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

Home Browse Search

to the downtown library project, in which the council's approval was requested a number of times for specific actions related to using various assets. Mr. Kelly said he did not recall previous capital appropriations to the district being tied to a specific project and asked that the issue be addressed in the written response. Mr. Pap6 suggested that the council could establish rules requiring authorization by the Urban Renewal Agency of any construction or infrastructure projects that exceeded a certain amount, such as $50,000. Mr. Kupper agreed, and said that there were other plans in effect that required amendments for any new or substantially different projects that exceeded a certain dollar amount. Mr. Pap~ echoed Mr. Kelly's and Mr. Meisner's statements about expansion of the district and asked for reasons why blocks 10 through 14 should be included. Mr. Weinman replied that staff had responded to the council's request for as many options and opportunities as possible and those blocks could represent future opportunities. Mr. Pap~ said because of the federal courthouse project, it made the most sense to consider blocks 1 through 11. Ms. Bettman commented that she had heard from small business owners who had moved out of downtown because rents were too high. She said the intent of urban renewal district was to restore blighted areas where there was a severe lack of investment because of limited resources or a concentration of low-income residents who needed assistance. She said the proposal did not appear to meet the intent of urban renewal and diverted funds the City could use for schools and essential services. She cited language in the agenda item summary that stated if the Urban Renewal Agency and City Council selected specific projects, revenue for those projects must be accounted for in a ~report" and stated she did not understand the staff recommen- dation to not select specific projects. She asked if that meant the nonspecific, flexible approach would result in a report that did not have delineated costs. Mr. Kupper responded that the report on the urban renewal plan must account for project activities that would be carried out and how much money the agency intended to spend, but the specificity of the table in the report depended on how specific the agency was in describing the projects it wanted to fund. He gave as an example a table and report that stated %treet improvements, $10 million" or a table and report that specified the streets to be improved under that category and the costs associated with each. He said that either approach was legally acceptable and the method used depended on how specific the community was in defining the activities in the plan. Ms. Bettman said that the community had articulated a priority for school funding and urban renewal diverted funds from essential services and schools. Ms. Nathanson said she interpreted the proposal as determining whether to continue and for how long and whether to expand the urban renewal district. She said that the economic situation for the school districts or any other taxing authority could be affected, depending on the decision, not at all or by a percentage. She said the proposal was not to start something new or to double or triple the impact for schools. Ms. Nathanson stated she preferred the general approach to plan activities over a specific list because the council had final authority over budget approval when projects were proposed, and because the district would not accumulate money at a fast rate. She said that when sufficient funds had accumulated for a particular project, public values might have changed and lighting or a water feature might be more important than sidewalk improvement. MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 27, 2003 Page 6 Work Session