HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 3: Ordinance on Downtown Urban Renewal Plan Amendments
ECC
UGENE ITY OUNCIL
AIS
GENDA TEM UMMARY
Public Hearing: An Ordinance Adopting an Amended Urban Renewal Plan for the
Downtown Urban Renewal District, Formerly the Central Eugene Project
Meeting Date: July 16, 2007 Agenda Item Number: 3
Department: Planning and Development Staff Contact: Richie Weinman
www.eugene-or.gov Contact Telephone Number: 682-5533
ISSUE STATEMENT
The public is invited to comment on an ordinance to amend the Central Eugene Project (Downtown)
Urban Renewal Plan. On May 29, 2007, the council initiated amendments that include increasing the
maximum indebtedness by $40 million to a total of $73 million, extending the termination date of the
district by six years to 2030, and changing the name of the district to its commonly referred to name of
“Downtown Urban Renewal District.”
BACKGROUND
The major reason for amending the Urban Renewal Plan at this time is to accommodate the City’s
financial participation in the redevelopment of the West Broadway area. The history of the West
Broadway project, the HUD Section 108 Loan and Brownfield Economic Development Initiative
(BEDI) Grant, and the Downtown Urban Renewal Plan amendments is included as Attachment A.
The Downtown Urban Renewal District was created in July 1968. The plan has been amended four
times, most recently in 2004. State law requires a “substantial plan amendment” when the maximum
indebtedness is increased. The substantial amendment process requires a mailed notification to all
Eugene property owners, a review by the Planning Commission, notification to other impacted taxing
districts, and a public hearing. The proposed ordinance containing the 2007 amendments, the proposed
plan as amended and the report on the plan are included as attachments B through D.
The impacted taxing districts were notified by letter on June 11, 2007. This resulted in a review by the
Lane County Finance and Audit Committee on June 28. The committee expressed appreciation that the
City informed Lane County about the proposed plan amendments and indicated that it may submit
written comments. The Planning Commission discussed the amendments and the citizen involvement
strategy on June 18 and adopted a motion acknowledging its review. A mailed postcard was delivered
to most Eugene property owner mailboxes on June 23. The final citizen notification element that is
required by statute is this public hearing.
Maximum indebtedness refers to a total spending limit during the life of the plan. For Eugene, the
maximum indebtedness was adopted in 1998 and spending towards that limit began in fiscal year 1999.
The current “maximum indebtedness” of $33 million has nearly been fully spent, with about $26 million
spent on the library and $4.6 million left for future projects. Adopting a “maximum indebtedness”
L:\CMO\2007 Council Agendas\M070716\S0707163.doc
figure does not authorize or obligate the district to enter into debt. Rather, it allows current and future
Urban Renewal Agency (URA) Boards to have the ability to fund projects over time, either with cash or
by issuing debt. Extending the termination date allows the URA to issue debt with a 20-year repayment
schedule, which maximizes the ability of the URA to contribute to a large-scale development effort such
as the West Broadway redevelopment project.
This proposed amendment enables urban renewal financing to assist the West Broadway Redevelopment
Project. The council was presented with a preliminary finance plan in May. Urban renewal funds, a
federal BEDI grant and a HUD Section 108 Loan were identified as potential resources that could be
used for this project. The preliminary financing plan assumes that the City’s financial participation in
this public/private partnership will consist of several types of expenditures. There would likely be some
contribution towards the land acquisition and public site-related costs (utilities, sidewalks, etc.). The
City would most likely be asked to pay for a publicly-owned parking garage. For the housing portions
of the project, the developers may request a low-income housing loan, which would be repaid over time.
They may also request a 10-year Multi-Unit Property Tax Exemption or a 20-year low-income housing
exemption. (This information is speculative because the City and the developers have not yet negotiated
specific financial arrangements.)
Increasing the maximum indebtedness and extending the termination date are necessary to allow the
Urban Renewal Agency to increase its financial capacity to fund the City’s anticipated financial
participation in the West Broadway redevelopment effort.
City Council action on the plan amendments is scheduled for August 13, 2007. This timeline enables
the amendments to take effect in a timely manner to assist the West Broadway Redevelopment Project.
RELATED CITY POLICIES
The redevelopment of West Broadway is related to one of the 2007-2008 City Council Goals:
–
Downtown InitiativeFacilitate significant revitalization of downtown core. Downtown development
is guided by policies in the Downtown Plan and Growth Management Policies (#1, 2, 3, 10, and 14). In
particular, the Downtown Plan includes policies that state that the City should:
?
Actively pursue public/private development opportunities to achieve the vision for an active, vital,
growing downtown; and
?
Use downtown development tools and incentives to encourage development that provides character
and density downtown.
A number of financial policies would guide the creation of the final economic development finance plan,
including the City’s debt policies.
COUNCIL OPTIONS
Following the Public Hearing, the council can adopt the plan as proposed, decline to amend the plan or
adopt different amendments than proposed.
L:\CMO\2007 Council Agendas\M070716\S0707163.doc
CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION
The City Manager recommends that the council conduct a public hearing and approve the proposed plan
amendments on August 13, 2007.
SUGGESTED MOTION
Because this is a public hearing, no motion is needed.
ATTACHMENTS
A. Proposed Ordinance amending the Urban Renewal Plan
B. Downtown Urban Renewal District Urban Renewal Plan marked to show proposed amendments
C. Report on the Renewal Plan
D. Council and URA Action History: West Broadway Redevelopment Project, BEDI, Section 108 and
Downtown Urban Renewal District
E. Letter from Lane County
FOR MORE INFORMATION
Finance Contact: Sue Cutsogeorge, Financial Analysis Manager
Telephone: 682-5589
Staff E-Mail: Sue.L.Cutsogeorge@ci.eugene.or.us
Development Contact: Richie Weinman, Urban Services Manager
Telephone: 682-5533
Staff E-Mail: Richie.D.Weinman@ci.eugene.or.us
L:\CMO\2007 Council Agendas\M070716\S0707163.doc
ATTACHMENT A
ORDINANCE NO. ___________
AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING AN AMENDED URBAN
RENEWAL PLAN FOR THE DOWNTOWN URBAN
RENEWAL DISTRICT, FORMERLY THE CENTRAL
EUGENE PROJECT .
The City Council of the City of Eugene finds that:
A.
The Urban Renewal Plan for the Central Eugene Project (the “1968 Plan”) was
initially adopted on July 3, 1968 by Resolution No. 257 of the Eugene Urban Renewal Agency,
and on December 19, 1968 by Resolution No. 1609 of the Eugene City Council. The City
Council subsequently amended the Plan by Ordinance No. 19648 on November 8, 1989 (the
“1989 Amendment”), by Ordinance No. 20120 on June 1, 1998 (the “1998 Amendment”), and
by Ordinance No. 20328 on September 13, 2004 (the “2004 Amendment” and together with the
1989 Amendment, the 1998 Amendment and the 2004 Amendment, the “Original Plan” ).
B.
The 1998 Amendment was in response to provisions of Measure 50, and the
Council’s action grandfathered the district, selected a tax option, set a maximum indebtedness
amount, and specified that tax increment funds only be used for development of a downtown
library, completion of certain existing projects, and payment of District administrative expenses.
C.
The 2004 Amendment expanded the projects for which tax increment funds could
be used; created a public advisory committee; and added a requirement of specific Agency
approval for projects greater than $250,000, other than loans.
D.
The City Council’s 2007 Goals include a goal to facilitate significant
revitalization of downtown. The City Council and the Urban Renewal Agency of the City of
Eugene (the “Agency”) have determined that implementation of the West Broadway
redevelopment project, using urban renewal as a financing tool, is consistent with that goal and
will require a substantial amendment of the Original Plan, and on May 29, 2007 directed the
Agency Director to initiate the process to amend the Original Plan.
E.
In accordance with the provisions of ORS 457, the Oregon Constitution, and all
applicable laws and ordinances, the Planning and Development Department of the City of
Eugene has prepared amendments to the Original Plan (the “2007 Amendments”) including:
(1) Renaming the Plan “The Urban Renewal Plan for the Downtown Urban
Renewal District”;
(2) Increasing the maximum indebtedness amount by $40 million, to a total of
$73 million; and
(3) Extending the termination date from June 30, 2024 to June 30, 2030.
Ordinance - 1
F.
The Urban Renewal Agency of the City of Eugene has considered the proposed
2007 Amendments (such 2007 Amendments amending the Original Plan hereinafter referred to
as the “Plan” or the “Urban Renewal Plan”) and the accompanying Report on Urban Renewal
Plan for the Downtown Urban Renewal District (the “Report”) and has forwarded it to the
Council for adoption.
G.
In accordance with ORS 457.085(5), on June 11, 2007, the proposed Plan and the
Report was forwarded to the governing body of each taxing district affected by the Plan.
H.
On June 18, 2007 the Planning Commission met to review the Plan and Report.
I.
After public notice mailed pursuant to ORS 457.120, the Council conducted a
public hearing on July 16, 2007, on the proposed 2007 Amendments. Based on the
recommendations of the Urban Renewal Agency of the City of Eugene, and the Planning
Commission, and the written and oral testimony before the Planning Commission and the
Council, the Council specifically finds and determines that:
(1) The area defined in the Plan is blighted;
(2) The rehabilitation and redevelopment is necessary to protect the public health,
safety or welfare of the municipality;
(3) The 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, and other adopted City plans and
policies, including the Council’s 2007 Goals, and provides an outline for
accomplishing the urban renewal projects proposed in the Plan;
(4) The Plan provides that the Urban Renewal Agency of the City of Eugene will
prepare, adopt and maintain a Relocation Policy providing for the housing of
displaced persons within their financial means in accordance with ORS 35.500 to
35.530 and, except in the relocation of elderly or disabled individuals, without
displacing on priority lists persons already waiting for existing federally
subsidized housing;
(5) Acquisition of real property is necessary to carry out the purposes and policies of
the Plan;
(6) Adoption and carrying out of the Plan is economically sound and feasible; and
(7) The City shall assume and complete any activities prescribed by the Plan.
THE CITY OF EUGENE DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1
. Based upon the above findings, which are hereby adopted, the Urban
Renewal Plan for the Downtown Urban Renewal District attached as Exhibit A is approved and
adopted as the urban renewal plan for the area set forth in the Plan.
Section 2.
The City Recorder is requested to:
(a) Publish a notice of the adoption of the 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
Ordinance - 2
shall contain a statement that the 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 Plan may be
commenced thereafter;
(b) Forward a copy of this Ordinance and the Plan to the Urban Renewal
Agency of the City of Eugene, which Agency will cause the Plan to be
recorded in the official records of Lane County, Oregon; and
(c) Forward a copy of this Ordinance and the 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 Approved by the Mayor this
____ day of August, 2007 _____ day of August, 2007
__________________________________________
City Recorder Mayor
Ordinance - 3
Urban Renewal Plan
ForCentral EugeneProject
The
(AKA: Downtown Urban Renewal District)
Downtown Urban Renewal District
Adopted July 1968
- Modified -
December 1968
December 1989
June 1998
September13,2004
August 2007
Urban Renewal Agency of Eugene, Oregon
URBAN RENEWAL PLAN FOR THE CENTRAL EUGENE PROJECT
DOWNTOWN URBAN RENEWAL DISTRICT
Table of Contents
Part 1 - Text
Section 100 – Introduction...............................................................................................1
Section 200 – Definitions.................................................................................................1
Section 300 – Legal Descriptions....................................................................................3
Section 400 – Goals and Objectives...............................................................................4
Section 500 – Land Use Plan..........................................................................................6
Section 600 – Project Activities.......................................................................................6
Section 700 – Methods for Financing the Projects........................................................12
Section 800 – Annual Financial Statement Required....................................................13
Section 900 – Citizen Participation................................................................................13
Section 1000 – Non-Discrimination...............................................................................14
Section 1100 – Recording of this Plan..........................................................................14
Section 1200 – Procedures for Changes or Amendments............................................14
Section 1300 – Duration and Validity of Approved Plan................................................15
Section 1400 – Maximum Indebtedness.......................................................................16
Part 2 – Exhibits............................................................................................................17
URBAN RENEWAL PLAN FOR THE
CENTRAL EUGENE PROJECTDOWNTOWN URBAN RENEWAL
DISTRICT
Section 100 – Introduction
TheDowntown Urban Renewal District (formerly known as the Central Eugene Project
Plan), containing an area of approximately 70 acres within the boundaries of the City of
Eugene, consists of Part 1, text, and Part 2, exhibits. This revised plan has been
prepared by the Planning and Development Department of the City of Eugene and is
formatted in line with Oregon Revised Statutes, ORS Chapter 457, at the request of the
City Council.
The City Council’s 2007 Goals include a goal to facilitate significant revitalization of
downtown. The Downtown Urban Renewal District Plan is an essential tool to assist in
this revitalization effort.
Section 200 – Definitions
The following definitions will govern this plan.
Acquisition means the act or process of acquiring fee title or interest other than fee title
of real property (including the acquisition of development rights or remainder interest).
Agency or Renewal Agency means the Eugene Renewal Agency which in accordance
with ORS Chapter 457 is the official Urban Renewal Agency of the City of Eugene, Lane
County, Oregon.
Blighted areas means areas which, 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 conditions described in ORS 457.010 (1).
City means the City of Eugene, Lane County, Oregon.
County means the County of Lane, State of Oregon.
Developer means any individual or group which acquires property or which receives
financial assistance for the physical improvement of publicly or privately held structures
and land within the project area.
Downtown Plan The Policies in the Downtown Plan were adopted by the Eugene City
Council in 2004 as a refinement of the Eugene Springfield Metropolitan Area General
Plan.
Downtown District Urban Renewal Plan - Circulation Draft of MayJune 2007 1
Exhibit means an attachment, either narrative or graphic, to the plan for the project
area.
ORS means Oregon Revised Statutes (State law). ORS Chapter 457 regulates the
urban renewal process.
Plan means the Urban Renewal Plan for the Central Eugene ProjectDowntown Urban
Renewal District. The plan consists of Part 1, text and Part 2, exhibits.
Project means any undertaking or activity within the central Eugene projectDowntown
Urban Renewal District, such as a public improvement, street project, or loan program
which is authorized by and implements provisions set forth in the Urban Renewal Plan.
Plan area means the entire Central Eugene ProjectDowntown Urban Renewal District
plan area.
Redeveloper (see Developer) means any individual or group which acquires property or
which receives financial assistance for the physical improvement of publicly or privately
held structures and land within the project area.
Rehabilitation means the act or process of returning a property to a state of utility
through repair or alteration which makes possible an efficient, contemporary use while
preserving those portions or features of the property which are significant to its
historical, architectural, and cultural values.
Report on the plan means the textual material and graphic exhibits required by ORS
457.085 (3) which explains existing conditions, activities, procedures, and proposals of
the plan.
State means the State of Oregon and its various agencies, divisions, and departments.
Tax increment financing means a method of financing urban renewal projects as
authorized by ORS Chapter 457, which uses the tax revenues generated by the
increased taxable values in a defined area to pay for improvements within that area or
benefiting that area.
Text means Part 1 of this Urban Renewal Plan for the Central Eugene ProjectDowntown
Urban Renewal District.
Downtown District Urban Renewal Plan - Circulation Draft of MayJune 2007 2
Section 300 – Legal Descriptions
Legal Boundary
TheCentral Eugene ProjectDowntown Urban Renewal District includes thatanarea of
approximately 70 acres as originally established in 1968.
The following is a legal description of the boundary of the Central Eugene
ProjectDowntown Urban Renewal District plan area:
The project area includes all of the land within the boundaries designated on the Project
Boundaries Map attached as Exhibit A and is described as containing all lots or parcels
of property, situated in the City of Eugene, County of Lane, State of Oregon, bounded
generally as follows:
th
Beginning at the southwest corner of the intersection of 11 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-
th
of-way line of the alley between 10 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
th
and 8 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
th
northwest corner of the intersection of 7 Avenue and Charnelton Street;
th
(5) thence, easterly along the north right-of-way line of 7 Avenue to the
th
northwest corner of the intersection of 7 Avenue and Olive Street;
(6) thence, northerly along the west right-of-way line of Olive Street to the
th
northwest corner of the intersection of 6 Avenue and Olive Street;
th
(7) thence, easterly along the north right-of-way line of 6 Avenue to the
th
northeast corner of the intersection of 6 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
th
corner of the intersection of Pearl Street and 11 Avenue;
th
(11) thence, westerly along the south line of 11 Avenue to the point of
beginning.
Downtown District Urban Renewal Plan - Circulation Draft of MayJune 2007 3
Section 400 – Goals and Objectives
Goals
The goals of the Central Eugene ProjectDowntown Urban Renewal District Plan are:
1. To improve the function, condition, and appearance of the development area
through:
a. redevelopment and rehabilitation of existing and substandard
buildings;
b. development of new buildings
c. improved access and circulation in the downtown area;
d. provision of pedestrian amenities and open space.
2. To eliminate blight and blighting influences; and
3. To strengthen the economic conditions of the plan area and to improve the
downtown’s importance in the region by strengthening its economic base and
to enhance its role as a central location for public and private development
and investment.
Objectives
Development in the Central Eugene ProjectDowntown Urban Renewal District area is
intended to implement the adopted policies contained in the Downtown Plan.
Specifically, the objectives of this plan are:
Land Use
Promote intensity of use through development of publicly and privately
owned land.
Strengthen existing retail and seek new retail development for integration
into the downtown area.
Support existing and potential office development and other employment-
generating uses.
Encourage owner-occupied and rental housing or developments which
incorporate housing, in the downtown.
Downtown District Urban Renewal Plan - Circulation Draft of MayJune 2007 4
Access and Circulation
Improve access and entrances into the downtown from the regional
transportation system.
Provide better access within the downtown and linkages between
downtown and other major activity centers.
Improve the circulation of traffic within the plan area.
Provide an adequate site and facilities in support of mass transit to meet
the present and future needs of downtown employees, employers, retailer,
businesses, and other downtown users.
Improve access and circulation for bicycles, pedestrians, carpooling, and
other alternative modes of transportation.
Assist with the construction of new parking structures to meet existing and
future development needs.
Improve connections between the core of downtown, the riverfront area,
and the University of Oregon.
Public Facilities and Improvements
Provide outdoor space downtown for major public gatherings.
Provide appropriate landscaping, open spaces, rest areas, and other
shopper amenities and conveniences.
Support the continued development of the downtown public library.
Construct or reconstruct public improvements that will stimulate nighttime
activity or private investment in the downtown area.
Improve the water, steam, sewer, and storm drainage system in the plan
area.
Assist with the construction of public facilities.
Improved accessibility for people of all abilities, anywhere in the district,
through the removal of architectural barriers, rehabilitation of existing
structures and through the application of design improvements.
Downtown District Urban Renewal Plan - Circulation Draft of MayJune 2007 5
Rehabilitation
Encourage repair and rehabilitation of existing buildings within the project
area through grants and low-interest loan programs.
Section 500 – Land Use Plan
The use and development of all land within the Central Eugene ProjectDowntown Urban
Renewal District Plan area shall comply with the regulations prescribed in the City’s
comprehensive plan, zoning ordinance, subdivision ordinance, City charter, or any other
applicable local, State or Federal laws regulating the use of property within an urban
renewal area.
Section 600 – Project Activities
In order to achieve the objectives of this plan, the following activities may be undertaken
on behalf of the City of Eugene by the Renewal Agency, in accordance with applicable
Federal, State, County, and City laws, policies, and procedures.
A. PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS
.
1Street, Curb, and Sidewalk Improvements
Improvements within the renewal area may require the construction of new
street, curb, sidewalks or sidewalk improvements, such as widening, within the
plan area. The Renewal Agency may participate in funding sidewalk and
roadway improvements including design, redesign, construction, resurfacing,
repair and acquisition of right-of way for curbs, streets, and sidewalks, and
pedestrian and bicycle paths. Projects to be undertaken include, but are not
limited to:
Local street, curb, and sidewalk improvements identified in the Eugene
Capital Improvements Program (CIP), the Vision For a Greater Downtown
Eugene Report, and the Courthouse District Concept Plan.
Other curb, sidewalk and street improvements identified by the Renewal
Agency.
.
2Public Utilities
The development proposed for the renewal area may require the replacement
environmental
and construction of water, storm and sanitary sewer facilities, and
mitigations. These improvements may include, but are not limited to:
Sanitary sewer, water, and storm water system upgrades & replacements
identified in Eugene Capital Improvements Program
Downtown District Urban Renewal Plan - Circulation Draft of MayJune 2007 6
3. Streetscape Projects
This activity will enable the Renewal Agency to participate in activities improving the
visual appearance of the plan area. These improvements may include, but are not
limited to:
Accent paving
Decorative lighting
Street trees, planters, and landscaping
Furnishings, including tables, benches, kiosks, telephone booths, drinking
fountains, trash receptacles, bicycle racks
Street and directional signage
Public art and water features
Gateway monuments and landscape features
Undergrounding of overhead utilities
4.Pedestrian, Bike, and Transit Improvements
These activities will include pedestrian, bicycle and transit connections between the
renewal plan area, the river, public parks, and other areas of Eugene. Activities
may include bicycle parking and storage, transit stops, covered shelters, transit
pullouts, and other related activities which will promote pedestrian, bicycle, and
public transportation uses in the renewal area. These improvements include, but
are not limited to:
Provide new bike paths or lanes
Provide pedestrian connections to the downtown, riverfront, and Courthouse
area.
Provide a more prominent entrance to the downtown at East Broadway
Provide weather sheltering devices for the protection of pedestrians
Street lights and traffic control devices
.
5Public parks, public plazas, rest rooms, and open spaces
The Renewal Agency may participate in funding the design, acquisition,
construction or rehabilitation of public spaces, or parks or public facilities within the
urban renewal area. Projects to be undertaken include, but are not limited to:
Walkways and plazas
Accessibility improvements
.
6Public Parking and Public Transportation Facilities
The Agency is authorized to participate in funding the acquisition and construction
and enhancement of public parking and public transportation facilities within the
renewal area. The precise location and type of facilities will be decided after further
study.
Downtown District Urban Renewal Plan - Circulation Draft of MayJune 2007 7
7. Other Public Facilities
The Agency is authorized to participate in development of public facilities including
City Hall, police and fire facilities, libraries, recreation centers, conference facilities,
and community centers. These facilities will benefit the renewal area by increasing
public usage of the area, by enhancing protective services, and by stimulating
additional public and private investment in the renewal area. The extent of the
Agency’s participation in funding such facilities will be based upon an Agency
finding on the benefit of that project to the renewal area, and the importance of the
project in carrying out Plan objectives. The type and location of these public
facilities will be determined by future study.Potential public facilities to be assisted
include, but are not limited to:
New Police Building or City Hall
Library improvements
B. OFF-SITE FACILITIES
To encourage the development or redevelopment of private property within the plan
area, the Agency may construct, install, pay for, or otherwise cause certain off-site
public facilities to be installed or provided when, in the public interest, such action would
benefit and further the objectives of the plan. Potential off-site facilities to be assisted
include, but are not limited to:
New parking, improvements to existing transportation and other facilities, and
mass transit stations, and public spaces.
C. ACQUISITION AND REDEVELOPMENT
1. Intent. It is the intent of this plan to authorize the Renewal Agency to acquire
property within the plan area by any legal means to achieve the objectives of this plan,
and specifically, for any of the purposes listed below.
2. Method. Property acquisition, including limited interest acquisition, is hereby
made a part of this plan and may be used to achieve the objectives of this plan in the
presence of any of the following conditions:
a. Where existing conditions do not permit practical or feasible rehabilitation
of a structure and it is determined that acquisition of such properties and
demolition of the improvements thereon are necessary to remove substandard
and blighting conditions;
b. Where detrimental land uses or conditions such as incompatible uses, or
adverse influences from noise, smoke or fumes exist, or where there exists
overcrowding, or conversions to incompatible types of uses, and it is determined
that acquisition of such properties and demolition of the improvements are
Downtown District Urban Renewal Plan - Circulation Draft of MayJune 2007 8
necessary to remove blighting influences and to achieve the objectives of this
plan;
c. Where it is determined that the property is needed to provide public
improvements and facilities as follows:
Right-of-way acquisition for streets, alleys, or pedestrian ways;
Property acquisition for public use; and
Property acquisition for public, off-street parking facilities.
d. Where it is determined that the assembling of land for private development
is necessary to attract new commercial and residential activity or to allow for
expansion or efficient operation of current commercial or industrial activities.
3. Land Acquisition Requiring Plan Amendments. Land acquisition for any purpose
other than specifically listed in 600-C-2 above, shall be accomplished only by following
procedures for amending this plan as set forth in Section 1200 of this plan. If such plan
amendment is approved by the Eugene Renewal Agency, a map exhibit shall be
prepared showing the properties to be acquired, shall be appropriately numbered, and
shall be included in Part Two as an official part of this plan.
Assembling land for private development where the developer of such land is a person
or group other than the owner of record of such land to be acquired, shall not be
considered as a substantial amendment to this plan. Each such development and the
property acquisition required shall be processed on a case-by-case basis and no such
acquisition shall be undertaken until authorized by the Renewal Agency.
D. RELOCATION ACTIVITIES
If the Agency acquires property which is occupied and would cause the displacement of
the occupants in the implementation of the plan, the Agency will provide assistance to
persons or businesses to be displaced. Those displaced will be contacted to determine
their individual relocation needs. They will be provided information on available space
and will be given assistance in moving. All relocation activities will be undertaken and
payments made in accordance with the requirements of ORS 281.045 - 281.105 and
any other applicable laws or regulations. Relocation payments will be made as
provided in ORS 281.060. Payments made to persons displaced from dwellings will
assure that they will have available to them decent, safe, and sanitary dwellings at costs
or rents within their financial means.
The Agency will prepare, adopt, and maintain a Relocation Policy prior to acquiring any
property which will cause displacement.
Downtown District Urban Renewal Plan - Circulation Draft of MayJune 2007 9
E. DEVELOPMENT AND REDEVELOPMENT
The Renewal Agency also is authorized to provide loans or other forms of financial
assistance to property owners wishing to develop or redevelop land or buildings within
the renewal area, or to persons desiring to acquire or lease buildings or land from the
Agency. The Agency may assist in the creation of, and participate in, public/private
partnerships that result in development or redevelopment. The Agency may make this
assistance available as it deems necessary to achieve the objectives of this Plan.
Projects receiving Agency assistance may include, but are not limited to:
Assisting the construction or expansion of job-creating developments
Assisting in the development of housing and mixed use projects
F. ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIVITIES
1. The Agency may retain the services of independent professional people or
organizations to provide administrative or technical services such as:
a. Preparation of market, feasibility, or other economic studies;
b. Preparation of design, architectural, engineering, landscaping
architectural, planning, development, or other developmental studies;
c. Providing accounting or audit services;
d. Providing special rehabilitation, restoration, or renovation feasibility and
cost analysis studies;
e. Assisting in preparation of the annual financial report required under
Section 800 of this plan;
f. Providing property acquisition appraisals; and
g. Evaluation of this plan and the success of its activities.
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.
4. To implement this plan, 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.
Downtown District Urban Renewal Plan - Circulation Draft of MayJune 2007 10
G. PROPERTY DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPER OBLIGATIONS
1. Property Disposition.
All real property acquired by the Agency in the plan area, if any, shall be disposed of for
development for uses permitted in the plan for the specific uses to be permitted on the
real property. Real property acquired by the Renewal Agency may be disposed of to
any other public entity in accordance with this plan. All persons and entities obtaining
property from the Agency shall use the property for the purposes designated in this plan
and comply with other conditions which the Agency deems necessary to carry out the
purposes of this plan.
2.1.Developer's Obligations.
Any developer and the developer’s successors or assigns within the plan area, in
addition to the other controls and obligations stipulated and required by the provisions of
this plan, shall also be obligated by the following requirements:
a. The Developer shall obtain necessary approvals of proposed
developments from all Federal, State, or local agencies that may have jurisdiction
on properties and facilities to be developed or redeveloped within the plan area;
b. The Developer shall develop or redevelop such property in accordance
with the adopted land use provisions;
c. The Developer shall submit all plans and specifications for construction of
improvements on the land to the Agency for review and distribution to
appropriate reviewing bodies as required by the City and shall comply with all
applicable requirements of existing City codes and ordinances;
d. The Developer shall commence and complete the development of such
property for the uses provided in this plan within a reasonable period of time; and
e. The Developer shall not effect or execute any agreement, lease,
conveyance, or other instrument whereby the real property or part thereof is
restricted in a manner that does not comply with Section 4.613 of the Eugene
Code, 1971.
H. REHABILITATION AND CONSERVATION
1. Intent. It is the intent of this Plan to encourage conservation and rehabilitation of
existing buildings which can be economically rehabilitated. Existing buildings in the plan
area are considered an important asset in maintaining and improving the economic and
cultural environment of the plan area.
Downtown District Urban Renewal Plan - Circulation Draft of MayJune 2007 11
2. Method. Rehabilitation and conservation may be achieved in two ways:
a. By owner and/or tenant activity, with or without financial assistance;
b. By the enforcement of existing City codes and ordinances.
3. Financial Building Rehabilitation Assistance. The Agency, with funds available to
it, may promulgate rules, guidelines and eligibility requirements for the purpose of
establishing below-market or market rate loan programs, grants, or other financial
incentives to advance the goals and objectives of the Central Eugene Downtown Urban
Renewal District Plan. Loans, grants or incentives provided by the Agency may be used
for voluntary rehabilitation of buildings, façade improvements, provision of amenities on
private property in compliance with adopted design guidelines and standards,
construction of new buildings, pre-development assistance, connecting to Agency-
provided underground electrical and communication systems, or other activities
approved by the Agency
.
I. OWNER PARTICIPATION
It is the intent of the Renewal Agency to provide low-interest loans to assist develop-
ment and redevelopment of private property in the district.
Property owners within the plan area proposing to improve their properties and
receiving financial assistance from the Agency shall do so in accordance with all
applicable provisions of this plan and with all applicable codes, ordinances, policies,
plans, and procedures of the City of Eugene.
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, the State, City, County, or
other public body, or from any source, public or private, for the purposes of undertaking
and carrying out this development plan, or may otherwise obtain financing as authorized
by ORS Chapter 457.
Ad valorem taxes, if any, levied by a taxing body upon the taxable real and personal
property situated in the urban renewal area, shall be divided in accord with and
pursuant to ORS 457.420 through 457.450.
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 457.460 which shall describe sources of revenue, proposed
expenditures, and activities. The Urban Renewal Agency Board of Directors must
approve all projects, other than loans, in excess of $250,000.
Downtown District Urban Renewal Plan - Circulation Draft of MayJune 2007 12
Section 800 – Annual Financial Statement Required
A. By August 1 of each year, a financial statement shall be prepared and provide
information containing:
1. Amounts of money received during the preceding fiscal year under ORS
457.420 to 457.460 and from indebtedness incurred under ORS 457.420 to
ORS 457.460;
2. The purposes and amounts for which any money received under ORS
457.420 to 457.460 and from indebtedness incurred under ORS 457.420 to
457.460 were expended during the preceding fiscal year;
3. An estimate of monies to be received during the current fiscal year under
ORS 457.420 to 457.460 and from indebtedness incurred under ORS
457.420 to 457.460;
4. A budget setting forth the purposes and estimated amounts for which the
monies which have been or will be received under ORS 457.420 to 457.460
and from indebtedness incurred under ORS 457.420 to 457.460 are to be
expended during the current fiscal year; and
5. An analysis of the impact, if any, of carrying out the urban renewal plan on the
tax collections for the preceding year for all taxing districts included under
ORS 457.430.
B. The statement shall be filed with the City Council and notice shall be published in a
newspaper of general circulation within the City that a statement has been prepared
and is on file with the City and Agency and the information contained in the
statement is available to all interested persons. The notice shall be published once
a week for not less than two successive weeks before September 1 of the year for
which a statement is required in accordance with ORS 457.115. The notice shall
summarize the information required under paragraphs 1 to 4 of this section and shall
set forth in full the information required in paragraph five of this section.
Section 900 – Citizen Participation
The activities and projects defined in this plan, development of subsequent plans,
procedures, activities, and regulations and the adoption of amendments to this plan
shall be undertaken with the participation of citizens, owners, tenants as individuals, and
organizations who reside within or who have financial interest within the project area
together with the participation of general citizens of the city. An advisory committee
authorized by the Urban Renewal Agency Board of Directors will advise on the activities
of this urban renewal district and will periodically evaluate the plan and its
implementation processes.
Downtown District Urban Renewal Plan - Circulation Draft of MayJune 2007 13
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 the City Council’s ordinance approving 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 will continue to evolve during
the course of project execution and ongoing planning. It is anticipated that this plan will
be changed or modified from time to time or amended as development potential and
conditions warrant, as planning studies are completed, as financing becomes available,
or as local needs dictate.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 urban renewal area boundary in excess of one percent (1%) of the
existing area of the renewal 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:
1. The addition of improvements or activities which represent a substantial change in
the purpose and objectives of this Plan, and which cost more than $500,000. The
$500,000 amount will be adjusted annually from the year 2003 according to the
"Engineering News Record" construction cost index for the Northwest area.
2. Any change or provision of this Plan which would modify the goals and objectives or
the basic planning principles of this plan.
Downtown District Urban Renewal Plan - Circulation Draft of MayJune 2007 14
Substantial changes shall include, but are not limited to, revisions in project boundaries,
land uses, project activities, street system changes, major relocation of the downtown
transit station, or other elements which will change the basic planning principles of this
plan.
C. Type Three Amendment – Minor Amendment
Minor amendments may be approved by the Renewal Agency in resolution form. Such
amendments are defined as:
1. Amendments to clarify language, add graphic exhibits, make minor modifications in
the scope or location of improvements authorized by this Plan, or other such
modifications which do not change the basic planning or engineering principles of
the Plan.
2. Acquisition of property for purposes specified in Section 600C3 of this plan.
3. Addition of a project substantially different from those identified in Sections 600 of
the Plan or substantial modification of a project identified in Section 600 if the
addition or modification of the project costs less than $500,000 in 2003 dollars.
4. Increases in the urban renewal area boundary not in excess of one percent (1%).
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 implement-
ing 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, 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 Urban Renewal Plan
This plan shall remain in full force and effect through June 30, 20242030.The Agency
shall not issue indebtedness that matures after June 30, 2030, and the Plan shall
remain in effect until all indebtedness has been repaid.
The City Council shall conduct periodic reviews in 2009 2015and20192025. Reviews
will consider extending the duration beyond 20292030; modifying the boundaries;
modifying the maximum indebtedness; and modifying eligible project activities to be
undertaken in the Downtown Urban Renewal District. The review process shall include
a review and recommendation from the Eugene Redevelopment Advisory Committee.
Such review will include a public hearing.
Downtown District Urban Renewal Plan - Circulation Draft of MayJune 2007 15
B.Validity
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
A. Maximum Indebtedness
The sum of $33,000,000 was established in 1998 as the maximum amount of new
indebtedness which could be issued or incurred under this Plan after June 1, 1998.The
2007 plan amendment increased the maximum indebtedness amount by $40 million, to
a total of $73 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; and
This amount does not include funds to pay interest on that indebtedness nor
3. fFunds to repay indebtedness existing on the date of the 1998 amendment.
B.City-Wide Special Levy.
Option One and its city-wide special levy, as described in ORS 457.435(2)(a), were
chosen in 1998 as the method for collecting ad valorem property taxes sufficient to pay
when due, indebtedness issued or incurred to carry out the Urban Renewal Plan for the
Central Eugene ProjectDowntown Urban Renewal District as permitted by section 11
(16), Article XI of the Oregon Constitution.
Downtown District Urban Renewal Plan - Circulation Draft of MayJune 2007 16
Part 2 – Exhibits
Exhibit A: Development Plan Boundary
Downtown District Urban Renewal Plan - Circulation Draft of MayJune 2007 17
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 August _, 2007 by City Council Ordinance No. _____
City of Eugene
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Eugene City Council and Urban Renewal Agency Board
Mayor Kitty Piercy
Bonny Bettman
Alan Zelenka
Andrea Ortiz
Chris Pryor
Mike Clark
George Poling
Jennifer Solomon
Betty Taylor
City of Eugene Staff
Dennis Taylor, City Manager
Susan Muir, Director of Planning and Development Department
Denny Braud
Sue Cutsogeorge
Amanda Nobel
Mike Sullivan
Richie Weinman
Sarah Zaleski
Consultant
Charles Kupper, Spencer & Kupper, Portland, Oregon
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter 1: 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............................................................7
Chapter 5: Relationship Between Existing Conditions and Each Project Activity
Undertaken Under the Plan...............................................................................8
Chapter 6:Estimated Total Cost of Each Project or Activity, Sources of Money,
and Anticipated Completion Date for Each Project or Activity............................9
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..........................................................................................10
Chapter 8:Financial Analysis of the Plan with Sufficient Information to
Determine Feasibility.......................................................................................15
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 Urban
RenewalArea..................................................................................................16
Chapter 10:RelocationReport............................................................................................19
Chapter 11:Appendices......................................................................................................20
REPORT ON THE DOWNTOWN URBAN
RENEWAL DISTRICT PLAN
INDEX OF TABLES
Page
Table 1 Area Acres by Generalized Land Use 3
Table 2 Zoning in Acres 3
Table 3 Condition of Principal Buildings 4
Table 4 Assessed Value of the Frozen Base 5
Table 5 List of Project Activities and Their Estimated Cost 9
Table 6 Resources and Requirements of Plan Activities 12
Table 7 Revenue Impact on Overlapping Jurisdictions 18
REPORT ON THE DOWNTOWN URBAN
RENEWAL DISTRICT PLAN
Chapter 1: Introduction
The 2007 Amendment to the Downtown Urban Renewal District Plan makes the follow-
ing changes to Report on the Plan:
Provides new cost estimates of project activities to be undertaken
Describes the change due to the extension of the duration of the Plan to the year
2030
Describes the change due to the increase in the maximum indebtedness
Provides new information on the impact that carrying out the Plan will have on other
taxing bodies under Measure 50.
The City of Eugene has prepared an amendment to the Urban Renewal Plan Update of
the Downtown Urban Renewal District Plan, originally adopted on July 1968 and as
modified December 1968, December 1989, June 1998 and September 2004. The Plan
Update is based on goals and objectives from the City of Eugene Downtown Plan
adopted in February 2004. This report accompanies the Urban Renewal Plan and
consists of text, tables, and appendices.
The Downtown Urban Renewal District area contains approximately 70 acres. The
legal description for the area is in Section 300 of the Plan. The area is further described
on graphic exhibits included in that Plan.
Report on the Downtown Urban Renewal District Plan – Circulation Draft of June 2007 1
Chapter 2: Description of Physical, Social, Economic, and
Environmental Conditions in the Plan Area
Note: This description and assessment is only current to the identified dates.
A. Physical Conditions
1. Land Use
The Downtown Urban Renewal District encompasses about 70 acres. The total
incorporated land area for the City of Eugene as of June 2006 is 26,560 acres.
The Downtown Urban Renewal District represents about 0.003 percent of the
City’s total land area. This area combined with the Riverfront Urban Renewal
District, approximately 178 acres, equals 248 acres or less than one percent of
the City’s total land area in renewal districts. This one percent is well within the
15 percent maximum allowed by Oregon State law.
2. Existing Land Use and Zoning
Table 1 shows generalized land use as of May 2007 by category. Table 2 shows
the zoning as of May 2007 by zoning district. A description of each use permitted
is found in the City Zoning Code. The Renewal Area and zoning maps are
located in the Appendix, Exhibits A and B.
Report on the Downtown Urban Renewal District Plan – Circulation Draft of June 2007 2
Table 1
Area Acres by Generalized Land Use
May 2007 Data
Generalized Land Use Acres
Communication 0.6
Education 0.4
Transportation 1.8
Government 1.4
Wholesale Trade 0.1
Industrial 0.2
Religious, Charitable 0.2
Recreation 6.9
Residential, Multi-Family 0.4
General Services 8.2
Parks 0.8
Retail Trade 18.2
Vacant 0.1
Streets, Alleys, Roads 30.7
Total 70.0
Table 2
Zoning in Acres
May 2007 Data
Zone Description Zoning Acres Percent
Community Commercial C2 2.7 3.9%
Central Business C3 63.0 89.9%
Historic H 0.3 0.4%
Public Land PL 4.0 5.7%
Special Development - Downtown
Westside Special Area Zone S 0.1 0.1%
Light Medium Industrial I-2 -- --
S-F Fifth Avenue Special Area S -- --
Total 70.0 100.0%
Note: Totals may not add due to rounding.
3. Conditions of buildings and dwelling units
The conditions of 92 principal buildings within the Renewal Area were rated
according to the Lane County assessment records, current to the date shown.
The conditions of these buildings were categorized as good, fair, or poor through
a rating system based on a physical inspection and rated according to a physical
depreciation guide. This guide takes into account the age of the building. Table
3 is a summation. It is assumed that buildings in poor condition, and some
buildings in fair condition, may require rehabilitation if economically feasible.
Some rehabilitation may have taken place since the inspection date.
Report on the Downtown Urban Renewal District Plan – Circulation Draft of June 2007 3
Table 3
Condition of Principal Buildings
September, 1985 data – LCOG Research Section
Lane County 1982 Physical Depreciation Index
ConditionCommercialDwelling Units
Good 39 0
Average 30 0
Poor 22 1 (6)
TOTAL 91 1 (6)
(*) = number of dwelling units
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. Streets, Alleys, Sidewalks, etc.
The major portions of the streets, alleys and sidewalks within the Renewal Area
were upgraded as part of the original project and remain in good condition. The
remaining areas to be upgraded are adjacent to proposed development sites and
will be rebuilt concurrent with the new development.
B. Social Conditions
According to a 2004 Planning and Development Department analysis, there are 196
housing units within the Downtown Urban Renewal District.
C. Economic Conditions
1. Value of Property
The 2006/2007 taxable assessed value for the entire City is $10,258,394,100. The
total assessed value for the Downtown Urban Renewal District as of FY2006/2007 is
$152,624,683.
Report on the Downtown Urban Renewal District Plan – Circulation Draft of June 2007 4
The chart below demonstrates that the frozen base for the combined urban renewal
districts is well within the 15% limit imposed by ORS 457.
Table 4
Assessed Value of the Frozen Base
Downtown Total as a %
Urban Renewal Riverfront Urban of City of
DistrictRenewal District Total Eugene AV
Frozen Base $31,386,991 $50,609,448 $81,996,439 0.8%
2. Relationship of the Value of Improvements to the Value of Land
The current ratio of improvement to land value within the Renewal Area, based on
2006/2007 assessment records and excluding tax exempt property, is 8.1 to 1. The
accepted improvement to land value ratios of healthy, viable, and prosperous areas
in Oregon cities are 3.0 to 1 and greater.
D. Environmental Conditions
Environmental conditions within the Downtown Urban Renewal District are not expected
to change. The 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 project area will be upgraded and
maintained as needed. New street trees are to be planted as part of the project. This
landscaping should provide a positive environmental impact.
Report on the Downtown Urban Renewal District Plan – Circulation Draft of June 2007 5
Chapter 3: Expected Impact, Including Fiscal Impact of the Plan, in
Light of Added Services or Increased Population
Development within the Renewal Area is not expected to have a significant impact on
the 4-J School District. The zoning criteria of C2 and C3 does not encourage residential
housing. Past experience shows residential complexes developed around the project
area have focused on adult housing. Based on this experience, there should be no or
th
minimal impact on the local kindergarten through 12 grade schools. The added adult
population created by such housing projects may impact Lane Community College,
particularly the Downtown campus, with increased registration.
The 2007 Amendment follows the passage of Ballot Measure 50 and its implementation
rules. In the Measure 50 environment, taxing bodies “forego” revenue produced by the
growth in values over a renewal area’s frozen base. The property tax impacts of carry-
ing out this amended Plan are shown in Chapter 9 of this Report.
Projects within the Renewal Plan have been chosen for the way in which they support
planning efforts for the downtown area, such as the Downtown Plan. These planning
documents were based on assumptions about the expected need for new and improved
services due to population growth and other factors. The Renewal Plan is expected to
facilitate improvements within the district, according to the planning efforts for the area.
One of the principal objectives of the Renewal Plan is to improve the existing taxable
property. Areas adjacent to the plan area are also expected to become more viable.
From FY2007/2008 through the remaining life of the district, property values in the
district are estimated to increase by over $185 million.
The development site is not expected to significantly impact the school system. Pro-
jects in the plan address the expected impacts of area development on police services,
transportation, utilities, and other public services.
The Urban Renewal 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 Eugene’s Urban
Renewal Agency. The tax impacts of the Renewal Plan are discussed in detail in Chap-
ter 9 of this report.
Many other positive impacts are expected from completion of the projects included with-
in the Renewal Plan, such as:
Better connections between major areas of the downtown, such as the core area,
the riverfront area, and the University of Oregon
Higher concentration of mixed uses in the plan area, including government, retail
and commercial businesses
More public amenities, such as parks, plazas, recreation areas, and parking
Report on the Downtown Urban Renewal District Plan – Circulation Draft of June 2007 6
Chapter 4: Reasons for Selection of the Plan Area
The plan area of the Downtown Urban Renewal District (formerly the Central Eugene
Project) was adopted in 1968. This area was selected after comprehensive community
process under the guidance of the Federal Department of Housing and Urban Devel-
opment (HUD). The goals of the Downtown Urban Renewal District plan are reducing
blight and improving the function, condition, and appearance of the plan area.
According to ORS 457.010, "blighted areas" means areas that, by reason of deteriora-
tion, faulty planning, inadequate or improper facilities, deleterious land use or the exist-
ence 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 exist-
ence 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 physi-
cal 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;
Report on the Downtown Urban Renewal District Plan – Circulation Draft of June 2007 7
(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 elsewhere.
Chapter 5: Relationship Between Existing Conditions and Each
Project Activity Undertaken Under the Plan
All public improvements, building rehabilitation loan programs, administrative and tech-
nical support, property acquisition and redevelopment authorization, and relocation
activities (if any) set forth in Section 600 of the Plan are intended to correct the defici-
encies described in this report.
Report on the Downtown Urban Renewal District Plan – Circulation Draft of June 2007 8
Chapter 6: Estimated Total Cost of Each Project or Activity,
Sources of Money, and Anticipated Completion Date for
Each Project or Activity
The 2007 Amendment includes a table showing the project activities to be carried
out following the adoption of the amendment and the estimated cost. Table 5
shows that urban renewal financing is estimated to provide $40 million (or approxi-
mately 20%) of funding out of an estimated total of $200 million of public and private
investment from FY2007/2008 through FY2029/2030.
Table 5
List of Project Activities and The Estimated Cost
Project Activity Total Estimated Cost
Public Improvements
1. Street, curb & sidewalk improvements $1,000,000
2. Public utilities 5,000,000
3. Streetscape projects 1,000,000
4. Pedestrian, bike & transit improvements 0
5. Public parks, public plazas, rest rooms, and open spaces 0
6. Public parking and public transportation facilities 16,000,000
7. Other public facilities 0
Total Public Improvements $23,000,000
Acquisition & Redevelopment
1. Property acquisition $15,000,000
2. Property redevelopment 125,000,000
Total Acquisition & Redevelopment $140,000,000
Administrative Activities (through FY2029/2030)
10,000,000
Development & Redevelopment
10,000,000
Rehabilitation & Conservation
17,000,000
TOTAL PROJECTS – All Funding Sources
$200,000,000
Projects Funded from Urban Renewal Agency
$40,000,000
Projects Funded from Private Sources and Other Federal, State
160,000,000
and Local Government Resources
Total Funding for All Projects
$200,000,000
Note: Off-site Facilities and Relocation Activities are included in other categories in this chart.
Project activities shown in Table 5 will begin in FY2008/2009. Decisions on priori-
ties of funding for project activities will be made by the Eugene Urban Renewal
Agency in its annual budget process, and regular Agency meetings, all of which are
open to the public. The Eugene Redevelopment Advisory Committee advises devel-
opment staff on budget and project priorities for the district. All urban renewal fund-
ed activities are expected to be completed by June 30, 2030.
Report on the Downtown Urban Renewal District Plan – Circulation Draft of June 2007 9
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
Table 6 sets out the estimated costs of the projects to be completed under the Renewal
Plan. The total cost of all projects is estimated at $200 million between FY2007/2008
and FY2029/2030. The projects will be funded with a combination of urban renewal tax
increment financing under ORS 457 and other sources. The Urban Renewal Agency
expects to apply for funding from other federal, state and local grants in order to com-
plete the projects. Private developers will fund some of the project costs. 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.
The project activities will begin immediately in FY2007/2008 and will continue through
the final year of the Renewal Plan, in FY2029/2030. When the plan was amended in
June of 1998, the City Council added a maximum indebtedness figure of $33 million.
That figure was based on the estimated cost of building a new main library, plus contin-
uation of the administrative costs in the district, preparing annual financial statements,
disposing of the Sears building, overseeing completion of the Broadway Place and
Overpark elevator projects, and administering the loan portfolio. It excluded existing
debt.
Based on the estimated cash flow for the district between now and FY2029/2030, the
current maximum indebtedness figure will be insufficient to cover anticipated expen-
ditures for the West Broadway redevelopment projects. This is why the Agency is
proposing a plan amendment at this time.
The current plan amendment proposes an increase in maximum indebtedness of $40
million, resulting in a revised maximum indebtedness figure of $73 million. This revised
maximum indebtedness amount is the estimated minimal amount needed to accomplish
the projects under the current project assumptions. The West Broadway redevelopment
project is in a conceptual stage and there are a number of factors that could increase
the cost of the project, as well as increase the Agency’s participation in the project.
Some of those factors are:
Because the project has not yet been designed and is still in the conceptual
stage, additional refinement of the project details could result in a higher cost for
the overall project.
Depending on the specific properties to be acquired and the costs of those
properties, the overall cost for property acquisition could increase.
Construction costs could also increase due to the level of inflation and interest
rates.
The Mayor has appointed a citizen advisory committee to work with the develop-
ers to refine the scope of the project, including items such as public open spaces.
Report on the Downtown Urban Renewal District Plan – Circulation Draft of June 2007 10
If the advisory committee recommends including public amenities that were not
envisioned by the developer in their concept, the result could be higher construc-
tion costs and potentially higher costs to the Agency for the public share of the
project costs.
There is a factor in the concept for the cost of utilities and off-site improvements,
such as sidewalks. The developer proposed that the Agency pay these costs.
As the scope of these items is refined, there could be additional costs to the
Agency.
Any cost for transitioning or relocating existing businesses has not been factored
into the estimates.
There is always a risk of future legislative changes with urban renewal programs.
As the West Broadway redevelopment project scope is refined and cost estimates are
solidified, the minimal amount for maximum indebtedness increase of $40 million may
constrain the Agency’s ability to take on additional project costs or to conduct the
property transactions in the most effective manner for the developers and the Agency.
The $40 million increase in maximum indebtedness also does not include sufficient
authority for the Agency to spend tax increment funds generated by the West Broadway
redevelopment projects on any future redevelopment efforts. This means that the
Agency will need to revise the maximum indebtedness limit in the future if another
development project is to be undertaken with tax increment financing in the district.
This plan amendment also includes extending the termination date to June 30, 2030.
The reason for the extension is to maximize the district’s financial capacity to undertake
a large redevelopment project.Holding all else constant, a shorter district termination
date would mean having a smaller debt capacity. Preliminary calculations indicate that
the debt capacity reduction could be in the 15% to 20% range.The amount of lower
debt capacity could range from $2-$3.5 million, depending on the future revenues of the
Agency, interest rates, and lender requirements around debt protection measures. The
Agency could respond to by (i) making up for a smaller debt capacity by requesting use
of other City resources outside of the urban renewal district; or (ii) pledging additional
security for the borrowing, such as a guarantee from the City’s general fund. There is,
however, a practical limit to the amount of debt that the Agency can take on based on
the level of projected revenues, even if the City guarantees the debt.
The timing and amounts for individual project activities will be determined by the Urban
Renewal Agency each year during the annual budget process. The Eugene Redevelop-
ment Advisory Committee will provide advice on improvements to the district and the
expenditure of funds. Completion dates for individual activities may be affected by
changes in 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 Downtown Urban Renewal District Plan – Circulation Draft of June 2007 11
Chapter 8: Financial Analysis of the Plan with Sufficient Information
to Determine Feasibility
The financial analysis of the plan shown in Table 6 includes the anticipated tax increment
revenues and the indebtedness capacity of those revenues. The analysis shows that the
anticipated tax increment revenues are based on reasonable projections of new develop-
ment and appreciation in existing property values. The projection of tax increment reve-
nues is based on the following assumptions:
Existing property assessed values will increase by 2% per year.
New development assumptions are for an estimated $186 million of investment to be
complete by 2010, including a mix of retail, housing, office space, and parking.
The housing portion of the development will receive a Multi-Unit Property Tax
Exemption for 10 years and a low income housing exemption for 20 years.
Tax rates 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 will be reduced as bonds approved by voters prior to October 6, 2001 are
retired.
The projections result in total resources between FY2007/2008 and FY2029/2030 of just
*
under $135 million. These revenues will support $40 million of increased maximum
indebtedness proposed under this Plan Amendment. The $40 million maximum indebted-
ness figure will not allow for the Agency to spend the total amount of revenue that the
district is expected to generate during the remaining term of the district, however. Any
additional expenditure in the plan that will be funded with tax increment funds will require a
future substantial plan amendment. In addition to the West Broadway redevelopment
projects, the revenues will be sufficient to pay for administrative activities, including an
allocation of central service overhead costs. Those costs are projected to increase over
time due to inflation of 3% per year.
The Urban Renewal Agency will also carry a reserve on outstanding bonds until those
bonds are fully paid off, as well as a balance equal to two months of operating costs each
year, per City of Eugene financial policy.
*
Note that the proposed plan amendments, including the maximum indebtedness increase, will be reviewed
by Planning Commission, the overlapping taxing districts and the general public. After this review, the City
Council may choose a different maximum indebtedness figure. The financial effect of a different maximum
indebtedness figure would be that either more or fewer projects (depending on whether the new figure was
higher or lower) could be accomplished in the out-years of the Renewal Plan.
Report on the Downtown Urban Renewal District Plan – Circulation Draft of June 2007 15
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 Urban Renewal Area
Taxing bodies that overlap with the Urban Renewal Agency are affected by the use of tax
increment funds to implement the Renewal Plan. When a district is first created, the
assessed value within the boundaries is established as 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”.Property taxes from the
overlapping jurisdictions (schools, general governments, bonds) are then divided between
the jurisdictions that continue to receive taxes on the frozen base, and the urban renewal
agency that receives taxes on the incremental value.
In general, urban renewal does not directly affect an individual school system’s budget
because schools are funded by the state on a per-pupil basis. On a state-wide basis, if
there are less tax revenues going to schools because of urban renewal districts, then the
state provides more general funds to make up the per-pupil funding for all the schools.
If a school district is in Measure 5 tax rate compression due to a local option levy, how-
ever, the urban renewal effect is different. For school districts that have a local option levy,
urban renewal results in the ability for the district to collect a higher level of revenue from
the local option levy. This occurs because the portion of school taxes related to the incre-
mental property value within the district does not count towards the school tax $5/$1000
Measure 5 tax rate cap.Rather, that amount of taxes counts towards the general
government $10/$1000 Measure 5 tax rate cap.
For other taxing jurisdictions, a share of property taxes from the “excess value” or “incre-
mental value” is not collected by the overlapping jurisdictions during the period of an active
district. 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. For the Downtown Urban Renewal District, 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 6, 2001. This
means that the projected tax rate used to generate urban renewal revenues will be
reduced over time as existing bonds are paid off. Urban renewal is counted towards the
Measure 5 general government tax rate cap of $10/$1000 of assessed value. In Eugene,
the general government category of taxes is not currently in Measure 5 tax rate compres-
sion, so this is not a significant factor in evaluating urban renewal tax increment revenues.
The incentive for the overlapping districts to support urban renewal is higher property tax
revenues in the long run. When the district is ended, the overlapping taxing districts are
able to tax the entire value within the district. Under the theory of urban renewal, this value
is higher than it would have been if there had been no district in effect.
Report on the Downtown Urban Renewal District Plan – Circulation Draft of June 2007 16
The estimated amount of urban renewal taxes to be divided over the remaining term of the
Renewal Plan (net of discounts, delinquents, etc.) is shown in Table 7. Only the perm-
anent tax rates of the overlapping jurisdictions are considered in this analysis because
there are no local option levies included in urban renewal revenues for the Downtown
Urban Renewal District, and bonded debt tax rates will be reduced from year to year until
the existing bonds are paid off.
As can be seen, in FY2007/2008, it is estimated that the City of Eugene would forego
about $840,000 of revenue because of the Downtown Urban Renewal District. In
FY2029/2030, when the district is terminated, the City of Eugene is estimated to receive
$2.2 million of additional tax revenue. Lane County is estimated to forego $150,000 of
revenue in the first fiscal year, and to benefit by $400,000 of additional tax revenue when
the district is terminated in FY2029/2030. The combined school districts are estimated to
forego $670,000 of revenue in the first fiscal year, and to benefit by $1.8 million of addi-
tional tax revenue when the district is terminated in FY2029/2030. As mentioned above,
however, the impact on schools is really 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. This analysis does not take into account the
effect of terminating the urban renewal district on any local option levy that the schools
might have outstanding in FY2029/2030.
Because the Downtown District Urban Renewal Plan took steps to be “grandfathered”
under the provisions of Measure 50, the district is allowed to levy a higher amount of taxes
than would otherwise be allowed for the existing life of the district. The base amount
allowed to be levied is the “division of tax” levy, which is equal to the incremental property
value in the district times the overlapping tax rate for all jurisdictions (City, County, schools,
bonds). In addition, the “grandfather” provision allows the Downtown District Urban
Renewal District to levy a “special levy” in order to protect the level of property tax collec-
tions after implementation of the provisions of Measure 50. In FY2006/2007, the special
levy tax rate was $0.1888/$1000 of AV and the “division of tax” levy was $0.1936, for a
total of $0.3824/$1000 of AV. When the district has collected sufficient revenues to fund
the current $33 million of projects included under the existing maximum indebtedness cap,
the district will no longer qualify for the special levy and taxes will go down for Eugene
taxpayers which is anticipated to occur not later than FY2008/2009.
Table 7 on the following page provides details of the impact of carrying out the 2007
Amendment to the Plan.
Report on the Downtown Urban Renewal District Plan – Circulation Draft of June 2007 17
Chapter 10: Relocation Report
A. Requirement
An analysis of the existing residences of businesses required to relocate
permanently or temporarily as a result of Agency actions under ORS 457.170.
Response
The plan provides for the acquisition and/or property. A redevelopment concept that
th
includes West Broadway and portions of Willamette, Olive and 10 Avenue involves
the potential acquisition of about 25 parcels for redevelopment of housing and
commercial activities. When the redevelopment concept is refined a relocation plan
will be created. This model may be replicated in the future, in some form, in other
parts of the district.
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 Urban Renewal Area in accordance
with ORS 281.045 through 281.105.
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.
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 this
plan. However, voluntary housing rehabilitation programs have been provided by
proposing a rehabilitation loan fund, where and if and when funds are available,
housing owners may, at their option, avail themselves of below-market rehabilitation
loans. Such loans may be made directly by the Renewal Agency or by local finan-
cial institutions which participate in loan programs involving the joint participation of
the Agency and local financial institutions.
Report on the Downtown Urban Renewal District Plan – Circulation Draft of June 2007 19
D. Requirement
A description of new residential units which are likely to be constructed within the
urban renewal area.
Response
Some new residential units are expected to be constructed within the plan area.
Chapter 11: Appendices
Exhibit A: Urban Renewal Boundary
Exhibit B: Zoning District Map
Report on the Downtown Urban Renewal District Plan – Circulation Draft of June 2007 20
Exhibit A – Area Boundary
Report on the Downtown Urban Renewal District Plan – Circulation Draft of June 2007 21
Exhibit B – Zoning District Map
Report on the Downtown Urban Renewal District Plan – Circulation Draft of June 2007 22
ATTACHMENT D
Council and URA Action History: West BroadwayRedevelopment Project,
BEDI, Section 108, & Downtown Urban Renewal District
1. West Broadway Redevelopment Project
th
URA – 1999:
The first Request for Proposals (RFP) for the sale and development of the 10 &
Charnelton site was issued. Responses were limited, and the URA deferred review of the
responses due to pending discussion on potential sites for the new Federal Courthouse and City
Hall.
th
URA – December, 2002:
URA approved the issuance of a second 10 and Charnelton RFP. In May
2003, the URA received four responses and selected the Oregon Research Institute (ORI) project.
ORI later decided to forgo the purchase and development of the site.
CC –January 9, 2006:
Council discussed the Connor and Woolley/Opus development proposal for
West Broadway, including tools that the City Manager and staff might use to facilitate the
acquisition of property that may be needed for any comprehensive redevelopment of the West
Broadway area. The council passed a motion 7:1 to “direct the City Manager to work with Connor
and Woolley on developing a more detailed proposal related to West Broadway development to be
brought back to the council. This motion in no way endorses the concept of the proposal.” The
City Manager understood from the discussion and action that everything short of condemnation
should be pursued in order to assist in the redevelopment of the West Broadway area.
th
ERAC – April 20, 2006:
Eugene Redevelopment Advisory Committee (ERAC) discussed the 10
and Charnelton RFP and encouraged a comprehensive review of how each project proposal
advances the Downtown Plan and contributes to this area of downtown.
th
PC – April 24, 2006:
Planning Commission (PC) reviewed the 1999 and 2002 versions of the 10 &
Charnelton RFP and provided input regarding the issuance of a new RFP for the site. Generally, PC
encouraged use of the policies and strategies in the Downtown Plan as the primary source for
gauging desirable projects for the site. It also favored a less prescriptive RFP approach in
comparison to the 1999 criteria to attract a broad mix of possible uses encourage creativity in the
development of the site and inspire investor confidence.
April 2006:
? Connor and Woolley/Opus announced that the West Broadway project was no
longer viable, primarily because of an inability to acquire the property needed for the
development envisioned. Following the announcement, staff began exploring ways the
City could assist in assembling land for the potential redevelopment, including the
possibility of acquiring purchase options on the properties, with the intention of bringing
the purchase options, once acquired, to the URA for direction.
th
URA – May 24, 2006:
URA approved the issuance of the third 10 & Charnelton RFP:
Ms. Solomon, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to approve the RFP for the sale and development
th
of the 10 Avenue and Charnelton Street development site and direct the City Manager to issue
a request for proposals consistent with the preliminary schedule included in the draft RFP with
final review of the RFP responses and approval of a project for the site provided by the Urban
Renewal Agency. Vote: Passed 8:0.
~ Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to amend the Development Objectives to include
“As a publicly solicited project with the potential for public subsidies and incentives this
development addresses the needs of the community. More housing units and varied housing
options are needed to accommodate projected population demographics. Central housing is a
key element in the Growth Management Policies and the Downtown Plan. Downtown housing
is essential for creating the critical mass of residents to support retail and to concentrate
populations where services already exist within walking distance and where transit and
pedestrian amenities are easily and efficiently available. Housing downtown requires public
sector support in order to be competitive. Preferred proposals for the site will recognize this
development site as a rare opportunity to address the significant need for downtown housing
units by providing for multi-storied, very high density housing, preferably accommodating
ownership options as well as affordable units. Vote: Passed 7:0 (Pape not yet arrived)
~ Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to change the third point on page 390 of the AIS
under “Active Uses” to read as follows: “3. Major employment center for very high quality
jobs and extended hours of occupancy.” Vote: Passed 5:4 (Mr. Kelly, Ms. Bettman, Ms. Taylor,
Ms. Ortiz, and the Mayor voting in favor and Mr. Poling, Ms. Solomon, Mr. Pape and Mr.
Pryor voting in opposition.)
~ Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to amend the Development Objectives to delete
the third point regarding a strong relationship with key tenants. Vote: Passed 8:0.
th
June 2, 2006
?: 10 and Charnelton RFP issued with a submission due date of August 15,
2006. The due date was subsequently extended to September 15, 2006. The City received
responses from Beam Development, TK Partners, and Sockeye.
th
Memo – July 26, 2006:
Staff memo addressed the 10 & Charnelton RFP extension. The 30-day
extension was intended to be responsive to development interest in the site and maximize the
opportunity to attract quality proposals.
th
ERAC – September 28, 2006:
ERAC reviewed the 10 & Charnelton RFP responses. ERAC was
expanded specifically for review of the RFP responses to include expertise in the areas of
sustainability (Josh Proudfoot, Good Company), financing (Erik Riechers, Pacific Continental
Bank), and housing development (Jim McCoy, Housing and Community Services Agency).
ERAC recommended that staff move forward with the selection of the TK Partners proposal.
th
URA – October 11, 2006:
URA considered the 10 & Charnelton RFP proposals. Voting on a
motion to select a proposal was postponed until October 16, 2006.
th
URA – October 16, 2006:
URA selected the TK Partners proposal for the 10& Charnelton site:
Moved to direct the Agency Director to enter into a 90-day exclusive negotiation period with
TK Partners for the sale and development of the 10th and Charnelton development site based
upon the proposal submitted and to return to the City Council, acting as the Urban Renewal
Agency, with the proposed terms of the sale and development following the negotiation period.
Vote: Passed 8:0.
ERAC – November 21, 2006:
ERAC reviewed the draft West Broadway RFQ. Committee members
provided comments on criteria and timing of the RFQ.
URA – November 27, 2006:
URA provided direction to issue an RFQ for the redevelopment of West
Broadway with approved criteria, with the following motion:
Ms. Solomon seconded by Ms. Ortiz moved to direct the Agency Director to issue a Request for
Qualifications (RFQ) for the redevelopment of West Broadway based on the draft RFQ criteria
included in this agenda item with the responses to the RFQ to be brought back to the URA for
consideration in early Spring 2007. The RFQ shall permit responses to deal with (a) property
included only in a single option agreement for example the Centre Court Building and adjacent
hole, (b) property included in more than one but less than all of the option agreements, or (c)
property included in all of the option agreements. Include an additional criterion “Consistency
with City Policies and Goals” in the RFQ evaluation criteria on council agenda packet pages
15 and 16; substitute the word “will” for the word “should” in subparagraphs 1 “Urban
Design”, 2 “Active Uses”, and 3 “Sustainable Development” in the RFQ Evaluation criteria
on council agenda packet pages15 and 16; add the phrase “and will contribute to an active
around the clock 24-hour downtown” at the end of the first sentence in the paragraph under
the heading “Active Uses” in the RFQ evaluation criteria on council agenda packet page15;
delete the words “and assistance” from subparagraph 2 under the paragraph captioned
“Public Benefit” in the RFQ evaluation criteria on page 16 of the council agenda packet; and
add the following definition of the term mixed use in the RFQ evaluation criteria “Mixed use
development refers to the practice of containing more than one type of use or activity in a
building or set of buildings or blocks. The mix of uses can vary widely but typically includes a
higher density combination of residential, commercial, industrial, office, institutional, or other
activities. The uses are typically in close proximity, pedestrian-friendly and compatible with
multi-modal transportation.” Vote: Passed 8:0.
December 8, 2006:
? West Broadway RFQ issued with a submission due date of February 9,
2007.
February 2007:
? The City received responses from Beam Development, CenterCal
Properties, Greg Bryant, KWG Development Partners, and MidTown Development.
KWG’s response addressed the entire West Broadway Redevelopment Area as well as the
th
10 and Charnelton site, with the understanding that if not selected they would move
forward with the initial TK Partners concept.
ERAC – February 23, 2007:
ERAC met to review the West Broadway RFQ responses. ERAC was
expanded specifically for review of the RFQ responses to include representation from the arts (Tina
Rinaldi), a Broadway tenant (Beth Little, Saturday Market), and a Downtown Vision Committee
member (Greg McLauchlan). ERAC concluded that KWG had the strongest response to the
objectives and criteria in the RFQ. The committee also expressed interest in the reuse potential of
the Washburne and Centre Court buildings proposed by Beam. ERAC unanimously recommended
that staff explore further the KWG and Beam responses.
URA – March 12, 2007:
URAwork session to review responses to the West Broadway RFQ. URA
recognized Beam and KWG as qualified developers. Action was taken to direct staff to work with
Beam and KWG to explore project concepts in more detail, with opportunities for community
input, and to bring the following supplemental information back to the URA for review and
approval: project cost and scale; development footprint; mix of uses; transfer of property; design
and sustainability; parking requirements; feasibility of building reuse; preservation of Centre Court
and Washburne buildings; preservation of local businesses; and level of financial participation
from the URA.
Memo – April 12, 2007:
Staff memo addressed the financial capacity of the Downtown Urban
Renewal District and the other tools to support downtown redevelopment.
CC –April 16, 2007:
Council workshop on downtown development issues. The council heard
presentations from a mix of local developers and interested parties who described development
opportunities, challenges, and policy alternatives.
ERAC – April 19, 2007:
ERAC reviewed the supplemental information submitted by Beam and
KWG. ERAC unanimously voted in favor of moving forward in a positive manner with downtown
development and concluded that the qualifications of both Beam and KWG were acceptable, with a
primary preference for awarding the project to KWG and a secondary preference for awarding the
project to Beam.
CC & URA – April 25, 2007:
Council work session on the financial tools available to support
downtown redevelopment. URA work session reviewed the supplemental information submitted
by Beam and KWG. URA deferred a decision on developer selection until after the scheduled
April 30, 2007 public workshop. However, the URA did provide direction to the Agency Director
to renew the purchase options on the Centre Court building and adjacent parcel (the hole), the
Washburne Building, and the properties under option on the south side of Broadway between Olive
and Charnelton streets (Diva to Shawmed property).
Public Workshop – April 30, 2007
: A public workshop was held to gather input on the Beam and
KWG concepts and the selection options being considered by the URA. The workshop was co-
sponsored by ERAC, Citizens for Public Accountability (CPA), and the Eugene Area Chamber of
th
Commerce. Results of the workshop were included in the council packet for the May 9 meeting.
Project Tour – May 5, 2007:
The Mayor and Councilor Zalenka, along with City staff and
representatives from CPA and the Chamber, toured projects completed by Beam and KWG.
URA – May 9, 2007:
URA considered input received at the April 30, 2007 public workshop and
considered the Beam and KWG responses. Voting on a motion selected a developer was
postponed until the March 14, 2007 work session.
URA – May 14, 2007:
Council selected Beam and KWG, with the following motion:
Move to select Beam and KWG as the developers for the West Broadway project, and to direct
the Agency Director to initiate actions related to agreements with the developers; public
process that includes a citizen advisory committee with an independent urban
planner/facilitator whose work shall be completed by the end of August and presented to the
Agency in September; option agreements; financial tools; and a relocation/transition plan, all
th
consistent with the Agency’s May 9 discussion, with all proposed actions, other than option
agreement renewals and extensions, brought back to the Agency for final authorization. This
motion further directs the Agency Director to secure the services of a qualified urban
planner/facilitator to oversee the public process for the West Broadway development site
footprint, and to establish a West Broadway Development Advisory Committee to work with a
qualified urban planner/facilitator, and the developers, to identify preferred design elements,
mix of uses, public open spaces, options for parking, as well as a transition plan for existing
businesses. The Agency and the Advisory Committee would also seek additional public input.
The Advisory Committee shall be composed of 11 members, appointed by the Mayor after
consulting with the City Council. In addition, the Agency Director shall secure the services of
a qualified consultant to perform market analysis and economic feasibility studies. This
research and analysis will inform the Agency and the Advisory Committee’s deliberations.
Vote:Passed 6:2 (Bettman, Taylor opposed).
June 27, 2007:
?First meeting of the West Broadway Advisory Committee (WBAC),
attended by all 11 members appointed by the Mayor.
July 2, 2007:
? HDR Town Planning, an urban planner/facilitator, was selected from the
pool of four respondents to a Request for Qualifications.
URA – May 29, 2007:
URA work session to review a preliminary West Broadway Financing Plan.
2. Brownfields Economic Development Initiative (BEDI)
IGR – May, 2005:
Intergovernmental Relations Committee approved the Brownfields Grant
application submission.
June 2005:
?Application submitted.
January 2006:
? City received award notice for a $2 million BEDI grant to assist
redevelopment projects within the City's Downtown and Riverfront urban renewal districts.
BEDI funds must be used in conjunction with, and for projects financed by, a HUD Section
108 guaranteed loan commitment.
Memo – February 1, 2006:
Staff memo regarding “Council Assignment Response: Recently-
Awarded Brownfield Grant.”
3. HUD Section 108 Loan Guarantee Program (Section 108)
CDBG-AC – February 1 & March 1, 2006:
In accordance with application requirements, the City’s
Community Development Block Grant Advisory Committee (CDBG-AC) held two public hearings
regarding the Section 108 loan proposal. Opportunity for public comment was also made available
during a 30-day written public comment period. On March 1, 2006, the CDBG-AC unanimously
recommended submittal of the proposed $7,895,000 Section 108 application to HUD, with funding
of future projects to be reviewed by the CDBG Advisory Committee and the City Council.
CC – March 13, 2006:
Council approved Resolution No. 4860 “A resolution authorizing submission
of an application to United States Department of Housing and Urban Development for loan
guarantee assistance and related matters.” Vote: Passed 7:0 (Absent: Taylor).
July, 2006:
? HUD selected the City’s Section 108 application for funding to create a
$9,895,000 loan pool, together with BEDI grant funds, for redevelopment projects within
the Downtown and Riverfront urban renewal districts.
Memo – December 28, 2006:
Staff memo regarding “HUD Section 108 Loan Authorization”
described the public hearing and ordinance process.
CC – February 20, 2007:
Council held a public hearing on the ordinance authorizing the use of
Section 108 as a financing tool.
CC – February 26, 2007:
Council approved the ordinance authorizing the use of the Section 108 as a
financing tool. The non-emergency ordinance established the City’s general ability to borrow for
Section 108 projects with the stipulation that individual projects be approved by council resolution
following a public hearing. Ordinance Number 20376, Council Bill Number 4938 “An ordinance
authorizing Section 108 Revenue Bonds.” Vote: Passed 7:1 (Opposed: Taylor).
Memo – April 9, 2007:
Sue Cutsogeorge alerted council that the issue of a debt policy amendment
th
would be brought to council as a consent calendar item on May 14.
CC – May 14, 2007:
Council approved, on consent calendar, an amendment to the City’s debt
policies regarding conduit financing.
th
Public Comment – June 20 to July 20, 2007:
The 30-day public comment period started on June 20
with an advertisement in the Register Guard.
CDBG-AC – July 10, 2007:
The CDBG-AC met to review the individual project #1. They
recommended “submitting the project application to HUD and moving forward.” Vote: Passed
__:__
CC – July 16, 2007:
Public hearing on the project to be funded from BEDI/HUD 108 funds.
4. Downtown Urban Renewal District
July 1968:
District originally created. The district plan has been amended four times: December
1968, November 1989, June 1998, and most recently in September 2004.
Memo – April 12, 2007:
Staff memo addressed the financial capacity of the Downtown Urban
Renewal District and other tools to support downtown redevelopment. The necessity of a plan
amendment was raised in connection with undertaking a large-scale redevelopment project.
ERAC – April 19, 2007:
ERAC viewed a presentation on the Downtown Urban Renewal District.
ERAC unanimously recommended that the Downtown District Urban Renewal Plan be amended to
increase the district’s financial capacity.
CC & URA – April 25, 2007:
Work session on the financial tools available to support downtown
redevelopment. Staff alerted council to the necessity of amending the district plan to increase
financial capacity.
Public Workshop – April 30, 2007
: A public workshop was held to gather citizen input on the Beam
and KWG concepts and the selection options being considered by the URA. The necessity of
increasing the “maximum indebtedness” in the district was presented to the workshop attendees.
th
The results of the workshop were included in the council packet for the May 9 meeting.
URA – May 29, 2007:
The URA also began the process for making a substantial amendment to the
Downtown Urban Renewal Plan. The Agency passed the following motion:
Move to forward to the Planning Commission and overlapping taxing districts the proposed
amendments to the Downtown Urban Renewal Plan, consistent with the draft plan and report
included in Attachments D and E, except that the amendments shall include an increased
maximum indebtedness of $40 million, for a total of $73 million and an extension of the
termination date from June 30, 2024 to June 30, 2030. Vote: Passed 6:2 (Bettman, Taylor
opposed).
Taxing Districts Notice – June 11, 2007:
The governing bodies of taxing districts impacted by the
plan received notification.
PC – June 18, 2007:
Planning Commission met and reviewed the proposed amendments. They
moved to: “Acknowledge receipt of the plan by the Planning Commission and given the relative
completeness of the citizen involvement process, had no comments to offer.” Vote: Passed 6:0
Memo – June 21, 2007:
Staff memo provided an update on the Plan Amendment process
Public Notice – Week of June 25, 2007:
A postcard notice was mailed to every property owner in
th
Eugene with information on accessing proposed plan amendments and the July 16 public hearing.
LC – June 28, 2007:
City staff met with the Lane County Finance and Audit Committee to review the
proposed plan amendments. The County expressed interest in forwarding some suggested
comments to the City Council for consideration when the plan amendments are considered.
CC – July 16, 2007:
Public hearing on the proposed urban renewal plan amendments.