07/29/1987 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Farkas referred councilors to Exhibit A (page A-I) in the draft Urban Renewal Plan for Central Eugene Project, dated June 19, 1987. Mayor Obie e asked about discussion of development plans for the block between 6th and 7th avenues and between Pearl and Oak streets. Mr. Byrne said the four blocks that formed the "government quadrangl e" were considered an objective for inclusion because the tax increment tool drove the Urban Renewal program, and while Lane County might be amenable to a proposal for land that it owned, it was not actively seeking to market the property. Mr. Byrne added that the commissions that considered the issue had viewed it as appropriate to exclude that land from the district, with the possibility of expanding the district if a proposal was made. Respondi ng to Ms. Bascom's question, he also said inclusion of the land would have put the district over the 20-percent expansion limit. Mr. Miller said he understood that the expansion was one way of generating more funds for the district. He said part of his concern about that method was that the district created a self-feeding financing mechanism. He sa i d he thought the tool was good and workable, but he favored a way of phasing out the district or diverting funds to other parts of the City with needs. He said he was not convinced that expansion made sense at the present. Mr. Gleason said the City's aim had been to close out the district after construction had been completed and debt services paid off. He said that had not occurred with most projects in the district, and the update was an attempt to redirect the retail portion into areas that still lagged behind in terms of development. He said the tool was not intended to be ongoing and se If- perpetuating, and staff recognized and attempted to avoid that potential. e Ms. Ehrman said she understood that the expansion was intended not to generate additional funds, but to relieve blighted areas. She said that after taking the tour, she had agreed that some areas qualified. She also said she did not agree that expansion of the area necessarily would generate more money. Mr. Rutan said he agreed with the concerns expressed by Mr. Miller. He suggested examining whether urban renewal had worked, and if so, how well. He said he was not yet convinced of the need for expanding the district and he thought the cost to the community should be considered. Mr. Rutan said he did not sense the intent described by Mr. Gleason, to close out the district. He said he thought the area should be developed in such a way that private development and investment would occur without any public involvement, in an economically self-sustaining geographic area. He said he favored a clearer focus and statement of objectives. Responding to Ms. Wooten's question, Mr. Rutan said he was not proposing a redevelopment plan for areas within the suggested boundary expansion and he was not certain whether a phase-out policy was needed. Ms. Wooten said she agreed with the desire for more clarity, but she did not want to thwart the expansion, which she supported. She also said the expansion was not projected to pay any money back into the fund for six years. Mr. Miller said property could be included in the district as a development tool was needed. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 29, 1987 Page 4