CC Minutes - 01/29/03 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

contributions to downtown in opening Broadway, and suggested it was time for downtown property owners to spend some money. Ms. Taylor called for more housing in the center of the core. She opposed the proposed ring district, and asserted that most citizens would be opposed to it as well. Ms. Bettman questioned if staff had data showing which of the projects had an actual demonstrable public benefit. She also wanted to know how many of the projects on the list could actually be credited to urban renewal when they would have been done otherwise. She agreed with Ms. Taylor about the diversion of dollars from the General Fund and the need to ensure that those dollars were spent carefully. Ms. Bettman also wanted to know about other variables that impacted downtown development, such as rents. If the rents downtown were "off the scale," she questioned if urban renewal was the best use of the City's money, given it had no control in that area. Ms. Nathanson was pleased with the information provided by staff and wanted to move ahead on all or most of what was being recommended. She felt it was important for the City to continue to pay attention to the health of downtown. She said that when she considered the projects list, she perceived a great deal of benefit, mostly for the public. The City had assisted with more than a dozen new construction projects and the rehabilitation of more than 30 buildings. The City did not bear the entire costs of the public improvements as private property owners also participated in most of the projects, as well as Lane County. Ms. Nathanson recalled that the council had implemented the MUPTE with limited boundaries and agreed to revisit those at a later time. She favored that examination. Ms. Nathanson said that the City had gained more residential units downtown and more were under construction now. Mr. Meisner asked staff to provide information to the council about the projects the City did on its own and those that involved loans, and in the case of those involving loans, how repayment occurred. Ms. Nathanson noted Ms. Bettman's suggestion that many of the projects would have been built in the absence of urban renewal, and indicated disagreement. She believed it was important to acknowledge many projects occurred because of urban renewal. Ms. Bettman asked staff to identify the administrative costs, including full-time equivalent employees, incurred by the recommendation. Ms. Taylor referred to the New Markets Tax Credit and asked if it was available to single-room occupancy (SRO) construction. Mr. Weinman clarified that the New Markets Tax Credit Program was available to private developers, but it had not been used in the community, and staff were not experts. However, he believed that those credits were available to such developments. Ms. Nathanson said she would like more information from staff regarding the possibility of distinguishing renter- and owner-occupied housing. B.WORK SESSION: Living Wage MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 29, 2003 Page 4 Work Session