Item 3A - Minutes Approval - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

4. ACTION: An Ordinance Adopting an Amended Urban Renewal Plan for the Central Eugene Project; and Providing Delayed Effective Dates for Portions Thereof Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Poling, moved that the City Council adopt Council Bill 4879, adopting an amended Urban Renewal Plan for Central Eugene Project. In response to a question from Councilor Kelly, City Manager Taylor affirmed that the Urban Renewal project would have the potential to aid in funding an art project such as the one set forth by the Downtown Initiative for the Visual Arts (DIVA) during public testimony. Councilor Kelly noted that staff had indicated to him in an email that a project such as the one suggested by DIVA or the Lane County Historical Museum vision was most effective when generated by a community group and that staff would actively work with such groups to promote such projects. He opined that such projects enrich the community. Councilor Taylor asked, regarding the findings on page 136 of the AIS, where the urban blight was and why, though the downtown area had been an Urban Renewal District for 20 years, there was still urban blight. Richie Weinman, Urban Services Manager for the Planning and Development Department, explained that blight was defined in State law to include property that consistently had below average values and vacant storefronts, among other things. Councilor Taylor asked if free parking would be restored to the downtown area as a result of the Urban Renewal work. Mr. Weinman replied that parking was a service and its operation was unrelated to Urban Renewal Districts. Councilor Taylor opined that free parking would improve the downtown area. Councilor Taylor expressed concern that the new Urban Renewal District would provide the City with the ~freedom to spend money just because it's there." Mr. Weinman sought to clarify that urban renewal money could be utilized to construct a parking garage, but it could not be used to maintain it once built. Councilor Taylor commented that everything had been ~done and undone" with urban renewal funding. She felt that continuation of urban renewal districts would preclude the City ever realizing any tax revenues from the resulting development and asked if it would be possible to only make a ten-year urban renewal plan. Mr. Weinman affirmed that the council could change the length of the plan. Councilor Poling asked what the overall effect would be in changing the sunset date for the urban renewal district from 2029 to 2024. Mr. Weinman replied that it would only affect the capability to issue bonds, as the period of time the bond could be issued for would be shortened. Councilor Kelly, seconded by Councilor Bettman, moved to amend Section 1300 of the plan by changing the year ~2029" to ~2024" in the first and third sentences. Councilor Kelly believed that urban renewal could be a great value but felt it important to be able to tell taxpayers that, at some point, it would sunset and the benefits would begin to be realized. As such, he could only support extending the district for another 20 years. MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 13, 2004 Page 10 Regular Session