Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Farr supported subjecting government properties to the district's assessments. Regarding <br />Mr. Meisner's suggestion to include residential uses, Mr. Farr said that residential uses downtown <br />should be exempted from the district's assessment to help keep housing costs down. <br /> <br />Mr. Farr believed that there had been a huge difference in the downtown area since he had taken <br />office, and he attributed that, in part, to the service district. He commended the services <br />provided by the districts, saying they were invaluable and the City was "getting a whole lot of <br />bang for our dollar." <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly said that both districts were doing good work and he supported their continuance. He <br />was comfortable with the concept of the property owner remonstrance as opposed to sunset but <br />would await more information before taking a final position. He suggested that the ordinance be <br />specific that the council could sunset the district if it choose. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly noted his continued opposition to some of the behavioral ordinances the guides and <br />police administered in the district. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly supported the inclusion of government properties in the district. He suggested that the <br />manager return to the council with a Contingency Fund request to support the cost for the City, <br />and asked that the cost be based on a square-foot basis rather than a flat fee so that increases <br />or decreases in downtown office space could be easily adjusted. He argued that given that <br />government already contributed to the maintenance of downtown, he believed the City could <br />argue for a slightly lower rate. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor favored the increase but wanted to consider "sunsetting the sunset." He wondered if <br />the City's assessment could be earmarked for downtown projects. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor asked what vacant properties did not pay district rates. Mr. Brink said that the district <br />was legally constrained by State law; the assessment was an occupancy fee that could not be <br />tied to the consequence of owning property. <br /> <br />Responding to a question from Ms. Taylor, Mr. Brink clarified that the rate for hotel rooms was <br />based on quarterly occupancy figures. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor was unsure about the City's participation in the district. She wanted the City to help <br />the Saturday Market to stay downtown and to pay for amenities such as benches. She wondered <br />if the City's contribution to the district could be earmarked for that purpose. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson said that it was wise to establish a sunset date for new programs. However, she <br />did not see the benefit of renewing the sunset date given that the districts were doing what they <br />were set up to do and property owners within the districts appeared to be satisfied. She <br />supported government paying assessments to the district because public employees and citizens <br />coming to downtown City facilities also benefitted from the district. <br /> <br />Mr. Lee supported the ordinance but questioned if charging government for services set a <br />precedent. Neither Mr. Johnson or Mr. Lidz thought a precedent was being set by adoption of the <br />ordinance. <br /> <br />Mr. Lee observed that there were other major issues facing the merchants in the West University <br />area. He stressed the importance of the quality of a neighborhood to business success. He <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 24, 2000 Page 5 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />