Laserfiche WebLink
Ms. Swanson Gribskov opposed the amendment but said that she would support the main <br />motion as the library represented a threshold for her. <br /> <br />Mr. Lee expressed concern that the public would perceive the $2 million in projects a "slush <br />fund." Mr. Laue agreed, saying it was easier to explain to people that the sole purpose of the <br />district was the library. He believed that there was a significant political risk to including the $2 <br />million for projects. <br /> <br />Mr. Lee said that the council would be improving the downtown by building a new library. He <br />suggested that while removing the funding for projects might represent the "politics of <br />symbolism," he did not want to risk the library for the sake of $2 million in downtown projects. He <br />concurred with Mr. Tollenaar's remarks about funding the youth center. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner said that he would have favored a small, targeted list of projects, but feared that the <br />perception that the council was proposing the establishment of a "slush fund" would imperil any <br />library proposal made to the voters. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson expressed concern about funding for small projects, pointing out that the City <br />currently did not have sufficient funding now for streetlights or sidewalk repairs. She said that <br />downtown was everybody's neighborhood. She did not think the council would find a way to fund <br />projects when they were competing for so few dollars with other projects in other areas. She <br />said that the potential for expansion of the projects list did not exist given the limited funding. <br /> <br />Mr. Torrey said that in the case of a tie he would have voted against the amendment because he <br />agreed with Ms. Nathanson that there were needs downtown that must be addressed, but said <br />he also felt strongly about the library. He believed the council would need to find a way to <br />accomplish such projects as those cited by Ms. Nathanson. Mr. Torrey believed that a new <br />library would go a long way to bringing people and movement to downtown. <br /> <br /> Roll call vote on the motion to amend; the motion passed, 5:3; Mr. Farr, Ms. <br /> Swanson Gribskov, and Ms. Nathanson voting no. <br /> <br /> Ms. Taylor moved, seconded by Mr. Lee, to amend the main motion to direct <br /> that if the money available through urban renewal was not used for a library, <br /> the district would be terminated after its debt was paid. <br /> <br />Mr. Laue asked if the council could pass a motion attempting to bind a future City Council. Mr. <br />Klein responded that while the council could not bind a future council, if it passed the amendment <br />to the motion he could develop an amendment to the plan that stipulated the revenues should be <br />used only for the library and existing debt, and in the case there was not library, to existing debt <br />and the district would be terminated. <br /> <br />Mr. Lee suggested that the council "cross that bridge when we get there." <br /> <br />Mr. Farr indicated he could not support the motion because defeasing the districts would take <br />money out of the community. <br /> <br />Mr. Tollenaar concurred. He said that in addition, the motion as phrased by Ms. Taylor would be <br />the best way to kill a new library because it would focus the opponents of urban renewal on a <br />new way to eliminate urban renewal. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 15, 1998 Page 7 <br /> 11:30 a.m. <br /> <br /> <br />