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

Home Browse Search

Referring to reports she had seen during her service on the Planning Commission, Ms. Nathanson asked staff for a report on the renewal district that provided information on improved land value in a ratio instead of raw numbers so it was easier to see which blocks were more blighted and which were ripe for redevelop- ment. Mr. Kelly asked for information prior to the next work session on how continuation of the urban renewal district would affect other taxing authorities such as school districts, including the magnitude of revenue impacts. He also asked for the same analysis based on expanding the renewal district boundaries. Referring to sections 600(C)(2) and 600(C)(3), he asked for a response from Mr. Kupper before the next work session on whether land acquisitions were permitted without a plan amendment in certain circumstances. As an example of the specificity that a urban renewal plan could provide, Mr. Kelly cited a passage from the Portland River District Urban Renewal Pan as an example of language that established housing as a project without identifying a specific location, but did specify targets for percentages of housing for low-, moderate- , and middle-income populations. He cited two other projects that were specifically identified in the plan. Regarding the diversion of funds from essential services and schools, Ms. Bettman commented that the issue was not just continuing the existing district, but expanding it by a significant amount and taking into account a lot of revenue-producing areas in which the City and taxpayers had invested a good amount of money that affected housing, the library, and transportation improvements. She said taxpayers expected the investment would return to them in terms of more revenue for things such as essential services, public safety, and schools. She asked staff to examine how the expansion of the district would affect money that would normally go to schools. She said that because the money was diverted from the general fund and school districts, whatever projects it funded had to be very high priority projects. She noted that a new police station and a new city hall would have to be built within the next decade and would be good projects for urban renewal funds. Mr. Pap6 added his request for information on the financial impacts to those of Ms. Bettman and Mr. Kelly and asked that the reports be provided to councilors prior to the next work session. Mr. Pap6 moved, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, to direct the City Manager to pre- pare amendments to the Riverfront Research Park Urban Renewal Plan that include project activities noted in Attachment A, and an expanded boundary as noted in At- tachment C. Mayor Torrey asked for a motion to extend the time for discussion of the item. Mr. Kelly moved, seconded by Mr. Poling, to extend the time for 15 minutes. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Mr. Meisner stated he would support Mr. Pap6's motion, but expressed concern with the expansion. Referring to newly added areas as a result of boundary expansion, he asked if only increments after that time would be diverted to urban renewal. Mr. Weinman said that was correct. Mr. Meisner said he wanted to carefully tailor any expansion of the district and did not support going east of MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 27, 2003 Page 7 Work Session