CC Minutes - 07/23/03 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Ms. Cutsogeorge affirmed, at Ms. Taylor's request, that it would be possible to complete payment for the library earlier than had been originally forecasted. Ms. Taylor asked if it would be possible to reinstate a free parking program with urban renewal funds. Ms. Cutsogeorge responded that the money could not be used for operating purposes. Ms. Taylor opined that free parking would provide the greatest contribution to downtown revitalization. Ms. Taylor expressed her preference for a loan program over a grant program. She opposed extending the time for urban renewal. She opposed the expansion of the boundary of the urban renewal district as well. She recommended paying for the library prior to considering other projects. Mr. Kelly agreed with Mr. Meisner regarding the loan program and the urban renewal program. He supported the loan program with the caveat that Mr. Meisner had expressed regarding the formation of a body for purposes of review of loan proposals. Mr. Kelly echoed council support for tools that revitalize downtown, adding that urban renewal was almost the only tool to do significant things. He remarked that the "key" element for the plan was the project choice. He encouraged there to be brainstorming on the part of both the council and staff as to what sorts of projects should be taken on prior to adoption of any amendments. Mr. Kelly noted that the River District Urban Renewal Plan from the City of Portland showed the level of specificity that could be put into an urban renewal plan. He cited, as an example of citizen involvement, the Portland Gateway Regional Center Plan, which had a citizen advisory committee that had been formed prior to the development of the plan and had been maintained until well after the plan had been implemented. He felt that this was an optimal model to follow. Ms. Nathanson commented that the undergrounding of utilities was mentioned in several adopted plans. She stated that, as such, this could be a qualifying criterion for a project. In response to a question from Ms. Nathanson, Mr. Weinman stated the vast majority of past loans were for $50,000 or less and that, given that history, one could assume that a loan program could be stretched far. He felt that the loan program would be somewhat first come, first serve, but more likely, it would be opportunity-driven. Ms. Nathanson averred that there would be a great deal of interest in such a loan program, given that the downtown area was undergoing substantial rejuvenation, and counseled Mr. Weinman to consider in advance about increased competition for this source of funds. Ms. Nathanson lauded the program, calling it a "move in" incentive that would be versatile in its application from small projects to large ones. She affirmed her support for the program. MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 23, 2003 Page 8 Work Session