Who's paying what for the Eastside Streetcar

Submitted by Amanda Fritz on August 13, 2007 - 2:57pm.

This post is a follow-up to yesterday's Next Up at City Council review, in which one of the Agenda items is assessing eastside property owners $15,000,000 towards paying for the Eastside Streetcar. Chris Smith, chair of the Streetcar Citizens Advisory Committee, commented with the following breakdown:


Eastside Streetcar Extension: Total cost approximately $152,000,000
Source: Portland City Council Ordinance


$75 million - Federal grant (applied for)
$27 million - Portland Development Commission, tax increment funds from three Urban Renewal Areas
$20 million - State lottery funds
$15 million - Local Improvement District (property owners)
$6 million - Transportation Systems Development Charges (City funds)
$4 million - Regional (Metro)

Updated 8/15/07 with more precise numbers from Mercury Blogtown:


$75 million - Federal
$27.18 million PDC from three Urban Renewal Districts ($17 million from the River District, $4 million from the Convention Center district, and $6.184 million from the Central Eastside District)
$20 million - State
$15 million - Local Improvement District Updated 8/15: includes $2.48 million from Metro for the Convention Center's share, and $1 million from OMSI; close to $4 million in public money overall in the LID
$6 million - City transportation system development charges
$3.7 million - Metro transportation fund

I'm told by email that the Portland Development Commission (PDC) discussed this Streetcar funding at their meeting last week. They talked about finding about $30 million for the Eastside Streetcar section, to come from three Urban Renewal Areas' (URAs, or Districts) budgets - the Central Eastside, Convention Center, and River Districts. They also mused about the impacts to the rest of the URA budgets; on what would not be built as a result; and how certain is the Streetcar budget and what happens if there are additional charges.

PDC Commissioners expressed concern about the lack of public discussion so far on these expenditures. A hasty process is somewhat understandable in that the City has to assure the federal government by the second week in September that half the project funds will be found locally, but not exactly which local pots will be used. Proponents of the streetcar don't want the federal $75,000,000 to get away, as apparently this would be the first federally subsidized Streetcar program. The feds have mostly supported light rail projects in the past. But still, finding $75 million in local/state funds is a significant commitment that deserves more public review before accepting the federal money (assuming we get it).

PDC will not vote on the allocation of Urban Renewal funds for the Eastside Streetcar until the next budget process - in which thanks to Measure 26-92 passing, the City Council will form the PDC Budget Committee. The Streetcar allocation is already stretching the Central Eastside urban renewal budget. And the largest amount of URA dollars requested would come from the River District - dependent on extending that district (both its funding and the area it covers). The River District URA doesn't expire until 2020, but the maximum indebtedness allowed under the current plan will be reached by 2010. The $20,000,000 or so needed for the Eastside Streetcar from the River District would probably come from an extended credit limit for the district - something the Council already agreed to do in the Central Eastside district, in part to finance the Streetcar. This PDC/City Council budget work group transmittal memorandum from February 2007 outlines that committee's recommendations for extending westside URAs to allow for more funding for more projects within them. Since paying off debts means it will be another ten to twenty years after the URA "expires" before the taxes from new development start going into the General Fund, citizens at large should be allowed to comment on whether the eventual payback will be worth the wait.

In the testimony at PDC last week, speakers raised other possible needs/uses for an increased credit limit in the River District -- the Post Office move and site preparation for development, Union Station improvement and development of blocks around it (see OregonLive, and comments here); Old town/Chinatown needs if additional acreage is added to the River District; housing and more. It's not clear to me how competing priorities in the River District will be weighed, as it seems like the decision to move ahead on the Eastside Streetcar no matter how much it costs has already been made. And therefore, that increasing the maximum indebtedness and expanding the area of the River District URA is already a done deal.

It sounds to me that a more comprehensive review of Eastside Streetcar funding is needed, beyond just the assessment of eastside property owners on this week's Council agenda. Just in the information given to me via e-mail and reported in the paragraphs above, there are a lot of variables, many competing funding needs -- as well as the core, underlying question of whether the westside Urban Renewal Areas should be extended in timelines and area at all. It seems to be a good idea to see if we can get the federal grant by promising the local match, but if we get it, I'd like to see more public discussion on the pros and cons of all elements of the financing before we accept it.

Here we have a project slated to cost $152 million, already. Is there a point at which building it would be too expensive, and if so, how much would that be? How will the process be managed so we would all know if reaching that point seems likely or inevitable?

Submitted by Amanda Fritz on August 13, 2007 - 2:26pm.
I decided to post my comment after from the main post, because the point of providing the information is to give each Portlander the facts needed to reach an opinion. In looking at the numbers, it seem to me that $90 million comes from sources unlikely to give the same chunks of change to other projects in Portland. I count in that the federal, and LID money. $24 million is coming from state and regional sources, where presumably other cities in Oregon are also scoring bucks for things other than streetcars, but the Streetcar perhaps is more compelling to state and Metro decision-makers. $33 million is coming from sources within Portland - the tax increment money and systems development charges. That $33 million could be used for other projects within the three Urban Renewal Districts and/or in the whole city of Portland. Getting $90 million from external sources is clearly good for Portland, at the very least as a public works project. It funds family wage jobs both during the Streetcar construction and afterwards in commercial and office development adjacent to the rails. I think the value of the Streetcar as an economic development engine far outweighs its usefulness as transportation. On the other hand, $33 million coming from within Portland is a lot of money. Sam Adams says $422 million is the total in unmet needs in the rest of Portland's transportation system. $33 million would make a good start in providing basic facilities like sidewalks, crosswalks, pavement, and traffic signals. I think citizens should have been made more aware that the Council was deciding whether it's worth investing $33 million of our money in the Eastside Streetcar, when the Central Eastside URA was extended mostly for the purpose of funding it. And I think elected officials need to be straight with citizens, that in fact funding the Streetcar does impact the City's ability to provide basic transportation services in outer neighborhoods. Maybe it's worth the trade-off. But let's be honest, it IS a trade-off.
Submitted by Chris Smith on August 13, 2007 - 2:54pm.
Just a couple of quick points: 1) System Development Charges are by statute dedicated to increasing capacity, so they cannot be used for projects that are purely safety or maintenance (of course some things overlap - a new signal that improves safety my also provide a turning phase that increases capacity). 2) TIF funds may be used for redevelopment, but not for pure maintenance. Where that line is is pretty gray, but there is a line in there somewhere :-) So I don't think it's possible that all of the $33M could go to things on Sam's list of backlogged projects, but certainly there are lots of worthy projects competing for the $33M. I think Streetcar is the best bang for the buck, but also respect that others may have other opinions. A couple of technical points: - The Federal Grant is in the 'project development' phase, we don't technically apply for the actual dollars until the fall. - The $4M in 'Metro' funds are actually Federal flexible funds that Metro directs to projects in the region (i.e., you paid them in your Federal gas tax, not any tax that Metro levies).
Submitted by Amanda Fritz on August 13, 2007 - 3:08pm.
Systems Development Charges could be used to increase the capacity of streets by paving them, and building sidewalks and footbridges to allow more people to walk, surely? Tax Increment Funds can only be used for redevelopment projects within the districts. But the River district will have to increase its maximum indebtedness to be able to help fund the Streetcar and other projects on the wish list. Increasing the debt load will delay having property taxes from new development in the URA go into the General Fund, thus perpetuating the $9 million per year additional buildup of transportation maintenance backlog. Further, if the $27 million in tax increment funds weren't going to the Streetcar, it would be used for other projects. Some URAs have required subsidies from outside the districts to get their improvements done, such as $1 million from parks SDC funds generated in NW going to help purchase the neighborhood park in South Waterfront. If more Tax Increment money went to things like parks and affordable housing, perhaps there would be more money in the General Fund for transportation infrastructure.
Submitted by jcw on August 13, 2007 - 6:20pm.
Are you going to do a post on who is "paying for Bethany" http://www.oregonlive.com/oregonian/stories/index.ssf?/base/news/1186973765249160.xml&coll=7 or "paying for Happy Valley". If we don't build housing, jobs and infrastructure in the central city - assuming the growth in the metro area is the same - those people must live somewhere. I would be interseted to see you compare the costs of these investments versus the costs of expanding outside of the city limits including not only the new streets, schools, etc. required but the obvious expansion that would then be required of 26 (as an example for Bethany) and how this would compare against the cost of the streetcar and a similar amount of housing in NE.
Submitted by Amanda Fritz on August 13, 2007 - 8:17pm.
Are you going to do a post on who is "paying for Bethany"? Ummm ... did you not see the post below this one on which you commented, linking to the same article about Bethany? And the one about Pleasant Valley, which I linked in today's on Bethany? Perhaps you clicked on a permalink from another site, rather than looking at other posts on my blog, jcw? When you do that, you might consider using the "search" function in the left sidebar, to see whether in fact I have already posted something on the topic you're interested in. My understanding is there won't be much new housing along the streetcar line in the Central Eastside. It's still zoned and desired to be industrial. In fact, I'm concerned that the Streetcar may tend to put pressure on the Central Eastside Industrial Sanctuary to provide more homes, which would probably lead to losses in the industrial jobs. We need to keep our jobs-housing balance in mind, to avoid making workers having to commute to Hillsboro for jobs. Portland already has plenty of capacity zoned for new homes in neighborhoods all over the city. More than Metro asked us to take, in fact. What we don't have is a plan to provide services such as sidewalks, better bus routes/schedules, parks,and suchlike in outer neighborhoods. And if those neighborhoods don't increase in livability, my belief is that there will be more pressure to expand the UGB to provide suburban subdivisions.
Submitted by Chris Smith on August 13, 2007 - 9:43pm.
The forecast is about 3,000 housing units in the Lloyd District and about 1,600 in the Central Eastside (within the EXd zoning). The Central Eastside Industrial Council (the biggest defenders of the sanctuary) are bought into the plan. Those are the incremental units above what would be expected to develop without the Streetcar.
Submitted by Chris Smith on August 13, 2007 - 9:45pm.
Amanda, I'm curious about your thoughts on missing sidewalks and unpaved streets. Current code requires that the homeowners bring these up to standards. Are you suggesting that this burden should shift to taxpayers as a whole? I'd be very interested in your thoughts on the policy basis for this.
Submitted by Amanda Fritz on August 13, 2007 - 10:27pm.
Please see this post on the history of funding such improvments, and some of my thoughts on the reasons many neighborhoods have so many needs now, Chris. In the past, the City has paid for improvements in the right-of-way. And they've allowed developers to build homes without improving the streets. Plus, right now, residents who live on unimproved streets are paying the same rate of property taxes as those who get their streets maintained by the City. I'm suggesting the Council should prioritize figuring out how to correct historical and current inequities in transportation spending, perhaps before allocating more funds to areas that already have basic infrastructure.
Submitted by Amanda Fritz on August 13, 2007 - 10:32pm.
I just watched the cable rebroadcast of the last part of PDC's marathon session on August 8, at which apparently the PDC Commissioners were informed for the first time that Council plans to promise the federal government that $27.4 million in Tax Increment Funding, mostly from the River District, will be set aside for sure. I am blown away by what I just viewed. Direct quote from PDC Chairman Mark Rosenbaum, talking about the Streetcar: "Are we sacrificing everything other than housing and transportation in order to fund this project?" More in a full post tomorrow.
Submitted by Amanda Fritz on August 14, 2007 - 7:10pm.
Thank you to the person who posted a link to this post on OregonLive. I'm glad you thought it worth sharing.
Submitted by FrankDufay on August 15, 2007 - 6:19am.
"Are we sacrificing everything other than housing and transportation in order to fund this project?" This morning's (Wednesday) Oregonian reports the proposed Tri-Met operating subsidy of $1.1 million will also mean reduced bus service. My #14 bus stop downtown (#7098) not only heads AWAY from my destination --Hawthorne-- to head back over the Morrison Bridge (doubling my commute) but that bus stop lacks a bus shelter...or even a bench. There's no schedule posted either. In the meantime, $100 buys a year's streetcar pass that also includes the tram. We sure could use better bus service in SE. If the streetcar served our neighborhoods, I'd be more impressed. As it stands, it's a "tool" not for transportation, but for development. While not quoting Adams directly, the Oregonian writes the streetcar "could spark the kind of development boom on the east side that has accompanied the west side line through the Pearl, the west end of downtown, the River District and South Waterfront." I don't think we want --or need-- a Pearl or South Waterfront in the Central Eastside Industrial District. We do, however, need a community center. And better bus service.
Submitted by Amanda Fritz on August 15, 2007 - 8:25am.
I don't think we want --or need-- a Pearl or South Waterfront in the Central Eastside Industrial District. I agree. Part of the problem with this Streetcar line is that it runs through two very different sections of the eastside. On MLK/Grand and past the Rose Quarter, stimulating more development may help the adjacent area a lot - although without money left for development assistance, the risk of gentrification and displacement is real. In the Industrial Sanctuary, even without changing the zoning (which TriMet says is necessary to make it work) I think it carries a real danger of encouraging types of development that won't be compatible with an industrial/employment area. I thought of you and the # 14 while watching the Council session, Frank, when the TriMet staffer said bus passengers on the # 6 would have to transfer. I wonder if any outreach has been done to inform people affected by that change of the proposal.
Submitted by Amanda Fritz on August 15, 2007 - 6:15pm.
Main post updated 8/15 19:15, to reflect more accurate numbers.
Submitted by Chris Smith on August 15, 2007 - 6:29pm.
changing the zoning (which TriMet says is necessary to make it work) The TriMet Board Chair expressed an opinion. That's different than the organization taking a position. I doubt that he knows how much EXd zoning and how much FAR there is along the selected alignment.
Submitted by Amanda Fritz on August 15, 2007 - 6:57pm.
Wasn't that Fred Hansen, the TriMet General Manager? I thought he said his board felt the zoning needs to be changed. It would make sense if they thought that, as the Streetcar seems unlikely to stimulate non-residential development in the Industrial Sanctuary. EX zoning, for those who don't speak plannerese, is a high intensity Central Employment zone. The "d" indicates a design district overlay - the Central Eastside is part of the Central City Plan, most areas of which carry additional design standards. Oh, please tell me there isn't a design overlay in the Industrial Sanctuary??? Looking it up.... oh brother, I see the Council adopted amendments to the Industrial Sanctuary regulations in January 2007. While I was on the Planning Commission, I persuaded the rest of the Commission not to implement design standards in industrial areas of St Johns, on the grounds that industrial areas shouldn't be expected to be visually attractive. Still searching.... Oh good, the design overlay seems to be just along Grand (see map on page 9 of 12 in that pdf), and that is for historic design compatibility. FAR is floor area ratio, discussed in the comments here.
Submitted by Chris Smith on August 15, 2007 - 8:04pm.
I wasn't there and didn't see the tape but it was related to me by others from the project that Fred Hansen was passing on a comment from TriMet board chair George Passadore. The district DOESN'T WANT Streetcar to stimulate redevelopment in the industrial sanctuary, which is why we kept the track in the EXd zone (which is not part of the sanctuary). There is a LOT of available FAR (floor area ratio - i.e., opportunity for development) left in the commercial corridor. There is no need to change zoning for Streetcar to meet the development goals. But Streetcar will nonetheless bring a transportation benefit to the industrial sanctuary - primarily for employees.