CC Minutes - 05/24/10 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

amendment. She said though the urban renewal district might not take money from the local school district, it did take money from the revenue stream for schools statewide. Councilor Brown concurred with Councilor Taylor. He thought referring the amendment to the voters was the best way to establish whether there was public support for it. He averred that most projects were passed by the voters. He opined that the majority of the council did not want to put the amendment on the ballot because they thought it would fail. Councilor Clark understood the desire to place the amendment on the ballot. He was not a big fan of tax increment financing, but he was willing to vote in favor of the plan because it was the pragmatic approach to accomplish the ends they were trying to achieve downtown. He ascertained from the City Manager that the first opportunity to place the item on a ballot would be in November and asked what this would do to the timeline for the projects. City Manager Ruiz stated that the LCC project would have to be postponed. He said LCC was hoping to start the project in the fall. Councilor Clark understood that the cost of the project was already greater than LCC had anticipated and stressed that postponing it would only drive the costs up. He was concerned that postponement would kill the project. Councilor Taylor asserted that they were ignoring the "fact" that they could do something for LCC; they could fund the LCC proposal with "current funds." Mayor Piercy observed that there was a difference of opinion on the council. She underscored that the amendment had been thoroughly debated and talked about in the community. She felt they had undertaken a thoroughly democratic process. She believed that the opportunities presented by the urban renewal amendment outweighed the issues: construction would bring jobs, the project would bring students downtown, and there were many benefits. Roll call vote; the amendment failed, 6:2; councilors Taylor and Brown voting in support. Councilor Zelenka favored enactment of the plan. He thought they could do it without raising taxes or negatively impacting schools. He declared it to be the cheapest option in front of the council and that it would add much needed jobs to the downtown area. He could not agree that a different financing mechanism would bring about a vibrant downtown. Councilor Taylor reiterated her opposition and her belief that they could do the work without the mechanism. Roll call vote; the motion passed, 6:2; councilors Taylor and Brown voting in opposition. 4. ACTION: Adoption of Revised Lane Area Commission on Transportation Bylaws Intergovernmental Relations Manager, Brenda Wilson, recalled that the council had acted on proposed bylaws on April 26. She explained that since then, four minor concerns had arisen regarding the bylaws, explained in the Agenda Item Summary (AIS), primarily clarifying changes. Councilor Brown was bothered by the last of the four provisions, which directed that the Oregon Transportation Commission (OTC) needed to approve, or at least see, any major changes in the bylaws. He pointed out that the MINUTES— Eugene City Council May 24, 2010 Page 11 Regular Meeting