Pendleton Downtown Plan



Download 315.99 Kb.
Page16/16
Date conversion14.06.2018
Size315.99 Kb.
1   ...   8   9   10   11   12   13   14   15   16

Financing Strategy

The Pendleton Downtown Plan includes a framework for enhancing downtown livability, visitation, business activity, and private investment. The plan entails leveraging the current historic and cultural characteristics of downtown and providing safe and convenient access through local streetscape, parking and parks improvements.
The $5.8 to $7.5 million in public capital costs for reconstructing downtown streetscapes, improving gateways, and better connecting downtown to the Umatilla River will require a mix of local funding sources to leverage available non-local (e.g., state, federal, and foundation) grants. The funding sources judged capable of providing the necessary funds were identified as preliminary recommended primary local funding sources include the establishment of a local improvement district, general obligation bonds, and a downtown-parking district. These three local funding sources should be targetedhave the potential to raise approximately $5 million over the next 15-20 years. Ancillary local funding sources, including SDCs, Urban Renewal District funds, utility fees, and donations could be targeted to raise approximately $500,000 to $1.0 million in additional funding.
This plan identifies potential funding sources only. Although it may recommend a course of action, it does not require that any particular funding strategy be implemented, nor does it bind the City or any private interest to construct and/or fund any identified project within a specific time frame.

These techniques may adequately address modifications to Main Street, but not the more expensive Festival Street option. Hence, the city may pursue multiple strategies to fully fund downtown streetscape improvements over the next 3-5 years.

1. Scenario 1 – Maximize Non-Local Funding. Assumes that a new city-wide General Obligation Bond or Revenue Bond referendum (e.g., “People, Parks, and Places” bond measure), combined with a new small downtown LID, raise approximately $5 3 million over 15-20 years, and these sources in-turn leverage $500,000 in additional local funding from the URD, SDCs and donations for a total amount of $2.5 million in local funding. These funds are used to leverage another $2 million in state, federal, and/or foundation grants.

2. Scenario 2 – Maximize Local Funding. In the event that Scenario 1 does not result in $2+ million in non-local grants, the city may decide to enhance local funding through a larger LID assessment or a downtown parking district fee, combined with the bond measure described above. This approach could target an additional $1 million to $2 million in revenue.

3. Scenario 3 – Hybrid Approach. In the event that the city-wide bond measure fails to receive voter approval, the city may desire to scale back the planned downtown streetscape improvements (to reduce costs) and establish a local funding source using a smaller amount of LID and parking district assessments to obtain consent from impacted property owners and businesses. Once the local LID and parking districts are formed, the city could pursue state and federal grant funding targeting a 50% match. The final design of the downtown streetscape improvements would be delayed and refined/downsized in line with available local and non-local funding sources.

Prioritization and Phasing


A necessary step towards implementation of the Downtown Plan is to determine what proposals are most important to Pendleton residents and stakeholders. Continued outreach to affected residents, businesses and property owners is of paramount importance to gain the necessary public support during the implementation process. Cost, timeframe and feasibility are three of the many possible factors considered by stakeholders in compiling a prioritized project list. (see Table 7.3)
[While public outreach efforts during the Downtown Plan’s development were fruitful and informative in the process of formulating proposals, more outreach needs to be done to communicate specific implications of possible projects. The Downtown Plan’s Technical Advisory Group will initiate future outreach efforts to various stakeholder groups to determine how to best prioritize plans and phasing for proposals described in this document. This will further the goal of an open, inclusive and deliberative planning process.]
Table 7.3 Action Plan Roles and Responsibilities Matrix

 Strategy

 


Implementation Actions

Timeframe

(to completion)

Cost

Primary Responsibility

Strategic Planning Actions











Implementation Steering Committee

Establish a steering committee to continue public input into the implementation process

Immediate




C,ODOT

Designate a Department as Implementation Lead

Designate a single department to oversee implementation of the Downtown Plan

Immediate




C

Zoning Code Amendments

Adopt form-based zoning amendments to facilitate implementation of the Downtown Plan

Short Term




C

Comprehensive Plan Amendments

Adopt Comprehensive Plan Amendments to facilitate implementation of the Downtown Plan

Short Term




C

Community Investments













Main Street (3-Lane config.)

Design and Construction


Short Term

$$$

C, ODOT

Main Street (festival)

Design and Construction

Short Term

$$$

C, ODOT

SW 1st St. & SE 1st. St.

Design and Construction

Short Term

$

C, ODOT

S. Main Street Gateway/Railroad Subdistrict

Design and Construction

Short Term

$

C

S. Umatilla River Subdistrict

Design and Construction

Mid Term

$$

C

N. Umatilla River Subdistrict

Design and Construction

Long Term

$$$

C

Parking Lot Improvements

Design and Construction

All

$

C, PPBO

Façade Improvements

Design and Construction

All

$


C, PPBO

Other Gateway Landscape Improvements

Design and Construction

All

$

C, PPBO

Cost Breakdown: $ < $500,000; $$ = $500,000 – $1,000,000; $$$ > $1,000,000

Primary Responsibility: C=City, ODOT=Oregon Dept. of Transportation, PPBO=Private Property & Business Owners; Property owners and businesses will need to be engaged throughout each of the community investment projects.


Table 7.4 on the following page provides one possible scenario for the phasing and potential financing of priority projects. The project phasing considers the time needed to fully mobilize necessary resources and the sequencing necessary for certain improvements to maximize efficiencies. Main Street improvements are prioritized because they are likely to garner the strongest support from the entire community and build support for other improvements recommended in the plan.
Table 7.4 Phasing and Potential Financing of Priority Projects

 

 


Estimated Total Cost/ Revenues

Immediate (Year 1)

Short Term (Year 2-5)

Mid Term (Year 6-10)


Long Term (Year 11-20)

Expenditures
















Main Street (3-Lane config)

$2,915,251

$450,039

$2,465,212

-

-

SW 1st St. & SE 1st. St.

$438,009

$67,386

$370,623

-

-

S. Main Street Gateway/Railroad District

$498,508

$84,152

$414,356

-

-

S. Umatilla River Sub-District

$779,407

-

$119,909


$659,498

-

N. Umatilla River Sub-District

$1,188,915

-

$182,910

$500,000

$506,005

Total Expenditures (without Festival Street)

$5,820,090

$601,577

$3,553,010

$1,159,498

$506,005

Main Street

(Festival Option Additions)



$1,703,629

$260,558

$1,443,071

-

-

Total Expenditures

(with Festival Street)

$7,523,719

$862,135

$4,996,081

$1,159,498

$506,005


Revenues




 

 

 

 

General Obligation Bond

$2,123,719

$0

$2,123,719

$0

$0

Local Improvement District

$1,500,000

$75,000

$300,000

$375,000

$750,000

Parking District

$1,500,000

$75,000

$300,000

$375,000

$750,000

Systems Development Charges

$100,000

$0

$20,000

$30,000


$50,000

Urban Renewal District

$500,000

$0

$0

$150,000

$350,000

Utility Rates

$100,000

$0

$20,000

$30,000

$50,000

Donations/Sponsorships

$200,000

$0

$100,000

$50,000

$50,000

Grants

$1,500,000

$0

$500,000

$1,000,000

$0

Total Revenues

$7,523,719

$150,000

$3,363,719

$2,010,000


$2,000,000

Funding Balance
















Time Segment

$0

($712,135)

($1,632,362)

$850,502

$1,493,995

Cumulative

0

($712,135)

($2,344,497)

($1,493,995)

$0




Appendix A – Cost Estimates





















Appendix B – Market Opportunity and Analysis Study/Visitor Survey




















Appendix C – Transportation Alternatives Analysis



Appendix D – Funding and Implementation Strategy Memo

n




1   ...   8   9   10   11   12   13   14   15   16


The database is protected by copyright ©hestories.info 2017
send message

    Main page