Item 3A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

or amended urban renewal plans instead of opposing them. Ms. Ortiz advocated for the elimination of the second bullet point concerning mandated portions of urban renewal funds. She expressed that Eugene’s support for such an objective might negatively impact the state-mandated funding amounts provided public school students in Eugene. Mr. Clark indicated that state equalization formulas used to mandate allocations related to urban renewal were a double-edged sword. He maintained that he was not generally supportive of urban development and that rather than revising any of the bulleted items in the urban renewal subsection he would almost rather have a discussion about eliminating urban renewal altogether. Ms. Bettman noted there were inaccuracies in the information being discussed and that closer review of urban renewal policies with emphasis on how they affected school funding was necessary. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to delete the item stating, “Eugene opposes additional consent requirements for new or amended urban renewal plans,” from the Urban Renewal Districts subsection of the legislative policies document. Ms. Taylor commented that urban renewal affected all schools in the state and warranted further review. Ms. Piercy noted she would support a motion indicating the City’s support of a discussion on the merits of urban renewal. Ms. Wilson, responding to a question from Ms. Bettman, indicated she did not know the school district’s official position on funding issues related to urban renewal. Ms. Piercy called for a vote on Ms. Bettman’s previously stated motion. The motion failed 2:6. Mr. Clark, Mr. Zelenka, Ms. Ortiz, Ms. Solomon, Mr. Poling, Mr. Pryor voting in opposition. IV. Transportation—C. Community Livability – Oregon Livability Initiative Ms. Wilson, in response to a request from Ms. Bettman, defined the issue of the Oregon Livability Initiative (OLI) issue for Ms. Bettman as an initiative to require state agencies to take into consideration those ideas that would provide communities with solutions to invest in their communities, and the Community Incentive Fund (CIF) as funding for task forces to come up with ideas for state agencies to invest in for local communities. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor moved to delete the item stating, “Eugene supports the Oregon Livability Initiative and encourages additional funding for the Community Incentive Fund,” from the Community Livability subsection of the legislative policies document. Ms. Bettman expressed that support for the OLI and CIF would lead to a proliferation of needless government programs of no practical benefit that would only take money out of the general fund and take money away from other essential services. Ms. Piercy expressed that the statement to which Ms. Bettman was referring only indicated the City’s support of the matter and not any active policy change regarding allocations of the general fund. MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 24, 2008 Page 5 Work Session