09/30/1987 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

in a declining state; buildings are demolished and some property ;s taken out of pri vate ownershi p, both of whi ch tend to depress assessed values; e furthermore, urban renewal deals with a fixed area, whereas other taxing districts can expand through annexation. Mr. Byrne referred the council to a chart comparing the growth in assessed value of property within four taxing districts (Lane County, 4J, Eugene, and the Urban Renewal District). From the first year of the Urban Renewal Plan (1968) through 1973, the increase in total assessed value for the four taxing districts was as follows: 50 percent for Lane County, 52 percent for 4J, 43 percent for Eugene, and 1 percent for the Urban Renewal District. Mr. Byrne said a small increase in assessed value is typical of the initial years of renewal districts. He said that in year 7 of the plan (1974) new buildings were constructed, property began moving back into private ownership, and assessed values began to increase downtown. From 1974 through 1986, the increase in assessed value for the four taxi ng districts was as follows (using 1974 as the base year): 157 percent for Lane County, 190 percent for 4J, 213 percent for Eugene, and 172 percent for the Urban Renewal District. Mr. Byrne said the assessed value of the Urban Renewal District was $46 million in year 1 of the plan (1968) , $51 million in year 7 (1974), and $138 million in year 19 (1986). In response to a question, Mr. Byrne said these figures (for all four districts) included the value of the Hult and Conference Center, even though this property is nontaxable. He said that not to include this would undervalue what the community has invested in the downtown. Mr. Byrne added that 1974 to 1981 was a period of extremely rapid residential expansion; this growth increased the assessed values of the other three districts but did not increase the assessed value of the downtown. Ms. Schue questioned the methodology of including the Hult and Conference Center values in the comparison while not including the values of other public e investments in the four taxing districts. Mayor Obie said the data on assessed values are very unreliable. Mr. Gleason agreed, but said this is the best data available; furthermore, values are assessed for every lot, so when the individual numbers are added, the individual assessment errors cancel each other to some degree. Mr. Bryne referred to a graph that illustrated the assessed value of the Urban Renewal District as a portion of the assessed value of Lane County over the life of the Urban Renewal Plan. In 1968, this ratio was decreasing fairly rapidly at a rate of about 6 percent. Beginning in 1973-74, this trend began to change; since then, the assessed value of downtown has been increasing as rapidly as (even somewhat more rapidly than) the assessed value of the county. Mr. Bryne said staff believes that had urban renewal not been used, the declining trend would not have been changed. Mr. Gleason said the past years of urban renewa 1 have been spent demolishing buildings in poor condition, buying and assembling properties for deve 1 opment, returning some of the property to private ownership, and building an infrastructure; all of this has poised downtown for future growth, but the job of urban renewal is only partially completed. Mr. Holmer said the Urban Renewal District worked well for the City; this, however, is not the primary issue. He said the question is whether the district should be expanded and whether urban renewal should be used for e MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 30, 1987 Page 6