Laserfiche WebLink
<br />about $31,000 in ongoing funding and other schools throughout the state would receive $629,000. The <br />impact of Measure 5 on District 4J’s local option levy was unknown. <br /> <br />Mr. Ruiz compared the four funding options in each of the following areas: <br /> <br />? <br /> Funds all recommended projects <br />? <br /> Creates new jobs <br />? <br /> Improves image of downtown and community <br />? <br /> Subsidized private developers <br />? <br /> Administrative costs <br />? <br /> Public cost <br />? <br /> Maintains downtown/economic development loan program <br />? <br /> General fund impact <br />? <br /> Local schools impact <br /> <br />Mr. Ruiz recommended downtown urban renewal as the funding option for projects because it was <br />responsive to community desires; limited economic impacts to individuals, projects and the General Fund; <br />was immediately available to implement projects; accomplished downtown goals with resources intended for <br />those purposes and allowed for the continuation of the Downtown Revitalization Loan Program. He <br />reminded the agency that the recommendation was limited to the four projects identified at the beginning of <br />the presentation and the urban renewal district would terminate at the conclusion of those projects. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark observed that all funding options included borrowing money and the question for him was the <br />impacts on the City and other jurisdictions of that indebtedness. He asked the Agency Director to explain <br />why tax increment funding was a better approach than the other financing options, including an intended <br />motion by Ms. Taylor, and whether there could be opportunity costs in the future if the agency accepted the <br />Agency Director’s recommendation. <br /> <br />Mr. Ruiz noted that Ms. Taylor’s intended motion was to fund the LCC project only, not the other three <br />downtown projects, and was not directly comparable to the other funding options. He said the total cost of <br />the urban renewal option was less than other options and it did not ask voters to increase current taxes. He <br />said in terms of an opportunity cost, if the urban renewal district was terminated, some funds would become <br />available, but they would not be sufficient to fund all four projects. He noted that the net amount of funds to <br />be redistributed to the school district was fairly small. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark asked if expanding the boundary of the urban renewal district to include the potential site for a <br />VA clinic required the approval of any other jurisdiction. Mr. Ruiz said it would not require other <br />approvals; the expansion would only occur if the site was selected for a clinic and the VA wanted financial <br />assistance. <br /> <br />Mr. Poling asked how effective the Downtown Revitalization Loan Program had been. Mike Sullivan, <br />Community Development Division, said the loan program had assisted with the Broadway Building, which <br />housed Adam’s Restaurant, the building at One East Broadway, redevelopment of Rubenstein’s furniture <br />store as office space, Harlequin Beads, Full City Coffee and the Zenon restaurant. He said staff was <br />currently in discussions with the potential developer of the former Taco Time building. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 8, 2010 Page 2 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />