Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Clark asked if the City had latitude in what it called urban renewal. Mr. Klein said there was latitude <br />but it was not without limits. <br /> <br />Ms. Ortiz thanked staff for its work. She was happy to see the public input process being planned because <br />she had been receiving some community pushback. She had been questioning whether the process was the <br />right way of “going about it” and had been resistant to paying attention to the details of the proposals <br />because she did not think it was a good time. It had been challenging for her to visualize spending the <br />amount of money necessary if the council moved forward. <br /> <br />Speaking to the materials provided to the council, Ms. Ortiz did not think the information the staff provided <br />about Cathedral City was valuable because it was an “apples to oranges” comparison. <br /> <br />Mayor Piercy asked how staff determined what level of public expenditure was appropriate. She expected <br />there were standards in place or that the manager had a percentage in mind. Mr. Braud said if the City <br />pursued the larger project, staff would need to do a cost-benefit analysis. There were intangibles also, such <br />as bringing housing downtown and a potential the projects would provide a change in the overall attitude <br />toward downtown. Mayor Piercy said it was difficult to make a decision when the council had no such cost- <br />benefit analysis. <br /> <br />Responding to the mayor’s question, Community Development Division Manager Mike Sullivan indicated <br />that both proposals were below 15 percent public participation, which was at the low range of the examples <br />staff provided to the council. He thought that both proposals were well within the range of what staff had <br />seen in other projects in other communities. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor asked if a bus or shuttle could be paid for by urban renewal. Ms. Cutsogeorge said she would <br />have to look at the plan. Ms. Taylor recalled the plan included a street car. <br /> <br />Responding to a question from Ms. Taylor, Central Services Director Jim Carlson said when the district was <br />formed, the assessed value in the district was frozen; that number did not change, no matter what happened <br />in the district from either demolition or improvements. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor observed that the council was talking as if it had to choose one option or another. It did not have <br />to choose either. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor asked staff to discuss the difference between an investment and a subsidy. Ms. Cutsogeorge <br />said if one looked at the opportunities as partnership between the private and public sector one might <br />consider it an investment. She suggested the question was somewhat political in nature. <br /> <br />Responding to a question from Ms. Taylor, Mr. Klein said that the agreement between the developer and <br />City would spell out the developers’ responsibilities even if the developer left town. He said it was a matter <br />of negotiating such protections into the agreement between the City and developer. <br /> <br />Mr. Pryor expressed appreciation for the staff work, saying it helped clarify the risk for him. The council <br />could then decide if the risk was tolerable. He did not think the council had yet discussed the acceptability <br />of the risk, which left staff in a difficult spot. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman was happy to hear the council talk about the source of funds for urban renewal, which were <br />property taxes consolidated from different sources, like schools and the general funds of the county and <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 25, 2007 Page 3 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />