Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Nicholson read aloud the questions in the two versions. He felt his was a much more fair description <br />because, although the ordinance did establish a maximum indebtedness, it was not central as the plan did not <br />require that this be the amount borrowed, or that if borrowed once it could be borrowed, paid back and <br />borrowed again, and the money could be spent on other things aside from the indebtedness. He opined that <br />the central issue was that the district was being extended and was continuing to divert property taxes for <br />whatever activities occurred in the district. He thought the voters should know that the urban renewal <br />district involved the use of tax moneys. <br /> <br />Mary Walston of the City Manager's Office circulated copies of the two versions of Mr. Nicholson's <br />statements and the council reviewed them. <br /> <br />Mr. Nicholson pointed out that the urban renewal district would allow the agency to spend up to $250,000 <br />on projects without council approval. He wished to indicate that in the statement on the ballot title. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey asked the legal counsel to respond. <br /> <br />Mr. Lidz said the issues in the question were clear. The fact that the ordinance established maximum <br />indebtedness was significant and the issues that Mr. Nicholson discussed were well-described in the <br />summary. He questioned the use of the word ~divert," noting it was in both versions. He stated that the <br />opinion of the City Attorney was that the connotation of the word was not neutral. He added that diversion <br />implied that there was an existing stream of revenue that was being diverted when, in fact, a new stream of <br />revenue was being created through the new development. <br /> <br />Mr. Lidz addressed the issue of the $250,000. He averred that, as written, it was more accurate as the <br />council would have already approved the expenditure within a budget and questioned whether the council <br />needed to approve particular projects. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey recommended that the council president submit to the council a motion to amend. <br /> <br />Mr. Nicholson suggested that the word ~diverted" be changed to the word "used" in version 2 to address the <br />concerns of legal counsel. <br /> <br />Councilor Kelly asked if the council could have a %ne-minute bullet round." Mayor Torrey responded that, <br />given time constraints, it would be advisable to expedite the process and introduce a motion first. <br /> <br /> Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Kelly, moved to adopt the second version of the <br /> appealed language with the question reading, as follows: <br /> %hould Riverfront Urban Renewal Plan be amended expanding renewal district, and <br /> increasing time property taxes used to pay for plan?" <br /> <br />Councilor Bettman agreed that what was being aimed for was neutrality, but she believed the bulk of the text <br />was not neutral. She said she would be recommending some changes when the council arrived at that point <br />in the proceedings. She felt that the issue was ~about money" and this was not explicit in the statement. <br />She believed the statement read ~like a commercial for everything that was good about urban renewal." She <br />commented that she wished to propose to amend the text so that the word %timulating" would be replaced <br />by %ubsidizing." <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 31, 2004 Page 2 <br /> Special Meeting <br /> <br /> <br />