Laserfiche WebLink
would need to be presented in July. She said that did not mean the entire project; it could simply mean <br />property acquisition. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman asked what costs were not included in the maximum debt calculation. Ms. Cutsogeorge said <br />that interest on debt was not included and that amount would depend on how much debt was involved for the <br />project. She estimated that could be approximately $8 million. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman asked if the BEDI grant and HUD Section 108 loan were also in addition to the $40 million in <br />increased indebtedness. Ms. Cutsogeorge replied that the BEDI grant was a City grant and the agency <br />would not expend those funds, and the HUD Section 108 loan would be a City loan repaid from urban <br />renewal funds and counted against the $40 million. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman asked why staff did not propose that the urban renewal district sunset in 2024 and allow those <br />properties within the district to return to the tax rolls. She said a new urban renewal district could be <br />created for other redevelopment in the downtown area. Ms. Cutsogeorge said the 2030 termination date was <br />proposed to accommodate the West Broadway project, not a future project. She said the intent was to <br />accommodate the 20-year debt and maximize the district’s ability to pay for the West Broadway project. <br /> <br />Mr. Poling commented that expanding the boundary would be an opportunity to move forward but he was <br />willing to eliminate that amendment if it meant the West Broadway initiative could proceed. He said <br />modification of the urban renewal plan in 2004 was done before there were specific plans and proposals for <br />downtown redevelopment. He would support the motion. <br /> <br />Mr. Zelenka wanted to have all of the financial tools in place to proceed in September and recognized there <br />were significant lead times required for some of those tools. He was supportive of the minimal increase in <br />indebtedness for the West Broadway project only, but questioned the extension of the termination date. He <br />preferred a shorter timeframe for repaying the debt so that the benefit of redevelopment could go to the City. <br />He asked what the impact would be of not extending that date. Ms. Cutsogeorge said that urban renewal <br />would be the primary financial tool used to pay for the redevelopment project. She said that the longer the <br />repayment period was, the larger the financial capacity of the district would be. She said that $13.5 million <br />in urban renewal debt was at the high end of what the district could accommodate using a 20-year <br />repayment schedule on the debt. She said that a shorter period would reduce the amount that could be <br />borrowed. <br /> <br />Mr. Zelenka asked for calculations on the decrease in district capacity with shorter repayment periods. <br /> <br />Mr. Zelenka offered a friendly amendment to include financing options if the termination <br />date was not extended. <br /> <br />Ms. Ortiz asked for clarification of the amendment. <br /> <br />Mr. Zelenka explained that he wanted the benefit of the tax increment to return to the entire City as soon as <br />possible and extending the date would delay that for six more years. He wanted to understand the financial <br />impact of shorter repayment period. Mr. Klein said that staff would perform that analysis without an <br />amendment to the motion. <br /> <br />Mr. Zelenka withdrew his amendment. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 29, 2007 Page 7 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />