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

Home Browse Search

· If renewed, the expectations per year. Will renewal result in higher taxes or less revenue for other entities? · What entities, such as the schools or County, would experience reduced income because of the urban renewal district, and by what percentage? Ms. Taylor expressed her concern that there were no fiscal controls on the funds; it could be spent at staffs discretion. Mr. Meisner disagreed with Ms. Taylor's statement and said it was up to the council to control the fund through annual budget decisions and approvals. He stated that in general he was supportive of retaining the district, changing the name, and extending the boundary to allow improvements along East Broadway. He said he was not interested in expanding the boundary to the north to include the Fifth Street Market area. He concurred with Ms. Taylor's list of questions regarding various financial issues and commented that the list of projects was all inclusive. He stated his concern that approving the proposed motion to use the district to fund transportation improvements would supplant the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) in the improvement of State highways. He said he did not want efforts to assure GSA of alternative transportation funding plan to send the message to Congress that the City was willing to pay for transportation improvements. Mr. Kelly remarked that he generally supported the concept of extending the urban renewal district boundaries. He stated he had reservations about the use of very general language in the plan. He said that asking taxpayers to either make funds available specifically for urban renewal or to forego other services within a fixed pot of money to fund the improvements was reasonable if a collection of projects could be specifically described. He said that while he was not advocating for extremely specific project descriptions and cost estimates, he did thing the public should be shown a level of vision and descriptions that were more focused that the proposed language. Mr. Kelly requested for a written response from staff on what would happen, assuming the proposed plan amendments were adopted, if a project that clearly fitted within the parameters of the plan emerged. He provided the example of land acquisition. He asked if the council, sitting as the Urban Renewal Agency, would have to authorize expenditures for a project or if staff could authorize a project alone. Mr. Kupper replied that in the case of land acquisition, the plan would have to specify the lands to be acquired before they were acquired. He said specific properties would either be listed in the plan at the beginning or included through a plan amendment approved by the council sitting as the Urban Renewal Agency. He said if the renewal plan authorized placing curb and sidewalks at an as yet unidentified location in the urban renewal area and a specific site was later identified, the agency could proceed with the project without a formal plan amendment because it already had the authorization to do curbs and sidewalks. He said that he assumed staff would consult with the agency before proceeding. Mr. Kelly reiterated his request for a written response, stating he wanted a flexible plan, but did not want to write a blank check. Assistant City Manager Jim Carlson added that the council also retained authority over urban renewal funds through the appropriations process, which required that funds were appropriated before staff could spend them, and typically 100 percent of the available urban renewal resources were not appropriated. He referred MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 27, 2003 Page 5 Work Session