02/15/1989 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e provide facilities and services. To speak of the district's cost, one must consider the expense of providing these facilities through other means (for example, General Obligation bonds). The cost of providing these facilities and services through other means probably would be about five cents per $1,000 of assessed value less than the cost of providing them through the Downtown Urban Renewal District. Ms. Bascom said this was a small amount to pay in order to use the tool of urban renewal to increase economic development in the downtown area. Mr. Bennett said one also must consider the negative economic and social effects that would result if the facilities and services were not provided through urban renewal. He said it is very hard to argue that the public is paying a net cost for having the Downtown Urban Renewal District. Mr. Rutan said he would not necessarily argue with Mr. Bennett's point. He said everyone would like downtown to develop just as the rest of the community develops; however, in most cities this does not happen naturally. He said that in order to have a dense, vital urban area, a city has to provide a certain amount of assistance to its downtown. Mr. Boles said urban renewal is an important tool in realizing the City's commitment to compact urban growth. e Mr. Holmer wondered whether it would be advantageous to dissolve the current district and form a new one, thus avoiding the 20-percent expansion limitation. Mr. Hibschman said this would result in a loss of the current district's incremental value; the new district would begin with no increment. Mr. Boles raised the possibility of reducing the current district (e.g., removing all public, non-taxable land), thus increasing the amount of land that could be added during the district expansion. Mr. Farkas said this is not permissible under State law: for example, removing a block from the original district does not allow a city to expand the district by 20 percent plus a block; the total amount added to the district can be no larger than 20 percent of the original size of the district. Staff referred the council to maps of two possible expansion options. Mr. Rutan recommended that staff combine these options by including all of the properties within the options that are most likely to develop with the assistance of urban renewal, and then--in order to remain within the 20-percent limit--deleting those properties that are less likely to develop or are less likely to contribute significantly to the district. He said the entire northwest area around 6th Avenue is an economic unit that needs to be improved. He said the expansion of the district should be packaged in a way that will do the most to stimulate development of the area. The council directed staff to develop an expansion option that included all of the area shown in both options but that can be shaped to be within the 20-percent limit. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 15, 1989 Page 5