CC Minutes - 10/27/03 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

backup, but stated his concern about using urban renewal funds for transportation at the expense of other projects for a number of years. Mayor Torrey declared his hope that passing the motion would reaffirm the City's commitment to the transportation arterials designations that were part of the plan adopted in July 2002. He said he felt confident that Oregon's congressional delegation would obtain the federal transportation funding for the project. He asked what the City would do with the proceeds of the land purchase to redevelop the area if, hypothetically, the courthouse was not built. He suggested that the planned infrastructure was appropriate, with or without the courthouse on the property, and the City should proceed to build it as the highest and best use of those lands in the future. He added that ODOT could be asked for funds to improve and enhance a system in one of the State's largest cities. Mr. Meisner acknowledged that there were no guarantees of federal funding, but he also thought that the unanimous support of the congressional delegation boded well for approval of the request for funding. He thanked Mr. Kelly for his friendly amendment, which clarified the action being considered. He expressed reservations about committing the City to pay for improvements until the precise nature of the improvements and costs were known and appreciated the opportunity to review language at the next work session. He said he would support the amended motion. Mr. Kelly explained that the motion before the agency indicated that the concept of a backup plan had enough merit to warrant requesting staff to prepare language to be considered in the next draft of the urban renewal plan. He said he would support the motion with the friendly amendment. Mr. Kelly said an important consideration when the projected revenues from the urban renewal district were reviewed was whether the backup plan would use all of the revenues for the next decade, at the expense of all other projects in the district. He pointed out that the GSA's letter stated if the $7.6 million for both project phases was available for the 2005 construction season, no pedestrian overpass was necessary; however, if only the $1.7 million was available, an overpass was necessary and that would increase total costs to approximately $10 million. Ms. Bettman said she would not support the motion as stated, but would consider language that agreed to consider other ways to fund the transportation infrastructure if federal funding was not available, instead of committing to bonds. She said her estimate of $10 million to $30 million in costs was based on an assumption that the $7.8 million figure in the CIP, which was an old figure, had inflated. She listed several other site improvements identified in the GSA letter that she felt the City was being asked to fund. She noted that the 6th Avenue arterial was a state highway and identifying urban renewal funds as a source of financing removed the incentive for the County, State, or federal government to provide funds. Mr. Pap6 asked if ODOT had been contacted regarding availability of resources as part of the secondary plan for transportation infrastructure. He also requested information on the amount of funds that were in the district and available. Ms. Nathanson pointed out that, to the extent that federal agencies were involved in advising Congress on projects to include in the transportation authorization, both the GSA and the courts administration agency would add their support to that of the congressional delegation. MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 27, 2003 Page 12 Work Session