CC Minutes - 6/23/1997 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Hibschman stated that the budget proposal referred to in Resolution 990 was intended to be a “placeholder” until there was more clarity regarding the implications of Ballot Measure 50 on issues related to urban renewal agency resources. Mayor Torrey determined council members had no questions regarding the Urban Renewal Agency budget proposal. Mayor Torrey opened the public hearing. Pat Hocken, 3500 East 17th Avenue, stated that she was president of the Lane Transit District (LTD) Board of Directors. She said LTD was best able to serve when there was high population density in residential or employment centers. She said LTD supported the Urban Renewal Agency and its budget. Mr. Laue rejoined the meeting at 9:40 p.m. Russ Brink, 2278 Corinthian Court, stated that he was pleased a “placeholder” budget for the Urban Renewal Agency had been proposed. He said he believed the agency was unfairly characterized as a subsidy of business interests because it was a public financing tool for improvements of public infrastructure. Kathy Madison, 1604 Ardendale, congratulated the council for its thoughtful budget adoption processes. She said many of the effects of Ballot Measure 50 on urban renewal agencies continued to be unknown and urged careful monitoring of related developments. There being no other requests to speak, Mayor Torrey closed the public hearing. Ms. Elmer stated that the council would consider Resolution 990 relating to the Urban Renewal Agency’s budget for fiscal year 1997-98. Res. No. 990--A resolution of the Urban Renewal Agency adopting the budget and making appropriations for the Fiscal Year beginning July 1, 1996, and ending June 30, 1997. Mr. Farr moved, seconded by Ms. Nathanson that Resolution 990 be approved. Mr. Meisner stated that he would support the motion because it was legally necessary, but he said he wanted to emphasize that the decision was not the final one to be made about the Urban Renewal Agency. Ms. Taylor asked if adoption of the motion would continue funding of the Riverfront Research Park. Ms. Elmer explained that since multi-year capital budgets did not exist, roll-over of current fiscal year funds would be required to meet legal and contractual obligations for the research park entered into in 1997. She said no new funds would be allocated for any Urban Renewal Agency project until after a July council work session was held on the issues involved. Ms. Taylor said she would vote for the motion because it created no new spending authorizations. Mr. Lee stated that lack of clarity about Ballot Measure 50 implications regarding Urban Renewal Agencies continued in the State Legislature and that the only action which could be taken would be to adopt the “placeholder” budget. Minutes--Eugene City Council June 23, 1997 Page 11 7:30 p.m.