Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Ruiz compared the four funding options in each of the following areas: <br />• Funds all recommended projects <br />• Creates new jobs <br />• Improves image of downtown and community <br />• Subsidized private developers <br />• Administrative costs <br />• Public cost <br />• Maintains downtown/economic development loan program <br />• General fund impact <br />• Local schools impact <br />Mr. Ruiz recommended downtown urban renewal as the funding option for projects because it was <br />responsive to community desires; limited economic impacts to individuals, projects and the General Fund; <br />was immediately available to implement projects; accomplished downtown goals with resources intended <br />for those purposes and allowed for the continuation of the Downtown Revitalization Loan Program. He <br />reminded the agency that the recommendation was limited to the four projects identified at the beginning <br />of the presentation and the urban renewal district would terminate at the conclusion of those projects. <br />Mr. Clark observed that all funding options included borrowing money and the question for him was the <br />impacts on the City and other jurisdictions of that indebtedness. He asked the Agency Director to explain <br />why tax increment funding was a better approach than the other financing options, including an intended <br />motion by Ms. Taylor, and whether there could be opportunity costs in the future if the agency accepted <br />the Agency Director's recommendation. <br />Mr. Ruiz noted that Ms. Taylor's intended motion was to fund the LCC project only, not the other three <br />downtown projects, and was not directly comparable to the other funding options. He said the total cost <br />of the urban renewal option was less than other options and it did not ask voters to increase current taxes. <br />He said in terms of an opportunity cost, if the urban renewal district was terminated, some funds would <br />become available, but they would not be sufficient to fund all four projects. He noted that the net amount <br />of funds to be redistributed to the school district was fairly small. <br />Mr. Clark asked if expanding the boundary of the urban renewal district to include the potential site for a <br />VA clinic required the approval of any other jurisdiction. Mr. Ruiz said it would not require other <br />approvals; the expansion would only occur if the site was selected for a clinic and the VA wanted <br />financial assistance. <br />Mr. Poling asked how effective the Downtown Revitalization Loan Program had been. Mike Sullivan, <br />Community Development Division, said the loan program had assisted with the Broadway Building, <br />which housed Adam's Restaurant, the building at One East Broadway, redevelopment of Rubenstein's <br />furniture store as office space, Harlequin Beads, Full City Coffee _and the Zenon restaurant. He said staff <br />was currently in discussions with the potential developer of the former Taco Time building. <br />In response to questions from Mr. Poling, Ms. Cutsogeorge clarified that local schools would receive <br />approximately $31,000 annually in additional ongoing funds if the urban renewal district was terminated. <br />Mr. Ruiz said he envisioned the citizens' review panel being structured and functioning in the same way <br />as the panel overseeing expenditure of funds from the bond for street repairs. <br />MINUTES Eugene City Council March S, 2 010 Page 2 <br />Work Session <br />