Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Poling said the two examples on the list were potential projects and, as a result of the public process, <br />some of the projects would fall off and other projects could be brought forward. He also felt that the <br />process could result in no plan and that the urban renewal district could be allowed "to die." He pointed <br />out that the proposed potential increase in the urban renewal debt limit was a very different discussion than <br />the highly politicized measure that had been voted down. He predicted that the council would get very <br />different types of information with the current discussion than it had in the larger more contentious issue. <br />Mr. Pryor acknowledged that the Hult Center did not have a direct connection with the tax base, but if an <br />improvement to the downtown resulted in the construction of other amenities, this also provided an indirect <br />increase to the tax base. <br />Mr. Zelenka understood that the tools available to the council to "do things" to improve downtown were <br />limited. He noted that they were mostly centered on property tax exemptions and other than that there were <br />no other financial tools to enable some of the projects they were talking about other than urban renewal <br />funds. He said while eliminating the urban renewal district would mean that monies there would go back to <br />the General Fund, that fund had so many "pressures" on it, the funds would be diverted to things other than <br />the projects needed to benefit the downtown area. He averred that the outcome he was seeking was to make <br />the downtown better. He agreed that some past urban renewal projects had not worked. He felt that a <br />public involvement process should include a question asking what they should do to make the downtown <br />better. He believed that the answers to that question might result in projects that would make the <br />downtown better and would provide the City with an urban renewal plan that would revitalize the <br />downtown cultural area and increase the tax base. He thought having a compelling list of projects would <br />be the way to promote public interest in the urban renewal work. <br />In response to a question from Mr. Zelenka, Ms. Nobel Flannery stated that a public vote was not required <br />to increase the debt limit or to extend the boundary of an urban renewal district. <br />Mr. Zelenka ascertained from Ms. Nobel Flannery that, though a public vote was not required, the public <br />could force a referendum on such a decision. He thought the urban renewal district should remain limited <br />and that the council should have a specific idea of what they wanted out of the process. <br />Mr. Brown asked what specific changes the legislature had made to urban renewal, as referenced on page 8 <br />of the AIS. City Attorney Glenn Klein offered to provide the councilors with a memorandum on this. He <br />noted that the changes were focused on the way maximum indebtedness would work going forward. <br />Mr. Brown disagreed that the tools to renew the downtown area were limited. He listed some of the other <br />tools, including the Downtown Revitalization Loan Program. Mr. Zelenka pointed out that the program <br />used urban renewal funds. Mr. Brown countered that it could be a self - perpetuating fund and the money <br />could be continued outside of the urban renewal agency. He continued listing the financial tools, which <br />included the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program, the Business Development Fund, tax <br />exemptions such as the MUPTE and for affordable housing, and the City's General Fund. <br />City Manager Jon Ruiz reiterated that they were just beginning the process. He underscored that there was <br />a lot more discussion to come. <br />Mayor Piercy encouraged everyone to focus on what they wanted to achieve and not what the mechanism to <br />achieve it might be. <br />MINUTES— Eugene City Council July 8, 2009 Page 5 <br />Work Session <br />