URA Amendment Advisory Committee Meeting #5 October 31, 2014

Transcription

1 URA Amendment Advisory Committee Meeting #5 October 31, 2014

2 Agenda 9:00 a.m. Welcome & Updates 9:05 a.m. Project & Schedule Update 9:10 a.m. Affordable Housing Discussion 10:00 a.m. Proposed URA Amendments: Central Eastside Proposed Alteration River District - Develop Committee Recommendation 10:55 a.m. Public Comment Period 11:00 a.m. Adjourn 2

3 Schedule Update Technical Analysis PSC Oct Nov Dec Jan We are here Hearing 12/9 12:30 pm PDC Board 12/11 3PM City Council URA Advisory Committee PSU DA ZRZ DA Supernotice Mtg 5 10/31 30 days notice mailed PDC Board PDC Board Council 12/17 2pm Appeal period

4 Upcoming Meetings Planning & Sustainability Commission Hearing December 9, : SW 4 th Avenue PDC Board Meeting December 11, NW 5th Avenue City Council Hearing December 17, : SW 4th Ave 4

5 Today s Outcome Recap and summarize Committee s recommendation on: Portland Housing Bureau s proposed update to the North Macadam affordable housing strategy URA Amendment package, particularly: North Macadam proposed changes Central Eastside URA proposed changes River District URA proposed changes 5

6 Affordable Housing in North Macadam URA PHB memo recommends the current NMAC housing goals be modified as follows: Simplify by consolidating original income tiers of 31 50% MFI and 51%- 60% MFI into a single tier: 31%- 60% MFI. Eliminate separate goals for all income levels. Remove income tiers over 60% MFI from the definition of affordable housing which requires long term affordability restrictions. Reduce remaining affordable housing goals for the district to 225 units under 60% MFI with 30 of these units at or below 30% MFI reflecting projected actual resources and costs. 6

7 Proposed URA Amendment: Central Eastside Request from Brooklyn Action Corps Neighborhood Association Include properties: o Along SE Powell, Milwaukie, and 17 th o Commercial or industrial zoning Potential additional expansion per request o 42.3 acres (incl. right-ofway) o $24 M assessed value o $? Impact to TJs

8 Proposed URA Amendment: River District

9 Proposed URA Amendment: River District PBA Proposed Area

10 River District URA Amendment: Committee Options Process & Statue Considerations Budgetary & Fiscal Impact Key Questions Option River District DTWF River District DTWF 1. Reduction Only: No expansion; 30% reduction of resultant amended plan value Council-approved amendment (removing land considered a Councilapproved amendment) N/A Fiscal impact to TJs: $37.7 M over 30 yrs. No change 1A. Opportunity driven: Reduction in Option 1 plus, if strategic priority arises and requires TIF, an individual sites could be added to RDURA Major amendment if less than 3.51 acres >> Requires PSC & Council approval, but not blight findings Council-approved amendment (removing land is considered a Councilapproved amendment) Fiscal impact to TJs: TBD based upon specific sites No fiscal impact to TJs Max value that can be removed ~$100M AV (10% of district) What would be criteria for adding sites? 2. Reduction w/3 Blocks Addition: Reduction in Option 1 plus add three or more blocks in OTCT north of Burnside (up to 3.51 acres/<1 % of acreage cap to avoid triggering substantial amendment) Major amendment if less than 3.51 acres >> Requires PSC & Council approval, but not blight findings Council-approved amendment $5.2 M AV added no change to MI >> Would need to find $ for new projects in RD budget Fiscal impact to TJs: $45.2M over 30 yrs. No fiscal impact to TJs Max value that can be removed ~$100M AV (10% of district) What would be budgetary implications for River District? 3. Reduction w/11 acres: Reduction in Option 1 plus add ~11.6 ac of DTWF sites to RD Substantial amendment >> re-do blight findings for entire River District, bring to City Council for consideration Max 11.6 ac can be added during life of RDURA Council-approved amendment $30.7 M AV added - no change to MI >> Would need to find $ for new projects in RD budget Fiscal impact to TJs: $44.5M over 30 yrs. No fiscal impact to TJs Max value that can be removed ~$100M AV (10% of district) What would be budgetary implications for River District? DTWF Budget/fiscal impact notes: (1) Currently, about 70% of DTWF is excess value not used (DTWF, being an option 3 district, has a capped amount of tax increment revenue which only requires 30% of the FY excess value (about $324M). Excess value not used of $644M already benefits overlapping taxing jurisdictions. (2) Per OMF guidelines of keeping a 3.0 debt service coverage ratio in the district, about 10% (about $100M) in district AV could be released and still keep a 3.0 coverage. Actual bond covenants require 1.30 coverage.

11 URA Amendment Package Committee Recommendation Recap Propose reducing or eliminating the following four districts: 1. Airport Way Reduce acreage equal to 40% AV Last date to issue debt has passed; no impact to maximum indebtedness 2. River District Reduce acreage up to 30% AV; release tax revenue to taxing jurisdictions Extend acreage to include Block 33 in OTCT No impact to maximum indebtedness or last date to issue debt 3. Willamette Industrial Amend Plan to terminate collection of tax increment revenues, release acreage; support manufacturing companies with remaining bond proceeds Last date to issue debt to FY15/16 from FY24/25 4. Education Add 35 acres to N. Macadam to support PSU priorities and release other acreage. Last date to issue debt to FY15/16 from FY40/41 11

12 Committee Recommendation Recap (cont.) Propose extending and expanding the following two districts: 1. Central Eastside Expand to include up Clinton PMLR station area (green area to right) Increase max indebtedness by 20% ($105M MI» $126M MI) Extend last date to issue debt from FY17/18 to FY22/23 2. North Macadam Expand by approx. 45 acres (approx. 35 acres from Education District) No change to maximum indebtedness Extend last date to issue debt from FY19/20 to FY24/25

13 Proposal Fiscal Impact by Urban Renewal Area Impact by URA Fiscal Year RD WIURA CES NMAC ED Total Fiscal Impact $0.0 $1.1 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $ $23.2 $6.3 $1.2 ($2.8) $11.0 $ $14.5 $5.3 ($24.8) ($9.5) $19.7 $ $0.0 ($1.8) ($0.4) ($86.4) $27.3 ($61.3) $0.0 ($1.8) $12.4 $39.9 $35.8 $ $0.0 ($1.9) $13.8 $50.1 $45.3 $ $0.0 ($1.9) $15.7 $58.1 $50.4 $122.3 TOTAL $37.7 $5.3 $17.9 $49.4 $189.5 $299.8 Present Value $28.5 $7.0 ($2.0) ($5.6) $75.8 $103.7 DRAFT numbers ongoing refinement by PDC Estimated fiscal impact subject to change based on actual assessed value. Does not include loss due to Measure 5 compression. Nominal beneficial impact increase from original figure of $158M to $300M is primarily related to new growth assumptions tied to development projections in NMAC development agreements, including full ZRZ build out, and CES

14 Proposal Fiscal Impact by Taxing Jurisdiction Fiscal Year City County Impact to Each Jurisdiction State School Fund PPS Gap Levy ** Library Total Fiscal Impact $0.3 $0.3 $0.3 $0.0 $0.1 $ $11.8 $11.2 $12.3 $0.7 $3.0 $ $1.5 $1.5 $1.6 $0.2 $0.4 $ ($18.0) ($17.1) ($18.8) ($2.8) ($4.6) ($61.3) $26.1 $24.8 $27.3 $1.3 $6.7 $ $32.5 $30.9 $33.9 $1.6 $8.4 $ $37.0 $35.1 $38.6 $1.9 $9.5 $122.2 TOTAL $91.4 $86.7 $95.3 $2.9 $23.6 $299.7 Present Value $31.7 $30.1 $33.1 $0.8 $8.2 $103.7 DRAFT numbers ongoing refinement by PDC Estimated fiscal impact subject to change based on actual assessed value. Does not include loss due to Measure 5 compression. Nominal beneficial impact increase from original figure of $158M to $300M is primarily related to new growth assumptions tied to development projections in NMAC development agreements, including full ZRZ build out, and CES

15 Upcoming Meetings Planning & Sustainability Commission Hearing December 9, : SW 4 th Avenue PDC Board Meeting December 11, NW 5th Avenue City Council Hearing December 17, : SW 4th Ave 15