A History of Urban Renewal in Wilsonville Part 1

By the late 1980s, the nation had weathered the worst recession since the Great Depression, and Wilsonville, Oregon, was in the midst of a population boom (Cour, 1988).

Wilsonville’s proximity to I-5 and I-205 made it a desirable location for industrial and commercial developers. In the 1970s, Wilsonville attracted Tektronix, Payless Drug Stores Northwest, Coca Cola Bottling Co., Smith’s Home Furnishings, and G.I. Joe’s. Construction of Mentor Graphics’ vast campus was underway in 1990, with the potential to employ 3,200 people (Brinkley, July 19, 1990).

Wilsonville began the 1980s declaring itself “Open For Business” as a strategy in line with the governor’s recovery plan to buffer the economic impact of the recession (Neiworth, 1982). By the end of the decade, the arrival of people and businesses to Wilsonville strained the city’s infrastructure. The city’s planning department struggled to keep up with projects needing review, and the rapid business and residential growth put pressure on the water supply, wastewater treatment, and roads (Brinkley, July 19, 1990).  In 1989, in order to improve the overburdened infrastructure, Wilsonville’s local government considered tax increment financing, also called urban renewal (“Consultant to discuss,” 1989).

A Blighted City and the Urban Renewal Plan

On June 5th, 1990, Wilsonville Mayor John Ludlow signed Ordinance No. 369, declaring blight in Wilsonville. The existence of blight justified the city creating an urban renewal agency and the use of tax increment financing to pay for specified improvement projects. Working with an Oregon design firm, the city identified seven areas of blight (“Ordinance No. 369,” 1990):

1. Water supply and delivery system deficiencies: Wilsonville held water rights to the Willamette River but had not accessed this as a source for clean water. The cost to treat water and transport it to all parts of the city, including Charbonneau, was considerable. The city water supply relied on a series of public wells, and some residents relied on private wells. At the time, the last authorized well was being drilled, and no additional city well permits were to be granted by the state. The water supply was inadequate to meet the demand and anticipated growth of the city. Additionally, the fluctuating water pressure made for difficult and costly fire sprinkling systems which impacted property owners’ fire insurance.

2. Wastewater treatment facility deficiencies: The waste water treatment plant experienced issues related to capacity and odor. The noxious odors from the plant was a noticeable problem for the public. More concerning was the overload conditions contributing to potential violations of the city’s discharge permit for material released into the Willamette River.

3. Sanitary Sewer Collection System: The sewer collection and transmission system experienced overload conditions. Some subdivisions within Wilsonville had no access to the public sewer system and relied on septic tanks with drain fields.

4. Storm drainage system: A lack of adequate storm drainage resulted in areas of the city inundated with water.

5. Open space: The city lacked organized and developed park and recreation space. As the city’s population grew, as did this need for open space for residents to enjoy.

6. Streets and roads: Several locations around Wilsonville had deficiencies in traffic-carrying capabilities, including the majority of arterial class streets. Needed improvements included upgrades to the freeway interchange at Wilsonville road as well an interchange at Boeckman Road to accommodate industrial and local traffic. A critical deficiency in the residential areas of Day Dream Ranch and Day Dream Estates was the one substandard street for the 130 homes. 

7. High Voltage Electrical Transmission: The electrical lines that criss-crossed the city created visual blight as well as impacted the efficiency of the land use in the vicinity (“Ordinance No. 369,” 1990).

Opposition Grows and a Petition Circulates

Urban renewal opponents expressed concern that this financing tool would limit tax revenue to the local school district at a time when it desperately needed funding to meet the expanding student population. Wilsonville Mayor Ludlow pushed back against the skepticism, writing, “I believe that much of the incorrect information circulating through Wilsonville and West Linn is due to the lack of understanding of the benefits of urban renewal, both to our city’s residents and to the West Linn School District patrons.” With this favorable impression of urban renewal, Mayor Ludlow sought the school district’s endorsement for Wilsonville’s urban renewal plan (Brinkley, June 21, 1990). West Linn Superintendent Dealous Cox declined to endorse the plan and instead recommended reducing the number of projects in the proposed plan and to put urban renewal before a vote of the people. West Linn school board member Walter Van Eck and his wife, Friedgard, were among the residents to circulate a petition, as Superintendent Cox had suggested, to put the urban renewal plans to a binding vote of the people. The petitioners gathered more than enough signatures to qualify for the ballot (Brinkley, July 10, 1990).

The Advisory Vote

Urban renewal opponents wanted a binding vote for use of urban renewal, but Wilsonville’s city attorney, Michael Kohlhoff, issued a legal opinion that urban renewal was an administrative act and did not qualify as a referendum issue. Instead of a binding vote, Kohlhoff proposed an advisory vote, which would allow the public to weigh in, but the final decision would rest with the city council. The council unanimously agreed to this. Friedgard Van Eck, one of the lead signature gatherers, was not happy that the petition wasn’t fully honored and suggested that motives for some council members were in question given that the mayor was a real estate broker and other council members were developers. To this, Mayor Ludlow was quoted saying “I burn at the allegation that I or the staff directed the city attorney to kill this thing…This job is for free and frankly you can have it…I don’t anticipate that I will be around more than one term” (Brinkley, July 18, 1990).

The Urban Renewal Plan is Presented

In late July 1990, a design consultant presented the urban renewal plan to the city council (“Wilsonville future linked,”1990). The plan called for an urban renewal district spanning almost 857 acres, which was approximately 20% of the city. The project would last no more than 13 years and would finance the improvements for water, sewer, street, drainage, and park systems in Wilsonville. According to city manager Pete Wall, the use of urban renewal was also critical to the continuation of projects such as Phase 2 of the construction of Mentor Graphics, which was within the proposed urban renewal district.

West Linn school officials maintained concern that the financing for the $44 million urban renewal plan would take at least $18 million dollars from the school district. Wilsonville city officials countered that without urban renewal and tax increment financing, development that would bring in increased tax revenue from assessments simply wouldn’t occur. According to the city spokeswoman Ellen Kyle, “They’re talking about future development that’s not going to happen unless there’s urban renewal” (Brinkley, July 26, 1990). When asked by resident Greg Carter whether the plan would take money from the school district, Ludlow responded that the schools would benefit from the development brought about through urban renewal. “So if you’re thinking that we’re stealing from the school district…we’re not,” Ludlow said (“Wilsonville future linked,” 1990).

The Urban Renewal Ordinance

With the urban renewal advisory vote slated for November 1990, Wilsonville’s city council continued work on the urban renewal plan. At the first reading of Ordinance 373, which included adoption of the Year 2000 urban renewal plan (“Ordinance No. 373,” 1990), a handful of citizens spoke in favor of the proposed plan.

Some residents spoke more critically of the plan. Petitioner and urban renewal opponent Walter Van Eck suggested that the city council should wait until after the results of the advisory vote to vote on the urban renewal plan. City Manager Pete Wall clarified that approving the ordinance was necessary to implement urban renewal in the 1991-1992 fiscal year, and the city council could choose to rescind the ordinance following the Nov. 6 advisory vote (“City OKs first part,” 1990).

The Election Nears

The stakes for the urban renewal advisory vote came into focus as election day approached. City officials argued that Wilsonville’s infrastructure was inadequate given the recent growth, and future development would be stalled if critical infrastructure wasn’t updated. According to Mayor Ludlow, “Other than the exits off Interstate 5, we have only one traffic light in Wilsonville. For a city our size and the growth we’ve been having, that doesn’t allow for enough traffic mobility and pedestrian safety.” Further, Mayor Ludlow dismissed urban renewal critics who suggested that improvements could be paid for by individual developers. Urban Renewal opponent Walter Van Eck expressed concern with taking on a large project in the face of a possible recession, “Last time we went into a recession, construction in Wilsonville stopped. Do we have enough economic prosperity to make this kind of investment?” Mayor Ludlow proposed that the outcome of the advisory vote would possibly be binding, suggesting that if it was voted down then the council would likely cancel the urban renewal program (Wuorio, October 25, 1990)

The Phone-In Event

A few days before the November election and urban renewal advisory vote, Mayor John Ludlow and City Manager Pete Wall hosted a phone-in opportunity for constituents to ask questions about urban renewal. In the span of two hours, the phone rang twice, and only one person asked about urban renewal. The caller, who affected an accent to hide his identity, wanted to know all that there was to know about urban renewal.  Mayor Ludlow spoke for several minutes on the topic before the caller laughed into the phone line and revealed himself to be Councilor Dick Clarke. According to Clarke, “I didn’t want them to feel lonely” (Patterson, 1990). The citywide interest in urban renewal was apparently lacking, and this didn’t bode well for the advisory vote days later.

Oregon’s General Election November 1990

Wilsonville’s urban renewal advisory vote wasn’t the only issue on the ballot. On November 6, 1990, Oregonians cast their votes on a number of elected positions and measures; the results of which would impact Oregon’s trajectory for decades. Barbara Roberts, a former secretary of state and former state representative, was elected as Oregon’s governor (Ulrich & Church, 1994). U.S. Senator Mark Hatfield, having never lost an election in his 40 year political history, was re-elected to a 5th term (Baum, 1990). The election resulted in the successful passage of Measure 5, a petition initiative led by anti-tax activists Don McIntire, Tom Dennehy, and Frank Eisenzimmer. This measure changed Oregon’s constitution and limited property tax revenue for schools in Oregon, pushing the bill for local school operations onto the state to fund. Citizen activist Don McIntire was no stranger to leading petitions. He unsuccessfully led the petition to do away with the Metropolitan Service District, a regional entity created by the legislature to handle issues related to garbage and urban growth boundaries. His later successful petition initiatives include passing Gresham measures in 1986 that forced urban renewal to a vote and also repealed city council districts (Ellis, 1990).

Wilsonville’s Local Election

In Wilsonville, the eight candidates vying for three open city council seats had varying views on urban renewal. Candidate George Honnell, a retired financial planner and former Gresham City Councilor stated, “I’m for urban renewal because the city needs to improve its water, streets, and wastewater treatment plant. This is about the only way that the infrastructure will get repaired.” Also running for City Councilor was Freidgard Van Eck, a homemaker and petitioner for the urban renewal vote, who expressed concern about the use of urban renewal in Wilsonville. “A lot of people are single-family homeowners, and any kind of additional taxes would be very burdensome to them.” Gerald Krummel, an athletic trainer and member of the City Budget Committee, supported the urban renewal plan in his candidacy. “I think it’s the best available alternative…I hope that the citizens will decide this is a good thing for Wilsonville.” Gregory Carter, an industrial sales representative running for city council, had mixed views on urban renewal. He noted Wilsonville’s need to improve water, sewer, and street services but was concerned about draining funds from other city services (Wuorio, November 1, 1990).

Once the votes were tallied, Greg Carter, Jerry Krummel, and Friedgard Van Eck came out on top to replace Eldon Edwards, Bob Dant, and Dick Clarke.

The Voters Weigh In on Urban Renewal

The outcome for Wilsonville’s urban renewal advisory vote was 1,354 in favor and 1,676 opposed. The advisory vote had failed, and the plan to improve Wilsonville’s critical infrastructure was in limbo.

In the aftermath of the advisory vote’s failure, Mayor Ludlow proposed an ordinance for the outgoing council to scrap the urban renewal plan and dismantle the program, stating “You bet. I’m going to give the people of Wilsonville exactly what they voted for” (Wuorio, November 19, 1990). In the end, the city council voted 4-1 to table the ordinance to repeal the urban renewal plan. Mayor Ludlow cast the lone dissenting vote. City Manager Pete Wall had urged the city council to table the ordinance, stating that urban renewal opponents and supporters “all agree (Wilsonville) has infrastructure problems…by repealing urban renewal, you are removing from the new council the opportunity to use it in any form.” Outgoing council president Eldon Edwards suggested that the new council should be given a chance to use some form of urban renewal, “I feel that the new council is going to have to live with these problems…They’ll have the opportunity to reject or modify urban renewal as they see fit.” Some residents took issue with the city council’s vote to table the ordinance. “We live in a democracy. You are representatives of the people of Wilsonville. This isn’t a democracy when you do it this way, “ said resident Jim Farrell. (Wuorio, November 21, 1990).  Although the outgoing council voted to leave more definitive plans to the new council, for some, the failed advisory vote meant urban renewal was off the table for financing the needed improvements.

Per outgoing councilor Dick Clarke,

“I think there was a lot of misinformation put out about urban renewal. Too bad not enough people were interested enough to come to the meetings put on by John (Ludlow) and Pete Wall. We’re going to have to bond these projects now, and that’s going to cost taxpayers money. Urban renewal wouldn’t have cost taxpayers anything. Too bad people don’t have a vision of the future” (Wuorio, November 19, 1990).

In the weeks that followed, the new city council members were sworn in and tasked with taking on the issue of urban renewal in Wilsonville. Tensions within the city council would boil over resulting in the resignation of one key figure. Despite urban renewal in Wilsonville facing an uncertain future, the need to improve vital infrastructure remained.

Part 2 to follow

Brinkley, Pam. “Business magnet.” The Oregonian (Portland, Oregon), July 19, 1990, p. 1.

Brinkley, Pam. “Wilsonville council puts urban renewal on Nov. 6 ballot.” The Oregonian (Portland, Oregon), July 18, 1990, p. B2.

Brinkley, Pam. “Wilsonville council to review renewal proposal.” The Oregonian (Portland, Oregon), July 26, 1990, p. C2.

Brinkley, Pam. “Wilsonville petitions ask vote on urban renewal.” The Oregonian (Portland, Oregon), July 10, 1990, p. B2.

Brinkley, Pam. “Wilsonville seeks school district backing for renewal.” The Oregonian (Portland, Oregon), June 21, 1990, p. 9.

Baum, Bob. “Hatfield wins his fifth term.” Albany Democrat-Herald (Albany, Oregon), November 7, 1990, p. 6.

City of Wilsonville, Ore., Ordinance No. 369 CB-O-138-90 (adopted June 4, 1990).

City of Wilsonville, Ore., Ordinance No. 373 CB-O-143-90 (adopted August 29, 1990).

“City OKs first part of urban renewal plan.” The Oregonian (Portland, Oregon), August 22, 1990, p. D2.

“Consultant to discuss urban renewal district.” The Oregonian (Portland, Oregon), October 29, 1989, p. B2.

Cour, Brian. “Wilsonville: Community in midst of building explosion.” The Oregonian (Portland, Oregon), March 20, 1988, p. H1.

Ellis, Barnes. “Measure 5 triumph converts gadfly into gad-elephant.” The Oregonian (Portland, Oregon), November 8, 1990, p. C5.

Neiworth, Trish. “Wilsonville fights recession by courting new business.” The Oregonian (Portland, Oregon), May 6, 1982, p. C2.

Patterson, Rod. “Urban renewal doesn’t ring bells for Wilsonville.” The Oregonian (Portland, Oregon), November 15, 1990, p. 2.

Ulrich, R., & Church, F. “Roberts faced tenure of highs and lows.” The Oregonian (Portland, Oregon), January 29, 1994, p. A15.

“Wilsonville future linked to renewal.” The Oregonian (Portland, Oregon), July 27, 1990, p. B2.

Wuorio, Jeff. “Wilsonville retains urban renewal plan.” The Oregonian (Portland, Oregon), November 21, 1990, p. D2.

Wuorio, Jeff. “Wilsonville voters to decide merits of proposed urban renewal district.” The Oregonian (Portland, Oregon), October 25, 1990, p. 13.

Wuorio, Jeff. “8 candidates battle for 3 seats.” The Oregonian (Portland, Oregon). November 1, 1990, p. 12.