Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

He thought failure would mean that it would take years to achieve anything downtown. Ms. Taylor thought downtown had suffered from 40 years of urban renewal and asked why urban renewal had not worked to this point. She reiterated that the public should be asked to vote on the proposal being contemplated. She suggested the open pit associated with the project could be filled with existing resources. She determined from staff there was $22 million in the Facilities Reserve and suggested that those fund could be employed if the council chose, and it would not cost the City anything to use that funding. Ms. Taylor acknowledged there was some urgency about LCC’s plans that could be hampered by a public vote, but she suggested that the Facility Reserve could be used for that project and the voters could decide on the use of urban renewal for the other three projects. Ms. Taylor asked how much it cost to survey the buildings downtown to determine if they were blighted. City Manager Ruiz said the work was done by staff, and the cost was paid for by urban renewal funds. Mr. Clark said he was not a big fan of how Eugene used tax increment financing in the past. However, he believed the proposed plan, while not perfect for everyone, had elements that accomplished things that he thought made it worth accepting. He specifically cited the proposals related to downtown public safety as an example. Mr. Pryor spoke to the fact that not a lot had happened downtown, and suggested it was because there had not been an idea that people could all get behind. He did not think the City had been in a position to find consensus in the past, but he believed that at this time the City was in a unique position to move forward. He agreed that urban renewal was not a perfect tool but he thought it could be good if not great. He was encouraged that the City could move forward with something good in downtown for the first time in 30 years. Mayor Piercy said that when the City hired legal staff, it asked that staff to give the council legal advice that would keep it out of trouble. She did not think Mr. Klein was giving the council advice that would get it in trouble with the law. She suggested the council needed to rely on its legal counsel for the best legal advice it had to offer after its many years of experience. She agreed that the law might not be fully established, but she did not think the City was proposing to do anything against the law. Mr. Brown said the council was presented with four options: 1) existing resources, 2) a levy, 3) a general obligation bond, or 4) urban renewal. The council did not examine a revenue bond option, which would not raise taxes or require a vote. He believed there were many other choices for the use of existing resources as well. Mr. Brown said he was getting tired of hearing that urban renewal did not hurt schools. He related that he had spoken on the telephone with John Phillips of the Oregon Department of Revenue and exchanged emails with Brian Reeder, Assistant Superintendent of Analysis and Reporting at the Department of Education, who both concluded that schools were not made whole in spite of the State’s best efforts, and that it was a net loss to the entire system. Every single school in Oregon suffered as a result. Mr. Brown recalled the last attempt to increase the district’s borrowing capacity, which failed on the ballot, and said, at that time, opponents estimated that $465 per student would be lost as a result of all urban renewal districts in Oregon. He did not think it was okay to cost students that much money just because Portland used urban renewal. MINUTES—City Council May 10, 2010 Page 7 Work Session