Laserfiche WebLink
benefit housing projects in the public interest as examples. Ms. Nathanson pointed out that any <br />homeless youth center would require operating funds and should be addressed separately. She <br />agreed with Mr. Farr there was a need for such a project, but said she did not perceive council <br />support at the present time. <br /> <br /> Ms. Swanson Gribskov moved, seconded by Mr. Lee, to preserve the urban <br /> renewal option for potential library construction. <br /> <br />Ms. Swanson Gribskov said that her motion was intended to establish a threshold as she <br />believed there was general agreement among councilors about the library. <br /> <br /> Mr. Meisner moved, seconded by Mr. Laue, to amend the motion by <br /> specifying Option B, library only. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner wanted to find a way to do projects and still have adequate library funding. He did <br />not understand how the grandfathered option could support the library and still realize $2 million <br />for downtown projects. He said that the council should consider downtown projects in the <br />context of all its goals. Mr. Meisner said that if the council adopted the option, it would only be <br />able to use funding for projects on the list, and if the library was the only project on the list it was <br />all the revenues could be used for. He added that adoption of a library-only option would also <br />reduce administrative costs considerably. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor asked if the council could stipulate that the district be defeased if the library did not get <br />constructed. Mr. Klein explained that the answer was tied to whether the ordinance was <br />presented to the voters for approval, and what happened in the event the ordinance was not <br />approved. He said that he would be advised by the motion the council passed when writing the <br />ordinance. <br /> <br />Mr. Tollenaar said that he would support the motion offered by Ms. Swanson Gribskov because of <br />Mr. Klein's comments regarding the legality of other options and the possibility of legal <br />challenges. He said that the option retained funding and did not require a public vote. He said <br />that the council would be preserving an option to use urban renewal to finance part or all of <br />library construction costs. Mr. Tollenaar pointed out that given the plan was unlikely to be <br />implemented for some time, there could be an immediate savings to the taxpayer. He said that <br />the implications of the motion included the possibility that the council might have to seek a local <br />option levy to fund library operations if the public rejected a business or personal income tax or <br />some other form of tax. <br /> <br />Mr. Lee asked if the $2 million identified for projects in Option C(5)(B) could be directed to library <br />construction. Mr. Bowers responded that the $2 million would not increase the total amount <br />available for a library; it could increase the savings to taxpayers from the underlevy. <br /> <br />Mr. Laue said that he was not sure that the council needed to refer an ordinance to the voters. <br /> <br />Mr. Farr indicated his support for Option C(5)(B). He said that he would vote no on the motion <br />because he believed the council would be missing an opportunity if it did not direct some funding <br />toward downtown projects. He said that if the council adopted Option 5(C)(B) it would result in a <br />new library and related downtown enhancements that were small but well-placed. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 15, 1998 Page 6 <br /> 11:30 a.m. <br /> <br /> <br />