Coos County Urban Renewal Agency - Special Meeting - March 31, 2025

This meeting discussed the future of the Coos County Urban Renewal Agency (URA), with presentations on potential projects like improving the Trans-Pacific Parkway intersection, repaving the parkway, addressing drainage issues, and developing recreational facilities like an RV park. There was debate over whether URA funds could be used for road maintenance versus new infrastructure, and concerns about making investments before the location of a potential container terminal is known. The group ultimately recommended that the URA not be disbanded or under-levied, and instead explore having the county manage the agency, potentially through a prepaid services agreement, to continue using it as an economic development tool.

Overview:

The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the future of the agency. The main topics discussed included:

  • Potential projects and infrastructure needs on the North Spit

  • Options for the county to manage the URA and use its funds

  • Whether to dissolve or continue the URA

Key Topics and Summaries:

North Spit Infrastructure Needs:

  • Intersection improvements at Hwy 101 and Trans-Pacific Parkway to address traffic bottlenecks

  • Repaving and maintenance of Trans-Pacific Parkway, which sees heavy truck traffic

  • Addressing significant drainage issues and lack of stormwater system on the North Spit

  • Potential development of an RV park or campground on port-owned land

County Management of the URA:

  • Possibility of the county taking over management of the URA and charging an administrative fee

  • This could provide the county with upfront funding to address budget issues, while allowing the URA to continue

  • Concerns about the county's capacity to administer the URA and whether it could be done profitably

Dissolving vs. Continuing the URA:

  • Some commissioners express reservations about continuing the URA, citing uncertainty around future development needs

  • Others argue the URA is a valuable economic development tool that should be maintained to support existing businesses and infrastructure

  • The group decides to recommend to the county commissioners that the URA not be dissolved, and to explore options for the county to manage it

Conclusions and Decisions:

  • The URA board votes to recommend to the county commissioners that the URA not be dissolved or under-levied, and to explore possibilities for the county to take over management of the URA.

  • The URA board will meet with port representatives on Wednesday to further discuss the county management option and get a legal opinion.

  • Several URA board members plan to attend the county commissioners meeting on Thursday morning to advocate for continuing the URA.


Q: "How much would the county receive from closing down the URA?"

Based on the discussion in the meeting, a few key points were made about the potential revenue the county could receive from the Urban Renewal Agency:

  1. The URA currently receives around $52,000-$58,000 per year from the County’s General Fund tax base. This is the amount the county would receive if the URA was dissolved.

  2. There was discussion about the county potentially taking over management of the URA. This could involve the county charging a management fee to the URA, which would provide additional revenue to the county. However, the exact amount of this potential management fee was not specified.

  3. One suggestion was for the URA to prepay several years' worth of the county's annual $52,000-$58,000 allocation upfront. This could provide the county with a lump sum of money (e.g. $300,000) to help with its current budget issues, while still allowing the URA to continue operating in future years.

  4. The total amount the county could receive was not definitively stated, as it would depend on the specifics of any agreement between the county and the URA regarding management fees, prepayments, and the ongoing annual allocation. Further discussions and legal review would be needed to determine the exact financial arrangement.

The key point was that the county was exploring ways for the URA to provide more immediate, one-time revenue as well as ongoing annual revenue, rather than just dissolving the URA entirely. The specific dollar amounts were not finalized in this meeting.

Previous
Previous

Coos County Board of Commissioners - Regular Meeting - April 1, 2025

Next
Next

North Bend School Board Meeting- February 6, 2025