Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/19/1985 Meeting M I NUT E S . Eugene City Council City Council Chamber June 19, 1985 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: Cynthia Wooten, Richard Hansen, Emily Schue, Freeman Holmer, Ruth Bascom, Debra Ehrman, Jeff Miller, Roger Rutan (noon-l:20). The adjourned meeting of the City Council of the City of Eugene, Oregon, was called to order by Council President Cynthia Wooten in the absence of Mayor Brian B. Obie. 1. ITEMS FROM COUNCIL, APPOINTMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS, AGENDA ADJUSTMENTS A. Iris Blooms Councilor Ehrman said the irises in the City Hall courtyard are blooming beauti fully. She wondered if the bulbs were those received as gifts to the City from Kakegawa. If so, she suggested a letter of appreciation and e photographs be sent to appropriate officials. B. Watering Grass and Flowers Ms. Ehrman said she had seen many water sprinklers on in the parks in the middle of the day. She wondered about the cost-effectiveness of watering in the daytime as opposed to at night. Mr. Gleason responded that the water put on plants in the daytime com~ensates for their evapotranspiration rate. The water cools the plant. The pant evapotranspirates as much water as is put on the plant. It doesn't make any difference whether watering is done during the day or at night. C. All eys Ms. Ehrman had noticed that delivery trucks often block alleys for as long as hal f an hour. She said it is frustrating to have short cuts, such as alleys, blocked. She noted there is commercial parking in the downtown. She sug- gested the council consider regulations that would prevent the blocking of all eys . Councilor Miller said he has driven trucks, and truck drivers need to use the alleys to deliver goods. They usually do not abuse the privilege of using all eys. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 19, 1985 Page 1 Councilor Hansen said alleys are not throughways. Alleys are to serve the e abutting properties. If delivery trucks cannot block alleys, they will have to park in the streets. He thought changing the regulations would create problems. Ms. Wooten suggested staff present a report to the council about trucks using alleys, noting both the pros and cons pertaining to this practice. D. State Sal es Tax Councilor Rutan said he learned much about the proposed sales tax from Russell Sadler at a Churchill Neighborhood meeting. Mr. Rutan said citizens have a responsibility to make an intelligent decision. He wondered if the City should promote an awareness of the issues involved in the sales tax proposal. Councilor Schue, chairer of the Legislative Subcommittee, said the council had previously indicated its support of a sales tax, but perhaps not all councilors favor it now. She suggested the council study the matter. Councilor Holmer suggested the Legislative Subcommittee prepare a recommenda- tion about the sales tax for council consideration. Ms. Wooten agreed with his suggestion and said this topic could be discussed during lunch or at a work session. E. Construction on 6th and 7th Avenues e Ms. Wooten said she is aware of no planned detour route around the construc- tion on 6th and 7th avenues. Consequently, the traffic may spillover into the residential neighborhoods. She asked the Public Works staff to report on what can be done to minimize this. F. Inconvenience Caused by Construction Ms. Wooten said over 100 Eugene Sports Program (ESP) baseball players were displaced at Ida Patterson Field because fill dirt from a construction project was dumped on the infield. She also received complaints from business owners in the area because of the construction. She wondered what could be done to help the businesses through a difficult time. She asked for a report from the s ta ff . II. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Withdrawal of Property from the Glenwood Water District (Dale Fischer) (A/Z 8402) (memo, map distributed) City Manager Micheal Gleason introduced the agenda item. Terry Jones of the Planning Department was present to answer questions. Ms. Wooten opened the public hearing. There being no requests to testify, Ms. Wooten closed the public hearing. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 19, 1985 Page 2 CB 2832--An ordinance authorizing withdrawal of property - located on the southeast corner of 19th Avenue and Henderson from the Glenwood Water District. CB 2833--An ordinance authorizing withdrawal of property located on the east side of Henderson between 21st Avenue and 22nd Avenue from the Glenwood Water District. Mr. Hansen moved, seconded by Ms. Schue, that the bills be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the council, and that enactment be considered at this time. Roll call vote; the motion carried unanimously, 8:0. Council bills Nos. 2832 and 2833 were read the second time by council bill number only. Mr. Hansen moved, seconded by Ms. Schue, that the bills be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote; all councilors present voting aye, the bills were declared passed (and became Ordinance No. 19332 [CB 2832] and Ordinance No. 19333 [CB 2833]). B. Supplemental Budget #5 (memo attached) e City Manager Micheal Gleason introduced the agenda item. Finance Director Warren Wong gave the staff report. He said Supplemental Budget #5 was unanimously approved by the Budget Committee. It includes closing entries for the fiscal year, recognizes some grant revenue from the Bonneville Power Administration, takes funds out of the general fund contingency, makes some appropriations for the Police Department, funds the Eugene Agenda Public Information Program and consulting services, and transfers the balance to the capital projects account. Ms. Wooten opened the public hearing. There being no requests to testify, Ms. Wooten closed the public hearing. CB No. 2834--An ordinance adopting a supplemental budget; making appropriations for the City of Eugene for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1984, and ending June 30, 1985; and declaring an emergency. Mr. Hansen moved, seconded by Ms. Schue, that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the council, and that enactment be considered at this time. The motion carried unanimously, 8:0. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 19, 1985 Page 3 Council Bill No. 2834 was read the second time by council bill number only. e Mr. Hansen moved, seconded by Ms. Schue, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote; all the councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed (and became Ordinance No. 19334). Ms. Wooten recessed the meeting of the Eugene City Council and convened a meeting of the Eugene Urban Renewal Agency. III. CREATION OF RIVERFRONT RESEARCH PARK TAX INCREMENT DISTRICT ADVISORY COMMITTEE (memo, resolution distributed) City Manager Micheal Gleason introduced the agenda item. Bob Hibschman of the Eugene Development Department gave the staff report. He said the proposed resolution will appoint a study committee, establish a study boundary for the Riverfront Park area, and provide direction for a study of the area. Referring to a memo dated June 19, 1985, from Mayor Obie titled "Nominations for Additional Members on the Riverfront Research Park Tax Increment Advisory C orrnnit tee ," Ms. Wooten sai d she and Mayor Obi e recorrnnended that the advi sory committee include a representative of the League of Women Voters and a repre- sentative of the Neighborhood Leaders. They nominated people for those positions and for the vacant Planning Commission position. Their nominations e for the vacant positions were: League of Women Voters Joan Ri ch Neighborhood Leaders Stephen Adey Planning Commission Dorothy Anderson Responding to questions from Mr. Hansen and Ms. Ehrman, Ms. Wooten said the committee will deal with public financing of the infrastructure for the Riverfront Park. She and the mayor decided that the City's Finance Division will provide the best advice about public financing, and, consequently, did not appoint a financial expert to the committee. The corrnnittee can consult financial experts as ad hoc members. Mr. Gleason said the Riverfront Project is moving fairly fast and is organiza- tionally complicated. It would take quite awhile to acquaint someone with no knowledge of such projects with the financing. The decision-making process would be slowed. Ms. Ehrman was disappointed that no financial experts were nominated for the corrmittee. Answering questions from Councilor Bascom, Ms. Wooten said the nominees had agreed to serve. A representative of the non-profit corporation is not required, but good communication with the corporation is assured. - MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 19, 1985 Page 4 Mr. Rutan suggested he and Ms. Wooten could share a position, but there did - not seem to be a need to do that. Res. No. 914--A resolution of the Eugene Urban Renewal Agency creating an advisory committee to provide a recommendation on the establishment of a tax increment district in the Riverfront Park Study Area. Mr. Hansen moved, seconded by Ms. Schue, to adopt the resol uti on. Roll call vote; the motion carried unanimously, 8:0. Ms. Wooten adjourned the meeting of the Eugene Urban Renewal Agency. WORK SESSION Ms. Wooten convened a work session of the Eugene City Council. IV. DISCUSSION CONCERNING LCDC COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS--GOAL 5 (PUDDING CREEK) City Manager Micheal Gleason introduced the agenda item. Planning Directo~ Susan Brody gave the staff report. e Ms. Brody noted that the council had a public hearing with the Lane County Board of Commissioners and representatives of the Springfield City Council about Goal 5 issues in certain areas between the urban growth boundary and the Metro Plan boundary. The Metro Plan did not receive acknowledgement from the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) for those areas. Ms. Brody said the Pudding Creek Heronry was the only area on which the elected officials disagreed. She distributed copies of a proposed Lane County ordinance to the councilors. She said the Lane County Commissioners decided to approve an operations management plan for the Pudding Creek Heronry, but they made three changes in the operations management plan recommended by the Metropolitan Area Plan Advisory Commission (MAPAC). The changes are: 1) Sand and gravel operations are prohibited in the buffer area until 1990. 2) The three-year assessment period will start again if the herons return during the initial three-year assessment period. 3) A master plan for the Howard Buford Recreation Area shall be completed within three years. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 19, 1985 Page 5 Ms. Brody said the City has enough staff resources to participate in the study e of the Howard Buford Recreation Area. Answering questions from Mr. Rutan, Mr. Hansen, and Mr. Holmer, Ms. Brody said the proposed changes are acceptable to Wildish Sand and Gravel Company repre- sentatives. She understood the Lane County Commissioners will pass the ordinance she distributed. The proposed addition of an airport reserve designation is acceptable to the City. Ms. Wooten asked Randy Hledik of Wildish Sand and Gravel Company to answer a question from Mr. Rutan. Mr. Hledik said the proposed changes are acceptable to the Wildish Company. Ms. Brody asked the councilors to indicat their opinions of the proposed changes. Mr. Hansen, Mr. Holmer, and Ms. Bascom were comfortable with the way concerns had been resolved and will support the proposed changes. Ms. Schue was glad a compromise had been reached and urged support for the changes. Ms. Ehrman preferred to treat the Confluence Island Heronry and the Pudding Creek Heronry the same, but she will support the compromise. She was gl ad the Lane County Commissioners were taking the lead because the land is in Lane County. e Mr. Miller said one Lane County Commissioner indicated the study of the Buford Recreation area will be pursued and, if there are problems with the heronry, changes will be made. Ms. Wooten was pleased with the proposed master plan for the Buford Recreation Area. She was not pleased with the operations management plan for the Pudding Creek Heronry. She did not think the changes provided any greater protection for the rookery. She wished the natural resource designation would be appl ied. She noted that the Babb family representative testified they will seek an operational management plan for Confluence Island if it is approved for the Pudding Creek Heronry. She did not want that to happen. Ms. Wooten recessed the meeting at 12:37 p.m. Mr. Hansen reconvened a work session of the Eugene City Council in the McNutt Room. All the councilors except Ms. Wooten were present. V. GENERAL DISCUSSION CONCERNING PUBLIC WORKS ISSUES Publ ic Works Director Christine Andersen sai d Publ ic Works staff members woul d discuss the assessment process and the council.s role in it, the sidewalk initiation criteria, and the new Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) maps. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 19, 1985 Page 6 A. City Assessment Process - Using a flow chart on the wall, City Engineer Bert Teitzel reviewed the City assessment process. The process starts when the City asks neighborhood groups and other organizations to suggest capital improvement projects each year. The projects are prioritized by the staff and included in the Capital Improve- ment Program (CIP). The Planning Commission and City Council hold public hearings and approve the CIP. Preliminary design work on each project is begun. Interested people are notified of each project and a neighborhood public hearing is held by the Public Works staff for each project. The Hearings Official then holds a public hearing on each project. Answering a question from Mr. Hansen, Mr. Teitzel said the process applies to projects for which abutting property owners will have to pay part of the cost. The City pays the rest of the cost. After the Hearings Official 's hearing, the project is presented to the council for approval or denial. If the council approves the project, the necessary right-of-way is acquired and bids for the construction are requested. Then assessments are figured and property owners are notified of them. The project is again presented to the Hearings Official. If 50 percent of the adjacent property owners remonstrate (protest), the council considers the project again and two-thirds of the councilors must approve it. If the Hearings Official and the council approve the project, the assessments are made and the contracts are awarded. e Answering questions from councilors, Mr. Teitzel said property owners are given an estimated assessment before the staff hearing. He discussed the process when property owners request improvement of a street. If there is only one adjacent property owner, that owner can remonstrate and probably stop the project. The assessment is figured on the amount of property frontage. The property owners usually first learn about the projects when they are notified of the staff hearing. However, neighborhood groups are notified of the public hearings for the CIP. The first year of the CIP is approved by the Budget Committee as the Capital Budget. The Public Works staff considers the first two years of projects authorized when the council approves the CIP. The time required to process a project through this process necessitates starting a year in advance of when the actual construction begins. Mr. Gleason said the projects first appear in the T-2000 Plan. He asked councilors not to adopt the T-2000 Plan if they do not intend to approve the projects. Much engineering work ;s done on the projects in the T-2000 Plan. The State Department of Transportation has a six-year plan for projects. Sometimes adjacent property owners do not like an improvement project, but it is needed by other people in the community who use the streets. Councilors briefly discussed the Lorane Highway Improvement. Mr. Miller wished all the arterials and collectors could be improved to City standards. Mr. Teitzel responded that the council could initiate the improve- ment of arterials if funds are available. The projects should be included in the T-2000 or Transplan. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 19, 1985 Page 7 Mr. Teitzel discussed the projects that the City staff is working on. They - are: l. Country Club and Club Road from Southwood to Centennial, 2. Dillard Road from Hilyard to Fox Glen 3. Bel tl ine extenti on from 11 th Avenue to Will ow Creek 4. Gilham Road from Crescent to Walton 5. Greenacres Road from Norkenzie to Delta Highway 6. Roosevelt Boulevard from Highway 99 to Maple 7. Willakenzie Road from Coburg Road to Bogart Ms. Ehrman expressed doubt about the necessity for improving Country Club Road, but other councilors said there is a bottle-neck at the street light and joggers and cyclists use the street. Mr. Hansen asked the staff to prepare a short description of each project for the councilors who can then consider the projects as they go around the communi ty. B. Process for Improving Sidewalks Dave Reinhard discussed the criteria the Public Works staff uses to evaluate sidewalk projects. If the sidewalk project involves a street which is not improved to City standards, the project becomes a street improvement one and enters that process. Sometimes a setback sidewalk without curbs and gutters is considered. If the street is improved to City standards, criteria such as e the type of street, school routes, traffic volume, traffic speed, and topography are evaluated before a decision to present the project to the counci 1 is made. The City will initiate the sidewalk process if the Sidewalk Program indicates the area should have sidewalks and if someone requests them. Mr. Reinhard said the council will be asked to review the City Code provisions for sidewalks in industrial areas when considering the transportation updates. C. National Flood Insurance Program Ms. Andersen discussed the National Flood Insurance Program which provides an opportunity for people with property in flood hazard areas to obtain flood insurance. In 1973 the regulations were changed. A community had to adopt a program and follow through on a flood hazard designation program approved by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in order to be eligible for Federal relief or financial assistance after an emergency. City officials are working with FEMA officials and expect to receive compliance in April 1986. In Eugene, the Willamette River and the Amazon Channel are designated by FEMA as flood hazard areas, Ms. Andersen said. The council must adopt an ordinance which allows the City to enforce FEMA regulations. Then people who own property in the flood plains can get flood hazard insurance which is required for Federally insured loans and grants. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 19, 1985 Page 8 Mr. Teitzel used a map to describe the flood hazard areas in Eugene. He said e the flood way is the area needed for the water in a 100-year flood to pass through without raising the level of water in the flood plain more than one foot. Buildings can be constructed in the flood plain if they are constructed one foot above the lOa-year flood level. Buildings can also occur in the fioodway if they do not increase the level of the 100-year flood. The flood plain and flood way is computed using current level of development and will change as future development occurs. Answering questions from the councilors, Ms. Andersen said flood hazard insurance is sold by private companies. There are 143 policies in Eugene. There have been four claims. Mr. Teitzel said FEMA officials presented information to the City and public last week. Only one non-City employee attended the meeting. The information will be published soon and information for an appeal must be filed in 90 days. City staff is reviewing the Bethel/Denabo area. Staff agrees with the Amazon data, and the City budget contains $40,000 for an engineering study of the flood plain. Answering other questions, Mr. Teitzel said City staff does not plan to appeal any of the FEMA designations, but individuals can appeal the designations. Houses built in the flood plain since 1974 probably have flood insurance. Insurance on houses built in the flood plain before 1974 will be reduced when the City complies with FEMA regulations. The City does not force anyone to get insurance. Mr. Gleason said some public improvements will be needed to make the flood e control system work. Storm drains in other parts of the city affect the fi oodway . Mr. Hansen adjourned the work session at 1:39 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~~ Micheal Gleaso - - --- City Manager (Recorded by Betty Lou Rarick) 1787C - MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 19, 1985 Page 9 ... .. e M E M 0 RAN DUM June 12, 1985 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Planning Department SUBJ: WITHDRAWAL OF PROPERTY FROM THE GLENWOOD WATER DISTRICT On January 9, 1985 the City Council recommended approval to the Boundary Commission of an annexation request by Dale Fischer for property located 1) on the east side of Henderson Street between 21st Avenue and 22nd Avenue and 2) on the southeast corner of 19th Avenue and Henderson Street. On April 4, 1985 the Boundary Commission issued Final Orders 823 and 825 approving the request. At present, all City services are available to the Dale Fischer sites. It is now necessary for the council to authorize the withdrawal of the property from the Glenwood Water District. e Action Reauested Adopt two resolutions authorizing withdrawal from the Glenwood Water District of that part of the district annexed to the City of Eugene on April 4, 1985 by Final Order No. 823 and by Final Order 825 of the Lane County Local Government Boundary Commission. plhkme8 e ,C Fischer (A/Z 84-2) ~ Tax Lots 600. 1900. and 2000--Assessor's Map 18-03-03-1 2 Located on the southeast corner of 19th e Avenue and Henderson. and on the east side of Henderson between 21st Avenue and 22nd Avenue Requests annexation to the city of Eugene and concurrent application of City zoning from County RA Suburban Residential and M-2 Light Industrial districts to City 1-2 Light-Medium Industrial District and designation of Industrial Sign District. Subject property to be withdrawn from Glenwood Water District ~ LC ~. ~ . . ? .~3-0 ,l\cres !. i 0 300' 1 :-- I [;Jl 500 ' e . "e 19th Avenue "\,~ \," ~,,~ I City ~ 1-2 pc ...... . County - Southern Pacific::U}:;Ral1 road t1-2 190 s:: City Fanl/est ~ 1-2 Steel ~ ( ] \ \\ (Area 1) \:c Area of _ Request ~ ._ County 200 I 300 C-1 \~- 22nd Avenue e' I ~ ! i County II \ \ ~ity R,; ~- 1.:1 ~j 1 . -? ,>1 I . - 1-2~ ,. ~. M E M 0 RAN DUM e June 18, 1985 . TO: Micheal D. Gleason, City Manager FROM: Warren G. Wong, Finance Director SUBJ ECT : SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET #5 Attached is the Ordinance and supporting schedules to facilitate Supplemental Budget #5 for the City of Eugene for FY85. The following schedule summarizes the impact of Supplemental Budget #5. General/Federal Other Total Item Revenue Sharing Fund Funds Funds 1. Budget/Accounting $ 0 $ 165,876 $165,876 Adjustments 2. Unanticipated Revenue 204,863 134,910 339.773 - e s 204,863 $ 300,786 $505,649 --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- fngmsbme Attachments e ~ . M E M 0 RAN DUM e June 13, 1985 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Development Department Staff SUBJECT: CREATION OF A RIVERFRONT RESEARCH PARK TAX INCREMENT DISTRICT ADVISORY COMMITTEE Background A committee was appointed by the City Council in the summer of 1984 to guide the development of the Riverfront Park Study. This committee consisted of members representing EWEB, Agricpac, University of Oregon, residents, property owners, Chamber of Commerce, Downtown Commission, Planning Commission, and City Council. A list of the committee members is attached to this memorandum. At its final meeting, the committee discussed tax increment financing as a means to provide public improvements for the proposed Riverfront Research Park. The committee agreed with the staff recommendation to use the Riverfront Park Study area as a proposed tax increment district. At the council's June 12, 1985, meeting it was acknowledged that the Riverfront Park Subcommittee be reappointed as the tax increment advisory committee. It was e suggested that the committee be expanded to incorporate at least two at-large positions. It was also suggested that there should be some representation from the financial community. The addition of two membe~s would increase the member- ship on the committee to 12 persons. Tax Increment Financing Limitations The Riverfront Park Study suggests that tax increment financing is an appro- priate means to finance the project. The study identifies existing conditions of the proposed area to be addressed by the tax increment district's goals and objectives. These conditions identified include: lack of adequate access and utilities, underdeveloped and undeveloped property; and areas subject to flooding. Based on 1984 assessor's data, a preliminary analysis has been done to determine the total assessed value in the proposed area as it relates to the 15 percent limitation in the State statutes. The State statutes limit a city to having 15 percent of its assessed value included in the frozen base of tax increment districts. The combined assessed value of the Central Eugene Project and the proposed Riverfront Park district is estimated to be about 2.5 percent of the City's total assessed value. There is also a similar 15 percent limitation concerning the amount of land used in tax increment districts. The combined total for the Central Eugene Project and proposed Riverfront Research Park Project is estimated to be less than two percent of the Ci ty I s total land area. Thus, both land area and the assessed value would comprise only a small portion of the total capacity for the City to e be able to do additional tax increment districts in the future. ~ ~ CREATION OF A RIVERFRONT RESEARCH PARK TAX INCREMENT DISTRICT ADVISORY COMMITTEE June 13, 1985 e Page 2 Tax Increment District Process The process to establish a tax increment district is initiated by the City's Renewal Agency (City Council). The City Council would establish an advisory committee, a study area boundary, and direction for the study. It is recom- mended that the advisory committee consist of the previously appointed study committee as representative of community interests. The role and responsibility of the advisory committee is to review the existing conditions in the area and formulate goals and objectives consistent with policies recommended in the Riverfront Park Study. The committee will identify public improvements neces- sary to achieve the goals and objectives. Following that, the committee would formulate a financial plan based on project costs and tax increment revenue. That analysis would also show the tax increment district's impact on affected taxing jurisdictions. This information would be put into the format of a plan and report document. The plan would be forwarded to the Planning Commission and City Council for public hearings. Staff expects to forward the recommendation to the Planning Commission in late August and to the City Council for the second week in September. Once the committee is appointed, it is expected to meet at least four times over an eight-week period. Affected property owners in the study area would e be notified and advised of the public process. Recommendation I The City Council, acting as the Eugene Renewal Agency, is requested to consider adopting the attached resolution which appoints a study committee, establishes a study boundary, and provides direction for the study. GL:RH:ky/Tb17 Attachment - '" .. RESOLUTION NO. e A RESOLUTION OF THE EUGENE URBAN RENEWAL AGENCY CREATING AN ADVISORY COMMITTEE TO PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION ON THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A TAX INCREMENT DISTRICT IN THE RIVERFRONT PARK STUDY AREA. The City of Eugene Urban Renewal Agency finds that: A. The Eugene City Council has recognized the importance of the University of Oregon to the area's economic future, and realizes the economic potential in development near the university. The Council commissioned a Riverfront Park Stud y and appointed a study committee. B The Riverfront Park Study Committee completed its work by publishing a draft Riverfront Park Study dated April, 1985. The study recommends investigating tax increment financing of public improvements in the study area. C. It is desirable to reappoint the Riverfront Park Stud y Committee as the Riverfront Park Tax Increment Advisory Committee because of its expertise. The advisory committee shall examine the formation of a tax increment district and make a recommendation to the Planning Commission and City Council on the district e boundaries and financial feasibility. The study boundary for the tax increment district D. would include the Riverfront Park Study area, and other areas the advisory committee finds appropriate under ORS 457.010(1). E. The advisory commi ttee shall address cor recting bl ighting conditions as defined 1n ORS 457.010(1) consistent with the policies recommended in the Riverfront Park Study and incorporate its findings in its recommendations to the Planning Commission and City Council in conformance with ORS 457.085. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE EUGENE URBAN RENEWAL AGENCY, as follows: Based on the above findings, which are incorporated herein, the Eugene Urban Renewal Agency hereby creates the Riverfront Park Tax Increment Advisory Committee to provide recommendations on the establishment of a tax increment district in the Riverfront Park Study area. The advisory committee shall be composed of the current members of the Riverfront ParI< Study Committee, a member to be appointed by the Eugene Planning Commission, and two citizen at large members. e The foregoing Resolution adopted the 12th day of June, 1985. Director Resolution .. RIVERFRONT PARK STUDY COMMITTEE e Cynthi a Wooten Ci ty Counci 1 Roger Rutan Ci ty Counci 1 (Member to be selected) Planning Commission Don Genasci Downtown Commission University of Oregon Barbara Edwards University of Oregon Campus Planning Team Dennis Solin EWEB Dave Pedersen Chamber of Commerce George Crispin Agripac Richard Chambers Property Owner Leslie Pearson Resident (Member to be. Selected) At-large e (Member to be Selected) At-large RH~ky/Thb7 e