On Monday Council will consider whether to expand the Fairview Urban Renewal Area boundaries in order to subsidize airport expansion.
 |
| To expand the Fairview URA boundaries? |
We're just gonna ignore our Climate Action Plan, aren't we? Somehow the City's own discourse and analysis about expanding the airport is wholly exempt from any climate analysis. We just are going to pretend we can ignore any increased carbon pollution, lead and particulate pollution, and noise pollution.
There are trade-offs. Some number of discretionary driving trips to Portland (and Eugene) would be eliminated by having commercial air service in Salem. But we don't know how strong that effect might be, because we haven't done a formal analysis. We also haven't asked if we could satisfy that same travel demand with better rail or bus service. Nor have we looked at how much extra air travel, and extra pollution from it, the convenience of a Salem airport might induce.
Before Council commits to chasing air service, they should demand a real analysis of carbon pollution and other pollution.
Then there are the economics of the thing.
Associated with the proposal to expand the Urban Renewal Area boundaries is an update on funding:
Fairview Urban Renewal Area funds may be available to offset approximately $2M of total project costs. This will require a boundary and plan amendment. Depending on the final amount of acreage to be included in the amendment, a substantial amendment as defined in ORS 457 may be required, which could take approximately 9 months and would require concurrence from other taxing districts. Without a substantial amendment as defined in ORS 457, the process should take less than six months and concurrence would not be required.
Financial resources will be needed immediately to expedite design, procurement, and construction of needed improvements. If Fairview Urban Renewal Area resources are used, the balance of project funding ($4.15M - $7.4M) could come from:
- A direct General Fund allocation
- A direct Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) fund allocation
- A combination of General Fund and TOT allocations
- Debt, with debt service paid by new Revenues, the General Fund, or TOT
Debt options include private placement or a loan through Business Oregon’s Special Public Works Fund (SPWF) program. Application for the SPWF program requires a site plan, project cost estimates, and other materials. The Infrastructure Authority Board (IFA Board) meets quarterly, with upcoming meetings in December 2022 and February 2023. Applications must first complete Business Oregon staff review before presentation to the IFA Board for approval.
Other funding may be available, but not immediately. A State legislative award could potentially fund the balance of infrastructure costs, but would not be available, if awarded, until the middle of 2023. Also worthy of longer-term consideration is the creation of a Port Authority or Special Airport Taxing District.
They also estimate 16 months for construction.
 |
| Cuts this summer at Eugene airport |
The fantasy for a big airport here is very likely just a money pit. Commercial carriers will not be committed to Salem, and there will be constant churn requiring constant subsidy from the City and citizenry. We have seen this with Delta and Seaport here already, and Eugene is suffering from a lot of churn also.
The Staff Report buries this at little, but it is clear, and probably understates the magnitude of subsidy:
In all scenarios, forecasted expenses exceed revenues and subsidy ranging from $925,000 to $1,308,000 will be necessary on an annual basis until additional revenues are realized and debt service is retired.
Anything we subsidize for regional transport, not to mention for local transport, should decrease our carbon pollution, not increase it. Rail and electrification are much stronger candidates for any subsidy. We could have a world class and very deluxe bike rental system for $1 million a year, even!
Other Items
Council has the formal action for an affordability requirement in a revision to the MUHTIP property tax abatement.
If the project contains 50 or more units of housing, the applicant will provide at least 15 percent of the units at rents affordable to households at 80 percent of the average median income or less for the duration of the incentive. Affordability threshold shall be defined as 80% or less of area median income as defined by the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
You may recall that it had been on the agenda for September 12th, but was pulled for more staff review. This proposal is modified. It includes a threshold for "50 or more units."
 |
| Not very transparent about the version of 9/12 |
As a footnote, it's hard to say exactly how it has changed. The Council agenda item link for 9/12 redirects to this instance of 10/10, and it says it is "version 1." But it is not the first version! It is at least the second, and it would be helpful to have a clearer trail on the revision history.
Council and staff will need to watch this new version closely to ensure that the effect is in fact more affordable housing and not to reduce the total number of large projects that pencil out and move forward. In some cases the MUHTIP has not been a necessary incentive, but in others it truly might make the difference on the knife edge of a project's numbers.
Recall in Portland that the inclusionary requirement on buildings with 20 or more apartments has meant a whole bunch of 15-19 apartment projects in order to evade that requirement and fewer 20+ apartment projects. When projects desired totals for 20 or more apartments, developers broke them up into "separate" projects of 19 or fewer apartments. Incentives that look good on paper can have unintended consequences and need further iterations with refinement.
These incentives require a close watch and the ability to respond to market realities more nimbly than in decade-long intervals at program renewal.
 |
| Comparison of MU-II and MU-III zoning |
Council will also hold the Public Hearing on the proposed zoning for Commercial Street near the cemetery.
In the packet is a helpful comparison of MU-II and MU-III zoning (previous notes here). This is relevant for the proposed Kuebler Village project also.
I had been a little skeptical about the preference for MU-II especially as it involved reduced building height. SCAN's letter of support for MU-II stresses "human scale":
Human-scale as measured by maximum building height and minimum first floor height (MU-III: 70 feet maximum height with minimum 20-ft first floor; MU-I: 65 feet maximum height with minimum 14-ft first floor; MU-II: 55 feet maximum height with minimum 10-ft first floor).Our building height limits along a very busy street like Commercial might be too strict.
It's still hard to be sure on MU-II.
The smaller setbacks from the street, better design accommodation for people on foot, and the prohibition on drive-thrus on balance could make MU-II a better choice.
 |
| 990 Broadway NE (Oct 2021) |
But let's take a moment to consider a new modest mixed-use block, maybe something like the 990 Broadway project. Broadway is an old streetcar street, and the scale of the building and proximity to the sidewalk is in harmony with the width and traffic volumes on the street. In mass and volume it's a classic streetcar building, and it greets the sidewalk.
Would you want to visit or live in a similarly sized building on Commercial Street, right up close to the sidewalk?
 |
| A Nelson/Nygaard proposal from the now deleted Stroad to Boulevard tumblr |
Until we introduce a stroad-to-boulevard conversion on Commercial Street, I'm not sure small setbacks of zero to ten feet make sense there. At the very least there is some tension. And that requirement, which looks very good on paper, could actually be a barrier to new development, and might instead function as a check on new development along Commercial. So MU-II at this location might impede the changes we would like to see.
But the comparison does suggest MU-III might be "mixed use" in name only, and in practice just be a laundered version of mid-century commercial zoning.
It's hard to be certain here, and maybe MU-II is worth a trial period on this stretch. The fact that these new zones haven't prompted much action on State Street, however, suggests we might need further iterations of refinement and adjustment. Council should also be watching these and be more ready with course-correction.
And a couple of cost escalations:
- Demolition at the UGM/Saffron site came in over budget. Council as Urban Renwal Agency will reallocate funds to cover that.
- Furniture for the Navigation Center also came in over budget.
2 comments:
Online the paper has a good summary of the MUHTIP amendment. They summarize the change:
"Currently, the city requires complexes with 100 units or more in the program to provide 15% of their units as affordable housing or meet at least two "public benefit criteria," such as redeveloping a blighted property.
The amendment would reduce the 100-unit threshold to 50 and remove the "public benefit" alternative."
Unsurprisingly, the Chamber writes in opposition to the MU-II on middle Commercial:
"Under the proposed zone changes in the Core Network, two family-owned and operated car dealerships would face significant changes to the futures of their properties under the proposed zone change to MU-II. Withnell Dodge and Skyline Ford have been pillars in our community for decades. Between the two companies, they have donated tens of millions of dollars to local non-profit organizations and philanthropic initiatives. Most importantly, both companies have provided thousands of families with well-paying, living-wage jobs.
By changing the portion of Commercial Street, South of Hoyt Street & North of Waldo Avenue, to MU-11, both Skyline Ford and Withnell Dodge would be constrained in their ability to consider future property development within the auto and service industry."
Post a Comment