Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

Councilor Bettman felt having a public hearing and endorsing a concept was confusing. Mr. Weinman explained that the ordinance was an amendment to the plan and the council would have to further approve expenditure of any significant funding before it could be spent. Councilor Bettman asked if that had to occur before the adoption of the ordinance that was subject to the hearing. Mr. Weinman reiterated that the council would not approve money until after the ordinance was adopted. Councilor Bettman asked if the ordinance could be more accurately titled the “West Broadway Redevelop- ment Concept.” Mr. Weinman said language for such an amendment could be substituted. Councilor Bettman acknowledged the letter from Lane County and asked if there was any response from the other taxing districts that had been contacted. Mr. Weinman replied that the only other one that responded verbally was School District 4J. In response to a follow-up question from Councilor Bettman, Mr. Weinman reiterated that all of the other taxing districts had been contacted. In response to a question from Councilor Bettman, Mr. Klein affirmed that the public had 90 days to challenge the ordinance according to Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS). In response to a follow-up question, Mr. Klein explained that challenge in this case referred to a lawsuit and not a referendum. Councilor Taylor averred that if the ordinance was adopted and the expiration was set for 2030, the City of Eugene would have urban renewal districts in effect for 62 years. She said one of the arguments for urban renewal was that after the districts expired, other taxing agencies would benefit from them. She wondered if any other taxing agencies had benefited from urban renewal. Mr. Weinman replied that there had not been a specific analysis conducted on that issue. He said one could argue in terms of urban renewal districts’ benefits to their immediate environs. Councilor Taylor asked if urban renewal districts ever ended. Mr. Weinman responded that Eugene had a district that ended in the 1970s. Councilor Bettman asked what the timeframe would be if the ordinance was challenged. Mr. Klein believed a referral period was 30 days and that a judicial challenge could be made within 90 days. Mayor Piercy opened the public hearing. She reviewed the rules of the hearing. th Stanley Pewder , 677 West 12 Avenue, related that in his 20s he had gone to a party in New York City that was held in a complex of subsidized apartments for performing artists. He said artists need cheap housing. He calculated that the City could provide $200 per month vouchers to 1,000 people for 10 years with $24 million to lower the cost of apartments downtown. He noted that one of the big issues was that more people were needed downtown. He believed that if the housing was built the number of people in the downtown area would increase. th Drix , 307½ 14 Avenue, said he was proud to be present for the hearing. He believed that Eugene was a connected town. He likened the development project to kids needing to clean up their rooms. He averred that the project created a beautiful opportunity. He specifically thought the “two holes” presented an opportunity to build something better. He thought the City should tap into the many people of Eugene because they were a real creative resource. He volunteered to help clean up the holes. rd Laura Byxbe , 677 West 23 Avenue, believed the City was about to commit a lot of public money that would be borrowed. She acknowledged that the City was expecting future revenues to pay the debt. She believed the project could be done for less. She suggested that local architects be invited to submit proposals for smaller pieces of the project. She felt local businesses could relocate from existing locations MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 16, 2007 Page 7 Work Session