01/11/1989 Meeting (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e Mr. Boles was hesitant to begin a project without assurance that operation and maintenance funding would be available. Mr. Bennett commented that depleting tax increment capital would suggest that this project is so important it precludes having resources available for the numerous other needs of downtown. Mr. Boles wondered if tax increment funding would be available for use at the Charnel ton site. Because a Library at the Charnel ton site would not be a mixed-use project, State and County funds would not be available, and there would be no tax increment flow from the building. After completion of the proposed project, he anticipated that between $700,000 and $1 million would remain in the tax increment fund. Mr. Holmer stated that the proposal represented an opportunity to reduce the cost of a new Library and merited approval by the City. As a councilor elected to represent the voters, he was prepared to deal with the complex issue and vote on behalf of his constituents to direct staff to proceed with a development agreement to be reviewed by the council before January 31. Mr. Holmer suggested that the operating and maintenance question would not become an issue for two or three years and by that time additional revenue from EWEB's in-lieu-of-tax payments may be sufficient to meet a large part of the increased operating costs. e Mr. Boles viewed his primary responsibility as shaping alternatives to which the public can respond. He felt it imperative to include the voters in decisions on major public projects and supported proceeding with the project contingent on voter approval of the public-private partnership. Mr. Rutan observed that the question is not whether the City can pay for, but whether it can afford, the project. He pointed out that risk is involved and he expressed concern about a single project depleting reserves, but he supported the project and recommended asking the voters for a serial levy in March. Ms. Bascom considered an improved Library an important feature in the community's self-image but felt the community was not united in support of the project. She favored proceeding with the proposal and asking the voters' opinion in March, but she was unsure whether the serial levy should be proposed at that time. Mr. Bennett reiterated his concern about depleting all the capital reserves of the Urban Renewal District for a single project and suggested seeking an alternative source of funding for the tenant improvement portion of the project. He concurred with Mr. Rutan's recommendation to refer a serial levy to the voters but thought it was the council's responsibility to make a decision about the capital construction. e Ms. Ehrman referred to the Airport project and said an election process can provide the means for the council to share its information with the public. She shared Mr. Bennett's concern with the depletion of tax increment reserves and agreed with other councilors that some type of public vote is appropriate. Ms. Ehrman pointed out that the Council Committee on Library Financing had considered a serial levy and had chosen not to rely on property MINUTES--Eugene City Council Dinner/ Work Session January 11, 1989 Page 7