12/04/1991 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e Mr. Green discussed reasons for his support of the project, emphasizing that the revitalization of Highway 99 has been the subject of many land use plans. He said that timing was critical for the availability of State funding for the project. Ms. Bascom supported proceeding with the project, but felt that it should not be combined with the Whiteaker neighborhood revitalization effort. Mr. Nicholson suggested considering the feasibility of these two closely related projects outside the context of Eugene Decisions. Mr. Farkas said an urban renewal district in the Whiteaker neighborhood could be created by late summer 1992 and then tie into the Highway 99 project. Mr. Croteau added that if the landscaping and road improvements were done simul- taneously, it would involve the disruption of businesses only once. Mr. Croteau reviewed the advantages and disadvantages of the various funding sources outlined in the staff notes. Mr. Whitlow said the initial planning costs of approximately $200,000 was potentially fully recoverable. Mr. Boles did not think that systems development charges (SDCs) should be considered as a funding option for this project. Les Lyle, Public Works, explained that there may be some justification for using SDCs but would like- ly be a small percentage, if any, due to lack of development impact or growth in the area. Councilors agreed that SDCs should not be explored as a funding source for this project. Responding to a question from Mr. MacDonald about the Road Fund, Mr. Lyle said that funding for the FY93 capital budget was very limited. He added e that a number of high priorities have not been addressed due to the limita- tions in funding. Mr. Croteau said that if the council supported creating an urban renewal district, part of the planning process would include projecting the amount of tax increment financing that would be available for various projects. Mr. Robinette said there would be no certainty of receiving enough tax increment funds for planned projects if new development did not occur soon after a district was created. Mr. Farkas affirmed this but said that new development in the area within the last four years merited exploring this as a funding source. Mr. Green felt that this project provided an opportunity to see if tax increment financing could be successful outside of the downtown core area. Ms. Ehrman felt that tax increment financing would not be feasible because the first revenues would not be received until FY94. She said that there has been significant criticism about this form of financing in the downtown core area, and she did not support using such a form in other areas. Mr. Nicholson concurred. Mr. Boles said that he would support tax increment financing only under circumstances that the council craft a large enough district to address all revitalization needs and that the urban renewal au- thority not be solely held by the council. Councilors took a straw vote to determine if staff should explore tax incre- ment financing as a funding source. The vote was tied, 4:4, for exploring tax increment financing as a funding source for Highway 99 only. The vote passed, 5:3, for exploring tax increment financing as an option for an ex- e MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 4, 1991 Page 6