The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutOrdinance No. 20564COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. 20564 COUNCIL BILL 5155 AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING AN AMENDED URBAN RENEWAL PLAN FOR THE DOWNTOWN URBAN RENEWAL DISTRICT. ADOPTED: June 13, 2016 SIGNED: June 14, 2016 PASSED: 5:3 REJECTED: OPPOSED: Brown, Taylor, Zelenka ABSENT: EFFECTIVE: July 15, 2016 ORDINANCE NO. 20564 AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING AN AMENDED URBAN RENEWAL PLAN FOR THE DOWNTOWN URBAN RENEWAL DISTRICT. The City Council of the City of Eugene finds that: A. The Downtown Urban Renewal Plan (the "Plan") was initially adopted on July 3, 1968, by Resolution No. 257 of the Urban Renewal Agency of the City of Eugene (the "Agency"), and on December 19, 1968, by Resolution No. 1609 of the Eugene City Council. The Plan has subsequently been amended, most recently on May 24, 2010, by Ordinance No. 20459 of the Eugene City Council. B. Starting in December 2015, the City Council considered downtown improvements with the desire to foster a vibrant downtown, provide near-term economic stimulus, and prepare for the 2021 World Track and Field Championships in a way that results in long-term benefit to the community. The City Council considered different funding mechanisms, including urban renewal, for funding those improvements. C. In March 2016, the City Council, acting as the Urban Renewal Agency Board of Directors (the "Agency Board"), decided that, as an option for funding the desired downtown improvements, the public should be provided an opportunity to comment on whether the Plan should be amended and, if so, what projects should be included. To meet the timelines for a possible adoption, the Plan would include four possible projects, with the extent of funding for the possible projects to be determined after the public has commented. In accordance with the provisions of ORS 457, in March 2016, the Agency Director prepared an amended Plan (the "proposed Plan") which included a range of options with the maximum being: (1) Increasing the maximum indebtedness by $48 million, to a total of $96.6 million, to cover the specific projects itemized in Finding D; (2) Continued annual review of tax increment projects by a community member panel (the Expenditure Review Panel); and (3) Expanding the boundary by 10% (7 acres) to incorporate the East Park Block area and the City Hall block. D. The four possible downtown projects are consistent with the outcomes set forth in Finding B above, and the proposed Plan included these projects: (1) High -Speed Fiber. Creation of high-speed fiber network downtown will reduce costs and increase telecommunications speed to support existing businesses and new businesses. High-speed fiber supports employment growth and attracts new Ordinance -- Page 1 of 4 investments downtown. The service would also support City, Lane Community College, Lane County, Lane Council of Governments, and 4J and Bethel school districts. (2) Improved Space for Farmers' Market. Improvements to the Park Blocks along 8b Avenue, or another downtown location, will make the location more attractive, functional, and permanent for a possible year-round Farmers' Market. The Lane County Farmers' Market is a cornerstone of downtown activity and one of the most significant public events in the city. (3) Lane Community College (LCC) Old Building. LCC wants to redevelop its former education facility at 1059 Willamette Street. Recent discussions included creating a multi -tenant facility that could house maker space, co -working space, wet labs, and affordable business startup and art incubation space. Redevelopment of the vacant 66,000 square foot building would require extensive repairs. (4) Park Blocks & Open Space Improvements. A broad public engagement effort would collect input from the community on their hopes and vision for the Park Blocks and other downtown open spaces (i.e. Hult Center Plaza, Broadway Plaza, and the new City Hall Plaza). Specific improvements could include more restrooms, lighting, seating, signage, security, paving, or landscaping. E. On March 14, 2016, the Agency Board considered a draft of the proposed Plan and accompanying Report on the Urban Renewal Plan for the Downtown Urban Renewal District (the "Report") and then forwarded it to the City Council for a public hearing and possible adoption. F. On April 15, 2016, a draft of the proposed Plan and the Report were forwarded to the governing body of each taxing district affected by the Plan with an offer to consult and confer with each district. On May 11, 2016, the LCC Board of Directors voted in support of the proposed projects, for inclusion in the Plan amendment and the use of tax increment financing as the funding mechanism. The Lane County Board of County Commissioners (BCC) reviewed the proposed plan amendment on May 17, 2016, expressed support for the amendment, and approved a letter of support on May 24, 2016. (See Finding J for School District 4J action.) G. On April 18, 2016, notice of the proposed Plan was sent to owners of property within the City as required by ORS 457.120(1). The notice included, but was not limited to, the date, time and place of the public hearing, in addition to the website where the proposed Plan and the Report could be viewed. H. On May 9, 2016, the Planning Commission met to review the proposed Plan and Report, and recommended approval based on the City's planning policies. L After the notice was mailed pursuant to ORS 457.120, the City Council conducted a public hearing on May 23, 2016, on the proposed Plan. J. State law, ORS 457.220(4), limits how much a municipality can increase maximum indebtedness. The proposed Plan would increase the original maximum indebtedness by more Ordinance -- Page 2 of 4 than 20%, which would exceed the limitation. ORS 457.470(7), however, also provides that the limitations "do not apply to the extent the municipality approving a plan obtains the written concurrence of taxing districts imposing at least 75 percent of the amount of taxes imposed under permanent rate limits in the urban renewal area." Together, School District 4J and the City impose at least 75% of the amount of taxes imposed under permanent rate limits in the urban renewal area. On May 18, 2016, the Board of Eugene School District 4J voted "to concur with the Eugene City Council's proposed plan amendment to increase maximum indebtedness for the Downtown Urban Renewal District by up to $48 million in accordance with ORS 457.220 and 457.470(7)". The City concurs with that increase in maximum indebtedness by enacting this ordinance. K. Based on the recommendations of the Agency Board and the Planning Commission, and the written and oral testimony before the Planning Commission and the City Council, the City Council hereby amends the proposed Plan (the "revised, proposed Plan") and specifically finds and determines that: (1) The revised, proposed Plan includes the following: (a) Increasing the maximum indebtedness by $19.4 million, to a total of $66 million, to cover the specific projects itemized in Finding D above, with a specific prohibition on using funds for either the City Hall building or for a parking lot on the City Hall block; (b) Continued annual review of tax increment projects by the Expenditure Review Panel; (c) Additional public process, including community engagement and a public hearing, before the Agency Board can approve spending tax increment funds to construct any of the projects described in paragraphs (2), (3), and (4) in finding D above; and (d) Expanding the boundary by 7% (5 acres) to incorporate the East Park Block area and a portion of the City Hall block. (2) The area defined in the revised, proposed Plan is blighted for the reasons explained in Exhibit C to this Ordinance; (3) The rehabilitation and redevelopment described in the revised, proposed Plan is necessary to protect the public health, safety or welfare of the City; (4) The revised, proposed Plan conforms to the Metropolitan Area General Plan, State Land Use Planning Goals, the Downtown Plan, the adopted Growth Management Policies, the Vision for Greater Downtown Eugene, Envision Eugene, and other adopted City plans and policies, and provides an outline for accomplishing the urban renewal projects proposed in the revised, proposed Plan; Ordinance -- Page 3 of 4 (5) No one will be displaced as a result of any of the projects included in the revised, proposed Plan; (6) No real property is expected to be acquired as a result of the projects included in the revised, proposed Plan, unless improvements to the Farmers' Market necessitates property acquisition; (7) Adoption and carrying out of the revised, proposed Plan is economically sound and feasible as described in the Report included in Exhibit B to this Ordinance; and (8) The City shall assume and complete any activities prescribed it by the revised, proposed Plan. THE CITY OF EUGENE DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Based upon the above findings, the Report attached as Exhibit B, and the blight findings attached as Exhibit C to this Ordinance, all of which are hereby adopted, the revisions to the Urban Renewal Plan for the Downtown Urban Renewal District, as reflected in Exhibit A attached hereto, are approved and adopted as the urban renewal plan for the area set forth therein. Section 2. The City Manager is requested to: (a) Publish a notice of the adoption of the amended Plan in the Register -Guard, a newspaper published within the City of Eugene and having the greatest circulation within the City, no later than four days following the date that this Ordinance is adopted. In accordance with ORS 457.135, the notice shall contain a statement that the amended Plan shall be conclusively presumed valid for all purposes 90 days after its adoption by this Ordinance and that no direct or collateral attack on the action adopting the amended Plan may be commenced thereafter; (b) Forward a copy of this Ordinance and the amended Plan to the Urban Renewal Agency of the City of Eugene, which Agency will cause the amended Plan to be recorded in the official records of Lane County, Oregon; and (c) Forward a copy of this Ordinance and the amended Plan to the Lane County Assessor and request that the Assessor perform the duties directed by ORS 457.430 through ORS 457.450. Passed by the City Council this 13th day of June, 2016 A� L_A� City Recorder Ordinance -- Page 4 of 4 Approved by the Mayor this /`( day of June, 2016 Mayor Ordinance Exhibit A Downtown Urban Renewal Plan 2016 Amendment Urban Renewal Plan for the Downtown Urban Renewal District W 6th Ave J E 6th Ave I E 7th Avc W 8th Ave E 8th Ave L j S Park St �b � I I - ay - JEI roadway W 10th Ave - E 10th Ave a va a x U � 2 W 11 th Ave _ E 11th Ave Adopted July 1968 - Modified - December 1968 December 1989 June 1998 September 13, 2004 May 24, 2010 June 13, 2016 Urban Renewal Agency of the City of Eugene, Oregon URBAN RENEWAL PLAN FOR THE DOWNTOWN URBAN RENEWAL DISTRICT Table of Contents Section100 - Introduction..........................................................................................................................- 2 - Section200 - Definitions.............................................................................................................................- 2 - Section300 - Legal Description..................................................................................................................- 3 - Section 400 - Goals and Objectives............................................................................................................. 3- A. GOALS..........................................................................................................................................................- 3 - B. OBJECTIVES................................................................................................................................................. 4 - Section500 - Land Use Plan........................................................................................................................- 4 - Section 600 - Urban Renewal Projects.......................................................................................................- 5- A. PUBLIC PARKS, PUBLIC PLAZAS, FARMERS' MARKET, PUBLIC REST ROOMS, PUBLIC OPEN SPACES, ANDSTREETS............................................................................................................................................. - 5- B. PUBLIC UTILITIES: High -Speed Fiber......................................................................................................- 6- C. OTHER PUBLIC FACILITIES: Old LCC Building.........................................................................................- 6- D. PROJECT DELIVERY AND ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIVITIES...................................................................... - 7- E. EXISTING ACTIVITIES................................................................................................................................- 7 - Section 700 - Methods for Financing the Projects..................................................................................... 8 - Section 800 - Annual Financial Statement Required................................................................................. 8 - Section 900 - Community Member Participation...................................................................................... 8 - Section 1000 - Non-Discrimination............................................................................................................- 9 - Section 1100 - Recording of this Plan........................................................................................................- 9 - Section 1200 - Procedures for Changes or Amendments.........................................................................- 9- A. TYPE ONE AMENDMENT -SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE REQUIRING SPECIAL NOTICE ............................. 9- B. TYPE TWO AMENDMENT- SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE NOT REQUIRING SPECIAL NOTICE ................... - 9- C. TYPE THREE AMENDMENT - MINOR AMENDMENT..............................................................................- 9- D. AMENDMENT TO THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OR ANY OF ITS IMPLEMENTING ORDINANCES ...- 9 - Section 1300 - Duration and Validity of Approved Plan......................................................................... 10- A. DURATION OF THE PLAN........................................................................................................................ - 10- B. VALIDITY...................................................................................................................................................- 10 - Section 1400 - Maximum Indebtedness................................................................................................... 10 - Section1500 - Formal Matters.................................................................................................................- 11 - PLAN EXHIBIT A: Plan Area Map..............................................................................................................- 12 - PLAN EXHIBIT B: Plan Area Description.................................................................................................. 13- I. ADOPTION Resolution Date Purpose Number Resolution 7/3/1968 Adoption of the Urban Renewal Plan for the Central Eugene Project No. 257 the Plan). II. AMENDMENTS Amendment Date Purpose Number Resolution 12/19/1968 o Modified the Plan to allow for additional projects as required by No. 1609 HUD to receive additional federal funds. Ordinance 11/8/1989 o Aligned the Plan with Metro Plan policies: strengthen the area's No. 19648 position as a regional service center, maintain the Eugene central business district as a vital center, incorporate principles of compact urban growth, encourage retail and commercial development in the downtown area, and promote the development of parking structures in the downtown core. o Expiration set for FY10. Ordinance 6/1/1998 o Responded to Measure 50 to a) include a maximum amount of No. 20120 indebtedness and b) select Option 1 for the city-wide special levy as the method for collecting ad valorem property taxes for payment of debts related to urban renewal projects. o Limited expenditure of new funds to completing existing projects and construction of a new main library. o Removed the business assistance loan program. o Approved a plan to reduce district administration costs over the following three years. Ordinance 9/13/2004 o Expanded the projects for which tax increment funds could be No. 20328 used o Created a public advisory committee o Added the requirement for specific Agency approval of projects greater than $250,000 (other than loans), and adding a limit of $100,000 on the mandate for a public hearing in the event of a plan change (applies to minor amendments that can be approved by the URA without ORS 457.095 approval - Section 1200, C of the 2004 Plan). o Added the Downtown Revitalization Loan Program (DRLP). o Expiration set for 2024. Ordinance 5/24/2010 o Limited scope of two previously approved projects, removed the No. 20459 ability to initiate all other previously approved projects, and authorized one new project expenditure of new funds to completing existing projects and construction of a new main library. o Except for the three projects and existing projects previously approved no initiation of additional projects. o Expiration upon the repayment or defeasance of debt related to the urban renewal projects specifically identified in the Plan. Downtown Urban Renewal Plan - 2016 Amendment URBAN RENEWAL PLAN FOR THE DOWNTOWN URBAN RENEWAL DISTRICT Section 100 - Introduction The Downtown Urban Renewal Plan was revised in 2016 to expand a previously approved project and to authorize several new projects. The previously approved project is "Public Parks, Public Plazas, Public Rest Rooms, Public Open Spaces, and Streets: Park Blocks Improvements for the Farmers' Market", which will be expanded to fund improved parks and plazas throughout the Plan Area, including improvements to the Park Blocks for overall community use, to support the continued use for the Saturday Market, and to assist in the development of an improved permanent Farmers' Market in the Plan Area. The new projects are "Public Utilities: High -Speed Fiber" for the implementation costs that benefit the Plan Area, and "Other Public Facilities: Old Lane Community College Building" for the redevelopment of the now vacant school building. Except for these projects, the Agency will not initiate additional projects to be funded with tax increment dollars after the date of this 2016 Amendment. The Downtown Urban Renewal District will cease collecting tax increment dollars and return any unused tax increment funds to Lane County for redistribution to overlapping taxing districts as provided in Section 1300 A of this plan. Section 200 - Definitions The following definitions will govern this Plan. 2016 Amendment means the update to the Plan that was completed in 2016. Agency means the Urban Renewal Agency of the City of Eugene. Butterfly Parking Lot means the property on the northwest corner of 8th Avenue and Oak Street that is owned by Lane County and in use as a two-level parking structure. Downtown Plan means the Eugene Downtown Plan as adopted by the Eugene City Council in 2004 as a refinement of the Eugene Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan. Eugene Fiber Implementation Plan means the plan to extend the municipal high-speed fiber network to downtown buildings and establish the high-speed connection between local and regional internet exchanges. High -Speed Fiber means the portion of the Eugene Fiber Implementation Plan that is located within the Plan Area and that benefits the Plan Area. Downtown Urban Renewal Plan - 2016 Amendment Old LCC Building means the 66,000 square foot building at 1059 Willamette Street owned by Lane Community College and vacated in January 2013 when the new Lane Community College Downtown Campus opened at 10th Avenue and Olive Street. Plan means this Urban Renewal Plan for the Downtown District. Plan Area means the property included in the Downtown Urban Renewal District as more fully described in Section 300. Projects means only the urban renewal projects that are listed in Section 600 of the Plan, as amended by the 2016 Amendment. Tax Increment Financing means a method of financing urban renewal projects as authorized by ORS Chapter 457. Willamette to Willamette Initiative means the collection of projects focusing on infrastructure and activity along 8th Avenue between the Willamette River and Willamette Street. Section 300 - Legal Description The Downtown Urban Renewal District includes an area of approximately 75 acres. The Plan Area includes all of the land within the boundaries designated on the map attached as Plan Exhibit A and described as containing all lots or parcels of property situated in the City of Eugene, County of Lane, State of Oregon, bounded generally as described in Plan Exhibit B. Section 400 - Goals and Objectives A. GOALS The goals of the Plan are to: 1. Improve the function, condition, and appearance of the Plan Area through: a. Infrastructure improvements to parks, plazas, and open space to provide an inviting civic space aligned with the Willamette to Willamette Initiative, and inviting and accessible connections between the parks, plazas and open space; b. Assisting in the creation of an improved permanent Farmers' Market that will reinforce cultural, commercial and redevelopment activities downtown and bring thousands of people into the Plan Area to purchase farm fresh produce and other products, including people who otherwise would not travel into the Plan Area; c. Construction of critical utility high-speed fiber; d. Redevelopment of the Old LCC Building into an active use, bringing more people into the Plan Area, thereby making the entire Plan Area more Downtown Urban Renewal Plan - 2016 Amendment attractive for other businesses and removing the blighting influence of a vacant building in a significant location along Willamette Street. 2. Eliminate blight and blighting influences; 3. Strengthen the economic conditions of the Plan Area; and 4. Enhance downtown's role as the regional economic, governmental, and cultural center and a central location for public and private development and investment. B. OBJECTIVES Development in the Plan Area has been intended to implement the adopted policies contained in the Downtown Plan and to develop downtown as the heart of a livable, economically strong, and sustainable city. The objectives for the Plan are to ensure that: The parks, plazas, Farmers' Market, and open space provide inviting civic spaces: a. Benefit the Plan Area and community overall to bring even more community members into the Plan Area and allow for accessibility and connectivity between the public spaces, b. Benefit the community overall and the Farmers' Market with an improved permanent space in the Plan Area so the market can continue to bring hundreds of community members into the Plan Area and remain viable as an organization, and c. Benefit downtown, as athletes, visitors, media and local residents are in the center of our city for the World Track and Field Championships in 2021; 2. High-speed fiber can: a. Increase internet speed for lower monthly costs; b. Increase the competitiveness of the existing technology sector, which will increase the number and size of technology businesses and related jobs, in accordance with the Regional Prosperity Economic Prosperity Plan; c. Reduce costs and increased telecommunications speed for the City, Lane Community College, Lane County, Lane Council of Governments (LCOG), 4J and Bethel school districts; and d. Lower the cost of telecommunications service for residential buildings inside the Plan Area and at least two existing affordable housing projects within one block of the Plan Area; 3. Redevelopment of the Old LCC Building will transform a large, vacant building adjacent to Lane Transit District into an active use contributing to downtown vitality. Section 500 - Land Use Plan The use and development of all land within the Plan Area shall comply with the regulations prescribed in the City's comprehensive plan, zoning ordinance, subdivision ordinance, City Downtown Urban Renewal Plan - 2016 Amendment 4 charter, or any other applicable local, State or Federal laws regulating the use of property within an urban renewal area. Section 600 - Urban Renewal Projects To achieve the objectives of this Plan, the Agency may incur indebtedness to finance the following urban renewal projects, and no others, and may pay that indebtedness with tax increment funds: A. PUBLIC PARKS, PUBLIC PLAZAS, FARMERS' MARKET, PUBLIC RESTROOMS, PUBLIC OPEN SPACES, AND STREETS Former Section 600 A of the Plan authorized the Agency to participate in funding infrastructure improvements to the Park Blocks in order to make that location more attractive and functional for the Farmers' Market. Beginning with the effective date of the 2016 Amendment, the Agency will also be able to use tax increment funds in the Plan Area to help create an improved permanent Farmers' Market (not to exceed an additional $4 million of such funds), as well as to improve any public parks, public plazas, restrooms, open spaces, streets, and sidewalks within the Plan Area (not to exceed $5.2 million of such funds). The Agency may spend tax increment funds on infrastructure improvements to these elements that may include the design, acquisition, construction or rehabilitation of public spaces, or parks or public facilities within the Plan Area, including but not limited to shelters, buildings, landscaping, walkways, plazas, accessibility improvements, lighting, furniture, and art. A portion of that total may also be spent on changes to the surrounding streets (e.g. 8th Avenue, Oak Street, and Park Street), reincorporating the site of the Butterfly Parking Lot as part of the historic four corners of the Park Blocks, and connecting the public spaces as part of the Willamette to Willamette Initiative. However, tax revenue funds shall not be used to pay for construction of a new City Hall building, nor to pay for a parking lot on the block bounded by Pearl Street, 8th Avenue, High Street, and 7th Avenue. Community Engagement & Approval Process: Prior to the approval of construction for any of the improvements authorized by this subsection A, the Agency shall complete the following activities: The community will be invited to share their aspirations and vision for the public parks, plazas, open spaces and streets in the Plan Area. In addition, the community will be invited to share ideas about an improved permanent Farmers' Market before funding can be approved for construction. 2. Agency staff shall present to the City's elected officials the information from the community engagement activities identified in paragraph 1. In addition, staff will estimate costs for the specific project or projects, as well as possible funding mechanisms that could be authorized by either the Agency Board or the City Council, including such mechanisms as tax increment financing, grants, General Obligation bonds, General Fund dollars, and private contributions. Downtown Urban Renewal Plan - 2016 Amendment 3. Following or concurrently with the presentation of the information in paragraph 2, a public hearing shall be held to allow the public to comment directly to the elected officials on whether a specific project should move forward, and if so, how it should be funded. 4. Following the public hearing, the Agency Board may authorize the use of tax increment financing for the specific project or projects that were the subject of the public hearing, or alternatively, decide that a different funding mechanism should be used for all or part of the cost of constructing the project. B. PUBLIC UTILITIES: High -Speed Fiber The Agency may assist with the Eugene Fiber Implementation Plan to extend the municipal high-speed fiber network to downtown buildings and to establish the high-speed connection between local and regional internet exchanges for costs attributable to the Plan Area using tax increment funds not to exceed $3 million. Installing Downtown Fiber: The 2013 City of Eugene Broadband Strategic Plan identified the development of a downtown fiber network as a strategic goal. After completion of the Strategic Plan, City staff worked with Lane Council of Governments (LCOG) and the Eugene Water and Electric Board (EWEB) on a successful pilot project, to test the feasibility of implementing a downtown network. The City, EWEB, and LCOG identified a workable method to connect several commercial buildings by running fiber optics cables through existing electrical conduit. With LCOG, EWEB, and the Technology Association of Oregon, the Fiber Implementation Plan a) calls to construct fiber connections to additional downtown buildings and b) includes the costs and benefits of leasing a publicly operated connection from a local internet connection point to large, regional internet exchanges. High-speed fiber will serve and benefit the Plan Area because: (1) existing businesses and new businesses benefiting from the high speed and competitive market will grow employment and attract new investments to the Plan Area; (2) residents of housing in the Plan Area will have an added benefit for living within in the Plan Area; and (3), and public agencies will have reduced costs and increased telecommunication speed. C. OTHER PUBLIC FACILITIES: Old LCC Building The Agency may provide up to $6 million in tax increment funds as part of redevelopment of the Old LCC Building, which may include housing or activities that advance the Regional Prosperity Economic Development Plan (e.g., an innovation center with maker space, wet lab, or art/tech incubator). The building will benefit the Plan Area by increasing public usage of the area and stimulating additional public and private investment. This work would include Lane Community College and could include collaboration with others. Prior to the approval of tax increment funds for construction of these improvements the Agency shall follow the public input and approval process identified in subsection A of this section 600. Downtown Urban Renewal Plan - 2016 Amendment D. PROJECT DELIVERY AND ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIVITIES Many of the Agency's project delivery and administrative activities are provided through a contract between the City of Eugene and the Agency dated June 15, 2004. 1. The Agency may retain the services of independent professional people or organizations to provide project delivery administrative or technical services such as: a. Project management; b. Preparation of market, feasibility, or other economic studies; c. Public engagement; d. Preparation of design, architectural, engineering, landscaping architectural, planning, development, or other developmental studies; e. Preparation of property acquisition appraisals; Provision of special rehabilitation, restoration, or renovation feasibility and cost analysis studies; g. Provision of legal, debt issuance, accounting or audit services; h. Assistance with preparation of the annual financial report required under Section 800 of this Plan and the financial review required under Section 900 of this Plan; and i. Support ongoing investments within the Plan Area (e.g. potential new businesses, existing businesses with expansion, dealing with safety issues). 2. The Agency may acquire, rent, or lease office space and office furniture, equipment, and facilities necessary for it to conduct its affairs in the management and implementation of this Plan. 3. The Agency may invest its reserve funds in interest-bearing accounts or securities authorized under ORS 294. 4. The Agency may borrow money, accept advances, loans, or grants from any legal source, issue urban renewal bonds and receive tax increment proceeds as provided for in Section 700 of this Plan. E. EXISTING ACTIVITIES The Agency may complete urban renewal projects authorized prior to the 2016 Amendment (for example, the Broadway Commerce Center and Woolworth Building projects at Willamette and Broadway, repay debt issued for LCC's Downtown Campus and the Broadway Place Garages, and improvements to downtown lighting). The Farmers' Market improvements that were authorized in the 2010 Amendment are part of the expanded Farmers' Market project identified in Section 600 A. The Agency also may Downtown Urban Renewal Plan - 2016 Amendment continue to operate the Downtown Revitalization Loan Program. All dollars loaned must come from program revenue and not from tax increment funds. Section 700 - Methods for Financing the Projects The Agency may borrow money and accept advances, loans, grants, and other legal forms of financial assistance from the Federal government, State, City, County, or other public body, or from any source, public or private, for the purposes of undertaking and carrying out the Projects authorized by this Plan. Ad valorem taxes, if any, levied by a taxing body upon the taxable real and personal property situated in the Plan Area, shall be divided in accord with and pursuant to Section 1c, Article IX of the Oregon Constitution and ORS 457, and used by the Agency for the Projects authorized by this Plan. The Agency shall adopt and use a fiscal year ending June 30 accounting period. Each year, the Agency shall develop a budget in conformance with the provisions of ORS Chapter 294 and ORS 457, which shall describe sources of revenue, proposed expenditures, and activities. Section 800 - Annual Financial Statement Required A financial statement shall be prepared and provide information in accordance with ORS 457. The statement shall be filed with the City Council and notice shall be published in accordance with ORS 457. Section 900 - Community Member Participation The activities and projects defined in this Plan, and the adoption of amendments to this Plan shall be undertaken with the participation of community members, owners, tenants as individuals, and organizations who reside within or who have financial interest within the Plan Area together with the participation of general residents of the City. The Agency shall convene not less than once each year a committee of such persons to: a) prepare a report on the activities of the Agency for the previous fiscal year, and b) determine whether the Agency's expenditure of tax increment dollars was limited to the projects authorized by this Plan and the associated administrative costs authorized by the Plan. Prior to the approval of tax increment funds for construction of Section 600 A and C improvements the Agency shall follow the "community engagement and approval process" identified in subsection A of Section 600. Downtown Urban Renewal Plan - 2016 Amendment 8 Section 1000 - Non -Discrimination In the preparation, adoption, and implementation of this Plan no public official or private party shall take any action to cause any person, group, or organization to be discriminated against in a manner that violates Section 4.613 of the Eugene Code, 1971. Section 1100 - Recording of this Plan A copy of this Plan shall be recorded with the recording officer of Lane County. Section 1200 - Procedures for Changes or Amendments The Plan will be reviewed and analyzed periodically and may need to be modified based on public engagement results, design engineering for the fiber project, project negotiations for the Farmers' Market, and project scoping for the Old LCC Building. Types of Plan Amendments are: A. TYPE ONE AMENDMENT — SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE REQUIRING SPECIAL NOTICE Type One amendments shall require approval per ORS 457.095, and notice as provided in ORS 457.120. Type One plan changes will consist of: 1. Increases in the Plan Area boundary in excess of one percent (1%) of the existing area of the Plan. 2. Increases in the maximum indebtedness that can be issued or incurred under this Plan. B. TYPE TWO AMENDMENT — SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE NOT REQUIRING SPECIAL NOTICE Type Two amendments shall require approval per ORS 457.095, but will not require notice as provided in ORS 457.120. Type Two amendments will consist of any change or additions to the projects listed in Section 600. [�I611»IIYOII'll TI:13IDIN 1101PON =ulh[11:�:10IDIN bid ID101N Minor amendments are any change that does not require a Type One or Type Two amendment and may be approved by the Agency Board in resolution form. D. AMENDMENT TO THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OR ANY OF ITS IMPLEMENTING ORDINANCES Should the City Council amend the City's comprehensive plan or any of its implementing ordinances and should such amendment cause a substantial change to this Plan, the City Council amending action shall cause this Plan to be amended provided that the Planning Commission and City Council approve the amendment. In the event of such amendment, Downtown Urban Renewal Plan - 2016 Amendment 9 the text and/or exhibits of this Plan, if applicable to this Plan, shall be changed accordingly by duly recorded ordinance. Section 1300 - Duration and Validity of Approved Plan A. DURATION OF THE PLAN Taxes may be divided under this Plan only until the maximum indebtedness for the Plan Area has been issued and paid or defeased, or the Agency has determined that it will not issue the full amount of that maximum indebtedness, and all indebtedness that will be issued has been issued and paid or defeased. When that indebtedness has been paid or defeased the Agency will notify the assessor pursuant to ORS 457.450(2) to cease dividing taxes for the Plan Area, and shall return any unused tax increment funds to Lane County for redistribution to overlapping taxing districts. However, the Downtown District and this this Plan may remain in effect as long as legally required to exist and until the Agency transfers any remaining assets and liabilities of the Plan Area to the City of Eugene. As of the date of the 2016 Amendment, it is estimated that the last fiscal year for which taxes will be divided is FY27. I4111k614 Should a court of competent jurisdiction find any word, clause, sentence, section, or part of this Plan to be invalid, the remaining words, clauses, sentences, section, or parts shall be unaffected by any such finding and shall remain in full force and effect for the duration of the Plan. Section 1400 - Maximum Indebtedness The sum of $33 million was established in 1998 as the spending limit (maximum amount of new indebtedness which could be issued or incurred from tax increment funds) under this Plan after June 1, 1998. That figure was developed using the estimated project costs, plus a 5% annual inflation factor. The 2010 Amendment increased the maximum indebtedness amount by $13.6 million, to a total of $46.6 million. The 2016 Amendment increased the maximum indebtedness amount by $19.4 million, to a total of $66 million. The maximum indebtedness limit established by this Section 1400 does not apply to or limit: 1. The obligation of the Agency to pay interest on indebtedness issued or incurred under this Plan; 2. Any indebtedness issued to refund indebtedness issued or incurred under this Plan, to the extent that the refunding indebtedness does not exceed the principal amount of the refunded indebtedness, plus the amount of the refunding indebtedness that is used to pay costs of the refunding; 3. Funds to repay indebtedness existing on the date of the 1998 Amendment; and 4. Expenditures made from funds other than tax increment funds, such as loans made from the Downtown Revitalization Loan Program. Downtown Urban Renewal Plan - 2016 Amendment 10 Legislation passed in 2009 (ORS 457.220) placed additional limits on how much a municipality can increase maximum indebtedness. That same legislation, however, also provides that those limitations "do not apply to the extent the municipality approving a plan obtains the written concurrence of taxing districts imposing at least 75 percent of the amount of taxes imposed under permanent rate limits in the urban renewal area." The City concurred with that increase in maximum indebtedness when it approved this Plan. After consultation with the other overlapping taxing districts, the School District 4J Board voted 7:0 on May 18, 2016 "to concur with the Eugene City Council's proposed plan amendment to increase maximum indebtedness for the Downtown Urban Renewal District by up to $48 million in accordance with ORS 457.220 and 457.470(7)." The City and School District 4J imposed at least 75% of the amount of taxes imposed under permanent rate limits in the Downtown Urban Renewal District in FY 2015. Therefore, the legislative limitations are not applicable to the proposed maximum indebtedness increase resulting from the 2016 Amendment. Additionally, the LCC Board and the Lane County Board of County Commissioners provided support for the amendment. On May 11, 2016, the LCC Board of Directors voted 6:0 to support the proposed projects, specifically the LCC Downtown Center project, for inclusion in the Downtown Urban Renewal Plan amendment and the use of tax increment financing as the funding mechanism. On May 24, 2016, the Lane County Board of County Commissioners voted 4:1 to approve a letter of support. Section 1500 - Formal Matters At this time, no property is anticipated to be purchased that would result in relocation. If property is identified for purchase that would involve relocation, the Agency would develop provisions for relocation. Downtown Urban Renewal Plan - 2016 Amendment 11 PLAN EXHIBIT A: Plan Area Map Ld= W 8th Ave PET []Efl Ap W Broadway 1-11 PEi EE ❑ N W 10th Ave N d > IfIE]O i W 11th Ave 1:1 Ll El SP ark St �tj E Broadway E 10th Ave 0 M E 11th Ave Ave Downtown Urban Renewal Plan - 2016 Amendment 12 PLAN EXHIBIT B: Plan Area Description Beginning at the southwest corner of the intersection of 11th Avenue and Charnelton Street in the City of Eugene, Lane County, Oregon, commencing northerly along the west right-of- way line of Charnelton Street to the point of intersection of the south right-of-way line of the alley between 10th Avenue and Broadway; (1) thence, westerly along the south right-of-way line of said alley to the west line of Lincoln Street; (2) thence, northerly along the west right-of-way line of Lincoln Street to the point of intersection of the north right-of-way line of the alley between Broadway and 8th Avenue if extended; (3) thence, easterly along the north right-of-way line of said alley to the west right-of-way line Charnelton Street; (4) thence, northerly along the west right-of-way line of Charnelton Street to the northwest corner of the intersection of 7th Avenue and Charnelton Street; (5) thence, easterly along the north right-of-way line of 7th Avenue to the northwest corner of the intersection of 7th Avenue and Olive Street; (6) thence, northerly along the west right-of-way line of Olive Street to the northwest corner of the intersection of 6th Avenue and Olive Street; (7) thence, easterly along the north right-of-way line of 6th Avenue to the northeast corner of the intersection of 6th Avenue and Oak Street; (8) thence, southerly along the east right-of-way line of Oak Street to the northeast corner of Oak Street and South Park Avenue; (9) thence, easterly along the north right-of-way line of South Park Avenue extended to the east right-of-way line of Pearl Street; (10) thence, southerly along the east line of Pearl Street to the southeast corner of the intersection of Pearl Street and West 11th Avenue; and (11) thence westerly along the south right-of-way line of West 11th Avenue to the point of beginning. Portion of the City Hall Block description A tract of land located in the Northeast one-quarter of Section 31 in Township 17 South, Range 3 West of the Willamette Meridian being more particularly described as follows; Beginning at the Southwest corner of Block 18 as platted and recorded in Skinner's Donation to Eugene per Judgement Docket "A" page 2, Lane County Oregon Plat Records in Lane County, Oregon; thence Southerly along the westerly line of Block 24 of said Skinner's Donation to Eugene to the Northwest corner of Block A of Mulligan Addition to Eugene as platted and recorded in Volume A, Page 122, Lane County Oregon Plat Records in Lane County, Oregon; thence Westerly along the Northerly line of Block 1 of said Mulligan Addition to Eugene to the Northwest corner of said Block 1 of said Mulligan Addition to Eugene; thence northerly to the Southwest corner of Block said Block 24; thence West to the Southeast corner of Block 7 Mulligan Addition to Eugene as platted and recorded in Downtown Urban Renewal Plan - 2016 Amendment 13 Volume A, Page 122, Lane County Oregon Plat Records in Lane County, Oregon; thence northerly along the East line of said Block 7, 50.00 feet; thence running 50.00 feet distant and parallel to the south line of said Block 24 to the centerline of the now vacated alley within said Block 24; thence Northerly along said alley centerline to the South line of Block 17 in said Skinner's Donation to Eugene; thence along the South line of said Block 17 to the Southwest corner of Said Block 18 and there ending, all in Eugene, Lane County, Oregon. East Park Block Area description A tract of land located in the Northeast one-quarter of Section 31 in Township 17 South, Range 3 West of the Willamette Meridian being more particularly described as follows; Beginning at the Southwest corner of Block 24 as platted and recorded in Skinner's Donation to Eugene per Judgement Docket "A" page 2, Lane County Oregon Plat Records in Lane County; thence Southerly along the west line of Block 1 of Mulligan Addition to Eugene as platted and recorded in Volume A, Page 122, Lane County Oregon Plat Records in Lane County, Oregon to the Southwest corner of Lot 3, Block 24 of said Mulligan Addition; thence Westerly along the projected south line of said Lot 6 and along the north right-of- way line of South Park Street to the intersection with the east right-of-way line of Oak Street; thence northerly along said east right-of-way line of said Oak Street to the northerly right-of-way line of East 8th Avenue; thence Easterly along said northerly right-of-way line of said East 8th Avenue to the point of beginning being the Southwest corner of said Block 24 of Skinner's Donation to Eugene and there ending, all in Eugene, Lane County, Oregon. Downtown Urban Renewal Plan - 2016 Amendment 14 Ordinance Exhibit B Report on Downtown Urban Renewal Plan 2016 Amendment DOWNTOWN URBAN RENEWAL DISTRICT REPORT For the Downtown Urban Renewal District Plan Originally Adopted July 3, 1968 by Eugene Urban Renewal Agency Ordinance No. 257 Amended December 19, 1968 by Eugene City Council Ordinance No. 1609 Amended November 8, 1989 by Eugene City Council Ordinance No. 19648 Amended June 1, 1998 by City Council Ordinance No. 20120 Amended September 13, 2004 by City Council Ordinance No. 20328 Amended May 24, 2010 by City Council Ordinance No. 20459 Amended June 13, 2016 by City Council Ordinance No. 20564 Urban Renewal Agency of the City of Eugene, Oregon Eugene ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Eugene City Council and Urban Renewal Agency Board Mayor Kitty Piercy Greg Evans, President Alan Zelenka, Vice President George Brown Mike Clark George Poling Chris Pryor Claire Syrett Betty Taylor City of Eugene Staff Jon Ruiz, City Manager Sarah Medary, Assistant City Manager/PDD Executive Director Glenn Klein, City Attorney Maurizio Bottalico Denny Braud Sue Cutsogeorge Anne Davies Will Dowdy Anne Fifield Nan Laurence Amanda Nobel Flannery Sarah Zaleski Table of Contents Chapter1: Introduction......................................................................................................................1 Chapter 2: Description of Physical, Social, Economic, and Environmental Conditions in the Plan Area....................................................................................... 2 Chapter 3: Expected Impact, Including Fiscal Impact, of the Plan in Light of Added Services or Increased Population............................................................................ 6 Chapter 4: Reasons for Selection of the Plan Area................................................................. 8 Chapter 5: Relationship Between Existing Conditions and Each Project Activity Undertakenin the Plan................................................................................................9 Chapter 6: Estimated Total Cost of Each Project or Activity, Sources of Money, and Anticipated Completion Date for Each Project or Activity ........................ 13 Chapter 7: Estimated Amount of Money and Anticipated Year in Which Indebtedness will be Retired or Otherwise Provided For Under ORS 457.420 to 457.460.................................................................................................... 16 Chapter 8: Financial Analysis of the Plan with Sufficient Information to Determine Feasibility....................................................................................................................... 18 Chapter 9: Fiscal Impact Statement that Estimates the Impact of the Tax Increment Financing, Both Until and After the Indebtedness is Repaid, Upon All Entities Levying Taxes Upon Property in the Plan Area ......... 19 Chapter 10: Relocation Report....................................................................................................... 23 Chapter11: Appendix......................................................................................................................... 24 Exhibit A: Plan Area Map Exhibit B: Zoning District Map Exhibit C: Census Boundaries Map Exhibit D: Plan Area Map with 2016 Expansion Area Highlighted Exhibit E: Table 7 - Projected Revenues & Expenditures for the Plan Area Exhibit F: Table 8 - Impact of Urban Renewal on an Individual Tax Bill Exhibit G: Table 9 - Estimated Division of Tax Impact of the Plan on Overlapping Taxing Jurisdictions, FY16 - FY27 Exhibit H: Table 10 - Estimated Impact of Downtown District Tax Increment Collections on Overlapping Jurisdictions, FY16 Tax Data (Including the impact of school funding formula and Measure 5/50 tax rate compression) INDEX OF TABLES Table1. Generalized Land Use.......................................................................................................................... 3 Table2. Zoning......................................................................................................................................................... 3 Table 3. Median Household Income................................................................................................................ 5 Table 4. Assessed Value of the Frozen Base................................................................................................ 5 Table S. List of Project Activities and Cost Ranges.................................................................................15 Table 6. Maximum Indebtedness Calculation...........................................................................................17 Table 7. Projected Revenues and Expenditures for the Plan Area.........................................29 Table 8. Impact of Urban Renewal on an Individual Tax Bill..................................................31 Table 9. Estimated Division of Tax Impact of the Plan on Overlapping Taxing Jurisdictions, FY16- FY27..................................................................................................................................32 Table 10. Estimated Impact of Downtown District Tax Increment Collections on Overlapping Jurisdictions, FY16 Tax Data (Including the impact of school funding formula and Measure 5/50 tax rate compression)..................................................................................34 Table 11. Estimated Revenue without Downtown Urban Renewal District, FY16 Tax Data AFTER Discounts, Delinquencies, & State School Funding Formula........................................22 REPORT ON THE DOWNTOWN URBAN RENEWAL DISTRICT PLAN Chapter 1: Introduction The 2016 Amendment to the Downtown Urban Renewal District Plan (the "Plan") makes the following changes: ■ Specifies project activities to be undertaken; ■ Sets an increase in the maximum indebtedness to allow for those specific projects; and ■ Expands the boundary by five acres (7%). The City of Eugene has prepared an amendment to the Plan, originally adopted on July 1968 and modified December 1968, December 1989, June 1998, September 2004, and May 2010. This amendment is considered a substantial amendment under ORS 457. City Council considered downtown improvements in 2016 with the desire to foster a vibrant downtown, provide near-term economic stimulus, and prepare for the 2021 World Track and Field Championships in such a way as to result in long-term community benefit. This Report accompanies the Plan and consists of text, tables, and appendices. The Downtown Urban Renewal District contains approximately 75 acres (the "Plan Area"). The legal description for the Plan Area is in Section 300 of the Plan and is further described on graphic exhibits included in the Plan and in the appendix to this Report. Report on the 2016 Amendment Chapter 2: Description of Physical, Social, Economic, and Environmental Conditions in the Plan Area Note: This description and assessment is current to the identified dates. A. Physical Conditions 1. Land Area The Plan Area encompasses about 75 acres, after the five acre boundary expansion included in the 2016 Amendment. (See Appendix, ExhibitA for a map of the Plan Area.) The approximate five acre boundary expansion represents 7% of the total Plan Area, and is well within the limit of 20% maximum expansion under ORS 457.220(3). The total incorporated land area for the City of Eugene, as of May 2016, is 28,314 acres. The Plan Area represents about 0.26 percent of the City's total land area. This area combined with the Riverfront Urban Renewal District of approximately 178 acres, equals approximately 253 acres in renewal districts, which is less than one percent of the City's total land area and well below the 15 percent maximum allowed by Oregon State law. 2. Existing Land Use and Zoning Table 1 on the next page shows generalized land use as of May 2016 by category. Table 2 shows the zoning as of May 2016 by zoning district. A description of each use permitted is found in the City Land Use Code. (The zoning map is located in the Appendix, Exhibit B.) Report on the 2016 Amendment Table 1. Generalized Land Use Table 2. Zoning Land Use C E Communication Educational Acres 0.7 1.9 Zoning C-2 Community Commercial Acres 0.7 C-3 Major Commercial 39.1 F Transportation Related 1.9 PL Public Land 4.4 G Government 2.5 S -H Historic 0.1 H Wholesale Trade 0.0 Total Zoned property 44.4 I Industrial 0.3 Non-Taxloted Right -of -Way 30.6 i Religious, Charitable 0.0 Total Data: May, rev lune 2016 75.0 L Recreation 7.7 M Residential, Multi -family 6.4 0 General Services 11.7 P Parks 1.2 Q Residential, Group quarters 0.3 R Retail Trade 18.9 V Vacant 0.2 Y Alleys, Walkways, Bikepaths 0.01 Z Roads 30.5 Total 84.3 (Total does not equal area acreage due to rounding and vertical land use designations. i.e, parking below residential.) Data: 5/27/2016 3. Historic Structures In the past, numerous old buildings were lost in the downtown core area due to demolition or neglect. While not all of these structures were historically or architecturally significant, it is clear that our urban heritage was not considered worthy for preservation or re -use. Today, the Agency aims to take an active role in celebrating that urban heritage by preserving and reclaiming obsolete or underutilized buildings as well as parts of the urban landscape in need of improvements, such as the Park Blocks, that form an important part of the fabric and history of downtown, which is part of our legacy for future generations. 4. Parks and Plazas Downtown plays two roles in our city, as both the shared civic, cultural, and economic center, and as a neighborhood of its own. Downtown needs to be served by parks and plazas that provide public gathering spaces, room for events, and areas of nature in the heart of the city. As development continues downtown, the role of these urban open spaces becomes even more important for livability, for conviviality, and as amenities to draw and sustain a high quality and diverse mix of commercial, governmental, residential, and cultural uses. The open spaces that are currently downtown (Broadway Plaza, the Park Blocks, and the Hult Center Plaza) do not appear to meet the area's needs for open space as they are insufficient, deteriorated, uninviting, in places not accessible, and overall not conducive to incidental or intentional use. All of these have obsolete or deteriorated features. Report on the 2016 Amendment They are also underutilized and lack basic infrastructure including adequate lighting, power, and water (gray water and drinking water for public or commercial use) as well as comfortable and inviting amenities such as well-designed seating, restrooms, and public wi-fi. These improvements will increase the utility, desirability, and economic impact of these spaces, make the Plan Area more inviting and attractive overall, and create the conditions for increased residential and commercial investment in the future. S. Telecommunications Utility System The existing infrastructure cannot accommodate the telecommunications needs of firms in business sectors that are growing and anticipated to grow in the 21St century. The existing telecommunications infrastructure offers service that is too slow and too costly to meet the requirements of firms that consume or produce large volumes of data, limiting the ability of the Plan Area to attract and retain key industry sectors. The City of Eugene partnered with Lane Council of Governments (LCOG) and the Eugene Water and Electric Board (EWEB) on a successful pilot project to test the feasibility of implementing a downtown municipally owned network. The partners identified a workable method to connect several commercial buildings by running fiber optic cables through existing electrical conduit. The pilot project built new telecommunications infrastructure in three buildings that allows the transfer of large volumes of data at very fast speeds. The City and its partners are identifying the network architecture and cost of constructing a municipally owned fiber network in downtown Eugene. 6. Streets, Alleys, Sidewalks The original renewal project upgraded major portions of the streets, alleys, and sidewalks within the Plan Area. As documented in the blight findings, many of the pedestrian walkways as well as portions of paved streets have significantly deteriorated. In addition, some streets are in need of repair and renovation to enhance their function, safety and attractiveness for public use. Park Street, as an example, which runs adjacent to the Park Blocks on three sides, needs sidewalk and accessibility improvements, curb changes, and a redesign of parking to better accommodate activities that spill over from the Park Blocks. Oak Street and 8th Avenue are the major streets bisecting the Park Blocks, both only carrying traffic in one direction. Plans and policy direction support the conversion of 8th Avenue to a two-way street. Both streets need improvement to maintain traffic flow and allow for ease of pedestrian use, such as with lane narrowing and bump -outs. 7. Sanitary Sewer System The sanitary sewer system was upgraded as part of the original renewal project. This upgrading consisted of relining the existing lines with plastic pipe liners. Each building was reconnected at that time. The engineering analysis showed that the existing capacity was sufficient. Report on the 2016 Amendment 4 8. Water Delivery System According to the Eugene Water and Electric Board, the water delivery system throughout the original Downtown Urban Renewal District is in sufficient condition and of sufficient capacity to support additional development. B. Social Conditions 1. Housing Census 2010 data reports that there are 194 housing units in census blocks that cover the Plan Area and that housing in the Plan Area is completely renter occupied and market rate. Since 2010, an additional 115 housing units have been built, a majority of which are student housing at the Lane Community College Downtown Campus that has 75 apartment units for 255 residents. 2. Socio -Economic As of Census 2010, 264 people were living in Census Blocks that cover the Plan Area. Since then, 115 new housing units were built in the Plan Area contributing to a potential increase in population. In and surrounding the Plan Area, the median income was substantially lower than the City median income. See Table 3 below. See Appendix Exhibit C for a map of census boundaries. Table 3. Median Household Income Data: Census ACS 2010-2014, Table 819013 3. Employment In April 2014, there were 309 employers and 4,533 employees in the Plan Area (QCEW 2014). The largest employers in the district were the City of Eugene, Sykes Enterprises and Venture Data (InfoUSA 2014). Data: Lane Council of Governments, Oregon Employment Department 2014 -April Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW). InfoUSA - April 2014. C. Economic Conditions 1. Value of Property- The FY16 taxable assessed value for the entire City is $13,931,659,840. The total assessed value for the Plan Area as of FY16 is $181,601,898. Table 4 below demonstrates that the frozen base for the two combined urban renewal districts is well below the 15% limit imposed by ORS 457. Table 4. Assessed Value of the Frozen Base Downtown Urban Riverfront Urban Total as a % of Renewal District Renewal District Total City AV Frozen Base $33,599,118 $50,609,448 $81,996,439 0.6% Report on the 2016 Amendment Median Margin of Error Household Income City of Eugene $42,715 +/-1,045 Census Tract 3900, Block Group 1 $12,288 +/-2,703 Census Tract 3900, Block Group 2 $11,633 +/-3,239 Data: Census ACS 2010-2014, Table 819013 3. Employment In April 2014, there were 309 employers and 4,533 employees in the Plan Area (QCEW 2014). The largest employers in the district were the City of Eugene, Sykes Enterprises and Venture Data (InfoUSA 2014). Data: Lane Council of Governments, Oregon Employment Department 2014 -April Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW). InfoUSA - April 2014. C. Economic Conditions 1. Value of Property- The FY16 taxable assessed value for the entire City is $13,931,659,840. The total assessed value for the Plan Area as of FY16 is $181,601,898. Table 4 below demonstrates that the frozen base for the two combined urban renewal districts is well below the 15% limit imposed by ORS 457. Table 4. Assessed Value of the Frozen Base Downtown Urban Riverfront Urban Total as a % of Renewal District Renewal District Total City AV Frozen Base $33,599,118 $50,609,448 $81,996,439 0.6% Report on the 2016 Amendment 2. Relationship of the Value of Improvements to the Value of Land The current ratio of improvement value to land value within the Plan Area, based on 2015 assessment records and excluding all tax exempt property, is 4.2 to 1. D. Environmental Conditions The Plan Area has been an established commercial business area for many years. Most streets, sidewalks, alleys, and sewers are in place and will be upgraded and maintained. The public park areas within the Plan Area will be maintained as needed by the City. There are opportunities through this Plan Amendment, however, to improve the function and condition of some of the streets, public parks, and public plazas. The Park Blocks are directly on a pedestrian, bicycle, and car path to the river and are a critical piece of the Willamette to Willamette Initiative. A central intent of that project is to transform 8th Avenue from a predominantly one-way west bound street with inadequate pedestrian and bicycle amenities into a two-way, inviting, and gracious path to and from the river and the anticipated development on the EWEB property as well as the university area to the east. Significant infrastructure design and construction will be required to implement this transformative project. Chapter 3: Expected Impact, Including Fiscal Impact, of the Plan in Light of Added Services or Increased Population The 2016 Amendment allows for several projects (described in more detail in Chapter 5) that will improve the function, condition, and appearance of the Plan Area through: • Improved parks and plazas throughout the Plan Area, including improvements to the Park Blocks for overall community use, and to support the continued use for the Saturday Market; • Improved permanent area for the Farmers' Market; • Funding of critical high-speed fiber utility; and • Redevelopment of the Old LCC Building. These projects also support the Plan goal to strengthen the economic conditions of the Plan Area. One measure of this goal is the expected increase in the taxable property values caused by the projects. Areas adjacent to the Plan Area are also expected to become more viable. From FY17 through the estimated remaining life of the District (FY27), assessed values in the Plan Area are estimated to increase by about $64 million. The projects will also contribute to the goal of enhancing downtown's role as the regional economic, governmental, and cultural center and central location for public and private development and investment. Improvements to parks and plazas will contribute to the goal of reinforcing the Plan Area as a place to live, work, or visit by providing inviting and highly functional spaces for the community to enjoy on a daily basis as well as for programmed events. Report on the 2016 Amendment Regarding potential impacts to the 4J school district, while the 2016 Amendment projects are not directed at residential projects, they are likely to increase jobs and amenities downtown, which will ideally increase the number of people living downtown. (See Chapter 9 for a summary of the financial impact that the Downtown District has on 4J.) The Fiber Implementation Plan includes the acquisition of telecommunications infrastructure that would provide a publicly owned and/or operated connection from a local internet connection point to large, regional internet exchanges. The infrastructure could lower the telecommunications operating costs for public agencies, including 4J. The 2016 Amendment projects, like all development projects, are expected to impact police services, transportation, utilities, and other public services. City Council selected projects within the Plan Area for the way in which they support planning efforts and strategies, such as Envision Eugene, and adopted policy documents, such as the Eugene Downtown Plan. Developed with significant public input, the planning documents were based on assumptions about the value of and expected need for higher density of uses and development, with a consequent need for new and improved services and amenities. The Plan is expected to facilitate improvements within the Plan Area, thereby addressing the goals and policies in these documents. The policies of the Downtown Plan strongly support increased residential and mixed use development downtown, and the reinforcement of downtown as the economic and cultural center of the community. The Downtown Plan also contains specific policies in support of improvements to public open spaces downtown. Similarly, the pillars of Envision Eugene that will be addressed from the 2016 Amendment are to provide ample employment opportunities, to provide housing affordable to all income levels, and to promote compact development and efficient use of transportation. Specifically, the 2016 Amendment projects are expected to increase jobs and amenities downtown, which could increase housing demand downtown, thereby implementing Envision Eugene strategies to meet more of Eugene's multi -family housing and jobs needs downtown, increase job opportunities, and transform downtown into a mixed-use neighborhood that fosters active, walkable community living. The projects in the Plan do not result in an intensification of development beyond that previously anticipated under the planning documents. The Agency will use tax increment revenues to carry out the Plan. The use of tax increment revenues will affect the property tax revenues and bonded debt tax rates of other taxing jurisdictions that share assessed value with the Plan Area. The property tax impacts are described in Chapter 9. Report on the 2016 Amendment 7 Chapter 4: Reasons for Selection of the Plan Area The Plan Area was adopted in 1968 with approximately 70 acres. This area was selected after a comprehensive community process under the guidance of the Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). In 2016, the Agency Board proposed an expansion to the Plan Area by five acres to include a portion of the City Hall block and the East Park Block area. (See Exhibit D for a map of the Plan Area with the expansion area highlighted.) The four goals of the Plan are to (1) improve the function, condition, and appearance of the Plan Area, (2) reduce blight and blighting influences, (3) strengthen the economic conditions of the Plan Area, and (4) enhance downtown's role as the regional economic, governmental, and cultural center and a central location for public and private development and investment. According to ORS 457.010, "blighted areas" means areas that, by reason of deterioration, faulty planning, inadequate or improper facilities, deleterious land use or the existence of unsafe structures, or any combination of these factors, are detrimental to the safety, health or welfare of the community. A blighted area is characterized by the existence of one or more of the following conditions: (a) The existence of buildings and structures, used or intended to be used for living, com- mercial, industrial or other purposes, or any combination of those uses, that are unfit or unsafe to occupy for those purposes because of any one or a combination of the following conditions: (A) Defective design and quality of physical construction; (B) Faulty interior arrangement and exterior spacing; (C) Overcrowding and a high density of population; (D) Inadequate provision for ventilation, light, sanitation, open spaces and recreation facilities; or (E) Obsolescence, deterioration, dilapidation, mixed character or shifting of uses; (b) An economic dislocation, deterioration or disuse of property resulting from faulty planning; (c) The division or subdivision and sale of property or lots of irregular form and shape and inadequate size or dimensions for property usefulness and development; (d) The laying out of property or lots in disregard of contours, drainage and other physical characteristics of the terrain and surrounding conditions; (e) The existence of inadequate streets and other rights of way, open spaces and utilities; (f) The existence of property or lots or other areas that are subject to inundation by water; (g) A prevalence of depreciated values, impaired investments and social and economic maladjustments to such an extent that the capacity to pay taxes is reduced and tax receipts are inadequate for the cost of public services rendered; (h) A growing or total lack of proper utilization of areas, resulting in a stagnant and unpro- ductive condition of land potentially useful and valuable for contributing to the public health, safety and welfare; or Report on the 2016 Amendment 8 (i) A loss of population and reduction of proper utilization of the area, resulting in its further deterioration and added costs to the taxpayer for the creation of new public facilities and services elsewhere. A total of 76 or 70% of properties in the Downtown Urban Renewal District are determined to have blighted conditions. In addition to the 76 properties, 19 locations have blighted conditions found in roads and sidewalks. These conditions are so prevalent and consistent in the Plan Area that the City concludes that the entire Plan Area is blighted. The blighted conditions impact the safety, health, and welfare of the community through decreased property values and taxes, potentially unsafe conditions for accessibility through deteriorating public right-of-ways, lack of seismic stability, and maintenance in public buildings and open spaces, vacancy and outdated structural designs that are deteriorating. The evidence of blight and blighting influences reduces the economic activity in the Plan Area, leading to lowered value and a disincentive to invest. Urban renewal funds that are directed at improving or reducing the blighted conditions will attract positive activity downtown, stimulate economic development and private investment, promote downtown revitalization, and enhance the value of the Plan Area as a whole. As the number of businesses and opportunities for investment increases, existing businesses and development will also benefit, including restaurants, retail and housing, leading to improved conditions, and higher property values within the Plan Area. Chapter 5: Relationship Between Existing Conditions and Each Project Activity Undertaken in the Plan All Projects set forth in Section 600 of the Plan are intended to correct the existing defici- encies in the Plan Area as described in this report (see Chapter 2). The proposed 2016 Amendment Projects are: 1) Infrastructure improvements to parks, plazas, Farmers' Market, open space, and streets to provide an inviting civic space aligned with the Willamette to Willamette Initiative for the community, better opportunities for the Farmers' Market, and inviting and accessible connections between the public spaces; 2) Construction of critical high-speed fiber utility; and 3) Redevelopment of the Old LCC Building. 1) Improved Parks, Plazas, Farmers' Market, Restrooms, Open Space, and Streets: Improvements to the parks and plazas in the Plan Area benefit the growing community of employees, commercial and cultural uses, visitors, and residents, as well as the community at large with a revitalized, attractive, safe, and economically healthy downtown core. Improvements to the parks and plazas would be undertaken after a robust public engagement effort to determine what changes are most desired and effective to enhance their function during programmed and non -programmed times. The goal of the public engagement effort would be to draw on the experience and expertise of a wide group of community members to clarify the community's Report on the 2016 Amendment 9 commitment to downtown and to develop parks and plazas in alignment with the community's vision for public space in the heart of the city. The City founders understood the importance of public space; the Park Blocks are a living legacy of their forethought and civic spirit. The design, appearance and function of the Park Blocks are a critical component of Eugene's identity and economic health and the long-term location for two beloved organizations, the Saturday Market and the Lane County Farmers' Market. On a direct path to the Willamette River from downtown, the Park Blocks are also a key part of the Willamette to Willamette Initiative. For the three other public spaces in the Plan Area, Broadway Plaza, the Hult Center Plaza, and the new City Hall plaza, improvements are needed to benefit the public in terms of the safety, health, and welfare of residents through the removal of blighted conditions, improved amenities and attractiveness of these spaces as well as their impact on existing and desired adjacent uses. However, tax revenue funds shall not be used to pay for construction of a new City Hall building, nor to pay for a parking lot on the block bounded by Pearl Street, 8th Avenue, High Street, and 7th Avenue. With the needed improvements in place, these downtown spaces will have the potential to more fully support the emerging downtown neighborhood and to provide an inviting urban open space in the core of the city for the entire community. A focused, strategic investment in the amenities, design, and character of these spaces strengthens the conditions for increased desired uses and development downtown. The Lane County Farmers' Market operates multiple times per week during the spring, summer, and fall on a portion of the Park Blocks on 8th Avenue. The Farmers' Market continues to encounter difficult issues with that location, such as inadequate electrical service, uneven, unpaved, and inaccessible surfaces, and lack of a permanent shelter. Reincorporating the Butterfly Parking Lot into the Park Blocks for the Farmers' Market would re-establish the original Park Blocks and support a cornerstone of downtown activity and one of the most significant public event venues in the city. For the past few years, the Farmers' Market has expressed a need and desire to expand its offerings to maintain financial viability and potentially operate year-round. The Agency will improve the Park Blocks in order to make that location more attractive and functional for the Farmers' Market and accessible, safe, and inviting for the public. If that location is not feasible, the Agency may improve/purchase another location within the Plan Area. The Hult Center is a community asset with an underutilized and awkwardly configured plaza that will benefit from community engagement and subsequent system planning and/or improvements. The Agency assembled the land and donated the property to the City for the Hult Center development. In 1978, voters supported an $18.5 million General Obligation bond to finance the Hult Center construction. Since its grand opening in 1982, the Hult Center has been charming audiences with popular performances in the Silva Concert Hall and the Soreng Theater. However the outside of Report on the 2016 Amendment 10 the Hult Center does not create an inviting and safe place for gathering before or after events, and does not provide a positive economic impact for nearby users. The parks and plazas in the Plan Area have the potential to add to the livability and the economic vitality of the entire downtown. As downtown density increases, these areas could provide much needed urban open spaces to support the growing downtown neighborhood, as well as an inviting destination for the entire community. At present, they are little used outside of programmed events, and need improvement to enhance function, accessibility, attractiveness, and identity. Blighted conditions in these areas include barren spaces with broken and deteriorated pedestrian open areas and walkways, lack of amenities such as seating or water and areas that do not meet accessibility standards. The expenditure of urban renewal funds for these parks and plazas will improve or remove blighted conditions, attract positive activity downtown, stimulate economic development, promote downtown revitalization, provide a healthier and safer place for residents to congregate, and enhance the value of the Plan Area as a whole. 2) High -Speed Fiber: The 2013 City of Eugene Broadband Strategic Plan identified the development of a downtown fiber network as a strategic goal. After completion of the Strategic Plan, City staff worked with LCOG and EWEB on a successful pilot project, to test the feasibility of implementing a municipally owned downtown network. The City, EWEB, and LCOG identified a workable method to connect buildings by running fiber optics cables through existing electrical conduit. The Plan Area has high-speed fiber in several buildings as a result of the pilot project that was completed in 2016. The remainder of the Plan Area has limited telecommunications service and access to internet service providers. In addition, internet service providers in Eugene experience a constrained supply of access to the regional internet exchange points resulting in slower connection speeds and higher costs relative to larger cities. Constructing telecommunications infrastructure would provide a publicly owned and/or operated connection from a local internet connection point to large, regional internet exchanges that could lower the telecommunications operating costs for the City, other public agencies, school districts, and internet service providers. Constructing a municipally owned fiber network will serve and benefit the Plan Area because: (1) existing and new businesses benefiting from the high speed and competitive market will grow employment and attract new investments to the Plan Area; (2) residents will have an added benefit for living within the Plan Area; and (3) public agencies within the Plan Area will have reduced costs and increased telecommunications speed, including the City, Lane Community College, Lane County, and LCOG. The 4J and Bethel school districts (outside the Plan Area) will also benefit. As the number of businesses and opportunities for investment increases, existing businesses and development will also benefit, including restaurants, retail and housing, Report on the 2016 Amendment 11 leading to improved conditions and higher values within the Plan Area. Increased technological opportunities in the Plan Area can also invite new investment, potentially increasing property values and in turn, property taxes, reducing blighted conditions including depreciation ratios. 3) Old LCC Building: The 66,000 square foot Old LCC Building was vacated in January 2013 when the new Lane Community College Downtown Campus opened on 10th Avenue and Olive Street. At present, the vacant Old LCC Building neither provides space for active uses nor adds to downtown vitality. Redevelopment of this large structure may include housing or activities that advance the Regional Prosperity Economic Development Plan (e.g., an innovation center with maker space, wet lab, or art/tech incubator). An upgraded facility will benefit the Plan Area by improving a blighted building that is currently vacant, increasing the mix of uses in the Plan Area, and stimulating additional public and private investment. Blighted conditions at this property include vacancy, underutilization, decreased property values, and population loss. Redevelopment of this property will help eliminate blight by contributing to reinvestment in the community that can lead to increased property values, through revitalization of a stagnant and underutilized property, and creating an attraction for investors and/or entrepreneurs to reinvest in the Plan Area. The projects included in the proposed 2016 Plan Amendment were selected for their ability to address blighted conditions and to serve as catalysts for reducing the prevalence of blight within the Plan Area. The improvements to the Park Blocks and the other downtown open spaces will target areas with documented evidence of blight in order to increase the accessibility, enjoyment and use of these areas. As a result, the downtown open spaces will transform from underutilized areas to amenities drawing additional users and ultimately new residents and employees. Adding high-speed fiber will also add significant value to the district by creating the conditions for businesses to succeed, particularly those businesses in the growing cluster of high-tech firms. Strengthening businesses in this economic sector increases the ability of firms to add new employees, grow the business base, and add additional value to properties within the Plan Area. Using urban renewal funds to assist in the renovation of the LCC Old Building directly addresses a significant blighted property in the Plan Area. When this large, underutilized, and outdated structure is transformed for new uses, the property will support other activities in the Plan Area and the blighting influence of a vacant property will be removed, which will positively impact adjacent and nearby properties. Improvements for the Farmers' Market will strengthen the local food sector of our regional economy and reduce or remove the blighting conditions of the existing location. A renovated location or new structure will also enhance the ability of the Farmers' Market to serve as an amenity to other businesses and residents' downtown, as well as an attraction for the entire community, leading to additional activity in the Plan Area and, ultimately, greater economic stability and increased values within the Plan Area. Report on the 2016 Amendment 12 Chapter 6: Estimated Total Cost of Each Project or Activity, Sources of Money, and Anticipated Completion Date for Each Project or Activity This Report on the 2016 Amendment includes the estimated cost of Projects to be carried out following the adoption of the amendment. Table 5 shows that urban renewal financing is estimated to provide $19.4 million (or approximately 83%) of funding out of an estimated total of $23.1 million of public and private investment from FY17 through FY27. Table 5 lists the project activities included in the Plan and estimated cost ranges. Because elements of each project are yet to occur (e.g. public engagement, design engineering for fiber, project negotiations for Farmers' Market, and project scoping for the Old LCC Building), there is a range of opportunities within each project. The estimated range gives a sense of scale and scope. Below is a short description of each of the 2016 Amendment Projects. Parks, Plazas, Farmers' Market, Open Space, Restrooms, and Street Improvements: The City will develop a plan for parks, plazas, and open space improvements, after a public engagement process. The Agency will contribute funding for the improvements. Projects could include improvements to the Park Blocks, reincorporation of the Butterfly Parking Lot, and street improvements in order to make that location more attractive and functional for the community and the Farmers' Market, which may include building a structure. If that location is not feasible, the Agency may improve/purchase another location within the Plan Area. Other open space projects may be developed as a result of the public engagement process. However, tax revenue funds shall not be used to pay for construction of a new City Hall building, nor to pay for a parking lot on the block bounded by Pearl Street, 8th Avenue, High Street, and 7th Avenue. The community work will start in FY17 and the improvements will happen subsequently and following the "community engagement and approval process" identified in the Plan Section 600 A and the Agency Board budget approval process. High -Speed Fiber. The Agency will contribute to the Eugene Fiber Implementation Plan for those costs associated with the Plan Area. This project will enhance the economic prosperity of downtown and increase telecommunications speed for businesses, residents, and public agencies. Federal grants, private party contributions, and other City contributions are anticipated. The project will start in FY17 and is estimated to be completed during FY18. Old LCC Building: LCC is considering redevelopment options for its currently vacant building on Willamette Street between 11th and 10th Avenues. The specific project activities to be undertaken by the Agency will be defined by the Agency Board after the "community engagement and approval process" identified in the Plan Section 600 A and set out in an agreement with LCC. A combination of private party or other public agency contributions is anticipated. LCC has not released timing information for when they will be Report on the 2016 Amendment 13 ready to finalize plans and move forward with redevelopment. The Agency would hope to complete the transaction by 2019. Project Delivery Administration: Actions for this activity include program administration (project management, loan administration, support for ongoing investments within the Plan Area, public engagement, financial services, debt issuance and administration); legal services; reporting (budgets, financials); preparation of market, feasibility, or other economic studies; preparation of design, architectural, engineering, landscaping architectural, planning, development, or other developmental studies; providing accounting or audit services; providing special rehabilitation, restoration, or renovation feasibility and cost analysis studies; assisting in preparation of the annual financial reports required under Sections 800 and 900 of the Plan; providing property acquisition appraisals; and evaluation of the plan and the success of its activities. Many of the activities are provided through a contract between the City of Eugene and the Agency dated June 15, 2004. The Agency may also acquire, rent, or lease office space and office furniture, equipment, and facilities necessary to conduct its affairs in the management and implementation of this plan. Projections for district administration assume that once the projects are complete, district administration expenses will be reduced to a level that will be sufficient to run the loan program, support ongoing investments within the Plan Area, and ensure administration of outstanding debt, budget development, annual review of project activities, and financial report preparation. Specifically, the administration projection summarized in the bullet points below includes staffing for project delivery, ongoing financial administration, and the loan program. Additional items in the projection include legal and consulting fees necessary to protect the City/Agency and complete the Projects, debt issuance cost needed for the Projects, and property management. • Project delivery: 2 FTE; $0.27M average per year FY17 thru FY21 • Loan program administration: 0.9 FTE; $0.13M average per year FY17 thru FY27 • Legal costs, public engagement, financial administration, overhead & misc.: $0.1M average per year FY17 thru FY27; higher in the early years and a smaller amount for maintenance over time • Debt Issuance costs: $0.3M when issued; to be determined Report on the 2016 Amendment 14 Table 5. List of Project Activities and Cost Ranges Project Activity Park Blocks & Open Space Improvements $ Based on public engagement results, could include: Hult Plaza, Broadway Plaza, City Hall Plaza, and connections between with art, furniture, lighting Farmers' Market ** Depends on land cost and structure type High -Speed Fiber Old LCC Building Project Delivery Administration Project delivery Loan program Legal, public engagement, financial admin, etc. Debt issuance cost Projects Funded from 2016 Amendment Projects Funded from Private Sources & Other Federal, State & Local Government TOTAL Fundin_a forAll Estimated Cost * 1M - 5.2M 1M -4M LSM - 3M 1M -3M $ 0.27M/yr $ 0.13M/yr $ 0.1M/yr $ 03M $ 4.2M $19AM $3.75M $23.15M * The Agency Board will approve actual amounts to be spent on individual projects after the required public engagement has been completed and project details are reviewed. The amounts provided in Table 5 are estimated ranges. The Agency Board may ultimately approve spending for an individual project above or below the range listed in this table; however, the total spending for all projects will not exceed the 2016 spending limit of $19.4M. ** The Farmers' Market project would also have an additional $500,000 to add to the total listed in Table 5 from the 2010 Amendment. The resulting estimate for the project would be $1.5M - 4.5M. Report on the 2016 Amendment 15 Projects will begin in FY17. Decisions on priorities of funding for Projects will be made by the Agency Board with community member participation identified in the Plan Section 900 followed by its annual budget process and at regular Agency Board meetings, all of which are open to the public. Construction of the Projects contemplated in the 2016 Amendment is expected to be completed by FY21. Debt issued to fund the projects is estimated to be paid off by FY27, depending on future tax increment revenue levels. The Agency shall convene not less than once each year the Expenditure Review Panel to (1) prepare a report on the activities of the Agency for the previous fiscal year, and (2) determine whether the Agency's expenditure of tax increment dollars was limited to the Projects and the associated administrative costs authorized by the Plan. Chapter 7: Estimated Amount of Money and Anticipated Year in Which Indebtedness will be Retired or Otherwise Provided For Under ORS 457.420 to 457.460 The contribution from the Agency for Projects is estimated at about $27M, including interest, premium, and other costs. The Projects will be funded with a combination of urban renewal tax increment financing under ORS 457 and other sources. The Agency may apply for funding from other federal, state, and local grants in order to complete the projects. In addition, the public facilities included within the Plan may also be funded in part with other public funds, such as systems development charges and general obligation bonds, among other sources. Oregon Revised Statutes require that each urban renewal district that receives property taxes include a "maximum indebtedness" limit in their urban renewal plan. "Maximum indebtedness" is a required spending cap for all property tax expenditures over a period of time. "Maximum indebtedness" is not a legal debt limit. It is more like a spending limit. Adopting a maximum indebtedness figure does not authorize or obligate the Agency to spend money or enter into debt. Within the maximum indebtedness limitation, the Agency Board has the ability to fund projects over time, either with cash or by issuing debt. Certain expenditures are included in the maximum indebtedness calculation and certain expenditures are excluded. For instance, cash payments for projects and administrative expenses are included in the calculation, but expenditures made from sources other than tax increment revenues are not included in the spending limit, such as Downtown Revitalization Loan Program funds. In addition, interest on debt is not included in maximum indebtedness, nor is the refinancing of existing indebtedness. The City Council amended the Plan in 1998 to include a maximum indebtedness limit of $33 million. The $33 million figure represented the amount that the Agency was allowed to cumulatively spend in tax increment revenues starting in 1998. That figure was based on Report on the 2016 Amendment 16 the estimated cost of building a new main library, plus continuation of the administrative costs in the district, preparing annual financial statements, disposing of the former Sears building on 10th Avenue and Charnelton Street (which is now the site of the new LCC Downtown Campus), overseeing completion of the Broadway Place and Overpark elevator projects, and administering the loan portfolio. It included an annual inflation factor of 5% on project costs and excluded existing debt. In 2010, the maximum indebtedness limit of $33 million was almost fully spent or committed, with the bulk having been spent on building the downtown library. City Council amended the Plan in order to complete three projects: LCC downtown campus; Farmers' Market improvements, and assuming the Broadway Place Garages debt. Maximum indebtedness was increased by $13.6 million, which resulted in a revised maximum indebtedness figure of $46.6 million for the cumulative spending in the Plan Area from 1998 to the end of the Plan. This revised maximum indebtedness amount was the estimated amount needed to accomplish the three additional projects and to provide for district administration. The $46.6 million of maximum indebtedness has almost been fully spent or committed on the three projects included in the 2010 Plan Amendment. In order to accomplish additional projects, it is estimated that an additional $19.4 million will need to be added to maximum indebtedness, as shown in Table 6 below: Table 6. Maximum Indebtedness Calculation Project Estimated Cost 2016 Plan Amendment Park Blocks & Open Space Improvements $1M - 5.2M Year -Round Farmers' Market $1-4M High -Speed Fiber $1.5 - 3M Old LCC Building $1- 3M Project Delivery Administration (thru FY27) $4.2M Total Addition to Maximum Indebtedness $19.4M 1998 Plan Amendment $33M 2010 Plan Amendment $13.6M 2016 Plan Amendment $19.4M Total Maximum Indebtedness $66.OM Table 7 in Exhibit E includes information about future revenues and expenditures in the Plan Area. The timing and amounts for individual project activities will be determined by the Agency Board with community member participation identified in the Plan Section 900 and each year during the annual budget process. Completion dates for individual activities may be affected by changes in the plans of other private or public partners, local economic and market conditions, changes in the availability of tax increment funds, and changes in priorities for carrying out project activities. Report on the 2016 Amendment 17 Current projections show that the tax increment revenues should be sufficient to pay for the projects and associated debt by FY27. The district would cease collecting tax increment funds once there are sufficient tax increment funds available to repay all debt issued or obligations created to fund the Projects. Chapter 8: Financial Analysis of the Plan with Sufficient Information to Determine Feasibility The financial analysis of the plan shown in Table 7 in Exhibit E includes the anticipated tax increment revenues over the projected remaining life of the Plan. The analysis shows that the anticipated tax increment revenues are based on reasonable projections of new development and appreciation in existing property values. The projection of tax increment revenues is based on the following assumptions: • Property assessed values will increase by 3% per year, which includes increases on existing property as well as a small amount of new investment in existing downtown area properties. • No significant, new taxable development is anticipated during the next several years. Tax rates applicable to the Downtown Urban Renewal District are projected to go down over time, due to the Oregon statute that says that certain urban renewal plans may only collect tax increment on permanent tax rates or bonds and levies approved by voters prior to October 6, 2001. In particular, bonded debt tax rates applicable to the Downtown Urban Renewal District will be reduced as bonds approved by voters prior to October 6, 2001 are retired. The projections result in urban renewal tax revenues between FY17 and FY27 of approximately $27 million. Together with other revenues and existing fund balances, these revenues will support the $19.4 million of increased maximum indebtedness plus the interest on the debt to fund the 2016 Amendment Projects. In addition to the redevelopment projects, the revenues will be sufficient to pay for other obligations, such as project delivery and administrative activities, including an allocation of overhead costs. Those costs are projected to increase over time due to inflation and higher retirement costs at a rate of about 5% per year. The Agency will also carry a balance equal to two months of operating costs each year, per City of Eugene financial policy and a debt service reserve account, if required by lenders. Report on the 2016 Amendment 18 Chapter 9: Fiscal Impact Statement that Estimates the Impact of the Tax Increment Financing, Both Until and After the Indebtedness is Repaid, Upon All Entities Levying Taxes Upon Property in the Plan Area Taxing bodies that overlap with the Plan Area are affected by the use of tax increment funds to implement the Plan. When a district is first created, the assessed value within the Plan Area is established as the "frozen base." This is a way of keeping the overlapping taxing districts "whole" as of the date the urban renewal district is created. Property taxes from the overlapping jurisdictions (schools, general governments, bonds) are then divided among the jurisdictions that continue to receive taxes on the frozen base. In theory, if urban renewal efforts are successful, the value of the district will grow above the base. That increase is called the "incremental value" or "excess value." The Agency receives taxes on the incremental value. This has an impact on the amount of revenue that the overlapping jurisdictions receive, versus what they would have received if there were no urban renewal districts in effect. Impact on Tax Bills: In addition to the impact on the overlapping taxing jurisdictions, urban renewal also makes individual tax bills look different. Urban renewal districts do not impose new taxes; rather, they redistribute taxes from overlapping taxing districts to the urban renewal districts. There are two basic steps to understand how an individual's tax bill is affected by tax increment financing in Oregon. The first step determines the amount of property taxes that the urban renewal agency should receive, and the second step determines how the taxes are accounted for on property tax statements. The first step in determining how tax increment financing affects an individual's tax bill consists of applying the tax rates of the taxing districts (such as the city, county, and school districts) to the incremental value of the urban renewal district. That product is the amount of taxes that the urban renewal agency should receive. The second step determines how to divide or split the tax rates of the taxing districts so that when those "divided rates" are applied to all tax bills in the city, the urban renewal agency receives its share, and the taxing districts receive the remainder. As of January 2016, there were seven urban renewal districts in Lane County, and the calculation is done for each of these districts. The Lane County Assessor determines how the tax rates for the schools, city, and county should get divided between the taxing districts and the urban renewal districts. As an example, the City's permanent tax rate is $7.0058 per $1,000 of assessed value. The Lane County Assessor divides that tax rate into three pieces: $6.8821 goes to the City of Eugene, $0.0755 goes to the Downtown Urban Renewal District, and $0.0482 goes to the Riverfront Urban Renewal District. This calculation is done for each tax rate on the tax bill. With the information from the Lane County Assessor about the division of tax rates, an analysis can determine how an individual tax bill is affected by urban renewal division of Report on the 2016 Amendment 19 tax. For the typical Eugene home that the Lane County Assessor calculated for FY16, this taxpayer would pay the same amount of total taxes before or after urban renewal division of taxes. The only difference is that some of the tax revenues go to the urban renewal districts, instead of to the overlapping taxing districts. Table 8 in Exhibit F sets out this calculation for the typical taxpayer in Eugene. As can be seen, the before and after urban renewal views of this taxpayer's bill are exactly the same. Impact on Tax Rates: Urban renewal nominally affects voter -approved local option levies and bonds because the affected district has less property value to levy taxes against, resulting in slightly higher tax rates. Based on the FY16 tax rates, the estimated impact of this slight tax rate increase from the Downtown Urban Renewal District is about $0.55 per year for the typical Eugene taxpayer, which represents less than 0.02% of the total tax bill of $3,565 in FY16. The Downtown Urban Renewal District is a "reduced rate plan" under the statutes, which means that the property taxes that may be used to fund urban renewal activities is limited to the permanent tax rates and any bonds or local option levies that were approved by voters prior to October 2001. The projected tax rate used to generate urban renewal revenues for the district will be reduced over time as bonds approved by voters before October 2001 are paid off. Impact on Overlapping Taxing District Revenues: For the overlapping taxing jurisdictions, a share of property taxes from the "excess value" or "incremental value" is not collected by the overlapping jurisdictions during the period of an active district, which is foregone revenue. The incentive for the overlapping districts to support urban renewal is higher property tax revenues in the long -run and potential direct and indirect benefit from the urban renewal funded projects. The School District 4J Board discussed the proposed plan amendment on May 4; the Board voted 7:0 on May 18, 2016 "to concur with the Eugene City Council's proposed plan amendment to increase maximum indebtedness for the Downtown Urban Renewal District by up to $48 million in accordance with ORS 457.220 and 457.470(7)." The Lane County Board of County Commissioners (BCC) reviewed the proposed plan amendment on May 17, 2016 expressed support for the amendment, and voted 4:1 to provide a letter of support on May 24, 2016. On May 11, 2016, the LCC Board of Directors discussed their building, reviewed the proposed plan amendment, and voted 6:0 to support the proposed projects, specifically the LCC Downtown Center project, for inclusion in the Downtown Urban Renewal Plan amendment and the use of tax increment financing as the funding mechanism. The estimated amount of urban renewal taxes to be divided over the remaining term of the Plan (net of discounts, delinquents, etc.) is shown in Table 9 in Exhibit G. Only the permanent tax rates of the overlapping jurisdictions are considered in this analysis because there are no local option levies that impact the Downtown Urban Renewal District, and Report on the 2016 Amendment 20 bonded debt tax rates will be reduced from year to year until the existing bonds are paid off. As can be seen in Table 9 in Exhibit G, in FY16, it is estimated that the City of Eugene would forego about $1 million of revenue annually because of the Downtown Urban Renewal District division of tax calculation. In FY28 after tax increment financing is terminated, the City of Eugene is estimated to receive $1.5 million of additional tax revenue per year. Lane County is estimated to forego $180,000 of revenue in the first fiscal year, and to benefit by $270,000 of additional tax revenue per year after division of tax is terminated in FY28. The impact on school districts from the termination of the urban renewal district is more complicated. Table 9 shows the foregone taxes, excluding any impacts from tax rate compression under Measure 5 and Measure 50 and excluding any impacts from the State school funding formula. Table 9 shows that the combined school districts (4J, Lane Community College, and Lane Education Service District) are estimated to forego $810,000 of revenue in the first fiscal year, and to benefit by $1.2 million of additional annual tax revenue after the division of tax is terminated in FY28. This is not the complete story, however. The impact on schools from the division of tax calculation for urban renewal districts is largely an impact on the State's budget because schools are mainly funded on a per -pupil funding formula (rather than by the level of property tax dollars generated within their boundaries). The State determines how much money must be allocated for the education of each pupil across the state. If the money is not available from local property taxes, the State will make up the difference. If more funds are available through local school property taxes, the State would have additional dollars to allocate as it chooses. In other words, the State can chose to allocate any extra money to education or to some other budgetary priority. If the State choses to keep the money in education, some of that money would return to Eugene schools based on the applicable statewide school funding formula and the rest would be distributed to school districts across Oregon. The Lane County Assessor conducted an analysis of the impact of the Downtown Urban Renewal District on School District 4J's local option levy, including the impacts of tax rate compression. It is a net loss of $340,000. The analysis is included as Table 10 in Exhibit H. That analysis is summarized in Table 11 on the following page. Note that the difference in the impact to overlapping districts between Table 9 and Table 10 is due to tax rate compression in the education category for an additional 821 properties that would occur if the Downtown District were not collecting division of tax revenue. This analysis concludes that 4J is better off financially if the Downtown Urban Renewal District continues to collect tax increment funds than it would be if tax increment financing were terminated. The reason is that taxes that are currently counted under the "general government" category for Measure 5 tax rate limitations (i.e., the "school property tax dollars" that now go to urban renewal) would move into the "education" category. When that happens, the education category of taxes must be reduced for a number of individual properties within the City because schools are already collecting as much as they can under Report on the 2016 Amendment 21 Measure 5 limits for those properties. State law says that local option levy proceeds are the first to be reduced in the event of compression. Table 11 - Estimated Revenue without Downtown Urban Renewal District FY16 Tax Data, AFTER Discounts, Delinquencies, & State School Funding Formula Taxing District Eugene School District 4J - permanent rate $20,000 Eugene School District 4J - local option (360,000) Lane Community College * 70,000 Lane Education Service District * 25.000 Total Education $245,000 City of Eugene $1,000,000 Lane County - permanent rate 180,000 Lane County - local option 0 Eugene Urban Renewal Downtown (2,015,000) Eugene Urban Renewal Riverfront 0 Total General Government $835,000 City of Eugene - Bond I $40,000 City of Eugene - Bond II 0 Eugene School District 4J - Bond I & II 0 Lane Community College - Bond II 0 Total Bonds $40,000 TOTAL TAXES $1,040,000 * The other school districts that overlap with the Downtown District would experience similar impacts to 4J for the school funding formula (described below), although the specific financial consequences are not calculated in this Report. In order to understand the Lane County Tax Assessor's analysis for 4J impact, there are three factors to consider: Revenue from 4J's permanent levy would increase by approximately $586,000, for a net gain of approximately $20,000 after applying the State school funding formula. (4J receives about 2.8% of the total State-wide funding.) This is the best -case scenario that assumes all else is equal, and the State decides to provide more funding for schools as a result of having more property tax revenue available. 2. 4J will lose about $360,000 of local option levy proceeds (after discounts and delinquencies) if the Downtown District no longer collects tax increment funds because of compression. The State funding formula does not apply to local option levies, so the full impact of this reduction would be felt in 4J's budget. Both of these estimates are based on FY16 tax roll information and would vary in future years with changes in market conditions. 3. There is also a one-time impact. If tax increment collections are terminated, there would be a return of any excess tax increment funds collected by the Downtown District to the overlapping taxing districts. The amount returned will depend on Report on the 2016 Amendment 22 how much tax increment is on hand at the time of the calculation, which cannot be estimated at this time. However, the State confirmed that this would not represent additional money to be spent on education in 4J; rather, it would go through the State school funding formula, and 4J would receive about 2.8% of the total on a one- time basis. In summary, 4J would experience an ongoing loss in its budget of about $340,000 annually as a result of terminating tax increment collections in the Downtown District and a one- time impact of less than 3% of any one-time funds provided to the State. The other school districts that overlap with the Downtown District would experience similar impacts, although the specific financial consequences are not calculated in this report. Chapter 10: Relocation Report A. Requirement An analysis of the existing residences or businesses required to relocate permanently or temporarily as a result of Agency actions under ORS 457.170. Response No specific relocation activity is identified in the Plan. If urban renewal assistance results in relocation requirements, a relocation plan will be developed for that purpose. Relocation activities and assistance would be provided in accordance with ORS 281.045 through 281.105. B. Requirement A description of the methods to be used for the temporary or permanent relocation of persons living in and businesses situated in, the Plan Area in accordance with ORS 281.045 through 281.105. Response No specific relocation activity to be initiated by the Agency is identified in the Plan. If urban renewal assistance results in relocation requirements, a relocation plan will be developed for that purpose. Relocation activities and assistance would be provided in accordance with ORS 281.045 through 281.105. C. Requirement An enumeration, by cost range, of the existing housing units in the plan area to be destroyed or altered and new units to be added. Response No specific existing housing units are proposed to be removed by actions of the Plan. Report on the 2016 Amendment 23 D. Requirement A description of new residential units which are likely to be constructed within the Plan Area. Response Some new residential units are expected to be constructed within the Plan Area. Chapter 11: Appendix Exhibit A: Plan Area Map Exhibit B: Zoning District Map Exhibit C: Census Boundaries Map Exhibit D: Plan Area Map with 2016 Expansion Area Highlighted Exhibit E: Table 7 - Projected Revenues and Expenditures for the Plan Area Exhibit F: Table 8 - Impact of Urban Renewal on an Individual Tax Bill Exhibit G: Table 9 - Division of Tax Impact of the Plan on Overlapping Taxing Jurisdictions, FY16 - FY27 Exhibit H: Table 10 - Estimated Impact of Downtown District Tax Increment Collections on Overlapping Jurisdictions, FY16 Tax Data (Including the impact of school funding formula and Measure 5/50 tax rate compression) Report on the 2016 Amendment 24 Report Exhibit A - Plan Area Map L W 8th Ave D[N DEfl [&� W Broadway FIE] Efj ❑� W 10th Ave y w m > m W 11th Ave E 7th Ave D [I H S Park 5t E Broadway E 10th Ave FLIFIOTIE? E 11th Ave Report on the 2016 Amendment 25 Report Exhibit B - Zoning District Map L:�� _J ' r. ff f: 9 U ��L I ' - W 6th Ave E 6th Ave �—J—J—LJ J ■ G2 C-3 E 7th Ave SH PL W 8th Ave S Park St • ■■ C 3 W Broadway • .� ON rm E Broadway �No - W 10th Ave ■�■� ■ � E 10th Ave y m a ■■� ■ o in a a � ■rQ � 11 th Ave 7 �E lith Ave Report on the 2016 Amendment 26 ODowntown Urban Renewal District ■ E-2 Mixed Use Employment R-1.5 Rowhouse Ii AG Agricultural 1-2 Light -Medium Industrial r R-2 Medium -Density Residential C-1 Neighborhood Commercial 1-3 Heavy Industrial R-3 Limited High -Density Residential �~ C-2 Community Commercial PL Public Land ® R-4 High -Density Residential C-3 Major Commercial NR Natural Resource S Special Area GO General Office ■ PRO Park, Recreation and Open Space ■ S -H Historic u E-1 Campus Employment R-1 Low -Density Residential � Fee[ 0 50 100 May 27, 2016 Caution: This map is based on imprecise source data, subject to change, and for general reference only. City of Eugene - Planning and Development Report on the 2016 Amendment 26 Report Exhibit C - Census Boundaries Map - W 2nd Aw E2ndAve -_=___-- -- W 3rd Ave Ind via p 1-L] �L W4th Ave - "Mnmurphey Blvd ` L� �� - W 5th Ave J Tract: 3900 m E Sih Ave BG 1 F W lith Ave E 6th Ave W 7th Ave _ rn - w W 8th Ave ❑JJ:� L� - LI r rH 7rr_ W 12th Ave yr+ E7th Ave ` E 8th Ave a 5 Park St m I- t -_ E- E araadwav Ave E 16th Ave -fie T - I ❑�� — E11ih Ave A �I� T E 12th Ave _ 96 Tract: 3900 E Lj� L�J�� L,i �l E13th Ave �I C W14th Ave _C r-I� 14Ave Q Pfm w aDowntown Urban Renewal District Census 20110 blocks in plan area t t= Fee o ton 2m Census 2010 blockgroups that contain plan area June 2, 2016 Caution This map is based on imprerase source data, suhject to change, and for general reference only. City of Eugene - Planning and Development Report on the 2016 Amendment 27 Report Exhibit D - Plan Area Map with 2016 Expansion Area Highlighted � root Downtown Urban Renewal maximum acreage o ,0 to0 for expansion is 20% of district or 14 acres. June 2, 2016 � Caution. This map is based on increase source data. subjectto change. and forgeneml reference only. City of Eugene - Planning and Development Report on the 2016 Amendment 28 rJ--, �1 O N E) U N W O I••�•I N O O Ln O E M E. E. Ln Lyj v > W o 0 Lncli 0 O � N cn +' N co C'4 n -ci d' Ln dO Ln 00N Ate y/ N O O 6 Ln Ln �y O O in i••I �--� O O O Ln Ln �o N O O O M Lyj 0 W 0 m a M o r N -4 fA Ln N Ln O N Ln L� cc 0 d'' O ON O O O LnM Ln O O O Lyj V••I ,'�-� O 0 0 0 V1 W o o m rn� M Ln d N 6 N M fA U O I••I O O O O Ln Ln Ln N O O O O O O M M M O W O O OJ � N N O N O Ln M Ln d" OJ N G W ¢. in t t co 1=1=LM —ZN O O O L., 0J rl cc C4 o Ln N Ln A� N N l\ i••I fR � n O O O O Ln N O rl 0 0 O O 0 0 0 O O OJ O y� I••�I ,'>. W Ln O L� O O M u O M L� 07 M O Ln N Ln Ln d M cc lf) O O O in O 0 0 0 SIV �✓ SOI O �O d" CN • ^. rl O OJ N O ,i..y �Ly W O O Ln rn Ln ry O O N M Ln LM N M lf) w LL� l� W U L O O O O r•I O Ln N lf) V w ° tm o F 6 Ln O LLnn O � w i.' �Q% W a' O1 N O N E) U N W O N aj r. L. N M ❑d � G U � O � N cn +' N co � F -ci Q d a O O1 N E) U U L. O O O O O O Ln Ln Ln O O O O O O M M M �o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 l0 Ln N Ln O N Ln L� cc 0 d'' C G fR «� U O O O O O O Ln Ln Ln N O O O O O O M M M O M T-- d" OJ N O Ln Ln ¢. t t O —ZN lc N Ln Ln —Z C4 o t N fR � U O O O O O O Ln Ln Ln U O O O O O O 0 0 0 C) 0� 00 r o r r +0.+ s OJ Ln a, d" n O a, d" n Ln O Ln Ln N Ln r, N N w U L O O O O O O Ln LnN lf) Ln O LLnn O � to i.' 0 Vf 55 I O O m U N C1. U Ln w O O O OJ OJ O O C cc M 0� N OJ O O 110110 O n ' otib p Ln d" O d" t T-- -, m O C OLn O O O O N OM Ll Ln Ll LM' GC C N m O O O O C� DJ DJ cc m 0 N V Ln N M O d" d'; rl rl 07 to N O Ln O N O r r O- M o '4 N N Vf 0 1 M +O-+ N O N d.. Ln .0U' U + o O� Ln LnLn O Q) d.+ Lr), ¢L 0 m NC N M M -° ¢, N G &s M W bA L O 6 bA bA � c �- t Cc) o N +5 U° N 3V U N O N C1. �N O N C N W v� bA bb O F F F O Z N M d C C Ca ° Z Ca 5 O F O1 N N a v �y i••I � L� O O O O L y N 0 0 0 0 C aO O O O C F Ln C) C) C) L W rn Ln Ln M 1.0 Ln Ln C N O O O C �i••I ,'�-� O O O C vi W C:) M cx Ln C N e .ry O OO O L O O C O C k O O It C L� Ln M C t� Ln c Lvl N e ^I Ln O O O L N O O O C O C k q O It �I OJ O M C W Ln L N d OO O L O O O C O O O C a W O C) It C rn O M C LfLn e A` N W SIV �✓ MI O O O L •�. N O O O C O ,'fir O O O C k O O Ll C O Ln M L Ln Ln L N e I l� U W O M Ll O O y O N W C) V C 0� Ln O OJ M � co OJ Ll rl O It It O O OJ OJ M 110 rl Ln M O N d a Ln N rl N M Ln T-- O LnLn Lr) M M w O O C +0.+ �Q% W a' d" d" Ln N N O O U bA O M Ll O O O N W .y LZ. DC C 0� Ln O OJ M � co OJ Ll rl O It It O O OJ OJ M 110 rl Ln M O N d a Ln N rl N M Ln T-- O LnLn Lr) M M O O O C +0.+ T-� N d d" d" Ln U L O O O O O N t MU O O O O O O O m Mrl O Ln Ln N U N w � Q" m w ON m O O s l7 O' C N M M OC7� C7� O U U C O O Ln Ln n 'u N O .0 O O O O O O O O O w0, 4�1 O O O O O m ri O d" own on i o 00 O OJ r d O Ln G N O C 4-5 N N M C m. N O O O O O O O O O O Ln N L, O Ll O rl ' `O Ln `--I N N M O O O O O O O O O O N N M O O O O O O O O O O Ln OLn N N M O M U bA O N W .y LZ. DC C � co M M O O O03 O s co $n 00 00 O � d a Ln O M U w 0 0 E C � Ln Ln LM M M O O O03 O s N N O $n 00 00 O � Ln fR U LnLn Lr) M M U O O O C +0.+ N N Lr 00 00 Lr) ,� S~ w d" d" N U L O Ln LnN Ln N t MU Vf O O m O Ln Ln N U N w � Q" m w O OJ OJ Lr,'�, m O O s O' C Ln Ln Ln C N OC7� C7� O U U C O O Ln Ln n 'u N O .0 O O Ln Ln Lr) O M M M U y m s. O O O O w0, 4�1 own on i o O U O G N O C 4-5 o C 4M, O C m. N N F O M Report Exhibit F: Table 8 - Impact of Urban Renewal on an Individual Tax Bill Effect of Urban Renewal on Tax Bill for Typical Eugene Home in FY16 Bonded Debt Taxes Taxes Taxes Directed To: Taxes Before UR Taxing Downtown Riverfront After UR $50.59 ($0.89) Reallocation Districts UR District UR District Reallocation Difference Education Taxes Eugene School District 4J Bond I 3.32 3.26 0.04 0.02 3.26 Eugene School District 4J $901.37 $881.93 $11.86 $7.57 $881.93 ($19.44) Eugene School District 4J LOL 284.73 284.73 0.00 0.00 284.73 0.00 Lane Community College 117.52 115.47 1.25 0.80 115.47 (2.05) Lane Education Service District 42.37 41.63 0.46 0.28 41.63 (0.74) Total $1,345.98 $1,323.75 $13.57 $8.66 $1,323.75 ($22.23) General Government Taxes City of Eugene $1,329.85 $1,306.37 $14.33 $9.15 $1,306.37 ($23.48) Lane County 242.84 238.57 2.60 1.67 238.57 (4.27) Lane County Public Safety LOL 104.40 104.40 0.00 0.00 104.40 0.00 Eugene U RD owntown District 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 31.09 31.09 Eugene U R Riverfront District 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 23.59 23.59 Total $1,677.09 $1,649.34 $16.93 $10.82 $1,704.02 $26.93 Bonded Debt Taxes City of Eugene Bond I $51.48 $50.59 $0.55 $0.34 $50.59 ($0.89) City of Eugene Bond II 156.20 155.14 0.00 1.06 155.14 (1.06) Eugene School District 4J Bond I 3.32 3.26 0.04 0.02 3.26 (0.06) Eugene School District 4J Bond II 292.89 290.45 0.00 2.45 290.45 (2.45) Lane Community College Bond II 38.10 37.85 0.00 0.25 37.85 (0.25) Total $542.00 $537.29 $0.59 $4.12 $537.29 ($4.71) Total Taxes $3,565.07 $3,510.38 $31.09 $23.59 $3,565.07 $0.00 1 Source: Lane County Assessment & Taxation, Table 4e, Detail of Urban Renewal Plan Areas by Taxing District, Tax Year 2 015-16. Assessed value of $189,821 for typical Eugene home per Lane County Assessor media release dated 10/19/15. * See Chapter 9 "Impact on Overlapping Taxing District Revenues" section for more information on net impact to schools. Report on the 2016 Amendment 31 N M N N O O O O O OJ C� M Ln C� u w 0 0 0 0 0 0t M rl d" N N d" O O L., rl Ln WO, •U { s d" � 1�1 LZ. �--I LI i 00N O7O rl O O O O O Ln rl N OJ M O N N O O O O O OJ C� M Ln Q, u w N oM N O a o o 00cli O O r bA OJ rl rl N — {A `� a,r. bs U cc Cc a�r. 7. rl N OJ M OJ Q� M Ln Q� 00 O h 'J r4 {Abs O W O U E cc o CR it `% U Ln rl N OJ M O O E W E N rl O O O O O OJ Q, M Ln Q, O on o o o o o r., ri Ln cc rl rl N s {A O L� U y rl 0 CC -bs �. U N >C 'O OJ O O O O O Ln rl N OJ M O N U tC N rl O O O O O OJ Q, M Ln Q, O ,sem. h F u ,'�. O O O O O d" rl N O n O z h k+ O O O O O L'- lO N O N U •a) CC • ry y 0 0 0 0 0 OJ 0 00 C�C� -, M Ln O o ��• r L� lOrl NN O NM O r � bs {� CC O �aLn bs o� O Ln rl N OJ M O OJ C� M Ln C� O y O t rl N O rl A U w N X 0 0 rl U +� s. a� U O U cc l y L L O �. 0 U Itil S." r. O w U 0 0 cc 'I) cpC U }1 V a a a O U Q. ^I ckC vi Gj E N •�+ N, CC w cu �1 4 CS OJ �i 0: 4L,, CS OJ �i U C w y O a <s W o m C) o <s W o 7 iC cc C) •� ccU k a ¢ ¢ w N M M M `= C U CU bA b N bA O G' OJ O O O O O Ln rl N OJ M M ui O N O O O O O O O O O O OJ CT CT It N O ll O O O � OM On O N O w r. y NO O rl � O O Ln N {{} N CU Fi v� C O CU cC cC UT. O O O O O Ln rl N OJ M O 41 O O N N O O O O O O O O O OJ CT M Ln CT It ll O O h 'J O W u ,7r O �--I N O rl 110 Q N= N6 ,� �, U 00 m ui LnItd"N {A O O r., r4 to -i rn 5 w UO O r N E u E!} k 4--) w E u'O �O O O O O O Ln �--I N OJ M O `V N u N O O O O O OJ Q, M Ln Q, O �••� k+ OO O O O L� lO N O N O CU CU O ui N dt O �O d" O O llC'j 0. s O til { �+ u U CU c 'O Ln O O O O O Ln rl N OJ M O CU � CU Q y N O O O O O OJ CT M ui (T O ,sem. h V-. V U ,'�. O O O O O dt �--I N O ll O z Vi O �1 y, ,N G. O O O O O t'- N O N O" U CC CU r. ON ' O i. N N It ui ui CT rl M N It O O rl rl {A l0 Ui 1;, U Q) O •� E 0. to Ln U Itil SU- �+ �• h .r., y 'O d" N O O O O O O O O O O ui rl N OJ M OJ CT M ui C, O rn N d d N O N d O O t\ O !n N �� cc s � Q. � O V) �.1 cz -bs At O 'O M O O O O O Ln rl N OJ M O cz N N O O O O O OJ CT M ui CT N O O h O u ,7r �--I O N O d" u 5. c -I N a 00 o M d{}� C at-. yISI m V w s F o Ca Q) Cc o CU o� U y U k o CU (n V', � =[ U v� j OO LSC N O cC = �. cC �. •.. �cz h h O V) 0 U CC fly CU O O O A 0 0 0 0 cC o u E .� a O U O U � U S." •� w o o �' ,� O o� •�•� o� 'wO CU U .V) r �+ 99 w y O a <s W o M q o <s W o C iC C� p O U W `ti U F U W � U 7 j� � � c+-� by �., i.l hI� •� N '� p •4 CC A aava �ciaava o� �•`�� tea¢¢ °v'wE-mow N M 4 Lli M M O � y cu CU a"► � V LLIry •^I l� CU�y �1 � • Lti•I y � ^I Lti•I 3� O y A � CU O v rl O �u CU O (� Ln w •� Ln Cz O C3A y cu CU Cz CU Cz O `= O �•M W O O �r••1 O cu .� O O � pC, V i 31 F' O LP) 110 O 00 LP) M � � 00 Ll Ll LP) M 00 Lr) N M 00 O 00 d M�00 Lr) c � M N N -Z 00 Ln c O O O O O O O O O O O O O LP) O' O' 00 LP) d" O M O W w 0-0 in N ri N 00 011 d' c N \O LP) Ln M --{ 00 ' O � d„ 00 ' �O rl Ll LP) Lli L� l0' N' O LP) C1 N F in M O Q W w 0-0 N 00 011 d' c N \O LP) Ln M --{ 00 ' O � d„ O O Lr) 00 rl Ll LP) Lli L� l0' N' Ln 01 c-1 c-1 t- F in �\ O O O O � Ln d M co in 00 C � N a% rl 00 � � O Lf7 � 0 Lr) O � d„ U N 00 Lr) Lr) c-1 Lli L� l0' N' to 00 rl F Efi �\ O O O O � Ln d M co in 00 C � N a% rl 00 00 �10 N 00 0 Lr) O � d„ U N M �,O 00 N Lr) 00 011 Lr) F C1 M O Q W w 0-0 M N ri N O O fR N m -0 N O O cu cu w O O O N O O N O Ln c Ln -0 Lr 00 C EE M -Z,O �\ O O O O � Ln d M co in 00 C � N a% rl 00 00 �10 N 00 d Lr) O � d„ U N M �,O 00 N Lr) 00 011 Lr) C1 M � � w 0-0 M N ri N O O fR N m -0 N N �10 00 Ll �10 Ln 00 d 00 Lr) O � d„ U N N �,c �,c N' C00 x O, Lr) C1 Q Q w 0-0 M N ri N O O fR N m -0 N F. O � � U U O � � O � d„ U N x C1 Q Q w 0-0 N C o w N N O O �p N m -0 N O O cu cu w O O O N O O N O Ln c Ln -0 Lr 00 C EE M -Z,O O � � O � � O � d„ U N x x w 0-0 N C o w N N O O �p N m -0 N O O � � U o O w O O O N O O N O Ln c Ln -0 Lr Ln C EE M -Z,O U o N n o � o Ln 11)� Lr) to M N �� in � O O o =s o m -0 E o o jm ami N O oN Lr) (1) N o o,+� � S o a, a) V C �: p O � O_ Ln O � N Eatn a� N O = on E N. O M o �zME- Fo Z N M d" Lf') z N N E H N m C C Z. C4 ORDINANCE EXHIBIT C: Blight Findings Property Analysis (6-6-2016) Urban Renewal Amendment Documentation of Blighted Areas The tax lots in the Downtown Urban Renewal Plan District were evaluated in the Spring of 2016. Descriptions and photos of each of the properties in the District are provided after the report in Attachment 2 to Exhibit C. Identification numbers have been assigned to properties as shown on the Map to Accompany Downtown Urban Renewal Slums and Blight Report 2016 (Attachment 1 to Exhibit C). Properties were evaluated as the building or area with the same owner and/or use (for example parking lots), and may contain multiple tax lots. Properties have been assessed for characteristics of "blight" as the term is defined per ORS 457.010(1), listed below. ORS 457.010. As used in this chapter, unless the context requires otherwise: (1) "Blighted areas" means areas that, by reason of deterioration, faulty planning, inadequate or improper facilities, deleterious land use or the existence of unsafe structures, or any combination of these factors, are detrimental to the safety, health or welfare of the community. A blighted area is characterized by the existence of one or more of the following conditions: (a) The existence of buildings and structures, used or intended to be used for living, commercial, industrial or other purposes, or any combination of those uses, that are unfit or unsafe to occupy for those purposes because of any one or a combination of the following conditions: (A) Defective design and quality of physical construction; (B) Faulty interior arrangement and exterior spacing; (C) Overcrowding and a high density of population; (D) Inadequate provision for ventilation, light, sanitation, open spaces and recreation facilities; or (E) Obsolescence, deterioration, dilapidation, mixed character or shifting of uses; (b) An economic dislocation, deterioration or disuse of property resulting from faulty planning; (c) The division or subdivision and sale of property or lots of irregular form and shape and inadequate size or dimensions for property usefulness and development; (d) The laying out of property or lots in disregard of contours, drainage and other physical characteristics of the terrain and surrounding conditions; (e) The existence of inadequate streets and other rights of way, open spaces and utilities; (f) The existence of property or lots or other areas that are subject to inundation by water; (g) A prevalence of depreciated values, impaired investments and social and economic maladjustments to such an extent that the capacity to pay taxes is reduced and tax receipts are inadequate for the cost of public services rendered; (h) A growing or total lack of proper utilization of areas, resulting in a stagnant and unproductive condition of land potentially useful and valuable for contributing to the public health, safety and welfare; or (i) A loss of population and reduction of proper utilization of the area, resulting in its further deterioration and added costs to the taxpayer for the creation of new public facilities and services else -where. 1 1 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS A total of 171 taxlots are within the Urban Renewal District boundaries. The Blight Findings Matrix (Attachment 3 to Exhibit C) includes a row for each taxlot, identified and grouped by property name. The Matrix includes columns relating to each of the nine criteria in ORS 457.010(1). If a property was determined to meet a definition/criteria of ORS 457.010(1), it is indicated on the matrix. For a determination that a property is "blighted," only one of the criteria evaluated needs to be met. The final column on the Blight Findings Matrix indicates whether there are property characteristics that make it "blighted" under the definition/criteria of ORS 457.010(1). For an Urban Renewal area to be determined as blighted, not all properties must be considered blighted, but instead conditions in the area as a whole are considered. The determination of blight for a particular property is indication of the character of the area and substantiation of the need for reinvestment and improvement in the District; it is not an indication that that property is slated for improvement or for demolition. Even though not every property is determined "blighted", the City concludes that overall, the area within the Downtown Urban Renewal District and possible expansion areas are blighted due to the number of properties with blighted conditions. This conclusion is supported by substantial evidence, as discussed below. Information for properties was gathered primarily from visual surveys of the buildings' exteriors and, in some cases, sources familiar with the entire property. 2 GENERAL FINDINGS ORS 457.010(1)(a) The language in the statute that defines blight under ORS 457.010(1)(a) specifies that properties must be unfit or unsafe to occupy for their intended purposes due to one or more of the conditions listed in ORS 457.010(1)(a) (A— E). The statute does not elaborate on what "unfit" or "unsafe to occupy" means, nor does it state that the building must be literally unusable or uninhabitable. For purposes of these blight findings, the City concludes that a building is "unfit for its intended purpose" or "unsafe to occupy," even if the building is in fact occupied and otherwise habitable, if it satisfies one of the conditions set forth in ORS 457.010(1)(A) through (E). These conditions are described below. ORS 457.010(1)(a)(A) Properties identified on the Blight Findings Matrix as meeting (a)(A) were determined to have structures that are unfit for their intended purpose or unsafe to occupy because of defective design and quality of physical construction. Information provided by City of Eugene Public Works in 2010 indicated that every public building built prior to 1998 is out of compliance with current seismic code requirements. This was the case with the following publicly -owned properties in the District: 4, 32, 46, 47, and 70. These buildings are considered blighted due to seismic concerns. While every private building built prior to 1998 is also likely out of compliance, it is also possible that some of those structures would meet today's code. Without a detailed inspection for each structure it is not feasible to assess current seismic code compliance. In addition, properties 2 and 37 fits blight criteria based on conditions being unfit and unsafe to occupy based on defective design and quality of physical construction. 2 ORS 457.010(1)(a)(8) Three properties in the district fit blight criteria (a)(B), these are properties 32, 37, and 45. These buildings are unfit or unsafe to occupy based on faulty interior arrangement and exterior spacing. ORS 457.010(1)(a)(C) None of the properties in the District were determined to have structures that are unfit for their intended purpose or unsafe to occupy due to overcrowding and a high density of population. ORS 457.010(1)(a)(D) None of the properties in the District were determined to have structures that are unfit or unsafe to occupy based on inadequate provision for ventilation, light, sanitation, open spaces and recreation facilities. ORS 457.010(1)(a)(E) Five properties in the district were classified as unfit or unsafe to occupy based on obsolescence, deterioration, dilapidation, mixed character orshifting of uses. These are properties 37, 50, 65, 67, and 79. ORS 457.010(1)(b) Nine properties in the district were classified blighted due to economic dislocation, deterioration or disuse of property resulting from faulty planning. These are properties 17, 30, 37, 38, 45, 65, 67, 88 and 107. ORS 457.010(1)(c) Eight properties met the blight criteria due to the division or subdivision and sale of property or lots of irregular form and shape and inadequate size or dimensions for property usefulness and development. These were properties 56a, 56b, 60, 69, 80, 95, 103, and 104. Several of these properties are comprised of multiple taxlots and it may be that some of these lots fit the criteria, but not all. Details are listed in property matrix, Attachment 3. ORS 457.010(1)(d) None of the properties in the District are characterized by the existence of property or lot layouts in disregard of contours, drainage or other physical characteristics of the terrain and surrounding conditions. ORS 457.010(1)(e) A total of 22 locations and/or properties in the district are blighted based on the criteria: the existence of inadequate streets and other rights of way, open spaces and utilities. Of these, 19 are locations are in the street or pedestrian rights -or -way with map identification numbers 109-127, and three are taxloted properties with map identification numbers 30, 37 and 107. Locations were classified as meeting this criteria if there were extensive breaks in the sidewalk resulting in an uneven surface, large holes in the pavement, crosswalks with holes and uneven ramps, all of which contribute to lack of accessibility. Extensive damage in road surfaces was also noted in the survey. ORS 457.010(1)(f) None of the properties in the District are characterized by the existence of property or lots or other areas that are subject to inundation by water. 3 ORS 457.010(1)(g) Sixty-five properties met the blight criteria: a prevalence of depreciated values, impaired investments and social and economic maladjustments to such an extent that the capacity to pay taxes is reduced and tax receipts are inadequate for the cost of public services rendered. In particular, properties with evidence of depreciated values were classified as blighted. Depreciated values are defined in this survey as having a ratio of 4:1 or less of property Improvement Value to Land Value. These are properties: 1, 2, 5, 9, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 22, 23, 24, 26, 28, 29, 30, 31, 35, 37, 38, 39, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 49, 50, 51, 52, 55, 56a, 56b, 57, 59, 60, 62, 63, 64, 68, 70, 73, 74, 75, 77, 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 87, 88, 89, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 97, 98, 100, 103, 104, 105 and 107. Some of these properties have multiple taxlots, so the ratio was created by totaling values for taxlots. The depreciation ratio is based on staff research in 2010 which did a comparison of analyses completed by other communities in the state, including Springfield, Tillamook and Portland. Properties that have no land value such as public buildings, open space or public plazas, have N/A (not applicable) in the Matrix and Detailed reports. ORS 457.010(1)(h) Fifty-one properties were classified as blighted based on the following criteria: a growing or total lack of proper utilization of areas, resulting in a stagnant and unproductive condition of land potentially useful and valuable for contributing to the public health, safety and welfare. In particular, properties with one floor or less were identified as blighted. This is based on the rationale that the district is primarily zoned C-3, Major Commercial, with a maximum allowable height of 150 feet. Properties with one floor or less, indicate an underutilization of property. Blight determination under this criteria was also based on a review of the property's vacancy and empty space, such as empty storefronts and large open space areas such as below ground stairwells with courtyards, oversized open sidewalk areas, or surface parking. These indicate that potential use of the property is less than its current state. These are properties 4, 11, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 22, 23, 26, 28, 29, 30, 32, 35, 37, 38, 41, 42, 44, 45, 47, 50, 51, 56a, 56b, 59, 60, 64, 65, 66, 68, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 87, 88, 91, 92, 95, 97, 103, 104, and 107. ORS 457.010(1)(i) There are nine properties in the district that are classified as blighted based on the definition criteria: a loss of population and reduction of proper utilization of the area, resulting in its further deterioration and added costs to the taxpayer for the creation of new public facilities and services else- where. This determination was based on a review of the property's state of disrepair and lack of apparent maintenance visible in public owned spaces with vegetation overgrowth, rusted materials, garbage, broken utility connections and ground contamination risks such as the former McAyeals Cleaners site which is now publically owned. Property in these conditions and continued deterioration add to current costs of maintenance and public services. A privately owned property was classified under this criteria based on its vacancy status and extensive property deterioration which encroaches into public right -or -way, thus increasing costs to taxpayers. These are properties: 11, 15, 22, 30, 37, 38, 65, 67 and 107. 4 3 CONCLUSION A total of 76 or 70% of properties in the Downtown Urban Renewal District are determined to have blighted conditions. In addition to the 76 properties, 19 locations have blighted conditions found in roads and sidewalks. These conditions are so prevalent and consistent in the area that the city concludes that the entire urban renewal area is blighted. The blighted conditions impact the safety, health and welfare of the community through decreased property values and taxes, potentially unsafe conditions for accessibility through deteriorating public right-of-ways, lack of seismic stability and maintenance in public buildings and open spaces, vacancy and outdated structural designs that are deteriorating. The evidence of blight and blighting influences reduces the economic activity in the area, leading to lowered value and a disincentive to invest. Urban renewal funds that are directed at improving or reducing the blighted conditions will attract positive activity downtown, stimulate economic development and private investment, promote downtown revitalization, and enhance the value of the area as a whole. As the number of businesses and opportunities for investment increases, existing businesses and development will also benefit, including restaurants, retail and housing, leading to improved conditions, and higher property values within the Urban Renewal District. The four projects included in the proposed 2016 Plan Amendment were selected for their ability to address blighted conditions and to serve as catalysts for reducing the prevalence of blight with the Plan Area. The improvements to the Park Blocks and the other downtown open spaces will target areas with documented evidence of blight in order to increase the accessibility, enjoyment and use of these areas. As a result, the downtown open spaces will transform from underutilized areas to amenities drawing additional users and ultimately new residents and employees. Adding high-speed fiber will also add significant value to the district by creating the conditions for businesses to succeed, particularly those businesses in the growing cluster of high- tech firms. Strengthening businesses in this economic sector increases the ability of firms to add new employees, grow the business base, and add additional value to properties within the Plan Area. Using urban renewal funds to assist in the renovation of the Lane Community College former downtown campus directly addresses a significant blighted property downtown. When this large, underutilized and outdated structure is transformed for new uses, the property will support other activities downtown and the blighting influence of a vacant property will be removed, which will positively impact adjacent and nearby properties. Improvements for the Farmers' Market will strengthen the local food sector of our regional economy and reduce or remove the blighting conditions of the existing location. A renovated location or new structure will also enhance the ability of the Farmers' Market to serve as an amenity to other businesses and residents' downtown, as well as an attraction for the entire community, leading to additional activity downtown and ultimately greater economic stability and increased values within the Plan Area. 5 Blight Findings Attachment 1 Map to Accompany Downtown Urban Renewal Slums and Blight Report 2016 W 6th Ave LW7th Ave W 8th W Broadwi 0 � o 13 W 10th Ave W 11th Ave Ell HI W 12th Ave in I L� U O U 5 58 126 55 2 23 77 91 97 124 88 54 7 99 83 49 L— in d d E M 69 70 460 a � 10 S Park St 92 18 59 10 l!*] 79 82 t11243 93 85 31 37 38 51 109 C Property or Location inventoried with label 0 Downtown Urban Renewal District ❑ Urban Renewal Properties in d d E M t* E 6th Ave E 7th Ave E 8th Ave 117 26 30 61 50 39 72 78 E Broadway 48 � 86 3 21 76 E 10th Ave 81 20 35 68 E 11th Ave E 12th Ave in a � 1_ J I \ E 5th Ave June 6, 2016 Caution: This map is based on imprecise source data, subject to change, and for general reference only. City of Eugene - Planning and Development ME= Feet 0 50 100 Blight Findings Attachment 2 Olive Building -1 Name: 81h Taxiot(s): 1703311215300 1703311215500 Depreciation Ratio: 2.45 Property Notes: Building appears in good condition. Determination of blight ORS 457.010 (1)(g). mom IM11 IM k Ift 46 am% ftefte Photos show multiple sides of building. I L Taxlot(s): 1703311109300 Depreciation Ratio: 1.93 Property Notes: Building appears in fair condition. One location has what appears to be tape holding tiles in place on west side. Determination of blight ORS 457.010 (1)(a)(A) and (g). Photos: Top: Building facing Willamette Street; bottom left: sections with what appears to be taped tiles; bottom right: back side of building facing West Park Street. 2 r, a�� 'fin Y ` - s r Ilk ..-;, . .•tib • ' ,�t ` ,�, �, �'`y.7 �' fir..* �.�,. "�r ani y � * . , r �a r �k 40 t ay I ! ,A 4 le x'�!•�•J 4 IK- - � r pie :_� Photos: Top: Building facing Willamette Street; bottom left: sections with what appears to be taped tiles; bottom right: back side of building facing West Park Street. 2 Taxlot(s): 1703311406800 Depreciation Ratio: 6.75 Property Notes: Building is in good condition. Photos: Building front facing Oak Street. I L Taxlot(s): 1703311302600 Depreciation Ratio: 4.00 Property Notes: Property is in fair conditions and has mostly city offices. There are signs of damage visible on the exterior, with damaged exterior stairs and older windows. The windows on the upper levels do not open regularly affecting ventilation. The property has underutilized outdoor open space and closed street side windows on south side. Blight determination based on ORS 457.010 (1)(a)(A), and (h) and includes seismic stability concerns. Ad Mo_ dry, _11� -./ Photos: Top: Building view from 10th Avenue and Olive Street; middle left: image of damage on interior stairwell window edge; middle right: underutilized open space facing 10111 Avenue; bottom left: wood damage example; bottom right: exterior stairs damage. Property: 5 W Name: Aveva Determination of Blight: Ye 4 Taxiot(s): 1703311403900 Depreciation Ratio: 2.15 Property Notes: The property appears in good shape. The building has some exterior damage along the building -ground line, including an area with piping exposed, one section appears boarded up on 2nd floor and the adjacent parking lot has damage. The adjacent parking is also underutilized space. Determination of blight ORS 457.010 (1)(g)• i Photos: Top: front of building facing Broadway and Willamette Street; middle left: damage on building ground line; middle right: exposed pipes on building ground line; bottom: damage on parking lot. 5 Taxlot(s): 1703311109001 Depreciation Ratio: 5.09 Property Notes: Building appears in good shape. Photos: Building front facing West Park Street. X Taxlot(s): 1703311304700 Depreciation Ratio: 6.62 Property Notes: Building appears in good shape Photos: Front of building facing Olive Street. Taxlot(s): 1703311405200 Depreciation Ratio: 4.38 Property Notes: Building in good condition. Building has offices on second floor, bottom floor commercial. Photos: Building front facing East Broadway. I L Taxlot(s): 1703311214900 1703311215400 Depreciation Ratio: 1.92 Property Notes: Building is large, appears in fair condition. The facade section with tiles appear to be wearing. Determination of blight ORS 457.010 (1)(a)(A) and (g). Photos: Top: front of building facing West 8111 Avenue; bottom: close-up view of wear on facade tiles. Vj Taxlot(s): 1703311301300 Depreciation Ratio: 13.97 Property Notes: Recently renovated (last five years). Building in good condition. Office on top 4 floors and commercial on bottom. Photos: View of building on Broadway and Willamette Street. 10 Taxiot(s): 1703311316100 1703311316300 Depreciation Ratio: N/A 1703311316500 1703311316800 1703311316900 Property Notes: Building is in good condition.. Property has upper level apartments, street level commercial, and lower level public parking. The building has closed restrooms which create added costs to taxpayer through continued maintenance, loss of population, underutilization of space. The use of a portable restroom adds to costs to taxpayer, increases safety concerns due to its alley location and closed environment, and adds to perceptions of area being blighted. Depreciation ratio cannot be calculated since land value is zero. Building is also adjacent to a poor condition building to the north not in district. Blight Determination based on ORS 457.010 (h) and (i). Photos: Top: building on NW corner of Broadway and Charnelton Street; bottom: portable restroom in alley north of building. Taxiot(s): 1703311316700 Depreciation Ratio: NA Property Notes: These are taxlots on the Broadway place properties, north and south that in both regions. No determination of slums and blight. 11 Broadway Place South• of No Taxiot(s): 1703311316200 1703311316400 Depreciation Ratio: NA 1703311316600 1703311316900 Property Notes: Property in good shape. I� ARM WV 41w �� V - - itu" ✓ } .; JM=' Photos: View of property mid -block on Broadway. 12 Taxlot(s): 1703311404801 Depreciation Ratio: 0.10 Property Notes: This property is a public open space plaza. The property is underutilized, does not have utilities such as running water, or amenities such as a drinking fountain, restrooms, or shade. The area also has concerns for safety based on past vandalism. Blight determination by ORS 457.010 (1)(g), (h), and (i). Photos: View of property from Broadway and Willamette Street. 13 Taxlot(s): 1703311412900 Depreciation Ratio: 0.92 Property Notes: Buildings appear in good condition. Property is a series of storefront businesses in single story building, including a smoke shop, salon, tattoo parlor and mini -mart. There is a fenced off alleyway behind the building that is underutilized space and is used for garbage. Blight determination by ORS 457.010 (1)(g) and (h). Photos: Top: view of business from Willamette Street; bottom, view of alley around businesses. 14 I L Taxlot(s): 1703311109500 Depreciation Ratio: 0.05 Property Notes: This property is a two level parking structure with second level below ground. The property is deteriorated with large pot holes, rusty access stairwells, graffiti, and deteriorated building. Surrounding the property there are uneven sidewalks and numerous utility boxes in green spaces. The angle of the pedestrian access ramps is questionable. Determination of blight with ORS 457.010 (1)(a)(B), (g), and (h). I, -rr•.' ,fir= `-. • Photos: Top: view of property from St" Avenue at West Park Street; bottom left: pedestrian walkway; bottom right: stairwell on property to lower level. Images continued on next page. 15 Property 17 — Butterfly Lot Images continued Photos: Top left: image of access ramp damage; top right: image showing example of damage to building; middle left: image shows green space on property with utility boxes and garbage; middle right: deterioration of pavement shown with holes and uneven surface; bottom: access ram shown. W. Taxiot(s): 1703311304900 Depreciation Ratio: 3.90 Property Notes: The building appears in good condition. Several stores occupy this single story block including Subway, Buy 2, and the Jazz Station. Determination of blight ORS 457.010 (1)(g), and (h). rs � wwa one= Photos: Top: view of property from Broadway and Olive Street,• bottom: view of property looking east on Broadway. 17 I k Taxlot(s): 1703311404600 Depreciation Ratio: 3.52 Property Notes: Building appears in relatively good condition. It is an older building, but has some wear such as cracks in pavement. Determination of blight ORS 457.010 (1)(g). Photos: Top: View of property from West 8th Avenue and West Park Street; middle left: image shows example of cracks in pavement on sidewalk outside building; middle right: image shows wear; bottom: image shows damage in cement at base of stair railing. Property: 20 Name: Century Link 91 18 Taxiot(s): 1703311411500 1703311411600 Depreciation Ratio: NA Property Notes: Property appears in good shape. The building is a telecommunications building with a brick exterior, street level windows on two sides for store, museum and offices. The property also has empty space on north and west side. The building design does not allow easy building re -use. Determination of blight ORS 475.010 (h). �q& Photos: Top: view of building facing Oak Street; bottom: example of empty space outside museum on north side. 19 Taxiot(s): 1703311406900 Depreciation Ratio: 16.22 Property Notes: The property appears in good condition. The property has a ten story office building, however half of bottom floor appears to be vacant. EAFMWA-. I--- � J Photos: View of building on Oak Street. 20 I L Taxlot(s): 1703311110600 Depreciation Ratio: 0 Property Notes: The property is vacant after previous City Hall was removed. The southwest portion of the block in the plan area is intended for the new Eugene City Hall plaza, and plans for the eastern half block in the plan area are currently undetermined. Property is vacant and underutilized. Determination of blight is based on ORS 457.010 (1)(g), (h) and (i). Photos: View of property from East 8t" Avenue and Pearl Street. 3� N Vity of Eugene AuditogM Determination of B •�� 1-0 - . . . • I Property Notes: Building appears to be in good condition. Determination of blight based on ORS 457.010 (1)(g) and (h). Photos: View of building on St" Avenue. 21 I L Taxlot(s): 1703311109000 Depreciation Ratio: 2.75 Property Notes: Property appears in good condition. Building is a single story with commercial and office uses. Determination of blight based on ORS 457.010 (1)(g) and h. Photos: Front of building facing Willamette Street. 22 I L Taxlot(s): 1703311412700 Depreciation Ratio: 4.76 Property Notes: Property appears in good shape. There is a large hole in pavement in back of building. fjjf � I. f l 444 S I. I r f M i " r Photo: Top: front of building facing Willamette Street; bottom: damage in pavement in back of building. 23 Taxlot(s): 1703311402300 Depreciation Ratio: 2.07 Property Notes: Building appears to be in good shape. Has minor blemishes from ages, rust from outdated metal awning, cracks in facade in a spot. Building shows evidence of graffiti that has been painted over in multiple locations. Building has a part of fagade that extends out over sidewalk. Determination of blight based on ORS 457.010 (1)(g) and (h). Photos: Top: View of property East 8th Avenue and Pearl Street; bottom left: fagade piece that extends our over sidewalk; bottom right: damaged and cracked cement walkway at base of building. 24 Taxiot(s): 1703311405600 1703311405700 Depreciation Ratio: 6.47 Property Notes: Building appears in good condition. - F ' Photos: View of property from East 10t" Avenue and Willamette Street. 25 Taxlot(s): 1703311215201 Depreciation Ratio: 0.11 Property Notes: Property is large, almost 1/4 block and is mostly parking. Property has underutilization of space. Determination of blight based ORS 457.010 (1)(g) and (h). Photos: View of property from West 7th Avenue. 26 Taxlot(s): 1703311402800 Depreciation Ratio: 2.34 Property Notes: Property appears in good conditions. Building is single level commercial with multiple shops and restaurants. Determination of blight based ORS 457.010 (1)(g) and (h). Photos: Top: view of property along East Broadway; bottom: view of building from East Broadway and Pearl Street. 27 I M%_ Taxlot(s): 1703311404700 Depreciation Ratio: 0.05 Property East park block. Sidewalk is broken and uneven. Ramps not flush with sidewalk (ne corner). Structure Notes: does not appear maintained with plants visibly growing on top. There is metal protruding from open area in multiple places, garbage littered around, some benches have rusty metal frames with peeling paint and an area with a broken light fixture in wall. Property does not have a permanent, but has a portable restroom. Determination of blight based ORS 457.010 (1)(b), (e), (g), (h), and (i). Photo: Top: view of shelter; bottom left: growth on shelter; bottom right: broken and exposed light fixture Property 30 — Images continue on next page. Property 30 images continued. W. Photo: Top: Garbage in areas; middle left: example of areas with broken, uneven walkways; middle right: example of areas with metal coming out of walkways; bottom left: portable restroom; bottom right: park bench with peeling paint and rust. Taxlot(S): 1703311306400 Depreciation Ratio- 3.22 W Property Property is in fair condition and has two buildings. The buildings are built out to the Notes: lot line resulting in no open space for tenants. This also results in garbage for the residential units being placed very close to doors. Minor cement damage noted on patio. Units are accessible by ramp. Also, units are bounded east and south by blighted vacant property. Determination of blight based ORS 457.010 (1)(g). Photo: Top: front of building facing Chomelton Street; bottom left: image shows proximity of garbage to font door; bottom right: image shows concrete deterioration. MI Taxlot(s): 1703311107600 1703311107700 Depreciation Ratio: 6.39 Property Notes: Property consists of outdoor area and building. Building appears in good shape. Outdoor area is in poor shape with broken tiles and cracked cement, this area also appears underutilized. This property is next to the Eugene Hilton. Building appears to be getting re -roofed. Determination of blight based ORS 457.010 (1)(a)(A), (a)(B), and (h), including seismic stability concerns. Photo: Top: View of property from East 7t" Ave; bottom left: damage on outdoor awning, bottom right: image shows example of uneven sidewalk. Property #32 images continued on next page. 31 Property #32 images continued. Photo: Top: image shows cracked cement along railing; middle: large open space; bottom: example of broken walkway. 32 L Taxlot(s): 1703311107601 Depreciation Ratio: 11.30 Property Notes: Building appears in fair shape. The steps from the sidewalk have deteriorated so rebar shows. There are lines visible on building cement surface, and the walkway on east side has steep ramp with cracked tiles. • r rrr Photo: Top: image of property from Oak Street and East 61h Avenue; bottom left: image shows rebar in deteriorated stairs; bottom middle: cracks shown on stairwell; bottom right: image shows example of visible repairs. 33 Taxiot(s): 1703311406600 Depreciation Ratio: 7.99 Property Building appears in good condition and has a few blemishes such as cracks at base of Notes: building. Locations area also visible where building exterior has wear. f Photo: Top left: view of property from East Broadway; top right: image shows example of fagade wear; bottom: cracks in pavement at base of building. 34 Taxlot(s): 1703311411200 1703311411300 Depreciation Ratio: 0.21 Property Notes: Property is a large single level building and is old but appears in fair condition. Has large possible graffiti removal spots on east side. Locations with wood in structure appear to be rotting. Determination of blight based ORS 457.010 (1)(g) and (h). Photo: View of property from East 11t" Avenue and Pearl Street. Taxlot(s): 1703311301100 Depreciation Ratio: 13.66 Property Notes: Building appears in good condition. Property was recently renovated into second story apartments with ground floor commercial. Photo: View of property from Broadway and Willamette Street Taxlot(s): 1703311306200 1703311306300 Depreciation Ratio: 0.14 35 Property Notes: Property is formers "Docs Pad", then a salon. Property contains a dilapidated building and parking. This property did have paid parking for a while. Currently property and parking is fenced off. Old light fixtures abut property on south side. An area behind the building is used for parking and pavement is broken with large holes. Building itself has graffiti, large cracks, broken pieces, and garbage. Determination of blight based ORS 457.010 (1)(a)(A), (a)(B), (a)(E), (b), (e), (g), (h), and (i). Photo: Top: shows property from SW corner of 111h Ave and Charnelton St, Library can be seen in background; bottom left: shows property from se corner; bottom right: damage to pavement that provides access to parking area behind building. Property #37 images continued on next page. W. Property #37 images continued on next page. f. IS „ �• All Photo: top and bottom images show back side of building with damage, broken fencing, deteriorated building, overgrown vegetation, graffiti and damaged pavement. 37 Taxlot(s): 1703311305900 1703311306000 Depreciation Ratio: 0.38 Property This property had a dry cleaners which was removed and is currently under public ownership. This Notes: property was contaminated and is now being cleaned up. The future of this property unknown. Determination of blight based ORS 457.010 (1)(b), (g), (h), and (i). Photo: View of property, with library to the right and Former Doc's Pad visible in background, indicating another blighted property on some block. .. , Taxlot(s): 1703311402600 Depreciation Ratio: 2.72 M Property Notes: This property appears in good condition. Building has two levels, second level is on west side and appears older. Alley has evidence of graffiti in several spots indicating a possible public safety issue. Determination of blight based ORS 457.010 (1)(g). Photo: Top: front of building on Pearl Street; bottom: image shows back of building on Park St. M Taxlot(s): 1703311406700 Depreciation Ratio: 5.42 Property Notes: Building appears in good condition. Photo: View of property from Oak Street. aft Taxlot(s): 1703311214600 1703311214700 Depreciation Ratio: 0.29 1703311215100 Property Notes: Property appears in poor shape. Building has peeling paint with moss and plants growing on back. There are garbage and overgrown weeds on rear east location. The property is large about 1/4 block and half appears to be parking. Public sidewalks around building do not look maintained, this adds to further deterioration and perceptions of blight in area. Determination of blight based on ORS 457.010 (1)(g) and (h) Photo: Top: view of property from Charnelton Street; bottom left shows example of cement damage; middle: shows garbage and overgrown vegetation on east side of building; bottom right: shows plants growing on side of building. 41 L Taxlot(s): 1703311412600 Depreciation Ratio: 2.19 Property Notes: Building appears in good shape. Determination of blight based on ORS 457.010 (1)(g) and h. Photo: View of property from Willamette Street. 42 Taxlot(s): 1703311301600 Depreciation Ratio: 4.42 Property Notes: Property is older but in relatively good condition. The building has graffiti and evidence of safety concerns including social maladjustments such as sanitation issues along northern pedestrian walkway. There is a lack of first floor windows and there are also windows that are closed off that could be contributing to inappropriate activities in pathway. Along north perimeter of building is Eugene mall remnant. Determination of Blight ORS 457.010 (g). Photo: View of property from Willamette Street. 43 Taxlot(s): 1703311108800 Depreciation Ratio: 0.93 Property Notes: Building appears in good condition. A large portion of property is parking, but this is used by food carts. Determination of blight based on ORS 457.010 (1)(g) and (h). Photo: View of property from Willamette Street. 44 Taxlot(s): 1703311303000 Depreciation Ratio: 0.54 Property is in poor condition. The building is older and deteriorating. The property has two outdoor seating areas: one south and the other north. South seating area has broken fixtures, graffiti, and the building has damage. The south area has a wooden enclosure that look like planter boxes, which are broken with metal exposed and the planters are overgrown and not maintained. Northern outside area has tables and looks to be used as lunch area. There is a small store in the building on the west side of the building. The building is deteriorated with peeling and broken sections. Determination of blight based on ORS 457.010 (1)(a)(B), (b), (g), and (h) Property Notes: Photo: Top: image shows south side of property, viewed from Broadway and Olive Street; bottom left shows deterioration of property and graffiti; bottom right: image shows broken light in south area. Property #45 images continued on next page. Property #45 images continued. 45 Photo: Top: image shows building deterioration; middle left: image shows south outside seating area, middle right: shows damage to planter in south outside seating area; bottom: shows exit door for south outside seating area. TBXIOt(S): 1703311206400 Depreciation Ratio: 11.43 W. Property Notes: Property is a cement parking garage. The property has visible surface cracks, some that have a white substance coming out of them. There are windows on alley side that have visible water damage inside. Determination of blight based on ORS 457.010(1)(a)(A). Photo: Top: view of property from Olive Street; middle left: cracks visible on structure; middle right: image shows an example of white material in cracks in structure; bottom: image shows example of window with water damage inside. 47 Taxlot(s): 1703311206400 Depreciation Ratio: 11.43 Property Property is in fair condition. The property consists of a building, alley and open space. A large Notes: portion of the property is underutilized open space and combined with adjacent underutilized open space of conference center these areas are underperforming their potential. Accessibility is low for those with assisted walking devices or wheelchairs, even strollers with steep ramps, bumpy sidewalks. The property has deteriorating features and cracks are visible on building facade. In the building, a large gallery has closed leaving even greater underutilization. The building also has potential seismic stability concerns. Blight determination based on ORS 457.010 (1)(a)(A) and (h). Photo: View of building from pedestrian pathway between conference center and Hult Center. Property #47 images continued on next page. 48 Property #47 Images continued. Photo: top left: image shows damage to pipe on rear of building; top right: picture shows an example of sidewalk width; bottom: image shows cracks in steps Images continued on next page. 49 Property #47 Images continued Photo: Image shows open space area, cracks in pavement in stairs landing, and bricks used to create pathways. Property #47 images continued on next page. Me Property #47 images continued. Photo: Top: image shows deterioration of steps; bottom: image shows cracks in cement of structure 51 Property #47 images continued. 4 1 w � Tf M f r N a 7 Photo: Image shows example of cracks along surface (diagonal lines). 52 Taxiot(s): 1703311406500 Depreciation Ratio: 10.20 Property Notes: Building appears in good condition. Photo: Image shows property from Broadway and Oak Street. 53 r - �'�. 1 +� � y_• r7• .rte"`.. „�!... �F. � _ � R nhunited A UC71C? - POW uaamourGirl Unlim i ed WIG & HAIR STUDIO BEAUTY SUPPLIES Y-4 Property: 50 Name: Jaqua & Wheatley Law Office Determination of Blight: Yes Taxlot(s): 1703311402400 Depreciation Ratio: 3.44 Property Notes: Building is in poor condition. There is moss growing out of a crack in front, the raised beds made of brick in front and back have garbage, are overgrown, and are damaged. The building is has closed up windows on both. Determination of blight based on ORS 457.010 (1), (g), and (h). r � owl' . N, I � I.�Yq SDV i14_fi'. f 1' Photo: Top and bottom images shows front and back of building Property images continued on next page. 55 Property #50 images continued. Photo: Top: damage at door base; bottom left: fagade deterioration; bottom right: broken bricks, overgrown vegetation. W. Taxlot(s): 1703311306100 Depreciation Ratio: 1.73 Property Notes: Property is in good condition. There are city installed artistic bike racks out front but the sidewalk outside of property in poor condition. The property includes a large parking area and is adjacent to 2 blighted properties. Determination of blight based on ORS 457.010 (1)(g) and (h). Photo: View of property from 11t" Avenue and Olive Street. Taxlot(s): 1703311304000 Depreciation Ratio: 3.57 Property Notes: Building appears in good condition. Determination of blight based on ORS 457.010 (1)(g)• Photo: View of property from West Avenue. 57 Taxiot(s): 1703311305100 1703311305200 Depreciation Ratio: 23.49 1703311305300 1703311306600 Property Notes: Property in good condition. Property has a new building with housing and college campus. Photo: View of property from West 10t" Avenue and Charnelton Street. 58 JEMMr Taxlot(s): 1703311304600 Property Notes: Building appears in good condition. Depreciation Ratio: 5.66 Photo: Image shows part of property facing Olive Street Taxlot(s): 1703311304100 Depreciation Ratio: 2.71 Property Notes: Building appears in good condition. Determination of blight based on ORS 457.010 (1)(g)• Photo: View of building front from West 811, Avenue. ME Taxlot(s): 1703311303100 Depreciation Ratio: 2.13 Property Notes: Building appears in good shape. The ground in front and back are worn. The rear entrance has torn up AstroTurf. Lot shape is very long and thin. Determination of blight based on ORS 457.010 (1)(c),(g), and (h). Photo: Image shows front of property from Broadway. Property #56a images continued on next page. 61 Property #56a images continued. Photo: Top image shows back entrance of property; bottom: image shows close-up view of back entrance ground level; bottom right: shows back entrance storage area. 62 Taxiot(s): 1703311303300 Depreciation Ratio: 2.88 Property Notes: Building appears in good condition. The front entrance has some minor wear. This property is related to property #56a, a store on the same property, one business to the west. Lot shape is long and very thin. Determination of blight based on ORS 457.010 (1)(c), (g), and (h). Photo: Top: front of building facing Broadway; bottom: front entrance wear. 63 Taxlot(s): 1703311301901 1703311302000 Depreciation Ratio: 0.92 1703311302100 1703311302200 1703311302300 1703311302400 1703311302500 Property Notes: Property appears in good condition. Property is a public transit bus station with 2 buildings and multiple bus terminals on about % of a block. For both buildings, the presence along 11th Avenue is vacant with closed up windows. Empty space on corner of Willamette and 11th lends to the feeling of vacancy. Windows along Olive Street also drawn. Determination of blight based on ORS 457.010 (1)(g). Photo: Images above show transit station. N/A , Taxiot(s): 1703311306901 Depreciation Ratio: N/A Property This property is a small corner section of taxlot, possibly intended for EmX. Notes: 64 Taxlot(s): Property Notes: 1703311302800 Depreciation Ratio: 1.64 Property is in fair condition. Determination of blight based on ORS 457.010 (1)(g) and (h). Photo: View of property from Olive Street. 65 Taxlot(s): 1703311215600 1703311215800 Depreciation Ratio: 0.85 1703311215601 1703311215900 1703311215602 1703311216000 1703311216100 Property Notes: Property is in fair condition. Property consists of a large building and multiple parking lots. The building contains multiple businesses, the north parking lot is a paid parking lot, and the southern lot is general parking and has food carts. The building has fresh paint but shows signs of deterioration, including wood rot on exterior, and a concave sidewalk. Building deterioration also includes the outdoor walkway ceiling panels that are broken and falling out in places, a light with electrical wires showing, and a broken drainpipe on alley. The parking lot is made up of multiple lots with irregular shapes. Lot is used for food carts, sometimes, or is vacant and represents 1/4 block underutilized space. Determination of blight based on ORS 457.010 (1)(a)(A), (c ),(g), and (h). r low t Photo: Top: View of property from East 8th Avenue and Olive Street; bottom images show damaged wood on structure. Property #60 images continued on next page. :: Property #60 images continued. e� 1 Photo: Top left: example of deteriorated cement; top right: property damage; middle: top of exterior door that is mis-aligned with structure; bottom left: entrance with concave entryway; bottom right: outside light fixture with wires exposed. 67 r MASTER Jw q t �- a Taxlot(s): 1703311301900 Depreciation Ratio: 1.34 Property Notes: Property is in fair condition. Property contains a large building that holds not only the Theater, but also a restaurant and several shops, there are also some vacant storefronts with windows covered. The building has cracks along surface on West 10th Avenue. This section also has rot visible in a door, is of poor quality, and mildew/moss is on building edge and a drainage pipe has no connection to drain. Determination of blight based on ORS 457.010 (1)(a)(E) and (g). Photo: Top: View of property from West 101h Avenue and Willamette Street; bottom: shows example of damage on building, especially where the door meets the sidewalk Property #62 images continued on next page. Property #62 images continued. 1 • Photo: Top: image shows where drainpipe does not meet drainage; bottom left: shows cracks in building surface; bottom right: shows damage and deterioration in building. 70 I Taxlot(s): 1703311301700 Depreciation Ratio: 2.25 Property Notes: Building appears in good condition. Building is in good shape at ground floor, and upper levels seem to have more wear around windows. Determination of blight based on ORS 457.010 (1)(g). Photo: View of property from Willamette Street. Taxlot(s): 1703311412100 Depreciation Ratio: 1.06 Property Notes: Building is in good condition. The building is currently vacant. The property is mostly parking. Parking is reserved during the day in parking lot. Determination of blight based on ORS 457.010 (1)(g) and (h). Photo: View of property from East 11t" Avenue and Oak Street. 71 Taxlot(s): Property Notes: 1703311412800 Depreciation Ratio: 6.54 Property is in fair condition. Property consists mainly of the building, which is large, vacant, and lacks windows.. Determination of blight based on ORS 457.010 (1)(a)(E), (b), (h), and (i). Photo: Top: view of property from Willamette Street; bottom: view of property from East 11t" Avenue. Overpark Garage South Taxiot(s): 1703311412300 Depreciation Ratio: 615Pa 72 Property Notes: Property is in good condition. This is a cement parking garage with ground floor commercial, including a dance studio and gym. Property contain oversized pedestrian walkways that are underutilized space. Determination of blight based on ORS 457.010 (1)(h). Photo: Top: View of property from East 101h Avenue; bottom: example of oversize pedestrian walkways and underutilization of space. 73 L Taxlot(s): 1703311405800 Depreciation Ratio: 4.42 Property Notes: The property is in good shape. Property is a cement parking garage that extends over East 10th Avenue, connecting with Property 66. This property has ground floor commercial. The building has underutilized and poorly designed spaces that were formerly public restrooms and open space in pedestrian pathways. Determination of blight based on ORS 457.010 (1)(a)(E), (b), (h) and (i). FA- Photo: Top: view of property from Oak Street; bottom: area with closed restrooms and example pedestrian walkways. Property #67 images continued on next page. Property #62 images continued. 74 Photo: Top: example of building condition in interior pathways; bottom: view of alley and area of access to pedestrian walkway to restroom. hL Taxlot(S): 1703311411700 1703311412000 Depreciation Ratio: 2.53 75 Property Notes: Property is in good condition. The building is single story with large area of parking. Determination of blight based on ORS 457.010 (1)(g), and (h). Taxlot(s): 1703311216800 Depreciation Ratio: N/A Property Notes: This property is a small lot, about 7 feet x 160 feet, on north end of Parcade parking garage. Determination of blight based on ORS 457.010 (1)(c). IL I L Taxlot(s): 1703311215801 Depreciation Ratio: 2.58 Property Notes: Property is in fair condition. Property is a large, older parking garage with ground floor commercial. The garage building appears deteriorated with broken signs, wood areas at street level are broken and look damaged, there are large cracks at the base of the large cement pillars, and the garage surface has areas with deterioration and wear. The sidewalk space near the bars small. The property has a large interior open space that is underutilized. Determination of blight based on ORS 457.010 (1)(a)(A) and (g). MMI Ur i Photo: Top left: image shows broken sign; top right: large open space; bottom: image shows cracks at base of pillar. Property #70 images continued on next page. 77 Property #70 images continued. Photo: Top: examples of damage on exterior of structure; bottom: images showing examples of fagade damage. 78 Taxiot(s): 1703311404400 Depreciation Ratio: 11.88 Property Notes: Property is in good condition. The building has ground floor commercial on west side with one vacant space. East side has vacant space and not much street level activity. East side of building has section with evidence of building that is gone, there is a west side entry with damage along bottom of entry, and there are former fluorescent light fixtures on front of building. 3, --00 4 t r Photo: Top: view of property from Willamette Street; bottom: view of property from West Park Street. Property #62 images continued on next page. 79 Property #62 images continued. Photo: Top left shows where sign was partially removed; top right: damaged exterior brick work; bottom: damaged entryway. �a Photo: Top left shows where sign was partially removed; top right: damaged exterior brick work; bottom: damaged entryway. Taxlot(s): 1703311402700 Depreciation Ratio: Property Notes: Building is in good condition and recently renovated. J ------------- Mile PARK PLACE - M Photo: View of property from Pearl Street. 14.98 81 Taxlot(s): 1703311215200 Depreciation Ratio: 0.07 Property Notes: Property in fair condition and is adjacent to another property that is not in good condition. Determination of blight based on ORS 457.010 (1) (g) and (h). Photo: View of property looking towards West 7t" Avenue. 82 Taxlot(s): 1703311215200 Depreciation Ratio: Property Notes: Good condition. Determination of blight based on ORS 457.010 (1)(g) and (h). Photo: View of property looking towards Olive Street. 0.07 83 Taxlot(s): 1703311407700 1703311407600 Depreciation Ratio: 0.03 Property Notes: This property is a quarter block of surface parking. Determination of blight based on ORS 457.010 (1) (g) and (h). Photo: View of property from East Broadway Alley along Pearl Street. 84 Taxlot(s): 1703311407401 1703311407402 1703311407409 Depreciation Ratio: N/A 1703311407403 1703311407404 1703311407410 1703311407405 1703311407406 1703311407411 1703311407407 1703311407408 1703311407412 1703311407413 Property Notes: Property is in good condition. The property is a parking garage with ground floor commercial which appears over mostly vacant. There is a ramp on the sidewalk with a questionable angle. Property is underutilized Determination of blight based on ORS 457.010 (1)(h). *110� L.Ww t Photo: Top: view of property from Pearl Street; bottom photo shows ramp with questionable angle for accessibility. 85 Taxiot(s): 1703311306900 Depreciation Ratio: 0.03 Property Notes: Property is in fair shape and is a surface parking that is a % block in size. Determination of blight based on ORS 457.010 (1)(g) and (h). ' + 7NSYKES • S 1 ..�Ir4 t o �VAa .t k Photo: View of property from West 8t" Avenue. Taxiot(s): 1703311402900 Depreciation Ratio: 7.98 Property Notes: Property appears in good condition. The building is older and has a few spots where cement looks worn. The Building also has wood which appears buckled under one window. Photo: View of property from East Broadway and Oak Street. Taxlot(s): 1703311302700 Depreciation Ratio: 2.83 Property Notes: Property is in poor condition. There is rotting wood visible in structure on the west side and the storefront is vacant. The east side of the building appears to be office. Condition on the side is good. Blight determination based on ORS 457.010(a)(E), (g), and (h). S.P Photo: Top: view of property west side from Olive Street; middle left: photo is east side of building from service court; middle right: detail photo of entryway off Olive Street; bottom: example of wood damage on exterior. 87 Taxiot(s): 1703311303400 Depreciation Ratio: 3.80 Property Notes: Building appears in good condition. Lot shape is long and thin. Back sidewalk seating area is narrow and accessibility questioned. Blight determination based on ORS 457.010 (1)(c), (g), and (h). Photo: Top: View of property from West 8t1I Avenue Alley; bottom: image shows seating area width on alley. 9.1 Taxiot(s): 1703311303400 Depreciation Ratio: 5.44 Property Notes: Property appears in good condition. This property has ground floor commercial. The stairs show rust damage and some damage visible to surface of structure. d Photo: Top: view of property on East 10th Avenue; bottom left: example of surface damage on buiding; bottom right: example of rust on stairs. Taxiot(s): 1703311404800 1703311405300 Depreciation Ratio: 1.40 1703311405400 Property Notes: Property appears in good condition. The building has a few areas with exterior damage such as damage to Windows with scratched graffiti. Blight determination based on ORS 457.010 (1)(g) and (h). Taxiot(s): 1703311304500 Depreciation Ratio: 2.58 Property Notes: Building is in good condition. The street level is not active and is vacant. Blight determination based on ORS 457.010 (1)(g) and (h). Photo: View of property on Broadway. .N I Taxlot(s): 1703311301800 Property Notes: Property appears in good condition (1)(g) and (h). Depreciation Ratio: 1.95 Blight determination based on ORS 457.010 Photo: Image shows property front on Willamette Street. Taxlot(s): 1703311306500 Depreciation Ratio: Property Notes: Property is fairly new and in good condition. Photo: Property from West 101h Avenue and Olive Street. Taxlot(s): 1703311407500 P8191 -fl —"nation of No Depreciation Ratio: 5.95 M Property Notes: Building appears in good condition even though very old. Questionable section in rear of building with old and visibly patched cinder block construction. Old windows are boarded up alongside of building. - -"j ALr� .260 Photo: Top: front of building on East Broadway; bottom left: example of boarded up window along alley; bottom right: view of rear section of building with old cinderblock looking construction. Taxiot(s): 1703311305000 Depreciation Ratio: 1.08 92 Property Notes: The building is under renovation and is owned by the University of Oregon. Blight determination by ORS 457.010 (1)(g) and (h). Photo: View of property from Olive Street. 93 Taxiot(s): 1703311304400 Depreciation Ratio: 3.38 Property Notes: Building appears in relatively good condition. Outside seating area in back looks vandalized and in poor shape. Building shows evidence of graffiti. Property is vacant, underutilized, and the extended vacancy creates safety concerns. Blight determination by ORS 457.010 (1)(b),(g), and (h). Photo: Top: view of property from Olive Street; bottom: view of back patio damage. TO= Taxiot(s): 1703311300900 1703311301000 Depreciation Ratio: 3.18 MAI Property Notes: Building appears in good shape. Blight determination by ORS 457.010 (1)(g). Photo: View of property from Willamette Street. 95 Determination • No Taxlot(s): 1703311412500 Depreciation Ratio: 7.19 Property Notes: Property appears in good shape. There is a section with damage on NE corner. Photo: Top: view of property from East 10th Avenue and Willamette Street; bottom: image shows damage at base of building. W. L Taxlot(s): 1703311304200 Depreciation Ratio: 0.12 Property Notes: Property appears in good condition. Blight determination by ORS 457.010(1)(g) and (h). Photo: View of property from Olive alley. 97 I Taxlot(s): 1703311306700 Depreciation Ratio: 1.74 Property Notes: Property appears in good condition. There are several businesses in one building that is a % block n size. The Shawmed section has few windows. This is a single level building, connected to Oregon Contemporary Theater (OCT). The OCT property is painted in good condition in front but back of OCT in less than good condition with graffiti, peeling paint, but no structural damage. Blight determination by ORS 457.010(1)(g) and (h). Photo: Top: View of Shawmed section of building from Braodway; bottom left: view of Oregon Contemporary Theater section from Broadway; bottom right: back section of OCT portion of building. OR I L Taxlot(s): 1703311405500 Depreciation Ratio: 1.52 Property Notes: Building appears in good condition. This is an older building and there are a few areas with damage and wear, these include the brick on the side of the building, the fagade on the front, and the rear door. Blight determination by ORS 457.010(1)(g). Photo:Top left: view of property from Willamette Street; top right: damage by rear door,-, bottom left: damage to front facade; bottom right: worn brick area. Taxlot(s): 1703311404000 Depreciation Ratio: 3.10 Property Notes: Property appears in good condition. East side and second floor appear to be law offices and west 1st floor is a bar and game lounge. The west side of the building has marble looking tiles, a few are gone, and the bottom of building edge has hole. Blight determination by ORS 457.010(1)(g). Photo: Top: View of property from Willamette Street; bottom: Damage and deterioration on front of building. 100 Taxlot(s): 1703311303200 Depreciation Ratio: 1.52 Property Notes: Property appears in good condition. Lot shape is long and very thin. Blight determination by ORS 457.010(1)(c ),(g), and (h). Photo: Top: front of property facing Broadway; bottom: rear of building. Determination of Blight: No Taxlot(s): 1703311109200 Depreciation Ratio: 4.81 101 Property Notes: This is an historic building and property appears in good shape. Photo: Top: View of property from Willamette Street, bottom: back of property on West Park Street. 102 Taxiot(s): 1703311304300 Depreciation Ratio: 3.22 Property Notes: Property appears in good condition. Building contains two businesses. Blight determination based on ORS 457.010(1)(g) and (h). Photo: View of property on Olive Street. 103 Taxlot(s): 1703311406200 Depreciation Ratio: 2.02 Property Notes: Property appears in good condition. The property is a % block with a bank and assorted businesses. There are multiple buildings on the property and about Xis parking and another % open space. Building is in good condition but utilization of space is low. Blight determination based on ORS 457.010(1)(g) and (h). Photo: Top: view of building from Oak Street and Broadway; bottom: View of property from Oak Street 104 I Taxlot(s): 1703311306800 Property Notes: Property is in good condition. Depreciation Ratio: 8.53 i I I ak off 4k if }.' 1 r - 3 1 y OIJ Photo: View of property from Broadway and Charnelton Street. 105 Taxlot(s): Property Notes: I 1703311306800 Depreciation Ratio: 3.32 Building appears in fairly good condition. A few locations show wood deterioration on exterior. Blight determination based on ORS 457.010 (1)(g). Photo: Top: view of property from West Avenue and Chomelton Street; bottom left: north side of building, bottom right: example of damage on exterior 106 Taxlot(s): 1703311109400 Depreciation Ratio: 6.79 Property Notes: Housing over commercial. Building is old, but was renovated a while ago. Property in appears in good condition. Edge where sidewalk meeting building has some damage. Photo: View of property from Willamette Street and East Avenue. 107 Taxlot(s): 1703311300700 Depreciation Ratio: 13.04 Property Notes: Building appears in good shape 1.I Photo: View of property from Willamette Street. 108 Taxiot(s): 1703311303500 1703311303600 Depreciation Ratio: 0.04 1703311303700 1703311303800 Property Notes: Property in good condition. The property is surface parking lot which consists of multiple narrow and thin lots. Blight determination based on ORS 457.010 (1)(c ), (g), and (h). .1 rUSWnb low r - .. •sr► Photo: View of property from mid -block West 8th Avenue Taxiot(s): 1703311404900 Depreciation Ratio: 3.30 Property Notes: Building appears in good condition. Blight determination based on ORS 457.010 (1)(c),(g), and (h). Photo: View of building front from Broadway. 109 Taxlot(s): 1703311302900 Depreciation Ratio: 3.96 Property Notes: Building in fair condition. There are upper level offices and bottom floor commercial. The building has some peeling paint. Blight determination based on ORS 457.010 (1)(g)• Photo: View of property from Broadway and Olive Street. Taxlot(s): 1703311403300 Depreciation Ratio: 7.08 Property Property is in good condition. Notes: Photo: View of property from Broadway. 110 Taxlot(s): 1703311404700 Depreciation Ratio: 0.05 Property Notes: Property is in poor conditions. Damage includes broken sidewalks that uneven and have holes, benches are rusty with peeling paint and some are crooked; and there is a broken utility box with wires exposed. Property does not look maintained with garbage lying around and portable restrooms with graffiti add to perceptions of blight. Accessibility is questionable, the ramp is not flush with the sidewalk and it has holes. Determination of blight based on ORS 457.010 (1) (b), (e),(g),(h), and (i). Photo: Top: view of property from Oak Street,• bottom: image shows holes and cracks in pavement leading up to ramp Property #107 images continued on next page. 111 Property #107 images continued on next page. Photo: Top left: portable restroom on property, graffiti is covered by black box; top right: image shows plants growing on shelter; middle left: broken utility box; middle right: example of crooked bench; bottom: metal grate in damaged sidewalk 112 Taxlot(s): 1703311301400 1703311301500 Depreciation Ratio: 19.80 Property Notes: Building is in good condition. Property is a newer five story office building with bottom floor retail facing Willamette Street. Photo: View of property facing Willamette street. 113 Notes: Sidewalk is uneven and broken increasing concerns for accessibility. Determination of blight based on ORS 457.010 (1)(e). 114 Notes: Sidewalk has a large hole in pavement and vegetation is not maintained. Determination of blight based on ORS 457.010 (1)(e). Notes: Road with large potholes and liquid in one. Determination of blight based on ORS 457.010 (1)(e). F iL 3 b_ 115 Notes: Pedestrian crossing at 10th and Willamette. The crossings most notably on 10th Avenue are broken, pitted, and have large holes increasing concerns for accessibility. Determination of blight based on ORS 457.010 (1)(e). Photo: left: east crossing on 10th, right: west crossing on 101h 116 Notes: Pedestrian walkway has damaged and patched sections and there are damaged utility boxes along walkway. Determination of blight based on ORS 457.010 (1)(e). Y 6- Determination of Blight: Yes 117 Notes: The sidewalk and ramp are uneven with holes. The ramp not very accessible due to pavement, ramp and grate. Determination of blight based on ORS 457.010 (1)(e). 118 Notes: There are several large holes in street. Determination of blight based on ORS 457.010 (1)(e). 119 Notes: This location is a divider between building #8 and #104. Location does not look maintained and is used for garbage. Determination of blight based on ORS 457.010 (1)(e). ri, 120 Notes: Sidewalk around % block damaged, is uneven with holes, has visible wiring, and loose bricks. Determination of blight based on ORS 457.010 (1)(e). ilp" . • 1b:1 • �y r r Photo: bottom image shows wiring in an exposed underground pipe. 121 Notes: Sidewalk has large gap. Determination of blight based on ORS 457.010 (1)(e). Notes: The sidewalk is uneven and has a large space between tiles. Determination of blight based on ORS 457.010 (1)(e). 122 Notes: The sidewalk is uneven and broken, raising concerns for accessibility. Determination of blight based on ORS 457.010 (1)(e). Notes: Road shows several deep cracks. Determination of blight based on ORS 457.010 (1)(e). 122 Name: Pe Determination of Blight: Yes Notes: Walkway has holes. Determination of blight based on ORS 457.010 (1)(e). 123 lk. 124 Notes: In walkway and service court, the pavement is uneven with large holes. The pedestrian walkway leads people to service court with garbage containers. Determination of blight based on ORS 457.010 (1)(e). 125 Notes: Sidewalk is uneven with holes. Determination of blight based on ORS 457.010 (1)(e). 126 Notes: Sidewalk is uneven and broken with overgrown vegetation. Determination of blight based on ORS 457.010 (1)(e). 127 Notes: Sidewalk is damaged and uneven. Determination of blight based on ORS 457.010 (1)(e). 128 Notes: Sidewalk has large holes, it is uneven, broken, and accessibility is questioned. 129 U) w pq ° ��sysaY a 4 �Y p9 P �✓ � N A� sal ds YO�Pb 9 �O a 4�ryP� 9 ®� 9ay� P °a3a4 nsays�PP�h.Pu � 9 haab s Yry a i ba p°+sa 4as �° h S+aE Pa°� gad ®'n ± + i° "al °E a4u ry b ®6 4 pYP� pYP9 PYi sP P+ sal>�� o�ayPsi b a''r WE asa'+ ,� u v ip�p hpYh h b a YPs�� 4PE>ap saA� usY p+ ®EYP by >Pi 9 YOB a��i°Y4 Zh h °b�� a�rybaPa ®'P� SYaas '4aYP°. BYp3s + Yh � h®pe 4P as iPh cP4 >assO ®p9 oil Dili■iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i IIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII EIII IIIIIIIIIII I IIII ° ��sysaY a 4 �Y p9 P �✓ � N A� sai ds YO�Pb 9 �O a 4�ryP� 9 ®� 9ay� P °a3a4 nsays�PP�h.Pu � 9 haab s Yry a i ba p°+sa 4as �° h S+aE Pa°� gad ®'n i° "al °E a4u ry b ®6 4 pYP� pYP9 PYi sP P+ sai>�� o�ayPsi b a''r WE asa'+ ,� u v ip�p hpYh h b a YPs�� 4PE>ap saA� usY p+ ®EYP by >Pi 9 YOB a��i°Y4 Zh h °b�� ryb a ® P� SYaa'4aYP°. 4 /9 s ap 4 °o gP °�� BYp3s + Yh � h®pe 4P as iPh cP4 >assO ®p9 111111 IIIIIIIOI Illllli�i II �'YyaasJaY y�9 �y� - a uY 9 A� sai ds i YO/P+p/q �O h ®� 9ay� pYA °a3a4 nsay`�PP/hy,' Ps g yaaa s Yry a i pa p°isa 4as �° h S+aE Pa°� gad ®'n pYP� yYP9 PYi asyA sai>�� °+ayPs+ �ia as 4aE asa',1 ayO ° P,P y � a; 1pyP�p ,� u v /Pip ypYy h p a YPs�� 4yE>ap saA� usY p+ b° o .°Yq by yPhb iy y 4%Y /a p°® bYPav a�rybaPa PIP. 4 > a 10. BYb3s + Yy � h®pe h®pe d by OYOs P N Za _ -O _ � o ➢ o E `oa 3 v w E o L m � o = E V o Z E E o v a 3 iii mmmm ] ° ��sysaY a 4 �Y p9 P �✓ � N A� sai ds YO�Pb 9 �O a 4�ryP� 9 ®� 9ay� P °a3a4 nsays�PP/n� � g nab s Yry a i ba p°+sa 4as �° n S+aE Pa°� gad ®'n pYP� pYP9 PYi sP P+ sa/>�� o�ayPsi b a''r WE asa'+ n yO da b a YPs�� 4PE>ap saA� usY p+ ®EYP by >P/ 9 YOB a��i°Y4 Zn n °b�� P/+ash,/ ;�rsy gab iba�/Y a�rybaPa ®'P� SYaas '4aYP°. /9 BYp3s + Yn � n®pe 4P as iPn cP4 >assO ®b9 P N i IIIIIIIIIIIlIIIIIIIC Imill 10111111111110111111111 ° ��sysaY a 4 �Y b9 P �✓ � N A� sai ds YO�Pb 9 �O a 4�ryP� 9 ®� 9ay� P °a3a4 nsays�PP�h.Pu � 9 haab s Yry a i ba b°+sa 4as �° h S+aE Pa°� gad ®'n i° "al °E a4u ry b ®6 4 bYP� pYP9 PYi sP P+ sai>�� o�ayPsi b a''r WE asa'+ ,� u v ip�p hpYh h b a YPs�� 4PE>ab saA� usY p+ ®EYP by >Pi 9 YOB a��i°Y4 Zh h °b�� ,ap°® P % bYPav a�rybaPa ®'P� SYaas '4aYP°. BYb3s + Yh � h®be 4P as iPh cP4 >assO ®p9 II 211111II II 111 ° ��sysaY a 4 �Y b9 P �✓ � N A� sai ds YO�Pb 9 �O a 4�ryP� 9 ®� 9ay� P °a3a4 nsays�PP�h.Pu � 9 haab s Yry a i ba b°+sa 4as �° h S+aE Pa°� gad ®'n i° "al °E a4u ry b ®6 4 bYP� pYP9 PYi sP P+ sai>�� o�ayPsi b a''r WE asa'+ ,� u v ip�p hpYh h b a YPs�� 4PE>ab saA� usY p+ 91, ®EYP by >Pi 9 YOB a��i°Y4 Zh , ,ap°® P % bYPav , ;�rsy gab iba�/Y ryb a ® P% SYaas '4aYP°. 4 > a 4y /9 BYb3s + Yh � h®be 4P as iPh cP4 >assO ®p9 P N Milli ooiii oio■oiiiiooi II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........ ....... ..... ° ��sysaY a 4 �Y b9 P �✓ � N A� sai ds YO�Pb 9 �O ®� 9ay� P °a3a4 nsays�PP�h.Pu � 9 ha% s Yry a i ba b°+sa 4as �° h S+aE Pa°� gad ®'n i°"a/ °E a4u ryb ®6Y bYP� pYP9 PYi sP P+ sai>�� o�ayPsi b a''r WE asa'+ ,� u v ip�b hpYh h b a YPs�� 4PE>ab saA� ash. �+ r u sP+ y ®EYP >Pi 9 ,ap°® bYPav 4g ry ,+P,� Y 4 aYs,�°a PYOHps,b aOa i a'say '/ s si o a�rybaPa ®'P� SYaas '4aYP°.19, 4 Y > a BYb3s + Yh � h®be 4P as iPh cP4 >assO ®p9 P N 1111111111 IIIIII IIII