Item 3A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

Ms. Cutsogeorge, responding to a question from Mr. Zelenka, noted that the proposed increases to the boundary and debt limits of the urban renewal district represented substantial amendments to current policies and would not require a public vote. Mr. Zelenka hoped that any expansions to the urban renewal district would be for specific projects with specific dollar amounts attached to each one. Ms. Muir responded that further staff research and recommendations taken under the next steps directed by council would include much more specific information in that regard. Mr. Pryor hoped that the council’s discussions regarding the economic development plan would include a discussion of the appropriate role of local government with respect to private sector development in the community. He noted that he would be willing to talk about urban renewal and continued economic investment in downtown development so long as the projects came with specific details regarding their costs and construction plans. Ms. Medary, responding to a question from Mr. Poling, clarified the nature of the limited land use code amendment proposal and noted that it would not be used to put specific projects on hold, but to allow those projects whose permits were close to expiring more time to complete their development or construction. Mr. Nystrom further noted that the code amendments would apply primarily to private development investments rather than City infrastructure projects. Mr. Nystrom commented that the limited land use code amendment proposal was essentially designed to keep private development projects alive until a time when they were more economically viable. Mr. Poling supported the proposal to sell off the City’s surplus property. Mr. Poling felt that any expansions to the urban renewal district should be relatively narrow in focus and directed toward specific projects such as the VA hospital. Ms. Cutsogeorge and Mr. Braud responding to a question from Ms. Solomon, noted that not all surplus properties for sale would be subject to an RFP and that, while the RFP process was sometimes laborious, the council could choose to direct staff to proceed with the sale of surplus properties through more direct means. Mr. Braud described the basic functions of the RFP process for Ms. Solomon and the council’s benefit. Ms. Solomon noted that her support of urban renewal strategies had waned in recent years and further noted that she would only support expansion of the urban renewal district boundary if it could correspon- dingly be narrowed on the north end to allow for south end expansion and contingent upon the implementa- tion of the VA hospital project. Mr. Brown advocated for the dissolution of the urban renewal district as a means toward stimulating downtown development and maintained that other members of the community, and other communities around the country, shared his position. He urged the council members to google Multnomah County Chair Ted Wheeler to learn more regarding his views on urban renewal districts as they applied to the Portland Metro area. Ms. Taylor reiterated her opposition to urban renewal strategies as well as any corresponding expansions of the urban renewal district and maintained that they represented a "stealth slush fund" for private sector interests. MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 27, 2009 Page 4 Work Session