CC Minutes - 05/10/10 Work Session

Home Browse Search

moving forward and he was assured that the City was on firm legal ground and the City Attorney looked into the question raised by Mr. Brown. He said "that was why we have legal staff." He asked staff to elaborate on the response from School District 4J. Ms. Flannery Nobel indicated that 4J financial staff had indicated its concurrence with the City's analysis. Mr. Zelenka said a citizen commented that the City could use urban renewal to pay for capital projects, but the garage was an existing debt rather than a new debt and could not be a capital project and hence the use was inappropriate. Mr. Klein said that if the project was a completely new project that had not yet been funded by urban renewal or outside the district he would agree, but the parking garage property was initially assembled by the URA, and URA had already contributed more than $2 million toward the project. Mr. zelenka said he found irony in the letter from the Board of County Commissioners, who asserted the City was taking away money from jail beds when the City was actually funding more jail beds and putting more money for police services "on the street." He suggested the issue would be worked out and it could be that the City purchased the jail beds from Lane County. He recalled past examples of partnership between the two entities. Mr. zelenka called the council's attention to the op -ed piece he co- authored with the mayor in support of the proposal, which appeared in the Sunday May 9 edition of The Register- Guard. Mr. Pryor agreed the council needed to have its legal questions answered but he thought the proposal was in the community's best interest and the funding proposal was the best way now to revitalize downtown and increase public safety without increasing taxes. It was a way to provide livability and quality of life enhancements in regard to the Farmers Market. In addition, it had the added benefit of being something the council could sunset in a shorter time than it could a bond. With regard to the communication from the Lane Board of County Commissioners, Mr. Pryor suggested the board would do what it would do and the council would do what it would do and they would maintain a good working relationship without letting such side issues get in the way. He did not think the council should allow itself to be distracted from reaching its goals. Ms. Taylor thought the City was moving in the wrong direction. She believed the council should have been given all the comments made by the public directly rather than be referred to a book in the City Manager's Office. She referred to some of the negative comments made by the public, which included recommendations the City terminate the district immediately and then evaluate the use of the funds in a transparent manner. Another critic contended that the district had become a self - perpetuating bureaucra- cy, and she agreed. Ms. Taylor pointed out that urban renewal was intended to cure blight and eventually terminate, but she had counted 38 properties that were identified as blighted after 42 years of urban renewal. She further pointed out that the current proposal did nothing to address the blighted areas. Ms. Taylor was happy to hear from the Board of County Commissioners and believed that it was the board's obligation to speak up. She said the money involved was not free. It was tax money and it cost someone something. She was opposed to any extension of time, any increase in the debt limit, and any boundary expansion. Ms. Taylor suggested the council ask the public to vote on the proposal and said she would go along with it if the public agreed: Mayor Piercy believed the council had an honest difference of opinion that was part of the policy- making process. She expressed appreciation for all points of view. She noted that that many of the public MINUTES -- --City Council May 10, 2010 Page 6 Work Session