CC Minutes - 03/08/10 Work Session

Home Browse Search

Mr. Clark, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to forward to the Planning Commis- sion and overlapping taxing districts the proposed amendments to the Downtown Urban Renewal Plan, consistent with the draft plan and report included in At- tachments K and L. Mr. Clark said he was not a fan of tax increment financing, but acknowledged that it was a legitimate tool for increasing property value. He said the tool had been used for some private development, but when it was used for public development it did not increase property values in the downtown area, which could harm other jurisdictions. He did not want to let his ideological opinion stand in the way of a pragmatic approach to making downtown more vibrant. He felt the cost of using existing resources was too high and was willing to move forward with the urban renewal option in order to achieve many benefits to downtown and the community. Ms. Taylor remarked that urban renewal was never intended to continue forever and the County desperately needed money. She said location of a VA clinic downtown was between the federal government and PeaceHealth. She agreed that assistance should be provided to LCC. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Mr. Brown, moved to substitute the following motion: "I move that the City Manager prepare and return to the council with a plan to support LCC's 10 and Charnelton project in the amount of $8.2 million ($8 mil- lion plus $200,000 bond issuance and transaction costs) using the $2.4 million that would be available after terminating tax increment financing; the $1.9 million balance in the downtown loan fund; and a $3.9 million bond paid from the addi- tional $810,000 in property tax dollars that will come to the City's general fund if tax increment ceases. In addition, the manager shall consider other sources of funds in lieu of part of the $3.9 million bond." Ms. Taylor said the option she proposed would not leave LCC in suspense about the City's support. Mr. Brown pointed out that the funding option in Ms. Taylor's motion did not require reprogramming any General Fund resources. He said there were other viable funding options that did not include continuation of the urban renewal district. He said future councils and staff could decide to extend the district beyond 2419 and it was time to let it go. The motion to substitute failed, 2:6; Ms. Taylor and Mr. Brown voting yes. Mr. Zelenka said he did not support the existing resources option because it had impacts on other City services and meant the end of the revitalization loan program, and the general obligation bond and local option levy options asked people to pay more taxes in economically difficult times. He said that left the urban renewal program., which had no net increase in taxes or cuts to the General Fund, maintained the loan program and was the least expensive option for moving all four projects forward. He said the impact to School District 4J was modest and if the motion passed he would ask the City Manager to develop some creative strategies for keeping the school district whole. He liked the concept of a citizen review panel and could not support using the Facility Reserve because it was clear that the current City Hall building could no longer house City functions. Ms. Taylor commented that the Tualatin School District was rejecting urban renewal. Mr. Ruiz replied that the Tualatin School District had voted to support urban renewal. MINUTES Eugene City Council March 8, 2010 Page 4 Work Session