1.    Roll Call: Chair Moore called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. Chair Moore and Members Church, Welch, Peterson, and Woodruff answered the roll. A quorum was present.
2.    Citizen Comments and Concerns: Jacquie Tunturi asked if this were the only opportunity to speak at the meeting. She addressed the Agency in regards to the actions of the Economic Development Committee. She stated that she felt they have accomplished a lot of work, including meetings and statistical research. Her question in regards to the Waldport Motel site was whether the recommendation of the Committee was going to be considered. Chair Moore noted that it would be. She stated that there were two purposes to the Committee, downtown revitalization and the disposal of the Waldport Motel site, and reviewed the history of the decisions regarding the Motel site. Chair Moore noted that the report said sell the property. She responded that the petition, with over 500 signatures, indicated that the citizens wished to keep the lot for parking, etc., and she hoped that this would be taken into consideration. She also had concerns about the wording of the survey on the water bills. Chair Moore responded that he and Member Welch had written it, and they had obtained a consensus among the Council, although the decision had not been made at any formal Council or Urban Renewal meeting. Maggie Rivers also addressed the Agency, as a citizen, regarding the Motel property. She indicated that she was not a proponent of one or the other of the options on the waterbill survey, but would like the Agency to consider other alternatives. There were ways to put property back on the tax rolls and still use it for parking, such as leasing. She complimented the agency on its foresight in buying the property.
3.    Agency Member Comments and Concerns: None.
4.    Minutes: The Agency considered the minutes from the October 11, 2001 meeting. Member Welch moved to approve the minutes as presented, Member Woodruff seconded, and the motion carried unanimously on a voice vote.
5.    Sam Balen's Layout: Chair Moore asked permission of the Agency to move Mr. Balen's presentation up on the agenda. Consensus was favorable. Mr. Balen noted he was present at the behest of both the Agency and the Economic Development Committee. He had prepared a conceptual drawing of the Motel property, noting that he had incorporated quite a few of the features which the Committee had proposed, and reviewed the features of the proposal. The estimated cost would be $103,025.00 for the improvements he had proposed. The piece of property which could be sold would fetch at least $85,000 if it were sold outright, and possibly more since it was prime highway 101 frontage. Included in that would be a suggestion that the parking for the structure be incorporated into the City's parking in the rear, and although it would require a variance granted by the Planning Commission, he felt that this would be easy to accomplish. Following a brief discussion, the Agency thanked Mr. Balen for his efforts.
6.    Patterson Parking Lot: Chair Moore asked that the discussion regarding the Patterson Parking Lot be moved up on the agenda. Consensus was favorable. Chair Moore noted that they had an opportunity to acquire public parking downtown, and Ms. Patterson would agree to lease the property to the Agency for an extended period of time. The City would pick up approximately 30 parking spaces. With the Agency's permission, he would like to continue negotiations. He noted the basic terms would be $65 per month to cover taxes, blacktop and striping and signage for around $7300. This would be a 5-year lease with a 5-year renewable. If the property were sold during that period of time, Ms. Patterson would have to pay back the Agency. Member Welch noted that this was an idea well worth pursuing, and moved to empower Mr. Moore to negotiate the lease and come back to the Board for approval. Member Peterson seconded. Member Church stated that he would rather see the property purchased for the purpose. His concern was that if Ms. Patterson wanted to further develop her property, the parking would not be available for the expansion. Member Woodruff mentioned that parking requirements may be revised or reviewed through the SMART process, and that may help with some of the issues Member Church raised.  The motion then carried unanimously on a voice vote.
7.    Motel Property: Chair Moore noted the Agency voted last year to sell the property, and then it was pointed out that the Committee had been formed and the report forthcoming, so they agreed to wait until the report was obtained. Two months ago, the majority of the Agency had voted to sell the property. The issue had been tabled, pending decision of whether to list through a local realtor or contact the property broker in Portland. His question was whether they should go with the decision of two months ago, and if so, whether to go with the realtor or the broker. Discussion ensued. Member Church noted that the Agency had postponed the sale of the property to hear from the Revitalization Committee. He moved to accept the recommendation from the Committee to investigate what the front could be sold for, get some firm numbers on the work on the back, and proceed along those lines. The motion died for lack of second. Member Welch agreed that the Agency should continue to consider the recommendations. It was not necessary to accept or reject the recommendations, but he would like more information on how it could be developed, and the broker seems to have some reputation in finding developers. He would be interested in putting a $6000 limit on the review and assessment of property. Member Woodruff was also in favor of having the broker involved in some way, whether in conjunction with a local realtor or not. Discussion ensued. Member Peterson noted the money has to come back to the Urban Renewal Agency at some point, so that it can be utilized for other such projects. Member Church stated that the proposed plan presented by Mr. Balen appeared to fulfill all the requirements. Member Welch indicated that he would like to at least explore the potential for finding a buyer, and moved to empower himself and Member Woodruff to contact the broker, Mr. Leverton, to ascertain what he might be able to do, and at what price. Chair Moore seconded. The motion carried, with Chair Moore and Members Peterson, Woodruff and Welch voting "Aye", Member Church voting "Nay". The Agency would expect a response within 30 days.
    Member Church noted another issue is the fence. The Planning Commission had determined that it doesn't meet code, as it exceeds the permissible height limitation. Member Woodruff mentioned that the Economic Development Committee had talked about doing something with benches and planters, but there was no firm recommendation yet. Chair Moore noted that the Agency has one year to rectify the problem, according to the City Planner and Code Enforcement officer. Member Church indicated that he was disheartened that the members of the Urban Renewal Agency that are on the Economic Development Committee don't appear to support the ideas of the Committee. Member Welch responded that he has neither accepted nor rejected the proposals, but was just trying to understand the marketability of the property.
8.    North Red Ditch: Chair Moore noted that ODOT may be amenable to an expenditure of funds from the legislature allotment. The City has a $422,000 request pending, which will substantially cover culverting and covering ditch near high school and paving from City Hall east along Hwy. 34. The City anticipated a reasonably good chance for approval.
9.    Financial issues: Chair Moore noted that the Agency currently had only $430,000 available as of October 31, although tax monies should be coming in soon. The Agency had budgeted $236,000 for sidewalks, and $168,000 for Red Ditch, which leaves about $26,000 left over for work downtown.
10.    Sidewalks in Old Town: Chair Moore noted that the Agency had been previously approached by property owners in Old Town, asking for assistance in putting in sidewalks. The Agency had discussed the issue, and one condition was that everyone on the block had to participate. The Agency had never given final approval to the program. One block had already gone ahead and put in a sidewalk, and had submitted a billing to the Agency. Chair Moore indicated that he would like the Agency to consider the issue. A rough estimate of the cost for putting in a sidewalk to City specifications was $15.00 per linear foot. The Agency cost would therefore be $7.50 per linear foot. Member Woodruff stated that she was for putting in sidewalks, although not in favor of doing it only a block at a time. She asked if the Agency should target the dollars to a linkages between the Port area and town such as Broadway Street. Discussion ensued. Member Welch moved that the Agency agree to share on a 50% basis for sidewalks where all of the property owners in one block agree to install sidewalks and pay the other 50%, and to limit the overall expenditure to $100,000 with an annual review. Chair Moore seconded. Member Church asked about whether this would be a specific street, the response was that it would be in Old Town. Following further discussion, Chair Moore moved to amend the motion to state that the contribution would be $7.50 per linear foot. Member Welch seconded. The motion on the amendment carried unanimously on a voice vote. The main motion, as amended, then carried unanimously on a voice vote. Consensus of the Agency was to make the action retroactive to cover the submitted bills. Staff would have to ensure that the sidewalk did extend for a full block.
11.    Waterline on Arrow Street: Mr. McClintock informed the Agency that this work would not be done until next year. He indicated that Willow Street was ready to pave and would be done on the next dry day.
12.    Economic Development Funding: Noting a lack of time, Member Woodruff moved to table this discussion. Member Peterson seconded, and the motion carried unanimously on a voice vote.
13.    Committee members: Noting that the vacancy was for a citizen-at-large, Member Woodruff moved to appoint Ms. Pierce to the position on the Downtown Revitalization Committee. Member Peterson seconded. The motion carried unanimously on a voice vote. Staff will notify Ms. Pierce of the appointment.
14.    Financial Information: The Agency acknowledged receipt of the billing and financial statements contained in the packet materials. There was no discussion.
15.    Adjournment: At 6:45 p.m., there being no further business to come before the Agency, Member Peterson moved to adjourn. Member Welch seconded, and the motion carried unanimously on a voice vote.

Back to URA Minutes

Home