Laserfiche WebLink
Ms. Taylor objected to making a hasty policy decision without further discussion. <br /> <br />The motion to amend failed 5:3; Ms. Taylor, Mr. Zelenka and Mr. Brown voting <br />yes. <br /> <br />Item 1.b was approved 5:3; Ms. Taylor, Mr. Zelenka and Mr. Brown voting no. <br /> <br />Mr. Zelenka commented that there should be a motion at the end of the approval process that addressed the <br />overall cost of the package of strategies. <br /> <br />Item 1.c <br /> <br />In response to a question from Mr. Zelenka, Mr. Ruiz explained that the current allocation to HSC was $1.8 <br />million; an additional $500,000 would be added to that amount in FY11 and in FY12 and beyond the <br />allocation would remain $1.8 million, with the option to allocate additional dollars. <br /> <br />Item 1.c passed unanimously, 8:0. <br /> <br />Item 1.d <br /> <br />Mr. Klein clarified that approving Item 1.d did not automatically approve including the Lane Community <br />College, Veterans’ Affairs clinic or Park Blocks projects; those would be approved separately in items 2, 3 <br />and 4. He suggested adding Item 6 to the end of Item 1.d. <br /> <br />Ms. Piercy determined there were no objections to including Item 6 in Item 1.d. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark said he wanted to understand the specific impacts on other districts, agencies and jurisdictions. <br />He asked if the language related to future disposition of the urban renewal district represented obligating a <br />future city council. Mr. Klein said if the motion passed the council would be presented with a draft urban <br />renewal plan amendment that would include language limiting the expenditure of funds to certain projects <br />and once funds were accumulated to pay for those projects tax increment funding would cease. He said a <br />future council would have the legal authority to amend the plan, as had been done in the past, although it <br />would be difficult if the proposed language was included in the plan because a major amendment would be <br />required. <br /> <br />Mr. Brown said there was no such thing as “supposed immutability” of an urban renewal plan and the <br />current plan had been changed many times. He said future councils, advised by future staff, would be free <br />to amend the plan and there was no legal mechanism to prevent it. He said the plan had been in existence for <br />42 years and could go on forever. He had concerns with the projects identified in items 2, 3 and 4. He <br />pointed out that several communities were competing for the clinic and the Veterans’ Affairs would be <br />leasing, not buying a facility. He said the City had many ways to facilitate a clinic, but urban renewal <br />should not be one of them. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor commented that previous councils had voted to terminate urban renewal and it was easy for a <br />future council to change that decision and expand the district, increase the debt limit and change the <br />purpose. She did not think urban renewal was the right way to fund projects and the council should first <br />decide if it wanted to support the items in the package, and then decide how to fund them. She urged that <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 10, 2010 Page 5 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />