Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

In response to questions from Mr. Poling, Ms. Cutsogeorge clarified that local schools would receive approximately $31,000 annually in additional ongoing funds if the urban renewal district was terminated. Mr. Ruiz said he envisioned the citizens’ review panel being structured and functioning in the same way as the panel overseeing expenditure of funds from the bond for street repairs. Mr. Brown objected to using the urban renewal district to fund projects and thought it was destructive to Lane County and did hurt the schools. He asserted that the projects could all be accomplished using existing resources and a revenue-backed bond, which did not have to be referred to the voters. He said the council did not know what, if anything, LCC required for its downtown project. He stated that the other projects could be funded from the money the City would receive if tax increment collection ceased, plus liquidation of the loan program and Facility Reserve. He did not understand the reluctance to use Facility Reserve funds on veterans when it was being used to relocate other first responders like police officers. Ms. Taylor expressed concern about the diversion of funds from schools. She said the VA clinic was not a reality and the focus should be on doing one project at a time; LCC was the urgent project and the City should provide financial assistance if it was required. She was certain that an urban renewal plan amendment would be referred to the ballot and LCC would not have an answer for many months and be unable to move forward with its project. She felt it was possible to fund LCC’s needs with existing funds and without continuing urban renewal or raising taxes. She said it was not necessary to move forward with all the projects at once. Ms. Solomon asked when a decision on the VA site location was expected. Mr. Sullivan replied that the VA had received responses to its request for proposals and would be conducting site visits and due diligence over the next several months. He thought a decision could be made by the end of the year, but it was a federal project and he did not have any more specific information. In response to a question from Ms. Solomon, Ms. Cutsogeorge confirmed that use of existing resources for the projects would require reprogramming $450,000 of current General Fund money, which would be permanent cuts in addition to the budget cuts already being made. Mr. Pryor said, from his perspective, the discussion focused on the two funding options that did not increase taxes: use of existing resources or urban renewal. He said the existing resources option would obligate the City to repay indebtedness until 2032; the urban renewal option would result in termination of tax increment financing in 2019. He stressed that no one was advocating for retaining the urban renewal district past that date. He said the City would pay $3 million less in interest with the urban renewal option and those were funds that could be used for other purposes. He felt retaining the urban renewal district long enough to fund the projects was the most prudent choice, but wanted definitive information on the impact to schools. Mr. Zelenka thanked staff for the detailed analysis of funding options. He supported pursuing all four projects as they were catalysts for creating a more vibrant downtown. He said the existing resource funding option was initially appealing, but the need to reprogram $450,000 in the General Fund was of concern because that could mean cuts to many of the services that were important to downtown, such as the library, parks and recreation, fire and police. He said eliminating urban renewal would save the average homeowner $1.66 per year, or about the cost of a soft drink. MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 8, 2010 Page 3 Work Session