09/30/1987 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Gleason said an additional point should also be considered by the council. A basic reason behind forming the Urban Renewal District was that the area was e blighted and that values were declining; if this was correct, then a real cost would have been imposed on property taxpayers if the commun ity had done nothing to counteract the blighted conditions (total assessed values would have decreased and the tax rate would have increased). D. Future Development Projects Mr. Holmer asked whether staff knew of a specific project in the Urban Renewal District that is ready to be funded. Mr. Gleason said staff knows of three; he said he would discuss these in further detail during an executive session. Mr. Holmer asked whether the necessary funding could be provided under the existing Urban Renewal Plan. Mr. Gleason said it could. He said the value of the new projects plus the existing value of the district should be sufficient to carry the new projects; however, the new projects would not occur at all without the existence of urban renewal. He added that expansion of the district would not be required for these projects to occur. Mr. Holmer asked whether any amendments to the current plan are absolutely needed. Mr. Farkas said the absolutely necessary amendments are simply "housekeeping" changes. Mayor Obie said that if the City uses surface lots in public ownership and strutured parking to leverage a development, the Downtown Commission and City Council will have to withstand the political pressure of businesses that do not want to lose immediately available surface lots. Ms. Ehrman said that if new development occurred on one of the surface lots, the lost parking would e have to be replaced elsewhere. E. Use of Tax Increment Funds for Business Loans Mr. Holmer expressed concern about one of the uses of tax increment funds-- namely, providing loans to private businesses. He said these legal issues should be investigated. He suggested that he and Mr. Bennett work with staff and the legal counsel to phrase the correct questions for the legal investigation to pursue. City Attorney Tim Sercombe said the City Attorney's Office has done considerable research on tax increment financing and delivered three or four major opinions on the subject in the last year. He said that for not very much cost, his office was prepared to provide its legal opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Holmer. City Attorney Kay James added that the office has done enough research on the matter to know the the answer is not completely clear. She said there is no definitive court case or Attorney General's opinion on the issue. Ms. Wooten said she was not sure she wanted Mr. Holmer and Mr. Bennett to be involved in the process of delivering a legal opinion. Mr. Holmer said members of the council should be involved, not to deliver the opinion, but to ensure that the questions of the legal investigation are phrased correctly. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 30, 1987 Page 8