Laserfiche WebLink
encouraged that the City could move forward with something good in downtown for the first time in 30 <br />years. <br />Mayor Piercy said that when the City hired legal staff, it asked that staff to give the council legal advice <br />that would keep it out of trouble. She did not think Mr. Klein was giving the council advice that would <br />get it in trouble with the law. She suggested the council needed to rely on its legal counsel for the best <br />legal advice it had to offer after its many years of experience. She agreed that the law might not be fully <br />established, but she did not think the City was proposing to do anything against the law. <br />Mr. Brown said the council was presented with four options: 1) existing resources, 2) a levy, 3) a general <br />obligation bond, or 4) urban renewal. The council did not examine a revenue bond option, which would <br />not raise taxes or require a vote. He believed there were many other choices for the use of existing <br />resources as well. <br />Mr. Brown said he was getting tired about hearing that urban renewal did not hurt schools. He related that <br />he spoken on the telephone with John Phillips of the Oregon Department of Revenue and exchanged e- <br />mails with Brian Reeder, Assistant Superintendent of Analysis and Reporting at the Department of <br />Education, who both concluded that schools were not -made whole in spite of the State's best efforts, and <br />that it was a net loss to the entire system. Every single school in Oregon suffered as a result. <br />Mr. Brown recalled the last attempt to increase the district's borrowing capacity, which failed on the <br />ballot, and said at that time opponents estimated that $465 per student would be lost as a result of all <br />urban renewal districts in Oregon. He did not think it was okay to cost students that much money just <br />because Portland used urban renewal. <br />City Manager Ruiz recalled that a revenue bond was included in the existing resources option. <br />Mayor Piercy pointed out that the council had the ability to select any option. <br />Mr. Brown agreed that the letter from the Board of County Commissioners was full of misconceptions <br />about urban renewal, but he believed the City could hold the County harmless given how distressed the <br />County organization was. The City diverted $200,000 in revenues from the County every year because of <br />urban renewal and while that did not seem like much in the City budget, it was a lot of money for the <br />County. He said the County could use the money for what ever it wanted. He believed it was the <br />County's money. Mr. Brown was opposed to the plan in any form but suggested it would be more popular <br />with the voting public if the City held the County harmless. He suggested that could be accomplished by <br />eliminating the element of the plan related to the VA site, which he termed an aspirational fantasy. <br />City Manager Ruiz clarified that in the absence of urban renewal, the County would have received <br />$150,000 in fiscal year 2010. Mr. Brown said he saw different figures every meeting. The amount of the <br />amendment had fluctuated since last summer. He had asked how much was left in the downtown district <br />and he heard $3.5 million once and $4.5 million another time. <br />Mr. Zelenkd reviewed the letter from the Board of County Commissioners, which estimated the County's <br />loss at $1 50,000, and said he would take the County's word.. He suggested that the question was one of <br />who the City held harmless. Holding the County harmless would harm the schools. He preferred to hold <br />the schools harmless. He was surprised at the notion of turning the Eugene Facilities Reserve into the <br />LCC Facilities Reserve, as suggested by Ms. Taylor. That seemed inappropriate to him. <br />MINUTES --- --City Council May 10, 2010 Page 8 <br />Work Session <br />