Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br /> <br /> Eugene City Council <br /> Work Session <br /> McNutt Room--City Hall <br /> <br /> March 10, 2004 <br /> Noon <br /> <br />COUNCILORS PRESENT: Bonny Bettman, George Poling, Nancy Nathanson, Scott Meisner, David <br /> Kelly, Betty Taylor, Gary Papd, Jennifer Solomon. <br /> <br />His Honor Mayor James D. Torrey called the meeting to order. <br /> <br />A. ACTION: An Ordinance Adopting Amended Riverfront Urban Renewal District Plan Adopted <br /> by Ordinance No. 19352 on September 11, 1985 <br /> <br />Richie Weinman of the Planning and Development Department recalled that on February 25, 2004, the <br />council reviewed amendments to the Riverfront Urban Renewal District, and the motion on the table was in <br />relationship to the added parcels. Four scenarios were provided in the packet. The motion on the table <br />reflected the staff recommendation. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor indicated she would vote against the motion because the infrastructure that existed at the <br />riverfront research district did not serve anyone. She called the proposal a tax diversion plan. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman said she would also oppose the motion. She said the plan was not written in a way that <br />allowed the council to dedicate the revenue to projects of a high priority to the community. She feared that <br />the result would be that the council would continue to fund such projects that have other sources of funding, <br />such as the courthouse-related transportation projects, and divert needed tax revenues from the State and <br />school districts. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly said he shared many of Ms. Bettman's concerns about the plan and how the revenues would be <br />used. However, he believed urban renewal in the area could be a positive tool for central city revitalization <br />and redevelopment. He wanted to have the tool available to the council. He pointed to the added policy that <br />every project over $250,000 other than a loan would be reviewed and approved by the council, and at that <br />time he could evaluate each project on its merits. He said the council needed to be vigilant about such <br />projects. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson said she had wanted to ensure the council's decision was made on the best information and <br />was pleased with the additional staff work that had been done since February 25. She supported the motion. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner indicated his concurrence with Mr. Kelly. He acknowledged Ms. Bettman's concerns. <br />However, he was interested in connecting the two parts of downtown, and thought the proposal accom- <br />plished that. He asked staff to identify what was before the council at this point. Mr. Weinman said the <br />EWEB property was added and the area containing Good Times was removed, as reflected on Map A-1. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 10, 2004 Page 1 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />