Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Ms. Bettman noted a council majority that did not include her recently allocated funding for the public <br />process to plan for the replacement of City Hall, and now the council proposed to take an option off the <br />table by “rushing” this project through before that process started. <br /> <br />The motion passed, 5:2; Ms. Taylor and Ms. Bettman voting no. <br /> <br />Ms. Solomon, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to authorize the City Manager to sign an In- <br />tergovernmental Agreement between the City of Eugene and the Urban Renewal Agency in <br />substantial conformity with the outline of terms described in Attachment E. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman reminded all present about the source of urban renewal funds and maintained it was being <br />redirected from essential services. She termed the amount being redirected to urban renewal throughout the <br />state of Oregon “scandalous.” She said that the council was considering the funding “in a vacuum.” <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly said that the council often spoke of the success of downtown Portland and wanting to emulate it. <br />He pointed out that much of what had been accomplished in Portland was done through urban renewal <br />districts. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman did not find the situations in Eugene and Portland were comparable; she asserted that Portland <br />invested its urban renewal dollars in housing instead, which she found an appropriate use of the money. It <br />created the demand for retail. That was not what the City was doing. In addition, she maintained that <br />Portland developments had embedded parking and created their own parking. Portland also had design <br />standards, which Eugene lacked. Ms. Bettman believed the circulating street car also contributed to the <br />success of downtown Portland. Eugene was unable to get a similar project going. Ms. Bettman concluded <br />that one could not state that urban renewal “created the renaissance in Portland” because it was not true. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor suggested that the council consider what urban renewal had done locally in terms of destroying <br />downtown. She had long been opposed to urban renewal because it diverted money from schools and was <br />too easy to use. <br /> <br />The motion passed, 5:2; Ms. Taylor and Ms. Bettman voting no. <br /> <br /> <br />B. ACTION: Resolution 4861 Adopting a Supplemental Budget; Making Appropriations <br />for the City of Eugene for the Fiscal Year Beginning July 1, 2005, and ending June 30, 2006 <br /> <br />Ms. Solomon, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to adopt Resolution 4861 adopting a Supple- <br />mental Budget; making appropriations for the City of Eugene for the fiscal year beginning <br />July 1, 2005, and ending June 30, 2006. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman asserted that there was a proposal to use the Brownfield Economic Development Initiative <br />(BEDI) Grant and Section 108 loan funding for the project. She maintained that the source of that money <br />was Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding, which was supposed to be used to alleviate <br />poverty and homelessness. She assured the council that when it discussed its council goal of alleviating <br />homelessness, it would hear from staff there was no money to do so. At a time when CDBG funds were <br />already expected to decline, staff intended to take money meant to create resources for homeless people and <br />youth and divert it to build a parking garage. She found that unsupportable. <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 15, 2006 Page 6 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />