CCMinutes - 07/12/04 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

economic conditions that exist, and she noted the considerable amount of construction that occurred since 1989 and said she would like to see the real numbers. Ms. Bettman noted that the council was talking about putting forward a library operations levy. While she acknowledged there were many projects in the plan that would be good for downtown, she pointed out that the money diverted by the district in 2004-2005 equaled $830,000 that, if left in the General Fund, could be used for library operations. Mr. Pap~ advocated for as many public hearings as possible in conjunction with urban renewal to get information to the public, given the controversial nature of the subject. Responding to a question from Mr. Pap~, Mr. Weinman said boundary expansion could be considered after 2009 but the district was fairly small and could be expanded by only 20 percent (3-1/2 blocks). Ms. Taylor asked if the tax base remained the same if the district's life was extended. Mr. Weinman said yes. Ms. Taylor noted a statement in the staff materials that local government would receive the benefits from the improvements in the district when the district ended, but that would not happen if the district never ended. Ms. Taylor noted her continued opposition to urban renewal. She said the City should be clear about where the money for the district comes from, as it was her belief that it did not come from taxes assessed inside the district. Mr. Weinman clarified that only the properties inside the district paid the increment. City Attorney Glenn Klein said that the issue was somewhat more complicated. With the grandfathered plan, there was a special levy for the downtown district that everyone in the community paid. In terms of general tax increment, there was no clear answer to the question, although staff had attempted to find one. He suggested that Financial Services Director Sue Cutsogeorge be asked to explain the issue in greater detail. Ms. Taylor wanted to have something to distribute at the public hearing that showed the cost of urban renewal, the source of the money, and what it could be used for otherwise. She did not think the City was ~quite open" with that information, asserting that if it was the public would be opposed to urban renewal. Mr. Kelly acknowledged the complexity of urban renewal. He said he also received questions about the levy line item that appeared on residents' tax bills and suggested that Ms. Cutsogeorge be prepared to address that question at the public hearing. Mr. Kelly referred to page 34 of the meeting packet and the points related to access and circulation, noting the first two bullets discussed improved transportation access into downtown while the fifth bullet, related to alternative modes, called for the continued provision of access for those use. He asked that the fifth bullet point be revised to call for improved access for alternative modes. Ms. Bettman said a past council had made a wise decision to dedicate the money in the downtown urban district to the construction of the new library. She reiterated that if the council ended the district, if would have $830,000 in fiscal year 2004-2005 and $870,000 in fiscal year 2005-2006 to help operate the library. She said it would be difficult to convince her that continuing the district was a good idea. Ms. Bettman noted the council's receipt of a memorandum from Downtown Eugene, Inc. (DEI), which advocated for urban renewal funding to redevelop buildings for new uses and increased density. She said MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 12, 2004 Page 8 Work Session