Laserfiche WebLink
Councilor Bettman asserted that the council would then approve the plan amendments based on the <br />information though the information was “incorrect.” She asked for an errata report. Ms. Cutsogeorge said <br />she would provide one. <br /> <br />Councilor Bettman wished to point out to her colleagues that there was a zero under the total estimated cost <br />for pedestrian, bike, and transit improvements and for public parks, public plazas, rest rooms, and open <br />spaces “just in case [they] had not noticed that.” <br /> <br />Councilor Bettman asked what the West Broadway Development project was that was referenced in the <br />report. Mr. Weinman replied that it was the same concept shaped in the discussion begun in the spring. He <br />stressed that it was not fully defined at this point, but staff and the citizens on the committee were trying to <br />proceed with improving the downtown per council direction. <br /> <br />Councilor Bettman felt having a public hearing and endorsing a concept was confusing. Mr. Weinman <br />explained that the ordinance was an amendment to the plan and the council would have to further approve <br />expenditure of any significant funding before it could be spent. Councilor Bettman asked if that had to <br />occur before the adoption of the ordinance that was subject to the hearing. Mr. Weinman reiterated that the <br />council would not approve money until after the ordinance was adopted. <br /> <br />Councilor Bettman asked if the ordinance could be more accurately titled the “West Broadway Redevelop- <br />ment Concept.” Mr. Weinman said language for such an amendment could be substituted. <br /> <br />Councilor Bettman acknowledged the letter from Lane County and asked if there was any response from the <br />other taxing districts that had been contacted. Mr. Weinman replied that the only other one that responded <br />verbally was School District 4J. In response to a follow-up question from Councilor Bettman, Mr. <br />Weinman reiterated that all of the other taxing districts had been contacted. <br /> <br />In response to a question from Councilor Bettman, Mr. Klein affirmed that the public had 90 days to <br />challenge the ordinance according to Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS). In response to a follow-up question, <br />Mr. Klein explained that challenge in this case referred to a lawsuit and not a referendum. <br /> <br />Councilor Taylor averred that if the ordinance was adopted and the expiration was set for 2030, the City of <br />Eugene would have urban renewal districts in effect for 62 years. She said one of the arguments for urban <br />renewal was that after the districts expired, other taxing agencies would benefit from them. She wondered if <br />any other taxing agencies had benefited from urban renewal. Mr. Weinman replied that there had not been a <br />specific analysis conducted on that issue. He said one could argue in terms of urban renewal districts’ <br />benefits to their immediate environs. <br /> <br />Councilor Taylor asked if urban renewal districts ever ended. Mr. Weinman responded that Eugene had a <br />district that ended in the 1970s. <br /> <br />Councilor Bettman asked what the timeframe would be if the ordinance was challenged. Mr. Klein believed <br />a referral period was 30 days and that a judicial challenge could be made within 90 days. <br /> <br />Mayor Piercy opened the public hearing. She reviewed the rules of the hearing. <br /> <br />th <br />Stanley Pewder <br />, 677 West 12 Avenue, related that in his 20s he had gone to a party in New York City <br />that was held in a complex of subsidized apartments for performing artists. He said artists need cheap <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 16, 2007 Page 7 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />