Laserfiche WebLink
General Fund would receive $800,000 annually if the district was eliminated and could use those funds to <br />hire new police officers and assist with hunger and homelessness. <br />Ms. Taylor preferred to assist LCC with existing funds, including current urban renewal funds and Facility <br />Reserve, instead of increasing the urban renewal debt limit or extending the time. <br />Ms. Ortiz stated she was willing to do what was necessary to help LCC with a new downtown facility. <br />Mr. Zelenka asked how much was currently available in urban renewal funds. Mr. Klein said that as of <br />June 30, 2009, there was slightly more than $11 million in the two urban renewal districts; $3 million of <br />that was in the Riverfront district, leaving $ 8 million in the downtown district. He said the $ 8 million was <br />composed of $2.1 million in the downtown revitalization loan program, leaving $5.9 million in tax <br />increment funds. He noted that some of the $5.9 million had subsequently been used for the final debt <br />payment on the library. Without a plan amendment, the current spending limit would allow for the use of <br />only $500,000 of the remaining tax increment funds; the remainder would have to be returned to the <br />County for redistribution to taxing districts, including the school district. He said the school district s <br />share would become an offset to State school funding, resulting in a very small net gain to the district. <br />Mr. Ruiz said that updated information on urban renewal funds would be provided during the budget <br />process. <br />Ms. Piercy urged the council to keep in mind its broader goals in the community as it pursued downtown <br />projects and the impacts of moving funds around in the budget. She strongly supported the LCC project <br />because of its education and economic development benefits and the creation of j obs. She said <br />homelessness issues could be addressed by providing employment opportunities and it was important to <br />accomplish all goals in a balanced and thoughtful way. <br />Mr. Pryor asked if approving the tax increment financing option would increase residents' property taxes. <br />Mr. Klein said that approving the proposed urban renewal plan amendments would not result in any <br />increase in property taxes. He said passing the motion would result in an analysis from staff that would <br />address those types of questions. <br />Mr. Pryor noted that a general obligation bond or local option levy would increase property taxes. <br />Mr. Brown asserted that there were sufficient funds currently available to assist LCC and asked for an <br />interpretation of ORS 457 to clarify his understanding that if bonded debt was satisfied and there was no <br />plan amendment, all funds were returned to the jurisdictions. He supported the LCC project, but would <br />not vote to extend the urban renewal district because there was already funding available for the things the <br />council wanted to accomplish. <br />Ms. Taylor asked for an accounting of exactly how much would be returned to taxing districts. She was <br />certain there were ways to find funds, such as the Facility Reserve, that could be used to help LCC. She <br />said that property tax bills had information on them about both urban renewal districts and possibly higher <br />County taxes could be avoided if the urban renewal funds were not being diverted from the County. She <br />said LCC would also receive more funding if urban renewal was eliminated. <br />Mr. Brown urged the council to select the one most important project to support instead of trying to <br />address many issues. He hoped the LCC project could be separated from the list and funds used to make it <br />happen. <br />MINUTES Eugene City Council February 22, 2010 Page 3 <br />Work Session <br />