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

Home Browse Search

listed in Attachment A of the agenda item summary had been reviewed by the Planning Commission and councilors could add or subtract projects from the list. He introduced Charles Kupper, the City's urban renewal consultant, who was available to answer questions. Mr. Kupper cited the urban renewal plan requirement in Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) 457 that stated a description must be provided of each urban renewal project to be undertaken. He said the definition was very broadly written and suggested that urban renewal agencies look at a list of project activities as a set of authorizations. He said when a project emerged that did not easily fit within the list of authorizations, it could require a plan change. According to Mr. Kupper, plan changes could be relatively simple, or an extensive, expensive process. He recommended that plan activities be written as flexibly and broadly as possible to meet changing circum- stances and to avoid the need to frequently amend the plan. He added that having flexibility in the plan activities was the best way to ensure the City could take advantage of development and investment opportunities as they emerged, rather than having to initiate a lengthy amendment process. He cited language from the staff report that proposed a general category, artwork and water features, and listed examples of site-specific projects in the category. He said that typically, urban renewal plans now followed that type of format with a broad category and citation of specific projects. Mr. Weinman noted that under State law, the riverfront plan could be amended by the addition of up to 29 acres; blocks 1 through 9 on the map totaled approximately 21 acres. Ms. Taylor said that urban renewal was once again on tax bills, after not being shown on them for several years. She asked if that meant funds were coming from a different source, if citizens were paying more for it, or if it was still just a diversion. Financial Analysis Manager Sue Cutsogeorge replied that the way urban renewal taxes were shown on the tax bill had changed because of the Shiloh Inn court case that challenged Measure 5 categorization of urban renewal taxes. She said as a result of that case, urban renewal taxes were now shown as a line item under general government on tax bills. She explained that prior to the court case decision, urban renewal taxes were embedded in each tax rate and not shown as a separate line item. Ms. Taylor asked if that meant people were paying more for urban renewal or if funds were diverted from taxes that would have gone elsewhere. Ms. Cutsogeorge replied that the change only addressed how the tax was displayed on tax bills; what the urban renewal district received was now shown as a specific item on a tax bill. She added that some properties might pay slightly more because of Measure 5 compression issues. Ms. Taylor noted staff had referred to the district as the ~Riverfront Research Park" rather than the Riverfront District. Mr. Weinman replied that technically the area was still called the Riverfront Research Park Urban Renewal District, but staff was suggesting it be designated the Riverfront District if the plan was amended. Ms. Taylor asked staff to provide information to the following: · Total income received by the district since it went into effect · List of expenditures and the total amount of expenditures to date, including the road · Current amount in the urban renewal fund · Anticipated income for the remaining life of the district, assuming it was not renewed MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 27, 2003 Page 4 Work Session