CCMinutes - 02/25/04 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

B. ACTION: An Ordinance Adopting Amended Riverfront Urban Renewal District Plan Adopted by Ordinance No. 19352 on September 11, 1985 Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved that the City Council adopt Council Bill 4863, an ordinance adopting an amended Riverfront Urban Renewal District Plan. Mr. Taylor said he hoped the council could adopt the ordinance as it had been discussed for over a year. He stated that Richie Weinman, Urban Services Manager for the Planning and Development Department, would provide any new information on the item. Mr. Weinman said this item was a final action on amendments to the Riverfront Urban Renewal District Plan, an update begun in January 2003, at the behest of the City Council, as one of the tools to implement the Downtown Vision. He stressed that the plan precisely reflected the direction provided by the council during previous work sessions. He added that the Planning Commission recommended adoption of the amendments. He noted that a requirement for an advisory committee had been incorporated into the amendments at the council's request. Mr. Weinman reported that, as per State law, all affected taxing jurisdictions were notified. Only Lane County responded. He related that staff had met with the Board of County Commissioners and, though the commisioners had no comments to the council, they did forward it to the County Economic Development Committee for its review and consideration. He noted the committee asked the council consider expansion of the district to include the County Annex block and to add projects for a public health building, a joint governmental facility-site, and a parking facility. He noted that staff was not recommending the expansion at this point, but this would not preclude future expansion. He further stated that the other activities could be assisted through the plan, as proposed. Mr. Weinman stated that there had been much discussion of locating a hospital on property owned by the Eugene Water and Electric Board (EWEB). He said the portion of the property that was the focus of the discussion was not part of the district. He asserted the property could be instrumental to the redevelopment of the overall EWEB property and, therefore, the use of urban renewal funds to help site a hospital was worthy of the council's consideration. He conveyed staff's recommendation that the property be included, by amendment, in the motion under current consideration. Ms. Bettman was in favor of the inclusion of the EWEB property. Ms. Bettman conveyed her concerns that an urban renewal district would take funding away from other necessary public services. She felt it was not a wise fiscal decision, as she alleged the money would be "taken from the school districts." She asked staff to determine what impact urban renewal districts had on school funding across the State. Charles Kupper, urban renewal consultant for the City of Eugene, responded that he did not know what the percentage of funds were in incremental values across the State. He explained that, should all urban renewal districts end, the additional value would be made available to local school districts. He clarified, however, that the school funding process was such that the State backfilled the per student cost for the school districts in the case where property tax revenue was diverted into urban renewal. He added that, should the money become less encumbered, the State would not need to spend it on education; it could spend it on other projects such as bridges, etc. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 25, 2004 Page 6 Work Session