Item 3A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

Mr. Clark, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to direct staff to pursue the next steps, as outlined, to implement the “sale of surplus City real estate for identified devel- opment projects.” The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Mr. Clark, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to initiate code amendments to consid- er extensions, submittal requirements, and processing timelines related to land use applications. Ms. Muir, responding to a question from Ms. Taylor, confirmed that the motion directed staff only to research the code amendments and that no formal action would be taken in that regard without council approval. Ms. Taylor offered a friendly amendment to the previously stated motion to include a sunset provision whereby any amendments to the limited land use code would have a two-year time limit. Ms. Muir reminded Ms. Taylor that the motion currently on the table was to direct staff to return with further information regarding the limited land use code amendments. Ms. Taylor subsequently withdrew her friendly amendment. Mr. Zelenka called for a vote on Mr. Clark’s previously stated motion. The mo- tion passed unanimously, 8:0. Mr. Clark, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to direct staff to pursue next steps, as outlined, to implement “Urban Renewal Plan amendment.” Mr. Poling noted that the discussions surrounding the urban renewal plan during the work session did not constitute any formal changes to the plan. Mr. Clark agreed with Mr. Poling’s assessment. Mr. Zelenka noted that he supported certain urban renewal projects described in the earlier presentation such as the Farmers’ Market and the downtown arts and cultural center. He reiterated his previous request to have a list of all development tools beyond urban renewal tax increment financing that were available to the City and felt that such a list might help the City’s efforts to research and consider more effective means of encouraging responsible downtown development. Ms. Taylor worried that using the word “pursue” in the previously stated motion might allow staff to proceed with amendments to the urban renewal plan without prior council approval. Ms. Cutsogeorge, responding to a comment from Ms. Taylor, noted that any remaining monies from the urban renewal tax proceeds would be returned to the taxing districts once the district expired. Ms. Taylor reiterated her opposition to both the urban renewal district and the motion that was currently under discussion. Mr. Clark appreciated the council’s thoughtful discussion regarding the manner in which the City would seek to encourage local economic development and hoped that future discussions would address how the City might help remove any barriers regarding the same. Mr. Brown reiterated his opposition to the urban renewal district. Mr. Zelenka called for a vote on Mr. Clark’s previously stated motion. The mo- tion passed 6:2 (Mr. Brown and Ms. Taylor voting in opposition.) MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 27, 2009 Page 6 Work Session