Urban Renewal Feasibility Study
March 2007
South Waterfront
Tashman Johnson, LLC
Elaine Howard 
SERA Architects
Salem, OR

Table of Contents
Executive Summary
I. Introduction 
II. Review Existing Plans and Studies and Meet with Staff
III. Establish Feasibility Study Area
IV. Study Area Conditions of light
V. Tentative Urban Renewal Area Boundary Conformance 
with Assessed Value and Area Limitations
VI. Estimate Potential Tax Increment Revenues from Urban 
Renewal Area
VII. Costs of Likely Urban Renewal Projects
VIII. Conclusions
IX. Recommendations
Appendix
1. Phasing
5
7
9
9
9
18
18
32
34
36
38
 CITY OF SALEM

FEASIBILITY STUDY
Executive Summary
In 2006, the City of Salem, Boise Cascade, and the Strategic Economic 
Development Corporation (SEDCOR) invited the Urban Land Institute (ULI) 
to convene an Advisory Services Program panel to evaluate development 
opportunities for Boise Cascades river-front properties in downtown Salem. The 
panel issued a report which presented a redevelopment program  the type and 
amount of residential, commercial public and parking development - for the area. 
The program recommended a change in zoning and use of the site from industrial 
to mixed use and an aggressive development program. It also recommended that 
the City adopt an urban renewal plan to finance public improvements.
The City has directed staff to prepare a feasibility study for an urban renewal plan 
for the Boise and areas nearby.  This study consisted of the following tasks:
Establish Feasibility Study Area
Assess Conditions of Blight Required to Establish Urban Renewal Area
Estimate the Potential Revenue Capacity of Urban Renewal Area
Estimate Costs for Likely Urban Renewal Projects
Estimate Impact of Tax Increment Financing on Overlapping Taxing 
Districts
Prepare Recommendations for Proceeding.
The study area was divided into a Primary and Secondary Area, as shown in Figure 
1 on page 8. The study found that conditions of blight, in particular, inadequate 
access and circulation and lack of public access to both Pringle Creek and the 
Willamette River, exist in the Primary Study Area.  If the land use objective for 
this area is for mixed residential and commercial uses, then the area can also be 
considered underdeveloped. The existing buildings were found to be obsolete even 
for currently allowed uses.
The Secondary Study Area suffers from a lack of connection to the river, and can 
be seen as underdeveloped in terms of the existing single family residential uses 
in a multi-family residential zone.  However, this area appears to be stable, with 
the possible exception of some existing apartment buildings.  The commercial 
part of the area appears to be redeveloping without special public investments. 
The conditions of blight in this area are not as pronounced as those in the Primary 
Study Area. 
The projected tax increment bonding capacity of the Primary Study Area is 
substantial, up to $23 million if bonds were to be issued throughout the assumed 
20 year life of the Plan.  This compares to estimated costs of $8. million, 
including administrative costs and inflation.  The $8.5 million could be raised 
by the first two projected bond issues, allowing for retirement of debt by FY 
2019/2020.  
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
6 CITY OF SALEM
Though the tax increment financing of the Primary Study Area could be relatively 
short in duration, the projected annual property tax revenues foregone to the 
overlapping taxing districts are not insignificant. This is because the Meridian mixed 
use project is included within the Primary Study Area and the increased property 
tax revenues resulting from the project would be allocated to the Urban Renewal 
Agency not the City, County or other overlapping districts.  (The revenues of K-12 
schools and the ESD would not be directly affected.)
The Secondary Study Area has lower revenue capacity but also has lower estimated 
project costs.  The projected bonding capacity of $.6 million over the life of the 
Plan exceeds the estimated costs of $.6 million, including administration and 
inflation.  The projected revenues foregone are much lower than for the Primary 
Study Area, although it will take longer to pay off debt.
Based on the analysis summarized in this Feasibility Report, the consultants 
recommend that the Council, if it wishes to continue with the implementation of the 
ULI Panel Report, direct staff to prepare an urban renewal plan and report for the 
Primary Study Area. The projected revenues appear to be ample in relationship to 
the project and program needs while the public investment is clearly necessary to 
achieve the mixed use development objectives.
The consultants do not recommend proceeding with an urban renewal plan and 
report for the Secondary Study Area. The commercial part of this area appears to 
be redeveloping without special public investments, while the residential part of this 
area is stable. 

I. Introduction
In 200 Boise Cascade and the City of Salem began conversations about the 
future use of the site on which Boise Cascade is located.   In 2006, the City of 
Salem, Boise Cascade and the Strategic Economic Development Corporation 
(SEDCOR) invited the Urban Land Institute to convene an Advisory Services 
Program panel to evaluate development opportunities for Boise Cascades 
riverfront properties in downtown Salem.  The panel was asked to consider 
possibilities for profitably redeveloping the properties and provide public benefits.  
The panel was convened June 2-30 of 2006 and issued a report which 
presented a redevelopment program  the type and amount of residential, 
commercial public and parking development -  for the area.  The program 
recommended a change in zoning and use of the site from industrial to mixed 
use and an aggressive development program.  It also recommended that the City 
adopt an urban renewal plan to finance public improvements.
The City of Salem is working on implementing the ULI recommendations. As a part 
of that process, the City Council has commissioned a study of the feasibility of an 
urban renewal plan for the South Waterfront area, including the Boise property.   
This report summarizes the Feasibility Study. 
The scope of the study included the following tasks:
Review Existing Plans and Studies and Meet with Staff
Establish Feasibility Study Area
Assess Conditions of Blight Required to Establish Urban Renewal Area 
Determine Tentative Urban Renewal Area Boundary in Conformance with 
Assessed Value and Area Limitations
Estimate Order-of-Magnitude Potential Revenue Capacity of Urban 
Renewal Area 
Estimate Order-of-Magnitude Costs for Likely Urban Renewal Projects
Estimate Impact of Tax Increment Financing on Affected Taxing Districts
Prepare Draft Summary Feasibility Report for Review by to Staff 
Prepare Final Feasibility Report and Present to Council
II. Review Existing Plans and Studies and Meet with Staff 
A number of documents were reviewed in preparation for completing this study:
An Advisory Services Panel Report, Salem, Oregon published by the 
Urban Land Institute in June 06, 2006. 
Salem Area Comprehensive Plan
City of Salem Zoning and Development Standards
Transportation System Plan Goals, Objectives, and Policies
Staff meetings were conducted to review project assumptions and provide 
direction.  Staff directed the consultants to assume the development program 
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
A.
B.
C.
D.
FEASIBILITY STUDY
8 CITY OF SALEM
^
^
^
W
illa
m
et
te
Ri
ve
r S
lou
gh
BUSH
PASTURE
PARK
CIVIC
CENTER
RIVERFRONT
PARK
L
IB
E
R
T
Y
H
IG
H
BUSH
C
O
M
M
E
R
C
IA
L
F
I
R
LESLI
E
OWENS
M ISSI
ON
KEARNEY
S
A
G
I
N
A
W
FERRY
F
R
O
N
T
OAK
TRAD
E
RI
VE
R
M ILL
U
N
N
A
M
E
D
F
A
I
R
M
O
U
N
T
BELLE
VUE
BUSH BARN ENTR
ANCE
FRO
NT
OAK
PRINGLE CREEK
RIVERFRONT DOWNTOWN
SALEM CIVIC CENTER
SALEM PUBLIC LIBRARY
SALEM CONFERENCE CENTER
Source: Salem GIS, 2006
Study Area 2 Boundary
Study Area 1 Boundary
^Landmarks Pringle Creek Urban Renewal Area
Riverfront Downtown Urban Renewal Area
Area 1 Taxlots
Area 2 Taxlots
parks
South Waterfront Urban Renewal Area
Feasbility Study Area 0 200 400 600
Feet
Figure 1: Feasibility Study Area
FEASIBILITY STUDY
9
FEASIBILITY STUDY
contained in the ULI panel report as a basis for the feasibility study.  The review 
of the Comprehensive Plan and zoning provisions of the Salem Revised Code 
included noting that the program of uses recommended by the ULI panel would 
not be permitted under the current Industrial land use designation or General 
Industrial zoning. The ULI report recommends that the City initiate changes to 
the Salem Area Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Map and Zoning Code to allow for 
mixed-use development (residential, retail and office).
III. Establish Feasibility Study Area
The study area was established in the Request for Proposals issued by the City 
in 2006 for this project and was further refined in discussions with staff.   The 
area  has been divided into two subsections (Figure 1).  The Primary Study 
Area consists of the Boise Cascade property and limited adjacent land as 
proposed in the ULI Panel Report. The Secondary Study Area was included to 
evaluate existing conditions of blight and assess redevelopment opportunities.  
It extends southward to include commercial and residential areas, bordered by 
Commercial and Liberty, the Willamette River, Mission Street and Owens.  
The Primary Study Area is approximately 28 acres.  The Secondary Area is 
approximately 3 acres. The entire Feasibility Study Area is approximately 1 
acres. 
IV. Study Area Conditions of light
Oregon law, contained in Chapter  of Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS ), 
describes the conditions that make an area eligible for urban renewal as 
blight1.  Conditions of blight include:
excessive underdeveloped or vacant land that does not generate  
property tax revenues to the extent that productive property would
buildings that do not meet code requirements or are economically 
obsolete
inadequate streets/sidewalks, utilities or public facilities (e.g. parks or 
parking)
platting that is not appropriate for the planned use and 
environmental problems 
Not all conditions of blight must be found in an area for it to be found to be 
blighted and therefore suitable for including in an urban renewal plan. To 
determine the extent to which conditions of blight might exist in the study area, 
the consultants:
conducted a visual survey of the site; 
reviewed existing planning documents, including the City of Salem 
Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code, Stormwater Management Plan and 
Transportation System Plan;
solicited input from City staff, and;
analyzed FY 2006-07 Marion County tax assessor?s data for parcels 
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
A.
B.
C.
D.
1ORS 457.010(1) defines blighted areas as:
(1) ?Blighted areas? means areas that, by reason 
of deterioration, faulty planning, inadequate or 
improper facilities, deleterious land use or the 
existence of unsafe structures, or any combination 
of these factors, are detrimental to the safety, health 
or welfare of the community. A blighted area is 
characterized by the existence of one or more of the 
following conditions:
(a) The existence of buildings and structures, used or 
intended to be used for living, commercial, industrial 
or other purposes, or any combination of those uses, 
that are unfit or unsafe to occupy for those purposes 
because of any one or a combination of the following 
conditions:
      (A) Defective design and quality of physical 
construction;
      (B) Faulty interior arrangement and exterior 
spacing;
      (C) Overcrowding and a high density of population;
      (D) Inadequate provision for ventilation, light, 
sanitation, open spaces and recreation facilities; or
      (E) Obsolescence, deterioration, dilapidation, 
mixed character or shif ting of uses;
      (b) An economic dislocation, deterioration or 
disuse of proper ty resulting from faulty planning;
      (c) The division or subdivision and sale of proper ty 
or lots of irregular form and shape and inadequate 
size or dimensions for proper ty usefulness and 
development;
      (d) The laying out of proper ty or lots in disregard of 
contours, drainage and other physical characteristics 
of the terrain and surrounding conditions;
      (e) The existence of inadequate streets and other 
rights of way, open spaces and utilities;
      (f) The existence of proper ty or lots or other areas 
that are subject to inundation by water;
      (g) A prevalence of depreciated values, impaired 
investments and social and economic maladjustments 
to such an extent that the capacity to pay taxes is 
reduced and tax receipts are inadequate for the cost 
of public ser vices rendered;
      (h) A growing or total lack of proper utilization 
of areas, resulting in a stagnant and unproductive 
condition of land potentially useful and valuable for 
contributing to the public health, safety and welfare; 
or
      (i) A loss of population and reduction of proper 
utilization of the area, resulting in its fur ther 
deterioration and added costs to the taxpayer for the 
creation of new public facilities and ser vices
10 CITY OF SALEM
within the study area. 
If the City directs staff to prepare an urban renewal plan and report, the analysis of conditions of 
blight will be refined as necessary and appropriate. The conclusions of this part of the work are 
summarized on the following pages.
A. Access Conditions 
Primary Study Area
Poor linkages (pedestrian, bicycle, automobile and transit) exist on all sides of the site. There are 
no pedestrian linkages to Pringle Creek, a natural amenity that runs through the site east to west.  
There are no east/west pedestrian linkages from the area to the Willamette River.  The Riverfront 
Park dead ends into the site on the north.  The area to the south has no pedestrian linkage to 
Riverfront Park.  
Automobile access is limited to Bellevue and Oak Streets on the south end of the area.  Front 
Street terminates at the north end of the area. 
These weak connections limit the areas capacity to function as a cohesive district that attracts 
and sustains a broad range of uses.       
Secondary Study Area  
The area contains a fully laid out transportation system with streets and sidewalks throughout the 
area.  Most streets have sidewalks on both sides of the street. Those that do not have sidewalks 
on both sides have sidewalks on at least one side of the street.  The streets are paved.  There is, 
however, no pedestrian or bicycle linkage to the north along the waterfront.  
B. Land Use
Primary Study Area
As detailed in the 2006 ULI Report, the Boise Cascade property area is in industrial use.  The 
facility was originally used as a saw mill by Capitol Lumber in 1866.  Between 1920-19 Oregon 
Pulp and Paper Company used it as a calcite base sulfite paper mill.  In 1962 Boise Cascade 
purchased the mill, which is now just used for paper cutting and distribution.  The ULI report states 
the Boise Cascade plant is inefficient and nearing functional obsolescence due to the following 
conditions:
It has multi-story buildings which are no longer efficient for manufacturing / processing.
The building layout is inefficient for current distribution uses.
Truck access through the City and around the site is difficult.
It is too far away from the Interstate highway.  
The site contains numerous structures as shown in Figure 2.  
Building A is commonly known as the Fry Warehouse.  It is reinforced concrete, built in the 
late 1920?s.  There are five floors above ground and a full basement.  The building has 
10,000 square feet a floor, for a total of 60,000 square feet.  
Building B, the historic two story Old Mill building was constructed in the late 1800?s and 
features a dramatic wood truss ceiling on the upper floor.
A.
B.
C.
D.
A.
B.
FEASIBILITY STUDY
11
FEASIBILITY STUDY
Building C was built in 193 and was the old machine room which has been converted to a paper storage 
warehouse.  It has a footprint of 13 by 220.  The basement level spans Pringle Creek.
Building D was built in 1922 and measures about 126? by 47?.  It has three floors and a basement.  The building 
is constructed of reinforced concrete.
Building E measures 80 by 19 and is called the OPACO warehouse.  It was built in 191 using a heavy timber 
construction system.  It consists of three floors and a basement.  
Building F is 36 by 9 and was annexed to building D. 
Building G was constructed of reinforced concrete in 196.  It has an irregular footprint of 300 by 288.  It 
includes a basement, ground floor, and second floor and has a flat wood truss roof.  The basement is below 
grade. 
There are four tanks on the lower portion of the plant, a steel Bunkler Oil tank, two stock tanks, and a clay tile 
tank. All are abandoned and have been cleaned out. 
Some of these buildings could be potentially reused, others should be demolished.  The reuse recommendations of the 
ULI report are shown in Table 1.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
Figure 2. Boise-Cascade site structures
Reuse Chart Potential Use
A.  Fry Warehouse Undetermined commuter rail station
B.  Old Mill Building Reuse retail, restaurant, daycare, office
C. Old Machine Room Demolish Pringle Creek daylighting
D.   Demolish  Pringle Creek daylighting
E.  OPACO Warehouse/Paper Factory Reuse commercial/office/athletic club
F.  Paper Mill Demolish view corridor
G.  South Warehouse Reuse parking/residential/grocery
Tanks Undetermined 
Table 1. Boise Cascade potential building reuse
12 CITY OF SALEM
There is a large parking lot bordered by Riverfront Park on the north and west, the 
Portland & Western railroad tracks on the east and by Pringle Creek on the south.  
The present site is constrained by a combination of underutilized and functionally 
obsolete buildings, vacant lots, inadequate transportation system, inadequate 
landscaping, and a lack of pedestrian-friendly design elements. South of the Boise 
Cascade Property and north of the new Meridian mixed residential and commercial 
project, now under construction, is a surface parking lot and older office commercial 
development.
Table 2 and Figure 2 describe existing land use as determined by the County Assessor.
Property Code # of parcels acres
Centrally assessed  0.9
Commercial land only 3 2.61
Commercial improved 8 3.19
Industrial principal plants, State responsibility  9.2
City Property 8 2.2
Total 30 18.06
Secondary Study Area
This area contains a mix of single family residential, multifamily residential, residential structures 
converted to neighborhood commercial and commercial uses.   Commercial uses are found on 
Liberty and Commercial Street and include a mix of older and newer one to two story structures, 
with on site surface parking lots.  The area between Commercial Street and the river is residential 
in character, primarily stable detached single family houses, with a small number of older 
apartment structures.   
Table 3 describes existing land use as determined by the County Assessor.
Table 2. Primar y Area Land Use; Marion County Tax Assessor Proper ty Codes
Property Code # of parcels acres
Centrally Assessed 1 1.22
Historical, Commercial 1 .1
Residential land only, 1 acre and under, inside city or urban growth boundary 1 .16
Residential improved, 1 acre and under, inside city or urban growth boundary 30 .2
Residential improved, commercial zoning 1 .13
Commercial land only  1.21
Commercial improved  11.63
Multiple family land only 1 .0
Multiple family improved, 5 units or more 11 .68
Church Property 1 .2
Benv/Frat/Hosp 1 .38
Benv/Frat/Hosp; tax exempt 1 .18
City Property 3 3.1
Total 113 28.6
Table 3. Secondar y Area Land Uses, Marion County Tax Assessor Proper ty Codes
FEASIBILITY STUDY
13
FEASIBILITY STUDY
W
illa
m
et
te
Ri
ve
r S
lou
gh
BUSH
PASTURE
PARK
CIVIC
CENTER
RIVERFRONT
PARK
L
IB
E
R
T
Y
H
IG
H
BUSH
C
O
M
M
E
R
C
IA
L
F
I
R
LESLI
E
OWENS
M ISSI
ON
KEARNEY
S
A
G
I
N
A
W
FERRY
F
R
O
N
T
OAK
TRAD
E
RI
VE
R
M ILL
U
N
N
A
M
E
D
F
A
I
R
M
O
U
N
T
BELLE
VUE
BUSH BARN ENTR
ANCE
FRO
NT
OAK
PRINGLE CREEK
RIVERFRONT DOWNTOWN
Source: Salem GIS, 2006
South Waterfront Urban Renewal Area
Existing Land Use 0 200 400 600
Feet
200 - Commercial Land Only
201 - Commercial Improved
303 - Industrial Principal Plants, State Responsibility
C90 - City Property
02 - Historical, Commercial
100 - Residential Land Only
101 - Residential Improved, 1 acre and under
121 - Residential Improved
00 - M ultiple Family Land Only
01 - M ultiple Family Improved,  Units or M ore
C20 - Church Property
C0 - Benv/Frat/Hosp
C1 - Commercial, Lease Exempt
Pringle Creek Urban Renewal Area
Riverfront Downtown Urban Renewal Area
Study Area 2 Boundary
Study Area 1 Boundary
003 - Centrally Assessed
Figure 2. Primar y Area and Secondar y Area Marion County Tax Assessor Proper ty Codes - Land Use
1 CITY OF SALEM
C. Zoning
Primary Study Area
Approximately .9 acres of the proposed areas acreage is zoned Industrial (IG), 
with .3 acres in the Retail Commercial (CR) zone and 2.6 acres in the Commercial 
Office (CO) zone (Figure 3). As noted above, the uses recommended in the ULI 
Panel report are not permitted under the industrial zoning of the Boise property. 
Also as noted above, the City intends to conduct a study regarding changes to the 
current comprehensive plan designation and zoning to encourage redevelopment 
of the area.
Secondary Study Area
Approximately 10.7 acres are in the Multifamily (RM2) zone, 0.5 acres in Single 
Family Residential (RS) zone, 6.3 acres in the Commercial/Office (CO) zone and 8.8 
acres in the Retail/Commercial (CR) zone.   1 acre is in the Residential Agriculture 
(RA) zone.  The structures appear to be, overall, in good condition.  
D. Improvement to Land Ratios (:L
To measure how fully developed a parcel is one can compare the value of the 
buildings and other improvements on the property to the value of the land itself.   
This relationship between the value of the buildings and improvements is called 
the Improvement to land ratio.   The values used are real market values.  For 
example, a property with a building real market value of $200,000 and a land 
real market value of $100,000 would have an I:L of 2.0.   Where the value of 
improvements is less than the value of land the ratio is less than 1.0.   
I:L ratios for healthy properties in this part of Salem could range between .0 
-10.0 or more.  For instance, a property on a 1,000 square foot lot would have a 
land value of $10,000, at $10.00 per square foot.  An improvement developed 
at a floor area ratio of 0.4 and valued at $200.00 per square foot would have an 
improvement value of $1,200,000.  The I:L ratio for this property would be 8.0.
Primary Study Area
Table  and Figure  show the improvement to land ratios for properties within the 
primary study area, sorted by zoning, as determined by the County Assessor. The 
existing Boise Cascade industrial facilities have high assessed values, so the I:L 
ratio does not indicate underdevelopment of this property under the existing zoning.   
The property would be considered underdeveloped if the zoning designation was to 
be changed to permit mixed residential and commercial use.    The property known 
as Civic Center West, south of the Boise property has a very low I:L ratio because it 
is used only for surface parking.
Secondary Study Area
Table 5 shows the same information for the Secondary Study Area.  As reflected 
in the low improvement to land ratios for existing commercial, residential and 
FEASIBILITY STUDY
1
W
ill
am
ett
e R
ive
r Sl
oug
h
L
IB
E
R
T
Y
H
IG
H
BUSH
C
O
M
M
E
R
C
IA
L
F
I
R
LESLI
E
OWENS
M ISS
ION
KEARNEY
S
A
G
I
N
A
W
FERRY
F
R
O
N
T
OAK
TRAD
E
RI
VE
R
M ILL
U
N
N
A
M
E
D
F
A
I
R
M
O
U
N
T
BELLE
VUE
BUSH BARN ENTR
ANCE
FR
ON
T
OAK
South Waterfront Urban Renewal Area
Zoning 0 200 400 600
Feet
Source: Salem GIS, 2006
Study Area 1 Boundary
Study Area 2 Boundary
Historic District Overlay
M ixed-Use Overlay
Urban Development Overlay
Central Business District
Commercial Office
Retail Commercial
General Industrial
Railroad
Residential Agriculture
M ulti-Family/Residential 2
Single Family Residential
Figure 3. Feasibility Study Area Zoning
FEASIBILITY STUDY
16 CITY OF SALEM
Source: Marion County, OR 2006-07 Assessment and Taxation Database
IL Ratio CB CO CR IG RA RM2 RRO RS acres
No Building Value 3.8 0.1 3.8* 1.1 0.0 0.0 0. 0.0 9.2
Less than 1 0.0 1.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6
1-2 0.0 0.6 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.1
2- 0.0 0. 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.
> 0.0 0. 0.0 .8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.
acres 3.8 2.6 .3 .9 0.0 0.0 0. 0.0 18.1
Table 4. Acres in Primar y Area: Improvement to Land Ratio and Zoning
*The proper ties at the southern edge of the primar y study area showing ?no building value? are slated 
for development of 89 condominiums and 26,000 square feet of office space. This site is zoned Retail 
Commercial (CR) with a Mixed Use Overlay.
IL Ratio CB CO CR IG RA RM2 RRO RS acres
No Building Value 0.0 0. 1.1 0.0 1.0 2.2 1.2 0.0 6.1
Less than 1 0.0 2.8 .1 0.0 0.0 1.6 0.0 0.2 8.
1-2 0.0 2.8 2.0 0.0 0.0 . 0.0 0.3 9.6
2- 0.0 0. 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 2.2
> 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 1. 0.0 0.0 2.2
acres 0.0 6. 8.8 0.0 1.0 10. 1.2 0. 28.
Table 5. Acres in Secondar y Area: Improvement to Land Ratio and Zoning
Source: Marion County, OR 2006-07 Assessment and Taxation Database
FEASIBILITY STUDY
multifamily residential uses in the Secondary Study Area, under-development 
is prevalent throughout the area. The low I:L for the land zoned multi-family 
residential is partly due to the fact that existing uses in this zone are primarily 
single family residential.
1
FEASIBILITY STUDY
Figure 4. Improvement to Land Ratio
W
illa
m
et
te
Ri
ve
r S
lou
gh
Pringle
Creek
L
IB
E
R
T
Y
H
IG
H
BUSH
C
O
M
M
E
R
C
IA
L
F
I
R
LESLI
E
OWENS
M ISSI
ON
KEARNEY
S
A
G
I
N
A
W
FERRY
F
R
O
N
T
OAK
TRAD
E
RI
VE
R
M ILL
U
N
N
A
M
E
D
F
A
I
R
M
O
U
N
T
BELLE
VUE
BUSH BARN ENTR
ANCE
FRO
NT
OAK
Source: Salem GIS, 2006Improvement to Land Ratio
no building value
< 1
1 - 2
2 - 
> 
Primary Area
Secondary Area
South Waterfront Urban Renewal Area
Improvement-to-Land Ratio 0 200 400 600
Feet
18 CITY OF SALEM
V. Tentative Urban Renewal Area Boundary Conformance with 
Assessed Value and Area Limitations
As noted above, State law limits the percentage of a municipalitys total 
assessed value (AV) and area that can be contained in an urban renewal 
area at the time of its establishment to 1% (for municipalities over 0,000 
in population).  Table 6 shows the estimated AV and size of the study area as 
compared to the data for the City of Salem. The potential urban renewal area 
 including both the Primary Study Area and Secondary Study Area - is well 
within the 1% limit on both AV and area.
VI. Estimate Potential Tax Increment Revenues from Urban 
Renewal Area 
The amount of tax increment revenues that would be generated by an urban 
renewal program depends on the property tax rate (consolidated billing rate) 
that applies within the area and the increase in assessed value (incremental 
assessed value?) over the certified or ?frozen? base.  The consolidated billing 
rate does not include levy rates for local option or general obligation bond 
levies that are approved by voters after October 6, 2001.  
A. Property Tax Rates
The property tax rates that would apply in the urban renewal area if it were in 
existence this year are shown in Table .  (Permanent refers to permanent 
rate levies.  There are no local option levies at present.)
In future years, the rates levied for bonds will decrease and at various times 
will terminate.  While voters may approve additional bonds, the rates for these 
Urban Renewal Area Frozen Base Assessed Value Acres
Current Urban Renewal Areas 03,222,600 3,31
South Waterfront (Proposed) 1
      Primary Study Area 26,011,200 28
      Secondary Study Area 2,36,1 3
Total ,0,31 3,12
Total Acreage, City of Salem 30,100
Total Assessed Value City 
of Salem Less Incremental 
Assessed Value in Urban 
Renewal Areas
8,00,80,60
Percent of Salem AV in Urban 
Renewal Areas .%
Percent of Salem Area in Urban 
Renewal Areas 11%
Table 6. Conformance to Assessed Value Limits
FEASIBILITY STUDY
19
FEASIBILITY STUDY
Taxing District
Permanent 
Rates, 
06/07
Bond 
Rates
Marion County 3.029
City of Salem .831 0.60
Salem Transit 0.609
Chemeketa Cooperative 
Regional Library Service
0.0818
Marion Soil & Water 
District
0.000
Salem Keizer School 
District
.210 2.0898
Willamette Educational 
Service District
0.296
Chemeketa Community 
College
0.629 0.338
Total 15.1927 3.2042 18.39
bonds will not become part of the consolidated billing 
rate.  Future bond rates were projected through FY 
202 based on scheduled payments of principal and 
interest, and the resulting consolidated billing rate was 
used to calculate tax increment revenues.  Projected 
consolidated billing rates are shown in Tables 8 and 9.
B. Incremental Assessed Value Increases
Increases in assessed value within the urban renewal 
study area were projected through FY 2027 based 
on assumptions of appreciation of existing property 
(maximum of 3% per year) and new development value 
which allows an exception to the 3% maximum.
Increases for appreciation in existing property were 
projected at 2.%, less than the 3% maximum per year, 
because increases in AV for three of the four property 
types (personal, utility and manufactured structure) are 
always limited by their real market value. 
Primary Study Area
Increases for new development in the Primary Study Area were projected based 
on the ULI Panel Report.  The consultants needed to interpret the report in order 
to specify uses by amount and type, and needed to apply professional judgments, 
based on supplemental market analysis, as to the phasing of the development.  
The real market values per square foot or dwelling unit were projected based on 
existing real estate market conditions and adjustments for the special location 
and quality aspects of the Boise Cascade property.  The real market values are 
inflated at an annual rate of 3%. Then the real market values were adjusted 
downward to reflect the adjustments made by the County Assessor under the 
terms of Measure 50.  This adjustment uses a projected ?Changed Property 
Ratio or CPR that represents the average relationship between assessed value 
and real market value for given property classes.  The CPR used in this projection 
is an amalgamation of the CPRs for residential single family and commercial 
property classes.
The projected phasing, real market values and assessed values of property in 
the Primary Study area  are shown in Table 8.  The assessed value of the existing 
Boise Cascade property is subtracted to determine the net increase in assessed 
value.
Secondary Study Area
Projecting development in the Secondary Study Area required professional 
judgments on the part of the consultants, as no master plan or development 
concept has been prepared for this area.  The projections focused on specific 
Table 7. Consolidated Billing Rates
20 CITY OF SALEM
Calendar Year 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
  Civic Center W
       Office
       Hotel
       Housing ,000,000
       Parking
  Bellevue Townhomes 2,800,000 2,0,000
  South Warehouse
    Retail 8,60,000
    Housing 21,000,000
  Paper Factory
       Retail 1,12,000 1,12,000
       Restaurants 32,000
       Office (redevt) 1,123,200 1,123,200
       Health Club 3,6,000
   Old Mill Bldg
       Retail 3,888,000
       Restaurants 60,800
       Daycare 68,000
       Office (redevt)
  South State Street
       Retail
       Restaurants
       Housing
Meridian
      Housing 3,38,00
      Office ,1,1
Total RMV Current 
Dollars
11,0,000 8,903,21 29,93,200 0 0 ,6,000 0 ,000,000 0 0
Inflation 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3%
Total RMV, Year of 
Development
11,83,200 1,881,20 32,2,2 0 0 9,28,91 0 8,86,391 0 0
CPR 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
AV 8,83,90 3,3,622 23,81,818 0 0 6,68,16 0 6,38,21 0 0
Existing AV 6,000,000
Net AV 2,83,90 3,3,622 23,81,818 0 0 6,68,16 0 6,38,21 0 0
Table 8. Projected AV for the Primar y Study Area: 2008 - 2017
FEASIBILITY STUDY
mixed use opportunity areas (Figure ) which are currently vacant or severely 
under-used parcels.  To account for gradual improvements in the residential areas, 
an amount of ?other? development is projected, without connection to any specific 
parcels.
The projected phasing, real market values and assessed values of property in the 
Secondary Study area are shown in Table 9.
21
Calendar Year 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027
  Civic Center W
       Office 3,6,13 3,6,13
       Hotel 11,20,000
       Housing
       Parking
  Bellevue Townhomes
  South Warehouse
    Retail
    Housing
  Paper Factory
       Retail
       Restaurants
       Office (redevt)
       Health Club
   Old Mill Bldg
       Retail
       Restaurants
       Daycare
       Office (redevt) 3,31,20
  South State Street
       Retail 3,02,000
       Restaurants 86,000
       Housing 3,000,000
Meridian
      Housing
      Office
Total RMV Current 
Dollars
18,268,663 38,888,000 0 0 3,6,13 0 0 0 0 0
Inflation 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3%
Total RMV, Year of 
Development
2,288,102 ,,989 0 0 ,28,869 0 0 0 0 0
CPR 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
AV 18,20,33 39,920,392 0 0 ,12,86 0 0 0 0 0
Existing AV
Net AV 18,20,33 39,920,392 0 0 ,12,86 0 0 0 0 0
Table 8. Projected AV for the Primar y Study Area: 2018 - 2027
FEASIBILITY STUDY
22 CITY OF SALEM
FEASIBILITY STUDY
Calendar Year 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Site A 6,0,000
Site B
Site C
Other 00,000 00,000 00,000 00,000 00,000 00,000 00,000
Total RMV Current 
Dollars
00,000 00,000 00,000 00,000 00,000 6,,000 00,000
Inflation 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3%
Total RMV, Year of 
Development
1,000 30,0 6,36 62, 9,63 ,80,89 61,93
CPR 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20
AV 30,800 381,92 393,382 0,183 1,339 ,62,6 2,
Calendar Year 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Site A
Site B 1,301,86
Site C 3,1,29
Other 00,000 00,000 00,000 00,000 00,000 00,000 00,000
Total RMV Current 
Dollars
1,801,86 00,000 00,000 3,91,29 00,000 00,000 00,000
Inflation 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3%
Total RMV, Year of 
Development
2,282,8 62,38 61,98 ,9,386 12,880 3,26 6,29
CPR 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20
AV 1,63,363 69,18 83,810 3,98,118 13,2 28,62 ,32
Calendar Year 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027
Site A
Site B
Site C
Other  00,000 00,000 00,000 00,000 00,000 00,000
Total RMV Current 
Dollars
00,000 00,000 00,000 00,000 00,000 00,000
Inflation 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3%
Total RMV, Year of 
Development
8,98 802,33 826,2 81,21 86,3 903,06
CPR 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20
AV 60,868 ,69 9,02 612,86 631,262 60,200
Table 9. Projected AV for the Secondar y Study Area: 2008 - 2027
23
FEASIBILITY STUDY
W
illa
m
et
te
Ri
ve
r S
lou
gh
A
B
C
F
I
R
BUSH
M ILLER
L
I
B
E
R
T
Y
C
O
M
M
E
R
C
I
A
L
OWENS
S
A
G
I
N
A
W
KEARNEY
LESLI
E
M ISSION
RI
VE
R
OAK
F
A
I
R
M
O
U
N
T
U
N
N
A
M
E
D
BELLE
VUE
Primary Area
Secondary Area
South Waterfront Urban Renewal Area
Secondary Area Opportunity Sites 500
Feet
Figure 5. Mixed Use Oppor tunity Areas
2 CITY OF SALEM
Table 10. Primar y Area projected tax increment revenues: 2009 - 2027
FEASIBILITY STUDY
Fiscal Year Ending June 30 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Base Assessed Value  26,011,200 26,011,200 26,011,200 26,011,200 26,011,200 26,011,200 26,011,200
Total Assessed Value  26,011,200 29,210,12 6,368,321 92,802,68 9,3,8 9,9,102 10,36,63
Incremental Assessed 
Value 
3,199,212 1,3,121 66,91,68 69,33,6 1,96,902 81,3,3
Value New Development 0 2,83,90 3,3,622 23,81,818 0 0 6,68,16
Appreciation Percentage 0.00% 2.% 2.% 2.% 2.% 2.% 2.%
Appreciation Dollars 1,308 803,286 1,82,629 2,2,06 2,622,28 2,69,30
Total Property Tax Rate 18.3969 18.3969 1.6209 1.6209 1.6209 16.60
Tax Increment Revenues 8,86 60,83 1,16,928 1,221,89 1,268,10 1,38,382
Fiscal Year Ending June 30 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Base Assessed Value  26,011,200 26,011,200 26,011,200 26,011,200 26,011,200 26,011,200 26,011,200
Total Assessed Value  110,308,9 119,26,961 123,019,3 126,02,88 18,08,989 192,08,6 19,360,912
Incremental Assessed 
Value 
8,29, 93,1,61 9,008,23 100,391,288 122,0,89 166,06,6 11,39,12
Value New Development 0 6,38,21 0 0 18,20,33 39,920,392 0
Appreciation Percentage 2.% 2.% 2.% 2.% 2.% 2.% 2.%
Appreciation Dollars 2,92,308 3,033,96 3,292,91 3,383,03 3,6,068 ,02,36 ,282,166
Total Property Tax Rate 16.236 16.236 16.236 16.236 16.236 16.236 16.236
Tax Increment Revenues 1,368,93 1,21,19 1,,181 1,630,11 1,982,202 2,696,38 2,82,308
Fiscal Year Ending June 30 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027
Base Assessed Value  26,011,200 26,011,200 26,011,200 26,011,200 26,011,200
Total Assessed Value  202,88,33 212,89,802 218,333,21 22,33,36 230,06,16
Incremental Assessed 
Value 
16,,13 186,8,602 192,322,01 198,326,236 20,9,16
Value New Development 0 ,12,86 0 0 0
Appreciation Percentage 2.% 2.% 2.% 2.% 2.%
Appreciation Dollars ,2,2 ,6,69 ,83,0 6,00,16 6,169,280
Total Property Tax Rate 16.236 16.236 16.236 16.236 16.236
Tax Increment Revenues 2,80,36 3,02,96 3,122,89 3,220,32 3,320,16
C. Tax Increment Revenue Estimates
Projected tax increment revenues are a direct product of the projected 
incremental assessed value and the projected total property tax rates.  These 
are shown in Tables 10 and 11 for the Primary Study Area and Secondary 
Study Area.
D. Tax Increment Debt Capacity
Annual tax increment revenues must be used for payment on debt (bonds or 
loans).  Tables 12 and 13 show the amount of urban renewal debt that could 
be issued based on the revenues projected in Tables 10 and 11 (pages 2-2) 
for the Primary Study Area and Secondary Study Area. 
2
FEASIBILITY STUDY
Table 11. Secondar y Area projected tax increment revenues: 2009 - 2027
Fiscal Year Ending June 30 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Base Assessed Value  2,36,1 2,36,1 2,36,1 2,36,1 2,36,1 2,36,1 2,36,1 2,36,1
Total Assessed Value  26,609,69 2,23,26 28,89,02 30,08,38 31,322,88 3,836,900 39,320,10 2,0,83
Incremental Assessed 
Value 
1,03,0 2,186,1 3,32,13 ,1,869 ,86,363 12,300,386 13,83,6 16,08,323
Value New Development 30,800 381,92 393,382 0,183 1,339 ,62,6 2, 1,63,363
Appreciation Percentage 2.% 2.% 2.% 2.% 2.% 2.% 2.% 2.%
Appreciation Dollars 02,2 31,63 62,390 9,13 82,16 861,39 1,00,1 1,081,30
Total Property Tax Rate 18.3969 18.3969 18.3969 1.6209 1.6209 1.6209 16.60 16.236
Tax Increment Revenues 19,1 0,229 61,92 80,032 101,961 216, 228,8 268,06
Fiscal Year Ending June 30 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Base Assessed Value  2,36,1 2,36,1 2,36,1 2,36,1 2,36,1 2,36,1 2,36,1
Total Assessed Value  3,60,89 ,3, 0,60,91 2,6,60 ,36,090 6,,61 8,91,618
Incremental Assessed 
Value 
18,13,2 19,819,031 2,02,26 26,928,126 28,899,6 30,91,100 33,0,103
Value New Development 69,18 83,810 3,98,118 13,2 28,62 ,32 60,868
Appreciation Percentage 2.% 2.% 2.% 2.% 2.% 2.% 2.%
Appreciation Dollars 1,16,233 1,200,9 1,2,2 1,390,26 1,2,8 1,96,992 1,3,13
Total Property Tax Rate 16.236 16.236 16.236 16.236 16.236 16.236 16.236
Tax Increment Revenues 29, 321,813 06,33 3,28 69,260 02,09 36,36
Fiscal Year Ending June 30 2024 2025 2026 2027
Base Assessed Value  2,36,1 2,36,1 2,36,1 2,36,1
Total Assessed Value  60,80,81 63,0,02 6,393,3 6,823,333
Incremental Assessed 
Value 
3,2,06 3,10,8 39,8,228 2,286,818
Value New Development ,69 9,02 612,86 631,262
Appreciation Percentage 2.% 2.% 2.% 2.%
Appreciation Dollars 1,611,269 1,61,66 1,33,9 1,98,328
Total Property Tax Rate 16.236 16.236 16.236 16.236
Tax Increment Revenues 2,29 609,081 6,186 686,636
Urban renewal debt consists of long term bonds, assumed to be 1 years. The 
interest rate is projected at .% and annual payments are subject to a coverage 
ratio of 1.2.  This means that annual tax increment revenues must exceed 
annual debt service requirements by 2%.   Short term bonds are issued to make 
annual tax increment revenue ending balances available for project expenditures.  
The projected revenues are projected to support issuing $23 million in urban 
renewal debt for the Primary Study Area and $.6 million for the Secondary 
Study Area, assuming long term debt is issued until the last few years of the 19 
year duration of an urban renewal plan.  As will be discussed below, the full debt 
capacity for the Primary Study Area exceeds the projected costs.
26 CITY OF SALEM
Fiscal Year 
Ending 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Beginning 
Balance 0 ,913 00,3 1,02,089 1,290,2 1,600,661 1,98,19 2,393,0 2,9,21 3,6,12 ,200,31
Tax 
Increment 
Revenues
,913 22,801 1,118,081 1,160,803 1,20,699 1,280,963 1,300,33 1,,633 1,96,22 1,8,608 1,883,092
Interest
Transfer 
from Bond 
Proceeds
0 00,000 100,000
Total ,913 1,28,13 1,918, 2,18,892 2,9,126 2,881,623 3,28,12 3,838,680 ,0,63 ,09,80 6,083,0
Debt Service
Bond 1 0 8,21 8,21 8,21 8,21 8,21 8,21 8,21 8,21 8,21 8,21
Bond 2 316,22 316,22 316,22 316,22 316,22 316,22 316,22 316,22 316,22
Bond 3
Bond 
Bond 
Bond 6
Total Long 
Term DS 0 8,21 89,6 89,6 89,6 89,6 89,6 89,6 89,6 89,6 89,6
Short Term 
Debt
Total 
Expenditures 0 1,16,81 1,88,930 1,88,930 1,88,930 1,88,930 1,88,930 1,88,930 1,88,930 1,88,930 1,88,930
Ending 
Balance ,913 122,232 129,62 39,962 06,196 1,092,69 1,98,82 2,09,0 2,61,0 3,30,80 ,29,
Principal Amounts of Bonds
Bond 1 ,80,136
Bond 2 3,1,128
Bond 3
Bond 
Bond 
Debt 
Proceeds 0 ,30,136 3,0,128 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total Debt 
Proceeds:
8,378,264
Present 
Value Debt 
Proceeds:
7,812,920
Table 12. Primar y Area Projected Debt Capacity: 2010 - 2020
FEASIBILITY STUDY
2
FEASIBILITY STUDY
This page intentionally left blank.
28 CITY OF SALEM
Fiscal Year Ending 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Beginning Balance 0 0 38,218 96,63 12,66 1,90 1,90 23,63 23,63
Tax Increment 
Revenues
18, 38,218 8,1 6,030 96,863 20,90 21,0 2,63 29,3
Interest
Transfer from Bond 
Proceeds
0 100,000
Total 38,218 96,63 12,66 269,28 383,39 9, 28,296 3,3
Debt Service
Bond 1
Bond 2 ,90 ,90 ,90 ,90 ,90
Bond 3 96,13 96,13 96,13
Bond 
Bond 
Bond 6
Total Long Term 
Debt Service
0 0 0 ,90 ,90 13,63 13,63 13,63
Reserve 0 0 0 ,90 ,90 13,63 13,63 13,63
Short Term Debt 1,8 128,16 ,28 81,010 106,091
Total Expenditures 0 0 0 169,28 283,39 39, 28,296 3,3
Ending Balance 38,218 96,63 12,66 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000
Principal Amounts 
of Bonds
Bond 1
Bond 2 ,81
Bond 3 96,12
Bond 
Bond 
Debt Proceeds 0 0 0 92,21 12,132 911,928 80,199 10,030
Total Debt 
Proceeds:
,602,361
Present Value Debt 
Proceeds:
,191,63
Table 13. Secondar y Area Projected Debt Capacity: 2008 - 2017
FEASIBILITY STUDY
29
Fiscal Year Ending 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027
Beginning Balance 23,63 0,23 08,816 08,816 08,816 08,816 0,919 0,919 0,919 0,919
Tax Increment 
Revenues
30,23 386,020 1,386 ,9 ,289 09,899 3,66 8,62 61,826 62,30
Interest
Transfer from Bond 
Proceeds
Total 9,366 91,3 82,202 8,613 886,10 918,1 1,01,8 1,086,6 1,122, 1,160,22
Debt Service
Bond 1
Bond 2 ,90 ,90 ,90 ,90 ,90 ,90 ,90 ,90 ,90 ,90
Bond 3 96,13 96,13 96,13 96,13 96,13 96,13 96,13 96,13 96,13 96,13
Bond  13,13 13,13 13,13 13,13 13,13 13,13 13,13 13,13 13,13
Bond  99,103 99,103 99,103 99,103 99,103
Bond 6
Total Long Term 
Debt Service
13,63 308,816 308,816 308,816 308,816 0,919 0,919 0,919 0,919 0,919
Reserve 13,63 308,816 308,816 308,816 308,816 0,919 0,919 0,919 0,919 0,919
Short Term Debt ,111 106,0 136,981 168,3 2,8 13,6 10,08 206,90 2,386
Total Expenditures 3,286 691,3 2,202 ,613 86,10 818,1 91,8 986,6 1,022, 1,060,22
Ending Balance 232,080 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000
Principal Amounts 
of Bonds
Bond 1
Bond 2
Bond 3
Bond  1,36,806
Bond  99,6
Debt Proceeds 0 1,30,16 10,0 13,611 166,88 99,60 13,389 169,001 20,838 21,92
Table 13. Secondar y Area Projected Debt Capacity: 2018 - 2027
FEASIBILITY STUDY
30 CITY OF SALEM
E. Impact of Tax Increment Financing on Overlapping Taxing Districts
The use of tax increment financing results in the taxing districts that levy taxes 
within the urban renewal area (overlapping taxing districts) foregoing revenues 
from their permanent rate levies as those levies would otherwise apply to the 
incremental AV. (Taxpayers are slightly impacted from the increase in property tax 
rates for General Obligation (GO) bonds approved by voters prior to October 6, 
2001.)  Any local option or GO bond levies approved after October 6, 2001 would 
not be affected by tax increment financing of a South Waterfront Urban Renewal 
Plan.
The impact of lost revenues most logically is based on the amount of growth 
within the urban renewal area that would occur without urban renewal. If growth 
occurs solely because of urban renewal, then property tax revenues on that growth 
would not have been available to the taxing districts and should not be considered 
foregone.
Note that K-12 School Districts and Educational Service Districts (ESD) are not 
directly impacted by tax increment financing.  Property tax revenues are foregone, 
but with the current state school funding formula overall revenues are not reduced.  
(There may be an aggregate impact of tax increment financing statewide on the 
total funds available for all K-12 School Districts and ESD?s but it is difficult to 
measure.)
Primary Study Area
It is reasonable to assume that without substantial public investment in access 
improvements  for vehicles, pedestrians and bikes serving the Primary Study Area 
- no redevelopment of the Boise Cascade site would occur.  Further, in its current 
industrial use, it is not likely that the assessed value of the facility would increase.  
However, for the purpose of this impact analysis, it is assumed that the current 
assessed value of the Boise property grows by 2.% per year.  
The Meridian mixed use project on Mission Street is underway and would occur 
without urban renewal investments.  The full value of this development is therefore 
included in the impact analysis.
FEASIBILITY STUDY
Taxing District Present Value, Revenues Foregone - FY 2020
Present Value, Average 
Annual Revenues 
Foregone 
Marion County 1,18,02 10,13
City of Salem 2,21,93 206,1
Salem Transit 296, 26,90
Chemeketa Cooperative Regional Library Service 31,869 2,89
Marion Soil & Water District 19,80 1,1
Chemeketa Community College 23,81 22,168
Table 14. Primar y Area Average Annual Revenues Foregone
31
FEASIBILITY STUDY
The revenues foregone to the taxing districts are shown in Table 1.   They are 
expressed in the total revenues foregone in current dollars through FY 27 and 
the average annual impact  again in current dollars  per year for the 11 year 
period between FY 2010 and 2020 for the Primary Study Area and a 19 year 
period for the Secondary Study Area. The projected year in which Secondary 
Study Area debt will be retired has not been calculated, but would be later than 
FY 2027.   
Secondary Study Area 
The Secondary Study Area presents a different future development situation.  
On one hand, the commercial area appears to be redeveloping through market 
forces alone  without targeted public investments.  On the other hand, the 
single family residential area is not likely to be subject to major redevelopment 
because of the quality of the homes and the stability of the neighborhood. The 
apartment developments could be rehabilitated or redeveloped in the medium-
long term.
It is the consultants professional judgment that much of the development 
projected with urban renewal would occur without urban renewal.  Therefore, 
we have included % of the new development growth in the impact analysis. 
Table 1 shows the total and average annual revenues foregone in the same 
format as for the Primary Study Area.
Taxing District Present Value, Revenues Foregone - FY 2027
Present Value, Average 
Annual Revenues 
Foregone 
Marion County 69,1 29,98
City of Salem 1,098,31 ,806
Salem Transit 13,309 ,3
Chemeketa Cooperative Regional Library Service 1,06 811
Marion Soil & Water District 9,1 96
Chemeketa Community College 11,883 6,20
Table 15. Secondar y Area Average Annual Revenues Foregone
32 CITY OF SALEM
VII. Costs of Likely Urban Renewal Projects
City staff has provided a proposed list of projects and programs for the Primary 
Study Area and Secondary Study Area.  Table 16 illustrates transportation and 
access improvements that address the major conditions of blight in the two study 
areas. Figure 6 shows the locations of the potential projects.
Transportation Project Concepts
Multi-use path along creek. This project would extend the existing paths by Mirror 
Pond under Commercial Street, connecting to a path alongside Pringle Creek. This 
project would greatly improve multi-modal connections between Bush Park, River-
front Park, and Willamette University using the existing path system.
Street connection to Boise Site and traffic signal.  This project would create a 
signalized intersection on Commercial Street to improve traffic circulation. The likely 
location would be to realign Bellevue Street so it enters Commercial Street opposite 
Primary Study Area
1. Pringle Creek
Pedestrian Bridge over Pringle Creek, south side approach 00,000
Stairway and approach on north side of Pringle Creek 100,000
Commercial Street under-crossing 800,000
Creek bank restoration, east side of Commercial 100,000
Creek bank restoration and pedestrian path on west side of Commercial 300,000
Pedestrian crossing of Railroad 00,000
2.  Street connection to Boise at Bellevue, signalization 0,000*
3.  State Street extension 00,000*
.  Widen Front Street approach at Commercial to 2 through lanes  and 2 right turn only lanes 1, 200,000**
. General Transit Improvements:  Transit Center 20,000
6. Environmental Remediation Matching Funds 1,000,000
7. LEED Certification Funds 00,000
Sub total Primary Area 6,00,000
Secondary Study Area:
1.  Right turn lane from WB Mission to NB Liberty 800,000
2.  Right turn lane from NB Liberty to EB Mission 300,000
3.  Right turn lane from EB Owens to SB Commercial, add WB
Left turn pocket from Owens to SB Commercial 00,000
4.  Extend bike lanes Commercial SE through Owens or Miller 800,000
. Housing Rehabilitation Assistance 00,000
6. South River Road/Owens Traffic Circulation Study 0,000
Sub total Secondary Study Area 3,10,000
Projects total estimate:  9,60,000
* These estimates do not include land. 
** costs go to 1,200,000 with R/W  
Table 16. Urban Renewal Projects and Programs
FEASIBILITY STUDY
33
FEASIBILITY STUDY
^
^
^
W
illa
m
et
te
Ri
ve
r S
lou
gh
BUSH
PASTURE
PARK
CIVIC
CENTER
RIVERFRONT
PARK
L
IB
E
R
T
Y
H
IG
H
BUSH
C
O
M
M
E
R
C
IA
L
F
I
R
LESLI
E
OWENS
M ISSI
ON
KEARNEY
S
A
G
I
N
A
W
FERRY
F
R
O
N
T
OAK
TRAD
E
RI
VE
R
M ILL
U
N
N
A
M
E
D
F
A
I
R
M
O
U
N
T
BELLE
VUE
BUSH BARN ENTR
ANCE
FRO
NT
OAK
PRINGLE CREEK
RIVERFRONT DOWNTOWN
SALEM CIVIC CENTER
SALEM PUBLIC LIBRARY
SALEM CONFERENCE CENTER
Source: Salem GIS, 2006
Study Area 2 Boundary
Study Area 1 Boundary
^Landmarks Pringle Creek Urban Renewal Area
Riverfront Downtown Urban Renewal Area
Area 1 Taxlots
Area 2 Taxlots
parks
South Waterfront Urban Renewal Area
Feasbility Study Area 0 200 400 600
Feet
Figure 6. Potential Urban Renewal Projects
1

2
3
12
3

3 CITY OF SALEM
FEASIBILITY STUDY
the Civic Center driveway.
Pedestrian Crossing of Railroad. There will need to be a way to get pedestrians 
safely across the existing railroad tracks if pedestrian access is improved along 
Pringle Creek. At a minimum, pedestrian safety crossing treatments will be required.
State Street extension. Extension to allow transportation turnaround on park side 
of the project as proposed by the ULI report. 
Extend bike lanes on Commercial Street SE through Owens or Miller. To be 
effective, this project would need to extended south to Superior (where the existing 
bike lanes start). This project would require parking pockets to replace parking that 
would be lost by adding bike lanes.
Widen Front Street approach at Commercial Street. Front Street at Commercial 
Street to improve traffic circulation.  This intersection currently has one right-turn-
only lane, one right/through lane, and one through lane.  This project would include 
widening Front Street two through lanes and two right-turn-only lanes. The receiving 
lanes are already in place. 
Turn Lanes. Add right-turn lane from eastbound Owens to southbound Commercial 
and add westbound left-turn pocket from Owens to southbound Commercial 
to improve traffic circulation. Add right-turn lane from westbound Mission to 
northbound Liberty.  Add right-turn lane from northbound Liberty to eastbound 
Mission to improve traffic circulation.
General Transit Improvements.  Improvements Related to Future Commuter Rail 
Transit Center.
VIII. Conclusions
Based on the analysis summarized above, the study has the following conclusions.
A. Eligibility for Urban Renewal 
Primary Study Area 
If the land use objectives for the Primary Study Area are a mix of residential,  
commercial and public uses with a focus on Pringle Creek and the Willamette River, 
the existence of the Boise Cascade facilities can be considered a prime condition 
of blight in the form of underdevelopment and incompatible land use. The current 
industrial use is a much less intensive use of the property than would be mixed 
residential and commercial uses.  In addition, the truck traffic generated by the 
current use is not compatible with desired mixed uses. Even under current zoning, 
the buildings are economically obsolete because of their multi-story configuration 
and lack of direct access to I-. 
However, though the buildings are obsolete and would be difficult to upgrade for 
industrial use, the ULI Panel found that some of the buildings could be feasibly 
rehabilitated, adapted and re-used.
3
FEASIBILITY STUDY
The area suffers from an absence of linkages in all directions and especially to 
the east and west.  The placement of parts of the existing facility preclude even 
visual access to Pringle Creek.  These two factors  underdevelopment and lack 
of linkages - would make a strong case for a finding of blight.
No specific development feasibility analysis has been undertaken to determine 
the need for public investment to achieve the commercial and residential re-use 
of the Boise Cascade facilities.  It is clear that the cost of redevelopment of 
the buildings will be high, and it is likely that public investment in access and 
improvements to the Pringle Creek corridor would be necessary to make the 
redevelopment economically feasible.
Secondary Study Area
The commercial part of the Secondary Study Area is underdeveloped. The 
residential part of the area can be seen as underdeveloped in comparison to 
the density of development allowed under the multi-family zoning.  Some of the 
multi-family buildings in the area are unattractive and may contain violations 
of building codes.  The potential for the residential area to capitalize on its 
riverfront location has not been reached due to lack of visual and physical 
access to the river.  All these factors could be found to be conditions of blight1.
B. The Assessed Value and Size of the Study Area Is Within Statu-
tory Limits
Both the AV and size of the study area are well below the 1% statutory limits.  
This urban renewal area could be established and still leave capacity remaining 
for other urban renewal areas within the City.
C. Relationship of Projected Costs and Revenues
Primary Study Area
The costs of the projects and programs for the Primary Study Area as projected 
by staff total about $6. million in current dollars, not including administrative 
costs, bond issuance costs, or inflation.  Adding these costs, the total comes to 
about $8. million.  
By virtue of the value of the Meridian project and the initial redevelopment of 
the Boise Cascade site, the tax increment revenues generated under an urban 
renewal plan are substantial.  The projected borrowing capacity for the Primary 
Study Area reaches about $10 million in FY 2016.  There would be a need to 
supplement cash flow within the early years of the project, but in a relatively 
short period of time the urban renewal debt could reimburse investments from 
other funds.
1In the judgment of the consultants cer tain of the conditions of blight as defined in ORS 457.010(1) do not apply to either Study Area because the 
conditions cited do not exist.  These are:
(c) The division or subdivision and sale of proper ty or lots of irregular form and shape and inadequate size or dimensions for proper ty usefulness and 
development;
(d) The laying out of proper ty or lots in disregard of contours, drainage and other physical characteristics of the terrain and surrounding conditions;
(f) The existence of proper ty or lots or other areas that are subject to inundation by water;
36 CITY OF SALEM
Secondary Study Area 
The projects and programs shown for the Secondary Study Area total about 
$3.1 million in current dollars and $4.6 million with inflation, administrative 
costs, and bond issuance costs.  The total debt capacity of the Secondary 
Study area through FY 2027 is about $5.6 million in year of receipt dollars 
taking into account inflation. Though there would likely be a need to 
supplement cash flow at the start of an urban renewal program, the overall 
projected revenues exceed the projected cost.
D.  Revenues Foregone to Overlapping Taxing Districts
Regarding the Primary Study Area, the property tax revenues foregone by the 
overlapping taxing districts are relatively high.  This is due almost entirely to 
the property tax revenues generated by the Meridian project.  This project 
is underway and without tax increment financing, the property tax revenues 
would flow to the overlapping districts.  The benefit of including the Meridian 
property, however, is that the improvements necessary to the Boise property 
can be financed in a relatively short period of time.
IX. Recommendations
Based on the analysis summarized in this Feasibility Report, the consultants 
recommend that the Council, if it wishes to continue with the implementation 
of the ULI Panel Report, direct staff to prepare an urban renewal plan and 
report for the Primary Study Area.  The projected revenues appear to be ample 
in relationship to the project and program needs while the public investment is 
clearly necessary to achieve the mixed use development objectives.
The consultants do not recommend proceeding with an urban renewal plan 
and report for the Secondary Study Area.  The commercial part of this area 
appears to be redeveloping without special public investments, while the 
residential part of this area is stable.
FEASIBILITY STUDY
3
APPENDIX
APPENDIX
1. Phasing
38 CITY OF SALEM
New 
Development Years in which New Development/Absorption Occurs
Size/Units 1 to  6 to 10 11 to 1 16 to 20 Total
Primary Study Area
Civic Center W 
(new)
Valuation ($) 
per Unit or SF
Total Real 
Market Value
       Office 0,000 0 0 20,000 20,000 0000 18 ,3,286
       Hotel 10 0 0 10 0 10 ,000 11,20,000
       Housing 20 0 20 0 0 20 30,000 ,000,000
       Parking 300 0 2 21 60 300 3,16 92,91
Bellevue 
Townhomes (new) 1 1 0 0 0 1 30,000 ,20,000
  South Warehouse
       Retail 0,000 0,000 0 0 0 0,000 216 8,60,000
       Housing 60 60 0 0 0 60 30,000 21,000,000
       Parking  62 62 0 0 0 62 3,16 1,98,29
  Paper Factory
       Retail 1,000 000 ,000 0 0 1,000 216 3,02,000
       Restaurants 2,000 2000 0 0 2,000 216 32,000
       Office (redevt) 16,000 8000 8,000 0 0 16,000 10 2,26,00
       Health Club 16,000 16000 0 0 16,000 216 3,6,000
   Old Mill Bldg
       Retail 18,000 0 18,000 0 0 18,000 216 3,888,000
       Restaurants 2,800 0 2,800 0 0 2,800 216 60,800
       Daycare 3,000 0 3,000 0 0 3,000 216 68,000
       Office (redevt) 23,800 0 0 23,800 0 23,800 10 3,31,20
  South State Street
       Retail 1,000 0 0 1,000 0 1,000 216 3,02,000
       Restaurants ,000 0 0 ,000 0 ,000 216 86,000
       Housing 100 0 0 100 0 100 30,000 3,000,000
Meridian
      Housing 89 89 89 8,00 3,38,00
      Office 30,000 30000 30,000 18 ,1,1
Secondary Study 
Area 119,961,21
Parcel A: Mixed 
Retail/Office 3,000 0 3,000 0 0 3,000 1
Parcel B: Mixed 
Retail/Office ,00 0 ,00 0 0 ,00 1
Parcel C: Mixed 
Retail/Office 20,000 0 0 20,000 0 20,000 1
APPENDIX 1
Phasing