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

Home Browse Search

e owners but rather on a form of taxation that would be shared by a larger population. She supported the project as an opportunity for the community to have a new Library for $4 million. Ms. Ehrman felt that some of the community opposition to the project was emotional and based on misinformation, and she said a public education effort was needed before an election. Ms. Schue considered the proposal an opportunity for revitalizing downtown and obtaining a needed Library. She suggested that the council pass a resolution to proceed with Pankow and then refer that resolution to the voters in March. Referring to the December 19 public hearing, Ms. Schue said the public had focused on the utility tax and had not provided the council with a clear indication of community opinion of the Library and the construction of the new building. She felt a serial levy might be the best source of revenue. Mayor Miller considered the mixed-use development the most economical option for obtaining a new or remodeled Library on any site. He maintained that the proposal was not the scheme of a California developer nor was an attempt being made to mislead the public. Mayor Miller summarized the council's comments as indicating majority support for proceeding with Pankow and referring that decision to the voters. Mr. Holmer favored referring only the decision to proceed to the voters in March and deferring the operating and maintenance question to a later time. While he would oppose a serial levy, he said he would not oppose referring a 4Ia tax measure to meet operating costs. Ms. Schue stressed the importance of presenting the fact that the project would add to the Library's operating budget, but she concurred with Mr. Holme~ that the operating and maintenance question could be deferred. Mr. Bennett strongly recommended that the council make a decision regarding capital construction without a referral and said the public's concern was about the amount and source of operating and maintenance funds. Ms. Bascom indicated she had reached the conclusion that the voters should be asked to approve the development and the council's capital decision, but the serial levy question should be deferred. Mr. Boles requested clarification as to what would happen if the Pankow development proceeds and the voters do not support the council's decision. He suggested that the building would provide the same amount of tax increment money regardless of the Library's inclusion, which funds could then be used for capital projects inside the Urban Renewal District, including a stand-alone Library. Mr. Farkas responded that some of that tax increment money would be committed to site improvement and parking, and an additional amount may be used for the City.s participation in the retail component of the project. e Mr. Boles supported taking both the capital and operating and maintenance questions to the voters simultaneously. In doing so, there could be four possible outcomes: project approval and serial levy disapproval, project and MINUTES--Eugene City Council Dinner/ Work Session January 11, 1989 Page 8