06/22/1992 Meeting (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e Mason said that there would be $2 million "up for grabs" were the taxpayers to realize it. Bob Cassidy, representing the Midtown Merchants Association, said that the association approves of the concept of enhancing the core of the city in an effort to halt the decay of downtown. Mr. Cassidy said that south of the core there are more than 100 small businesses thriving and the addition of trees and shrubs would enhance that area considerably. Mr. Cassidy said that he believed that the public would accept the removal of the fountain at Broadway and Willamette Street were it to be replaced with trees and benches. Mary Bentsen, 950 West 16th Avenue, testified in opposition to the proposed East Broadway improvements and 8th Avenue and Willamette Street site improvements. Ms. Bentsen said that the area is doing well and does not need enhancement. Ms. Bentsen said that economic development is the responsibility of the private sector. Regarding the 8th Avenue and Willamette Street improvements, Ms. Bentsen urged caution on the part of the council until the anticipated construction project is firmly agreed upon. Ms. Bentsen said she was concerned by the mixed message sent to voters by the proposed budget. She said that the council would lose credibility with the public by expending tax dollars on projects she termed of dubious value. Ms. Bentsen said that the urban renewal district should be closed and remaining indebtedness repaid. She said that were the council to oppose that action, e she requested that it start to accumulate a fund to build a new public library. Mayor Miller closed the public hearing. Res. No. 962--A resolution of the Urban Renewal Agency adopting the budget and making appropriations for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1992, and ending June 30, 1993; and declaring an emergency. Responding to a question from Mr. MacDonald, Mr. Gleason said that the East Broadway improvements were discussed at the jOint meeting between the council and Downtown Commission, and none of the projects would go forward without council approval. Mr. Gleason likened the urban renewal budget to the Capital Improvement Program in that the council authorized the categories for expenditure and then reviewed each project on a case-by-case basis. Mr. Robinette observed that the council would have an opportunity to review specific projects at future meetings, adding that he was not committed to any particular project at this time. Mr. Nicholson said he understood that the City collects urban renewal moneys above the tax base. In order to accomplish Mr. Mason's goal, the City would be required to pass a serial levy or bond issue to collect the funds above e MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 22, 1992 Page 7 7:30 p.m.