Laserfiche WebLink
not uncommon for revenues to go up and down during the life of a plan. He said, in response to a <br />follow-up question, that the district could not "get negative revenue." <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor wanted to know why, if property was not being used, it was so valuable. Mr. Kupper <br />said that to the current owner, it might have little value, but when assembled with other property <br />for a different use, it could have considerable value to the City and renewal agency. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly thanked Mr. Kupper for the presentation. He felt a solid, well-built downtown was critical <br />to the community's livability and health and to the efficiency of municipal service delivery. He said <br />that he was willing to use the City's money on improving downtown because he believed it <br />required investment beyond that which the market was willing to make. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly asked Mr. Weinman if sample motions for the follow-up work session on February 12 <br />could be crafted to be specific about what the council was saying yes to if it choose to move <br />forward with any of the tools under consideration. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly agreed urban renewal was a tool that could be used many ways and it could be used <br />positively. His decisions about urban renewal would be based on a clear understanding of what <br />the tool would be used for. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap8 asked about the impact of citywide bonds on the district and the potential that one could <br />bring the City into compression. Mr. Kupper said if the City issued a bond, the tax rates for bonds <br />would go up, potentially generating more revenues for the urban renewal agency. In the case of a <br />very large bond, it could potentially create cause some compression problems under Ballot <br />Measure 5. He said that the issue was somewhat complex. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner asked for more information regarding the relationship between bond tax rates and <br />Ballot Measure 5. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner indicated interest in all the staff recommendations although he had questions about <br />the details. Noting the potential that the staff recommendation would lead to several adjoining <br />districts, he asked if the districts could be combined together into one urban renewal district. Mr. <br />Kupper said that State law precluded the City from amending the boundary of a existing district by <br />more than 20 percent of the original acreage. The most that could be added to the downtown <br />district was 15 acres. He concurred with a statement from Mr. Meisner that one could allow the <br />district to expire and reform a new larger district, but then the City would be starting "from scratch" <br />with a new frozen base. Mr. Sullivan added that the area of a district could be decreased to <br />accommodate adjusting priorities. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner said that a new district would affect the revenues received by other taxing entities, <br />such as the school districts. He asked if all the increment that was gathered in the district must <br />go to the district or if it could be directed to the school districts. Mr. Kupper said that could not <br />occur under current Oregon law. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner indicated support for the extension of the MUPTE boundaries and wished to be able <br />to examine the boundaries proposed by staff. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner noted that the downtown neighborhood organization had communicated strong <br />support for the recommendations to him. <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 29, 2003 Page 2 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />