CC Minutes - 04/25/07 Work Session

Home Browse Search

measures, such as relying on existing revenues to structure the debt, including reserves and revenue cushions. Based on preliminary information from the developers, staff believed it could build a finance plan that included capacity for future projects without completely “tapping out” the district. The financial benefit to the community would be directly related to the scale of the project. She invited questions. Mayor Piercy called on the council for comments and questions. Ms. Bettman commended the materials provided as informative. Ms. Bettman said she thought the council should avoid using General Fund money for the project given the dire budget picture. She determined from Ms. Cutsogeorge that the library bond would be paid off in 2009 and asked if the capacity going into the library now would become available. Ms. Cutsogeorge said no; it went away. Ms. Bettman believed that staff had scheduled a work session to discuss an increase in the spending limit, and the materials seemed to be weighted toward increasing the limit as opposed to making an investment within the City’s current spending capacity. Ms. Cutsogeorge said when the council chose the developer that decision would be inherent in the choice it made. If it chose the larger project, it would require an Urban Renewal Plan amendment. Ms. Bettman asked how the demolition of buildings affected the tax base and the baseline revenue being generated now. Ms. Cutsogeorge said the revenue was not assessed on individual properties so the General Fund would not be affected by property demolition; it was likely that urban renewal revenues would go down somewhat. Ms. Bettman requested a memorandum on the topic. Ms. Bettman determined from Ms. Cutsogeorge that urban renewal revenues could be used on anything in the Downtown Urban Renewal Plan. Mr. Zelenka complimented staff on the quality of materials provided to the council. He said he would like to see the school district benefit somehow. Regarding the information provided on financial risks, he asked that a memorandum fleshing out those risks be provided to the council. Mr. Zelenka asked what rules existed with regard to when and how the benefit of the tax increment could be shared with the General Fund. He asked if there was a way to direct some of the tax increment revenue to the General Fund. Ms. Cutsogeorge said the Downtown Urban Renewal Plan did not include any provisions for revenue sharing. She pointed out that the City was able to complete some projects using urban renewal funds that it would have otherwise had to fund from other sources, which provided some ancillary relief to the General Fund. Ms. Cutsogeorge noted that if the revenues available to the district were diverted to other uses, the result would be fewer revenues for projects in the district. City Attorney Glenn Klein indicated he would answer Mr. Zelenka’s questions in writing. Responding to a question from Mr. Clark, Mr. Klein said the State rules were that the tax increment dollars must be spent either within the district or, in limited circumstances, just outside the district if the project was to directly benefit the district. He cited a traffic signal that provided access to a district but was located just outside the district as an example. He indicated he would provide a written answer. MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 25, 2007 Page 2 Work Session