09/18/1991 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e project. He explained that the interest rate for the bonds would make it impossible to complete a prqject and urged the council to not impose artifi~ cial time lines. Mr. Nicholson said that it is his belief that when the public voted on the Riverfront Research Park plan, it was their intent that the City's financial obligation would not extend 30 years beyond the termination date of the urban renewal plan. They expected that their obligation would be for 20 years of the plan. (Ms. Ehrman left at 1 p.m.) In response to a question from Mr. MacDonald, Bill Gary, City Attorney's Office, said that a future urban renewal agency could change the term of a renewal plan. If it changed the provisions of the plan, it would be required by law to notify either every registered voter, property tax payer, or every rate payer. Mr. Gleason said that the council needs to decide whether it is going to proceed with the plan or not. If it is the council's decision to complete the plan, it should not constrain its ability to do so by imposing an earlier termination date making it very difficult, if not impossible, to complete the plan. Responding to a question from Mr. MacDonald, Mr. Gary clarified that tax increment financing would be an option after 2005 as a means of paying off e the debt of this plan. State statutes would prohibit the agency from trying to discontinue tax increment financing until that debt is paid off. Mr. Rutan said that this matter should be the decision of a future council. Responding to a question from Mr. Boles, Mr. Gary said that the Downtown Urban Renewal Plan stipulates that termination of the plan will be considered after 10 and 15 years with a public hearing and a full analysis. Mr. Nicholson moved that the motion be amended to include the condition that no bonded indebtedness shall extend beyond October 11, 2010. The motion died for lack of a second. The main motion carried 6:1; with Councilor Nicholson dissent- ing. Mr. Nicholson said that the terms of Resolution 955 were not fully clear to him when he voted on the first resolution and asked that the council recon- sider the motion to allow him to change his vote. Mr. Nicholson moved, seconded by Mr. Boles, to reconsider Resolution 955. The motion to reconsider carried unanimously, 7:0. - e MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 18, 1991 .Page 8 -->