10/25/1989 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e In response to Mr. Miller's request for clarification about the bonding capacity of this project, Mr. Farkas said that the bonding capacity is generated from the ability of a project to capture revenue. Without the office tower, the current renewal district doesn't have the financial capabilities to float such a bond. He added that this bonding provision is site-specific. Mr. Rutan reminded the council that it is the the City's job as an urban renewal agency to promote and develop the downtown area. When considering the Pankow project, it is important to consider the role of City government as a public agency, to ensure its meeting its obligations as a public entity. Ms. Bascom noted that this particular site has been designated in the past as an underutilized site, and the Pankow project would fulfill the need for site utilization. B. Urban Renewal Plan Mr. Hibschman gave a brief update on the Urban Renewal Plan. He noted that this update is a reflection of the 1984 Downtown Plan and the Metro Area General Plan. The council is responsible for approving the Urban Renewal Plan as an amendment to the old plan and adopting the expansion area as a new part of the plan. Referring to the statutes that govern urban renewal planning, Mr. Holmer said e that an urban renewal plan should be accompanied by a report. Part of the objective of the draft is to avoid unnecessary amendments to the plan. He suggested that the council may want to consider altering the plan to deal more specifically with each project. Mr. Sercombe responded that this part of the law that governs urban renewal planning is interpreted to apply only to urban renewal plans adopted after 1979; the format of the update is consistent with the statute. Mr. Holmer indicated that he would like a second interpretation of this statute. Mr. Holmer said that the City Council is supposed to hear recommendations from the Planning Commission before acting on the recommendations of the Urban Renewal Agency. He was concerned that this part of the plan has not been before the Planning Commission. Mr. Bennett indicated that having the library as a public anchor project is encouraging. The Urban Renewal Agency should seriously consider a joint venture, offering substantial financial support to the library. Mr. Holmer said that the proposed movement of the Lane Transit District should be considered in conjunction with Urban Renewal Plan expansion. Mr. Boles encouraged the council to consider whether they want to think about adoption of urban renewal expansion and urban renewal update concurrently, or whether they want to consider these separately. Mr. Boles felt it would be wise to consider approval of the update without the expansion option. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 25, 1989 Page 4