CC Minutes - 11/19/03 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Ms. Solomon expressed her support for the motion. She reminded those present that the motion would take the district to the next level at which it would be reviewed and commented upon by the other taxing districts, the Planning Commission, and the public. She stressed that nothing would be done ;;behind closed doors." She commended staff for being responsive to the suggestions of the City Council. Ms. Solomon reiterated that urban renewal addressed the desire of the City Council to have compact growth within the City. She called the district a great start. Mr. Pap~ echoed the comments of Ms. Solomon. Ms. Bettman commented that she was neither for nor opposed to the urban renewal district. She asserted that the district would result in more taxes and less services provided by the City, due to less money going into the General Fund. She felt the expansion of the district had far-reaching implications. In response to a question from Ms. Bettman, Mr. Kupper said the plan as it currently stood did not have a maximum indebtedness encoded within it. He noted he had discussed this with the City Attorney just prior to the meeting. He said that it was still an open legal question because the plan was adopted prior to the enactment of this requirement. Ms. Nathanson affirmed her support for the motion. She commented that the district would, for a certain amount of time, use urban renewal funds for improvements that would benefit the citizens. She asserted that to make the plan ~good enough" it needed to be tight enough to ensure that the City was within the regulations of the statutes but flexible enough to take advantage of any opportunities that would arise over time. She felt the plan would fulfill this goal, adding she would not choose to amend the plan. Mr. Kelly opined that the growth management policies were needed in law. He said while he supported urban renewal, he felt it very important to involve the public as much as possible as urban renewal was controversial and the public needed to understand the conflicts. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Pap~, moved to amend the motion to include a sentence stating, as follows: "Such amendments will include specific agency approval of projects greater than $250,000 other than loans." Mr. Meisner remarked that he would support the motion to amend, but noted he would have supported it without the amendment as well. He expressed a preference for more specificity and some prioritization of projects. He noted there would not be enough money in the district to do large projects. Ms. Solomon asked the City Manager to speak to the amendment. Mr. Taylor responded that the Urban Renewal Agency adopted the annual budget and opportunities for projects, should they arise, would be brought before the board for a vote separate from the budget. Mayor Torrey commented that the amendment would not make a clear difference to the motion. Mr. Kelly felt the amendment would be valuable as it would bring the language before the public. The motion to amend passed unanimously, 8:0. MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 19, 2003 Page 6 Work Session