Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Taylor introduced Richie Weinman, Urban Services Manager for the Planning and <br />Development Division. <br /> <br />Mr. Weinman highlighted the agenda item summary included in council packets. He stressed that <br />loan programs were a very common urban renewal tool, found all over Oregon and the United <br />States. He said that tax increment financing was the keystone financing tool and the most common <br />way of financing revitalization. <br /> <br />Mr. Weinman noted that the second motion before the council, as described in Attachment E, <br />Downtown [lrban Renewal District Goals and Objectives, was to initiate the process to amend <br />the downtown urban renewal plan to allow the use of actual tax increment funds for projects in <br />addition to the new library. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap~ arrived at the meeting. <br /> <br />Sue Cutsogeorge, Financial Analysis Manager, spoke to the financing issues. She stated that, in <br />order for staff to determine whether it would be possible to use downtown urban renewal <br />resources for projects other than the library, two questions needed to be asked: <br /> <br /> · What were the legal issues surrounding the use of those moneys in the downtown <br /> district? <br /> · How could the City be reasonably sure that urban renewal would be able to meet the <br /> commitment that the City had made to pay debt service on the Library Bonds through <br /> 2009? <br /> <br />Ms. Cutsogeorge stated that the City Attorney had advised staff that the only actions needed to use <br />URA funds would be approval of this program at the current work session and a supplemental <br />budget approved on SB#1 in December. She said that the City Council action taken in 1998 only <br />related to tax increment revenue and did not dedicate the program revenue, revenue not related to <br />property taxes. She related that the legal issues surrounding the use of urban renewal funds for <br />projects other than the library were complex and would need more research pending approval of <br />the plan amendments. <br /> <br />Ms. Cutsogeorge reported that more than 97 percent of the resources needed to pay for the library <br />construction had been attained and, thus, a revenue shortfall was not anticipated. She said that the <br />City would continue to pay circa $2.5 million per year in debt service until 2009. She stressed <br />that, when making changes to the use of downtown urban renewal resources, the City needed to <br />ensure that there would be adequate protections against future revenue shortfalls in the tax <br />increment funds. The staff recommendation was to maintain a reserve that was equal to one year <br />of debt service, i.e. circa $2.5 million. She asserted that this should provide a reasonable level of <br />protection against future revenue shortfalls and that this would free approximately $2.5 million in <br />FY04 that could be used for other things. She explained that $1.8 million was in program revenues <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 23, 2003 Page 6 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />