My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
10/25/1989 Meeting
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Council Minutes
>
Historic Minutes
>
1989
>
10/25/1989 Meeting
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2007 10:43:08 PM
Creation date
11/2/2006 4:34:53 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Minutes
Meeting_Type
Meeting
CMO_Meeting_Date
10/25/1989
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
7
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br /> e the council would be willing to accept the wording changes COFACT requested <br /> and place this on the next ballot. <br /> Referring to the wording changes in Section 1 of the redrafted measure, Mr. <br /> Sercombe indicated that the language is technically not accurate. The <br /> redrafted measure calls for the addition of the words "or any implementing <br /> State statue", and Mr. Sercombe suggested the wording should read "and any <br /> implementing State statute." <br /> Mr. Holmer said that he felt COFACT would most likely to be willing to accept <br /> the replacement of the word "or" with the word "and". <br /> Responding to a question from Ms. Bascom, Mr. Sercombe said that by adding <br /> this wording, COFACT intends to require any new plan or substantially changed <br /> existing plan that uses tax increment financing to be referred to the voters <br /> for approval after its adoption by the council. <br /> Ms. Ehrman noted that in meeting with COFACT it was never her intention to <br /> obviate the need for signatures on an initiative petition. She fully expects <br /> that the group will still have to collect the signatures. <br /> Mr. Rutan said it is his understanding that if the council does not refer <br /> this new version of the petition, COFACT will continue gathering signatures <br /> on the initial petition. Ms. Ehrman indicated that if this redrafted measure <br /> was not adopted by the council, she thinks that COFACT will generate a more <br /> restrictive petition. <br /> e Responding to a question from Mr. Bennett, Mr. Sercombe said the only <br /> interaction the council has with respect to Urban Renewal Plans is to approve <br /> an Urban Renewal Plan and to approve any substantial change to an Urban <br /> Renewal Plan. The Urban Renewal Agency has authority to make minor changes <br /> and implement the plan without council interaction. Mr. Sercombe added that <br /> the only way the city voters can interact with an Urban Renewal Plan is to <br /> require a vote on a new plan or a substantial change to an existing plan. In <br /> addition, State statute requires urban renewal plans to define in their plan <br /> what substantial change means with respect to that particular plan. For this <br /> plan, substantial change might include changes in the district boundary, <br /> changes that involve new expenditures in tax increment funds, or changes in <br /> existing land use designations. <br /> Mr. Bennett said this issue is of great concern to him because its not always <br /> possible to identify all the necessary information with regard to nature cost <br /> of the physical, social, and economic impacts for any Urban Renewal Plan that <br /> is being undertaken. <br /> Referring to Section 2 of the original measure drawn by COFACT, Ms. Schue <br /> questioned whether the voters can legally impose the requirement of a vote on <br /> the City Council. Mr. Sercombe said it would not be legal for the voters to <br /> impose this requirement on the council. <br /> Mr. Rutan said he does not support the substance of the measure in any <br /> e version, and therefore, cannot support this redrafted measure. <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 25, 1989 Page 6 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.