Laserfiche WebLink
revenues to the State and Lane County. He indicated appreciation for the work done by Ms. <br />Nathanson and Mr. Meisner. However, he did not think that the addition of a library and related <br />improvements were enough to address the problems downtown. He indicated his belief that the <br />problem with downtown was social. Homeless youth in the downtown have no other place to go. <br />Mr. Lee said that Eugene needed a community center for such youth. He said that the City <br />could continue to improve sidewalks but that would not solve the underlying problem. <br /> <br />Mr. Farr said that funding was a problem underlying many of the City's issues. He agreed that <br />the council needed to consider how it was going to use urban renewal as a tool in the future. He <br />believed that the council had an opportunity to provide the future citizens of Eugene with a viable <br />downtown through use of urban renewal. Mr. Farr was supportive of using urban renewal to fund <br />a new library to some degree but also concurred with the comments made by Mr. Lee. He said <br />that urban renewal could be used for many projects that benefit downtown. Mr. Farr did not think <br />$2 million was sufficient for other downtown projects. <br /> <br />Mr. Tollenaar said that the council would not be returning the money to the taxpayers by <br />terminating the districts. Eugene residents would realize only $650,000, while passing through to <br />the County and the State another $510,000. Regarding projects in downtown, Mr. Tollenaar <br />indicated it was his preference that any proposal for a youth center be budgeted in the normal <br />manner. <br /> <br />City Attorney Glenn Klein explained that Option 5C(5)(B), C(7A), and C(7B) were developed <br />because he believed there was some legal risk to adopting Option C(9) related to the specificity <br />of the urban renewal plan. He said that the initial plan adopted in 1968 was adopted under <br />different statutory requirements than those currently in place. The current plan does not identify <br />many specific projects and is general about improvements for access and circulation. Mr. Klein <br />said that upon passage of Ballot Measure 50, the State legislature adopted additional legislation <br />stipulating that if the City wished to take advantage of the grandfathered option, the City must <br />identify specific projects in the plan. He believed that there was a risk that identifying any project <br />in grandfathered option 1 other than the library, a court could conclude that the plan was not valid <br />under the new legislation. Staff believes that grandfathered option 1 for the library only does not <br />pose a risk; grandfathered option 1 for the library and other projects does pose a risk. Mr. Klein <br />estimated that the City had a 50-50 chance of withstanding a challenge to Option C(9). <br /> <br />Responding to a question from Mr. Laue, Ms. Cutsogeorge confirmed that she believed the most <br />that could be realized from urban renewal bonds for the library would be about $18 million, if <br />interest rates were favorable. Mr. Laue said that it appeared that $18 million was the maximum <br />that could be realized although he believed it was insufficient for the type of library the community <br />would like to build. He agreed with those who believed that the actualizing that $637,000 as debt <br />service on a library project made good sense. He suggested that a youth center could be <br />incorporated into the library. Mr. Laue said that the $18 million that could be realized should be <br />directed to capital construction for the library, and the council could place other downtown <br />projects into the CIP and prioritize them. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson explained that she was trying to avoid a stalemate, and differentiated her <br />proposal from the present urban renewal district by pointing to its specificity and focus on <br />projects related to the library. She said that her goal was to reduce administrative costs, save <br />taxpayer money, and accomplish some projects that had broad citizen support. She cited <br />improved pedestrian safety, landscaping, improved lighting, benches, rest rooms, weather <br />coverings, art, public open space features, and improvements to public facilities that directly <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 15, 1998 Page 5 <br /> 11:30 a.m. <br /> <br /> <br />