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

Home Browse Search

- - -- - e the base. Mr. Gleason agreed, saying that it would require a general obligation bond of a magnitude similar to that raised by urban renewal. Mr. Nicholson asked if closing the district would reduce property tax rates citywide. Mr. Gleason said that taxes would go down on both a citywide and countywide basis. Mr. Miller asked if closing the district would affect taxes received by the City. Mr. Wong said that the City would not receive any additional money were the urban renewal district to be dissolved today. The only way that the City could capture the margin was through a voter-approved tax base, serial levy, or approval of a general obligation bond. Elimination of the district would reduce the tax rates of the respective jurisdictions. Mr. Wong reminded the council that even were it to curtail urban rewewal district operations now and use remaining cash on debt, there would still be the certificates of participation to pay, which would require several years. Mr. Nicholson asked if it would be possible to present the voters with a tax base that would capture the same taxes as that achieved by the tax base plus the urban renewal district. Mr. Wong clarified that the council could present the total dollar amount equivalent yield for a vote to the community. Ms. Ehrman asked when the council would review the projects mentioned in testimony. Bob Hibschman, Planning and Development Department, said that the Downtown Commission had the projects in its work program and would forward those projects for council consideration during the course of the coming year. e Ms. Ehrman said she found it troublesome that the council would "sign off" on the dollars for the projects before approving the projects themselves, and asked if the council could deduct the anticipated amounts for the projects from the budget. Mr. Wong said that the council could reduce the amount budgeted for capital projects and put an equivalent amount into reserves. As projects were approved, the council would fund them through supplemental budgets. Mr. Boles pointed out that the council had discussed the commission's work program with the commission extensively. The commission had indicated that the construction of rest rooms and East Broadway improvements met the goals and scope of its work program. Further, Mr. Boles termed the East Broadway improvements the first real test of the results of the Retail Task Force's final, council-adopted report. Mr. Boles questioned why Mr. Nicholson was raising concerns about the projects at this time and not at the Downtown Commission level as representative from the council before the council was asked to approve the commission's work program. Mr. Nicholson said that he had believed that the commission would bring concrete proposals to the council for approval and funding. Mr. Nicholson maintained that he had always objected to the process used in the past in that the council created preemptive priorities for the funds. Mr. Nicholson maintained that the council made a commitment through the Eugene Decisions process to place urban renewal dollars in the pool with e MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 22, 1992 Page 8 7:30 p.m.