12/08/1986 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Gleason said process now would entail deliberations and recommendations by the Downtown Commission and the Planning Commission. He said the City Council e would hear public testimony and make a decision on the Urban Renewal Plan in April. He said he expected two or three work sessions on that before making a decision and adopting the plan in about Mayor June. He said the plan was being adopted to try to align the Downtown Plan, which was larger than the Urban Renewal boundary, with the Urban Renewal document. Mr. Hansen asked whether the expansion of the boundary should be decided now. Mr. Gleason said that was up to the council. Ms. Wooten said she did not favor a premature vote but she was interested in looking at possibilities for redevelopment in the expanded area before making a decision. Ms. Ehrman asked whether tax-increment funds could be used for an LTD station. Mr. Gleason said tax-increment money could be used, although he added that it was somewhat unusual. He said use of General Fund money for construction of transit facilities was even more unusual, and, although possible, he did not recommend it. Mr. Holmer said he favored a vote before proceeding with the Urban Renewal pattern for funding development. He said he had substantial reservations about expanding the district. He said he thought the idea of funding activity in the area at the expense of residents of the rest of the City had gone too far without a vote by the voters. Ms. Wooten said she thought the amount of tax-increment financing for the Riverfront Project was minimal and should not be used to undermi ne 1 everagi ng of funds for the expanded Urban Renewal program or the bus station, or both. Mr. Farkas said the council would have several opportunities to debate each project before adoption of the plan and bonding decisions. Mr. Hansen said government decisions differed from private e industry decisions because they dealt with the faith of the City, etc. Ms. Schue agreed that decisions were political. Mr. Gleason said the City Council acted as a development corporation, as designated by State law. Mr. Hansen said his concern was with the particular contract, not with the involvement in development activities. Mr. Miller said he thought the public plaza should be the central concept, from which the rest of the downtown design would emerge. He compared the Downtown Plan to a Jell-o with a flexible mold. Mr. Rutan said he did not want to restrict planning possibilities, but he thought a general consensus on major components should be sought. Mr. Holmer sa i d he favored a vote on whether the counci 1 approved of continuation and extension of Urban Renewal financing. He added that expenditures for additional parking structures also might come from tax- increment financing. Mr. Hansen said he thought further discussion of the boundary expansion was needed, and he requested scheduling of an additional work session. Ms. Ehrman said she thought further clarification of the policy statement concerning joint funding was needed before proceeding. She added that she was not necessarily opposed to joint funding. e MINUTES--City Council Dinner/Work Session December 8, 1986 Page 7