My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CC Minutes - 05/10/10 Work Session
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Council Minutes
>
2010
>
CC Minutes - 05/10/10 Work Session
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/23/2012 12:48:08 PM
Creation date
7/28/2010 4:41:20 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Minutes
Meeting_Type
Work Session
CMO_Meeting_Date
5/10/2010
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
10
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
moving forward and he was assured that the City was on firm legal ground and the City Attorney looked <br />into the question raised by Mr. Brown. He said "that was why we have legal staff." He asked staff to <br />elaborate on the response from School District 4J. Ms. Flannery Nobel indicated that 4J financial staff <br />had indicated its concurrence with the City's analysis. <br />Mr. Zelenka said a citizen commented that the City could use urban renewal to pay for capital projects, <br />but the garage was an existing debt rather than a new debt and could not be a capital project and hence the <br />use was inappropriate. Mr. Klein said that if the project was a completely new project that had not yet <br />been funded by urban renewal or outside the district he would agree, but the parking garage property was <br />initially assembled by the URA, and URA had already contributed more than $2 million toward the <br />project. <br />Mr. zelenka said he found irony in the letter from the Board of County Commissioners, who asserted the <br />City was taking away money from jail beds when the City was actually funding more jail beds and putting <br />more money for police services "on the street." He suggested the issue would be worked out and it could <br />be that the City purchased the jail beds from Lane County. He recalled past examples of partnership <br />between the two entities. <br />Mr. zelenka called the council's attention to the op -ed piece he co- authored with the mayor in support of <br />the proposal, which appeared in the Sunday May 9 edition of The Register- Guard. <br />Mr. Pryor agreed the council needed to have its legal questions answered but he thought the proposal was <br />in the community's best interest and the funding proposal was the best way now to revitalize downtown <br />and increase public safety without increasing taxes. It was a way to provide livability and quality of life <br />enhancements in regard to the Farmers Market. In addition, it had the added benefit of being something <br />the council could sunset in a shorter time than it could a bond. <br />With regard to the communication from the Lane Board of County Commissioners, Mr. Pryor suggested <br />the board would do what it would do and the council would do what it would do and they would maintain <br />a good working relationship without letting such side issues get in the way. He did not think the council <br />should allow itself to be distracted from reaching its goals. <br />Ms. Taylor thought the City was moving in the wrong direction. She believed the council should have <br />been given all the comments made by the public directly rather than be referred to a book in the City <br />Manager's Office. She referred to some of the negative comments made by the public, which included <br />recommendations the City terminate the district immediately and then evaluate the use of the funds in a <br />transparent manner. Another critic contended that the district had become a self - perpetuating bureaucra- <br />cy, and she agreed. Ms. Taylor pointed out that urban renewal was intended to cure blight and eventually <br />terminate, but she had counted 38 properties that were identified as blighted after 42 years of urban <br />renewal. She further pointed out that the current proposal did nothing to address the blighted areas. <br />Ms. Taylor was happy to hear from the Board of County Commissioners and believed that it was the <br />board's obligation to speak up. She said the money involved was not free. It was tax money and it cost <br />someone something. She was opposed to any extension of time, any increase in the debt limit, and any <br />boundary expansion. Ms. Taylor suggested the council ask the public to vote on the proposal and said she <br />would go along with it if the public agreed: <br />Mayor Piercy believed the council had an honest difference of opinion that was part of the policy- making <br />process. She expressed appreciation for all points of view. She noted that that many of the public <br />MINUTES -- --City Council May 10, 2010 Page 6 <br />Work Session <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.