06/24/1987 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

--- Mr. Gleason said he was not sure how to ensure that unfair competitive advantages are not created on a microscopic level--tax increment financing e might create such advantages for individual deals or transactions. However, he said that on a macroscopic level, tax increment financing does not seem to result in unfair advantages for one area over another. He said that for both commercially and residentially developed property, the ratio of the private investments to the public investments is typically about 3:1. He said that when newer sections of a city are developed, a different financing scheme is used--primari ly the Bancroft system and a capi ta 1 improvements support, portions of which come from the development fees assessed to new development. He said that these tools are not available for redevelopment, particularly commercial redevelopment. Therefore, the tax increment system is used to bring the ratio of private to public investment closer to the typical value of 3: 1. He said tax increment is a vehicle for public reinvestment. Mr. Bennett said that in the 20 years he has been in the development business, he has never seen a development downtown that seriously impeded the ability of an existing business to do business. He said he has seen situations where a business probably would have located elsewhere in the community, but it was attracted downtown by the urban renewal tools. Were it not for these tools, a suburban location, for instance, might have been in a better competitive position. He said that how one views downtown is critical in terms of whether one thinks the urban renewal tools should be used. Referring to the County-owned parcels in the expansion area and the projected necessity for a parking garage if those properties are developed, Ms. Schue said that in other parts of the city, developers are required to provide a certain amount of parking; however, in the downtown, parking is provided by e the public sector. Mr. Gleason said that through the use of C-3 zoning and district parking, the City encourages downtown development to occur to the property lines. This is done because of the large public investment in the infrastructure, and in order to encourage intense development. He said that when development occurs to the property lines, parking needs cannot be met by surface lots. He said that if individual developers provi ded thei r own parking, economies of scale would be sacrificed and only the largest developers could afford to locate downtown. Mr. Byrne added that in terms of parking, Eugene is in somewhat of a diffi cul t mi ddl e ground. Sma 11 er downtowns can meet their parking needs with on-street, surface, and individual development parking. In very large and intense downtowns, the private sector can actually make a profit by providing parking. Mr. Byrne said that the City is trying to encourage the development of an intense downtown, but in a city the size of Eugene, the private sector cannot profitably provide the necessary parking. Ms. Ehrman asked whether, if the district is expanded, there would be any sort of priority to spend urban renewal funds in the expansion area as opposed to spending these funds in the original district. Mr. Byrne said there is no such priority. He said staff has projected the need for infrastructure improvements, but has not tried to be too specifi c about when such improvements might occur. He said that for the most part, such improvements should be made in support of private investments. He added that the agency owns no property in the expansion area, and that staff does not recommend that e MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 24, 1987 Page 8