Pleasant Valley in Gresham – another way of spurring development

As I wait for confirmation of some of the numbers in my second post on who’s paying for what in South Waterfront (yes, I know, you’re all waiting at the edges of your seats), I came across this Gresham Outlook report on how development in Pleasant Valley is being done. This area is one of the main expansions of the Urban Growth Boundary approved by Metro in 1998. It’s 1,532 acres, with the cities of Gresham, Portland, and Happy Valley, and Multnomah and Clackamas Counties having interests as well as Metro. Owners of 541 acres east of 182nd Avenue voted to annex to Gresham last year. Multiple stakeholders from many jurisdictions worked together to develop the Pleasant Valley Plan.

Mara Stine reports on how Gresham is working on their part:

“Gresham city councilors on Tuesday, July 17, approved an agreement between Pleasant Valley developers and city officials to build more than $30 million worth of infrastructure – things like water and sewer construction – needed to develop Pleasant Valley.”

“According to the agreement, the three major developers that own about 120 acres in Pleasant Valley – Pacific Lifestyle Homes Inc., Pacific Landmark Development and Tim Aldinger & Associates – will pay $14.24 million upfront for new infrastructure, including a wastewater line, extending two major water lines and a stormwater management system, removing an unsafe curve from 190th Avenue and making it a three-way road, creating two parks and building environmentally sensitive green streets that better manage stormwater.”

“Gresham will later reimburse the developers through credits for System Development Charges.”

“The city of Gresham will pay nearly $16 million for wastewater improvements, including an additional wastewater interceptor on Jenne Road to a new trunk line, as well as upgrades to the Linneman Pump Station near Powell Boulevard. Nearly $10 million is already budgeted as part of previous capital improvement plans and loans, with the remaining $6 million likely paid by loans.“

Unless I’m missing something, apparently this area will be developed without all the structure, restrictions, and tax format of the North Macadam Urban Renewal Area. Pleasant Valley likely wouldn’t qualify as an Urban Renewal Area under State law, since it’s mostly farmland, not “blighted”. But see how the Council is making a choice to invest in the infrastructure? And will be able to take the new taxes from development spurred by it, and then choose to put it back in the area, or decide to spend it somewhere else with greater need? Contrast that with, “We don’t have money for infrastructure in [insert name of outer neighborhood] because it isn’t in an urban renewal area. We’re going to have to raise more money in some way”. And with the convoluted who-pays-for-what controversies in South Waterfront.

It’s all about choices. Our Portland City Council could have chosen to take increased tax revenues generated with improvements to the St. Johns area, after adoption of the St. Johns-Lombard plan, and invested them back into that community – without a formal Urban Renewal Area adoption. When I suggested that at City Council, I was told, “We already have other plans for those revenues in the rest of the city”. Yet when the League of Women Voters questioned extending the timeline of Urban Renewal Districts in the Central City, the answer was, “We still have more improvements and projects we want to do there”. Well, OK, maybe so. But the Council can choose to spend General Fund money on those additional projects downtown, without locking up the money in extending the tax increment district’s timeline. The difference is, then they’d have to own each of those choices. Just like Gresham’s Council is owning these expenditures for infrastructure in Pleasant Valley. Likely, many people in the respective jurisdictions support those investments in both places, looking to the long term public good. Gresham’s mechanism, which doesn’t take money from schools, TriMet, or other jurisdictions, and which returns increased tax revenues to the General Fund immediately, has much to commend.

If you didn’t already, please click on the “This area” link in the first paragraph. It shows where Pleasant Valley is located, in relation to Lents in SE Portland and Gateway further east. C’mon, I’ll make it easy for you, click right here. Interesting, huh?