CC Minutes - 02/23/98 Work Session

Home Browse Search

General Fund, and there would be no change in what the taxpayer pays. She described enhanced option #3 as a combination of #1 and #2, with effects approximately halfway between the two. Ms. Cutsogeorge explained the downtown district's resources and requirements. At Mr. Laue's request, Ms. Cutsogeorge provided amounts for the downtown district's administrative costs and central service allocation. Mr. Laue noted that administrative costs consumed ten percent of the fund. Mr. Bowers indicated that administrative costs were a function of the projects the council chose to do. In response to a question from Ms. Taylor, Ms. Cutsogeorge said that if the district were defeased, the debt could be paid off in FY99. Mr. Bowers explained how either capital or General Fund revenue produced by the Downtown Urban Renewal District decisions could be used to create or operate a library within the district. Mr. Laue asked staff to develop another option: terminate the downtown district and convert the taxpayer's $26 into a bond. Mayor Torrey wondered if the City could "underlevy" and mandate no changes. City Attorney Glenn Klein said he believed it was possible and would clarify that issue at the council's April 6 meeting. Addressing a question from Mr. Farr, Mr. Bowers said the bonding option raised by Mr. Laue required voter approval. Mr. Bowers explained that if the council decided to improve the library at its current site, it would lose the grandfathered options. Mr. Bowers described alternatives to the urban renewal districts, including the pros and cons. He said staff analysis of these would be provided at the April 6 meeting. He reviewed decision processes and a likely time line for the process to be followed by the City Council. He noted that the Council Committee on Finance was recommending that, if an enhanced increment option is chosen, a public advisory vote on the ordinance establishing it be held in September. He said such a vote would not require a "super majority" to be passed because it would not officially be a decision on a revenue measure. The commitee also recommended that the council consult with the Riverfront Research Park Commission before taking action on the Riverfront Urban Renewal District. He said that the committee's recommendation required a Planning Commission recommendation, input from Lane County, and a public hearing. Mr. Bowers noted that the Chamber of Commerce has raised some issues, including concern about administration of the district. Mr. Meisner added that three members of the Committee on Infrastructure also expressed concern about the district's administration. Mr. Bowers asked the council to respond to the following questions: 1. Should staff continue to work on using urban renewal funds for a new library? Minutes--Eugene City Council February 23, 1998 Page 3 5:30 p.m.