CCMinutes - 08/09/04 Mtg - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

problem of apparently disinterested ownership of downtown properties was not addressed by the plan. However, he said ;;go ahead, move the plan forward," but he wanted the council to do more. Russ Brink, 214 East 30th Avenue, representing Downtown Eugene, Inc., noted his agency's submittal of written testimony on July 8. He said the board felt it was more important for the council to fulfill the objectives of the Downtown Plan than it was for it to approve the proposed amendments because the Urban Renewal Agency and the tools it had at its disposal were the most flexible and targeted funds the City had to support downtown redevelopment and densification of surface parking lots and public improvements in downtown, including public art. Mr. Brink asked the council to connect its vision for downtown to the agency's ability to achieve that vision. Zachary ¥ishanoff, Patterson Street, noted his long-time opposition to urban renewal, which he believed was synonymous with the destruction of ;;neat, old" buildings. He expressed concern about the potential of using district funds to underwrite the cost of security cameras in the district for security purposes. He advocated for plan specificity to avoid future surprises. He said that blanketing funding of security measures could create an Orwellian zone in downtown. Mr. Vishanoff suggested the City staff was not testing ideas for downtown with the community's residents but rather was looking to Portland for ideas. Mr. Vishanoff called for more City support for the Shelton McMurphey Johnson House and suggested the City take care of what it had downtown before attempting to create new urban settings from scratch. Mayor Torrey closed the public hearing and called for council questions. Councilor Bettman referred to Table 4 on page 14 of the Central Eugene Project (Downtown) Urban Renewal District Report and noted it did not differentiate between the fund sources. She said that much of the money was intended to fund transportation projects. She questioned whether the council would be able to fund other worthy projects such as arts center were it to ;;whittle away" at the funding by building transportation projects. She requested a breakdown of funds from all sources, including private sources. Referring to page 10 of the Urban Renewal Plan, Councilor Bettman requested information about the change in the value of the district's base. She asked how the value of the base could be eroded given the amount of improvement that occurred since 1968 and the fact the base was frozen. Sue Cutsogeorge of the Central Services Department said the original plan was written prior to the voters' passage of Ballot Measure 50 tax changes, which changed the assessments to less-than-real market value. The information before the council translated the frozen base from the pre-Measure 50 assessment method to the post-Measure 50 assessment method. The entire value of the district was converted, both the increment and the base. Councilor Bettman pointed out the assessed value had increased and did not appear to be subject to the same modifier. Ms. Cutsogeorge explained that the assessed value in the district had gone up as a result of growth over time since the plan was first written. The frozen base was static. Councilor Kelly thanked staff for the responses to earlier questions and the history of the district, which illustrated the successes of the district as well as its failures. Councilor Kelly found the establishment of a visual arts center and the potential of the relocation of the Historic Museum exciting concepts, and asked staff to reassure the council before adoption that the plan allowed for such projects to be funded. He also questioned how the council could ;;kick-start" a drive for a visual arts center in downtown, and asked staff to provide some information on that topic. MINUTES--Eugene City Council August 9, 2004 Page 7 Regular Session