Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Tollenaar said that choosing option 2 now did not necessarily bind the council and could be <br />used as a placeholder and simply not levy. He suggested that the total tax bill was more <br />important than the marginal increases in individual tax bills. Mr. Tollenaar added that funding <br />measures were more likely to succeed if voters were clear about the purpose for the money. <br /> <br />In response to a question from Mr. Lee, Ms. Elmer said staff agreed with the committee's <br />recommendation because it provided a way for meeting the council's goals. Mr. Lee said the <br />council's funding decisions should be driven by public needs and he hoped this would be <br />addressed in the council's next discussion. He added that he was particularly interested in how <br />"this makes sense" within the context of the "vertical/horizontal equity analysis" discussed in a <br />prior meeting. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor did not support using urban renewal funds for the library. She said she was also <br />opposed to referring the issue to the Riverfront Research Park Commission and requested <br />information on the City's ties to the University. <br /> <br />Mr. Fart agreed with Ms. Nathanson's comments about the downtown. He said the downtown <br />district's major accomplishment was the capacity to carry out projects downtown that would <br />otherwise be impossible. He disagreed with Mr. Tollenaar that the marginal increase to <br />individual tax bills was insignificant, adding that the cumulative impact was significant. Mr. Fart <br />expressed concern that defeasing the Riverfront district would diminish the City's capacity to give <br />input into that development. Finally, he added, he was not in favor of making any decision prior <br />to the April 13 public hearing. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner favored a comprehensive approach in referring anything to voters. He asked for <br />more details on what urban renewal money had been spent downtown over the last 20-30 years. <br />Mr. Meisner cautioned about using the library to "save" the urban renewal district, calling it "high <br />risk" behavior. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson recalled that the Downtown Plan and subsequent update received community <br />input. She suggested reviewing and prioritizing the list of projects and objectives to see which <br />could still be accomplished on a reduced budget. The council could do the same for deciding if <br />any of those could be accomplished using the General Fund. Ms. Nathanson said that having <br />more details about administrative costs would help in assessing the projects and setting <br />priorities. Finally, she pointed out the distinction between the Riverfront Research Park and the <br />Riverfront Urban Renewal District, which is a larger area with some important improvements that <br />could be done to benefit the entire district. <br /> <br />Mr. Laue said the district should be considered in terms of what public benefit it accomplishes <br />and if that benefit can be realized in any other way. He agreed with Mr. Fart that the cumulative <br />effect on individual tax bills was important, adding that enhanced option 1 seemed the "best <br />deal." He supported receiving a historical perspective from Riverfront Research Park <br />Commission. <br />Ms. Nathanson said the status quo was not an option for her and if the district was continued, the <br />City needed to demonstrate to voters that it can do a better job managing it. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey said the district was never meant to be anything other than a tool and it should be <br />defeased unless there are projects that need to get done. He said he would decide on <br /> <br />Minutes--Eugene City Council February 23, 1998 Page 5 <br /> 5:30 p.m. <br /> <br /> <br />