Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />reached $70 million in the early 1980s (the frozen base is $34 million). In <br />recent years, the evaluation of the district has declined somewhat. <br />Currently, the district has an incremental value of $59 million, which <br />generates $1.9 million in gross tax increment revenue. This money can be <br />used to fund projects that specifically benefit the district. The money is <br />used primarily for loans and capital projects rather than for operational <br />expenses, because urban renewal districts are designed to end at some point <br />(it would not be prudent to depend on a temporary district to pay for ongoing <br />operational expenses). Mr. Hibschman said the most significant remaining <br />objective for the Downtown Urban Renewal District is to develop the <br />agency-owned sites. <br /> <br />In response to a question, Mr. Hibschman said that no more than 15 percent of <br />a community's assessed value, and no more than 15 percent of its land area, <br />may be in urban renewal districts. Eugene's two districts (downtown and <br />riverfront) amount to only about three percent of the assessed value and two <br />percent of the land area of the community. The council asked staff to <br />provide similar information for other cities, such as Portland and Salem. <br />Mr. Farkas mentioned that Portland has many urban renewal districts, which <br />generate a total of over $40 million ;n tax increment revenue. He said that <br />relative to Portland and Salem, Eugene has taken a rather conservative <br />approach to using the benefits of urban renewal districts. <br /> <br />Mr. Rutan said the council has discussed whether downtown should have an <br />urban renewal district at all. He wondered whether consensus had been <br />reached yet on this issue. <br /> <br />Mr. Boles a~ked whether urban renewal law allows district resources to be <br />used to stimulate housing development. Staff indicated that this is <br />permissible. <br /> <br />Mr. Bennett did not think that one of the district's major investments, the <br />pedestrian mall, has stimulated economic development. Mr. Hibschman said the <br />intent of the mall certainly was to encourage development. He said it has <br />not succeeded in leveraging intense development. Mr. Farkas added that the <br />mall might have encouraged some businesses to remain downtown. He stressed <br />that a lot of private investment has occurred as a result of the Urban <br />Renewal District, although not necessarily on the mall. <br /> <br />Ms. Schue asked how the increase in the property value of the district since <br />1968 compares to the increase in the value of the entire city. Staff <br />indicated that the increase for the city as a whole has not been as dramatic. <br />Mr. Holmer said that since 1974, the assessed value of the district did not <br />increase as rapidly as the value of the rest of the city. <br /> <br />In response to a question, Mr. Hibschman said that if the district were <br />eliminated, the property tax rate would be lowered by about 62 cents per <br />$1,000 of assessed value (tax revenues for the City, the school district, and <br />so forth, would not increase). Mr. Rutan asked if it is fair to say that the <br />district costs the average taxpayer 62 cents per $1,000 of assessed value. <br />Mr. Farkas said that this 62 cents is not simply a cost; it is used to <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council <br /> <br />February 15, 1989 <br /> <br />Page 4 <br />