Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

the community’s success. He urged the council to focus on the future and take advantage of projects that were ready to move forward now and an immediately available funding source that did not raise taxes or detract from public education. He fully supported the proposed urban renewal plan amendment. William Kennedy , Lincoln Street, Eugene, said he was a member of the Downtown Neighborhood Association and lived, shopped and played in or near downtown Eugene with his family. He urged the council to do whatever was necessary to assure that the LCC project and other proposed projects downtown became a reality, including increasing the spending cap on the urban renewal district. He said little progress had been made in addressing downtown problems without urban renewal. He said opponents of urban renewal wanted the money spent on schools, public safety and public works, but schools were already being built, improvements were being made to the Park Blocks and measures were under way to improve public safety. He said Eugene’s least sustainable aspect was the job market for young professionals and families and its struggling downtown. He had seen many peers move away for those reasons, but he chose to stay. He urged support for the four projects as there might not be many more changes to revitalize downtown. Dan Herbert , Potter Street, Eugene, supported the ordinance amending the downtown urban renewal plan to provide funding for four projects and then sunsetting the district. He said opponents’ plans to refer the issue to the ballot and end the district in 2010 was a bad idea. He said opponents’ chief complaint was the diversion of funds from the City’s General Fund, the schools and the County, but that was a weak argument because the City’s General Fund could fare even worse if urban renewal funds could not be used to support the projects. He noted that the 4J School District had confirmed that it would not suffer financially from urban renewal as the State made up any shortfall in funds. He said the four projects would serve the entire County, not just Eugene. He said if a referral to the ballot succeeded in rejecting urban renewal, alternative means for funding the projects would cost an estimated $3 million more and an election would cost the City $25,000 and the County $75,000. He said a referral would also cause delays in the LCC project, risking increased costs or scuttling the entire project. He was concerned that an election would also result in a worsening of opponents’ harsh rhetoric, with the effect of shutting down serious discussion of important issues. Charles Biggs , Antelope Way, Eugene, did not support the plan amendment as currently written. He liked the LCC project, but it was not contingent on construction of housing. He said LCC already had a facility in downtown the same size as the proposed project and the amendment should be modified to require housing as part of the project. He did not see why the City should provide a “bailout” of $2.5 million in tax money to persuade the VA to locate a clinic downtown when the current owner of the facility—PeaceHealth—was a very wealthy organization. He said that information provided to the Planning Commission indicated there would be a $650,000 loss to schools and questioned the source of the new figures cited by the City Manager. th Alexis Garrett , West 18 Avenue, Eugene, Ward 1, had served as chair of the Eugene Redevelopment Advisory Committee (ERAC) since 2004 and the committee had been given the task and privilege of reviewing every viable project proposed to support downtown. She said the ERAC understood the unique costs and construction and staging challenges of building in the downtown area and the importance of creating funding to insure realistic projects moved from concept to completion. She said ERAC had sponsored and heard community input on every level and had previously supported and recommended other projects it felt would provide the foundation for desired development, living wage jobs, subsidized and market rate housing and inviting venues for the arts. She said it would not have been possible to predict the current economic challenges and perhaps in another time and economic cycle the plan amendment would have been a different proposal. She said after a thorough evaluation of the proposed downtown plan amendment, the ERAC MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 19, 2010 Page 2 Public Hearing