Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />3. PUBLIC HEARING: <br /> <br />An Ordinance Adopting an Amended Urban Renewal Plan for the Downtown Urban Renewal <br />District, Formerly the Central Lane Project <br /> <br />City Manager Taylor asked Urban Services Manager for the Planning and Development Department, Richie <br />Weinman, to present the proposed ordinance. <br /> <br />Mr. Weinman recalled that the council, acting as the Urban Renewal Agency board of directors, initiated a <br />process to amend the downtown Urban Renewal Plan. He said the plan amendment was critical if the City <br />was to use urban renewal funds to participate in the redevelopment of West Broadway between Willamette <br />and Charnelton streets. He explained that the plan currently allowed $33 million in maximum indebtedness <br />and it had nearly all been spent, much of it on the downtown library. He stated that maximum indebtedness <br />was defined as the spending cap during the life of the plan beginning in Fiscal Year (FY) 1999. He said as a <br />result of the council’s action and direction on May 29, 2007, the proposed plan amendments would increase <br />the maximum indebtedness by $40 million, for a total of $73 million. The other amendment to the plan <br />would change the termination date of the district from June 30, 2024, to June 30, 2030, which would <br />provide a more adequate timeframe to finance the City’s portion of the West Broadway project. He noted <br />that a more minor amendment would be to officially change the name of the district to the Downtown Urban <br />Renewal District. <br /> <br />Mr. Weinman stated that public comment had been solicited in numerous ways and listed them, as follows: <br />? <br /> A postcard was mailed to all property owners in Eugene that advertised the hearing, provided con- <br />tact information, and directed people to a special Eugene Web site; <br />? <br /> An display advertisement for the hearing had been placed in the Register-Guard; <br />? <br /> Letters soliciting comments were mailed to all of the impacted taxing districts; <br />? <br /> Staff met with the Lane County Finance Committee, which included two County Commissioners, <br />and a letter from the County was included in the council packet; <br />? <br /> Staff met with the Eugene Planning Commission to seek comments from them. <br /> <br />Councilor Bettman asked if the Planning Commission recommended approval of the plan amendments. Mr. <br />Weinman replied that the commission acknowledged receiving it. He noted that the commission did not have <br />to recommend approval. <br /> <br />Councilor Bettman asked what the funding source would have been for the parking garage that had been <br />proposed for the east end of downtown. Mr. Weinman replied that the garage would have been located in <br />the Riverfront Urban Renewal District, different from the downtown district. Sue Cutsogeorge, Financial <br />Analysis Manager for the Central Services Department, clarified that the garage would have been built using <br />a combination of urban renewal funds and some General Fund money. <br /> <br />Councilor Bettman asked how much the costs that would not be included in the maximum indebtedness <br />would amount to. Councilor Bettman referred to Table 5 on page 93 of the AIS and asked what the private <br />expenditure portion of the $160,000,000 figure listed by Projects Funded from Private Sources and Other <br />Federal, State, and Local Government Resources would amount to. Ms. Cutsogeorge replied that the table <br />represented the best guess of the overall cost and funding at this point in time. She underscored that the <br />table was not part of the plan; rather, it was a report to help evaluate the plan. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 16, 2007 Page 6 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />