Consider this photo of City Hall, taken on the evening of June 14, as a generic illustration for a city government story for which for is no better photo.
The Albany City Council is looking at a report on the feasibility of setting up new urban renewal districts to spur development east of I-5 and the south part of town.
The report is on the agenda of the council’s meeting Wednesday, July 24. It outlines three potential districts. One would cover Albany east of I-5. Another would be south of 34th Avenue and between Pacific Boulevard and Columbus Street. The third would combine some parts of the other two.
The districts would use tax-increment financing to raise an estimated $80 million (in 2024 dollars) over 30 years for projects that would first have to be identified in urban renewal plans.
The idea is controversial, to say the least, because over the projected 30-year life of the urban renewal districts, the city itself and other taxing units would lose millions of dollars in current property tax revenue.
For Albany, the report estimates the cumulative revenue loss at nearly $74 million, and for Linn County at about nearly $19 million.
Albany voters would have their say. Under a charter amendment initiated by opponents of the CARA urban renewal district, Albany cannot start a new urban renewal agency or plan without voter approval at a general or primary election. This charter change took effect in 2013.
The feasibility study on new urban renewal districts was prepared by Tiberius Solutions, a Portland firm. The city got a state grant to pay for the study, which Economic Development Manager Sophie Adams says will cost $18,752.
The council accepted the grant from Business Oregon, a state agency, last October. If there was any discussion about it at the time, I don’t remember it. The grant acceptance was lumped in with the council’s consent agenda on Oct. 25.
In a memo for Wednesday’s council session, Adams wrote:
“Tax increment financing (TIF) was identified as a medium priority strategy in the recently adopted Housing Implementation
Plan (HIP). While in Albany TIF has previously been used as a tool for downtown revitalization, it is also commonly used to fund infrastructure projects needed to accommodate industrial development and create market and shovel ready sites.”
For now, she added, the analysis is enough “to determine the feasibility of this tool for future use, and no action is needed from the council.”
My own guess: Don’t expect this to go much further. Preparing an urban renewal plan costs time and money, and I can’t see the council wanting to go through all that and then face the likelihood that voters will say “no.” (hh)
Thanks, Hasso, for letting us know what the Council is up to.
Just in case there are some Albany voters out there who are still favorable toward tax increment financing which takes tax money away from schools, fire departments, and police departments for 30 years, here is my latest question about the 21.5 million dollars CARA (urban renewal; tax increment financed) spent on the waterfront in Albany: Lincoln City is opening a new park and playground in the fall that cost 3 million. Rockaway has a new park and playground that cost 1.48 million. These are inclusive parks; handicapped can use them and they have the “soft landing” features for the kiddies, too.
Can Albany tell me why Albany’s Monteith Park cost the better part of 21.5 million? Yes, they did some railroad crossing work and some intersection work on Water Street, but, 21.5 million dollars worth??
Please advise.
I am against this proposal which amounts to setting Albany up for significant growth in the South and East parts of town with the costs passed on to current residents.
However, I do would point out that education districts receive their funding via the State School Fund which takes into account and “covers for” urban renewal districts. K-12 schools do not lose money due to urban renewal/tax increment funding plans within their boundaries. This process is described in detail within the report presented to Council.
I appreciate that you are against this proposal.
However, help us understand your logic that the State School fund will not lose money. Clearly they will, unless the State School Fund has already identified an additional source of revenue to make up for the loss of GAPS revenue. What is that source under this proposal?
If you can’t cite an exact source of replacement funds, then the property taxpayer is left with no other conclusion than this proposal hurts the State School Fund.
This is a good explanation from the report presented to Council-
“Under Oregon’s current system of school funding, local property tax revenues are combined with State School Fund revenues to achieve per-student funding targets. Under this system, local property taxes foregone due to the use of tax increment financing are substantially replaced with State School Fund revenues, as determined by a funding formula at the state level. In other words, any changes in local property tax revenues (either positive or negative) should be offset by changes in the allocation of State School Fund revenues to ensure school districts continue to receive the target funding amount determined by the State.”
TIF has a statewide impact on education and creates a large funding shortfall (millions) in the State School Fund.
This means the legislature must re-allocate other funding sources to keep the State School Fund whole.
Somewhere in the state budget Peter will be robbed to pay Paul.
TIF is not free “money” when it comes to schools.
No it is not free money. The Legislature uses general fund revenue (personal and corporate income taxes) to complete the State School fund.
By saying the State School Fund is exempt from tax increment financing the Legislature is encouraging jurisdictions to utilize Urban renewal as the law allows. As mentioned in the description I posted, students statewide are receiving the funding determined by the State regardless of Urban renewal/Tax increment financing happening within their boundaries.
The report to Council wasn’t trying to hide the effects of an URD. As Hasso noted, the report cited revenue loss to the City of Albany of 74 million. Linn County 19 million. Greater Albany Schools and Linn-Benton-Lincoln ESD were cited as 0.
The newspapers report that some public schools are on the verge of closing their doors…even after laying off teachers, and administrative workers, and teacher’s aides, etc. Their budget shortfalls have various causes. I don’t think the state has adjusted their formulas to rescue the schools as you claim. Although, Governor Tina Kotek is proposing changes in how the state allocates school funding.
Mary, I know you only get your news from your buddy Hasso, but as has been written in other places the park itself was a fraction of the total project cost. About a third of memory serves and I bet neither of your examples are as large as Monteith, have a splash pad or a stage. Get the facts before relying on an opinion blog.
Matthew: You present yourself as an apologist of all things that city government does.
In this specific proposal, can you please provide how “blight” will be eliminated in south, and especially my previous residence, east Albany?
Exactly what “blight” conditions will this proposal eliminate?
(see ORS 457.101)
I’m open to this proposal if you can convince me that my old neighborhood is, indeed, “blighted.”
I never said I was an apologist for everything the city does. That is your opinion, and incorrect. I’m not necessarily a fan of more urban renewal districts, but I do know I have little interest in if you are “open to this proposal” since you no longer live in Albany or even in the state of Oregon. As pointed out in the post, the likelihood of another passing is slim, so there’s nothing to worry about.
And you’re a critic for everything government does. You’re tiresome. With you it’s the same old, same old.
The city is trying to create blighted areas by neglecting street maintenance and allowing the homeless to invade areas so they can claim they are blighted due to crime and being trashed by camping such as Marvin’s garden and the shelter. After the businesses are overwhelmed by the continued homeless illegal activity and leave, the area will be sited as blighted. The city will politely swoop in and save the area with new out of town businesses to replace the struggling local ones. It is a win, win for them but not for the local people who live and work here.
Perhaps they should look at our current infrastructure needs and focus our dollars there before they start to expand
The citizens of Albany would have to approve the creation of a new URD via the ballot. That is a different process than was used to create CARA. One of the benifits of the change is there is likely to be a more robust conversation about the issue.