: Council approved the ordinance authorizing the use of the HUD Section 108 as a financing tool. The non-emergency ordinance established the City’s general ability to borrow for Section 108 projects with the stipulation that individual projects be approved by council resolution following a public hearing. Ordinance Number 20376, Council Bill Number 4938 “An ordinance authorizing HUD Section 108 Revenue Bonds.” Vote: Passed 7:1 (Opposed: Taylor). Memo – April 9, 2007: Sue Cutsogeorge alerted council that the issue of a debt policy amendment th would be brought to council as a consent calendar item on May 14. CC – May 14, 2007: Council approved, on consent calendar, an amendment to the City’s debt policies regarding conduit financing. 4. Downtown Urban Renewal District July 1968: District originally created. The district plan has been amended four times: December 1968, November 1989, June 1998, and most recently in September 2004. Memo – April 12, 2007: Staff memo addressed the financial capacity of the Downtown Urban Renewal District and other tools to support downtown redevelopment. The necessity of a plan amendment was raised in connection with undertaking a large-scale redevelopment project. ERAC – April 19, 2007: ERAC viewed a presentation on the Downtown Urban Renewal District. ERAC unanimously recommended that the Downtown District Urban Renewal Plan be amended to increase the district’s financial capacity. CC & URA – April 25, 2007: Work session on the financial tools available to support downtown redevelopment. Staff alerted council to the necessity of amending the district plan to increase financial capacity. Public Workshop – April 30, 2007 : A public workshop was held to gather citizen input on the Beam and KWG concepts and the selection options being considered by the URA. The necessity of increasing the “maximum indebtedness” in the district was presented to the workshop attendees. th The results of the workshop were included in the council packet for the May 9 meeting. Attachment B Preliminary Finance Plan for the West Broadway Development Project To demonstrate how a development financing plan might work for the hybrid approach to the West Broadway project approved by council on May 14, staff has created a preliminary finance plan. The purpose of this preliminary plan is to show council how the City might accommodate a request for public funding in the hybrid approach to redevelopment of West Broadway. The actual development finance plan for the West Broadway project will depend on a number of items that are not yet known, such as the nature of the footprint and project characteristics, the expected values of each part of the development, the timing of the development, and so on. The developers and the City will negotiate these items as part of the development agreement. Once the terms are finalized, a development finance plan can be created that matches appropriate financing and development tools with the development agreement terms. Project Characteristic Assumptions: It is assumed that the combined development project consists of about $186 million of total investment, including retail, housing, office, cinema, private parking and public parking. It is assumed that the condo portion of the redevelopment is eligible for the Multi-Unit Property Tax Exemption for ten years and the subsidized rental housing is eligible for the low income housing exemption for 20 years. The project is completed in two phases, with Phase 1 (renovation of the Centre Court and Washburne building) taking one year and Phase 2 (redevelopment of the rest of the area) taking about two years. Incremental property taxes from the development begin to be received in FY10. Urban Renewal Assumptions: The example assumes that the Downtown District is amended to increase the “maximum indebtedness” by $95 million to $128 million to accommodate this and future projects. The termination date of the district is also extended from June 2024 to June 2030. Property Tax Assumptions: The initial incremental assessed value for this project is about $22 million, after taking into account property values already in existence on the development site, the housing exemptions, the utilities and off-site costs, and the public parking,. The new value generates about $330,000 of annual property taxes initially to the district, an additional $600,000 annually when the MUPTE on the condo portion of the project expires in FY21. These projections use conservative assumptions about property value growth over the period. The model assumes that all property in the district, including this new development, experiences assessed value increases of 2% per year. No additional development activity is assumed to occur in the district during the remaining life of the district. A potential upside to this scenario is that this development spurs additional investment in the downtown core, and as a result, additional property taxes are generated for future projects. Project Cost Assumptions: The total cost of the project is set out in the following chart. The chart shows the split both with and without taking into account the property tax exemptions. The low income housing exemption for 20 years is worth about $5.5 million. The MUPTE for 10 years is estimated to be worth about $4.7 million, depending on the assessed value for the housing in the project, the tax rates during the exemption period, and the changes in the assessed value of this property over the exemption period. Total Project Cost Without Tax With Tax ExemptionExemption Total Development Cost $186,000,000$186,000,000 Plus: City’s Other Costs 1,420,0001,420,000 Plus: Low-Income Housing Exemption 05,500,000 Plus: MUPTE Exemption 04,700,000 Total Project Cost $187,420,000$197,620,000 The exemptions are shown separately from the other types of public contribution because they are not a method of making a direct payment for a development project. Rather, a tax exemption is foregone revenue. The theory behind the tax exemption is that the development would not have occurred “but for” the granting of the exemption. If the project would not have occurred without the exemption, then the tax revenue would not have ever been received. Some people may believe the public investment should be calculated including these exemptions and some people may believe it should be calculated excluding the exemptions, so both calculations are shown here. City’s Financial Role Assumptions: The preliminary assumption for putting together this finance plan is that the City’s financial role in the project is likely to be about $24.2 million. The City’s share is assumed to consist of property acquisition and site-related costs, plus purchase of a turnkey public parking garage. In addition, the City will incur other costs from entering into the development project of about another $1.5 million. Again, this information is preliminary and has not been negotiated with the developers.The purpose of developing this information is to provide council with a very preliminary idea of what the finance plan might look like and how the City might pay for the City’s share of the public/private partnership costs. The next chart sets out the split between public and private investment in this public/ private partnership. The public investment ranges from 13.7% to 18.1%, depending on whether the tax exemptions are included or not. Public and Private Shares of Investment Without Tax Exemption With Tax Exemption AmountPercent Amount Percent PUBLIC INVESTMENT Development Expenditures Property Acquisition, Etc. $9,400,000 $9,400,000 Public Parking Garage 13,500,000 13,500,000 Low Income Housing Loan 1,300,000 1,300,000 Total Development Expenditures $24,200,000 $24,200,000 Other City Expenditures 1,420,000 1,420,000 Low Income Housing Exemption 0 5,500,000 MUPTE 0 4,700,000 Total Public Investment $25,620,00013.7% $35,820,000 18.1% PRIVATE INVESTMENT* Total Project Cost $187,420,000$197,620,000 Less: Public Investment -25,620,000 -35,820,000 Net Private Investment $161,800,00086.3% $161,800,000 81.9% TOTAL PROJECT COST $187,420,000$197,620,000 *Public and private financing contributions are shown excluding interest payments. Preliminary Finance Plan Assumptions: A potential finance plan for the project example is included in the chart below. Given the assumptions made in this preliminary plan, the Downtown District has the resources to pay for most of the costs of this development through the use of urban renewal funds, Downtown Revitalization Loan Program funds, BEDI grant funds and HOME funds. The example also relies on about $1.2 million from the City, which could come in the form of a cash contribution or a /general fund guarantee of Agency borrowings. Development Financing Plan FY08FY10 Total SOURCES OF FUNDS HUD Section 108 Loan* $7,895,000$0 $7,895,000 BEDI Grant* 2,000,0000 2,000,000 Urban Renewal Revenue Bonds 0$6,600,000 6,600,000 Urban Renewal Cash 360,0005,220,000 5,580,000 DRLP Funds 270,0001,225,000 1,495,000 HOME Funds 800,0000 800,000 City General Funds/Loan Guarantee 01,250,000 1,250,000 Total Sources $11,325,000$14,295,000 $25,620,000 USES OF FUNDS Land Assembly, Utilities, Off-Site, Etc. $9,400,000$0 $9,400,000 Public Parking (turnkey purchase) 0$13,500,000 13,500,000 Affordable Housing Loan 1,300,0000 1,300,000 Other City Costs 625,000795,000 1,420,000 Total Expenditures $11,325,000$14,295,000 $25,620,000 Plus: Debt Service Reserve from UR Cash $800,000$660,000 $1,700,000 Total Uses $12,115,000$14,955,000 $27,070,000 *HUD Section 108 loan would be repaid from urban renewal resources. The BEDI Grant must be used in connection with a HUD Section 108 loan. Funding Sources In order to pay for the City’s share of this public/private partnership, several different funding sources will need to be used. This section of the report sets out information about each of the potential funding sources. HUD Section 108 Loan & Urban Renewal Revenue Bonds: The preliminary finance plan relies on two different borrowings, a HUD Section 108 loan and an urban renewal revenue bond financing. In this scenario, the borrowings are paid entirely from urban renewal revenues existing at the time of the borrowing, and do not rely on future incremental property taxes. In this way, the risk to the City/URA and the lenders is mitigated because the revenues are existing and known amounts when the borrowing occurs. As tax increment revenues are less predictable than the City’s general property tax revenues, urban renewal borrowings are considered more risky than general City borrowings. Because of this, lenders typically require a “debt coverage” ratio of about 1.5 times and a debt service reserve to protect against fluctuations in tax increment revenues. A debt service reserve fund is generally required in an amount that is equal to either the maximum annual debt service amount or 10% of the borrowing amount. In the worst possible case where this development did not perform as expected over the financing period, the City and the lenders would not be relying on revenue from the development project. Risk is also mitigated by using a 1.5 times debt coverage ratio and a debt service reserve fund. The financings, however, are not risk free, even with these protections in place. Tax increment revenue is less predictable than the City’s property tax revenues, and therefore, urban renewal borrowings are considered more risky than general City borrowings. The protections built into preliminary finance plan provide a cushion in the event that any adverse event reduces urban renewal revenues, such as one of the major taxpayers in the district relocates outside of the district, other property values significantly decrease, or in the case of a recession and the subsequent failure of businesses in the district. BEDI Grant Funds:HUD has awarded the City a $2 million Brownfields Economic Development Initiative Grant. This grant must be used in connection with a HUD Section 108 Loan. It is assumed that the property acquisition and other site related costs qualify as eligible projects for the HUD Section 108 Loan. Urban Renewal Cash: The cash balances in the urban renewal funds, plus cash that becomes available over the next few years, would be used to pay for development costs. Downtown Revitalization Loan Program:A portion of a potential affordable housing loan to the developers could be made from the DRLP. The remainder of the DRLP funds could be used to assist with the cost of purchasing the turnkey garage. Once this development project is complete, the DRLP can resume making loans from the revolving loan fund payments. HOME Funds: This preliminary plan assumes $800,000 of HOME funds are used to make an affordable housing loan to the developers.Each year the City issues a Request for Proposals (RFP) for the development of low-income housing projects. HOME funds are the largest resource for funding affordable housing and the City typically allocates about $800,000 of HOME funds each year for housing development. RFP responses are reviewed by the Housing Policy Board and staff. The HPB recommends projects to receive HOME funding and other resources to the council for their consideration. The RFP is generally issued in late fall and council typically takes action by June of the following year. General Funds/General Fund Guarantees: In this example finance plan, there would be a small contribution from the City’s general funds for the project. An alternative would be for the urban renewal agency to take on a higher level of debt, but that debt would be also guar- anteed by the City’s full faith & credit. These decisions do not have to be made until the City is ready to purchase the turnkey garage. A number of factors may change between now and that time. Uses of Funds Property Acquisition and other Site-Related Costs: The City would either purchase the property and re-sell to the developers at a lower cost or provide a payment to reduce the cost to the developers of purchasing the properties. It also includes the cost of options to purchase the properties. In addition,KWG’s initial submission indicated that it would like for the City to pay for utility off-site costs and a buy down for profit. In order to simplify the transaction, these costs may be incorporated into the project in another fashion, such as a higher level of payment towards land assembly. Public Parking: This assumes that the City would purchase a turnkey garage from the developer. Low-Income Housing Loan: KWG has indicated that it would like a $1.3 million loan for the low-income rental housing portion of the project. There are several sources of funds that could address the $1.3 million low-income housing loan that was referenced in the KWG request for qualifications response. The sources include: 1) HOME funds; 2) System Development Charge waivers; 3) a 20 year Low Income Rental Housing Property Tax Exemption; and 4) the Downtown Revitalization Loan Program. Other City Costs: These would include a city project manager for the garage, 1% for art for the garage, city attorney costs to negotiate agreements with the developers, environmental assessments, property appraisals, and other property acquisition costs, and borrowing costs. Debt Service Reserve: The lenders will probably require funds to be held in reserve during the term of the borrowings for this project. That amount is normally equal to 10% of the amount of the borrowing, or one year of debt service. This amount is not actually expended for the project, but is held in the urban renewal funds until the debt is paid off. At that point, the reserves are available for spending on other urban renewal projects. Attachment C Proposed Downtown Urban Renewal Plan Amendments In order to finance in the selected West Broadway redevelopment approach, the City would have to amend the Downtown District urban renewal plan as soon as possible. There are two plan amendments needed: (1) increase maximum indebtedness and (2) extend the termination date. In addition, council may want to consider expanding the district boundaries. Substantial Plan Amendment Process: In order for the district to accomplish these changes, there will have to be a “substantial amendment” to the district’s plan. This process is determined by Oregon Statute and the district’s plan. Certain types of substantial amendments require a special City-wide notice. These substantial amendments include: Changes in the maximum indebtedness; and Expansion of the district boundaries by more than 1% The shortest possible time to complete the process for this type of special amendment is approxi- mately 100 days. The major steps involved in this type of amendment are: Eugene Redevelopment Advisory Committee may meet to discuss the proposed plan amendments and make a recommendation to the Urban Renewal Agency to proceed Urban Renewal Agency meets to initiate plan amendments Urban Renewal Agency submits plan amendments and report on the plan to taxing bodies affected by the district for review and comment Urban Renewal Agency submits the plan amendments and report to the Planning Commission for comment City sends out special City-wide notice Urban Renewal Agency meets to receive the revised plan and report on the plan (optional) City Council holds a public hearing on the plan amendment ordinance City Council meets to approve ordinance amending the plan Increase Maximum Indebtedness: Oregon Statutes require each urban renewal district that receives property taxes to include a “maximum indebtedness” limit in their urban renewal plans. The Downtown District amended its plan in 1998 to include a maximum indebtedness limit of $33 million. “Maximum indebtedness” is a required spending cap for all expenditures in the district beginning in 1998. “Maximum indebtedness” is not a legal debt limit. It is, instead, more like a spending limit. Certain expenditures of the district are included in the “maximum indebtedness” calcu- lation and certain expenditures are excluded. For instance, interest on debt is excluded from the calculation, but administrative expenses or cash payments for projects are included in the calculation. The current “maximum indebtedness” of $33 million has nearly been fully spent, with the bulk spent on the library. There is about $4.6 million left under the $33 million limit in the Down- town District. It is currently projected that the district will have collected sufficient tax revenues to meet the $33 million limit in FY09. Adopting a “maximum indebtedness” figure does not authorize or obligate the district to enter into debt. It allows future Agency Boards to have the ability to fund projects over time, either with cash or by issuing debt. If the Downtown District plan is amended, it would be possible for the district to enter into obligations of greater than the $4.6 million allowed under the current “maximum indebtedness” figure. The determination of a maximum indebtedness amount is based on a combination of the projected tax increment revenues in the district and a policy decision about the appropriate level of spending to allow within the district by future city councils. Four options for maximum indebtedness are presented here. The options are: Option 1: Minimal increase for West Broadway Project only = $40 million Conservative assumption about existing tax increment revenues thru 2030 Covers West Broadway Project spending Allows for flexibility to respond to project uncertainties around the amount required and the method of payment for the property acquisition Covers district administration costs through 2030 (no change in staff levels) Option 2: Increase to cover spending of all tax increment thru 2030 = $70 million Conservative assumptions about existing and new tax increment revenues thru 2030 No new development beyond current West Broadway project is included in revenue projection Covers West Broadway project spending and district administration costs Provides room for an additional $30 million of projects thru 2030 Option 3: Increase under Option 2 plus project in expanded boundary = $95 million Conservative assumptions about existing and new tax increment revenues thru 2030 Project in expanded boundary area of $100 million in FY15 Covers West Broadway project spending and district administration costs Covers an additional $25 million of projects thru 2030 Option 4: Increase under Option 3 plus additional future development = $115 million Conservative assumptions about existing and new tax increment revenues (including project in expanded boundary) thru 2030 Additional development project of $200 million in FY20 Covers West Broadway project spending and district administration costs Covers an additional $20 million of projects thru 2030 Staff recommends Option 3. The attached urban renewal plan and report are based on Option 3 maximum indebtedness figures. Extend Termination Date:The Downtown District is scheduled to terminate ion June 30, 2024. If the district entered into a new debt obligation (after substantially amending the plan) in FY08, the district would have 16 years to repay the debt obligation. In order to increase the borrowing capacity of the district to take on the West Broadway redevelopment project, staff recommends that the termination date be extended to June 30, 2030. This would allow the Agency to maximize a debt issuance with a 20 year final maturity. Holding all else constant, a shorter district termination date would mean having a smaller debt capacity. The City could respond to this one of two ways. First, the City could make up for a smaller debt capacity by using other resources outside of the urban renewal district. This approach would enable the urban renewal district to issue a smaller amount of debt, but with the same level of revenue cushion. Second, if the City wanted to issue the same amount of debt, but with a shorter repayment schedule, the annual payments would be higher than in the longer repayment scenario. The revenue cushion would, therefore, be smaller. As a result, banks would be likely to ask for additional security from the City for the borrowing. The additional security would probably be a pledge of the City’s general fund resources. The City did this with the library financing. The City issued debt that was to be repaid by the urban renewal agency. In the event that the agency did not have sufficient revenues to pay the debt, the City’s general fund would make up the difference. The City has not had to use general fund resources to pay the library debt. Staff recommends extending the district termination date to June 30, 2030 to maximize the ability of the district to use its borrowing capacity for the West Broadway redevelopment project. Boundary Expansion: If the City undertakes the significant process required by statute for a “substantial amendment” to the Downtown Urban Renewal Plan, the Agency Board might also want to consider expanding the district’s boundaries at this time. Given the public notifica- tion requirements and the high degree of citizen participation associated with a “substantial plan amendment”, staff recommends adding public consideration of a boundary expansion. State law limits urban renewal district expansion to 20% of its original size. The Downtown District boundary has never been amended. The district encompasses 70 acres and therefore the maximum expansion is 14 acres, or slightly greater than three typical downtown blocks. Any expansion must be attached to the current district. There are two significant opportunity areas adjacent to the district: the Eugene Clinic area and the County Annex area. th Eugene Clinic: The site of the Eugene Clinic is at 12 and Willamette. Much of the site has been cleared of former buildings and is now used for surface parking. PeaceHealth has indicated their plans to vacate the buildings on site after their new hospital opens. This may be an excellent opportunity area – particularly for downtown housing. th County Annex: Lane County is moving its Health Department to 7 and Charnelton and the th County Annex at 135 E. 6 will become vacant. Proximate to the building are parking lots that are potential development sites. There are a variety of district expansion configurations that could be considered for this vicinity. Staff recommends a boundary expansion that captures portions of both areas for inclusion in the urban renewal plan amendment process, with a total expansion area of 11.7 acres. Consideration of boundary expansion is not a de facto decision to approve the action later. Rather, it is an opportunity to place the issue on the table for public debate and comment and for future council consideration. Attachment D Urban Renewal Plan ForCentral EugeneProject The (AKA: Downtown Urban Renewal District) Downtown Urban Renewal District Adopted July 1968 - Modified - December 1968 December 1989 June 1998 September13,2004 August 2007 Urban Renewal Agency of Eugene, Oregon URBAN RENEWAL PLAN FOR THE CENTRAL EUGENE PROJECT DOWNTOWN URBAN RENEWAL DISTRICT Table of Contents Part 1 - Text Section 100 – Introduction...............................................................................................1 Section 200 – Definitions.................................................................................................1 Section 300 – Legal Descriptions....................................................................................3 Section 400 – Goals and Objectives...............................................................................4 Section 500 – Land Use Plan..........................................................................................6 Section 600 – Project Activities.......................................................................................6 Section 700 – Methods for Financing the Projects........................................................12 Section 800 – Annual Financial Statement Required....................................................13 Section 900 – Citizen Participation................................................................................13 Section 1000 – Non-Discrimination...............................................................................14 Section 1100 – Recording of this Plan..........................................................................14 Section 1200 – Procedures for Changes or Amendments............................................14 Section 1300 – Duration and Validity of Approved Plan................................................15 Section 1400 – Maximum Indebtedness.......................................................................16 Part 2 – Exhibits............................................................................................................17 URBAN RENEWAL PLAN FOR THE CENTRAL EUGENE PROJECTDOWNTOWN URBAN RENEWAL DISTRICT Section 100 – Introduction TheDowntown Urban Renewal District (formerly known as the Central Eugene Project Plan), containing an area of approximately 7081.7acres within the boundaries of the City of Eugene, consists of Part 1, text, and Part 2, exhibits. This revised plan has been prepared by the Planning and Development Department of the City of Eugene and is formatted in line with Oregon Revised Statutes, ORS Chapter 457, at the request of the City Council. The City Council’s 2007 Goals include a goal to facilitate significant revitalization of downtown. The Downtown Urban Renewal District Plan is an essential tool to assist in this revitalization effort. Section 200 – Definitions The following definitions will govern this plan. Acquisition means the act or process of acquiring fee title or interest other than fee title of real property (including the acquisition of development rights or remainder interest). Agency or Renewal Agency means the Eugene Renewal Agency which in accordance with ORS Chapter 457 is the official Urban Renewal Agency of the City of Eugene, Lane County, Oregon. Blighted areas means areas which, by reason of deterioration, faulty planning, inadequate or improper facilities, deleterious land use, or the existence of unsafe structures, or any combination of these factors are detrimental to the safety, health, or welfare of the community. A blighted area is characterized by the existence of one or more of the conditions described in ORS 457.010 (1). City means the City of Eugene, Lane County, Oregon. County means the County of Lane, State of Oregon. Developer means any individual or group which acquires property or which receives financial assistance for the physical improvement of publicly or privately held structures and land within the project area. Downtown Plan The Policies in the Downtown Plan were adopted by the Eugene City Council in 2004 as a refinement of the Eugene Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan. Urban Renewal Plan For Central Eugene Draft of May 2007 1 Exhibit means an attachment, either narrative or graphic, to the plan for the project area. ORS means Oregon Revised Statutes (State law). ORS Chapter 457 regulates the urban renewal process. Plan means the Urban Renewal Plan for the Central Eugene ProjectDowntown Urban Renewal District. The plan consists of Part 1, text and Part 2, exhibits. Project means any undertaking or activity within the central Eugene projectDowntown Urban Renewal District, such as a public improvement, street project, or loan program which is authorized by and implements provisions set forth in the Urban Renewal Plan. Plan area means the entire Central Eugene ProjectDowntown Urban Renewal District plan area. Redeveloper (see Developer) means any individual or group which acquires property or which receives financial assistance for the physical improvement of publicly or privately held structures and land within the project area. Rehabilitation means the act or process of returning a property to a state of utility through repair or alteration which makes possible an efficient, contemporary use while preserving those portions or features of the property which are significant to its historical, architectural, and cultural values. Report on the plan means the textual material and graphic exhibits required by ORS 457.085 (3) which explains existing conditions, activities, procedures, and proposals of the plan. State means the State of Oregon and its various agencies, divisions, and departments. Tax increment financing means a method of financing urban renewal projects as authorized by ORS Chapter 457, which uses the tax revenues generated by the increased taxable values in a defined area to pay for improvements within that area or benefiting that area. Text means Part 1 of this Urban Renewal Plan for the Central Eugene ProjectDowntown Urban Renewal District. Urban Renewal Plan For Central Eugene Draft of May 2007 2 Section 300 – Legal Descriptions Legal Boundary TheCentral Eugene ProjectDowntown Urban Renewal District includes thatanarea of approximately 70 acres as originally established in 1968. The 2007 plan amendment increased the plan boundaries by 11.7 acres, to a total size of 81.7 acres. The following is a legal description of the boundary of the Central Eugene ProjectDowntown Urban Renewal District plan area, as amended: The project area includes all of the land within the boundaries designated on the Project Boundaries Map attached as Exhibit A and is described as containing all lots or parcels of property, situated in the City of Eugene, County of Lane, State of Oregon, bounded generally as follows: [Note: In this draft plan, a boundary expansion is proposed as shown in the map in Exhibit A. The surveyor’s description of the revised plan boundaries will be included here prior to adoption of the final plan amendments.] th Beginning at the southwest corner of the intersection of 11 Avenue and Charnelton Street in the City of Eugene, Lane County, Oregon, commencing northerly along the west right-of-way line of Charnelton Street to the point of intersection of the south right- th of-way line of the alley between 10 Avenue and Broadway; (1) thence, westerly along the south right-of-way line of said alley to the west line of Lincoln Street; (2) thence, northerly along the west right-of-way line of Lincoln Street to the point of intersection of the north right-of-way line of the alley between Broadway th and 8 Avenue if extended; (3) thence, easterly along the north right-of-way line of said alley to the west right-of-way line Charnelton Street; (4) thence, northerly along the west right-of-way line of Charnelton Street to the th northwest corner of the intersection of 7 Avenue and Charnelton Street; th (5) thence, easterly along the north right-of-way line of 7 Avenue to the th northwest corner of the intersection of 7 Avenue and Olive Street; (6) thence, northerly along the west right-of-way line of Olive Street to the th northwest corner of the intersection of 6 Avenue and Olive Street; th (7) thence, easterly along the north right-of-way line of 6 Avenue to the th northeast corner of the intersection of 6 Avenue and Oak Street; (8) thence, southerly along the east right-of-way line of Oak Street to the northeast corner of Oak Street and South Park Avenue; (9) thence, easterly along the north right-of-way line of South Park Avenue extended to the east right-of-way line of Pearl Street; (10) thence, southerly along the east line of Pearl Street to the southeast th corner of the intersection of Pearl Street and 11 Avenue; Urban Renewal Plan For Central Eugene Draft of May 2007 3 th (11) thence, westerly along the south line of 11 Avenue to the point of beginning. Section 400 – Goals and Objectives Goals The goals of the Central Eugene ProjectDowntown Urban Renewal District Plan are: 1. To improve the function, condition, and appearance of the development area through: a. redevelopment and rehabilitation of existing and substandard buildings; b. development of new buildings c. improved access and circulation in the downtown area; d. provision of pedestrian amenities and open space. 2. To eliminate blight and blighting influences; and 3. To strengthen the economic conditions of the plan area and to improve the downtown’s importance in the region by strengthening its economic base and to enhance its role as a central location for public and private development and investment. Objectives Development in the Central Eugene ProjectDowntown Urban Renewal District area is intended to implement the adopted policies contained in the Downtown Plan. Specifically, the objectives of this plan are: Land Use Promote intensity of use through development of publicly and privately owned land. Strengthen existing retail and seek new retail development for integration into the downtown area. Support existing and potential office development and other employment- generating uses. Encourage owner-occupied and rental housing or developments which incorporate housing, in the downtown. Urban Renewal Plan For Central Eugene Draft of May 2007 4 Access and Circulation Improve access and entrances into the downtown from the regional transportation system. Provide better access within the downtown and linkages between downtown and other major activity centers. Improve the circulation of traffic within the plan area. Provide an adequate site and facilities in support of mass transit to meet the present and future needs of downtown employees, employers, retailer, businesses, and other downtown users. Improve access and circulation for bicycles, pedestrians, carpooling, and other alternative modes of transportation. Assist with the construction of new parking structures to meet existing and future development needs. Improve connections between the core of downtown, the riverfront area, and the University of Oregon. Public Facilities and Improvements Provide outdoor space downtown for major public gatherings. Provide appropriate landscaping, open spaces, rest areas, and other shopper amenities and conveniences. Support the continued development of the downtown public library. Construct or reconstruct public improvements that will stimulate nighttime activity or private investment in the downtown area. Improve the water, steam, sewer, and storm drainage system in the plan area. Assist with the construction of public facilities. Improved accessibility for people of all abilities, anywhere in the district, through the removal of architectural barriers, rehabilitation of existing structures and through the application of design improvements. Urban Renewal Plan For Central Eugene Draft of May 2007 5 Rehabilitation Encourage repair and rehabilitation of existing buildings within the project area through grants and low-interest loan programs. Section 500 – Land Use Plan The use and development of all land within the Central Eugene ProjectDowntown Urban Renewal District Plan area shall comply with the regulations prescribed in the City’s comprehensive plan, zoning ordinance, subdivision ordinance, City charter, or any other applicable local, State or Federal laws regulating the use of property within an urban renewal area. Section 600 – Project Activities In order to achieve the objectives of this plan, the following activities may be undertaken on behalf of the City of Eugene by the Renewal Agency, in accordance with applicable Federal, State, County, and City laws, policies, and procedures. A. PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS . 1Street, Curb, and Sidewalk Improvements Improvements within the renewal area may require the construction of new street, curb, sidewalks or sidewalk improvements, such as widening, within the plan area. The Renewal Agency may participate in funding sidewalk and roadway improvements including design, redesign, construction, resurfacing, repair and acquisition of right-of way for curbs, streets, and sidewalks, and pedestrian and bicycle paths. Projects to be undertaken include, but are not limited to: Local street, curb, and sidewalk improvements identified in the Eugene Capital Improvements Program (CIP), the Vision For a Greater Downtown Eugene Report, and the Courthouse District Concept Plan. Other curb, sidewalk and street improvements identified by the Renewal Agency. . 2Public Utilities The development proposed for the renewal area may require the replacement environmental and construction of water, storm and sanitary sewer facilities, and mitigations. These improvements may include, but are not limited to: Sanitary sewer, water, and storm water system upgrades & replacements identified in Eugene Capital Improvements Program Urban Renewal Plan For Central Eugene Draft of May 2007 6 3. Streetscape Projects This activity will enable the Renewal Agency to participate in activities improving the visual appearance of the plan area. These improvements may include, but are not limited to: Accent paving Decorative lighting Street trees, planters, and landscaping Furnishings, including tables, benches, kiosks, telephone booths, drinking fountains, trash receptacles, bicycle racks Street and directional signage Public art and water features Gateway monuments and landscape features Undergrounding of overhead utilities 4.Pedestrian, Bike, and Transit Improvements These activities will include pedestrian, bicycle and transit connections between the renewal plan area, the river, public parks, and other areas of Eugene. Activities may include bicycle parking and storage, transit stops, covered shelters, transit pullouts, and other related activities which will promote pedestrian, bicycle, and public transportation uses in the renewal area. These improvements include, but are not limited to: Provide new bike paths or lanes Provide pedestrian connections to the downtown, riverfront, and Courthouse area. Provide a more prominent entrance to the downtown at East Broadway Provide weather sheltering devices for the protection of pedestrians Street lights and traffic control devices . 5Public parks, public plazas, rest rooms, and open spaces The Renewal Agency may participate in funding the design, acquisition, construction or rehabilitation of public spaces, or parks or public facilities within the urban renewal area. Projects to be undertaken include, but are not limited to: Walkways and plazas Accessibility improvements . 6Public Parking and Public Transportation Facilities The Agency is authorized to participate in funding the acquisition and construction and enhancement of public parking and public transportation facilities within the renewal area. The precise location and type of facilities will be decided after further study. Urban Renewal Plan For Central Eugene Draft of May 2007 7 7. Other Public Facilities The Agency is authorized to participate in development of public facilities including City Hall, police and fire facilities, libraries, recreation centers, conference facilities, and community centers. These facilities will benefit the renewal area by increasing public usage of the area, by enhancing protective services, and by stimulating additional public and private investment in the renewal area. The extent of the Agency’s participation in funding such facilities will be based upon an Agency finding on the benefit of that project to the renewal area, and the importance of the project in carrying out Plan objectives. The type and location of these public facilities will be determined by future study. Potential public facilities to be assisted include, but are not limited to: New Police Building or City Hall Library improvements B. OFF-SITE FACILITIES To encourage the development or redevelopment of private property within the plan area, the Agency may construct, install, pay for, or otherwise cause certain off-site public facilities to be installed or provided when, in the public interest, such action would benefit and further the objectives of the plan. Potential off-site facilities to be assisted include, but are not limited to: New parking, improvements to existing transportation and other facilities, and mass transit stations, and public spaces. C. ACQUISITION AND REDEVELOPMENT 1. Intent. It is the intent of this plan to authorize the Renewal Agency to acquire property within the plan area by any legal means to achieve the objectives of this plan, and specifically, for any of the purposes listed below. 2. Method. Property acquisition, including limited interest acquisition, is hereby made a part of this plan and may be used to achieve the objectives of this plan in the presence of any of the following conditions: a. Where existing conditions do not permit practical or feasible rehabilitation of a structure and it is determined that acquisition of such properties and demolition of the improvements thereon are necessary to remove substandard and blighting conditions; b. Where detrimental land uses or conditions such as incompatible uses, or adverse influences from noise, smoke or fumes exist, or where there exists overcrowding, or conversions to incompatible types of uses, and it is determined that acquisition of such properties and demolition of the improvements are Urban Renewal Plan For Central Eugene Draft of May 2007 8 necessary to remove blighting influences and to achieve the objectives of this plan; c. Where it is determined that the property is needed to provide public improvements and facilities as follows: Right-of-way acquisition for streets, alleys, or pedestrian ways; Property acquisition for public use; and Property acquisition for public, off-street parking facilities. d. Where it is determined that the assembling of land for private development is necessary to attract new commercial and residential activity or to allow for expansion or efficient operation of current commercial or industrial activities. 3. Land Acquisition Requiring Plan Amendments. Land acquisition for any purpose other than specifically listed in 600-C-2 above, shall be accomplished only by following procedures for amending this plan as set forth in Section 1200 of this plan. If such plan amendment is approved by the Eugene Renewal Agency, a map exhibit shall be prepared showing the properties to be acquired, shall be appropriately numbered, and shall be included in Part Two as an official part of this plan. Assembling land for private development where the developer of such land is a person or group other than the owner of record of such land to be acquired, shall not be considered as a substantial amendment to this plan. Each such development and the property acquisition required shall be processed on a case-by-case basis and no such acquisition shall be undertaken until authorized by the Renewal Agency. D. RELOCATION ACTIVITIES If the Agency acquires property which is occupied and would cause the displacement of the occupants in the implementation of the plan, the Agency will provide assistance to persons or businesses to be displaced. Those displaced will be contacted to determine their individual relocation needs. They will be provided information on available space and will be given assistance in moving. All relocation activities will be undertaken and payments made in accordance with the requirements of ORS 281.045 - 281.105 and any other applicable laws or regulations. Relocation payments will be made as provided in ORS 281.060. Payments made to persons displaced from dwellings will assure that they will have available to them decent, safe, and sanitary dwellings at costs or rents within their financial means. The Agency will prepare, adopt, and maintain a Relocation Policy prior to acquiring any property which will cause displacement. Urban Renewal Plan For Central Eugene Draft of May 2007 9 E. DEVELOPMENT AND REDEVELOPMENT The Renewal Agency also is authorized to provide loans or other forms of financial assistance to property owners wishing to develop or redevelop land or buildings within the renewal area, or to persons desiring to acquire or lease buildings or land from the Agency. The Agency may assist in the creation of, and participate in, public/private partnerships that result in development or redevelopment. The Agency may make this assistance available as it deems necessary to achieve the objectives of this Plan. Projects receiving Agency assistance may include, but are not limited to: Assisting the construction or expansion of job-creating developments Assisting in the development of housing and mixed use projects F. ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIVITIES 1. The Agency may retain the services of independent professional people or organizations to provide administrative or technical services such as: a. Preparation of market, feasibility, or other economic studies; b. Preparation of design, architectural, engineering, landscaping architectural, planning, development, or other developmental studies; c. Providing accounting or audit services; d. Providing special rehabilitation, restoration, or renovation feasibility and cost analysis studies; e. Assisting in preparation of the annual financial report required under Section 800 of this plan; f. Providing property acquisition appraisals; and g. Evaluation of this plan and the success of its activities. 2. The Agency may acquire, rent, or lease office space and office furniture, equipment, and facilities necessary for it to conduct its affairs in the management and implementation of this plan. 3. The Agency may invest its reserve funds in interest-bearing accounts or securities. 4. To implement this plan, the Agency may borrow money, accept advances, loans, or grants from any legal source, issue urban renewal bonds and receive tax increment proceeds as provided for in Section 700 of this plan. Urban Renewal Plan For Central Eugene Draft of May 2007 10 G. PROPERTY DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPER OBLIGATIONS 1. Property Disposition. All real property acquired by the Agency in the plan area, if any, shall be disposed of for development for uses permitted in the plan for the specific uses to be permitted on the real property. Real property acquired by the Renewal Agency may be disposed of to any other public entity in accordance with this plan. All persons and entities obtaining property from the Agency shall use the property for the purposes designated in this plan and comply with other conditions which the Agency deems necessary to carry out the purposes of this plan. 2.1.Developer's Obligations. Any developer and the developer’s successors or assigns within the plan area, in addition to the other controls and obligations stipulated and required by the provisions of this plan, shall also be obligated by the following requirements: a. The Developer shall obtain necessary approvals of proposed developments from all Federal, State, or local agencies that may have jurisdiction on properties and facilities to be developed or redeveloped within the plan area; b. The Developer shall develop or redevelop such property in accordance with the adopted land use provisions; c. The Developer shall submit all plans and specifications for construction of improvements on the land to the Agency for review and distribution to appropriate reviewing bodies as required by the City and shall comply with all applicable requirements of existing City codes and ordinances; d. The Developer shall commence and complete the development of such property for the uses provided in this plan within a reasonable period of time; and e. The Developer shall not effect or execute any agreement, lease, conveyance, or other instrument whereby the real property or part thereof is restricted in a manner that does not comply with Section 4.613 of the Eugene Code, 1971. H. REHABILITATION AND CONSERVATION 1. Intent. It is the intent of this Plan to encourage conservation and rehabilitation of existing buildings which can be economically rehabilitated. Existing buildings in the plan area are considered an important asset in maintaining and improving the economic and cultural environment of the plan area. 2. Method. Rehabilitation and conservation may be achieved in two ways: a. By owner and/or tenant activity, with or without financial assistance; Urban Renewal Plan For Central Eugene Draft of May 2007 11 b. By the enforcement of existing City codes and ordinances. 3. Financial Building Rehabilitation Assistance. The Agency, with funds available to it, may promulgate rules, guidelines and eligibility requirements for the purpose of establishing below-market or market rate loan programs, grants, or other financial incentives to advance the goals and objectives of the Central Eugene Downtown Urban Renewal District Plan. Loans, grants or incentives provided by the Agency may be used for voluntary rehabilitation of buildings, façade improvements, provision of amenities on private property in compliance with adopted design guidelines and standards, construction of new buildings, pre-development assistance, connecting to Agency- provided underground electrical and communication systems, or other activities approved by the Agency . I. OWNER PARTICIPATION It is the intent of the Renewal Agency to provide low-interest loans to assist develop- ment and redevelopment of private property in the district. Property owners within the plan area proposing to improve their properties and receiving financial assistance from the Agency shall do so in accordance with all applicable provisions of this plan and with all applicable codes, ordinances, policies, plans, and procedures of the City of Eugene. Section 700 – Methods for Financing the Projects The Agency may borrow money and accept advances, loans, grants, and other legal forms of financial assistance from the Federal government, the State, City, County, or other public body, or from any source, public or private, for the purposes of undertaking and carrying out this development plan, or may otherwise obtain financing as authorized by ORS Chapter 457. Ad valorem taxes, if any, levied by a taxing body upon the taxable real and personal property situated in the urban renewal area, shall be divided in accord with and pursuant to ORS 457.420 through 457.450. The Agency shall adopt and use a fiscal year ending June 30 accounting period. Each year the agency shall develop a budget in conformance with the provisions of ORS Chapter 294 and ORS 457.460 which shall describe sources of revenue, proposed expenditures, and activities. The Urban Renewal Agency Board of Directors must approve all projects, other than loans, in excess of $250,000. Urban Renewal Plan For Central Eugene Draft of May 2007 12 Section 800 – Annual Financial Statement Required A. By August 1 of each year, a financial statement shall be prepared and provide information containing: 1. Amounts of money received during the preceding fiscal year under ORS 457.420 to 457.460 and from indebtedness incurred under ORS 457.420 to ORS 457.460; 2. The purposes and amounts for which any money received under ORS 457.420 to 457.460 and from indebtedness incurred under ORS 457.420 to 457.460 were expended during the preceding fiscal year; 3. An estimate of monies to be received during the current fiscal year under ORS 457.420 to 457.460 and from indebtedness incurred under ORS 457.420 to 457.460; 4. A budget setting forth the purposes and estimated amounts for which the monies which have been or will be received under ORS 457.420 to 457.460 and from indebtedness incurred under ORS 457.420 to 457.460 are to be expended during the current fiscal year; and 5. An analysis of the impact, if any, of carrying out the urban renewal plan on the tax collections for the preceding year for all taxing districts included under ORS 457.430. B. The statement shall be filed with the City Council and notice shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City that a statement has been prepared and is on file with the City and Agency and the information contained in the statement is available to all interested persons. The notice shall be published once a week for not less than two successive weeks before September 1 of the year for which a statement is required in accordance with ORS 457.115. The notice shall summarize the information required under paragraphs 1 to 4 of this section and shall set forth in full the information required in paragraph five of this section. Section 900 – Citizen Participation The activities and projects defined in this plan, development of subsequent plans, procedures, activities, and regulations and the adoption of amendments to this plan shall be undertaken with the participation of citizens, owners, tenants as individuals, and organizations who reside within or who have financial interest within the project area together with the participation of general citizens of the city. An advisory committee authorized by the Urban Renewal Agency Board of Directors will advise on the activities of this urban renewal district and will periodically evaluate the plan and its implementation processes. Urban Renewal Plan For Central Eugene Draft of May 2007 13 Section 1000 – Non-Discrimination In the preparation, adoption, and implementation of this plan no public official or private party shall take any action to cause any person, group or organization to be discriminated against in a manner that violates Section 4.613 of the Eugene Code, 1971. Section 1100 – Recording of this Plan A copy of the City Council’s ordinance approving this plan shall be recorded with the recording officer of Lane County. Section 1200 – Procedures for Changes or Amendments The plan will be reviewed and analyzed periodically and will continue to evolve during the course of project execution and ongoing planning. It is anticipated that this plan will be changed or modified from time to time or amended as development potential and conditions warrant, as planning studies are completed, as financing becomes available, or as local needs dictate.Types of Plan Amendments are: A. Type One Amendment– Substantial Change Requiring Special Notice Type One amendments shall require approval per ORS 457.095, and notice as provided in ORS 457.120. Type One plan changes will consist of: 1. Increases in the urban renewal area boundary in excess of one percent (1%) of the existing area of the renewal plan. 2. Increases in the maximum indebtedness that can be issued or incurred under this plan. B. Type Two Amendment – Substantial Change Not Requiring Special Notice Type two amendments shall require approval per ORS 457.095, but will not require notice as provided in ORS 457.120. Type two amendments will consist of: 1. The addition of improvements or activities which represent a substantial change in the purpose and objectives of this Plan, and which cost more than $500,000. The $500,000 amount will be adjusted annually from the year 2003 according to the "Engineering News Record" construction cost index for the Northwest area. 2. Any change or provision of this Plan which would modify the goals and objectives or the basic planning principles of this plan. Urban Renewal Plan For Central Eugene Draft of May 2007 14 Substantial changes shall include, but are not limited to, revisions in project boundaries, land uses, project activities, street system changes, major relocation of the downtown transit station, or other elements which will change the basic planning principles of this plan. C. Type Three Amendment – Minor Amendment Minor amendments may be approved by the Renewal Agency in resolution form. Such amendments are defined as: 1. Amendments to clarify language, add graphic exhibits, make minor modifications in the scope or location of improvements authorized by this Plan, or other such modifications which do not change the basic planning or engineering principles of the Plan. 2. Acquisition of property for purposes specified in Section 600C3 of this plan. 3. Addition of a project substantially different from those identified in Sections 600 of the Plan or substantial modification of a project identified in Section 600 if the addition or modification of the project costs less than $500,000 in 2003 dollars. 4. Increases in the urban renewal area boundary not in excess of one percent (1%). D. Amendment to the City’s Comprehensive Plan or any of its Implementing Ordinances Should the City Council amend the City’s comprehensive plan or any of its implement- ing ordinances and should such amendment cause a substantial change to this plan, the City Council amending action shall cause this plan to be amended provided that the Planning Commission and City Council approve the amendment. In the event of such amendment, the text and/or exhibits of this plan, if applicable to this plan, shall be changed accordingly by duly recorded ordinance . Section 1300 – Duration and Validity of Approved Plan A.Duration of Urban Renewal Plan This plan shall remain in full force and effect through June 30, 20242030.The Agency shall not issue indebtedness that matures after June 30, 2030, and the Plan shall remain in effect until all indebtedness has been repaid. The City Council shall conduct periodic reviews in 2009 2015and20192025. Reviews will consider extending the duration beyond 20292030; modifying the boundaries; modifying the maximum indebtedness; and modifying eligible project activities to be undertaken in the Downtown Urban Renewal District. The review process shall include a review and recommendation from the Eugene Redevelopment Advisory Committee. Such review will include a public hearing. Urban Renewal Plan For Central Eugene Draft of May 2007 15 B.Validity Should a court of competent jurisdiction find any word, clause, sentence, section, or part of this plan to be invalid, the remaining words, clauses, sentences, section, or parts shall be unaffected by any such finding and shall remain in full force and effect for the duration of the plan. Section 1400 – Maximum Indebtedness A. Maximum Indebtedness The sum of $33,000,000 was established in 1998 as the maximum amount of new indebtedness which could be issued or incurred under this Plan after June 1, 1998.The 2007 plan amendment increased the maximum indebtedness amount by $95 million, to a total of $128 million. The maximum indebtedness limit established by this Section 1400 does not apply to or limit: 1. The obligation of the Agency to pay interest on indebtedness issued or incurred under this Plan; 2. Any indebtedness issued to refund indebtedness issued or incurred under this Plan, to the extent that the refunding indebtedness does not exceed the principal amount of the refunded indebtedness, plus the amount of the refunding indebtedness that is used to pay costs of the refunding; and This amount does not include funds to pay interest on that indebtedness nor 3. fFunds to repay indebtedness existing on the date of the 1998 amendment. B.City-Wide Special Levy. Option One and its city-wide special levy, as described in ORS 457.435(2)(a), were chosen in 1998 as the method for collecting ad valorem property taxes sufficient to pay when due, indebtedness issued or incurred to carry out the Urban Renewal Plan for the Central Eugene ProjectDowntown Urban Renewal District as permitted by section 11 (16), Article XI of the Oregon Constitution. Urban Renewal Plan For Central Eugene Draft of May 2007 16 Part 2 – Exhibits Exhibit A: Development Plan Boundary Urban Renewal Plan For Central Eugene Draft of May 2007 17 Attachment E DOWNTOWN URBAN RENEWAL DISTRICT REPORT Ú±® ¬¸» ܱ©²¬±©² Ë®¾¿² λ²»©¿´ Ü·­¬®·½¬ д¿² Ñ®·¹·²¿´´§ ß¼±°¬»¼ Ö«´§ íô ïçêè ¾§ Û«¹»²» Ë®¾¿² λ²»©¿´ ß¹»²½§ Ñ®¼·²¿²½» Ò±ò îëé ß³»²¼»¼ Ü»½»³¾»® ïçô ïçêè ¾§ Û«¹»²» Ý·¬§ ݱ«²½·´ Ñ®¼·²¿²½» Ò±ò ïêðç ß³»²¼»¼ Ò±ª»³¾»® èô ïçèç ¾§ Û«¹»²» Ý·¬§ ݱ«²½·´ Ñ®¼·²¿²½» Ò±ò ïçêìè ß³»²¼»¼ Ö«²» ïô ïççè ¾§ Ý·¬§ ݱ«²½·´ Ñ®¼·²¿²½» Ò±ò îðïîð ß³»²¼»¼ Í»°¬»³¾»® ïíô îððì ¾§ Ý·¬§ ݱ«²½·´ Ñ®¼·²¿²½» Ò±ò îðíîè Amended August _, 2007 by City Council Ordinance No. _____ City of Eugene ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Eugene City Council and Urban Renewal Agency Board Ó¿§±® Õ·¬¬§ з»®½§ Þ±²²§ Þ»¬¬³¿² ß´¿² Æ»´»²µ¿ ß²¼®»¿ Ñ®¬·¦ ݸ®·­ Ю§±® Ó·µ» Ý´¿®µ Ù»±®¹» б´·²¹ Ö»²²·º»® ͱ´±³±² Þ»¬¬§ Ì¿§´±® City of Eugene Staff Ü»²²·­ Ì¿§´±®ô Ý·¬§ Ó¿²¿¹»® Í«­¿² Ó«·®ô Ü·®»½¬±® ±º д¿²²·²¹ ¿²¼ Ü»ª»´±°³»²¬ Ü»°¿®¬³»²¬ Ü»²²§ Þ®¿«¼ Í«» Ý«¬­±¹»±®¹» ß³¿²¼¿ Ò±¾»´ Ó·µ» Í«´´·ª¿² η½¸·» É»·²³¿² Í¿®¿¸ Æ¿´»­µ· Consultant ݸ¿®´»­ Õ«°°»®ô Í°»²½»® ú Õ«°°»®ô ᮬ´¿²¼ô Ñ®»¹±² TABLE OF CONTENTS ݸ¿°¬»® ïæ ײ¬®±¼«½¬·±²òòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòï ݸ¿°¬»® îæÜ»­½®·°¬·±² ±º и§­·½¿´ô ͱ½·¿´ô Û½±²±³·½ô ¿²¼ Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ݱ²¼·¬·±²­ ·² ¬¸» д¿² ß®»¿òòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòî ݸ¿°¬»® íæ Û¨°»½¬»¼ ׳°¿½¬ô ײ½´«¼·²¹ Ú·­½¿´ ׳°¿½¬ ±º ¬¸» д¿²ô ·² Ô·¹¸¬ ±º ß¼¼»¼ Í»®ª·½»­ ±® ײ½®»¿­»¼ б°«´¿¬·±²òòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòê ݸ¿°¬»® ìæ λ¿­±²­ º±® Í»´»½¬·±² ±º ¬¸» д¿² ß®»¿òòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòé ݸ¿°¬»® ëæ λ´¿¬·±²­¸·° Þ»¬©»»² Û¨·­¬·²¹ ݱ²¼·¬·±²­ ¿²¼ Û¿½¸ Ю±¶»½¬ ß½¬·ª·¬§ ˲¼»®¬¿µ»² ˲¼»® ¬¸» д¿²òòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòè ݸ¿°¬»® êæÛ­¬·³¿¬»¼ ̱¬¿´ ݱ­¬ ±º Û¿½¸ Ю±¶»½¬ ±® ß½¬·ª·¬§ô ͱ«®½»­ ±º Ó±²»§ô ¿²¼ ß²¬·½·°¿¬»¼ ݱ³°´»¬·±² Ü¿¬» º±® Û¿½¸ Ю±¶»½¬ ±® ß½¬·ª·¬§òòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòç ݸ¿°¬»® éæÛ­¬·³¿¬»¼ ß³±«²¬ ±º Ó±²»§ ¿²¼ ß²¬·½·°¿¬»¼ Ç»¿® ·² ɸ·½¸ ײ¼»¾¬»¼²»­­ ©·´´ ¾» λ¬·®»¼ ±® Ѭ¸»®©·­» Ю±ª·¼»¼ Ú±® ˲¼»® ÑÎÍ ìëéòìî𠬱 ìëéòìêðòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòïð ݸ¿°¬»® èæÚ·²¿²½·¿´ ß²¿´§­·­ ±º ¬¸» д¿² ©·¬¸ Í«ºº·½·»²¬ ײº±®³¿¬·±² ¬± Ü»¬»®³·²» Ú»¿­·¾·´·¬§òòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòïì ݸ¿°¬»® çæ Ú·­½¿´ ׳°¿½¬ ͬ¿¬»³»²¬ ̸¿¬ Û­¬·³¿¬»­ ¬¸» ׳°¿½¬ ±º ¬¸» Ì¿¨ ײ½®»³»²¬ Ú·²¿²½·²¹ô Þ±¬¸ ˲¬·´ ¿²¼ ߺ¬»® ̸» ײ¼»¾¬»¼²»­­ ·­ λ°¿·¼ô Ë°±² ß´´ Û²¬·¬·»­ Ô»ª§·²¹ Ì¿¨»­ Ë°±² Ю±°»®¬§ ·² ¬¸» Ë®¾¿² λ²»©¿´ß®»¿òòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòïë ݸ¿°¬»® ïðæλ´±½¿¬·±²Î»°±®¬òòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòïè ݸ¿°¬»® ïïæß°°»²¼·½»­òòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòòïç REPORT ON THE DOWNTOWN URBAN RENEWAL DISTRICT PLAN INDEX OF TABLES Page Ì¿¾´» ï ß®»¿ ß½®»­ ¾§ Ù»²»®¿´·¦»¼ Ô¿²¼ Ë­» í Ì¿¾´» î Ʊ²·²¹ ·² ß½®»­ í Ì¿¾´» í ݱ²¼·¬·±² ±º Ю·²½·°¿´ Þ«·´¼·²¹­ ì Ì¿¾´» ì ß­­»­­»¼ Ê¿´«» ±º ¬¸» Ú®±¦»² Þ¿­» ë Ì¿¾´» ë Ô·­¬ ±º Ю±¶»½¬ ß½¬·ª·¬·»­ ¿²¼ ̸»·® Û­¬·³¿¬»¼ ݱ­¬ ç Ì¿¾´» ê λ­±«®½»­ ¿²¼ λ¯«·®»³»²¬­ ±º д¿² ß½¬·ª·¬·»­ ïï Ì¿¾´» é 못²«» ׳°¿½¬ ±² Ѫ»®´¿°°·²¹ Ö«®·­¼·½¬·±²­ ïé REPORT ON THE DOWNTOWN URBAN RENEWAL DISTRICT PLAN Chapter 1: Introduction ̸» îððé ß³»²¼³»²¬ ¬± ¬¸» ܱ©²¬±©² Ë®¾¿² λ²»©¿´ Ü·­¬®·½¬ д¿² ³¿µ»­ ¬¸» º±´´±©·²¹ ½¸¿²¹»­ ¬± λ°±®¬ ±² ¬¸» д¿²æ Ю±ª·¼»­ ²»© ½±­¬ »­¬·³¿¬»­ ±º °®±¶»½¬ ¿½¬·ª·¬·»­ ¬± ¾» «²¼»®¬¿µ»² Ü»­½®·¾»­ ¬¸» ½¸¿²¹» ¼«» ¬± ¬¸» »¨°¿²­·±² ±º ¬¸» ¾±«²¼¿®·»­ ±º ¬¸» ¼·­¬®·½¬ Ü»­½®·¾»­ ¬¸» ½¸¿²¹» ¼«» ¬± ¬¸» »¨¬»²­·±² ±º ¬¸» ¼«®¿¬·±² ±º ¬¸» д¿² ¬± ¬¸» §»¿® îðíð Ü»­½®·¾»­ ¬¸» ½¸¿²¹» ¼«» ¬± ¬¸» ·²½®»¿­» ·² ¬¸» ³¿¨·³«³ ·²¼»¾¬»¼²»­­ Ю±ª·¼»­ ²»© ·²º±®³¿¬·±² ±² ¬¸» ·³°¿½¬ ¬¸¿¬ ½¿®®§·²¹ ±«¬ ¬¸» д¿² ©·´´ ¸¿ª» ±² ±¬¸»® ¬¿¨·²¹ ¾±¼·»­ «²¼»® Ó»¿­«®» ëðò ̸» Ý·¬§ ±º Û«¹»²» ¸¿­ °®»°¿®»¼ ¿² ¿³»²¼³»²¬ ¬± ¬¸» Ë®¾¿² λ²»©¿´ д¿² Ë°¼¿¬» ±º ¬¸» ܱ©²¬±©² Ë®¾¿² λ²»©¿´ Ü·­¬®·½¬ д¿²ô ±®·¹·²¿´´§ ¿¼±°¬»¼ ±² Ö«´§ ïçêè ¿²¼ ¿­ ³±¼·º·»¼ Ü»½»³¾»® ïçêèô Ü»½»³¾»® ïçèçô Ö«²» ïççè ¿²¼ Í»°¬»³¾»® îððìò ̸» д¿² Ë°¼¿¬» ·­ ¾¿­»¼ ±² ¹±¿´­ ¿²¼ ±¾¶»½¬·ª»­ º®±³ ¬¸» Ý·¬§ ±º Û«¹»²» ܱ©²¬±©² д¿² ¿¼±°¬»¼ ·² Ú»¾®«¿®§ îððìò ̸·­ ®»°±®¬ ¿½½±³°¿²·»­ ¬¸» Ë®¾¿² λ²»©¿´ д¿² ¿²¼ ½±²­·­¬­ ±º ¬»¨¬ô ¬¿¾´»­ô ¿²¼ ¿°°»²¼·½»­ò ̸» ܱ©²¬±©² Ë®¾¿² λ²»©¿´ Ü·­¬®·½¬ ¿®»¿ ±®·¹·²¿´´§ ½±²¬¿·²»¼ ¿°°®±¨·³¿¬»´§ éð ¿½®»­ò ̸» °´¿² ¿³»²¼³»²¬ ·²½´«¼»­ ¿ ¾±«²¼¿®§ »¨°¿²­·±² ±º ïïòé ¿½®»­ô ³¿µ·²¹ ¬¸» °´¿² ¿®»¿ ¿ ¬±¬¿´ ±º èïòé ¿½®»­ò ̸» ´»¹¿´ ¼»­½®·°¬·±² º±® ¬¸» ¿®»¿ ·­ ·² Í»½¬·±² íð𠱺 ö ¬¸» д¿²ò ̸» ¿®»¿ ·­ º«®¬¸»® ¼»­½®·¾»¼ ±² ¹®¿°¸·½ »¨¸·¾·¬­ ·²½´«¼»¼ ·² ¬¸¿¬ д¿²ò ö Ò±¬» ¬¸¿¬ ¬¸» °®±°±­»¼ °´¿² ¿³»²¼³»²¬­ô ·²½´«¼·²¹ ¬¸» ¾±«²¼¿®§ »¨°¿²­·±²ô ©·´´ ¾» ®»ª·»©»¼ ¾§ ¬¸» д¿²²·²¹ ݱ³³·­­·±²ô ¬¸» ±ª»®´¿°°·²¹ ¬¿¨·²¹ ¼·­¬®·½¬­ ¿²¼ ¬¸» ¹»²»®¿´ °«¾´·½ò ߺ¬»® ¬¸·­ ®»ª·»©ô ¬¸» Ý·¬§ ݱ«²½·´ ³¿§ ½¸±±­» ¬± »¨°¿²¼ ¬¸» ¾±«²¼¿®§ ·² ¿ ­´·¹¸¬´§ ¼·ºº»®»²¬ ³¿²²»®ò ̸» º·²¿²½·¿´ »ºº»½¬ ±º ¿ ­´·¹¸¬´§ ¼·ºº»®»²¬ ¾±«²¼¿®§ ½¸¿²¹» ©±«´¼ ¾» ³·²·³¿´ò ï Report on the Downtown Urban Renewal District Plan Draft of May 2007 Chapter 2: Description of Physical, Social, Economic, and Environmental Conditions in the Plan Area Ò±¬»æ ̸·­ ¼»­½®·°¬·±² ¿²¼ ¿­­»­­³»²¬ ·­ ±²´§ ½«®®»²¬ ¬± ¬¸» ·¼»²¬·º·»¼ ¼¿¬»­ò A. Physical Conditions ïò Ô¿²¼ Ë­» ̸» ܱ©²¬±©² Ë®¾¿² λ²»©¿´ Ü·­¬®·½¬ »²½±³°¿­­»­ ¿¾±«¬ èïòé ¿½®»­ ¿º¬»® ¬¸» ¾±«²¼¿®§ »¨°¿²­·±² »²¿½¬»¼ ·² ¬¸·­ °´¿² ¿³»²¼³»²¬ò ̸» ¬±¬¿´ ·²½±®°±®¿¬»¼ ´¿²¼ ¿®»¿ º±® ¬¸» Ý·¬§ ±º Û«¹»²» ¿­ ±º Ö«²» îððê ·­ îêôëêð ¿½®»­ò ̸» ܱ©²ó ¬±©² Ë®¾¿² λ²»©¿´ Ü·­¬®·½¬ ®»°®»­»²¬­ ¿¾±«¬ ðòððí °»®½»²¬ ±º ¬¸» Ý·¬§­ ¬±¬¿´ ´¿²¼ ¿®»¿ò ̸·­ ¿®»¿ ½±³¾·²»¼ ©·¬¸ ¬¸» 窻®º®±²¬ Ë®¾¿² λ²»©¿´ Ü·­¬®·½¬ô ¿°°®±¨·³¿¬»´§ ïéè ¿½®»­ô »¯«¿´­ îêðòêð ¿½®»­ ±® ´»­­ ¬¸¿² ±²» °»®½»²¬ ±º ¬¸» Ý·¬§­ ¬±¬¿´ ´¿²¼ ¿®»¿ ·² ®»²»©¿´ ¼·­¬®·½¬­ò ̸·­ ±²» °»®½»²¬ ·­ ©»´´ ©·¬¸·² ¬¸» ïë °»®½»²¬ ³¿¨·³«³ ¿´´±©»¼ ¾§ Ñ®»¹±² ͬ¿¬» ´¿©ò ̸·­ ·­ ¬¸» º·®­¬ ¾±«²¼¿®§ »¨°¿²­·±² ±º ¬¸» ܱ©²¬±©² Ë®¾¿² λ²»©¿´ Ü·­¬®·½¬ ¿®»¿ò ̸» ¾±«²¼¿®§ »¨°¿²­·±² ¬±¬¿´­ ïïòé ¿½®»­ò ̸·­ ®»°®»­»²¬­ ¿ ïé °»®½»²¬ ·²½®»¿­» ·² ¬¸» °´¿² ¿®»¿ò Ñ®»¹±² ͬ¿¬» ´¿© ¿´´±©­ °´¿² ¿³»²¼³»²¬­ ¬± ·²½®»¿­» ¬¸» °´¿² ¿®»¿ ¾§ ²± ³±®» ¬¸¿² îð °»®½»²¬ ±º ¬¸» ¬±¬¿´ ´¿²¼ ·² ¬¸» ±®·¹·²¿´ °´¿² ¿®»¿ò ̸» ½«®®»²¬ ¾±«²¼¿®§ »¨°¿²­·±² ·­ ©·¬¸·² ¬¸·­ ´·³·¬ò îò Û¨·­¬·²¹ Ô¿²¼ Ë­» ¿²¼ Ʊ²·²¹ Ì¿¾´» ï ­¸±©­ ¹»²»®¿´·¦»¼ ´¿²¼ «­» ¿­ ±º Ó¿§ îððé ¾§ ½¿¬»¹±®§ò Ì¿¾´» î ­¸±©­ ¬¸» ¦±²·²¹ ¿­ ±º Ó¿§ îððé ¾§ ¦±²·²¹ ¼·­¬®·½¬ò ß ¼»­½®·°¬·±² ±º »¿½¸ «­» °»®³·¬¬»¼ ·­ º±«²¼ ·² ¬¸» Ý·¬§ Ʊ²·²¹ ݱ¼»ò ̸» λ²»©¿´ ß®»¿ ¿²¼ ¦±²·²¹ ³¿°­ ¿®» ´±½¿¬»¼ ·² ¬¸» ß°°»²¼·¨ô Û¨¸·¾·¬­ ß ¿²¼ Þò î Report on the Downtown Urban Renewal District Plan Draft of May 2007 Table 1 Area Acres by Generalized Land Use May 2007 Data OriginalTotal District Boundary in ExpansionBoundary in Generalized Land Use Acres Area in Acres Acres ݱ³³«²·½¿¬·±² ðòê ðòð ðòê Û¼«½¿¬·±² ðòì ðòê ïòð Ì®¿²­°±®¬¿¬·±² ïòè ðòð ïòè Ù±ª»®²³»²¬ ïòì ðòí ïòé ɸ±´»­¿´» Ì®¿¼» ðòï ðòð ðòï ײ¼«­¬®·¿´ ðòî ðòî ðòì λ´·¹·±«­ô ݸ¿®·¬¿¾´» ðòî ðòð ðòî λ½®»¿¬·±² êòç ðòð êòç λ­·¼»²¬·¿´ô Ó«´¬·óÚ¿³·´§ ðòì ðòð ðòì Ù»²»®¿´ Í»®ª·½»­ èòî ïòì çòê п®µ­ ðòè ðòð ðòè λ¬¿·´ Ì®¿¼» ïèòî ðòé ïèòç Ê¿½¿²¬ ðòï êòê êòé ͬ®»»¬­ô ß´´»§­ô α¿¼­ íðòé ïòç íîòê Total 70.0 11.7 81.7 Table 2 Zoning in Acres May 2007 Data Total District Original Boundary Expansion Area Zone Description Zoning Acres % Acres % % ݱ³³«²·¬§ ݱ³³»®½·¿´ Ýî îòé íòçû íòì îçòïû éòëû Ý»²¬®¿´ Þ«­·²»­­ Ýí êíòð èçòçû êòî ëíòðû èìòéû Ø·­¬±®·½ Ø ðòí ðòìû óó óó ðòíû Ы¾´·½ Ô¿²¼ ÐÔ ìòð ëòéû óó óó ìòèû Í°»½·¿´ Ü»ª»´±°³»²¬ ó ܱ©²¬±©² É»­¬­·¼» Í°»½·¿´ ß®»¿ Ʊ²» Í ðòï ðòïû óó óó ðòïû Ô·¹¸¬ Ó»¼·«³ ײ¼«­¬®·¿´ ×óî óó óó ðòç éòéû ïòïû ÍóÚ Ú·º¬¸ ߪ»²«» Í°»½·¿´ ß®»¿ Í óó óó ïòî ïðòíû ïòëû Total 70.0 100.0% 11.7 100.0% 100.0% Ò±¬»æ ̱¬¿´­ ³¿§ ²±¬ ¿¼¼ ¼«» ¬± ®±«²¼·²¹ò íò ݱ²¼·¬·±²­ ±º ¾«·´¼·²¹­ ¿²¼ ¼©»´´·²¹ «²·¬­ ̸» ½±²¼·¬·±²­ ±º çî °®·²½·°¿´ ¾«·´¼·²¹­ ©·¬¸·² ¬¸» ±®·¹·²¿´ λ²»©¿´ ß®»¿ ©»®» ®¿¬»¼ ¿½½±®¼·²¹ ¬± ¬¸» Ô¿²» ݱ«²¬§ ¿­­»­­³»²¬ ®»½±®¼­ô ½«®®»²¬ ¬± ¬¸» ¼¿¬» ­¸±©²ò ̸» ½±²¼·¬·±²­ ±º ¬¸»­» ¾«·´¼·²¹­ ©»®» ½¿¬»¹±®·¦»¼ ¿­ ¹±±¼ô º¿·®ô ±® °±±® ¬¸®±«¹¸ ¿ ®¿¬·²¹ ­§­¬»³ ¾¿­»¼ ±² ¿ °¸§­·½¿´ ·²­°»½¬·±² ¿²¼ ®¿¬»¼ ¿½½±®¼·²¹ ¬± ¿ °¸§­·½¿´ ¼»°®»½·¿¬·±² ¹«·¼»ò ̸·­ ¹«·¼» ¬¿µ»­ ·²¬± ¿½½±«²¬ ¬¸» ¿¹» ±º ¬¸» ¾«·´¼·²¹ò Ì¿¾´» í ·­ ¿ ­«³³¿¬·±²ò ׬ ·­ ¿­­«³»¼ ¬¸¿¬ ¾«·´¼·²¹­ ·² °±±® ½±²¼·¬·±²ô ¿²¼ ­±³» ¾«·´¼·²¹­ ·² º¿·® ½±²¼·¬·±²ô ³¿§ ®»¯«·®» ®»¸¿¾·´·¬¿¬·±² ·º »½±²±³·½¿´´§ º»¿­·¾´»ò ͱ³» ®»¸¿¾·´·¬¿¬·±² ³¿§ ¸¿ª» ¬¿µ»² °´¿½» ­·²½» ¬¸» ·²­°»½¬·±² ¼¿¬»ò í Report on the Downtown Urban Renewal District Plan Draft of May 2007 Table 3 Condition of Principal Buildings September, 1985 data – LCOG Research Section Lane County 1982 Physical Depreciation Index ConditionCommercialDwelling Units Ù±±¼ íç ð ߪ»®¿¹» íð ð б±® îî ï øê÷ TOTAL 91 1 (6) (*) = number of dwelling units ̸» °®±°±­»¼ »¨°¿²­·±² ¿®»¿ ·­ °®·³¿®·´§ ½±³°®·­»¼ ±º ª¿½¿²¬ ´¿²¼ «­»¼ º±® ­«®º¿½» °¿®µ·²¹ò ̸»®» ¿®» ²·²» ­¬®«½¬«®»­ ¿´´ ·² ¿ª»®¿¹» ½±²¼·¬·±²ò ìò Í¿²·¬¿®§ ­»©»® ­§­¬»³ ̸» ­¿²·¬¿®§ ­»©»® ­§­¬»³ ©¿­ «°¹®¿¼»¼ ¿­ °¿®¬ ±º ¬¸» ±®·¹·²¿´ λ²»©¿´ °®±¶»½¬ò ̸·­ «°¹®¿¼·²¹ ½±²­·­¬»¼ ±º ®»´·²·²¹ ¬¸» »¨·­¬·²¹ ´·²»­ ©·¬¸ °´¿­¬·½ °·°» ´·²»®­ò Û¿½¸ ¾«·´¼·²¹ ©¿­ ®»½±²²»½¬»¼ ¿¬ ¬¸¿¬ ¬·³»ò ̸» »²¹·²»»®·²¹ ¿²¿´§­·­ ­¸±©»¼ ¬¸¿¬ ¬¸» »¨·­¬·²¹ ½¿°¿½·¬§ ©¿­ ­«ºº·½·»²¬ò ëò É¿¬»® ¼»´·ª»®§ ­§­¬»³ ß½½±®¼·²¹ ¬± ¬¸» Û«¹»²» É¿¬»® ¿²¼ Û´»½¬®·½ Þ±¿®¼ô ¬¸» ©¿¬»® ¼»´·ª»®§ ­§­¬»³ ¬¸®±«¹¸±«¬ ¬¸» ±®·¹·²¿´ ¿²¼ »¨°¿²¼»¼ ܱ©²¬±©² Ë®¾¿² λ²»©¿´ Ü·­¬®·½¬ ·­ ·² ­«ºº·½·»²¬ ½±²¼·¬·±² ¿²¼ ±º ­«ºº·½·»²¬ ½¿°¿½·¬§ ¬± ­«°°±®¬ ¿¼¼·¬·±²¿´ ¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ò êò ͬ®»»¬­ô ß´´»§­ô Í·¼»©¿´µ­ô »¬½ò ̸» ³¿¶±® °±®¬·±²­ ±º ¬¸» ­¬®»»¬­ô ¿´´»§­ ¿²¼ ­·¼»©¿´µ­ ©·¬¸·² ¬¸» λ²»©¿´ ß®»¿ ©»®» «°¹®¿¼»¼ ¿­ °¿®¬ ±º ¬¸» ±®·¹·²¿´ °®±¶»½¬ ¿²¼ ®»³¿·² ·² ¹±±¼ ½±²¼·¬·±²ò ̸» ®»³¿·²·²¹ ¿®»¿­ ¬± ¾» «°¹®¿¼»¼ ¿®» ¿¼¶¿½»²¬ ¬± °®±°±­»¼ ¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ ­·¬»­ ¿²¼ ©·´´ ¾» ®»¾«·´¬ ½±²½«®®»²¬ ©·¬¸ ¬¸» ²»© ¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ò B. Social Conditions ß½½±®¼·²¹ ¬± ¿ îððì д¿²²·²¹ ¿²¼ Ü»ª»´±°³»²¬ Ü»°¿®¬³»²¬ ¿²¿´§­·­ô ¬¸»®» ¿®» ïçê ¸±«­·²¹ «²·¬­ ©·¬¸·² ¬¸» ܱ©²¬±©² Ë®¾¿² λ²»©¿´ Ü·­¬®·½¬ò ̸»®» ¿®» ²± ¸±«­·²¹ «²·¬­ ·² ¬¸» ¿®»¿ °®±°±­»¼ º±® »¨°¿²­·±²ò ì Report on the Downtown Urban Renewal District Plan Draft of May 2007 C. Economic Conditions ïò Ê¿´«» ±º Ю±°»®¬§ ̸» îððêñîððé ¬¿¨¿¾´» ¿­­»­­»¼ ª¿´«» º±® ¬¸» »²¬·®» Ý·¬§ ·­ üïðôîëèôíçìôïððò ̸» ¬±¬¿´ ¿­­»­­»¼ ª¿´«» º±® ¬¸» ܱ©²¬±©² Ë®¾¿² λ²»©¿´ Ü·­¬®·½¬ ¿­ ±º ÚÇîððêñîððé ·­ üïëîôêîìôêèíò ̸» ½¸¿®¬ ¾»´±© ¼»³±²­¬®¿¬»­ ¬¸¿¬ ¬¸» º®±¦»² ¾¿­» º±® ¬¸» ½±³¾·²»¼ «®¾¿² ®»²»©¿´ ¼·­¬®·½¬­ ·­ ©»´´ ©·¬¸·² ¬¸» ïëû ´·³·¬ ·³°±­»¼ ¾§ ÑÎÍ ìëéò Table 4 Assessed Value of the Frozen Base ܱ©²¬±©² ̱¬¿´ ¿­ ¿ û Ë®¾¿² λ²»©¿´ 窻®º®±²¬ Ë®¾¿² ±º Ý·¬§ ±º Ü·­¬®·½¬Î»²»©¿´ Ü·­¬®·½¬ ̱¬¿´ Û«¹»²» ßÊ Ú®±¦»² Þ¿­» üíïôíèêôççï üëðôêðçôììè üèïôççêôìíç ðòèû îò λ´¿¬·±²­¸·° ±º ¬¸» Ê¿´«» ±º ׳°®±ª»³»²¬­ ¬± ¬¸» Ê¿´«» ±º Ô¿²¼ ̸» ½«®®»²¬ ®¿¬·± ±º ·³°®±ª»³»²¬ ¬± ´¿²¼ ª¿´«» ©·¬¸·² ¬¸» λ²»©¿´ ß®»¿ô ¾¿­»¼ ±² îððêñîððé ¿­­»­­³»²¬ ®»½±®¼­ ¿²¼ »¨½´«¼·²¹ ¬¿¨ »¨»³°¬ °®±°»®¬§ô ·­ èòï ¬± ïò ̸» ¿½½»°¬»¼ ·³°®±ª»³»²¬ ¬± ´¿²¼ ª¿´«» ®¿¬·±­ ±º ¸»¿´¬¸§ô ª·¿¾´»ô ¿²¼ °®±­°»®±«­ ¿®»¿­ ·² Ñ®»¹±² ½·¬·»­ ¿®» íò𠬱 ï ¿²¼ ¹®»¿¬»®ò D. Environmental Conditions Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ½±²¼·¬·±²­ ©·¬¸·² ¬¸» ܱ©²¬±©² Ë®¾¿² λ²»©¿´ Ü·­¬®·½¬ ¿®» ²±¬ »¨°»½¬»¼ ¬± ½¸¿²¹»ò ̸» ¿®»¿ ¸¿­ ¾»»² ¿² »­¬¿¾´·­¸»¼ ½±³³»®½·¿´ ¾«­·²»­­ ¿®»¿ º±® ³¿²§ §»¿®­ò Ó±­¬ ­¬®»»¬­ô ­·¼»©¿´µ­ô ¿´´»§­ô ¿²¼ ­»©»®­ ¿®» ·² °´¿½» ¿²¼ ©·´´ ¾» «°¹®¿¼»¼ ¿²¼ ³¿·²¬¿·²»¼ò ̸» °«¾´·½ °¿®µ ¿®»¿­ ©·¬¸·² ¬¸» °®±¶»½¬ ¿®»¿ ©·´´ ¾» «°¹®¿¼»¼ ¿²¼ ³¿·²¬¿·²»¼ò ̸» °«¾´·½ °¿®µ ¿®»¿­ ©·¬¸·² ¬¸» °®±¶»½¬ ¿®»¿ ©·´´ ¾» «°¹®¿¼»¼ ¿²¼ ³¿·²¬¿·²»¼ ¿­ ²»»¼»¼ò Ò»© ­¬®»»¬ ¬®»»­ ¿®» ¬± ¾» °´¿²¬»¼ ¿­ °¿®¬ ±º ¬¸» °®±¶»½¬ò ̸·­ ´¿²¼­½¿°·²¹ ­¸±«´¼ °®±ª·¼» ¿ °±­·¬·ª» »²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ ·³°¿½¬ò ë Report on the Downtown Urban Renewal District Plan Draft of May 2007 Chapter 3: Expected Impact, Including Fiscal Impact of the Plan, in Light of Added Services or Increased Population Ü»ª»´±°³»²¬ ©·¬¸·² ¬¸» λ²»©¿´ ß®»¿ ·­ ²±¬ »¨°»½¬»¼ ¬± ¸¿ª» ¿ ­·¹²·º·½¿²¬ ·³°¿½¬ ±² ¬¸» ìóÖ Í½¸±±´ Ü·­¬®·½¬ò ̸» ¦±²·²¹ ½®·¬»®·¿ ±º Ýî ¿²¼ Ýí ¼±»­ ²±¬ »²½±«®¿¹» ®»­·¼»²¬·¿´ ¸±«­·²¹ò п­¬ »¨°»®·»²½» ­¸±©­ ®»­·¼»²¬·¿´ ½±³°´»¨»­ ¼»ª»´±°»¼ ¿®±«²¼ ¬¸» °®±¶»½¬ ¿®»¿ ¸¿ª» º±½«­»¼ ±² ¿¼«´¬ ¸±«­·²¹ò Þ¿­»¼ ±² ¬¸·­ »¨°»®·»²½»ô ¬¸»®» ­¸±«´¼ ¾» ²± ±® ¬¸ ³·²·³¿´ ·³°¿½¬ ±² ¬¸» ´±½¿´ µ·²¼»®¹¿®¬»² ¬¸®±«¹¸ ïî ¹®¿¼» ­½¸±±´­ò ̸» ¿¼¼»¼ ¿¼«´¬ °±°«´¿¬·±² ½®»¿¬»¼ ¾§ ­«½¸ ¸±«­·²¹ °®±¶»½¬­ ³¿§ ·³°¿½¬ Ô¿²» ݱ³³«²·¬§ ݱ´´»¹»ô °¿®¬·½«´¿®´§ ¬¸» ܱ©²¬±©² ½¿³°«­ô ©·¬¸ ·²½®»¿­»¼ ®»¹·­¬®¿¬·±²ò ̸» îððé ß³»²¼³»²¬ º±´´±©­ ¬¸» °¿­­¿¹» ±º Þ¿´´±¬ Ó»¿­«®» ëð ¿²¼ ·¬­ ·³°´»³»²¬¿¬·±² ®«´»­ò ײ ¬¸» Ó»¿­«®» ëð »²ª·®±²³»²¬ô ¬¿¨·²¹ ¾±¼·»­ º±®»¹± ®»ª»²«» °®±¼«½»¼ ¾§ ¬¸» ¹®±©¬¸ ·² ª¿´«»­ ±ª»® ¿ ®»²»©¿´ ¿®»¿­ º®±¦»² ¾¿­»ò ̸» °®±°»®¬§ ¬¿¨ ·³°¿½¬­ ±º ½¿®®§·²¹ ±«¬ ¬¸·­ ¿³»²¼»¼ д¿² ¿®» ­¸±©² ·² ݸ¿°¬»® ç ±º ¬¸·­ λ°±®¬ò Ю±¶»½¬­ ©·¬¸·² ¬¸» λ²»©¿´ д¿² ¸¿ª» ¾»»² ½¸±­»² º±® ¬¸» ©¿§ ·² ©¸·½¸ ¬¸»§ ­«°°±®¬ °´¿²²·²¹ »ºº±®¬­ º±® ¬¸» ¼±©²¬±©² ¿®»¿ô ­«½¸ ¿­ ¬¸» ܱ©²¬±©² д¿²ò ̸»­» °´¿²²·²¹ ¼±½«³»²¬­ ©»®» ¾¿­»¼ ±² ¿­­«³°¬·±²­ ¿¾±«¬ ¬¸» »¨°»½¬»¼ ²»»¼ º±® ²»© ¿²¼ ·³°®±ª»¼ ­»®ª·½»­ ¼«» ¬± °±°«´¿¬·±² ¹®±©¬¸ ¿²¼ ±¬¸»® º¿½¬±®­ò ̸» λ²»©¿´ д¿² ·­ »¨°»½¬»¼ ¬± º¿½·´·¬¿¬» ·³°®±ª»³»²¬­ ©·¬¸·² ¬¸» ¼·­¬®·½¬ô ¿½½±®¼·²¹ ¬± ¬¸» °´¿²²·²¹ »ºº±®¬­ º±® ¬¸» ¿®»¿ò Ѳ» ±º ¬¸» °®·²½·°¿´ ±¾¶»½¬·ª»­ ±º ¬¸» λ²»©¿´ д¿² ·­ ¬± ·³°®±ª» ¬¸» »¨·­¬·²¹ ¬¿¨¿¾´» °®±°»®¬§ò ß®»¿­ ¿¼¶¿½»²¬ ¬± ¬¸» °´¿² ¿®»¿ ¿®» ¿´­± »¨°»½¬»¼ ¬± ¾»½±³» ³±®» ª·¿¾´»ò Ú®±³ ÚÇîððéñîððè ¬¸®±«¹¸ ¬¸» ®»³¿·²·²¹ ´·º» ±º ¬¸» ¼·­¬®·½¬ô °®±°»®¬§ ª¿´«»­ ·² ¬¸» ¼·­¬®·½¬ ¿®» »­¬·³¿¬»¼ ¬± ·²½®»¿­» ¾§ ±ª»® üíîë ³·´´·±²ò ̸» ¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ ­·¬» ·­ ²±¬ »¨°»½¬»¼ ¬± ­·¹²·º·½¿²¬´§ ·³°¿½¬ ¬¸» ­½¸±±´ ­§­¬»³ò Ю±ó ¶»½¬­ ·² ¬¸» °´¿² ¿¼¼®»­­ ¬¸» »¨°»½¬»¼ ·³°¿½¬­ ±º ¿®»¿ ¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ ±² °±´·½» ­»®ª·½»­ô ¬®¿²­°±®¬¿¬·±²ô «¬·´·¬·»­ô ¿²¼ ±¬¸»® °«¾´·½ ­»®ª·½»­ò ̸» Ë®¾¿² λ²»©¿´ ß¹»²½§ ©·´´ «­» ¬¿¨ ·²½®»³»²¬ ®»ª»²«»­ ¬± ½¿®®§ ±«¬ ¬¸» °´¿²ò ̸» «­» ±º ¬¿¨ ·²½®»³»²¬ ®»ª»²«»­ ©·´´ ¿ºº»½¬ ¬¸» °®±°»®¬§ ¬¿¨ ®»ª»²«»­ ¿²¼ ¾±²¼»¼ ¼»¾¬ ¬¿¨ ®¿¬»­ ±º ±¬¸»® ¬¿¨·²¹ ¶«®·­¼·½¬·±²­ ¬¸¿¬ ­¸¿®» ¿­­»­­»¼ ª¿´«» ©·¬¸ Û«¹»²»­ Ë®¾¿² λ²»©¿´ ß¹»²½§ò ̸» ¬¿¨ ·³°¿½¬­ ±º ¬¸» λ²»©¿´ д¿² ¿®» ¼·­½«­­»¼ ·² ¼»¬¿·´ ·² ݸ¿°ó ¬»® ç ±º ¬¸·­ ®»°±®¬ò Ó¿²§ ±¬¸»® °±­·¬·ª» ·³°¿½¬­ ¿®» »¨°»½¬»¼ º®±³ ½±³°´»¬·±² ±º ¬¸» °®±¶»½¬­ ·²½´«¼»¼ ©·¬¸ó ·² ¬¸» λ²»©¿´ д¿²ô ­«½¸ ¿­æ Þ»¬¬»® ½±²²»½¬·±²­ ¾»¬©»»² ³¿¶±® ¿®»¿­ ±º ¬¸» ¼±©²¬±©²ô ­«½¸ ¿­ ¬¸» ½±®» ¿®»¿ô ¬¸» ®·ª»®º®±²¬ ¿®»¿ô ¿²¼ ¬¸» ˲·ª»®­·¬§ ±º Ñ®»¹±² Ø·¹¸»® ½±²½»²¬®¿¬·±² ±º ³·¨»¼ «­»­ ·² ¬¸» °´¿² ¿®»¿ô ·²½´«¼·²¹ ¹±ª»®²³»²¬ô ®»¬¿·´ ¿²¼ ½±³³»®½·¿´ ¾«­·²»­­»­ Ó±®» °«¾´·½ ¿³»²·¬·»­ô ­«½¸ ¿­ °¿®µ­ô °´¿¦¿­ô ®»½®»¿¬·±² ¿®»¿­ô ¿²¼ °¿®µ·²¹ ê Report on the Downtown Urban Renewal District Plan Draft of May 2007 Chapter 4: Reasons for Selection of the Plan Area ̸» °´¿² ¿®»¿ ±º ¬¸» ܱ©²¬±©² Ë®¾¿² λ²»©¿´ Ü·­¬®·½¬ øº±®³»®´§ ¬¸» Ý»²¬®¿´ Û«¹»²» Ю±¶»½¬÷ ©¿­ ¿¼±°¬»¼ ·² ïçêèò ̸·­ ¿®»¿ ©¿­ ­»´»½¬»¼ ¿º¬»® ½±³°®»¸»²­·ª» ½±³³«²·¬§ °®±½»­­ «²¼»® ¬¸» ¹«·¼¿²½» ±º ¬¸» Ú»¼»®¿´ Ü»°¿®¬³»²¬ ±º ر«­·²¹ ¿²¼ Ë®¾¿² Ü»ª»´ó ±°³»²¬ øØËÜ÷ò ̸» ¹±¿´­ ±º ¬¸» ܱ©²¬±©² Ë®¾¿² λ²»©¿´ Ü·­¬®·½¬ °´¿² ¿®» ®»¼«½·²¹ ¾´·¹¸¬ ¿²¼ ·³°®±ª·²¹ ¬¸» º«²½¬·±²ô ½±²¼·¬·±²ô ¿²¼ ¿°°»¿®¿²½» ±º ¬¸» °´¿² ¿®»¿ò ß½½±®¼·²¹ ¬± ÑÎÍ ìëéòðïðô þ¾´·¹¸¬»¼ ¿®»¿­þ ³»¿²­ ¿®»¿­ ¬¸¿¬ô ¾§ ®»¿­±² ±º ¼»¬»®·±®¿ó ¬·±²ô º¿«´¬§ °´¿²²·²¹ô ·²¿¼»¯«¿¬» ±® ·³°®±°»® º¿½·´·¬·»­ô ¼»´»¬»®·±«­ ´¿²¼ «­» ±® ¬¸» »¨·­¬ó »²½» ±º «²­¿º» ­¬®«½¬«®»­ô ±® ¿²§ ½±³¾·²¿¬·±² ±º ¬¸»­» º¿½¬±®­ô ¿®» ¼»¬®·³»²¬¿´ ¬± ¬¸» ­¿º»¬§ô ¸»¿´¬¸ ±® ©»´º¿®» ±º ¬¸» ½±³³«²·¬§ò ß ¾´·¹¸¬»¼ ¿®»¿ ·­ ½¸¿®¿½¬»®·¦»¼ ¾§ ¬¸» »¨·­¬ó »²½» ±º ±²» ±® ³±®» ±º ¬¸» º±´´±©·²¹ ½±²¼·¬·±²­æ ø¿÷ ̸» »¨·­¬»²½» ±º ¾«·´¼·²¹­ ¿²¼ ­¬®«½¬«®»­ô «­»¼ ±® ·²¬»²¼»¼ ¬± ¾» «­»¼ º±® ´·ª·²¹ô ½±³³»®½·¿´ô ·²¼«­¬®·¿´ ±® ±¬¸»® °«®°±­»­ô ±® ¿²§ ½±³¾·²¿¬·±² ±º ¬¸±­» «­»­ô ¬¸¿¬ ¿®» «²º·¬ ±® «²­¿º» ¬± ±½½«°§ º±® ¬¸±­» °«®°±­»­ ¾»½¿«­» ±º ¿²§ ±²» ±® ¿ ½±³¾·²¿¬·±² ±º ¬¸» º±´´±©·²¹ ½±²¼·¬·±²­æ øß÷ Ü»º»½¬·ª» ¼»­·¹² ¿²¼ ¯«¿´·¬§ ±º °¸§­·½¿´ ½±²­¬®«½¬·±²å øÞ÷ Ú¿«´¬§ ·²¬»®·±® ¿®®¿²¹»³»²¬ ¿²¼ »¨¬»®·±® ­°¿½·²¹å øÝ÷ Ѫ»®½®±©¼·²¹ ¿²¼ ¿ ¸·¹¸ ¼»²­·¬§ ±º °±°«´¿¬·±²å øÜ÷ ײ¿¼»¯«¿¬» °®±ª·­·±² º±® ª»²¬·´¿¬·±²ô ´·¹¸¬ô ­¿²·¬¿¬·±²ô ±°»² ­°¿½»­ ¿²¼ ®»½®»¿¬·±² º¿½·´·¬·»­å ±® øÛ÷ Ѿ­±´»­½»²½»ô ¼»¬»®·±®¿¬·±²ô ¼·´¿°·¼¿¬·±²ô ³·¨»¼ ½¸¿®¿½¬»® ±® ­¸·º¬·²¹ ±º «­»­å ø¾÷ ß² »½±²±³·½ ¼·­´±½¿¬·±²ô ¼»¬»®·±®¿¬·±² ±® ¼·­«­» ±º °®±°»®¬§ ®»­«´¬·²¹ º®±³ º¿«´¬§ °´¿²²·²¹å ø½÷ ̸» ¼·ª·­·±² ±® ­«¾¼·ª·­·±² ¿²¼ ­¿´» ±º °®±°»®¬§ ±® ´±¬­ ±º ·®®»¹«´¿® º±®³ ¿²¼ ­¸¿°» ¿²¼ ·²¿¼»¯«¿¬» ­·¦» ±® ¼·³»²­·±²­ º±® °®±°»®¬§ «­»º«´²»­­ ¿²¼ ¼»ª»´±°³»²¬å ø¼÷ ̸» ´¿§·²¹ ±«¬ ±º °®±°»®¬§ ±® ´±¬­ ·² ¼·­®»¹¿®¼ ±º ½±²¬±«®­ô ¼®¿·²¿¹» ¿²¼ ±¬¸»® °¸§­·ó ½¿´ ½¸¿®¿½¬»®·­¬·½­ ±º ¬¸» ¬»®®¿·² ¿²¼ ­«®®±«²¼·²¹ ½±²¼·¬·±²­å ø»÷ ̸» »¨·­¬»²½» ±º ·²¿¼»¯«¿¬» ­¬®»»¬­ ¿²¼ ±¬¸»® ®·¹¸¬­ ±º ©¿§ô ±°»² ­°¿½»­ ¿²¼ «¬·´·¬·»­å øº÷ ̸» »¨·­¬»²½» ±º °®±°»®¬§ ±® ´±¬­ ±® ±¬¸»® ¿®»¿­ ¬¸¿¬ ¿®» ­«¾¶»½¬ ¬± ·²«²¼¿¬·±² ¾§ ©¿¬»®å é Report on the Downtown Urban Renewal District Plan Draft of May 2007 ø¹÷ ß °®»ª¿´»²½» ±º ¼»°®»½·¿¬»¼ ª¿´«»­ô ·³°¿·®»¼ ·²ª»­¬³»²¬­ ¿²¼ ­±½·¿´ ¿²¼ »½±²±³·½ ³¿´¿¼¶«­¬³»²¬­ ¬± ­«½¸ ¿² »¨¬»²¬ ¬¸¿¬ ¬¸» ½¿°¿½·¬§ ¬± °¿§ ¬¿¨»­ ·­ ®»¼«½»¼ ¿²¼ ¬¿¨ ®»½»·°¬­ ¿®» ·²¿¼»¯«¿¬» º±® ¬¸» ½±­¬ ±º °«¾´·½ ­»®ª·½»­ ®»²¼»®»¼å ø¸÷ ß ¹®±©·²¹ ±® ¬±¬¿´ ´¿½µ ±º °®±°»® «¬·´·¦¿¬·±² ±º ¿®»¿­ô ®»­«´¬·²¹ ·² ¿ ­¬¿¹²¿²¬ ¿²¼ «²°®±¼«½¬·ª» ½±²¼·¬·±² ±º ´¿²¼ °±¬»²¬·¿´´§ «­»º«´ ¿²¼ ª¿´«¿¾´» º±® ½±²¬®·¾«¬·²¹ ¬± ¬¸» °«¾´·½ ¸»¿´¬¸ô ­¿º»¬§ ¿²¼ ©»´º¿®»å ±® ø·÷ ß ´±­­ ±º °±°«´¿¬·±² ¿²¼ ®»¼«½¬·±² ±º °®±°»® «¬·´·¦¿¬·±² ±º ¬¸» ¿®»¿ô ®»­«´¬·²¹ ·² ·¬­ º«®¬¸»® ¼»¬»®·±®¿¬·±² ¿²¼ ¿¼¼»¼ ½±­¬­ ¬± ¬¸» ¬¿¨°¿§»® º±® ¬¸» ½®»¿¬·±² ±º ²»© °«¾´·½ º¿½·´·¬·»­ ¿²¼ ­»®ª·½»­ »´­»©¸»®»ò Chapter 5: Relationship Between Existing Conditions and Each Project Activity Undertaken Under the Plan ß´´ °«¾´·½ ·³°®±ª»³»²¬­ô ¾«·´¼·²¹ ®»¸¿¾·´·¬¿¬·±² ´±¿² °®±¹®¿³­ô ¿¼³·²·­¬®¿¬·ª» ¿²¼ ¬»½¸ó ²·½¿´ ­«°°±®¬ô °®±°»®¬§ ¿½¯«·­·¬·±² ¿²¼ ®»¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ ¿«¬¸±®·¦¿¬·±²ô ¿²¼ ®»´±½¿¬·±² ¿½¬·ª·¬·»­ ø·º ¿²§÷ ­»¬ º±®¬¸ ·² Í»½¬·±² êð𠱺 ¬¸» д¿² ¿®» ·²¬»²¼»¼ ¬± ½±®®»½¬ ¬¸» ¼»º·½·ó »²½·»­ ¼»­½®·¾»¼ ·² ¬¸·­ ®»°±®¬ò è Report on the Downtown Urban Renewal District Plan Draft of May 2007 Chapter 6: Estimated Total Cost of Each Project or Activity, Sources of Money, and Anticipated Completion Date for Each Project or Activity ̸» îððé ß³»²¼³»²¬ ·²½´«¼»­ ¿ ¬¿¾´» ­¸±©·²¹ ¬¸» °®±¶»½¬ ¿½¬·ª·¬·»­ ¬± ¾» ½¿®®·»¼ ±«¬ º±´´±©·²¹ ¬¸» ¿¼±°¬·±² ±º ¬¸» ¿³»²¼³»²¬ ¿²¼ ¬¸» »­¬·³¿¬»¼ ½±­¬ò Ì¿¾´» ë ­¸±©­ ¬¸¿¬ «®¾¿² ®»²»©¿´ º·²¿²½·²¹ ·­ »­¬·³¿¬»¼ ¬± °®±ª·¼» üçë ³·´´·±² ø±® ¿°°®±¨·ó ³¿¬»´§ îðû÷ ±º º«²¼·²¹ ±«¬ ±º ¿² »­¬·³¿¬»¼ ¬±¬¿´ ±º üëéð ³·´´·±² ±º °«¾´·½ ¿²¼ °®·ª¿¬» º·²¿²½·²¹ º®±³ ÚÇîððéñîððè ¬¸®±«¹¸ ÚÇîðîçñîðíðò Table 5 List of Project Activities and The Estimated Cost Project Activity Total Estimated Cost Public Improvements ïò ͬ®»»¬ô ½«®¾ ú ­·¼»©¿´µ ·³°®±ª»³»²¬­ üìôðððôððð îò Ы¾´·½ «¬·´·¬·»­ ïðôðððôððð íò ͬ®»»¬­½¿°» °®±¶»½¬­ íôðððôððð ìò л¼»­¬®·¿²ô ¾·µ» ú ¬®¿²­·¬ ·³°®±ª»³»²¬­ ìôðððôððð ëò Ы¾´·½ °¿®µ­ô °«¾´·½ °´¿¦¿­ô ®»­¬ ®±±³­ô ¿²¼ ±°»² ­°¿½»­ ëôðððôððð êò Ы¾´·½ °¿®µ·²¹ ¿²¼ °«¾´·½ ¬®¿²­°±®¬¿¬·±² º¿½·´·¬·»­ éôðððôððð éò Ѭ¸»® °«¾´·½ º¿½·´·¬·»­ éôðððôððð ̱¬¿´ Ы¾´·½ ׳°®±ª»³»²¬­ üìðôðððôððð Acquisition & Redevelopment ïò Ю±°»®¬§ ¿½¯«·­·¬·±² üëðôðððôððð îò Ю±°»®¬§ ®»¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ ìððôðððôððð ̱¬¿´ ß½¯«·­·¬·±² ú λ¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ üìëðôðððôððð Administrative Activities (through FY2029/2030) üïðôðððôððð Development & Redevelopment îðôðððôððð Rehabilitation & Conservation ëðôðððôððð TOTAL PROJECTS – All Funding Sources üëéðôðððôððð $95,000,000 Ю±¶»½¬­ Ú«²¼»¼ º®±³ Ë®¾¿² λ²»©¿´ ß¹»²½§ Projects Funded from Private Sources and Other Federal, State üìéëôðððôððð and Local Government Resources Total Funding for All Projects üëéðôðððôððð Ò±¬»æ Ѻºó­·¬» Ú¿½·´·¬·»­ ¿²¼ λ´±½¿¬·±² ß½¬·ª·¬·»­ ¿®» ·²½´«¼»¼ ·² ±¬¸»® ½¿¬»¹±®·»­ ·² ¬¸·­ ½¸¿®¬ò Ю±¶»½¬ ¿½¬·ª·¬·»­ ­¸±©² ·² Ì¿¾´» ë ©·´´ ¾»¹·² ·² ÚÇîððèñîððçò Ü»½·­·±²­ ±² °®·±®·ó ¬·»­ ±º º«²¼·²¹ º±® °®±¶»½¬ ¿½¬·ª·¬·»­ ©·´´ ¾» ³¿¼» ¾§ ¬¸» Û«¹»²» Ë®¾¿² λ²»©¿´ ß¹»²½§ ·² ·¬­ ¿²²«¿´ ¾«¼¹»¬ °®±½»­­ô ¿²¼ ®»¹«´¿® ß¹»²½§ ³»»¬·²¹­ô ¿´´ ±º ©¸·½¸ ¿®» ±°»² ¬± ¬¸» °«¾´·½ò ̸» Û«¹»²» λ¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ ß¼ª·­±®§ ݱ³³·¬¬»» ¿¼ª·­»­ ¼»ª»´ó ±°³»²¬ ­¬¿ºº ±² ¾«¼¹»¬ ¿²¼ °®±¶»½¬ °®·±®·¬·»­ º±® ¬¸» ¼·­¬®·½¬ò ß´´ «®¾¿² ®»²»©¿´ º«²¼ó »¼ ¿½¬·ª·¬·»­ ¿®» »¨°»½¬»¼ ¬± ¾» ½±³°´»¬»¼ ¾§ Ö«²» íðô îðíðò ç Report on the Downtown Urban Renewal District Plan Draft of May 2007 Chapter 7: Estimated Amount of Money and Anticipated Year in Which Indebtedness will be Retired or Otherwise Provided For Under ORS 457.420 to 457.460 Ì¿¾´» ê ­»¬­ ±«¬ ¬¸» »­¬·³¿¬»¼ ½±­¬­ ±º ¬¸» °®±¶»½¬­ ¬± ¾» ½±³°´»¬»¼ «²¼»® ¬¸» λ²»©¿´ д¿²ò ̸» ¬±¬¿´ ½±­¬ ±º ¿´´ °®±¶»½¬­ ·­ »­¬·³¿¬»¼ ¿¬ üëéð ³·´´·±² ¾»¬©»»² ÚÇîððéñîððè ¿²¼ ÚÇîðîçñîðíðò ̸» °®±¶»½¬­ ©·´´ ¾» º«²¼»¼ ©·¬¸ ¿ ½±³¾·²¿¬·±² ±º «®¾¿² ®»²»©¿´ ¬¿¨ ·²½®»³»²¬ º·²¿²½·²¹ «²¼»® ÑÎÍ ìëé ¿²¼ ±¬¸»® ­±«®½»­ò ̸» Ë®¾¿² λ²»©¿´ ß¹»²½§ »¨°»½¬­ ¬± ¿°°´§ º±® º«²¼·²¹ º®±³ ±¬¸»® º»¼»®¿´ô ­¬¿¬» ¿²¼ ´±½¿´ ¹®¿²¬­ ·² ±®¼»® ¬± ½±³ó °´»¬» ¬¸» °®±¶»½¬­ò Ю·ª¿¬» ¼»ª»´±°»®­ ©·´´ º«²¼ ­±³» ±º ¬¸» °®±¶»½¬ ½±­¬­ò ײ ¿¼¼·¬·±²ô ¬¸» °«¾´·½ º¿½·´·¬·»­ ·²½´«¼»¼ ©·¬¸·² ¬¸» °´¿² ³¿§ ¿´­± ¾» º«²¼»¼ ·² °¿®¬ ©·¬¸ ±¬¸»® °«¾´·½ º«²¼­ô ­«½¸ ¿­ ­§­¬»³­ ¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ ½¸¿®¹»­ ¿²¼ ¹»²»®¿´ ±¾´·¹¿¬·±² ¾±²¼­ô ¿³±²¹ ±¬¸»® ­±«®½»­ò ̸» °®±¶»½¬ ¿½¬·ª·¬·»­ ©·´´ ¾»¹·² ·³³»¼·¿¬»´§ ·² ÚÇîððéñîððè ¿²¼ ©·´´ ½±²¬·²«» ¬¸®±«¹¸ ¬¸» º·²¿´ §»¿® ±º ¬¸» λ²»©¿´ д¿²ô ·² ÚÇîðîçñîðíðò ɸ»² ¬¸» °´¿² ©¿­ ¿³»²¼»¼ ·² Ö«²» ±º ïççèô ¬¸» Ý·¬§ ݱ«²½·´ ¿¼¼»¼ ¿ ³¿¨·³«³ ·²¼»¾¬»¼²»­­ º·¹«®» ±º üíí ³·´´·±²ò ̸¿¬ º·¹«®» ©¿­ ¾¿­»¼ ±² ¬¸» »­¬·³¿¬»¼ ½±­¬ ±º ¾«·´¼·²¹ ¿ ²»© ³¿·² ´·¾®¿®§ô °´«­ ½±²¬·²ó «¿¬·±² ±º ¬¸» ¿¼³·²·­¬®¿¬·ª» ½±­¬­ ·² ¬¸» ¼·­¬®·½¬ô °®»°¿®·²¹ ¿²²«¿´ º·²¿²½·¿´ ­¬¿¬»³»²¬­ô ¼·­°±­·²¹ ±º ¬¸» Í»¿®­ ¾«·´¼·²¹ô ±ª»®­»»·²¹ ½±³°´»¬·±² ±º ¬¸» Þ®±¿¼©¿§ д¿½» ¿²¼ Ѫ»®°¿®µ »´»ª¿¬±® °®±¶»½¬­ô ¿²¼ ¿¼³·²·­¬»®·²¹ ¬¸» ´±¿² °±®¬º±´·±ò ׬ »¨½´«¼»¼ »¨·­¬·²¹ ¼»¾¬ò Þ¿­»¼ ±² ¬¸» »­¬·³¿¬»¼ ½¿­¸ º´±© º±® ¬¸» ¼·­¬®·½¬ ¾»¬©»»² ²±© ¿²¼ ÚÇîðîçñîðíðô ¬¸» ½«®®»²¬ ³¿¨·³«³ ·²¼»¾¬»¼²»­­ º·¹«®» ©·´´ ¾» ·²­«ºº·½·»²¬ ¬± ½±ª»® ¿²¬·½·°¿¬»¼ »¨°»²ó ¼·¬«®»­ º±® °®±¶»½¬­ò ̸·­ ·­ ©¸§ ¬¸» ß¹»²½§ ·­ °®±°±­·²¹ ¿ °´¿² ¿³»²¼³»²¬ ¿¬ ¬¸·­ ¬·³»ò ̸» ½«®®»²¬ °´¿² ¿³»²¼³»²¬ °®±°±­»­ ¿² ·²½®»¿­» ·² ³¿¨·³«³ ·²¼»¾¬»¼²»­­ ±º üçë ³·´´·±²ô ®»­«´¬·²¹ ·² ¿ ®»ª·­»¼ ³¿¨·³«³ ·²¼»¾¬»¼²»­­ º·¹«®» ±º üïîè ³·´´·±²ò ̸·­ °´¿² ¿³»²¼³»²¬ ¿´­± ·²½´«¼»­ »¨¬»²¼·²¹ ¬¸» ¬»®³·²¿¬·±² ¼¿¬» ¬± Ö«²» íðô îðíðò ̸» ®»¿­±² º±® ¬¸» »¨¬»²­·±² ·­ ¬± ³¿¨·³·¦» ¬¸» ¼·­¬®·½¬­ º·²¿²½·¿´ ½¿°¿½·¬§ ¬± «²¼»®¬¿µ» ¿ ´¿®¹» ®»¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ °®±¶»½¬òر´¼·²¹ ¿´´ »´­» ½±²­¬¿²¬ô ¿ ­¸±®¬»® ¼·­¬®·½¬ ¬»®³·²¿¬·±² ¼¿¬» ©±«´¼ ³»¿² ¸¿ª·²¹ ¿ ­³¿´´»® ¼»¾¬ ½¿°¿½·¬§ò ̸» ß¹»²½§ ½±«´¼ ®»­°±²¼ ¬± ¾§ »·¬¸»® ø·÷ ³¿µ·²¹ «° º±® ¿ ­³¿´´»® ¼»¾¬ ½¿°¿½·¬§ ¾§ ®»¯«»­¬·²¹ «­» ±º ±¬¸»® Ý·¬§ ®»­±«®½»­ ±«¬­·¼» ±º ¬¸» «®¾¿² ®»²»©¿´ ¼·­¬®·½¬å ±® ø··÷ °´»¼¹» ¿¼¼·¬·±²¿´ ­»½«®·¬§ º®±³ ¬¸» º±® ¬¸» ¾±®®±©·²¹ô ­«½¸ ¿­ ¿ ¹«¿®¿²¬»» º®±³ ¬¸» Ý·¬§­ ¹»²»®¿´ º«²¼ò ̸» ¬·³·²¹ ¿²¼ ¿³±«²¬­ º±® ·²¼·ª·¼«¿´ °®±¶»½¬ ¿½¬·ª·¬·»­ ©·´´ ¾» ¼»¬»®³·²»¼ ¾§ ¬¸» Ë®¾¿² λ²»©¿´ ß¹»²½§ »¿½¸ §»¿® ¼«®·²¹ ¬¸» ¿²²«¿´ ¾«¼¹»¬ °®±½»­­ò ̸» Û«¹»²» λ¼»ª»´±°ó ³»²¬ ß¼ª·­±®§ ݱ³³·¬¬»» ©·´´ °®±ª·¼» ¿¼ª·½» ±² ·³°®±ª»³»²¬­ ¬± ¬¸» ¼·­¬®·½¬ ¿²¼ ¬¸» »¨°»²¼·¬«®» ±º º«²¼­ò ݱ³°´»¬·±² ¼¿¬»­ º±® ·²¼·ª·¼«¿´ ¿½¬·ª·¬·»­ ³¿§ ¾» ¿ºº»½¬»¼ ¾§ ½¸¿²¹»­ ·² ´±½¿´ »½±²±³·½ ¿²¼ ³¿®µ»¬ ½±²¼·¬·±²­ô ½¸¿²¹»­ ·² ¬¸» ¿ª¿·´¿¾·´·¬§ ±º ¬¿¨ ·²½®»³»²¬ º«²¼­ô ¿²¼ ½¸¿²¹»­ ·² °®·±®·¬·»­ º±® ½¿®®§·²¹ ±«¬ °®±¶»½¬ ¿½¬·ª·¬·»­ò ïð Report on the Downtown Urban Renewal District Plan Draft of May 2007 Chapter 8: Financial Analysis of the Plan with Sufficient Information to Determine Feasibility ̸» º·²¿²½·¿´ ¿²¿´§­·­ ±º ¬¸» °´¿² ­¸±©² ·² Ì¿¾´» ê ·²½´«¼»­ ¬¸» ¿²¬·½·°¿¬»¼ ¬¿¨ ·²½®»³»²¬ ®»ª»²«»­ ¿²¼ ¬¸» ·²¼»¾¬»¼²»­­ ½¿°¿½·¬§ ±º ¬¸±­» ®»ª»²«»­ò ̸» ¿²¿´§­·­ ­¸±©­ ¬¸¿¬ ¬¸» ¿²¬·½·°¿¬»¼ ¬¿¨ ·²½®»³»²¬ ®»ª»²«»­ ¿®» ¾¿­»¼ ±² ®»¿­±²¿¾´» °®±¶»½¬·±²­ ±º ²»© ¼»ª»´±°ó ³»²¬ ¿²¼ ¿°°®»½·¿¬·±² ·² »¨·­¬·²¹ °®±°»®¬§ ª¿´«»­ò ̸» °®±¶»½¬·±² ±º ¬¿¨ ·²½®»³»²¬ ®»ª»²«»­ ·­ ¾¿­»¼ ±² ¬¸» º±´´±©·²¹ ¿­­«³°¬·±²­æ Û¨·­¬·²¹ °®±°»®¬§ ¿­­»­­»¼ ª¿´«»­ ©·´´ ·²½®»¿­» ¾§ îû °»® §»¿®ò Ò»© ¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ ¿­­«³°¬·±²­ ¿®»æ ß² »­¬·³¿¬»¼ üïèê ³·´´·±² ±º ²»© ¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ ©·´´ ½±³» ±² ¬¸» ¬¿¨ ®±´´­ ·² ÚÇîðïðñîðïïô ·²½´«¼·²¹ ¿ ³·¨ ±º ®»¬¿·´ô ¸±«­·²¹ô ±ºº·½» ­°¿½»ô ¿²¼ °¿®µ·²¹ò ̸» ¸±«­·²¹ °±®¬·±² ±º ¬¸» ¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ ©·´´ ®»½»·ª» ¿ Ó«´¬·ó˲·¬ Ю±°»®¬§ Ì¿¨ Û¨»³°¬·±² º±® ï𠧻¿®­ ¿²¼ ¿ ´±© ·²½±³» ¸±«­·²¹ »¨»³°¬·±² º±® î𠧻¿®­ò ß² ¿¼¼·¬·±²¿´ üïðð ³·´´·±² ±º ²»© ¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ ±½½«®­ ·² ¬¸» ¾±«²¼¿®§ »¨°¿²­·±² ¿®»¿ ·² ¿°°®±¨·³¿¬»´§ ÚÇîðïìñîðïëò Ì¿¨ ®¿¬»­ ¿®» °®±¶»½¬»¼ ¬± ¹± ¼±©² ±ª»® ¬·³»ô ¼«» ¬± ¬¸» Ñ®»¹±² ­¬¿¬«¬» ¬¸¿¬ ­¿§­ ¬¸¿¬ ½»®¬¿·² «®¾¿² ®»²»©¿´ °´¿²­ ³¿§ ±²´§ ½±´´»½¬ ¬¿¨ ·²½®»³»²¬ ±² °»®³¿²»²¬ ¬¿¨ ®¿¬»­ ±® ¾±²¼­ ¿²¼ ´»ª·»­ ¿°°®±ª»¼ ¾§ ª±¬»®­ °®·±® ¬± ѽ¬±¾»® êô îððïòײ °¿®¬·½«´¿®ô ¾±²¼»¼ ¼»¾¬ ¬¿¨ ®¿¬»­ ©·´´ ¾» ®»¼«½»¼ ¿­ ¾±²¼­ ¿°°®±ª»¼ ¾§ ª±¬»®­ °®·±® ¬± ѽ¬±¾»® êô îððï ¿®» ®»¬·®»¼ò ̸» °®±¶»½¬·±²­ ®»­«´¬ ·² ¬±¬¿´ ®»­±«®½»­ ¾»¬©»»² ÚÇîððéñîððè ¿²¼ ÚÇîðîçñîðí𠱺 ¶«­¬ ö «²¼»® üïíë ³·´´·±²ò ̸»­» ®»ª»²«»­ ©·´´ ­«°°±®¬ üçë ³·´´·±² ±º ·²½®»¿­»¼ ³¿¨·³«³ ·²¼»¾¬»¼²»­­ °®±°±­»¼ «²¼»® ¬¸·­ д¿² ß³»²¼³»²¬ô ¿­ ©»´´ ¿­ ±¬¸»® »¨°»²¼·¬«®»­ ·² ¬¸» °´¿²ò ̸» »¨°»²¼·¬«®»­ «²¼»® ¬¸» λ²»©¿´ д¿² ©»®» ¾¿­»¼ ±² ¬¸» º±´´±©·²¹ ¿­­«³°ó ¬·±²­æ Ю±¶»½¬ ¿½¬·ª·¬·»­ ©»®» ¿­­«³»¼ ¬± ±½½«® ¬¸®±«¹¸±«¬ ¬¸» λ²»©¿´ д¿² °»®·±¼ ¾¿­»¼ ±² ¿ª¿·´¿¾´» º«²¼­ò ̸» ¬·³·²¹ ±º ·²¼·ª·¼«¿´ °®±¶»½¬­ ©·´´ ª¿®§ ¼»°»²¼·²¹ ±² ¿ ª¿®·»¬§ ±º º¿½¬±®­ô ¿­ »¨°´¿·²»¼ ·² ݸ¿°¬»® é ±º ¬¸·­ ®»°±®¬ò ß¼³·²·­¬®¿¬·ª» ¿½¬·ª·¬·»­ô ·²½´«¼·²¹ ¿² ¿´´±½¿¬·±² ±º ½»²¬®¿´ ­»®ª·½» ±ª»®¸»¿¼ ½±­¬­ô ©·´´ ·²½®»¿­» ¼«» ¬± ·²º´¿¬·±² ±º íû °»® §»¿®ò ̸» Ë®¾¿² λ²»©¿´ ß¹»²½§ ©·´´ ½¿®®§ ¿ ®»­»®ª» ±² ¿²§ ±«¬­¬¿²¼·²¹ ¾±²¼­ «²¬·´ ¬¸±­» ¾±²¼­ ¿®» º«´´§ °¿·¼ ±ººô ¿­ ©»´´ ¿­ ¿ ¾¿´¿²½» »¯«¿´ ¬± ¬©± ³±²¬¸­ ±º ±°»®¿¬·²¹ ½±­¬­ »¿½¸ §»¿®ô °»® Ý·¬§ ±º Û«¹»²» º·²¿²½·¿´ °±´·½§ò * Ò±¬» ¬¸¿¬ ¬¸» °®±°±­»¼ °´¿² ¿³»²¼³»²¬­ô ·²½´«¼·²¹ ¬¸» ³¿¨·³«³ ·²¼»¾¬»¼²»­­ ·²½®»¿­»ô ©·´´ ¾» ®»ª·»©»¼ ¾§ д¿²²·²¹ ݱ³³·­­·±²ô ¬¸» ±ª»®´¿°°·²¹ ¬¿¨·²¹ ¼·­¬®·½¬­ ¿²¼ ¬¸» ¹»²»®¿´ °«¾´·½ò ߺ¬»® ¬¸·­ ®»ª·»©ô ¬¸» Ý·¬§ ݱ«²½·´ ³¿§ ½¸±±­» ¿ ¼·ºº»®»²¬ ³¿¨·³«³ ·²¼»¾¬»¼²»­­ º·¹«®»ò ̸» º·²¿²½·¿´ »ºº»½¬ ±º ¿ ¼·ºº»®»²¬ ³¿¨·³«³ ·²¼»¾¬»¼²»­­ º·¹«®» ©±«´¼ ¾» ¬¸¿¬ »·¬¸»® ³±®» ±® º»©»® °®±¶»½¬­ ø¼»°»²¼·²¹ ±² ©¸»¬¸»® ¬¸» ²»© º·¹«®» ©¿­ ¸·¹¸»® ±® ´±©»®÷ ½±«´¼ ¾» ¿½½±³°´·­¸»¼ ·² ¬¸» ±«¬ó§»¿®­ ±º ¬¸» λ²»©¿´ д¿²ò ïì Report on the Downtown Urban Renewal District Plan Draft of May 2007 Chapter 9: Fiscal Impact Statement That Estimates the Impact of the Tax Increment Financing, Both Until and After The Indebtedness is Repaid, Upon All Entities Levying Taxes Upon Property in the Urban Renewal Area Ì¿¨·²¹ ¾±¼·»­ ¬¸¿¬ ±ª»®´¿° ©·¬¸ ¬¸» Ë®¾¿² λ²»©¿´ ß¹»²½§ ¿®» ¿ºº»½¬»¼ ¾§ ¬¸» «­» ±º ¬¿¨ ·²½®»³»²¬ º«²¼­ ¬± ·³°´»³»²¬ ¬¸» λ²»©¿´ д¿²ò ɸ»² ¿ ¼·­¬®·½¬ ·­ º·®­¬ ½®»¿¬»¼ô ¬¸» ¿­­»­­»¼ ª¿´«» ©·¬¸·² ¬¸» ¾±«²¼¿®·»­ ·­ »­¬¿¾´·­¸»¼ ¿­ ¬¸» º®±¦»² ¾¿­»ò ײ ¬¸»±®§ô ·º «®¾¿² ®»²»©¿´ »ºº±®¬­ ¿®» ­«½½»­­º«´ô ¬¸» ª¿´«» ±º ¬¸» ¼·­¬®·½¬ ©·´´ ¹®±© ¿¾±ª» ¬¸» ¾¿­»ò ̸¿¬ ·²½®»¿­» ·­ ½¿´´»¼ ¬¸» ·²½®»³»²¬¿´ ª¿´«» ±® »¨½»­­ ª¿´«»òЮ±°»®¬§ ¬¿¨»­ º®±³ ¬¸» ±ª»®´¿°°·²¹ ¶«®·­¼·½¬·±²­ ø­½¸±±´­ô ¹»²»®¿´ ¹±ª»®²³»²¬­ô ¾±²¼­÷ ¿®» ¬¸»² ¼·ª·¼»¼ ¾»¬©»»² ¬¸» ¶«®·­¼·½¬·±²­ ¬¸¿¬ ½±²¬·²«» ¬± ®»½»·ª» ¬¿¨»­ ±² ¬¸» º®±¦»² ¾¿­»ô ¿²¼ ¬¸» «®¾¿² ®»²»©¿´ ¿¹»²½§ ¬¸¿¬ ®»½»·ª»­ ¬¿¨»­ ±² ¬¸» ·²½®»³»²¬¿´ ª¿´«»ò ײ ¹»²»®¿´ô «®¾¿² ®»²»©¿´ ¼±»­ ²±¬ ¼·®»½¬´§ ¿ºº»½¬ ¿² ·²¼·ª·¼«¿´ ­½¸±±´ ­§­¬»³­ ¾«¼¹»¬ ¾»½¿«­» ­½¸±±´­ ¿®» º«²¼»¼ ¾§ ¬¸» ­¬¿¬» ±² ¿ °»®ó°«°·´ ¾¿­·­ò Ѳ ¿ ­¬¿¬»ó©·¼» ¾¿­·­ô ·º ¬¸»®» ¿®» ´»­­ ¬¿¨ ®»ª»²«»­ ¹±·²¹ ¬± ­½¸±±´­ ¾»½¿«­» ±º «®¾¿² ®»²»©¿´ ¼·­¬®·½¬­ô ¬¸»² ¬¸» ­¬¿¬» °®±ª·¼»­ ³±®» ¹»²»®¿´ º«²¼­ ¬± ³¿µ» «° ¬¸» °»®ó°«°·´ º«²¼·²¹ º±® ¿´´ ¬¸» ­½¸±±´­ò ׺ ¿ ­½¸±±´ ¼·­¬®·½¬ ·­ ·² Ó»¿­«®» ë ¬¿¨ ®¿¬» ½±³°®»­­·±² ¼«» ¬± ¿ ´±½¿´ ±°¬·±² ´»ª§ô ¸±©»ª»®ô ¬¸» «®¾¿² ®»²»©¿´ »ºº»½¬ ·­ ¼·ºº»®»²¬ò Ú±® ­½¸±±´ ¼·­¬®·½¬­ ¬¸¿¬ ¸¿ª» ¿ ´±½¿´ ±°¬·±² ´»ª§ô «®¾¿² ®»²»©¿´ ®»­«´¬­ ·² ¬¸» ¿¾·´·¬§ º±® ¬¸» ¼·­¬®·½¬ ¬± ½±´´»½¬ ¿ ¸·¹¸»® ´»ª»´ ±º ®»ª»²«» º®±³ ¬¸» ´±½¿´ ±°¬·±² ´»ª§ò ̸·­ ±½½«®­ ¾»½¿«­» ¬¸» °±®¬·±² ±º ­½¸±±´ ¬¿¨»­ ®»´¿¬»¼ ¬± ¬¸» ·²½®»³»²¬¿´ °®±°»®¬§ ª¿´«» ©·¬¸·² ¬¸» ¼·­¬®·½¬ ¼±»­ ²±¬ ½±«²¬ ¬±©¿®¼­ ¬¸» ­½¸±±´ ¬¿¨ üëñüïððð Ó»¿­«®» ë ¬¿¨ ®¿¬» ½¿°ò ο¬¸»®ô ¬¸¿¬ ¿³±«²¬ ±º ¬¿¨»­ ½±«²¬­ ¬±©¿®¼­ ¬¸» ¹»²»®¿´ ¹±ª»®²³»²¬ üïðñüïððð Ó»¿­«®» ë ¬¿¨ ®¿¬» ½¿°ò Ú±® ±¬¸»® ¬¿¨·²¹ ¶«®·­¼·½¬·±²­ô ¿ ­¸¿®» ±º °®±°»®¬§ ¬¿¨»­ º®±³ ¬¸» »¨½»­­ ª¿´«» ±® ·²½®»ó ³»²¬¿´ ª¿´«» ·­ ²±¬ ½±´´»½¬»¼ ¾§ ¬¸» ±ª»®´¿°°·²¹ ¶«®·­¼·½¬·±²­ ¼«®·²¹ ¬¸» °»®·±¼ ±º ¿² ¿½¬·ª» ¼·­¬®·½¬ò Ë®¾¿² ®»²»©¿´ ²±³·²¿´´§ ¿ºº»½¬­ ª±¬»®ó¿°°®±ª»¼ ´±½¿´ ±°¬·±² ´»ª·»­ ¿²¼ ¾±²¼­ ¾»½¿«­» ¬¸» ¿ºº»½¬»¼ ¼·­¬®·½¬ ¸¿­ ´»­­ °®±°»®¬§ ª¿´«» ¬± ´»ª§ ¬¿¨»­ ¿¹¿·²­¬ô ®»­«´¬·²¹ ·² ­´·¹¸¬´§ ¸·¹¸»® ¬¿¨ ®¿¬»­ò Ú±® ¬¸» ܱ©²¬±©² Ë®¾¿² λ²»©¿´ Ü·­¬®·½¬ô ¬¸» °®±°»®¬§ ¬¿¨»­ ¬¸¿¬ ³¿§ ¾» «­»¼ ¬± º«²¼ «®¾¿² ®»²»©¿´ ¿½¬·ª·¬·»­ ·­ ´·³·¬»¼ ¬± ¬¸» °»®³¿²»²¬ ¬¿¨ ®¿¬»­ ¿²¼ ¿²§ ¾±²¼­ ±® ´±½¿´ ±°¬·±² ´»ª·»­ ¬¸¿¬ ©»®» ¿°°®±ª»¼ ¾§ ª±¬»®­ °®·±® ¬± ѽ¬±¾»® êô îððïò ̸·­ ³»¿²­ ¬¸¿¬ ¬¸» °®±¶»½¬»¼ ¬¿¨ ®¿¬» «­»¼ ¬± ¹»²»®¿¬» «®¾¿² ®»²»©¿´ ®»ª»²«»­ ©·´´ ¾» ®»¼«½»¼ ±ª»® ¬·³» ¿­ »¨·­¬·²¹ ¾±²¼­ ¿®» °¿·¼ ±ººò Ë®¾¿² ®»²»©¿´ ·­ ½±«²¬»¼ ¬±©¿®¼­ ¬¸» Ó»¿­«®» ë ¹»²»®¿´ ¹±ª»®²³»²¬ ¬¿¨ ®¿¬» ½¿° ±º üïðñüïðð𠱺 ¿­­»­­»¼ ª¿´«»ò ײ Û«¹»²»ô ¬¸» ¹»²»®¿´ ¹±ª»®²³»²¬ ½¿¬»¹±®§ ±º ¬¿¨»­ ·­ ²±¬ ½«®®»²¬´§ ·² Ó»¿­«®» ë ¬¿¨ ®¿¬» ½±³°®»­­·±²ô ­± ¬¸·­ ·­ ²±¬ ¿ ­·¹²·º·½¿²¬ º¿½¬±® ·² »ª¿´«¿¬·²¹ «®¾¿² ®»²»©¿´ ¬¿¨ ·²½®»³»²¬ ®»ª»²«»­ò ̸» ·²½»²¬·ª» º±® ¬¸» ±ª»®´¿°°·²¹ ¼·­¬®·½¬­ ¬± ­«°°±®¬ «®¾¿² ®»²»©¿´ ·­ ¸·¹¸»® °®±°»®¬§ ¬¿¨ ®»ª»²«»­ ·² ¬¸» ´±²¹ ®«²ò ɸ»² ¬¸» ¼·­¬®·½¬ ·­ »²¼»¼ô ¬¸» ±ª»®´¿°°·²¹ ¬¿¨·²¹ ¼·­¬®·½¬­ ¿®» ¿¾´» ¬± ¬¿¨ ¬¸» »²¬·®» ª¿´«» ©·¬¸·² ¬¸» ¼·­¬®·½¬ò ˲¼»® ¬¸» ¬¸»±®§ ±º «®¾¿² ®»²»©¿´ô ¬¸·­ ª¿´«» ·­ ¸·¹¸»® ¬¸¿² ·¬ ©±«´¼ ¸¿ª» ¾»»² ·º ¬¸»®» ¸¿¼ ¾»»² ²± ¼·­¬®·½¬ ·² »ºº»½¬ò ïë Report on the Downtown Urban Renewal District Plan Draft of May 2007 ̸» »­¬·³¿¬»¼ ¿³±«²¬ ±º «®¾¿² ®»²»©¿´ ¬¿¨»­ ¬± ¾» ¼·ª·¼»¼ ±ª»® ¬¸» ®»³¿·²·²¹ ¬»®³ ±º ¬¸» λ²»©¿´ д¿² ø²»¬ ±º ¼·­½±«²¬­ô ¼»´·²¯«»²¬­ô »¬½ò÷ ·­ ­¸±©² ·² Ì¿¾´» éò Ѳ´§ ¬¸» °»®³ó ¿²»²¬ ¬¿¨ ®¿¬»­ ±º ¬¸» ±ª»®´¿°°·²¹ ¶«®·­¼·½¬·±²­ ¿®» ½±²­·¼»®»¼ ·² ¬¸·­ ¿²¿´§­·­ ¾»½¿«­» ¬¸»®» ¿®» ²± ´±½¿´ ±°¬·±² ´»ª·»­ ·²½´«¼»¼ ·² «®¾¿² ®»²»©¿´ ®»ª»²«»­ º±® ¬¸» ܱ©²¬±©² Ë®¾¿² λ²»©¿´ Ü·­¬®·½¬ô ¿²¼ ¾±²¼»¼ ¼»¾¬ ¬¿¨ ®¿¬»­ ©·´´ ¾» ®»¼«½»¼ º®±³ §»¿® ¬± §»¿® «²¬·´ ¬¸» »¨·­¬·²¹ ¾±²¼­ ¿®» °¿·¼ ±ººò ß­ ½¿² ¾» ­»»²ô ·² ÚÇîððéñîððèô ·¬ ·­ »­¬·³¿¬»¼ ¬¸¿¬ ¬¸» Ý·¬§ ±º Û«¹»²» ©±«´¼ º±®»¹± ¿¾±«¬ üèìðôðð𠱺 ®»ª»²«» ¾»½¿«­» ±º ¬¸» ܱ©²¬±©² Ë®¾¿² λ²»©¿´ Ü·­¬®·½¬ò ײ ÚÇîðîçñîðíðô ©¸»² ¬¸» ¼·­¬®·½¬ ·­ ¬»®³·²¿¬»¼ô ¬¸» Ý·¬§ ±º Û«¹»²» ·­ »­¬·³¿¬»¼ ¬± ®»½»·ª» üîòè ³·´´·±² ±º ¿¼¼·¬·±²¿´ ¬¿¨ ®»ª»²«»ò Ô¿²» ݱ«²¬§ ·­ »­¬·³¿¬»¼ ¬± º±®»¹± üïëðôðð𠱺 ®»ª»²«» ·² ¬¸» º·®­¬ º·­½¿´ §»¿®ô ¿²¼ ¬± ¾»²»º·¬ ¾§ üëððôðð𠱺 ¿¼¼·¬·±²¿´ ¬¿¨ ®»ª»²«» ©¸»² ¬¸» ¼·­¬®·½¬ ·­ ¬»®³·²¿¬»¼ ·² ÚÇîðîçñîðíðò ̸» ½±³¾·²»¼ ­½¸±±´ ¼·­¬®·½¬­ ¿®» »­¬·³¿¬»¼ ¬± º±®»¹± üêéðôðð𠱺 ®»ª»²«» ·² ¬¸» º·®­¬ º·­½¿´ §»¿®ô ¿²¼ ¬± ¾»²»º·¬ ¾§ üîòî ³·´´·±² ±º ¿¼¼·¬·±²¿´ ¬¿¨ ®»ª»²«» ©¸»² ¬¸» ¼·­¬®·½¬ ·­ ¬»®³·²¿¬»¼ ·² ÚÇîðîçñîðíðò ß­ ³»²¬·±²»¼ ¿¾±ª»ô ¸±©»ª»®ô ¬¸» ·³°¿½¬ ±² ­½¸±±´­ ·­ ®»¿´´§ ¿² ·³°¿½¬ ±² ¬¸» ­¬¿¬»­ ¾«¼¹»¬ ¾»½¿«­» ­½¸±±´­ ¿®» ³¿·²´§ º«²¼»¼ ±² ¿ °»®ó°«°·´ º«²¼·²¹ º±®³«´¿ ®¿¬¸»® ¬¸¿² ¾§ ¬¸» ´»ª»´ ±º °®±°»®¬§ ¬¿¨ ¼±´´¿®­ ¹»²»®¿¬»¼ ©·¬¸·² ¬¸»·® ¾±«²¼¿®·»­ò ̸·­ ¿²¿´§­·­ ¼±»­ ²±¬ ¬¿µ» ·²¬± ¿½½±«²¬ ¬¸» »ºº»½¬ ±º ¬»®³·²¿¬·²¹ ¬¸» «®¾¿² ®»²»©¿´ ¼·­¬®·½¬ ±² ¿²§ ´±½¿´ ±°¬·±² ´»ª§ ¬¸¿¬ ¬¸» ­½¸±±´­ ³·¹¸¬ ¸¿ª» ±«¬­¬¿²¼·²¹ ·² ÚÇîðîçñîðíðò Þ»½¿«­» ¬¸» ܱ©²¬±©² Ü·­¬®·½¬ Ë®¾¿² λ²»©¿´ д¿² ¬±±µ ­¬»°­ ¬± ¾» ¹®¿²¼º¿¬¸»®»¼ «²¼»® ¬¸» °®±ª·­·±²­ ±º Ó»¿­«®» ëðô ¬¸» ¼·­¬®·½¬ ·­ ¿´´±©»¼ ¬± ´»ª§ ¿ ¸·¹¸»® ¿³±«²¬ ±º ¬¿¨»­ ¬¸¿² ©±«´¼ ±¬¸»®©·­» ¾» ¿´´±©»¼ º±® ¬¸» »¨·­¬·²¹ ´·º» ±º ¬¸» ¼·­¬®·½¬ò ̸» ¾¿­» ¿³±«²¬ ¿´´±©»¼ ¬± ¾» ´»ª·»¼ ·­ ¬¸» ¼·ª·­·±² ±º ¬¿¨ ´»ª§ô ©¸·½¸ ·­ »¯«¿´ ¬± ¬¸» ·²½®»³»²¬¿´ °®±°»®¬§ ª¿´«» ·² ¬¸» ¼·­¬®·½¬ ¬·³»­ ¬¸» ±ª»®´¿°°·²¹ ¬¿¨ ®¿¬» º±® ¿´´ ¶«®·­¼·½¬·±²­ øÝ·¬§ô ݱ«²¬§ô ­½¸±±´­ô ¾±²¼­÷ò ײ ¿¼¼·¬·±²ô ¬¸» ¹®¿²¼º¿¬¸»® °®±ª·­·±² ¿´´±©­ ¬¸» ܱ©²¬±©² Ü·­¬®·½¬ Ë®¾¿² λ²»©¿´ Ü·­¬®·½¬ ¬± ´»ª§ ¿ ­°»½·¿´ ´»ª§ ·² ±®¼»® ¬± °®±¬»½¬ ¬¸» ´»ª»´ ±º °®±°»®¬§ ¬¿¨ ½±´´»½ó ¬·±²­ ¿º¬»® ·³°´»³»²¬¿¬·±² ±º ¬¸» °®±ª·­·±²­ ±º Ó»¿­«®» ëðò ײ ÚÇîððêñîððéô ¬¸» ­°»½·¿´ ´»ª§ ¬¿¨ ®¿¬» ©¿­ üðòïèèèñüïðð𠱺 ßÊ ¿²¼ ¬¸» ¼·ª·­·±² ±º ¬¿¨ ´»ª§ ©¿­ üðòïçíêô º±® ¿ ¬±¬¿´ ±º üðòíèîìñüïðð𠱺 ßÊò ɸ»² ¬¸» ¼·­¬®·½¬ ¸¿­ ½±´´»½¬»¼ ­«ºº·½·»²¬ ®»ª»²«»­ ¬± º«²¼ ¬¸» ½«®®»²¬ üíí ³·´´·±² ±º °®±¶»½¬­ ·²½´«¼»¼ «²¼»® ¬¸» »¨·­¬·²¹ ³¿¨·³«³ ·²¼»¾¬»¼²»­­ ½¿°ô ¬¸» ¼·­¬®·½¬ ©·´´ ²± ´±²¹»® ¯«¿´·º§ º±® ¬¸» ­°»½·¿´ ´»ª§ ¿²¼ ¬¿¨»­ ©·´´ ¹± ¼±©² º±® Û«¹»²» ¬¿¨°¿§»®­ ©¸·½¸ ·­ ¿²¬·½·°¿¬»¼ ¬± ±½½«® ²±¬ ´¿¬»® ¬¸¿² ÚÇîððèñîððçò Ì¿¾´» é ±² ¬¸» º±´´±©·²¹ °¿¹» °®±ª·¼»­ ¼»¬¿·´­ ±º ¬¸» ·³°¿½¬ ±º ½¿®®§·²¹ ±«¬ ¬¸» îððé ß³»²¼³»²¬ ¬± ¬¸» д¿²ò ïê Report on the Downtown Urban Renewal District Plan Draft of May 2007 Chapter 10: Relocation Report ßò λ¯«·®»³»²¬ ß² ¿²¿´§­·­ ±º ¬¸» »¨·­¬·²¹ ®»­·¼»²½»­ ±º ¾«­·²»­­»­ ®»¯«·®»¼ ¬± ®»´±½¿¬» °»®³¿²»²¬´§ ±® ¬»³°±®¿®·´§ ¿­ ¿ ®»­«´¬ ±º ß¹»²½§ ¿½¬·±²­ «²¼»® ÑÎÍ ìëéòïéðò λ­°±²­» ̸» °´¿² °®±ª·¼»­ º±® ¬¸» ¿½¯«·­·¬·±² ¿²¼ñ±® °®±°»®¬§ò ß ®»¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ ½±²½»°¬ ¬¸¿¬ ¬¸ ·²½´«¼»­ É»­¬ Þ®±¿¼©¿§ ¿²¼ °±®¬·±²­ ±º É·´´¿³»¬¬»ô Ñ´·ª» ¿²¼ ïð ߪ»²«» ·²ª±´ª»­ ¬¸» °±¬»²¬·¿´ ¿½¯«·­·¬·±² ±º ¿¾±«¬ îë °¿®½»´­ º±® ®»¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ ±º ¸±«­·²¹ ¿²¼ ½±³³»®½·¿´ ¿½¬·ª·¬·»­ò ɸ»² ¬¸» ®»¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ ½±²½»°¬ ·­ ®»º·²»¼ ¿ ®»´±½¿¬·±² °´¿² ©·´´ ¾» ½®»¿¬»¼ò ̸·­ ³±¼»´ ³¿§ ¾» ®»°´·½¿¬»¼ ·² ¬¸» º«¬«®»ô ·² ­±³» º±®³ô ·² ±¬¸»® °¿®¬­ ±º ¬¸» ¼·­¬®·½¬ò Þò λ¯«·®»³»²¬ ß ¼»­½®·°¬·±² ±º ¬¸» ³»¬¸±¼­ ¬± ¾» «­»¼ º±® ¬¸» ¬»³°±®¿®§ ±® °»®³¿²»²¬ ®»´±½¿¬·±² ±º °»®­±²­ ´·ª·²¹ ·² ¿²¼ ¾«­·²»­­»­ ­·¬«¿¬»¼ ·²ô ¬¸» Ë®¾¿² λ²»©¿´ ß®»¿ ·² ¿½½±®¼¿²½» ©·¬¸ ÑÎÍ îèïòðìë ¬¸®±«¹¸ îèïòïðëò λ­°±²­» Ò± ­°»½·º·½ ®»´±½¿¬·±² ¿½¬·ª·¬§ ·­ ·¼»²¬·º·»¼ ·² ¬¸» °´¿²ò ׺ «®¾¿² ®»²»©¿´ ¿­­·­¬¿²½» ®»­«´¬­ ·² ®»´±½¿¬·±² ®»¯«·®»³»²¬­ô ¿ ®»´±½¿¬·±² °´¿² ©·´´ ¾» ¼»ª»´±°»¼ º±® ¬¸¿¬ °«®°±­»ò λ´±½¿¬·±² ¿½¬·ª·¬·»­ ¿²¼ ¿­­·­¬¿²½» ©±«´¼ ¾» °®±ª·¼»¼ ·² ¿½½±®¼¿²½» ©·¬¸ ÑÎÍ îèïòðìë ¬¸®±«¹¸ îèïòïðëò Ýò λ¯«·®»³»²¬ ß² »²«³»®¿¬·±²ô ¾§ ½±­¬ ®¿²¹»ô ±º ¬¸» »¨·­¬·²¹ ¸±«­·²¹ «²·¬­ ·² ¬¸» °´¿² ¿®»¿ ¬± ¾» ¼»­¬®±§»¼ ±® ¿´¬»®»¼ ¿²¼ ²»© «²·¬­ ¬± ¾» ¿¼¼»¼ò λ­°±²­» Ò± ­°»½·º·½ »¨·­¬·²¹ ¸±«­·²¹ «²·¬­ ¿®» °®±°±­»¼ ¬± ¾» ®»³±ª»¼ ¾§ ¿½¬·±²­ ±º ¬¸·­ °´¿²ò ر©»ª»®ô ª±´«²¬¿®§ ¸±«­·²¹ ®»¸¿¾·´·¬¿¬·±² °®±¹®¿³­ ¸¿ª» ¾»»² °®±ª·¼»¼ ¾§ °®±°±­·²¹ ¿ ®»¸¿¾·´·¬¿¬·±² ´±¿² º«²¼ô ©¸»®» ¿²¼ ·º ¿²¼ ©¸»² º«²¼­ ¿®» ¿ª¿·´¿¾´»ô ¸±«­·²¹ ±©²»®­ ³¿§ô ¿¬ ¬¸»·® ±°¬·±²ô ¿ª¿·´ ¬¸»³­»´ª»­ ±º ¾»´±©ó³¿®µ»¬ ®»¸¿¾·´·¬¿¬·±² ´±¿²­ò Í«½¸ ´±¿²­ ³¿§ ¾» ³¿¼» ¼·®»½¬´§ ¾§ ¬¸» λ²»©¿´ ß¹»²½§ ±® ¾§ ´±½¿´ º·²¿²ó ½·¿´ ·²­¬·¬«¬·±²­ ©¸·½¸ °¿®¬·½·°¿¬» ·² ´±¿² °®±¹®¿³­ ·²ª±´ª·²¹ ¬¸» ¶±·²¬ °¿®¬·½·°¿¬·±² ±º ¬¸» ß¹»²½§ ¿²¼ ´±½¿´ º·²¿²½·¿´ ·²­¬·¬«¬·±²­ò ïè Report on the Downtown Urban Renewal District Plan Draft of May 2007 Üò λ¯«·®»³»²¬ ß ¼»­½®·°¬·±² ±º ²»© ®»­·¼»²¬·¿´ «²·¬­ ©¸·½¸ ¿®» ´·µ»´§ ¬± ¾» ½±²­¬®«½¬»¼ ©·¬¸·² ¬¸» «®¾¿² ®»²»©¿´ ¿®»¿ò λ­°±²­» ͱ³» ²»© ®»­·¼»²¬·¿´ «²·¬­ ¿®» »¨°»½¬»¼ ¬± ¾» ½±²­¬®«½¬»¼ ©·¬¸·² ¬¸» °´¿² ¿®»¿ò Chapter 11: Appendices Û¨¸·¾·¬ ßæ Ë®¾¿² λ²»©¿´ Þ±«²¼¿®§ Û¨¸·¾·¬ Þæ Ʊ²·²¹ Ü·­¬®·½¬ Ó¿° ïç Report on the Downtown Urban Renewal District Plan Draft of May 2007 Exhibit A – Area Boundary îð Report on the Downtown Urban Renewal District Plan Draft of May 2007 Exhibit B – Zoning Map îï Report on the Downtown Urban Renewal District Plan Draft of May 2007 Attachment F Maps of Potential Boundary Expansion Options Attachment G Updated Timeline for the West Broadway Redevelopment Project URA Selects KWG & Beam th May 14 Define Financing StrategyAdditional Public Participation May Advisory Committee formed Amend Downtown Urban Renewal Plan Section 108/BEDI st By June 1 (130 days) Consultant(s) Hired URA Initial OK June th May 29 Additional Public Input Process Advisory Committee & public input meetings June - July June – August Public Hearing Public Hearing thth July 16July16 CC Resolution rd July 23 Committee/Consultant Report completed CC Ordinance st By August 31 th August 13 HUD Approval (30 days) By September URA Final Project Approval & CC/URA Budget Authority September Renew Option on #10 ($2,000) Sign Purchase and Sale Agreement & Finalize Section 108/BEDI Funds Renew Option on #8 ($4,000 & price increase $70,000) September th By September 15 Renew Option on #5 & #7 ($4,000 & price increase $100,000) th By September 19 Purchase/Assign #6 ($625,000) th By September 25 Project Planning October 2007 – October 2008 Purchase/Assign #9 ($1,750,000) th By October 19 Purchase/Assign #11 ($2,800,000), #12 ($1,900,000), & #15 ($3,150,000) Permitting th By October 26 October 2008 to January 2009 Purchase/Assign #4 ($1,980,000) th Construction By November 17 January 2008 – January 2010 Purchase/Assign #8 ($900,000) URA Authorization to Issue Revenue Bonds By March 15, 2008 2010 Renew Option #3 ($12,000) URA Purchases Public Parking Garage March 19, 2008 FY10 Purchase/Assign # 10 ($1,200,000) By September 15, 2008 Purchase/Assign #5 & #7 ($1,550,000) By September 19, 2008 Purchase/Assign #3 ($2,191,140) By March 19, 2009 Purchase Remaining Necessary Property (not currently under option)