Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

Mr. Brown asserted that he interpreted the statute differently. He questioned why the council would want to pursue that course of action instead of ending the urban renewal district now. He said the City’s General Fund would receive $800,000 annually if the district was eliminated and could use those funds to hire new police officers and assist with hunger and homelessness. Ms. Taylor preferred to assist LCC with existing funds, including current urban renewal funds and Facility Reserve, instead of increasing the urban renewal debt limit or extending the time. Ms. Ortiz stated she was willing to do what was necessary to help LCC with a new downtown facility. Mr. Zelenka asked how much was currently available in urban renewal funds. Mr. Klein said that as of June 30, 2009, there was slightly more than $11 million in the two urban renewal districts; $3 million of that was in the Riverfront district, leaving $8 million in the downtown district. He said the $8 million was composed of $2.1 million in the downtown revitalization loan program, leaving $5.9 million in tax increment funds. He noted that some of the $5.9 million had subsequently been used for the final debt payment on the library. Without a plan amendment, the current spending limit would allow for the use of only $500,000 of the remaining tax increment funds; the remainder would have to be returned to the County for redistribution to taxing districts, including the school district. He said the school district’s share would become an offset to State school funding, resulting in a very small net gain to the district. Mr. Ruiz said that updated information on urban renewal funds would be provided during the budget process. Ms. Piercy urged the council to keep in mind its broader goals in the community as it pursued downtown projects and the impacts of moving funds around in the budget. She strongly supported the LCC project because of its education and economic development benefits and the creation of jobs. She said homelessness issues could be addressed by providing employment opportunities and it was important to accomplish all goals in a balanced and thoughtful way. Mr. Pryor asked if approving the tax increment financing option would increase residents’ property taxes. Mr. Klein said that approving the proposed urban renewal plan amendments would not result in any increase in property taxes. He said passing the motion would result in an analysis from staff that would address those types of questions. Mr. Pryor noted that a general obligation bond or local option levy would increase property taxes. Mr. Brown asserted that there were sufficient funds currently available to assist LCC and asked for an interpretation of ORS 457 to clarify his understanding that if bonded debt was satisfied and there was no plan amendment, all funds were returned to the jurisdictions. He supported the LCC project, but would not vote to extend the urban renewal district because there was already funding available for the things the council wanted to accomplish. Ms. Taylor asked for an accounting of exactly how much would be returned to taxing districts. She was certain there were ways to find funds, such as the Facility Reserve, that could be used to help LCC. She said that property tax bills had information on them about both urban renewal districts and possibly higher County taxes could be avoided if the urban renewal funds were not being diverted from the County. She said LCC would also receive more funding if urban renewal was eliminated. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 22, 2010 Page 3 Work Session