Laserfiche WebLink
opportunities for public input. He asked staff to return to the next work session with suggestions for a <br />public involvement process modeled on the Portland plan. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap6 asked for clarification on how frequently and to what extent the urban renewal district could be <br />expanded. Mr. Kupper replied that expansion was limited to a maximum of 20 percent of the acreage, <br />which would equal 29 acres. He said that could be done incrementally in several amendments or one <br />amendment that included 29 acres. He said if any of the amendments exceeded 1 percent of the existing <br />acreage, it could trigger a substantial plan change. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap6 stated he was concerned about block 8 as it fronted on Hilyard Street and was close to the former <br />AgriPac site, which was the area considered for redevelopment. He urged the council to consider including <br />block 8 in the renewal district boundary. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman stated her fear of the suggestion in the plan to bond for money, which committed future <br />generations to pay off projects, including transportation projects that had other funding sources available to <br />them. She said she had a problem with creating indebtedness for future citizens, rather than saving up the <br />incremental increase in tax and then spending it. She asked staff to provide an analysis of the number of <br />housing units on the blocks proposed for inclusion in the expanded boundary. She said she would vote <br />against the main motion because of how broadly it was stated. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly referred to several questions he had raised during the April 23, 2003, meeting on the issue and <br />asked for responses to those questions before the next work session. Referring to the project ideas provided <br />by staff, he asked for language in the plan regarding transportation improvements that improved access that <br />would clarify urban renewal funds would be used only to the extent that system development charges (SDC) <br />and assessment were not available. He also asked for language more specifically relating to the Mill Race <br />and to preservation of nature features along the river bank. Further, he asked for an explanation of the <br />statement in the plan relating to assistance with new construction of public and private improvements. <br /> <br /> The main motion as amended passed, 6:2; Ms. Bettman and Ms. Taylor opposed. <br /> <br />Mr. Taylor provided corrections to a suggestion motion he had sent to councilors prior to the meeting. <br /> <br /> Mr. Pap~ moved, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, to extend the time for the item by 10 <br /> minutes. The motion passed, 7:1; Ms. Bettman opposed. <br /> <br /> Mr. Pap~ moved, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, to direct the City Manager to in- <br /> clude in the urban renewal riverfront plan the transportation infrastructure to sup- <br /> port the development of the federal courthouse project and the redevelopment of the <br /> courthouse district, including the use of the urban renewal tax increment revenues <br /> and other revenues received by the district, such as State or County road funds, as <br /> well as the use of bonds, such sources of revenue to be used only in the event that <br /> federal funding through transportation reauthorization is insufficient. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner confirmed that the motion directed staff to bring back language for the plan rather than <br />adopting the language. Mr. Taylor agreed with Mr. Meisner. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 27, 2003 Page 9 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />