Item 3A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

Mr. Clark hoped that any sale of surplus property would move swiftly and unencumbered in order to maximize the cost-effectiveness of any such sale. He maintained that he had never been a “big fan of urban renewal” and agreed with earlier comments that any expansions should be attached to very specific projects that were easily understandable by the public. Ms. Cutsogeorge, responding to a question from Mr. Zelenka, noted that there remained approximately half a million dollars before the current urban renewal debt limit would be reached. Mr. Zelenka requested a list of all tools beyond urban renewal tax increment financing that were available to the City for projects such as had been described in the earlier presentation as well as a more specific accounting of the funds received through urban renewal strategies. Ms. Cutsogeorge responded that the information Mr. Zelenka had requested would be included in the report on the urban renewal plan that was required by state statute to be conducted as the plan progressed. Mr. Zelenka noted that detailed accounting figures had not been included in the report on the previous urban renewal plan. Mr. Zelenka suggested that the urban renewal district might be expanded in order to include the current Eugene City Hall facility and adjacent properties since the City was expected to move into a new facility sometime in the near future. Ms. Ortiz agreed with Mr. Pryor’s earlier comment and maintained that the urban renewal district represented an opportunity for members of the public and private sector business interests to invest in downtown Eugene. She asked the council members how they expected to fund City services and programs without revenue-generating strategies such as the urban renewal district, enterprise zones or the garbage hauler surcharge fee. She reiterated that the City’s urban renewal process did not take money directly away from School District 4J as the school district was funded through state channels. She believed that the urban renewal district stimulated business growth that would directly result in the creation of downtown jobs for the community. Mr. Brown stated that an accounting of the tax divisions related to urban renewal had been provided to the council by staff. Mr. Brown was skeptical that the continued use of urban renewal districts would positively benefit downtown development and quoted documentation from economists at Iowa State University to support his opinion. He urged the staff and other council members to offer documentation or statistics refuting his position. He offered to compile a complete accounting of the costs and benefits of the urban renewal district in Eugene throughout its 51 year history. Ms. Solomon responded to Ms. Ortiz’s previous comment and noted that her own support of the urban renewal district had waned because the two most notable recent examples of urban renewal development, the Eugene Public Library and the Hult Center for the Performing Arts, did not generate any tax revenue for the City. She maintained that urban renewal strategies had not worked to facilitate the development of private sector businesses and investments in the downtown area. Mr. Zelenka reminded the council that local taxation policies related to urban renewal were essentially irrelevant with respect to School District 4J since school funding processes had been removed from local jurisdictions to be funded primarily at the state level. Mr. Pryor noted that he was not wedded to any funding strategy that did not work effectively for the City, but noted that any effective partner strategy for the City with respect to downtown development would need to come with some sort of financial benefit to all partners involved. MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 27, 2009 Page 5 Work Session