11/08/1989 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. e Councilor Bascom recessed the meeting of the Eugene City Council and convened the meeting of the Eugene Renewal Agency. III. RESOLUTION CONCERNING URBAN RENEWAL PLAN Bob Hibschman, City staff, briefly reported on Resolution 940 amending the Urban Renewal Plan for the Central Eugene Project. Responding to a question from Ms. Schue, Mr. Sercombe said that by passing Resolution 940, the council, as an Urban Renewal Agency, is legally required to adopt the Urban Renewal Plan but only required to accept the accompanying report. Mr. Sercombe noted that the report would not be subject to the same sort of amendment process as the plan. He added that the report is used as background information for the plan and can offer clarification for ambiguities in the plan. Referring to Section 1 of Resolution 940, Mr. Holmer said that State law requires the Urban Renewal Plan to be accompanied by a report, and that report adoption must be concurrent with plan adoption. In his interpretation, this means that the report is subject to the same legal process as the plan. Referring to Page 1 of the Ordinance, Mr. Holmer said that State law required the Urban Renewal Plan to be submitted to the Planning Commission before its adoption by the council. He noted that insufficient evidence has been shown e which demonstrates that this plan has been under Planning Commission review. Mr. Sercombe responded that this plan was reviewed by the Planning Commission in 1986. In his opinion, this is adequate to meet the legal requirements. He added that the council is not required to consider the exact plan to which the Planning Commission made its recommendations. Mr. Boles inquired about the degree of plan change that would be necessary to require further Planning Commission review. Mr. Sercombe said that if the plan deals with the same general subject area, it would not need further review. Mr. Holmer noted that changes in the Urban Renewal boundary have been made since the first commission review, and asked if this did not signify sufficient change. Mr. Sercombe said these boundary changes are not significant enough to necessitate further commission review. Mr. Holmer moved that the plan be returned to the Urban Renewal Agency with the request that the updated plan be referred to the Planning Commission for its recommendations. The motion died for lack of a second. Referring to Appendix G of the Urban Renewal Plan Report, Mr. Holmer expressed concern about the ultimate fiscal feasibility of the program. He felt that assumptions for the tax collection rate, which is estimated at 89 percent, should be estimated at 100 percent. Abe Farkas, Planning and Development Department Director, responded that the 89-percent figure is a reflection of actual, situational fluctuations of the tax collection rate. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 8, 1989 Page 4