CCMinutes - 07/12/04 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

reviewed the plan very carefully over the course of four meetings. The ERAC did not recommend a change in the district's indebtedness or boundary, but had recommended the life of the district be extended to 2029, with reviews in 2009 and 2019. Mr. Weinman reported that a public hearing on the item was scheduled for August 9, with action scheduled for September 13, 2004. Mr. Weinman responded to questions previously asked by Mr. Kelly. He confirmed the amendment process for this district plan would be the same as for the Riverfront Plan. He confirmed the district contained 70 acres. He said the shaded area shown on the map appeared to show Broadway was still closed to traffic, and he would attempt to correct the error. Mayor Torrey solicited council questions and comments. Mr. Kelly was happy to see the plan included language that gave the council authority over any projects costing $250,000 or more. He expressed concern about the expiration date recommended by the ERAC. He understood the desire to build up the increment, but wanted a reasonable time frame for returning the properties in the district to the tax rolls. He was reluctant to extend the district's life past 20 years. Mr. Weinman clarified that the current plan expired in 2009, and the ERAC's recommendation would extend the plan 20 years beyond that date. Mr. Kelly continued to be concerned about the length of time involved. Mr. Weinman said the ERAC discussed the issue at some length, and agreed the proposed expiration date gave the development community and the City more certainty. He said the expiration date was the council's purview. Mr. Meisner shared Mr. Kelly's concerns about the expiration date. Referring to page 37 of the meeting packet, item 5, he expressed concern that the list of public space improvements did not appear to allow for the construction of facilities such as the improvements desired for the Parks Blocks to serve Saturday Market. He suggested the text preceding the list be revised to read ~Projects to be undertaken include, but are not limited to..." Mr. Weinman agreed. Ms. Bettman referred to Section 1300 of the plan, ~Duration and Validity of Approved Plan." She asked why staff proposed to strike the text in that section stipulating the need for a public hearing when the plan review occurred. Mr. Weinman explained that any changes proposed to the plan would require the passage of an ordinance, and that process included a requirement for a public hearing. Ms. Bettman suggested that the text be revised to reflect that fact. City Attorney Glenn Klein said if the council decided against amending the plan, it would not require a public hearing. He asked if the council wanted a public hearing for any review, regardless of the action it decided to take; if so, the text should be retained. Ms. Bettman thought a public hearing gave the public an opportunity to review the plan and determine how well it was working. She said she would advocate for its retention. Referring to page 96 of the meeting packet, Ms. Bettman requested an explanation of the amounts budgeted for ~assistance." Mr. Weinman indicated he would follow-up. Referring to page 90, Ms. Bettman asked why the City was using 1989 assessment data. Mr. Weinman indicated it was difficult to get the information and it required considerable staff time to do so. He said the issue came down to whether the information provided value to the council's decision-making process. Ms. Bettman thought it would be useful information. Staff was citing the value ratio as a means to support the MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 12, 2004 Page 7 Work Session