Item 2A - Minutes Approval - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

maximum indebtedness meant this maximum could be incurred whether or not there was an increment. In that case, he declared it would have to be repaid even if there were no proceeds from the increment. Mr. Lidz commented that the issues raised were far enough beyond the appeal that he could not respond. He stressed that nothing raised in the appeal required the council to address these issues at this time, as the only thing the council was mandated to do was to adopt the ballot title. He underscored that this did not affect the substance of the revisions or amendments to the Urban Renewal Plan. In response to a question from Mayor Torrey, Mr. Lidz stated emphatically that it would not be incorrect to say in the text "incremental property taxes." Mr. Taylor asked Financial Analysis Manager Sue Cutsogeorge to speak to what the ordinance provided in terms of maximum indebtedness and the caveats explained within the text of section 1300. He underscored that he was trying to avoid having this appeal of the language become a debate of the ordinance. Ms. Cutsogeorge clarified that the ordinance set the maximum indebtedness at $34.8 million. In response to a question from Councilor Bettman, Ms. Cutsogeorge explained that there was existing indebtedness in the amount of $3,030,000, used to purchase the Chiquita site. She added that it was not included in the maximum indebtedness. Councilor Kelly asked Ms. Cutsogeorge to speak to the concept of incremental property taxes. Ms. Cutsogeorge stated that, while it may be true that there was no definition of incremental property taxes in the urban renewal statutes, it was the concept upon which urban renewal was based. She felt the use of those words was not inaccurate. Councilor Bettman offered a friendly amendment to substitute "of $34.8 million" for "amount" in the third to the last line of the statement. The maker and the second for the motion accepted the friendly amendment. Councilor Kelly offered a friendly amendment to strike the word "incremental" from the proposed amended text. Councilor Meisner declined to accept the friendly amendment. Mayor Torrey stated that, in the face of a tie, he intended to vote for the motion. He commented that he would have been hard-pressed to support the motion had the word "increment" been stricken. He said the intent of the ballot title was to ensure the public knew what was happening, which was that there was a base of tax on the property in question, the amount above the base was the increment, and the tax increment was what would generate the revenue. As such, he felt it imperative to retain this word. Councilor Meisner made a friendly amendment to his motion, reworded slightly by legal counsel, to substitute the words "incremental value are used" for the words "are diverted" in the next to the last line of the statement. Councilor Poling accepted the friendly amendment. Mayor Torrey called for a vote on the motion. The motion passed, 5:1; Councilor Taylor voting in opposition. MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 31, 2004 Page 6 Special Meeting