Laserfiche WebLink
<br />had adequate finances to move all of the projects forward and taxpayers should be able to vote on the <br />expenditure of urban renewal funds. <br /> <br />Councilor Zelenka stressed that the urban renewal plan amendment was not the same proposal presented two <br />years ago. He asked the City Manager to restate the information about financial impacts on the school district. <br /> <br />Mr. Ruiz said based on information provided by the Lane County Assessor, and City staff, and confirmed by <br />School District 4J, the district would lose $117,000 annually if the urban renewal district was not continued. <br />From a financial standpoint it was to the district’s advantage to continue the district. <br /> <br />Councilor Zelenka commented that he had requested the analysis because of misperceptions about the fiscal <br />impact of urban renewal on schools. He urged the public not to believe the rhetoric and support the proposal. <br />Failing to support the urban renewal plan amendment would likely eliminate the Willamette Street site’s <br />potential for a VA clinic and could jeopardize the LCC project. He said all four projects could be <br />accomplished with urban renewal funds without raising taxes, while the opponents’ plan would actually raise <br />taxes and cause financial harm to the school district. He urged support for the plan amendment. <br /> <br />Councilor Pryor stated he had served on the school board for 11 years and concurred with the analysis of the <br />financial impact of urban renewal on the school district. He pointed out that the school district had confirmed <br />the results of the analysis. He said the plan amendment was a viable means of moving forward immediately <br />with the projects, then sunsetting the district when they were completed. <br /> <br />Councilor Poling remarked that there was nothing in the proposed plan amendment that would destroy any part <br />of downtown; the projects would add to its beauty and vibrancy and the district would sunset when they were <br />completed. He said opponents objected to the expenditure of funds on public and nonprofit projects that would <br />not pay taxes, but objections to the previous urban renewal plan were based on expenditure of funds on private <br />development instead of public services. He emphasized that expansion of the district was specific to the VA <br />clinic site and would occur only if that site was actually selected for the clinic. He was concerned that if the <br />council approved the plan and it was then referred to the ballot, the delay would jeopardize the projects and <br />perhaps cause the City to miss a golden opportunity. <br /> <br />Councilor Taylor felt that the council should find another mechanism to assist LCC to avoid any delay in the <br />event the plan was referred to the voters. She asserted that urban renewal did not create money, it came from <br />taxes and if the funds continued to be diverted from the County, the County had a greater need to raise taxes to <br />support public safety. She preferred to use the City’s current resources to support the LCC project without <br />putting it to a vote of the people. <br /> <br />Mayor Piercy expressed her appreciation for the community’s outpouring of support for the projects. She <br />stated that there had been a request to keep the record open until May 17 and typically the council allowed an <br />additional 7 to 14 days when such a request was made. She said the City had agreed to keep the record open <br />until April 30 for the overlapping taxing districts and asked that a motion to that effect be put forward. <br /> <br />Councilor Clark, seconded by Councilor Taylor, moved to leave the record open until <br />April 30. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 19, 2010 Page 8 <br /> Public Hearing <br /> <br />