CCMinutes - 02/25/04 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Riverfront Urban Renewal District plan to replace section 600 (6) public parking and public transportation facilities with the following language, and to add a new section under section 600 called section (8) funding projects that reads: "Riverfront Urban Renewal District revenue shall not be spent on projects or activities for which existing sources of funding are traditionally used, such as assessments, fees, systems development charges, or to pay expenses incurred by or for another jurisdiction such as State, County, or federal government." Ms. Bettman stated that her amendment would remove the ability for urban renewal funds to be diverted to build roads. She reiterated that there were other funding sources to build roads and that the projects in the district should be prioritized over projects such as the one proposed to extend Chad Drive to Game Farm Road. Mr. Kelly expressed his support for the concept of urban renewal. He said, however, that he would rather be strategic with the use of funds. He agreed that there were other sources for road building. Mr. Meisner supported the principle behind the section that referred to curb and sidewalk improvements. He noted that, should the hospital be sited in the area, a public parking structure would have to be built. He commented that the property most often mentioned as a possibility for such a structure was the site of the old State motor pool, which was not included in the district. He felt the district may have to be redrawn to accommodate it. In response to a question from Mr. Meisner, Mr. Klein stated that the plan language intended to authorize road projects would have been sections 600(a)(1) and (6). He affirmed that without any language explicitly authorizing streets, it was therefore construed that there was a prohibition on using funds in that way. Mr. Pap6 shared Mr. Meisner's concern that a prohibition on using urban renewal funds for road projects could pose difficulties later on. Ms. Bettman asserted there was policy language that stated that the urban renewal district could fund any project that was in the best interest of the project. She said that under her proposed amendment language a discussion would have to be held in an open session in order for the urban renewal district funds to be used for road projects. She felt the urban renewal district, without this amendment, would take away the incentive for the federal or State funds to be used for road projects. Mr. Klein, responding to a question from Mr. Kelly, stated that an amendment that would eliminate a requirement for matching funds would be a substantial amendment and not a "Type 1" amendment. As such, it would not need to be noticed to every single property owner, but would be required to pass through the Planning Commission and to give notice to the other taxing districts to hold the public hearings. He said this would take approximately three months. Mayor Torrey stressed that locating a hospital on the EWEB site would raise a plethora of transportation issues. As such, he urged the council not to make it "harder on transportation." Mr. Taylor concurred with the Mayor. The motion ended in a tie, 4:4; Mr. Meisner, Mr. Kelly, Ms. Bettman, and Ms. Taylor MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 25, 2004 Page 8 Work Session