CC Minutes - 02/22/10 Work Session

Home Browse Search

plan amendment before it came to the council and the last election date was May 18. He said the amendment was referable to the ballot and believed that is what would occur. He regretted that voters would be forced to collect signatures to refer the amendment. Ms. Ortiz thanked staff for the clarifications to motions. She reminded Mr. Brown that calling the question was an acceptable action under the council's operating procedures and she supported it because a council member had to leave early and requested that further action be delayed. She felt it was respectful and acknowledged that councilors had other obligations and commitments. Mr. Clark commented that he was generally opposed to tax increment financing as a way to fund City business, but would support the motion because it would provide the council with information on the available options to facilitate decisions on how to proceed with improving downtown. Ms. Taylor pointed out that Lane Community College (LCC) already had a presence in downtown and being opposed to urban renewal did not equate to being opposed to LCC. She said there were other ways to assist LCC with a new building. Ms. Piercy related that she had spoken to many people in the community and most were aware that LCC's downtown facility was outdated and small. LCC's interest in building a new energy center downtown was an opportunity for the community to move in the direction of revitalizing downtown and she was pleased to explore options for making that happen. Mr. Zelenka pointed out that the motion did not commit the council to a particular course of action; it was a request for information on funding options so the council could determine which approach was best suited to achieving its goals. Mr. Brown reiterated his concern that the council was ignoring the deadlines for referral to the ballot. Planning and Development Executive Director Susan Muir said the tentative timeline for an urban renewal plan amendment, should the council take action at its March 8 meeting, included notifying taxing districts on March 12, and providing copies of the proposed amendments and an invitation to comment. She said a postcard would be sent to the general public announcing the proposed amendments and the public hearing date and all materials would be posted on the City's website. The amendments would be reviewed - by the Planning Commission on March 29 and by the Eugene Redevelopment Advisory Committee (ERAC) on April 1. The council could hold a public hearing on the ordinance amending the plan on April 19 and conduct a work session on April 21 to review comments from taxing districts, jurisdictions, the Planning Commission and ERAC and the public. She said staff would provide refined plan amendments to the council on April 27, along with financial analyses and recommendations. The council could adopt the ordinance amending the plan on May 10 and the signature process would need to be completed by June 9. She said the deadline for the November 2, 2010, election was July 15 and the plan could be referred to that ballot. Mr. Brown said the money in the urban renewal fund would be lost July 1 because it was the start of a new fiscal year. City Attorney Glenn Klein explained that if the council acted before the end of the current fiscal year the urban renewal agency would retain the funds until it was determined whether the plan was referred to the ballot, and if referred, whether voters accepted or rejected the plan. If rejected, the collection of tax increment funds would cease and the money would be returned to jurisdictions. Mr. Brown asserted that he interpreted the statute differently. He questioned why the council would want to pursue that course of action instead of ending the urban renewal district now. He said the City's MINUTES Eugene City Council February 22, 2010 Page 2 Work Session