Okay, we're gonna completely start over.

I'd like to call to order this work session of the urban renewal agency.

Uh it's a public, it's a work session, so no public comment will be taken, and the board will take no formal action.

The topic of tonight's urban renewal agency work session are building grants, and we're gonna turn it over to our economic development coordinator, uh Miles Glowacke.

Thank you, uh Chair.

Um next slide, please.

Um, tonight's agenda, we'll go over the vision 2040 plan purpose, background, the applications.

Um you'll have time to score the applications um and talk about the rubric and then give any other program feedback towards the end.

Um the 24 actions include 1.2 increase the volume and diversity of commercial business development and 1.10 city incentive programs to support retain small local businesses.

Purpose of the presentation is to provide an overview of the building improvement grant, review the EDC's recommendations on the grant awards, score the applications, award grants, and highlight potential program changes for next year.

Just some background.

The URA established a building improvement program in June of 24.

Um we awarded our first grants last March in 2025, and then the window for this grant cycle was open from July to December, and the economic development commission met at their last meeting and reviewed the applications and make a recommendation.

Um the purpose of the billing improvement program is to provide financial assistance projects within the urban renewal area that do all these things that um and we expanded this list last year to include some of the board's um recommendations.

The eligibility requirements, so all the applications you see tonight went through the eligibility requirements and they meet those.

Um includes that it must be in the urban renewal area.

It must be a for profit business or nonprofit that's paying city taxes.

Um part commercial purposes, so it's not for necessarily residential use.

This is we put a cap on the amount um of funding a single property can receive in five years, and it's 105,000.

Um the project must comply with all local registr regulations, and you have to answer all the questions to be eligible.

And the the application doesn't let you proceed unless you answer all the questions.

Next slide, please.

So we received um seven qualified applications this cycle, and there's a map and see they're kind of spread out across the district.

We have 350,000 budgeted this year, um, and there's 337,000 in project asked or grant request.

Um, the anticipated match from the applicant is 342,000, so over a half million dollars in potential investment in the URA through this program for this cycle.

Next slide, please.

So before we go through scoring, go through the applications and score them.

Um is there a minimum score that you'd like the applications to meet to even be considered um by the board?

So it's kind of this came up a little bit at EDC if there should be a minimum threshold that applications have to score.

Um currently there isn't one, and um in this situation where there's more funding than asked, it may be beneficial to establish one, um, or in situations where there's more requests and funding available to make in the future help um clarify which projects meet the best qualifications.

Is there any feedback from council for staff?

I I have a quick question.

So are you asking?

I guess how do I want to put this?

So did we communicate with the applications for the people, the owners that there would be a minimum score?

Are we gonna say after the fact?

Like, hey, we're scoring this now, but the council decided that you had to reach it.

The only thing we provided um on the website was the rubric as it as you see it.

As it as you see it.

Okay, would council like um a minimum scoring?

Go ahead, Counselor Schimmel.

All right, to your point, Mayor.

Uh not this cycle.

Plug it in if we're going to plug it into the next cycle.

Um but it might my question would be you know, I certainly want to go along with the staff's recommendation.

How did you arrive at that recommendation?

Was it based on the discussion in the EDC?

I think it was more based on questions that came out of the EDC.

Um so we looked at what would make sense, and that is that's just a recommendation, it's not necessarily the perfect number if the board has a different number in mind a discussion about it.

So I heard from Council Shimmel that he would be not for this round of applications, but go moving forward open to an idea of a minimum score for eligible funding.

And I saw a few people so can I get a thumbs up if you agree with that?

Okay.

I don't know why we had a microphone.

Um, if we could have a little bit longer conversation about that.

I mean, I I think it's a great idea, but I just want to know a little bit more.

Sure, we'll have time at the end of the presentation to talk about this change and other changes.

Yeah, this was just to set the bar for this cycle.

And if we're gonna wait, then we'll have that conversation.

Um, what how are we going to decide what a cutoff is if um we're not going to fund a project?

If we don't have to have a cutoff point, you'd have other reasons why you chose not to fund the project.

Okay, thank you.

So do you guys have what you need from us?

Yeah, I do for the previous point.

Um the EDC met and scored the applications at January meeting January 8th meeting.

The EDC found all seven projects to be worthwhile investment and recommends that the board fund all projects fully during the scoring process, the commission raised several questions.

Um, and we'll talk about those at the end of the presentation.

And there were eight applications that were received during the open application period, but this one at on north of Dare Street is outside the area, and so it therefore wasn't able for considerable.

Um so I'll go through the grant requests that did meet the thresholds, and um the packet has more information on all of these, of course.

It's just abbreviated.

Um, so this is the bakery project.

The grant request is about $34,000, and it's for a walking cooler, and then associated upgrades that are needed for that.

They think the building ceiling may need to be raised, um, and diff additional electrical upgrades.

Uh 2009 main street is Miles.

Can I interrupt you really quick?

Yeah, would you rather have us ask you questions after each property or at the end?

Uh after each property, I think okay.

Then can we go back to the other one?

I have a question.

So on this property, this is a walk-in cooler.

So it only would increase the property value if the person after it needed.

I'm just wondering if we when we went back to the goals, like of the URA.

How many of the goals did this one meet when you guys looked at it?

Or um they didn't, I didn't have like a checklist that they went down and kind of marked which goals kind of had a discussion about each one.

This one did score the lowest out of all the applications by the EDC.

The discussion around it had to do with um this would allow this business to expand and stay in forest growth, and so there was some discussion about how that plays into it, and also uh I think it would trigger the increased tax assessment, the improvements itself triggers the assessment because can you say that?

Can you say that?

I don't understand that.

The amount of improvements that they're doing to the site will trigger the county.

The county tax assessor to look at the property reassessment.

Oh, it's a substantial.

Got it.

Thank you.

Are there any other questions with this property?

Okay.

Um, this is Pacaria Corona and it's installation of a new HVAC system.

Um, the current one, I don't think worked from the application and from being there.

So yeah, we have a question on that one too.

Yeah.

Use the microphone, Counselor Clackner.

Thanks.

I was trying to understand if they if it's a limitation that there is no HVAC or that the HVAC doesn't work only in the restaurant space, or is it a building wide HVAC improvement?

It's just the restaurant space.

Okay, so then does that mean that upstairs there will there is already HVAC, or there's a lot of things?

I don't understand.

This was an application from the tenant of the space, and so they have their own system downstairs.

Got it.

Okay, so it's not building wide.

It's not building wide.

Okay.

Any other questions with this?

Okay.

Um RISE is looking for 46,000.

They want to do interior and exterior improvements, including uncovering some boarded up windows, adding skylights, doing some interior signage, just updating entire lookup.

Um this is 2038 Pacific.

Currently, Picasso's, they need to replace the out direct outdated wiring and breaker box.

This is a safety issue as well as uh ability to find independent costos is moving out.

Who's moving out?

Okay.

So they've already started on improvements, so we could go ahead and they started my understanding from them, and this would be clarified um in the content in the scope of work that they do, is that the improvements they're doing now wouldn't they're paying for uh wouldn't be part of the screen.

Oh, okay.

It's additional stuff that goes on top of these improvements.

This is the me time spa, and they um had some trouble with the application, and so I talked to them and kind of helped them through it.

They want to do an entire interior remodel.

Um, they want to expand capacity, um add ambiance, um, and hopefully add additional employees with expanding capacity.

The La Pandora, um this one is construction of four new studio apartments at the rear of the property, and then construction of a coffee terrace with a bakery and coffee shop that they want to install.

Is that the last one?

What was that in here then?

Can't wait, wait.

Can you can you use a microphone really quick for the people watching?

Is the 2018 this?

Yes, yeah.

So this which one's the right address?

I believe it's 2018.

Okay.

Okay, that's all I just want to type.

Seeing it right.

These are the EDC EDC score um average just for your edification.

Um again, the walk in refrigerator did score the lowest.

The least it scored the least amount of okay.

I thought you said the most, sorry.

The lowest, okay.

Yeah, I got it.

And then Mireille collect the scores and we'll put them up on the screen.

And then have a discussion about what we'd like to do.

Yeah, I'm just I just want to make sure that you're just okay.

Okay, thank you for waiting for me.

So we have thank you, Mariah, for tabulating the scores.

So Mariah has the scores on the board.

What are we going?

And I'm going to turn back over to Miles for where we go next.

Um, so in the EDC meeting, we looked at the scores and they had a discussion about the projects and why they thought it should be funded or not funded.

And then um they by consensus reach their conclusion.

Um I thought the same process would work here where you can have a discussion about which projects since you have an a stat since there isn't a minimum established which projects you would like to fund.

Okay.

Do we want to open up that discussion?

Anyone want to go first.

Okay, go go ahead, Councilor Martinez.

So I know um obviously twenty-first had the lowest score.

My thought though is that it is a cafe establishment building, you know, that's how it's set up.

It's been that for a a long time.

And I'm sure that a walk-in bridge wouldn't really be an asset there.

So I don't know that we should really have a cutoff.

Um for I mean they're they have the lowest score.

That's all I'm trying to get around to.

So Councillor Martinez said that they even though they have the lowest score, we don't have a cutoff.

And based on the use of the building, it works for what it choose for.

I mean, look let's just expedite this a little bit.

Okay, go ahead, Councillor Government.

Personally, and this might just be jumping ahead, but I moved to approve all of them.

Yeah, that's what I was just gonna say.

It's like let's expite the diet this and then figure out how we can make it better next year.

Okay, so Councillor Graveson recommended we approve all applicants.

I'm seeing a bunch of head nods.

Let's get a thumbs up or a thumbs down.

Perfect.

Consensus is to fund um all seven of the projects.

But let's move on to the meat of the discussion.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

Thank you.

So as the mayor says, let's move on to the meat of the discussion, which is program considerations for the future.

So I wanted to look at discussing three of the criteria.

One being the program eligibility, so what those requirements look like.

The second being the scoring rubric, how we score, and the third being EDC recommendations.

Staff also has some recommendations and some thoughts about how we can improve the program, but want to make sure that we hear from council or from the board as we move forward with the program.

So next slide, please.

So for the ports discussion, these are the current eligibility requirements.

Staff has a couple of additional um pieces that could be added or amended within the eligibility requirements, including a minimum uh project cost, creating a point threshold discussion about doing building improvements versus furniture or equipment um purchases.

Uh anything about um creating jobs or different kinds of jobs, incentivizing different kinds of development um or making a strict prohibition that these funds cannot be used for maintenance and operations, but must be used for capital.

This is some of the things that we are considering, but we'd love to hear um your opinions or anything on that list sticks out for you to for us to explore.

Okay, counselor Falconer.

Thanks for sharing the mics.

We're one mic down tonight.

So the patience is appreciated.

Um those sound great.

And I have an addition.

I think you know, I was glad that the um that the uh Panethria actually picked up on it because it wasn't included.

I don't know.

Anyway, the addition of units of housing units.

I mean, I think that's to me the biggest sort of biggest gap in the way we're marketing this, including in our presentation.

We didn't include, you know, action 2.5, activate policies around utilizing downtown upstairs apartments per the city's urban renewal plan.

Um I think that that's adding apart, you know, adding housing units to any of these locations is the surest way to get feet on the street and to to make sure that to add to a vibrant um URA um the area.

And so I would like to see that as a very clear delineator, you know, in the next program.

And that is like gold, you know, like everybody else is, you know, all the other applications are basically like scored off of that one if it's included again.

Okay, let's uh just for the interest of time and do is there consensus on what counselor Falconer is recommending.

Yeah, well, my understanding is that that's an eligible piece.

What I'm hearing is that just market it that way.

And also I think in, you know, when we get around to talking about, you know, maybe score scoring rubric that that be elevated as like you know, that you know, that gets a five, whereas everybody else gets whatever.

I mean, whatever the scoring academic is on this one, like yeah, that's how we do score.

And I would agree, and I think that that's and I know we're I feel like it all intersects, but that scoring rubric, I feel like still isn't very helpful for me.

Like it still isn't we need a weighted, like if for and I don't want to jump ahead, but she says jumping ahead, but you know, if the idea is to increase assessed value to increase jobs to get more, then those when a project meets those things, those are weighted 70%.

Right.

I mean, like how do you because the way I see it is on like on the scoring sheet we're using now, it's like kind of like a check, like, okay, well, they have these things and I'm forced to say yes, but then going back to like how my brain works, which is the the goal at the end, which one of those is really driving those URA goals.

And I think in the you know, in a a large scheme of looking at this program, that's what I would really like to see is when we look at the scoring and helping, you know, EDC and ourselves.

It's like what is I would love staff to come back with a weighted, like these are the things that move us the most in the shortest amount of time, and so they get higher scores.

Because at a certain point we're gonna have to make the like right now, we frankly speaking had it pretty easy.

We didn't have to cut a project here or there.

But if we had too many, or not too many, but if we had to cut something, how would we have done it this time?

There would have been no way, there's no way for us to do that because we don't have anything weighted and we don't have it clearly deline delineated.

That's counselor Schemmel.

Okay.

Yeah, I think what what you're referring to would be we use uh a matrix that illustrates you know what a what a five looks like, what a four, what a three, two, one.

And and and that I know inherently it comes around as the program matures.

And you know, I I wanted to express earlier that uh you know, just being able to observe the the first two cycles of the program, you know, being able to see how Miles has uh advanced uh not just the clarity of the program but the awareness and and the the uh the volume of of applicants.

So I think that that's probably a next uh evolution is just having it as some matrix that reflects you know what what the five and I think that really uh what councillor Falconer said is is the five for one of these criteria.

Um I don't know if that miles or can that make sense.

It does, it's very helpful.

Thank you.

Okay, any other comments from council?

Any other uh counselor Govson and Counselor Shimmel, I'm sorry, but you may have already said just what I'm gonna say.

So when we're talking about weighting, you you are talking about the 70% for for these sections to be weighted against another scoring item that may be not as important for what you're saying, because I mean there's was uh that was something that I was uh advocate for a while ago just because there is so many differences on you know which one of these are more important, some of them have more importance to them than others.

Yeah, and I think that that's what I would ask staff to bring us back.

It's like what is the best way to do it?

Do you weight certain criteria with a higher weight so they get more points, or do you do a traditional rubric, right?

That has like the scores of five, the scores of three, the scores of two.

And you can get because you can get what we want either way, I think.

And so I mean, I would you know, lean on staff to give us like what what approach they feel is the best, so that it can be the the deal we want.

Speaking like a teacher, is we want calibrated scoring.

We want EDC and council to score it the same way.

Like you we need to give our scores the training, the tools, information they need that we all are scoring it the same way because otherwise what's the like everyone can score this, this, this, and this, and we don't really have a clear idea of what we got out of that.

So that's what I'm looking for is to calibrate like some something that's gonna help us calibrate so we're all unified in how we score and and it's yeah, I think I said it well probably the first time.

I think my only question is there's so many different ways to look at it.

Like if we're looking at just increasing the taxable the taxing on it, or are we looking at it to boost more jobs, or are we looking at it to well, you know, I mean there's so many different facets to it, so it's like we're trying to gauge, let's say the bakery by plaid pantry.

It's not really gonna create a lot of jobs, but adding four apartments to the back of it is going to increase the taxes on it.

But there's gonna be other ones that might not increase the taxes on it, but it's gonna boost a ton of different jobs.

So I think we it's it's just a weird the rubric makes sense, but doesn't make sense at the same time.

I don't know if that it just almost is like we need to have if we're gonna do three grants, then we do one for like boosting jobs, one for boosting um that helps boost taxes, and one that is you know what I mean.

That's just my thoughts.

But what are we are you guys finished?

But is that oh you know, well I apologize uh counselor, I I I should have interrupted you, but uh no, it's fine.

I I we're having dialogue, it's fine.

Um it's but are we as a URA we're supposed to be increasing the the tax base for the business for these areas, but yet we're putting on on this that it's gonna increase employment.

It so that doesn't that necessarily doesn't go hand in hand, but if we're looking at it just as a URA, we should be looking at like like the little one over there that's gonna be um increasing the taxes to talk a reason that's going to be increasing the value of the properties, increasing the values, not actually looking at whether it's going to produce more jobs or anything like that.

If we're looking at it as strictly as the URA should be looking at it.

I don't know if that makes sense.

Do you think about shrinking the criteria or the rubric?

Depends on what we're looking at.

I like the fact that it's looking at boosting jobs in this area.

But as a URA, is that what we're looking at?

So I mean, just food for thought.

I'm just looking at it as a like a little bit differently.

I like the fact that these were looking at it as that that through that lens of is it gonna produce more jobs, it's gonna do that.

But as a URA, is that what are URA supposed to be doing, or is it supposed to be building the value of the properties?

Okay, did you did you want to respond, Counselor Schimmel?

No, no, that's that's a fair comment.

The only thing I was gonna say was the you know, we identified the there's five that are that are scored in individually, and then they come up with uh a total or an average.

So that you know it and maybe the earlier comment about does the tax assessed value get 75% of the value that that's a multiplier in the overall score.

So if if that's the ultimate thing, then then that one gets 75%, the rest are in couched under 25%.

That that might be hitting on what you're that might be a way to address it.

Well, does that sound consistent with the URA program that we're maybe not thinking about the only concern that comes to mind is if it becomes a program where um you have a rubric and you score it and you've got this amount of money, and so the top score gets this, this, and this, and you just go down this you may lose out on projects that may be important in other ways that we're not thinking about, and you kind of tied your hands on those projects, or is a method similar to this gives you more leeway as a board to have a discussion about what you want to do with these big dollars.

So I don't think that you can have it both ways, you can't have a checklist and have a discussion.

Just my thoughts.

Can I ask?

Wait, I don't want to cut for anyone.

Counselor Govinson, did you have a comment or um hang on late for the microphone?

Thank you.

Uh yes, that having that discussion is really important, and and um that overall are we just not paying attention only to the tax revenue?

And to go back to the bakery, um, that's our our example today.

Um, just because I worked in that bakery, having that new refrigerator will increase jobs because they're trying to look at their catering expansion and they literally have no more room to do anything, so that will help.

Plus the uh the electrical and the environmental, because right now they're using a lot of refrigerators all over the place, and then this would increase that.

So it's also figuring out thinking a little bit deeper.

How will this affect jobs?

And is that a question?

Because I don't remember on the on the um application.

Is that a question?

How many jobs do you think this will retain or bring in?

You know, is there a place that we should put something like that in to get their interpretation of what would what would be kind of an honest assumption on that?

If I may um that bakery is always busy.

La panadera is hurting.

And it's kind of isolated.

It's you know, it's an isolated place.

They sell really good stuff, and it would be great to have that coffee shop uh, you know, something to go with it because what do we want?

What is our goal?

We want our businesses to thrive.

We don't want them to close down, and some of them will take, you know, a little bit of fixing up the facade, you know.

And and in the long run, it turns good.

It's good for our city to sit to see people, you know, having coffee, talking, community coming together, and that's the vision that I have, and I think we share.

And then there are other things, you know, about the the taxes and you know what would be more valuable, but we have to consider a lot of things, you know, like culturally specific places like taqueria corona, like la panaderia, la panadera, uh that cater to the entire community.

So, you know, I just want to see every business place alive and looking good.

You know that people come here at, you know, Forest Grove prospers.

You know, and that's that's what I would like to to see.

Thank you.

I'm wondering, can staff I'm just curious because it's a really good rich dialogue about how do we move forward?

So I'm wondering has staff talked to other cities with URAs with that have these projects, like have this building improvement project or grants like the bigs and like how they're doing it, and you know, what can we learn from them, you know, moving forward to make ours really successful?

I looked at a variety of programs when I created this to begin with for best practices.

Um it ranges.

So one city will just well, you fill out the application, they check the boxes by staff, and they write you a check.

It's that easy.

Um other cities they run it like our CEP process where the person has to come give a presentation and have the money as well, the purpose all so there's a range there of best practices, so it's really what works best for for us.

Yeah, so counselor Falkner, and then I just kind of want to want to bring how much more do we have through this presentation with staff because we have another work session.

Like we're constantly always up against uh uh there's just a couple more slides, but I think they actually kind of rehash what the conversation the board has already been.

So uh so we have the scoring rubric, but we've already had a robust conversation about the scoring rubric, and I think staff can come back with some recommendations.

Next slide.

Um, some EDC comments going into should there be criteria around project feasibility or uh criteria around different types of job creation we discuss the next slide and just some next steps.

Okay, cool.

So let's try to.

I'm not trying to stifle conversation, but let's have some few more questions, comments.

Let's try to end this one at 6 30 so we can have our second one at 6 30 to 7.

So counselor Falkner, and then I think counselor, I mean Director Falkner and then Director Shimmel.

I'm the worst at the name change.

The one thing that I would appreciate it for our next conversation is um for you know staff and for all of us to revisit the plan itself because I think that there is so much in here.

I like when I see, you know, like and this happened the last time too, when I'm presented with this um, you know, the presentation, and then also sort of like the the criteria and how you know how these grants are getting, you know, how the the the applicants, the applications themselves, and then also the criteria that we're using there.

I think that they're they're based on maybe a maybe a conversation, probably a conversation I wasn't involved in yet because I wasn't on council or on the board.

Um, but when I go back to the plan, I would really like to see more alignment between the plan and the criteria because I don't really see that.

I I'm that is the biggest thing that I'm struggling with.

When I go to the plan, you know, it it goes through all the objectives, and it I think it we could together come up with a criteria, a rubric, something that actually meets all the things we're talking about, but I think it start from there rather than starting from there, because I think where we are right now, I think all ever all the feedback I'm hearing and certainly the what I feel is that I don't want to start from where we are, I want to start literally from ground zero, go back to the plan.

Yeah, or or where we want to be, right?

Because that's what the plan is.

The plan is our end goal.

And so it's like just backwards design.

How do we build a program that does the things we have in our plan?

I agree with that.

Is there any other counselor shall did you have a comment or well?

Just uh you know, between now and the next cycle, uh we've had some conversation about the the district itself, the map and whether uh expanding, contracting makes sense, guess relative to the plan and what we intended to do and the opportunities that we might be missing by not stretching it out or what we're compromising by the size that it is.

Yes, thank you for that, Director Shimmel.

Uh we will be staff will be um looking into kind of what plan amendments require um and what would be available, and we'll bring that back to the EDC for their consideration.

Is there anyone else on the board that has some final comments for staff?

And then also staff, do you have enough for the next work session?

You're like too much, too much.

Are we good on the board?

Okay, I'm gonna adjourn this work session of the urban renewal agency and give a little switch over two minute pause.

Thank you.

Both