HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem A: Downtown Financing Strategy
URAB
RBAN ENEWAL GENCY OARD
AIS
GENDA TEM UMMARY
Work Session: Downtown Financing Strategy
Meeting Date: March 8, 2010 Agenda Item Number: A
Department: CS / PDD Staff Contact: Sue Cutsogeorge / Amanda Nobel
www.eugene-or.gov Contact Telephone Number: 541-682-5589
ISSUE STATEMENT
The Urban Renewal Agency (URA) Board/City Council will consider four funding strategies for the
package of downtown projects (Lane Community College (LCC), public safety improvements and
increased police staffing, Veterans Affairs (VA) Willamette Street Clinic, and Park Blocks
improvements for the Farmers’ Market.) The URA Board is asked to begin the process for making a
substantial amendment to the Downtown Urban Renewal Plan, which will include review by the public
and overlapping taxing districts prior to making a final decision in May. If the URA Board does not
select the Downtown Urban Renewal funding option, the City Council will convene a work session to
address the three other funding options.
BACKGROUND
City Council’s discussion of downtown revitalization is part of a larger conversation on local economic
development actions. (See Attachment A for a summary of council discussions and actions over the past
year and Attachment B for a diagram of the strategies and projects.) The most recent council work
session occurred on February 22, 2010, and resulted in direction to the City Manager to present to the
URA Board for its review:
1)A proposed amendment to the Downtown Urban Renewal Plan that would:
a.Restrict the use of tax increment funds and increase the spending limit to pay for:
(i) Broadway Place Garages’ debt, thereby freeing up funds for downtown public
safety and property crime reduction;
th
(ii) Proposed LCC new downtown center at the 10 and Charnelton site (no more than
$8 million);
(iii) Additional improvements to the Park Blocks of no more than $500,000 to enhance
the area for the Farmers’ Market; and
(iv) If the VA pursues PeaceHealth’s Willamette Street site for a new clinic, no more
than $2.5 million.
b.Terminate the Downtown Urban Renewal District as soon as the projects are paid for or
sufficient funds are collected to fund those projects (estimated FY2018/2019).
2)An analysis of non-tax increment financing funding options, including:
a.Existing resources (excluding the facility reserve);
b.General Obligation bond; and
c.Local Option Levy.
Z:\CMO\2010 Council Agendas\M100308\S100308A.doc
Project-Related Items: Attachment C provides project-related information.
ANALYSIS OF FUNDING OPTIONS
A brief description of the four funding options is provided below. A comparison analysis is included
in Attachment D. Example property tax statements for the median Eugene home under each funding
option are in Attachment E.
#1. Existing Resources
(Described more fully in Attachment F)
Under this funding scenario, existing resources include both ongoing proceeds and return of excess
revenues from the Downtown Urban Renewal District; liquidating the Downtown Revitalization Loan
Program; and reprogramming existing General Fund. (See Attachment G for a full explanation of
liquidating the Downtown District.) Existing resources do not include facility reserve or selling other
assets. Summary points:
?
Least impact to tax bills (a $1.66 savings/year for the median home)
?
Funds generated from terminating tax increment financing in the Downtown District would be
utilized for the bulk of the project costs
?
Requires reallocating existing General Fund by $450,000 per year
?
Requires issuance of new debt that will tie-up new General Fund revenue for 20-year term
?
Discontinues Downtown Revitalization Loan Program
?
No vote required
?
Interest cost on debt = $5.2 million
?
Total cost = $24.7 million
#2. General Obligation Bond
(Described more fully in Attachment H)
A General Obligation (GO) Bond is a borrowing or issuance of debt, the repayment of which is backed
by a property tax levied upon all taxable property in the City. Under this funding scenario, the City
would ask voters to approve an $8.2 million GO Bond ($8 million for project plus bond issuance costs)
to fund the LCC project. Funds generated from terminating tax increment financing in the Downtown
District would be utilized for the remaining project costs. Summary points:
?
New cost to taxpayer of $7.34/year for 20 years for the median home
?
Requires issuance of new debt (aside from the GO Bond) that will tie-up new General Fund
revenue for 20-year term
?
Vote required
?
Interest cost on debt = $5.7 million
?
Total cost = $25.5 million
#3. Local Option Levy
(Described more fully in Attachment I)
A local option levy is a limited-term property tax that is paid by all property owners within the City
limits. Under this funding scenario, the City could ask voters to approve a local option levy for $5.7
million over five years to fund additional police officers. Funds generated from terminating tax
increment financing in the Downtown District would be utilized for the remaining project costs.
Summary points:
?
Largest amount of debt issued and largest amount of interest paid of all the funding options
?
New cost to taxpayer of $7.34/year for the median home
?
Levy needs to be approved by voters every five years
?
Requires issuance of new debt that will tie-up new General Fund revenue for 20-year term
Z:\CMO\2010 Council Agendas\M100308\S100308A.doc
?
Interest cost on debt = $7 million
?
Total cost = $26.5 million
#4. Downtown Urban Renewal
(Described more fully in Attachment J)
Urban renewal is a redistribution of existing tax revenue. Under this funding scenario, council would
need to amend the Downtown Urban Renewal Plan to increase the spending limit, which would
continue the current collection and redistribution of tax revenue. The City Manager recommended this
funding option at the February 10, 2010, work session with the following provisions:
a)the district stop functioning after the projects are complete (estimated for FY2018/2019)
b)a review panel of community members prepare an annual report on spending
c)language in the plan be modified to only allow for a limited number of specific projects
d)boundary expansion for the VA.
Summary points:
?
Uses current Downtown District tax increment financing to pay for all project costs
?
Lowest overall cost for the projects because it pays debt back over the shortest period of time
?
No change in taxes (continues $1.66 bond rate increase)
?
Frees up General Fund revenue earlier (13 years earlier than other options)
?
No vote required (could be referred)
?
Interest cost on new debt = $2.2 million
?
Total cost = $21.7 million
RELATED CITY POLICIES
Downtown revitalization and the projects referenced in this material are supported by the Downtown
Plan, the council’s 2009 Vision and Goals, and a number of plans and reports related to downtown.
URA BOARD OPTIONS
1.Adopt the suggested motion to select the Downtown Urban Renewal funding option.
2.Reject the Downtown Urban Renewal funding option and reconvene as the City Council to address
other funding options.
3.Take no action.
AGENCY DIRECTOR’S RECOMMENDATION
The Agency Director recommends moving forward on the downtown revitalization projects using the
Downtown Urban Renewal funding option because it is:
?
Responsive to community desires to improve downtown safety, increase jobs, and support local
businesses, education and the economy;
?
Limits economic impacts to individuals, projects, and the General Fund by not creating a new
tax; by maintaining General Fund flexibility and returning new General Fund revenue earlier;
by minimizing interest costs; and by returning tax revenue to other jurisdictions once the
projects are done
?
Immediate ability to implement and begin improvements this summer
?
Accomplishes downtown goals with resources intended for these purposes
?
Allows for continuation of the Downtown Revitalization Loan Program to assist with local
business and tenant development downtown
Z:\CMO\2010 Council Agendas\M100308\S100308A.doc
The requested action is to forward the proposed amendments to the Downtown Urban Renewal Plan to
the Planning Commission and overlapping taxing districts for their review and input prior to holding a
public hearing before the City Council. (Attachment K includes a draft of the amended plan.
Attachment L includes a report on the plan that sets out financial information about the impact of the
plan. The plan amendment process is described in Attachment J.)
SUGGESTED 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 K and L.
ATTACHMENTS
A.Summary of Council Discussions and Actions on Economic Development and Downtown
B.Downtown Strategies and Projects Diagram
C.Projects Information Update
D.Comparison of the Funding Options
E.Taxpayer Impact for Each Funding Option – Example Tax Statements
F.Existing Resources – Funding Option
G.Downtown District No Longer Collects Tax Increment – Impact
H.General Obligation Bond – Funding Option
I.Local Option Levy – Funding Option
J.Downtown Urban Renewal – Funding Option
K.Proposed Downtown Urban Renewal Plan
L.Report on the Downtown Urban Renewal Plan
FOR MORE INFORMATION
Staff Contact: Sue Cutsogeorge, Finance Director
Telephone: 541-682-5589
Staff e-mail: sue.l.cutsogeorge@ci.eugene.or.us
Staff Contact: Amanda Nobel Flannery, Development Analyst
Telephone: 541-682-5535
Staff e-mail: amanda.nobelflannery@ci.eugene.or.us
Z:\CMO\2010 Council Agendas\M100308\S100308A.doc
ATTACHMENT A
Summary of Council Discussions & Actions on Economic Development & Downtown
Council’s discussion of downtown revitalization is part of a larger conversation on local economic
development actions. Part I is a summary of those discussions and decisions from the past year. Part II
is a summary of public involvement on downtown revitalization.
PART I
February 22, 2010: Council resumed discussion of the remaining motions that were already on the
table from the February 10 work session and voted as follows:
1.d. Present to the Urban Renewal Agency Board for its review a proposed amendment to the
downtown urban renewal plan that would 1) restrict the use of tax increment funds and
increase the spending limit to pay for (i) the Broadway Place Garages’ debt, thereby freeing up
funds for additional police officers for downtown public safety and property crime reduction,
and (ii) not more than three other projects if their inclusion is approved by later motions, and 2)
terminate the downtown urban renewal district as soon as the projects are paid for or sufficient
funds are collected to fund those projects. In addition, present to the council, at the same time
that the City Manager brings forward a draft amendment to the urban renewal plan, an analysis
of both a local option levy and a general obligation bond, instead of tax increment financing, to
fund the specified projects. (Passed 6:2 Brown, Taylor opposed)
1.e. Bring back to council this spring a proposed ordinance requiring vacant properties to pay
Downtown Service District fees; and (Passed 7:1 Clark opposed)
1.f. Work with Downtown Eugene, Inc. and the Chamber of Commerce on partnerships and other
funding strategies with a goal of achieving $350,000 in revenue. (Passed 6:2 Brown, Taylor
opposed)
1g: Direct the City Manager to limit new annual expenditures for the downtown safety initiative
to $2.2 million. (Passed 7:1 Clark opposed)
th
2. Include for the proposed downtown Lane Community College development at 10 and
Charnelton $8 million as part of a proposed urban renewal plan amendment, local option levy,
and general obligation bond, a portion of which can facilitate a public plaza or open space area
at that site and potentially a downtown public safety substation. (Passed 6:2 Brown, Taylor
opposed)
3. Include as part of a proposed urban plan amendment, local option levy, and general obligation
bond, an additional $500,000 for improvements to the Parks Blocks to enhance that area for the
Farmers’ Market. (Passed 5:3 Brown, Solomon, Taylor opposed)
4. If the VA pursues PeaceHealth’s Willamette Street site for a new VA Clinic, include the VA Clinic
as part of a proposed urban renewal plan amendment, local option levy, and general obligation
bond. (Passed 6:2 Brown, Taylor opposed)
5. Pursue additional grant opportunities for steam conversion and electric vehicle charging
stations. (Passed 8:0)
6. To look for all other possible sources of funding for the LCC project, aside from a GO bond or
levy and excluding the use of Facility Reserves, and including the Urban Renewal funds we
currently have. (Passed 7:1 Brown opposed)
February 10, 2010:
Council reviewed the City Manager’s recommendation for downtown projects and
funding options. Council adopted three motions prior to postponing the remainder of the discussion
to February 22.
1. a. Use $100,000 of one-time existing urban renewal dollars to purchase and install additional
lighting downtown and $100,000 of one-time dollars (½ from telecomm and ½ from existing
urban renewal) to purchase automated behavior crime reporting software and cameras, but
only after the Council approves the Manager’s plan for number, location, use and on-going costs
of the cameras, after considering the cameras expected effectiveness in deterring crime.
(passed 8:0)
1. b. Pursue use of Springfield jail beds to include the exchange for Springfield’s use of Eugene Fire’s
Training Center. (Passed 5:3 Brown, Taylor, Zelenka opposed)
1. c. Include in the Manager’s proposed FY11 budget $500,000 of the City’s HSC contribution for
partial funding of the downtown safety initiative, including additional services like Cahoots.
(passed 8:0)
Moved to postpone (Passed 6:2 Brown, Taylor opposed)
January 11, 2010: Council reviewed funding options and discussed connections between options and
seven specific projects.
December 14, 2009: Council reviewed eight specific projects to implement the four strategies for
downtown revitalization.
October 21, 2009: Council approved continuing downtown discussions according to a set
revitalization process and requested staff to return with specific projects and potential tools to
implement four strategies for downtown revitalization.
September 14, 2009: On September 14, council reviewed initial results of a downtown revitalization
survey conducted by Strategy Research Institute. Similar to the survey conducted the prior year for
the road bond, the downtown survey was conducted to provide specific information on the level of
community support for particular policies and actions under consideration. The full set of survey
questions, response percentages, and a sample cross tabulation by council ward were attached to a
memo for council dated October 1.
August 10, 2009: At a workshop, council discussed and categorized desired downtown outcomes
after reviewing a summary of the current downtown-related policies, plans, and prior public
involvement efforts. Following the workshop, staff compiled councilors’ outcomes into collective
statements using the model from the City Council Consensus Workshop Report February 6-7,
2009 prepared by Consensus Associates.
July 8, 2009: Council held a follow-up work session on methods to reinforce existing programs and
businesses downtown and to create a series of stimulus actions to strengthen the City’s role in
community economic development. No formal action was taken; however, council did express
interest in talking about desired downtown outcomes prior to resuming discussion on the various
tools available for achieving those outcomes.
April 13 & May 27, 2009: Council completed an initial review of possible local stimulus actions on
April 13. On May 27, council approved actions on three economic development related items: 1) sale
of surplus City real estate for identified development projects, 2) initiation of amendments to extend
the expiration period for approved land use applications, and 3) consideration of an amendment to
the Downtown Urban Renewal Plan. [On November 9, council approved extending the life of
approved land use applications to help projects that may have stalled during difficult economic
conditions. The ordinance provides a one-time, automatic three-year extension for certain land use
applications that have already gone through a public process and been approved by the City. Council
received a memo on strategies for the sale of surplus property dated December 3.]
January 2009: Council unanimously approved a City of Eugene Mayor and City Council Economic
Development Statement.
PART II – Summary of Public Involvement on Downtown Revitalization
February 2010: As of February 25, the Vibrant Eugene website had 852 visitors. The Vibrant Eugene
online discussion board has 8 discussion topics posted for community input.
January 2010: Staff held two open house events to share information and gather feedback on the
potential projects (January 6 and 7) and gathered additional feedback through an online survey. The
LCC project received the most support. The downtown parking improvements project received the
least amount of support.
On January 28, ERAC considered the projects and supported a priority ranking of LCC, Business
Assistance & Housing, VA Clinic, and Safety, as the top four projects. Staff also presented the projects
to the Sustainability Commission on January 20 and attended the January 21 Downtown
Neighborhood Association meeting to provide an update on council’s progress.
November 2009: Vibrant Eugene website and surveys were promoted at First Friday Artwalk with an
incentive of Hult Center ticket drawing for survey respondents. The local KVAL news station held a
televised town hall on downtown revitalization and safety.
December 2010: ERAC met to review proposed downtown projects. The Vibrant Eugene website
added an online community discussion board (http://vibranteugene.activeboard.com/index.spark).
October 2009: Vibrant Eugene website (www.vibranteugene.org) was launched providing
information on downtown revitalization efforts and opportunities, an on-line survey to collect public
input and a Downtown Eugene twitter (http://twitter.com/DowntownEugene).
ERAC reviewed the downtown revitalization survey results and the proposed downtown strategies of
jobs and redevelopment, safety, parking, and arts and amenities. The Planning Commission reviewed
the downtown revitalization public involvement plan and survey results.
September 2009: A random sample telephone survey on downtown revitalization was conducted in
late August and early September. Results from the survey mirrored the council’s desire to focus on
specific projects as part of a downtown revitalization plan. Survey results indicated that 86% of
respondents support the expansion of LCC’s downtown campus, 85% support a Veteran’s Medical
clinic, and 70% of respondents support matching grants to improve local businesses. After hearing a
specific list of potential downtown revitalization projects, 70% of respondents supported this form of
economic development, and 53% reported supporting subsidies for economic development
downtown. Other priorities for downtown revitalization mentioned in the survey included
adequate/free parking, greater police presence, and easing regulations/providing incentives for
locating businesses downtown.
The Planning Commission received an update on downtown revitalization and reviewed a summary
of downtown related plans.
July 2009: City Manager presented at a Downtown Neighborhood Association meeting.
Previous years: The City has done public outreach on the potential redevelopment of downtown
including creating the Downtown Vision, Downtown Plan, and the West Broadway Advisory
Committee Recommendations.
ATTACHMENT B
Downtown Strategies and Projects Diagram
The eight projects discussed in December are grounded in council’s recent downtown collective statements and strategies; public
input from the downtown revitalization survey; prior public involvement; and planning documents. They are designed to contribute to
boosting the local economy and fostering a vibrant downtown through the four downtown strategies (jobs and redevelopment, safety,
parking, and attractions and amenities). The projects shown below were a starting point for public and council discussions and
adjusted based on subsequent conversations.
Foster a Vibrant
Downtown
& Boost Local Economy
Jobs & Redevelopment
Safety
Parking
Attractions &
Strategy
Strategy
Strategy
Amenities Strategy
Rebranding, Arts & Entertainment
Green Beam / Downtown
LCC VA Clinic Business Assistance
Easy Payments, District
Infrastructure Centre Court Safety Initiative
& Housing
& Free Parking
ATTACHMENT C
Projects Information Update
Farmers’ market stated need – In January, staff met with the Executive Director of Lane County
Farmers’ Market to discuss the current location at the Park Blocks. At that time, several specific
improvements were mentioned that would enable the Farmers’ Market to stay and grow at the Park
Blocks. These included the following:
th
1.Street improvements along 8Avenue, such as narrowing the street or curb extensions
th
(without closing 8 Avenue, since that action would limit the transportation/access options)
2.Public toilets (or even portable facilities) in the back corner on the north end of Park Street
3.Relocating or modifying the wall at the south-east corner, behind the Hey Bales stand
4.Electrical upgrades and improved access particularly along Park Street
5.Improvements in the right of way along Park Street to enable the farmers' booths to be more
compatible with nearby businesses
6.Free parking for customers in the Butterfly Lot
7.Free parking for the Farmers’ Market (continuing the policy recently initiated)
8.Addressing the customer "bottleneck" on the south-west corner, such as by relocating trees
or adding permeable pavers
9.Landscape changes or additional maintenance of the grassy areas
10.Exploring the possibility of expanding Farmers' Market activities into the Free Speech Plaza
LCC’s Projected Need – LCC has secured $17.5 million derived from their local bond measure ($9
million), State matching funds ($8 million), and a federal energy-related grant ($500,000). The
pending feasibility analysis will include a detailed project cost estimate (not including land
acquisition). LCC is seeking New Market Tax Credits, potential federal stimulus dollars, and $8 million
from the City to help complete the project financing. LCC has indicated that debt financing for the
education building is not possible because there are no operating funds in their education program
budget to pay debt service.
Status of the Veterans Affairs Clinic Relocation – The VA received 5 responses to its December
request for proposals. The VA has scheduled site visits during the first two weeks of March. By mid-
June the VA will issue a “solicitation” for one or more selected sites for responders to provide design
and financing information. The lease award is estimated for the last quarter of 2010 or the first
quarter of 2011. Occupancy is targeted to December 2012.
th
The 12 and Willamette site is only one of the possible locations and the City has limited influence on
th
site selection. The City can, however, help make the 12 and Willamette site more competitive in the
selection process by helping to fund energy upgrades and building/infrastructure improvements.
ATTACHMENT D
Comparison of the Funding Options
($ in millions)
Existing Downtown
GO Bond Local Option Levy
Resources Urban Renewal
SOURCES OF FUNDS
Urban Renewal – Existing Cash $2.4 $2.4 $2.4 $4.0
Urban Renewal – Future Revenue 1 -- -- -- 9.1
Liquidate the Downtown Loan Program 1.9 -- -- --
New Debt Paid from General Fund or Urban Renewal 7.0 1.2 9.5 7.7
General Fund Revenue 1 8.6 8.8 8.9 --
Reallocate Existing General Fund Services 4.8 -- -- --
Debt Paid by New Tax – GO Bond for LCC -- 8.2 -- --
Local Option Levy for Police -- -- 5.7 --
Parking Fund for Police FY19 2 -- -- -- 0.9
Interest on GO Bonds from Property Taxes 1 -- 4.9 -- --
Total Sources $24.7 $25.5 $26.5 $21.7
USES OF FUNDS
Pay for LCC, VA, Farmers’ Market $11.0 $11.0 $11.0 $11.0
Pay for Police Officers thru FY19 2 7.3 7.3 7.3 7.3
Legal/Debt Issuance/Administration 1.2 1.3 1.2 1.2
Interest Cost on New Debt 5.2 5.9 7.0 2.2
Total Uses $24.7 $25.5 $26.5 $21.7
Reallocation of Existing General Fund – annual amount $0.45 -- -- --
Voter Approval No Required Required Could be referred
Amount of GO Bond / 5 Year Levy (thru FY19) -- $8.2 $5.7 --
Change to Median Taxpayer – annual amount 3 ($1.66) $7.34 $7.34 --
Year $ Returned to General Fund for Other Purposes 4 2032 2032 2032 2019
Downtown Loan Program Status Discontinued Continued Continued Continued
Note: Cost of funding police officers, and associated revenues, shown through FY19 only. FY19 was chosen as the ending point to match the expected
ending point for tax increment financing.
1
Excludes the principal on debt to avoid double-counting.
2
For UR scenario, district pays for parking debt (principal & interest) through FY18. Parking Funds pay General Fund for police officers through FY19.
3
Per the County Assessor, a taxpayer with an assessed value of $158,477 in FY10, with a total tax bill of $2,938.
4
General Fund bonds repaid over 20 years. Local Option Levy voted on every 5 years.
ATTACHMENT E
Taxpayer Impact for Each Funding Option – Example Tax Statements
Below are four example property tax statements, one for each of the funding options, based on the median home value
in Eugene. A comparison of the taxpayer impact is also included as the last page of this attachment. These example tax
bills are for information and comparison purposes only with the assumption that the change in bonds or levy taxes
and/or urban renewal occurs in the current year. The actual timing of tax bill impacts will be different due to election
requirements and year-to-year changes in assessed values. Note that these examples do not take into account the
impact on Measure 5 compression, if any, on school taxes.
7-1-2010 TO 6-30-2011 REAL PROPERTY TAX STATEMENT
LANE COUNTY 125 E. 8TH AVE. EUGENE, OR 97401
(541) 682-4321
ACCOUNT NUMBER: 10101010
SITUS ADDRESS: 1862 EUGENE ST.
EUGENE, OR 97401
PROP: ACRES: 0.10
TCA:
MAP:
1862 EUGENE ST.
EUGENE, OR 97401
CURRENT TAX BY DISTRICT
VALUES AS OF 01/01/2009 LAST YEARTHIS YEAR
REAL MARKET VALUE
CE Eugene School District 748.99
LAND
CE Eugene School District LO 236.61
STRUCTURES
CE Lane Community College 97.75
TOTAL
CE Lane Education Service Dist 35.24
M5 SPECIALLY ASSESSED VALUE
M5 REAL MKT VALUE
Education Totals:
1,118.59
ASSESSED VALUE 158,447
EXEMPTIONS
CE City of Eugene 1,105.96
TAXABLE VALUE
158,447
CE City of Eugene - LO Library 36.60
CE Lane County 201.96
MORTGAGE CO:
Eugene Urban Renewal Downtown 0.00
LOAN #:
Eugene Urban Renewal Riverfront 11.75
2/3 Payment with 1/3 Payment
Full Payment with General Government Totals:
1,356.27
2% Discount No Discount
3% Discount
CE City of Eugene Bond I 51.34
CE City of Eugene Bond II 135.68
CE Eugene School District Bond I 90.60
CE Eugene School District Bond II 128.10
Tax Statement With
CE Lane Community College Bond (II) 37.00
CE Lane County Bond 18.51
Existing Resources
Bonds Totals: 461.22
(tax increment is terminated)
2009 - 2010 TAXES 2,936.08
(Example ONLY)
2,936.08
TOTAL TAX
7-1-2010 TO 6-30-2011 REAL PROPERTY TAX STATEMENT
LANE COUNTY 125 E. 8TH AVE. EUGENE, OR 97401
(541) 682-4321
ACCOUNT NUMBER: 10101010
SITUS ADDRESS: 1862 EUGENE ST.
EUGENE, OR 97401
PROP: ACRES: 0.10
TCA:
MAP:
1862 EUGENE ST.
EUGENE, OR 97401
CURRENT TAX BY DISTRICT
VALUES AS OF 01/01/2009 THIS YEAR
REAL MARKET VALUE
CE Eugene School District 748.99
LAND
CE Eugene School District LO 236.61
STRUCTURES
CE Lane Community College 97.75
TOTAL
CE Lane Education Service Dist 35.24
M5 SPECIALLY ASSESSED VALUE
M5 REAL MKT VALUE
Education Totals:
1,118.59
ASSESSED VALUE 158,447
EXEMPTIONS
CE City of Eugene 1,105.96
TAXABLE VALUE
158,447
CE City of Eugene - LO Library 36.60
CE Lane County 201.96
MORTGAGE CO:
Eugene Urban Renewal Downtown 0.00
LOAN #:
Eugene Urban Renewal Riverfront 11.75
2/3 Payment with 1/3 Payment
General Government Totals:
1,356.27
Full Payment with
2% Discount No Discount
3% Discount
CE City of Eugene Bond I 51.34
CE City of Eugene Bond II 135.68
CE City of Eugene – DT Bond 9.00
CE Eugene School District Bond I 90.60
CE Eugene School District Bond II 128.10
CE Lane Community College Bond (II) 37.00
CE Lane County Bond 18.51
Tax Statement With
Bonds Totals: 470.22
General Obligation Bond
2009 - 2010 TAXES 2,945.08
(Example ONLY)
2,945.08
TOTAL TAX
7-1-2010 TO 6-30-2011 REAL PROPERTY TAX STATEMENT
LANE COUNTY 125 E. 8TH AVE. EUGENE, OR 97401
(541) 682-4321
ACCOUNT NUMBER: 10101010
SITUS ADDRESS: 1862 EUGENE ST.
EUGENE, OR 97401
PROP: ACRES: 0.10
TCA:
MAP:
1862 EUGENE ST.
EUGENE, OR 97401
CURRENT TAX BY DISTRICT
VALUES AS OF 01/01/2009 THIS YEAR
REAL MARKET VALUE
CE Eugene School District 748.99
LAND
CE Eugene School District LO 236.61
STRUCTURES
CE Lane Community College 97.75
TOTAL
CE Lane Education Service Dist 35.24
M5 SPECIALLY ASSESSED VALUE
M5 REAL MKT VALUE
Education Totals:
1,118.59
ASSESSED VALUE 158,447
EXEMPTIONS
CE City of Eugene 1,105.96
TAXABLE VALUE
158,447
CE City of Eugene - LO Library 36.60
CE City of Eugene – DT Levy 9.00
MORTGAGE CO:
LOAN #:
CE Lane County 201.96
Eugene Urban Renewal Downtown 0.00
Eugene Urban Renewal Riverfront 11.75
2/3 Payment with 1/3 Payment
Full Payment with
2% Discount No Discount
3% Discount
General Government Totals:
1,365.27
CE City of Eugene Bond I 51.34
CE City of Eugene Bond II 135.68
CE Eugene School District Bond I 90.60
CE Eugene School District Bond II 128.10
CE Lane Community College Bond (II) 37.00
Tax Statement with
CE Lane County Bond 18.51
Local Option Levy
Bonds Totals: 461.22
(Example ONLY)
2009 - 2010 TAXES 2,945.08
2,945.08
TOTAL TAX
7-1-2010 TO 6-30-2011 REAL PROPERTY TAX STATEMENT
LANE COUNTY 125 E. 8TH AVE. EUGENE, OR 97401
(541) 682-4321
ACCOUNT NUMBER: 10101010
SITUS ADDRESS: 1862 EUGENE ST.
EUGENE, OR 97401
PROP: ACRES: 0.10
TCA:
MAP:
1862 EUGENE ST.
EUGENE, OR 97401
CURRENT TAX BY DISTRICT
VALUES AS OF 01/01/2009 THIS YEAR
REAL MARKET VALUE
CE Eugene School District 739.20
LAND
CE Eugene School District LO 236.61
STRUCTURES
CE Lane Community College 96.72
TOTAL
CE Lane Education Service Dist 34.87
M5 SPECIALLY ASSESSED VALUE
M5 REAL MKT VALUE
Education Totals:
1,107.40
ASSESSED VALUE 158,447
EXEMPTIONS
CE City of Eugene 1,094.17
TAXABLE VALUE
158,447
CE City of Eugene - LO Library 36.60
MORTGAGE CO:
CE Lane County 199.82
LOAN #:
Eugene Urban Renewal Downtown 27.03
Eugene Urban Renewal Riverfront 11.75
2/3 Payment with 1/3 Payment
Full Payment with
2% Discount No Discount General Government Totals:
1,369.37
3% Discount
CE City of Eugene Bond I 51.35
CE City of Eugene Bond II 135.68
CE Eugene School District Bond I 90.43
CE Eugene School District Bond II 128.10
CE Lane Community College Bond (II) 37.00
Tax Statement with
CE Lane County Bond 18.41
Bonds Totals: 460.97
Downtown Urban Renewal
2,937.74
2009 - 2010 TAXES
Current Situation
2,937.74
TOTAL TAX
(Example ONLY)
Below is a comparison of the taxpayer impact of the four funding options.
FUNDING OPTIONS
General Local Downtown
Existing Resources *
Obligation Bond Option Levy Urban Renewal
CE Eugene School District
748.99 748.99 748.99 739.20
CE Eugene School District LO
236.61 236.61 236.61 236.61
CE Lane Community College
97.75 97.75 97.75 96.72
CE Lane Education Service Dist
35.24 35.24 35.24 34.87
Education Totals:
1,118.59 1,118.59 1,118.59 1,107.40
CE City of Eugene
1,105.96 1,105.96 1,105.96 1,094.17
CE City of Eugene – LO Library
36.60 36.60 36.60 36.60
CE City of Eugene – DT Levy
9.00
0.00 0.00 0.00
CE Lane County
201.96 201.96 201.96 199.82
Eugene Urban Renewal Downtown
27.03
0.00 0.00 0.00
Eugene Urban Renewal Riverfront
11.75 11.75 11.75 11.75
General Government Totals:
1,356.27 1,356.271,365.271,369.37
CE City of Eugene Bond I
51.34 51.34 51.34 51.35
CE City of Eugene Bond II
135.68 135.68 135.68 135.68
CE City of Eugene – DT Bond
9.00
0.00 0.00 0.00
CE Eugene School District Bond I
90.60 90.60 90.60 90.43
CE Eugene School District Bond II
128.10 128.10 128.10 128.10
CE LCC Bond (II)
37.00 37.00 37.00 37.00
CE Lane County Bond
18.51 18.51 18.51 18.41
Bond Totals:
461.22 470.22461.22460.97
TOTAL TAX 2,945.08 2,937.74
2,936.08 2,945.08
* Existing resources do not include facility reserve. This funding option does, however, require cutting the general fund by $480,000 per year.
ATTACHMENT F
Existing Resources – Funding Option
(excluding the facility reserve)
Under this funding scenario, existing resources include the proceeds from terminating the downtown
urban renewal district tax increment financing, liquidating the Downtown Revitalization Loan Program
(DRLP), and reprogramming existing General Fund. Existing resources do not include facility reserve or
selling other assets. Further information is provided in the chart below and followed by other
information specific to this funding option. A simplified cash flow is provided at the end. (Note: The
chart format is the same in each funding option attachment.)
Sources of Funds Terminating tax increment financing in the Downtown District generates
o
several funding sources (See Attachment G):
New on-going property tax revenue to pay for
-
?
on-going services
?
annual payments on a $7 million General Fund bond
Existing excess cash returned to City - $1.5 million
-
Amount remaining under the $33 million cap - $0.9 million
-
Liquidating the DRLP - $1.9 million
o
Reprogramming existing General Fund services to free up $450,000 per year for
o
part of Downtown Safety Initiative (officers)
Total sources through FY19 ~ $24.7 million
o
See Section A below for items that are not included in this funding option.
Uses of Funds All recommended projects
o
Police officers are funded from new General Fund property tax revenue on-
o
going at $740,000 starting in FY11
Total uses through FY19 ~ $24.7 million
o
How it Works See below for a cash flow projection that shows how the various sources are
available to pay for project and on-going costs.
Implementation Interest on debt ~$5.2 million
o
Costs Bond issuance costs ~$150,000
o
Project legal and professional services ~$150,000
o
Project administration through FY19 ~$900,000
o
Impact on tax Compared to the current situation, the average taxpayer would pay $1.66 less
payers per year under this scenario than if Downtown Urban Renewal were to continue
operating. (See Attachment G section 3 for more information and Attachment E
for example tax statement.)
Effect on M5 tax For schools – Staff has requested information from the tax assessor on this
o
rate cap and will forward to council when received
For general governments – small additional amount available under the tax
o
rate cap; since there is no compression currently, no impact on revenues to
city or county
For bonded debt – not included in M5 tax rate cap, so no effect
o
Financial Impact on Redistributes existing Downtown Urban Renewal cash (one-time)
o
taxing districts Ends ongoing redistribution of taxes to Downtown Urban Renewal District
o
(See Attachment G and L for projected amounts available annually if tax
increment financing were to be terminated.)
Timing/Process Collection of tax increment funds would cease as of FY11 and taxing districts
o
would receive one-time and on-going property tax revenues
Downtown Urban Renewal District may use remaining amount under the cap
o
on projects included in the current district plan and approved by the URA
Board.
Downtown District administration of Beam project is assumed to occur
o
through FY11 under any scenario.
Voting/Elections n/a
Unfunded Items No more downtown loans
Other Impacts New General Fund revenue freed up from tax increment financing termination
may not provide sufficient funding to pay for inflation on the cost of police
officers over time
Additional Information
A.Items not Included in the Existing Resources Funding Option
1.Facility Reserve (per council direction on February 22, 2010)
2.LCC Related Land Values
LCC’s existing property: LCC’s current downtown center is on Willamette between
-
thth
10 & 11 avenues and was appraised at $1.2 million. LCC needs to occupy the
existing building until the new building is complete. The timing associated with
selling the property after it has been vacated does not generate (or guarantee) funds
that can be used for construction of the new building. LCC has asked the URA to
commit to purchase the existing property up front so that the proceeds can be used
for the new project, which will be part of the March 10 URA Board work session. If
acquired, the property would be redeveloped for either private or public uses
pending future action by the URA Board.
th
URA’s 10 & Charnelton Site: LCC’s projected financing gap includes zero land cost;
-
therefore, granting the property to LCC does not reduce the $8 million need.
3.Sale of City/URA Assets: The sales process (including council actions, advertising,
negotiating, and closing) and market uncertainty related to the economy make it
difficult to rely on sale proceeds in time to meet LCC’s project needs. It may take a long
period to identify a buyer and commitment of a specific amount of project funding
based on a future sales price could be very volatile in this economy.
How it Works – Cash Flow Projections
The following chart shows a rough estimate of how this scenario would work.
Cash Flow Details
Use Existing Resources to Fund Projects and Eliminate Downtown Urban Renewal District Tax Increment Financing
Note: In order to show the full picture of what happens over time in this scenario, this cash flow double-counts debt (principal) proceeds: first, as an amount
available to spend on projects, and second, as the debt is repaid over time.
Debt Pmts
$ In Millions FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20-31 Totals
SOURCES
Beginning Balance $0.0 $0.7 $0.4 $0.1 $0.1 $0.2 $0.3 $0.4 $0.5 $0.0 $0.0
Urban Renewal Tax Increment Funds $4.3 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $4.3
General Fund Revenue $1.3 $1.4 $1.4 $1.5 $1.5 $1.6 $1.6 $1.7 $1.7 $7.3 $21.1
Debt Issued $7.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $7.0
Local Option Levy Proceeds $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0
GO Bond Property Taxes for Debt Service Pmts $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0
Total Sources $12.6 $2.1 $1.8 $1.6 $1.7 $1.8 $1.9 $2.1 $2.3 $7.3 $32.4
USES
LCC, VA, Farmers Market Project Costs $11.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $11.0
Police Officers $0.7 $0.8 $0.8 $0.8 $0.8 $0.8 $0.9 $0.9 $0.9 $0.0 $7.3
Debt Issuance, Legal & Professional Services $0.2 $0.1 $0.1 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.3
Project Administration $0.0 $0.2 $0.2 $0.1 $0.1 $0.1 $0.1 $0.1 $0.1 $0.0 $0.7
Debt Service $0.0 $0.6 $0.6 $0.6 $0.6 $0.6 $0.6 $0.6 $0.6 $7.3 $12.2
Total Uses $11.9 $1.6 $1.6 $1.5 $1.5 $1.5 $1.5 $1.5 $1.6 $7.3 $31.5
Ending Balance $0.7 $0.4 $0.1 $0.1 $0.2 $0.3 $0.4 $0.5 $0.7
Note: Numbers may not add due to rounding.
ATTACHMENT G
Downtown District No Longer Collects Tax Increment – Impact
If the spending limit for the Downtown Urban Renewal Plan is not increased, the Downtown
District will:
1)stop collecting tax increment funds, changing the on-going distribution of taxes;
2)provide any remaining tax increment cash in the Downtown District to the County for
redistribution to the overlapping taxing districts (one-time funds); and
3)result in a very small reduction to the tax rates for bonded debt.
Below is an explanation and the estimated amounts for each of the three types of impacts.
1
1. On-Going Impact
The chart below sets out the estimated amount of forgone revenue that each of the
overlapping taxing districts experienced in the current fiscal year as a result of the Downtown
Urban Renewal District. These estimates take into account the effect of the early payment
discount and delinquent taxpayers on revenues to each taxing district.
Measure 5 Category District/Purpose Amount
Schools * Eugene School District 4j $550,000
Eugene School District Local Option Levy 0
Lane Community College 70,000
Lane ESD 30,000
Total School Taxes 650,000
General Government City of Eugene 810,000
City of Eugene Library Local Option Levy 0
Lane County 150,000
Total General Government 960,000
Bonded Debt** City of Eugene Bonds I 40,000
City of Eugene Bonds II 0
Lane County Bonds 10,000
Eugene School District 4j Bonds I 70,000
Eugene School District 4j Bonds II 0
Lane Community College Bonds II 0
Total Bonded Debt 120,000
Total for All Districts $1,730,000
* Amounts listed for schools do not represent the net impact to their respective operating budgets. See “Impact on
Schools” section below.
**Bonds I were approved by voters prior to October 2001; Bonds II were approved by voters after October 2001.
See item #3 for “Bond Rate Impact.”
1
The impact of the Downtown Urban Renewal District on overlapping taxing districts is explained in the report on
the plan (Attachment L Chapter 9).
If the City of Eugene terminated tax increment financing in the Downtown District, the City’s
General Fund would receive an estimated $810,000 in additional property taxes, using current
year data. The Downtown District pays the General Fund for a portion of the City’s shared
overhead services, such as payroll, accounts payable, human resources and information
services. The General Fund would lose that on-going revenue if tax increment financing were
terminated. The FY10 amount paid by the Downtown District is $17,500, so that is subtracted
from the additional property taxes received in order to determine the net benefit to the
General Fund. (For the purposes of this AIS, the on-going amount will bond for $7 million in the
“Existing Resources” option, $1.2 million in the “GO Bond” option, and $9.5 million in the “Local
Option Levy” option. See Attachments F, H, I, and J.)
Impact on Schools
The net impact of the Downtown District on local schools is a loss of about $31,000 per year
(based on FY10) after accounting for the State’s system for school funding. The State
determines how much money must be allocated for the education of each pupil across the
state. If the money is not available from local property taxes, the State will make up the
difference. In FY10, the Downtown District diverted $650,000 of local property taxes that
would have gone to local education. The State made up the difference.
If the Downtown District had not diverted those funds, the State would have had the additional
$650,000 to allocate as it chose. In other words, the State could have chosen to allocate the
money to education or to some other budgetary priority. Had the State chosen to keep the
money in education, some of that money would have returned to Eugene schools based on the
applicable statewide school funding formula. Under the formula, Eugene School District 4j
would have received about $20,000; Lane Community College would have received about
$10,000; and Lane Education Service District would have received about $1,000.
As a result of the Downtown District, the State provided a net $629,000 for spending in Eugene
in FY10. Without the Downtown District tax increment financing, those funds would likely have
been used to fund school districts throughout the state instead.
Measure 5 & Compression: The taxes generated by the local option levy for Eugene School
District 4j are not directly affected by termination of downtown urban renewal tax revenue
collections, but there may be an indirect impact from Measure 5 compression on the levy. Staff
has asked the Tax Assessor to provide information on this topic; that information will be
provided to the URA Board/City Council when it is available.
Impact on Tax Bills and Tax Rates
The impact of urban renewal is a redistribution of taxes from schools, city, and county line
items into an urban renewal line item. (A detailed explanation and example is shown in the
Report on the Plan included in Attachment L.) If the Downtown District tax increment financing
was terminated, there would be some shifting of the amounts on the line items within an
individual tax bill, and a small decrease in bonded debt tax rates. (See Section 3 below.)
2. One-Time Impact
Below is information on the remaining cash in the Downtown District that would be provided to
the County for redistribution to the overlapping taxing districts (one-time funds).
History of one-time funds
In 1998, council decided to finance the library with Downtown Urban Renewal funds. The least
expensive way to do this was to use City of Eugene borrowing, which was repaid by downtown
urban renewal funds. At that time, the urban renewal system was changing significantly and
revenues were unpredictable. Since the City's General Fund was back-up in the event that
urban renewal revenues were short of being able to pay the bonds, the borrowing was
structured to have a cushion that would protect the General Fund. A debt service reserve fund
was also maintained to protect the General Fund from having to pay the debt service on these
bonds. Council approved these fiscally responsible measures for financing the library, and
safeguarding the General Fund.
The cushion that was built into the library financing plan was used to pay for a reduced level of
administration in the District, and to pay for additional cash contributions to the library project.
The total contribution from the Downtown District to the library project was about $25 million
of the $36 million, representing nearly 70 percent of the capital cost for the new Library.
In 2004, with the construction of the library complete, the City Council amended the Downtown
Urban Renewal Plan to:
allow funding for other activities, including economic revitalization strategies;
o
extend the termination date to June 30, 2024;
o
add the Downtown Revitalization Loan Program (DRLP);
o
create a public advisory committee to advise staff (Eugene Redevelopment Advisory
o
Committee);
add the requirement for specific URA Board approval of projects greater than $250,000
o
(other than loans); and
require a public hearing for minor amendments to the plan of $100,000 (Section 1200, C
o
of the existing Plan).
Current Estimate of One-time Funds Available from no Longer Collecting Tax Increment
The chart below sets out the current estimate of the amount of funds that could be available
for redistribution to the overlapping taxing districts, if the Downtown District stopped collecting
tax increment in FY11. This is an estimate based on the FY10 budget, current expectations
about the items in the budget, and projected activity in FY11 that will be needed to carry out
the Beam project. As shown, by the time administration of the Beam project, plus additionally
approved projects to reach the $33 million cap, are undertaken, an estimated $3.2 million is left
in tax increment funds for the Downtown District (“Reserves/Amount available” FY11).
Resources
FY10 FY11
Beginning Working Capital $5,896,382 $4,357,039
Property Taxes 1,730,000 0
Interest Earnings 19,000 90,000
Total Resources $7,645,382 $4,447,039
Requirements
FY10 FY11
Administration $330,000 $330,000
Beam Project 265,000 0
Downtown Initiative 150,000 0
Miscellaneous Projects 134,593 0
Remaining Amount Under $33 Million Cap 0 850,000
Library Debt Service 2,408,750 0
Total Expenditures 3,288,343 1,230,000
Reserves/Amount Available 4,357,039 3,267,039
Total Requirements $7,645,382 $4,447,039
Amount Remaining Under Maximum Indebtedness Cap
If the Downtown District were to stop collecting tax increment funds, an estimated $850,000
would be left under the current $33 million maximum indebtedness cap. This is more than the
$0.5 million that was estimated last year at this time because it is updated for:
1)amounts actually spent in FY09, which was a little less than expected;
2)FY10 expectations, which include no expenditures for the WG project ($440,000), and
additional expenditures for the Downtown Safety Initiative projects approved by council
($150,000)
Distribution of One-Time Tax Increment to Overlapping Districts
State law governs the redistribution among the taxing districts of any funds available when tax
increment financing is terminated. The County Assessor provided a chart that shows the
percentages that each district would receive, based on the current year’s information. (The
percentages change each year.) Based on an estimated $3.2 million available for redistribution,
the chart shows how the dollars would be split if the redistribution was based on current year
percentages. These are one-time dollars that would be available for the districts and purposes
shown.
District and Purpose Percentage Amount
City of Eugene – operating funds 47.0% $1,530,000
Lane County – operating funds 8.6% 280,000
Eugene School District 4j – operating funds * 31.9% 1,010,000
Lane Community College – operating funds
4.2% 140,000
Lane Education Service District – operating funds
1.5% 50,000
Eugene School District 4j – bond funds**
3.9% 130,000
Lane County – bond funds**
0.8% 30,000
City of Eugene – bond funds**
2.2% 70,000
Total 100.0% $3,270,000
* Staff has asked the State about net effect on schools in light of the school funding formula. It is not
known yet whether 4j would get use of the additional funds, or whether they would offset State funds
that otherwise would come to 4j.
**These dollars must be deposited into the jurisdiction’s bond funds to be used to pay debt service on
general obligation bonds.
3. Bond Rate Impact
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. (Urban renewal does not elongate debt repayment). For the Downtown District, which is
a “Reduced Rate” plan, the increase in bonded debt tax rates only affects bonds that were
approved by voters prior to October 2001, according to Oregon statutes.
An estimate was made of the impact of this small increase in bonded debt tax rates, assuming
tax increment financing in the Downtown District was terminated. The bonded debt tax rates
would be reduced by about $0.0105 per $1000 of assessed value, which would translate into a
tax bill reduction of about $1.66 per year for the average Eugene household. This is about
0.05% of the $2,938 bill for the median taxpayer in the current year. (See Attachment E for
example tax statements.)
ATTACHMENT H
General Obligation Bond – Funding Option
A General Obligation (GO) Bond is a borrowing or issuance of debt, the repayment of which is made
from a property tax levied upon all taxable property in the City. Under this funding scenario, the City
could ask voters to approve an $8.2 million GO Bond ($8 million for the project and bond issuance costs)
to fund the LCC project cost. The City would also issue a $1.2 million General Fund bond. Detailed
information is provided in the chart below and followed by a simplified cash flow. (Note: The chart
format is the same in each funding option attachment.)
Sources of Funds Termination of tax increment financing in the Downtown District generates
o
several funding sources (See Attachment G):
New on-going property tax revenue for
-
?
on-going services
?
annual payments on a $1.2 million General Fund bond
Existing excess cash returned to City - $1.5 million
-
Amount remaining under the $33 million cap - $0.9 million
-
GO Bonds of $8.2 million issued to pay for the LCC project and bond costs
o
Total sources through FY19 ~ $25.5 million
o
This scenario assumes that the downtown loan program continues and is not
depleted to pay for project costs.
Uses of Funds All recommended projects
o
Police officers are funded from new General Fund property taxes on-going at
o
$740,000 starting in FY11
Total uses through FY19 ~ $25.5 million
o
How it Works Voters approve a new property tax. See below for a cash flow projection that
shows how the various sources are available to pay for project and on-going
costs.
Implementation Costs Interest on debt ~$5.9 million
o
Bond issuance costs ~$300,000 ($150,000 for each bond)
o
Project legal and professional services ~$150,000
o
Project administration through FY19 ~$900,000
o
Impact on taxpayers Compared to the current situation, the average taxpayer would pay about
$7.34 more per year, consisting of a reduction of $1.66 per year due to
termination of tax increment financing, and $9 per year for the new GO bond.
(See Attachment E for example tax statement.)
Effect on M5 tax rate For schools – Staff has requested information from the tax assessor on this
o
cap and will forward to council when received
For general governments – small additional amount available under the tax
o
rate cap; since there is no compression currently, no impact on revenues to
city or county
For bonded debt – not included in M5 tax rate cap, so no effect
o
Financial Impact on Redistributes existing Downtown Urban Renewal cash (one-time)
o
overlapping taxing Ends ongoing redistribution of taxes to Downtown Urban Renewal District
o
districts (See Attachments G & L for projected amounts available annually if tax
increment financing were to be terminated.)
Timing/Process Collection of tax increment funds would cease as of FY11 and taxing districts
o
would receive one-time and ongoing property tax revenues.
GO bond proceeds could be available ~3 months after a successful election.
o
Property taxes for GO Bonds would be levied starting in FY12.
o
Downtown Urban Renewal District may use remaining amounts under the
o
cap on projects included in the current district plan and approved by the
URA Board.
Downtown District administration of Beam project is assumed to occur
o
through FY11 under any scenario.
Voting/Elections Referred by council:
By June 28 for September 21 ballot (double majority required)
o
By August 9 for November 2 ballot
o
Unfunded Items Downtown loan program more limited (must operate on interest earnings
instead of Downtown District administration).
Other Imacts LCC project delayed to wait for results of ballot
o
Minimum: 1 year (project completed September 2014)
-
Maximum: no project, if rejected by voters
-
The new General Fund revenue freed-up from tax increment financing
o
termination may not provide sufficient funding to pay for inflation on the
cost of police officers over time
How it Works – Cash Flow Projections
The following chart shows a rough estimate of how this scenario would work.
Cash Flow Details
GO Bond for LCC project and Eliminate Downtown Urban Renewal District Tax Increment Financing
Note: In order to show the full picture of what happens over time in this scenario, this cash flow double-counts debt (principal) proceeds: first, as an amount
available to spend on projects, and second, as the debt is repaid over time.
Debt Pmts
$ In Millions FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20-31 Totals
SOURCES
Beginning Balance $0.0 $0.6 $0.3 $0.0 $0.1 $0.1 $0.1 $0.2 $0.2 $0.0
Urban Renewal Tax Increment Funds* $2.4 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $2.4
General Fund Revenue* $0.9 $0.9 $1.0 $1.0 $1.0 $1.0 $1.1 $1.1 $1.1 $1.3 $10.3
Debt Issued $9.4 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $9.4
Local Option Levy Proceeds $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0
GO Bond Property Taxes for Debt Service Pmts $0.0 $0.7 $0.7 $0.7 $0.7 $0.7 $0.7 $0.7 $0.7 $7.7 $13.0
Total Sources $12.7 $2.2 $1.9 $1.7 $1.7 $1.8 $1.9 $1.9 $2.0 $9.0 $35.1
USES
LCC, VA, Farmers Market Project Costs $11.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $11.0
Police Officers $0.7 $0.8 $0.8 $0.8 $0.8 $0.8 $0.9 $0.9 $0.9 $0.0 $7.3
Debt Issuance, Legal & Professional Services $0.3 $0.1 $0.1 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.5
Project Administration $0.0 $0.2 $0.2 $0.1 $0.1 $0.1 $0.1 $0.1 $0.1 $0.0 $0.7
Debt Service $0.0 $0.8 $0.8 $0.8 $0.8 $0.8 $0.8 $0.8 $0.8 $9.0 $15.2
Total Uses $12.0 $1.8 $1.8 $1.6 $1.6 $1.7 $1.7 $1.7 $1.7 $9.0 $34.6
Ending Balance $0.6 $0.3 $0.0 $0.1 $0.1 $0.1 $0.2 $0.2 $0.3
Note: Numbers may not add due to rounding.
* See Attachment G for full description.
ATTACHMENT I
Local Option Levy – Funding Option
A local option levy is a limited-term property tax that is paid by all property owners within the City
limits. Under this funding scenario, the City would ask voters to approve a 5-year renewable local
option levy for $5.7 million. The City would also issue a $9.5 million General Fund bond. Detailed
information is provided in the chart below and followed by a simplified cash flow. (Note: The chart
format is the same in each funding option attachment.)
Sources of Funds Termination of tax increment financing in the Downtown District generates
o
several funding sources (See Attachment G):
New on-going property tax revenue for
-
?
on-going services
?
annual payments on a $9.5 million General Fund bond
Existing excess cash returned to City - $1.5 million
-
Amount remaining under the $33 million cap - $0.9 million
-
Local option levy of $5.7 million to pay for a portion of the Downtown Safety
o
Initiative (officers)
Total sources through FY19 ~ $26.5 million
o
This scenario assumes that the downtown loan program continues and is not
depleted to pay for project costs.
Uses of Funds All recommended projects
o
Police officers are funded from 5-year renewable local option levy at
o
$740,000 starting in FY11
Total uses through FY19 ~ $26.5 million
o
How it Works New property tax. See below for a cash flow projection that shows how the
various sources are available to pay for project and on-going costs.
Implementation Interest on debt ~$7 million
o
Costs Bond issuance costs ~$150,000
o
Project legal and professional services ~$150,000
o
Project administration through FY19 ~ $900,000
o
Impact on Compared to the current situation, the average taxpayer would pay about $7.34
taxpayers more per year, consisting of a reduction of $1.66 per year due to termination of
the Downtown Urban Renewal district, and $9 per year for the new levy.
(See Attachment E for example tax statement.)
Effect on M5 tax For schools – Staff has requested information from the tax assessor on this
o
rate cap and will forward to council when received
For general governments – small reduction in amount available under the tax
o
rate cap; since there is no compression currently, no impact on revenues to
city or county
For bonded debt – not included in M5 tax rate caps, so no effect
o
Financial Impact on Redistributes existing Downtown Urban Renewal cash (one-time)
o
overlapping taxing Ends ongoing redistribution of taxes to Downtown Urban Renewal District
o
districts (See Attachments G & L for projected amounts available annually if tax
increment financing in the District were to be terminated.)
Timing/Process Collection of tax increment funds would cease as of FY11 and taxing districts
o
would receive one-time and ongoing additional property tax revenues.
Levy proceeds could be available in FY12, if there is a successful election by
o
May of 2011.
Downtown Urban Renewal District may use remaining amount under the cap
o
on projects included in the current district plan and approved by the URA
Board.
Downtown District administration of Beam project is assumed to occur
o
through FY11 under any scenario.
Voting/Elections Referred by council:
By June 28 for September 21 ballot (double majority required)
o
By August 9 for November 2 ballot
o
Must be renewed every 5 years by a vote
o
Unfunded Items Downtown loan program more limited (must operate only on interest earnings
instead of downtown district administration).
Other Impacts n/a
How it Works – Cash Flow Projections
The following chart shows a rough estimate of how this scenario would work.
Project Funding Details
LOL for portion of police officers (DT Safety Initiative) and Eliminate Downtown Urban Renewal District Tax Increment Financing
Note: In order to show the full picture of what happens over time in this scenario, this cash flow double-counts debt (principal) proceeds: first, as an amount available to
spend on projects, and second, as the debt is repaid over time.
Debt Pmts
$ In Millions FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20-31 Totals
SOURCES
Beginning Balance $0.0 $0.9 $0.5 $0.1 $0.1 $0.1 $0.0 $0.2 $0.3 $0.0
Urban Renewal Tax Increment Funds* $2.4 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $2.4
General Fund Revenue* $0.9 $0.9 $1.0 $1.0 $1.0 $1.0 $1.1 $1.1 $1.1 $9.9 $18.9
Debt Issued $9.5 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $9.5
Local Option Levy Proceeds $0.0 $0.7 $0.7 $0.7 $0.7 $0.7 $0.8 $0.8 $0.8 $0.0 $5.7
GO Bond Property Taxes for Debt Service Pmts $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0
Total Sources $12.8 $2.4 $2.1 $1.8 $1.8 $1.8 $1.9 $2.1 $2.2 $9.9 $36.5
USES
LCC, VA, Farmers Market Project Costs $11.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $11.0
Police Officers** $0.7 $0.8 $0.8 $0.8 $0.8 $0.8 $0.9 $0.9 $0.9 $0.0 $7.3
Debt Issuance, Legal & Professional Services $0.2 $0.1 $0.1 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.3
Project Administration $0.0 $0.2 $0.2 $0.1 $0.1 $0.1 $0.1 $0.1 $0.1 $0.0 $0.7
Debt Service $0.0 $0.8 $0.8 $0.8 $0.8 $0.8 $0.8 $0.8 $0.8 $9.9 $16.5
Total Uses $11.9 $1.8 $1.8 $1.7 $1.7 $1.7 $1.7 $1.8 $1.8 $9.9 $35.8
Ending Balance $0.9 $0.5 $0.1 $0.1 $0.1 $0.0 $0.2 $0.3 $0.4
Note: Numbers may not add due to rounding.
*See Attachment G for full description.
**One-time funds from termination of tax increment financing would be used to pay for officers in FY11. Levy proceeds would be received starting in FY12.
ATTACHMENT J
Downtown Urban Renewal – Funding Option
Under this funding scenario, council would need to amend the Downtown Urban Renewal
District Plan to increase the spending limit, which would continue the redistribution of taxes.
The City Manager recommended this funding option at the February 10, 2010 work session
provided that:
a)the district stop functioning after the projects are complete (estimated for 2019);
b)a review panel of community members is established to prepare an annual report on
spending; and
c)language in the plan is modified to allow four specific projects only.
Further information is provided in the chart below and followed by other information specific
to this funding option. A simplified cash flow is provided at the end. (Note: The chart format is
the same in each funding option attachment.)
Sources of Funds Continue Downtown District tax increment financing
o
Amend Downtown District (see section A below):
o
Spending limit increase by $16.15 million:
-
?
allows initial access to funds for projects
?
each project would need secondary URA Board/Budget Committee
approvals
End District when projects completed (estimated for FY2018/19)
-
Includes parking fund for police in FY19
o
Total sources through FY19 ~ $21.7 million
o
Uses of Funds All recommended projects
o
Police funded through parking fund when URA assumes debt repayment for
o
Broadway Place Garages (See section B below)
Total uses through FY19 ~ $21.7 million
o
How it Works Redistribution of taxes. See the cash flow projection below that shows how the
various sources are available to pay for project and on-going costs.
Implementation Debt issuance costs ~$150,000
o
Costs Interest on new debt ~$2.2 million
o
Project legal and professional services ~$150,000
o
Project and district administration through FY19 ~ $900,000
o
Impact on Not a new tax; no change in tax bill from this funding option
o
taxpayers The bonded debt tax rate impact from the Downtown District is $1.66 for the
o
average household per year ($0.0105/$1000 of assessed value).
(See Attachment E for an example tax statement.)
Effect on M5 tax No change in M5 tax rate cap from this scenario
rate cap
Financial Impact on County $150,000 (FY10 est.)
o
overlapping taxing Net Schools less than $31,000 (FY10 estimate) - See section D below
o
districts (For more information see the report on the plan – Attachment L Chapter 9.)
Timing/Process Multiple part / month process (See Section E below)
o
If started March 8:
o
review by taxing districts, public, planning commission
-
public hearing April 19
-
ordinance action May 24
-
Voting/Elections No election required
o
If referred by voters = November 2 ballot
o
If referred by Council:
o
By June 28 for September 21 ballot
-
By August 9 for November 2 ballot
-
Unfunded items n/a
Other Impacts n/a
Additional Information
A.Proposed Plan Amendments
The requested action will forward the possible amendments to the Downtown Urban
Renewal Plan to the Planning Commission and overlapping taxing districts for their review
and input prior to holding a public hearing with the City Council.
Three potential amendments to the Downtown Urban Renewal Plan are proposed at this
time: (i) increase maximum indebtedness by $16.15 million, for a total of $49.15 million, for
only the four specified projects; (ii) terminate the District as soon as projects are paid for,
debt issued to fund the projects is repaid, or sufficient funds are collected to fund those
th
projects or debt; and (iii) expand the boundaries of the District to incorporate the 12 and
Willamette site for the VA Clinic.
Increasing the maximum indebtedness figure is necessary to allow the URA to spend tax
increment dollars on additional projects. The current “maximum indebtedness” of $33
million has nearly been spent, with the bulk spent on the library. Adopting a “maximum
indebtedness” figure does not authorize or obligate the District to enter into debt. Rather,
it allows the current and future URA Boards to have the ability to fund projects over time,
either with cash or by issuing debt. Each project will require subsequent approval by the
URA Board / Budget Committee.
Attachment K includes a draft of the amended plan. Attachment L includes a draft report
on the plan that describes, among other things, the financial impact of the plan.
The cost of the proposed projects is $17 million with a maximum indebtedness of $16.15
million after deducting the $0.9 million that has not been spent under the current cap. (The
total cost with interest comes to $21.7 million.)
If the URA Board adopts the proposed motion, the plan and report will be sent to the
Planning Commission and the overlapping taxing districts for comment, and will be available
for citizen review prior to the public hearing and ordinance amending the plan. (The plan
amendment process is described in section E below.)
By initiating the process, council is not committed to enacting the proposed amendments.
Circulating the plan amendment to the various groups, allows them to provide input to the
council on the possibility of making proposed amendments to the plan. Council has the
authority to adopt plan amendments that differ from the ones circulated to the public.
Timeline: The URA Board is requested to take action on March 8 to forward the plan and
report to the Planning Commission and to the overlapping taxing districts. In addition,
council would hold a public hearing in April and consider an ordinance to amend the urban
renewal plan in May.
B.Broadway Place Garages’ Debt & Downtown Safety Initiative (Officers)
The Parking Fund currently pays between $700,000 and $800,000 each year on debt issued
for the Broadway Place Garages. The debt is scheduled to be repaid through FY18, and the
total principal amount outstanding is $4.81 million.
If the Downtown District makes the Garages’ debt payment, the Parking Fund could have
that additional amount to contribute to the General Fund. The General Fund could then use
the funds for the Downtown Safety Initiative (officers). The proposed process is illustrated
below.
C.Downtown Urban Renewal District Administration
Based on council/community priorities and the level of activity, staffing and administration
costs in the urban renewal districts have varied over the years. For example, council
reduced Downtown District administration over a three year period in conjunction with
limiting expenditures to completion of the library as part of the 1998 plan amendment.
Then in 2004, council added projects to the Downtown Urban Renewal Plan with a
subsequent increase in staffing. (Admin was 0.14 FTE for FY01- FY04; 0.75 FTE in FY05; 1.15
FTE for FY06 & FY07; and 1.4 FTE for FY08 through to current.)
The FY10 Budget for admin includes:
1.$200,000 in legal fees for Beam’s construction financing
th
2.$440,000 for 10 & Charnelton costs that were budgeted for the WG project
3.$150,157 personnel and $56,000 materials & supplies
D.Net Impact to Schools
As a result of the Downtown District, schools get more state funds and less local funds. The
estimated net impact to schools is that they would receive about $31,000 more if the
Downtown District did not use tax increment financing. (See Attachment G for a description
of what would happen if the Downtown District stopped receiving a portion of property tax
revenue.) This estimate does not take into account any effect from Measure 5
compression. The Tax Assessor has been asked for information about this topic and that
information will be passed on to council when it becomes available.
The Downtown District does not collect tax increment funds from bonds or levies approved
by voters after October 2001, including the Eugene School District 4j local option levy and
the recent bond measure passed for LCC.
E.Timeline for Proposed Plan Amendment – DRAFT
March 8 URA work session to initiate plan amendments
[Council Break March 11 – April 11]
Mar 12 1) Notify taxing districts, by mail, that amendments are proposed and inform
them of the proposed hearing date (April 19)
?
Districts receive a copy of the draft plan and are invited to comment
?
Lane County given an opportunity to meet and review the maximum
indebtedness proposed in the plan
2) Mail out postcard to the general public – include hearing date, web address,
etc. (ORS 457.120)
3) Place materials and proposals on City website
Mar 29 Planning Commission review and comment
Apr 1 Eugene Redevelopment Advisory Committee
(PDD department advisory committee)
Apr 19 City Council Public Hearing on ordinance amending the Downtown District Plan
May 10 URA work session to review County’s recommendation, comments from other
taxing bodies, and the Planning Commission recommendation
May 12 Refined plan amendments prepared by staff, including financial analysis
(considering comments received by other jurisdictions, Planning Commission,
etc.) Final Plan prepared by staff.
May 24 Council meeting to consider ordinance amending the Downtown District Plan
[If the ordinance is adopted, the referendum signature process would need to be
completed by 6/9 at 5pm]
th
June 23 If council adopts ordinance on May 24, ordinance becomes law (30 day) –
unless referendum process successful
[If the referendum is successful, the election would be on 11/2]
How it Works – Cash Flow Projections
The following chart shows a rough estimate of how this scenario would work.
Project Funding Details
Downtown Urban Renewal District to Fund Projects
Note: In order to show the full picture of what happens over time in this scenario, this cash flow double-counts debt (principal) proceeds: first, as an amount
available to spend on projects, and second, as the debt is repaid over time.
$ In Millions FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 Totals
SOURCES
Beginning Balance $4.0 $1.8 $1.5 $1.3 $1.4 $1.5 $1.6 $1.7 $1.9 $4.0
Urban Renewal Tax Increment Funds* $2.0 $2.0 $2.1 $2.2 $2.2 $2.2 $2.3 $2.3 $0.0 $17.4
General Fund Revenue* $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.9 $0.9
Debt Issued $7.7 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $7.7
Local Option Levy Proceeds $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0
GO Bond Property Taxes for Debt
Service Pmts $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0
Total Sources $13.7 $3.9 $3.7 $3.5 $3.6 $3.7 $3.9 $4.1 $2.8 $30.0
USES
LCC, VA, Farmers Market Project Costs $11.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $11.0
Police Officers $0.7 $0.8 $0.8 $0.8 $0.8 $0.8 $0.9 $0.9 $0.9 $7.3
Debt Issuance, Legal & Professional
Services $0.2 $0.1 $0.1 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.3
Project Administration $0.0 $0.2 $0.2 $0.1 $0.1 $0.1 $0.1 $0.1 $0.1 $0.7
Debt Service $0.0 $1.2 $1.2 $1.2 $1.2 $1.2 $1.2 $1.2 $1.2 $9.9
Total Uses $11.9 $2.2 $2.3 $2.1 $2.1 $2.1 $2.1 $2.2 $2.2 $29.2
Ending Balance** $1.8 $1.5 $1.3 $1.4 $1.5 $1.6 $1.7 $1.9 $0.6
*Including interest earnings on fund balance.
**In this scenario, one year of debt service is kept in reserve to protect the General Fund until the debt is paid off. The reserve is used to make the final payment.
ATTACHMENT K
Proposed Downtown Urban Renewal Plan
Urban Renewal Plan
for the
Downtown Urban Renewal District
Adopted July 1968
- Modified -
December 1968
December 1989
June 1998
September 13, 2004
_____, 2010
Urban Renewal Agency of the City of Eugene, Oregon
URBAN RENEWAL PLAN FOR THE DOWNTOWN URBAN RENEWAL DISTRICT
Table of Contents
Section 100 – Introduction ................................................................................................................................. - 2 -
Section 200 – Definitions .................................................................................................................................... - 2 -
Section 300 – Legal Descriptions ........................................................................................................................ - 3 -
Section 400 – Goals and Objectives .................................................................................................................... - 3 -
A.GOALS ................................................................................................................................................... - 3 -
B.OBJECTIVES............................................................................................................................................ - 3 -
Section 500 – Land Use Plan............................................................................................................................... - 4 -
Section 600 – Project Activities .......................................................................................................................... - 4 -
A.LANE COMMUNITY COLLEGE NEW DOWNTOWN CENTER ...................................................................... - 4 -
B.BROADWAY PLACE GARAGES & PUBLIC SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS ........................................................... - 5 -
C.PARK BLOCKS IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FARMERS’ MARKET ................................................................. - 5 -
D.VA CLINIC............................................................................................................................................... - 5 -
E.ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIVITIES .................................................................................................................. - 5 -
F.EXISTING ACTIVITIES .............................................................................................................................. - 6 -
Section 700 – Methods for Financing the Projects .............................................................................................. - 6 -
Section 800 – Annual Financial Statement Required .......................................................................................... - 6 -
Section 900 – Citizen Participation ..................................................................................................................... - 6 -
Section 1000 – Non-Discrimination .................................................................................................................... - 7 -
Section 1100 – Recording of this Plan ................................................................................................................ - 7 -
Section 1200 – Procedures for Changes or Amendments .................................................................................... - 7 -
Section 1300 – Duration and Validity of Approved Plan ..................................................................................... - 8 -
A.DURATION OF THE PLAN
........................................................................................................................ - 8 -
B.VALIDITY
................................................................................................................................................ - 8 -
Section 1400 – Maximum Indebtedness ............................................................................................................. - 8 -
EXHIBIT A: Plan Area Map............................................................................................................................... - 10 -
EXHIBIT B: Plan Area Description ..................................................................................................................... - 11 -
I. ADOPTION
Resolution
Date Purpose
Number
Resolution 3-Jul-68 Adoption of the Urban Renewal Plan for the Central Eugene Project (the
No. 257 Plan).
II. AMENDMENTS
Amendment
Date Purpose
Number
Resolution 19-Dec-68 Modified the Plan to allow for additional projects as required by HUD
o
No. 1609 to receive additional federal funds.
Ordinance 8-Nov-89 Aligned the Plan with Metro Plan policies: strengthen the area's
o
No. 19648 position as a regional service center, maintain the Eugene central
business district as a vital center, incorporate principles of compact
urban growth, encourage retail and commercial development in the
downtown area, and promote the development of parking structures
in the downtown core.
Expiration set for FY10.
o
Ordinance 1-Jun-98 Responded to Measure 50 to a) include a maximum amount of
o
No. 20120 indebtedness and b) select Option 1 for the city-wide special levy as
the method for collecting ad valorem property taxes for payment of
debts related to urban renewal projects.
Limited expenditure of new funds to completing existing projects and
o
construction of a new main library.
Removed the business assistance loan program.
o
Approved a plan to reduce district administration costs over the
o
following three years.
Ordinance 13-Sep-04 Expanded the projects for which tax increment funds could be used
o
No. 20328 Created a public advisory committee
o
Added the requirement for specific Agency approval of projects
o
greater than $250,000 (other than loans), and adding a limit of
$100,000 on the mandate for a public hearing in the event of a plan
change (applies to minor amendments that can be approved by the
URA without ORS 457.095 approval – Section 1200, C of the 2004
Plan).
Added the Downtown Revitalization Loan Program (DRLP).
o
Proposed Downtown Urban Renewal Plan – March 2010
- 1 -
URBAN RENEWAL PLAN FOR THE DOWNTOWN URBAN RENEWAL DISTRICT
Section 100 – Introduction
The Downtown Urban Renewal District Plan (formerly known as the Central Eugene Project
Plan), was updated in 2010 for the sole purpose of funding four new projects: (1) assistance to
th
Lane Community College (LCC) for development on the on the 10 and Charnelton
Development Site; (2) additional assistance in funding the Broadway Place Garages; (3)
improvements to the Parks Blocks to provide better opportunities for the Farmers’ Market; and
th
(4) assistance with a Veterans Affairs (VA) clinic, if the 12 and Willamette site is selected by
the VA. No other new projects will be funded with tax increment dollars. Upon the repayment
of debt related to these new projects and previously approved projects, the Downtown Urban
Renewal District will be terminated, any unused tax increment funds will be returned to Lane
Country for redistribution to overlapping taxing districts, and other assets and liabilities
transferred to the City of Eugene.
Section 200 – Definitions
The following definitions will govern this Plan.
th
10 and Charnelton Site means the Agency owned property bounded by Charnelton Street on
th
the west, 10 Avenue on the south, and Olive Street on the east. The downtown public library
th
is directly across 10 Avenue from this site.
2010 Amendment means the update to the Plan that was completed in 2010.
Agency means the Urban Renewal Agency of the City of Eugene.
Broadway Place Garages means the structured parking at Broadway and Charnelton streets.
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.
Plan means the Downtown District Urban Renewal Plan.
Plan Area means the property included in the Downtown Urban Renewal District as more fully
described in Section 300.
th
Projects means (1) assistance to LCC for development on the 10 and Charnelton Site; (2)
additional assistance in funding the Broadway Place Garages; (3) improvements to the Parks
Blocks to provide better opportunities for the Farmers’ Market; and (4) assistance related to a
th
new VA Clinic, if the VA chooses the 12 and Willamette site.
Proposed Downtown Urban Renewal Plan – March 2010
- 2 -
Tax Increment Financing means a method of financing urban renewal projects as authorized by
ORS Chapter 457.
Section 300 – Legal Descriptions
The Do
wntown Urban Renewal District includes that area of approximately 75 acres. The Plan
Area includes all of the land within the boundaries designated on the Plan Area Map attached
as Exhibit A and described as containing all lots or parcels of property, situated in the City of
Eugene, County of Lane, State of Oregon, bounded generally as described also in Exhibit B.
Section 400 – Goals and Objectives
A.GOALS
The goals of the Plan are to:
1.Improve the function, condition, and appearance of the Plan Area through:
th
a.Redevelopment of the excavated vacant lot at the 10 and Charnelton Site;
b.Maintenance of critical parking assets;
c.Improved safety for visitors to locations and business within the Plan Area;
d.Improved site for the Farmers’ Market; and
e.Redevelopment of an underutilized medical clinic for use by Veterans Affairs.
2.Eliminate blight and blighting influences;
3.Strengthen the economic conditions of the Plan Area; and
4.Enhance downtown’s role as the regional economic, governmental, and cultural center
and a central location for public and private development and investment.
B.OBJECTIVES
Development in the Plan Area has been intended to implement the adopted policies contained
in the Downtown Plan and to develop downtown as the heart of a livable, sustainable city. The
objectives for the 2010 Amended Plan are to ensure that:
th
1.LCC is able to redevelop the 10 and Charnelton Site with a building that will bring
thousands of people into the Plan Area;
2.The Broadway Place Garages remain available and in good condition to support other
development and redevelopment in downtown and, at the same time, to enable
improvements to public safety downtown;
3.The Farmers’ Market can continue to bring hundreds of employees and residents into
the Plan Area; and
4.Some local public funds are available to maximize the chances that the VA chooses the
th
12 and Willamette site.
Proposed Downtown Urban Renewal Plan – March 2010
- 3 -
Section 500 – Land Use Plan
The use and development of all land within the Plan Area shall comply with the regulations
prescribed in the City’s comprehensive plan, zoning ordinance, subdivision ordinance, City
charter, or any other applicable local, State or Federal laws regulating the use of property
within an urban renewal area.
Section 600 – Project Activities
To achieve the objectives of this Plan, the Agency may undertake the following activities, and
no others, with tax increment funds:
A.LANE COMMUNITY COLLEGE NEW DOWNTOWN CENTER
The Agency may spend up to $8 million of tax increment funds (not counting payment of debt
issuance or interest costs) to assist LCC in the development of a new downtown building for its
th
programs, at the 10 and Charnelton Site. Upon agreement by LCC and the City, the project
may include a public plaza or open space area at the site and potentially a downtown public
safety station.
LCC is proposing to build a new 80,000 square foot mixed-use state of the art downtown
education facility. The education building is targeted for LEED Platinum certification. LCC is
th
also considering the construction of approximately 200 beds of student housing on the 10 &
Charnelton site. The new highly-sustainable education building is expected to be a teaching
tool for LCC’s nationally recognized Energy Management program and become a model for
sustainable development. The new education facility will secure LCC’s presence downtown for
several decades and will be a major activity generator for downtown. Existing education
programs and new programs to be included in the new building will draw thousands of students
and visitors to the facility each year. Additionally, new housing residents will generate more
activity in the downtown core. This landmark building, coupled with the activity generated
through the project, will become a major anchor which will support adjacent retail and services,
enhance the perception of safety by introducing high volumes of new pedestrian traffic, and
attract new investments in the area. The Agency may provide assistance with project related
costs for the new education facility and housing, including construction hard and soft costs, site
improvements, infrastructure, open space, green building features, art and other project
related cost.
The Agency may acquire the existing LCC Downtown Center property located at 1059
Willamette Street. This acquisition would facilitate its redevelopment and reuse. If acquired,
the property would be redeveloped for either private or public uses pending future action by
the Agency Board. Such redevelopment would be accomplished either through retention,
resale, or lease depending on the redevelopment plan for the property. It is anticipated that
redevelopment of the property would be accomplished by the end of 2019.
Proposed Downtown Urban Renewal Plan – March 2010
- 4 -
B.BROADWAY PLACE GARAGES & PUBLIC SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS
Construction of parking garages has been an authorized project activity for this plan area for
many years. As one of those projects, the Agency previously provided initial assistance for the
construction of the Broadway Place Garages. The Agency now may spend up to $4.9 million of
tax increment funds (not counting payment of interest costs for the debt) to assist the City in
repaying the debt on those garages, provided that the City agrees to a) continue to make the
garages available for businesses and residents downtown and b) enhance public safety in the
Plan Area.
The Broadway Place Garages provide an essential public parking facility to serve the business,
customer and resident parking needs in the District. The District is a parking exempt zone
which relieves property owners from the requirement to provide imbedded parking in new and
redeveloped properties. The Broadway Place Garages support continued redevelopment in the
District by providing vital parking capacity.
C.PARK BLOCKS IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FARMERS’ MARKET
The Agency may spend up to $500,000 of tax increment funds on improvements to the Parks
Blocks in order to make that location more attractive and functional for the Farmers’ Market.
D.VA CLINIC
th
If the VA chooses the 12 and Willamette site for its new VA Clinic, the Agency may spend up to
$2.5 million of tax increment funds for public infrastructure near that location for parking,
transportation improvements, or other infrastructure improvements necessary to serve that
site. The proposed VA clinic would provide an array of important medical support services to
the veteran community. Locating this facility within the Plan Area would create an active
commercial hub with extended hours of operation. The significant numbers of clients together
with the ongoing presence of medical and support staff would contribute to commercial
opportunities and the value of commercial property within the Plan Area.
E.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.Provision of accounting or audit services; and
d.Assistance with preparation of the annual financial report required under
Section 800 of this Plan.
Proposed Downtown Urban Renewal Plan – March 2010
- 5 -
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.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.
5.The Agency also may continue to operate the downtown revitalization loan
program. (All dollars loaned must come from the loan fund and not from tax
increment revenues.)
F.EXISTING ACTIVITIES
The Agency may complete projects authorized prior to the 2010 Amendment.
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 the
Projects authorized by this Plan.
Ad valorem taxes, if any, levied by a taxing body upon the taxable real and personal property
situated in the urban renewal area, shall be divided in accord with and pursuant to Section 1c,
Article IX of the Oregon Constitution and ORS 457.420 through 457.460, and used by the
Agency for the Projects authorized by this Plan.
The Agency shall adopt and use a fiscal year ending June 30 accounting period. Each year, the
Agency shall develop a budget in conformance with the provisions of ORS Chapter 294 and ORS
457.460, which shall describe sources of revenue, proposed expenditures, and activities.
Section 800 – Annual Financial Statement Required
A financial statement shall be prepared and provide information in accordance with ORS 457.
The statement shall be filed with the City Council and notice shall be published in accordance
with ORS 457.
Section 900 – Citizen Participation
The activities and projects defined in this Plan, 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 Plan Area together
Proposed Downtown Urban Renewal Plan – March 2010
- 6 -
with the participation of general residents of the City. The Agency Director shall convene not
less than once each year a committee of such persons to prepare a report to the Director on a)
the activities of the Agency for the previous fiscal year, and b) whether the Agency’s
expenditure of tax increment dollars was limited to the projects authorized by this Plan and the
associated administrative costs authorized by the Plan. The Director shall forward that report
to the Agency Board upon its receipt.
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
It is the intent of this Plan that, except as provided in the following paragraphs, no changes will
be made to the Plan. The purpose of the 2010 Amendment is to authorize the Projects, and
once those projects are completed and the debt on those projects is repaid (or tax increment
funds have been accumulated sufficient to pay that debt when due), that the division of taxes
for the Plan Area cease.
ORS 457.085(2)(i), however, requires that an urban renewal plan include a description of what
types of plan amendments constitute “substantial amendments” which require the same
notice, hearing and approval procedure required of the original plan. The statute also
identifies two types that must be included as “substantial amendments” (increases in maximum
indebtedness and expansions of territory in excess of 1%). It is the intent of this Plan that, with
the exceptions listed below, there be no amendments, substantial or otherwise. Since the
statutes require a description of substantial amendments, the Plan defines all amendments as
substantial amendments, other than the following.
The following amendments will be treated as minor amendments, and may be made by
resolution of the Agency Board:
1.Amendments to correct clerical or similar errors;
2.Amendments to respond to a decision by a court or state agency if someone
challenges the 2010 Amendment and this Plan is remanded.
Proposed Downtown Urban Renewal Plan – March 2010
- 7 -
Section 1300 – Duration and Validity of Approved Plan
A.DURATION OF THE PLAN
Taxes may divided under this Plan only until the maximum indebtedness for the Plan Area has
been issued and paid or the Agency has determined that it will not issue the full amount of that
maximum indebtedness, and all indebtedness that will be issued has been issued and paid.
When that indebtedness has been paid the Agency will notify the assessor pursuant to ORS
457.450(2) to cease dividing taxes for the Plan Area, and shall return any unused tax increment
funds to Lane Country for redistribution to overlapping taxing districts. However, this plan may
remain in effect until the Agency transfers any remaining assets and liabilities of the Plan Area
to the City of Eugene. As of the date of the 2010 Amendment, it is estimated that the last fiscal
year for which taxes will be divided is FY2017/2018.
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
The sum of $33,000,000 was established in 1998 as the spending limit (maximum amount of
new indebtedness which could be issued or incurred from tax increment funds) under this Plan
after June 1, 1998. That figure was developed using the estimated project costs, plus a 5%
annual inflation factor.
The 2010 Amendment increased the maximum indebtedness amount by $16. 15 million, to a
total of $49.15 million. This is below the limits imposed under ORS 457.220 for the maximum
indebtedness increases allowed without concurrence of the overlapping taxing districts, which
would be a total maximum indebtedness figure of $67.7 million, as of March 2010.
The maximum indebtedness limit established by this Section 1400 does not apply to or limit:
1.The obligation of the Agency to pay interest on indebtedness issued or incurred under
this Plan;
2.Any indebtedness issued to refund indebtedness issued or incurred under this Plan, to
the extent that the refunding indebtedness does not exceed the principal amount of
the refunded indebtedness, plus the amount of the refunding indebtedness that is
used to pay costs of the refunding;
3.Funds to repay indebtedness existing on the date of the 1998 Amendment; and
4.Expenditures made from funds other than tax increment funds, such as loans made
from the Downtown Revitalization Loan Program.
Proposed Downtown Urban Renewal Plan – March 2010
- 8 -
Proposed Downtown Urban Renewal Plan – March 2010
- 9 -
EXHIBIT A: Plan Area Map
Farmers’
Market
Improvements
Broadway
Place Garages
10 th &
Charnelton Site
Library
Proposed Downtown Urban Renewal Plan – March 2010
- 10 -
EXHIBIT B: Plan Area Description
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-of-way line of the alley
th
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
th
intersection of the north right-of-way line of the alley between Broadway 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 northwest
th
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 northwest
th
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 northeast
th
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 corner of the
th
intersection of Pearl Street and West 11 Avenue,
th
(11)Thence West along the south right-of-way line of West 11 Avenue to a point being
th
12.00 feet easterly of the Southwest corner of the intersection of West 11 Avenue
and Willamette Street;
(12)Thence southerly running 12.00 feet distant and parallel to the westerly right-of-
way line of Willamette Street to a point being on the extension of the south line of a
tract of land sold by D.R. Christian and wife to Nathan G. Coleman by deed recorded
in Book B, Page 448, Lane County Oregon Deed Records;
(13)thence West 179.00 feet to the east boundary of Curries Addition to Eugene Oregon
as platted and recorded in Book 2, Page 71, Lane County Oregon Plat Records;
(14)thence South along said east boundary to a point being opposite of the Southeast
corner of Lot 3 of said Curries Addition
(15)thence West to the Southeast corner of said Lot 3 of Curries Addition;
(16)thence West 60.00 feet along the south line of said Lot 3;
th
(17)thence South to the North right-of-way line of West 13 Avenue;
Proposed Downtown Urban Renewal Plan – March 2010
- 11 -
(18)thence West along said right-of-way line to the Northeast corner of the intersection
th
of Olive Street and West 13 Street;
(19)thence North along the East right-of-way line of said Olive Street to a point being on
the extension of the south right-of-way line of West 12th Avenue;
(20)thence West along the extension of the right-of-way line of West 12th Avenue to
th
the Southwest corner of the intersection of West 12 Avenue and Olive Street;
(21)thence South along the west right-of-way line of Olive street to the Northwest
th
corner of the intersection of Olive Street and West 13 Avenue;
th
(22)thence West along the North right-of-way line of West 13 Avenue to the Northeast
th
corner of the intersection of West 13 Avenue and Charnelton Street;
(23)thence North along the East right-of-way line of Charnelton Street to the Southwest
corner of lot 6, Block 2 of Ira Hawleys Addition to Eugene City as platted and
recorded in Book G, Page 512 Lane County Oregon Plat Records;
(24)thence East along the south line of said Lot 6 to the Southwest corner of Lot 5, Block
2 of the Ira Hawleys Addition to Eugene City;
(25)Thence North along the West lines of Lots 5,4 and 1 in Block 2 of Ira Hawleys
Addition to Eugene City to point 12.00 feet north of the Northwest corner of Lot 1
of Ira Hawleys Addition to Eugene City;
(26)Thence East parallel to the south right-of-way line of West 12 Avenue to the East
right-of-way line of Olive Street;
(27)Thence north along the east right-of-way line of Olive Street to the Northwest
corner of Lot 7, Block A of Dorris Addition as platted and recorded in Book R, Page
314 Lane County Oregon Plat Records;
(28)Thence East along the north line of said Lot 7 to a point being 7.00 feet east of the
Southwest corner of Lot 1, Block A of said Dorris Addition;
(29)Thence North to the North line of said Lot 1, Block A of Dorris Addition;
(30)Thence East to the Westerly right-of-way line of Willamette Street;
(31)Thence North along said westerly right-of-way line of Willamette Street to the
th
Southwest corner of the intersection of Willamette Street and West 11 Avenue.
th
(32)Thence West along the south right-of-way line of West 11 Avenue to the
th
southwest corner of the intersection of West 11 Avenue and Charnelton street
also being the point of beginning and there ending.
Proposed Downtown Urban Renewal Plan – March 2010
- 12 -
ATTACHMENT L
Report on the Downtown Urban Renewal Plan
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 __________, 2010 by City Council Ordinance No. _____
City of Eugene
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Eugene City Council and Urban Renewal Agency Board
Mayor Kitty Piercy
Alan Zelenka, President
Mike Clark, Vice President
George Brown
Andrea Ortiz
George Poling
Chris Pryor
Jennifer Solomon
Betty Taylor
City of Eugene Staff
Jon Ruiz, City Manager
Susan Muir, Director of Planning and Development Department
Glenn Klein, City Attorney
Denny Braud
Sue Cutsogeorge
Rebekah Dohrman
Nan Laurence
Amanda Nobel Flannery
Mike Sullivan
Richie Weinman
Sarah Zaleski
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
........................................................................... 5
Chapter 4:Reasons for Selection of the Plan Area
................................................................... 6
Chapter 5: Relationship Between Existing Conditions and Each Project Activity
Undertaken in the Plan
......................................................................................... 7
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
............... 12
Chapter 8:Financial Analysis of the Plan with Sufficient Information to Determine
Feasibility
.......................................................................................................... 14
Chapter 9: Fiscal Impact Statement that Estimates the Impact of the Tax Increment
Financing, Both Until and After the Indebtedness is Repaid, Upon All
Entities Levying Taxes Upon Property in the Plan Area
........................................... 15
Chapter 10:Relocation Report
............................................................................................... 18
Chapter 11:Appendix
........................................................................................................... 19
Exhibit A: Plan Area Map
Exhibit B: Zoning District Map
Exhibit C: Census Boundaries Map
Exhibit D: Plan Area Map with 2010 Expansion Area Highlighted
Exhibit E: Projected Revenues and Expenditures for the Plan Area
Exhibit F: Impact of Urban Renewal on an Individual Tax Bill
Exhibit G: Impact of the Plan on Overlapping Taxing Jurisdictions
INDEX OF TABLES
Page
Table 1 Generalized Land Use & Acres 2
Table 2 Zoning & Acres 2
Table 3 Household Median Income 3
Table 4 Assessed Value of the Frozen Base 4
Table 5 List of Project Activities and Estimated Costs 11
Table 6 Projected Revenues and Expenditures for the Plan Area 23
Table 7 Impact of Urban Renewal on an Individual Tax Bill 24
Table 8 Impact on Overlapping Taxing Jurisdictions 25
REPORT ON THE DOWNTOWN URBAN
RENEWAL DISTRICT PLAN
Chapter 1: Introduction
The 2010 Amendment to the Downtown Urban Renewal District Plan (the “Plan”) makes the
following changes to the Plan:
Specifies four project activities to be undertaken in the Plan and removes language that
?
allowed for flexibility in project selection;
Sets an increase in the maximum indebtedness to allow for those specific projects;
?
Expands the district boundary to accommodate the VA Clinic project; and
?
Sets the expectation that the Downtown Urban Renewal District will be terminated after
?
repayment of all debt issued to fund the limited set of projects.
The City of Eugene has prepared an amendment to the Plan, originally adopted on July 1968
and modified December 1968, December 1989, June 1998, and September 2004. City Council
considered downtown over the course of 2009 with the desire to foster a vibrant downtown
while also providing near-term economic stimulus. City Council discussed desired downtown
outcomes, selected four key strategies, and, ultimately, selected specific projects. This Report
accompanies the Plan and consists of text, tables, and appendices.
The Downtown Urban Renewal District area contains approximately 75 acres (the “Plan Area”).
The legal description for the Plan Area is in Section 300 of the Plan and is further described on
graphic exhibits included in the Plan and in the appendix to this Report.
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 Area
The Plan Area encompasses about 75 acres, after the 5 acre boundary expansion
included in the 2010 Amendment. (See Appendix, Exhibit A for a map of the Plan Area.)
The total incorporated land area for the City of Eugene, of March 2010, is 28,056. The
Plan Area represents about 0.27 percent of the City’s total land area. This area
combined with the Riverfront Urban Renewal District of approximately 178 acres, equals
253 acres in renewal districts, which is less than one percent of the City’s total land area.
This one percent is well below the 15 percent maximum allowed by Oregon State law.
2.Existing Land Use and Zoning
Table 1 below shows generalized land use as of March 2010 by category. Table 2 shows
the zoning as of March 2010 by zoning district. A description of each use permitted is
found in the City Land Use Code. (The zoning map is located in the Appendix, Exhibit B.)
Table 1 Table 2
Generalized Land Use & AcresZoning & Acres
Land Use Designation Acres Zoning Designation Zoning Acres
Alleys, Walkways, Bikepaths 2.8
Community Commercial C2
0.7
Communication 0.7
Historic S-H
0.1
Educational 0.8
Major Commercial C3
43.9
General Services 13.9
Public Land PL
2.3
Government 5.0
Non-Zoned -
Industrial 0.2
28.0
Public Right of Way
Parks 1.2
Total
75.0
Recreation 6.2
Data: March 2010
Religious, Charitable 0.1
Residential, Multi-family 5.9
Retail Trade 18.5
Roads 26.1
Transportation Related 1.8
Vacant 0.9
Total 84.3
Data: March 2010
(Total does not equal Downtown Urban Renewal District acreage
of 75 due to rounding and vertical land use designation, i.e.
parking below residential.)
2
3.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.
4.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.
5.Steam Utility System
Due to high system losses through an aging infrastructure, price fluctuations for fuel,
and an eroding customer base, buildings that use steam for heating face an unfavorable
economic environment. The Eugene Water & Electric Board plans to decommission the
steam utility, which serves almost 70 customers in the Plan Area, by June 2012.
Additionally, the cost of steam operation increases for the remaining customers as each
building leaves the system.
6.Streets, Alleys, Sidewalks, etc.
Major portions of the streets, alleys and sidewalks within the Plan Area were upgraded
as part of the original renewal project and remain in good condition.
B.Social Conditions
1.Housing
Census 2000 data reports that there are 278 housing units in Census Blocks that cover
the Plan Area. In a 2004 Planning and Development Department analysis, three major
housing developments provide a total of 196 housing units within the Plan Area. Census
2000 data reports that housing in the area is predominantly rental, with over 99% of
housing renter occupied.
2.Socio-Economic
As of Census 2000, 331 people were living in Census Blocks that cover the Plan Area. In
and surrounding the Plan Area, the median income was substantially lower than the City
median income. See Table 3 below. See Appendix Exhibit C for a map of census
boundaries.
Table 3 – Household Median Income
City $35,850
$ 23,571 $ 15,076
Census Tract 3900
Block Group 1 Block Group 2
Data: Census 2000,DP-1, SF3, Table P53;
3
3.Employment
In April 2008, there were 299 employers with 4,791 employees in the Downtown Urban
Renewal District. The largest employers in the district were Professional, Scientific, and
Technical Services (18.4%), Health Care and Social Assistance (15.8%), Government
(12.6%), and Accommodation and Food Services (12.3%)
(Data: Lane Council of Governments,
Oregon Employment Departments 2008 Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW)).
C. Economic Conditions
1.Value of Property
The FY2009/2010 taxable assessed value for the entire City is $11,633,024,852. The
total assessed value for the Plan Area as of FY2009/2010 is $154,980,036. The table
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 Urban Riverfront Urban Total as a %
Total
Renewal District Renewal District of City AV
Frozen Base $31,386,991 $50,609,448 $81,996,439 0.7%
After expansion of the boundary for the district, the frozen base will increase by
approximately $14 million, bringing the total frozen base for all districts to 0.8% of
assessed value in the City.
2.Relationship of the Value of Improvements to the Value of Land
The current ratio of improvement value to land value within the Plan Area, based on
2009 assessment records and excluding all tax exempt property, is 3.3 to 1. The
accepted improvement to land value ratios of healthy, viable, and prosperous areas in
Oregon cities are 5 to 1 and greater.
D. Environmental Conditions
Environmental conditions within the Plan Area 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 Plan
Area will be upgraded and maintained as needed.
4
Chapter 3: Expected Impact, Including Fiscal Impact, of the Plan in Light of
Added Services or Increased Population
The 2010 Amendment allows for four specific projects (described in more detail in Chapter 5)
that will improve the function, condition, and appearance of the development area through:
?
Redevelopment of an excavated vacant lot into a new Lane Community College
Downtown Center;
?
Maintenance of critical parking assets;
?
Improved safety for visitors to locations and business within the Plan Area;
?
Improved site for the Farmers’ Market; and
?
Redevelopment of an underutilized medical clinic for use by Veterans Affairs.
These four projects also support the Plan goal to strengthen the economic conditions of the
Plan Area. One measure of this goal is the expected increase in the taxable property values
caused by the projects. Areas adjacent to the Plan Area are also expected to become more
viable. From FY2010/2011 through the estimated remaining life of the district (FY2018/2019),
property values in the Plan Area are estimated to increase by about $45 million. The projects
will also contribute to the goal of enhancing downtown’s role as the regional economic,
governmental, and cultural center and central location for public and private development and
investment.
The 2010 Amendment projects are not expected to have a significant impact on the Eugene 4j
School District. The zoning criteria of C2 and C3 do not encourage residential housing.
th
However, the LCC new downtown center project on the 10 & Charnelton Development Site
may include housing. Most likely the housing would be for college aged students or adults.
Past experience also shows residential complexes developed around the Plan Area have
focused on adult housing. Based on LCC’s preliminary plans and the prior experience, the new
downtown center should have no or minimal impact on the Eugene 4j School District. The
added adult population created by this housing project may impact LCC, particularly the
Downtown Center, and the University of Oregon with increased registration. The other projects
in the Plan are not expected to have any significant impact on the Eugene 4j School District.
All four of the projects, like all development projects, are expected to impact police services,
transportation, utilities, and other public services. Projects within the Plan Area were chosen
for the way in which they support recent City Council strategies for downtown and 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 Plan is expected to facilitate improvements within
the district, thereby implementing the goals of the planning documents. Therefore, the
projects under the Plan do not result in an intensification of development beyond that
previously anticipated under the planning documents.
5
The 2010 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 Plan Area’s frozen base. 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 property tax impacts are described in Chapter 9.
Chapter 4: Reasons for Selection of the Plan Area
The original Plan Area was adopted in 1968 with approximately 70 acres. This area was
selected after comprehensive community process under the guidance of the Federal
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). In 2010, the URA Board proposed an
expansion to the Plan Area by 5 acres to include the potential VA Clinic area. (See Exhibit D for
a map of the Plan Area with the expansion area highlighted.)Two of the four goals of the Plan
are 1) improving the function, condition, and appearance of the Plan Area and 2) reducing
blight and blighting influences.
According to ORS 457.010, "blighted areas" means areas that, by reason of deterioration, faulty
planning, inadequate or improper facilities, deleterious land use or the existence of unsafe
structures, or any combination of these factors, are detrimental to the safety, health or welfare
of the community. A blighted area is characterized by the existence of one or more of the
following conditions:
(a)The existence of buildings and structures, used or intended to be used for living, com-
mercial, industrial or other purposes, or any combination of those uses, that are unfit or
unsafe to occupy for those purposes because of any one or a combination of the following
conditions:
(A) Defective design and quality of physical construction;
(B) Faulty interior arrangement and exterior spacing;
(C) Overcrowding and a high density of population;
(D) Inadequate provision for ventilation, light, sanitation, open spaces and recreation
facilities; or
(E) Obsolescence, deterioration, dilapidation, mixed character or shifting of uses;
(b)An economic dislocation, deterioration or disuse of property resulting from faulty planning;
(c)The division or subdivision and sale of property or lots of irregular form and shape and
inadequate size or dimensions for property usefulness and development;
(d)The laying out of property or lots in disregard of contours, drainage and other physical
characteristics of the terrain and surrounding conditions;
6
(e)The existence of inadequate streets and other rights of way, open spaces and utilities;
(f)The existence of property or lots or other areas that are subject to inundation by water;
(g)A prevalence of depreciated values, impaired investments and social and economic
maladjustments to such an extent that the capacity to pay taxes is reduced and tax receipts
are inadequate for the cost of public services rendered;
(h)A growing or total lack of proper utilization of areas, resulting in a stagnant and unpro-
ductive condition of land potentially useful and valuable for contributing to the public
health, safety and welfare; or
(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 in the Plan
All project activities set forth in Section 600 of the Plan are intended to correct the existing
deficiencies in the Plan Area as described in this report (See Chapter 2).
The proposed 2010 Amendment project activities are:
th
1)Assistance to LCC for development on the 10 and Charnelton Site;
2)Additional assistance in funding the Broadway Place Garages;
3)Improvements to the Parks Blocks to provide better opportunities for the Farmers’
Market; and
th
4)Assisting with a VA clinic, if the 12 and Willamette site is selected by the VA.
th
1)LCC New Downtown Center: The Agency owns the 10 and Charnelton Development Site
th
bounded by Charnelton Street on the west, 10 Avenue on the south, and Olive Street on
the east. The site is significantly underutilized in its present configuration – a quarter block
of surface parking and a quarter block remnant from demolition of the former Sears
department store.
LCC approached the Agency regarding acquisition of the property for a new downtown
facility. On January 25, 2010, the URA Board provided direction to enter into an exclusive
negotiation with LCC, negotiate a purchase and sale agreement, and return to the URA
Board for final approval of the terms. LCC has provided educational services from
downtown for over 30 years at 1059 Willamette Street. The current facility no longer meets
the needs of the college, and LCC intends to build and own a new, mixed-use building from
which to offer educational and other services in downtown Eugene. The extensive hours of
operation will create both daytime and evening activity at a key intersection of downtown.
Economic opportunities for current and future downtown businesses will be created as
students, employees, and visitors support restaurants, retail, services and cultural venues.
In addition to Energy Management, Business Development, continuing education, and a
7
variety of other classes, the multi-use facility will include space for tenants and other
community uses, possibly a public safety station. There is also a possibility that student
housing could be incorporated as part of the redevelopment plan.
th
The Downtown Public Library, immediately across 10 Avenue, is a community asset that
will benefit greatly from development on the Agency owned site, especially the
development proposed by LCC. The Agency invested significantly in the Library. The
Downtown Eugene Public Library project was built and equipped for just over $36 million.
About half of that amount came from City debt obligations that were issued in 2000
through a partnership with the Eugene Urban Renewal Agency (URA). The payments on the
debt of about $2.5 million per year came from the URA. Beginning in 1993, the URA
purchased the land on which the library was built for $875,000. The City borrowed $18.5
million which was to be repaid from tax increment dollars from the URA. The URA also
contributed additional cash to the project, with a total of about $25 million of the $36
million project coming from URA, representing nearly 70 percent of the capital cost for the
new Library. The remaining 30 percent came from a combination of sources, including $5
million raised by the Eugene Public Library Foundation’s Capital Campaign, sale of assets,
and proceeds from a local option property tax levy of $1.9 million.
2)Broadway Place Garages: The Plan Area is parking exempt, which means that property
owners are not required to provide parking. Yet parking availability is critical to the
economic success of downtown. As such, the Agency has participated in several projects to
provide structured parking opportunities within the Plan Area. One such project was the
Broadway Place Garages. Continued provision of Broadway Place parking will support LCC’s
New Downtown Center project and other redevelopment along West Broadway, such as
Lord Leebrick’s property. Given City budgetary issues, continued operation and stability of
the Broadway Place Garages will be enhanced by the Agency assuming the debt repayment
on the garages. It would also make it possible for the parking fund to provide financial
support for increased safety services.
Background: The Agency assembled the two half-blocks that were used to develop the
Broadway Place mixed-use project. Agency funds in the amount of $2.6 million were
contributed to the parking structure construction costs. The City sold development rights
for housing to be constructed on top of the parking structures. The Broadway Place mixed-
use project includes 170 apartment units, ground floor commercial space, and 740
structured parking spaces. It is a major anchor for the west-end of downtown and a
popular residential destination with very low vacancy rates. Availability of parking was a
contributing factor to Enterprise Rent-A-Car locating downtown and employing 300 people.
3)Park Blocks Improvements for the Farmers’ Market: The Lane County Farmers’ Market
operates multiple times per week during the spring, summer, and fall on a portion of the
Park Blocks. Although the Agency has completed several improvements to the Park Blocks,
the Farmers’ Market continues to encounter issues with the space, such as access to
electricity and level and paved surfaces. Improvements to the Park Blocks and expansion of
8
available space will support a cornerstone of downtown activity and one of the most
significant public event venues in the city. The Park Blocks are the historic center and most
identifiable public space in downtown. For the past few years, the Farmers’ Market has
expressed a need and desire to expand its offerings to maintain financial viability and
potentially operate year-round.The Agency will improve the Parks Blocks in order to make
that location more attractive and functional for the Farmers’ Market.
th
4)VA Clinic: The 12 and Willamette site is currently owned by PeaceHealth. However, the
majority of the building is now vacant. Therefore, PeaceHealth has expressed an interest in
securing a tenant for this site. The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is currently seeking
a suitable site where it can locate an expanded clinic. The Plan Area may be ideal for the VA
clinic because of the central location and proximity to Lane Transit District’s Eugene Station
and the Greyhound Station. The building is large enough to accommodate the size desired
by the VA (an estimated 110,000 - 120,000 square feet). The site also has adequate on-site
parking.
PeaceHealth anticipates that the VA’s Request for Proposals to select a new site, once
issued, will favor a building with modern systems and sustainable features. The
PeaceHealth clinic is currently comprised of a building that was constructed in the 1920’s,
1950’s and 1960’s. Substantial rehabilitation is needed to update the buildings and to
potentially make it LEED certified. A new HVAC system would replace the EWEB-supplied
steam system and new energy efficient lighting would need to be installed. The new clinic
will likely include a full pharmacy and laboratory.
th
Therefore, the Plan proposes that if the VA selects the 12 and Willamette site for its clinic,
then urban renewal funds could be used to support the VA in locating downtown. The VA
Clinic downtown project is supported by the Downtown Plan (Implementation Strategy D:
Work with local, state and federal offices to locate, remain or expand downtown;
Implementation Strategy F: Work with major medical providers to locate their facilities in
and near downtown) and the Growth Management Policies.
Chapter 6: Estimated Total Cost of Each Project or Activity, Sources of
Money, and Anticipated Completion Date for Each Project or
Activity
This Report on the 2010 Plan 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 $17 million (or approximately 49%) of
funding out of an estimated total of $34.5 million of public and private investment from
FY2010/2011 through FY2018/2019.
Table 5 lists the project activities included in the Plan. Below is a short description of each of
the Plan amendment projects.
9
Lane Community College New Downtown Center: The Agency will consider the terms for an
agreement between the Agency and Lane Community College (LCC). The specific project
activities to be undertaken will be defined by the Agency, set out in the agreement with LCC,
and may include integration of a public safety station and/or open space within the
development project. LCC currently has $17.5 million in other funds to contribute to the
project. LCC is undergoing a feasibility analysis that will provide a detailed cost estimate for the
project. The total project cost is expected to significantly exceed the $17.5 million that has
been secured to date. Construction is anticipated to start in early 2011, for completion no later
than 2013.
Broadway Place Garages: The Agency will support the Broadway Place Garages by making the
annual debt payments (both principal and interest), which will secure the financial stability of
the garages, enhance safety services and relieve the struggling Parking Fund within the City of
Eugene. The support will take place starting in FY2010/2011.
Farmers’ Market Space Improvements on the Park Blocks: The Agency will spend up to
$500,000 on improvements to the Park Blocks in order to make that location more attractive
and functional for the Farmers’ Market. The improvements will start in FY2010/2011.
VA Clinic: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is planning to locate an expanded clinic in
leased space in the Eugene area. Downtown Eugene may be an ideal area for the clinic. The
lease award is estimated for the last quarter of 2010 or the first quarter of 2011. If the
downtown location is selected, the Agency will consider the terms for an agreement between
the Agency and VA and/or the property owner. The specific project activities to be undertaken
will be defined by the Agency and set out in an agreement. Although no estimate was used for
private party or VA contribution, other such contributions would be anticipated. The VA plans
to occupy the new location (as selected through the RFP) by December 2012.
Project Delivery Administration: Actions for this activity include program administration (pro-
ject management, financial services, debt issuance and administration); legal services; reporting
(budgets, financials); preparation of market, feasibility, or other economic studies; preparation
of design, architectural, engineering, landscaping architectural, planning, development, or
other developmental studies; providing accounting or audit services; providing special rehab-
ilitation, restoration, or renovation feasibility and cost analysis studies; assisting in preparation
of the annual financial report required under Section 800 of the Plan; providing property
acquisition appraisals; and evaluation of the plan and the success of its activities. The Agency
may also 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.
Projections for district administration assume that once the LCC and Beam projects are
complete, district administration expenses will be reduced to a minimal level that will be
sufficient to ensure administration of outstanding debt, budget development, and financial
report preparation. Specifically, the administration projection includes staffing at 1.4 FTE for
years FY11 through FY13 followed by 0.14 FTE for years FY14 through FY19. Additional items in
10
the projection include legal and consulting fees necessary to protect the City/Agency and com-
plete the Plan Projects, debt issuance cost needed for the projects, and property management.
Table 5
List of Project Activities and the Estimated Cost
Total
Project Activity
Estimated Cost
LCC New Downtown Center
$ 8,000,000
Broadway Place Garages & Public Safety Improvements $ 4,810,000
Park Block Improvements for the Farmers' Market
$ 500,000
VA Clinic $ 2,500,000
Project Delivery Administration (through FY2018/2019) $ 1,190,000
Projects Funded from Urban Renewal Agency $ 17,000,000
Projects Funded from Private Sources and Other Federal, State and
Local Government
$ 17,500,000
TOTAL Funding for All Projects $ 34,500,000
Project activities will begin in FY2010/2011. Decisions on priorities of funding for project
activities will be made by the Agency Board in its annual budget process and at regular Agency
Board meetings, all of which are open to the public. Construction of the projects contemplated
in the 2010 Amendment is expected to be completed by 2013. Debt issued to fund the projects
is estimated to be paid off by FY2018/2019.
The Agency Director shall convene not less than once each year a committee of such persons to
prepare a report to the Director on a) the activities of the Agency for the previous fiscal year,
and b) whether the Agency’s expenditure of tax increment dollars was limited to the projects
authorized by this Plan and the associated administrative costs authorized by the Plan. The
Director shall forward that report to the Agency Board upon its receipt.
11
Chapter 7: Estimated Amount of Money and Anticipated Year in Which
Indebtedness will be Retired or Otherwise Provided For Under
ORS 457.420 to 457.460
The total cost of all projects is estimated at $17,000,000 between FY2010/2011 and
FY2018/2019. The projects will be funded with a combination of urban renewal tax increment
financing under ORS 457 and other sources. The Agency may apply for funding from other
federal, state, and local grants in order to complete the projects. Non-City 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.
Oregon Revised Statutes require that each urban renewal district that receives property taxes
include a “maximum indebtedness” limit in their urban renewal plan. “Maximum
indebtedness” is a required spending cap for all property tax expenditures over a period of
time. “Maximum indebtedness” is not a legal debt limit. It is more like a spending limit.
Adopting a maximum indebtedness figure does not authorize or obligate the Agency to spend
money or enter into debt. Within the maximum indebtedness limitation, the Agency Board has
the ability to fund projects over time, either with cash or by issuing debt.
Certain expenditures are included in the maximum indebtedness calculation and certain expen-
ditures are excluded. For instance, cash payments for projects and administrative expenses are
included in the calculation, but expenditures made from sources other than tax increment
revenues are not included in the spending limit, such as Downtown Revitalization Loan Program
funds. In addition, interest on debt is not included in maximum indebtedness, nor is the
refinancing of existing indebtedness. The specific limitations of the maximum indebtedness
amount are spelled out in the Plan.
The City Council amended the Plan in 1998 to include a maximum indebtedness limit of $33
million. The $33 million figure represented the amount that the Agency was allowed to
cumulatively spend in tax increment revenues starting in 1998. That figure was based on the
estimated cost of building a new main library, plus continuation of the administrative costs in
the district, preparing annual financial statements, disposing of the former Sears building on
th
10 Avenue and Charnelton Street, overseeing completion of the Broadway Place and Overpark
elevator projects, and administering the loan portfolio. It included an annual inflation factor of
5% on project costs, and excluded existing debt.
As of FY10, the maximum indebtedness limit of $33 million has almost been fully spent or com-
mitted, with the bulk having been spent on building the downtown library. The amount of
remaining maximum indebtedness at any given time is an estimate based on both actual
historic spending and estimated future commitments. The amount currently remaining
uncommitted is estimated at about $850,000, after taking into account district administration
12
through FY2010/2011. Additional projects for the downtown safety initiative are expected to
use some of that remaining capacity prior to the 2010 Amendment.
In the 2009 legislative session, HB 3056 was approved and includes changes to ORS 457, the
urban renewal statutes. One of those changes is that increases in maximum indebtedness may
not exceed an aggregate of 20% of the original maximum indebtedness of the plan, including an
1
indexing from July 1, 1998 to July 1, 2009. The index that may be used is the inflation rate
included in the initial maximum indebtedness calculations. Under the provisions of this new
statute, the $33 million original maximum indebtedness would increase to $56.4 million, using
the original 5% inflation rate from July 1, 1998 to July 1, 2009. The greatest maximum
indebtedness figure allowed (without overlapping taxing district concurrence), including a 20%
increase from that amount, would be $67.7 million.
In order to complete the four projects, it is estimated that an increase of $16,150,000 is needed
in the maximum indebtedness limit. The increase is calculated as follows:
LCC Project $8,000,000
VA Clinic 2,500,000
Farmers Market 500,000
Garage Debt (principal only) 4,810,000
Legal/Debt Issuance/Administration 1,190,000
Total Funds Needed for Projects $17,000,000
Less: Amount Remaining Under Current Spending Cap -850,000
Net Amount of Maximum Indebtedness Increase $16,150,000
Not Included in Maximum Indebtedness Cap:
Interest on LCC Project Debt (estimated) 2,200,000
Interest on Parking Garage Debt 1,500,000
*It should also be noted that when the garage debt is paid off, the City’s Parking Fund will continue to
pay for the cost of police officers. That amount is not included in the chart above.
The increase in maximum indebtedness of $16,150,000 would result in a revised maximum
indebtedness figure of $49,150,000, which represents cumulative spending in the Downtown
District from 1998 to the end of the Plan. This revised maximum indebtedness amount is the
estimated amount needed to accomplish the projects under the current project assumptions
and to provide for district administration. It is within the limits established under ORS 457.470.
Table 6 in Exhibit E includes information about future revenues and expenditures in the district.
The timing and amounts for individual project activities will be determined by the Agency Board
each year during the annual budget process. Completion dates for individual activities may be
1
This provision may be changed if written concurrence is obtained from the overlapping taxing districts that
impose at least 75% of the taxes under permanent rate limits in the Plan Area.
13
affected by changes in the plans of other private or public partners, local economic and market
conditions, changes in the availability of tax increment funds, and changes in priorities for
carrying out project activities. The Agency will convene a committee at least once each year to
prepare a report on expenditures from the previous fiscal year in comparison to the Plan. The
Director shall forward that report to the Agency Board upon its receipt.
Current projections show that the tax increment revenues should be sufficient to pay for the
projects and associated debt by FY2018/2019. The district would terminate once the debt is
repaid. (The district is not expected to need to collect tax revenue in the final year, FY2019.)
Chapter 8: Financial Analysis of the Plan with Sufficient Information to
Determine Feasibility
The financial analysis of the plan shown in Table 6 in Exhibit E includes the anticipated tax
increment revenues over the projected remaining life of the Plan. The analysis shows that the
anticipated tax increment revenues are based on reasonable projections of new development
and appreciation in existing property values. The projection of tax increment revenues is based
on the following assumptions:
The Plan Area will be expanded in FY12, increasing the frozen base by approximately $14
?
million.
Property assessed values will increase by 2% per year, which includes increases on existing
?
property as well as a small amount of new investment in existing downtown area
properties.
One significant, new taxable development is anticipated during the remainder of the life of
?
the district. Beam Development is currently working on rehabilitating the Centre Court
building, at Willamette and Broadway. The projections assume that this project is
completed and generates additional taxable value within the district.
The Broadway Place development’s Multi-Unit Property Tax Exemption will expire, and the
?
project will start paying additional taxes beginning in FY11.
Tax rates applicable to the Downtown District are projected to go down over time, due to
?
the Oregon statute that says that certain urban renewal plans may only collect tax
increment on permanent tax rates or bonds and levies approved by voters prior to October
6, 2001. In particular, bonded debt tax rates applicable to the Downtown District will be
reduced as bonds approved by voters prior to October 6, 2001 are retired.
The projections result in urban renewal tax revenues between FY2010/2011 and FY2018/2019
of approximately $17 million. Together with other revenues and existing fund balances, these
14
2
revenues will support the $16,150,000 of increased maximum indebtedness proposed under
this Plan Amendment. In addition to the redevelopment projects, the revenues will be suffi-
cient to pay for administrative activities, including an allocation of central service overhead
costs. Those costs are projected to increase over time due to inflation at a rate of 2% per year.
The 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.
Chapter 9: Fiscal Impact Statement that Estimates the Impact of the Tax
Increment Financing, Both Until and After the Indebtedness is
Repaid, Upon All Entities Levying Taxes Upon Property in the Plan
Area
Taxing bodies that overlap with the Agency are affected by the use of tax increment funds to
implement the Plan. When a district is first created, the assessed value within the Plan Area is
established as the “frozen base.” This is a way of keeping the overlapping taxing districts
“whole” as of the date the urban renewal district is created. 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 among the jurisdictions that continue
to receive taxes on the frozen base. The URA receives taxes on the incremental value. This has
an impact on the amount of revenue that the overlapping jurisdictions receive, versus what
they would have received if there were no urban renewal districts in effect.
Impact on Tax Bills: In addition to the impact on the overlapping taxing jurisdictions, urban
renewal also makes individual tax bills look different. Urban renewal districts do not impose
new taxes; rather, they redistribute taxes from overlapping taxing districts to the urban
renewal districts. There are two basic steps to understand how an individual’s tax bill is
affected by tax increment financing in Oregon. The first step determines the amount of
property taxes that the urban renewal agency should receive, and the second step determines
how the taxes are accounted for on property tax statements.
The first step in determining how tax increment financing affects an individual’s tax bill consists
of applying the tax rates of the taxing districts (such as the city, county and school districts) to
the incremental value of the urban renewal district. That product is the amount of taxes that
the urban renewal agency should receive. The second step determines how to divide or split
2
The proposed 2010 Amendment, 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.
15
the tax rates of the taxing districts so that when those “divided rates” are applied to all tax bills
in the City, the urban renewal agency receives its share, and the taxing districts receive the
remainder.
The Lane County Assessor determines how the tax rates for the schools, city, and county should
get divided between the taxing districts and the urban renewal districts. As of December 2010,
there are seven urban renewal districts in Lane County. As an example, the City’s permanent
tax rate is $7.0058 per $1,000 of assessed value. The Lane County Assessor divides that tax rate
into three pieces: $6.9056 goes to the City of Eugene, $0.0744 goes to the Downtown Urban
Renewal District, and $0.0258 goes to the Riverfront Urban Renewal District. This calculation is
done for each tax rate on the tax bill.
After taking the information from the Lane County Assessor about the division of tax rates, an
analysis can determine how an individual tax bill is affected by urban renewal division of tax.
For the median Eugene home that the Lane County Assessor calculated for FY2009/2010, this
median taxpayer would essentially pay the same amount of total taxes before or after urban
renewal division of taxes. The difference is that the tax revenues are reallocated from the
overlapping taxing districts to the urban renewal districts. Table 7 in Exhibit F sets out this
calculation for the average taxpayer in Eugene. As can be seen, the before and after urban
renewal views of this taxpayer’s bill are within one penny of each other. That penny
represents the effects of truncation and rounding.
Impact on Tax Rates: Urban renewal nominally affects voter-approved local option levies and
bonds because the affected district has less property value to levy taxes against, resulting in
slightly higher tax rates. Based on the FY2009/2010 tax rates, the estimated impact of this
slight tax rate increase from the Downtown Urban Renewal District is about $1.66 for the
average Eugene taxpayer, which represents less than 0.05% of the total tax bill of $2,938 in
FY2009/2010.
Impact on Overlapping Taxing District Revenues: For the overlapping taxing jurisdictions, a
share of property taxes from the “excess value” or “incremental value” is not collected by the
overlapping jurisdictions during the period of an active district, which reduces 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. 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.
The estimated amount of urban renewal taxes to be divided over the remaining term of the
Plan (net of discounts, delinquents, etc.) is shown in Table 8 in Exhibit G. Only the permanent
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
16
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 Table 8, in FY2009/2010, it is estimated that the City of Eugene would forego
about $810,000 of revenue because of the Downtown Urban Renewal District tax increment
financing. In FY2018/2019 after tax increment financing is terminated, the City of Eugene is
estimated to receive $1,140,000 of additional tax revenue per year. Lane County is estimated
to forego $150,000 of revenue in the first fiscal year, and to benefit by $210,000 of additional
tax revenue per year after division of tax is terminated in FY2018/2019. The combined school
districts are estimated to forego $650,000 of revenue in the first fiscal year, and to benefit by
$920,000 of additional annual tax revenue after the district is terminated in FY2018/2019. 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.
The net impact of the Downtown District on local schools is a loss of about $31,000 per year
(based on FY10) after accounting for the State’s system for school funding. The State
determines how much money must be allocated for the education of each pupil across the
state. If the money is not available from local property taxes, the State will make up the
difference. In FY10, the Downtown District diverted $650,000 of local property taxes that
would have gone to education. The State made up the difference.
If the Downtown District had not diverted those funds, the State would have had the additional
$650,000 to allocate as it chose. In other words, the State could have chosen to allocate the
money to education or to some other budgetary priority. Had the State chosen to keep the
money in education, some of that money would have returned to Eugene schools based on the
applicable statewide school funding formula. Under the formula, Eugene School District 4j
would have received about $20,000; LCC would have received about $10,000; and Lane
Education Service District would have received about $1,000.
As a result of the Downtown District, the State provided a net $629,000 for spending in Eugene.
Without the Downtown District tax increment financing, those funds would be used to fund
school districts throughout the state.
Reduced Rate Plan: The Downtown District is a “reduced rate plan” under the statutes, which
means that the property taxes that may be used to fund urban renewal activities is limited to
the permanent tax rates and any bonds or local option levies that were approved by voters
prior to October 2001. The projected tax rate used to generate urban renewal revenues for the
Downtown District will be reduced over time as bonds approved by voters before October 2001
are paid off. Urban renewal tax increment revenue is counted towards the Measure 5 general
government tax rate cap of $10 per $1,000 of assessed value. In Eugene, the general
government category of taxes is not currently in Measure 5 tax rate compression, so this is not
a significant factor in evaluating the impact of urban renewal on the overlapping taxing district
revenues.
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
No specific relocation activity is identified in the Plan. If urban renewal assistance results in
relocation requirements, a relocation plan will be developed for that purpose. Relocation
activities and assistance would be provided in accordance with ORS 281.045 through
281.105.
B.Requirement
A description of the methods to be used for the temporary or permanent relocation of
persons living in and businesses situated in, the Plan Area in accordance with ORS 281.045
through 281.105.
Response
No specific relocation activity is identified in the Plan. If urban renewal assistance results in
relocation requirements, a relocation plan will be developed for that purpose. Relocation
activities and assistance would be provided in accordance with ORS 281.045 through
281.105.
C.Requirement
An enumeration, by cost range, of the existing housing units in the plan area to be
destroyed or altered and new units to be added.
Response
No specific existing housing units are proposed to be removed by actions of the Plan.
D.Requirement
A description of new residential units which are likely to be constructed within the Plan
Area.
Response
Some new residential units are expected to be constructed within the Plan Area.
18
Chapter 11: Appendix
Exhibit A: Plan Area Map
Exhibit B: Zoning District Map
Exhibit C: Census Boundaries Map
Exhibit D: Plan Area Map with 2010 Expansion Area Highlighted
Exhibit E: Projected Revenues and Expenditures for the Plan Area
Exhibit F: Impact of Urban Renewal on an Individual Tax Bill
Exhibit G: Impact of the Plan on Overlapping Taxing Jurisdictions
19
Exhibit A – Plan Area Map
20
Exhibit B – Zoning District Map
21
Exhibit C – Census Boundaries Map
22
Exhibit D: Plan Area Map with 2010 Expansion Area Highlighted
23
24
Exhibit E: Projected Revenues and Expenditures for the Plan Area
Table 6
Totals
ResourcesFY10FY11FY12FY13FY14FY15FY16FY17FY18FY19 FY11-19
Property Taxes 1,730,000 1,920,000 1,960,000 2,080,000 2,130,000 2,130,000 2,180,000 2,220,000 2,280,000 - 16,900,000
Debt Issued - 7,700,000 - - - - - - - - 7,700,000
DRLP Loan Repayments 80,000 190,000 190,000 190,000 190,000 190,000 190,000 190,000 190,000 190,000 1,710,000
BEDI Grant/108 Loan for Beam 6,700,000 - - - - - - - -
- -
Interest Earnings 40,000 92,000 62,000 62,000 52,000 62,000 62,000 72,000 72,000 83,000 619,000
Beginning Working Capital 8,002,350 4,404,008 1,895,501 1,562,589 1,343,536 1,446,961 1,546,861 1,687,086 1,864,661 2,078,311 4,404,008
Total Resources16,552,350 14,306,008 4,107,501 3,894,589 3,715,536 3,828,961 3,978,861 4,169,086 4,406,661 2,351,31131,333,008
Requirements
Expenditures
Administration 530,000 480,000 355,000 350,000 55,000 55,000 55,000 57,000 60,000 63,000 1,530,000
DRLP Loans Granted 2,360,000 190,000 190,000 190,000 190,000 190,000 190,000 190,000 190,000 190,000 1,710,000
Beam Project 6,500,000 - - - - - - - - -
-
DT Initiative 150,000
Miscellaneous Projects 134,593 -
LCC project - 8,000,000 - - - - - - - - 8,000,000
VA Clinic project 2,500,000 - - - - - - - - 2,500,000
Farmers Market improvements 500,000 - - - - - - - -
500,000
Debt Service on UR Debt - - 1,240,000 1,240,000 1,240,000 1,240,000 1,240,000 1,240,000 1,240,000 1,240,000 9,920,000
Intergvt'l Exps - Library & Other 2,473,750 -
Intergvt'l Exps - Parking Debt - 740,506 759,913 771,053 783,575 797,100 806,775 817,425 838,350 - 6,314,697
Total Expenditures12,148,343 12,410,506 2,544,913 2,551,053 2,268,575 2,282,100 2,291,775 2,304,425 2,328,350 1,493,00030,474,697
Debt Service Reserve - 1,240,000 1,240,000 1,240,000 1,240,000 1,240,000 1,240,000 1,240,000 1,240,000 - -
Other Reserves 4,404,008 655,501 322,589 103,536 206,961 306,861 447,086 624,661 838,311 858,311 858,311
Total Reserves 4,404,008 1,895,501 1,562,589 1,343,536 1,446,961 1,546,861 1,687,086 1,864,661 2,078,311 858,311 858,311
Total Requirements16,552,351 14,306,008 4,107,501 3,894,589 3,715,536 3,828,961 3,978,861 4,169,086 4,406,661 2,351,31131,333,008
Note: Administration includes project legal and professional services, debt issuance costs and project administration.
23
Exhibit F: Impact of Urban Renewal on an Individual Tax Bill
Table 7
Comparison of Tax Bill Before and After Urban Renewal Reallocation
For Median Eugene Home in FY10 - 2009 Tax Year
Taxes Before Taxes Billed
Urban RenewalTaxes Directed to:After Urban Renewal
ReallocationTaxing DistrictsDowntown URRiverfront URReallocationDifference
School Taxes
Eugene School District$752.39$739.20$9.79$3.39$739.20($13.18)
Eugene School District LOL$237.67$236.61$0.00$1.06$236.61($1.06)
Lane Community College$98.09$96.72$1.03$0.35$96.72($1.38)
Lane ESD$35.37$34.87$0.36$0.13$34.87($0.49)
$1,123.52$1,107.40$11.19$4.93$1,107.40($16.11)
General Government Taxes
City of Eugene$1,110.05$1,094.17$11.79$4.09$1,094.17($15.88)
City of Eugene Library Levy$36.73$36.60$0.00$0.13$36.60($0.13)
Lane County$202.70$199.82$2.14$0.74$199.82($2.88)
$27.03
Eugene Downtown UR$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$27.03
$11.75
Eugene Riverfront UR$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$11.75
$1,349.48$1,330.59$13.93$4.96$1,369.37$19.90
Bonded Debt Taxes
Lane County Bond$18.67$18.41$0.19$0.06$18.41($0.25)
Eugene Bond I$52.08$51.35$0.54$0.19$51.35($0.73)
Eugene Bond II$136.17$135.68$0.00$0.49$135.68($0.49)
Eugene 4J Bond I$92.03$90.43$1.19$0.41$90.43($1.60)
Eugene 4J Bond II$128.67$128.10$0.00$0.57$128.10($0.57)
LCC Bond$37.12$37.00$0.00$0.13$37.00($0.13)
$464.74$460.97$1.92$1.85$460.97($3.77)
$27.03$11.74$0.01
Total Taxes$2,937.73$2,898.96$2,937.74
Source: Based on tax rates per the Lane County Assessor, Levy Child/Parent Detail Report, Tax Year
2009, TCA 00400
Assessed Value for Median Home in Eugene$158,447
Any slight differences of $0.01 are due to truncation and rounding.
24
24
Exhibit G: Impact of the Plan on Overlapping Taxing Jurisdictions
Table 8
ActualProjectedProjectedProjectedProjectedProjectedProjectedProjectedProjectedProjected
FY10FY11FY12FY13FY14FY15FY16FY17FY18FY19
*
District Revenue Impact
*
*
School District 4J
$550,000$600,000$620,000$660,000$680,000$700,000$720,000$730,000$760,000$780,000
Lane Community College
$70,000$80,000$80,000$90,000$90,000$90,000$90,000$100,000$100,000$100,000
Lane Education Service District
$30,000$30,000$30,000$30,000$30,000$30,000$30,000$30,000$40,000$40,000
City of Eugene
$810,000$890,000$910,000$970,000$1,000,000$1,030,000$1,060,000$1,080,000$1,110,000$1,140,000
Lane County
$150,000$160,000$170,000$180,000$180,000$190,000$190,000$200,000$200,000$210,000
Permanent Tax Rates
School District 4J
$4.7485$4.7485$4.7485$4.7485$4.7485$4.7485$4.7485$4.7485$4.7485$4.7485
Lane Community College
$0.6191$0.6191$0.6191$0.6191$0.6191$0.6191$0.6191$0.6191$0.6191$0.6191
Lane Education Service District
$0.2232$0.2232$0.2232$0.2232$0.2232$0.2232$0.2232$0.2232$0.2232$0.2232
City of Eugene
$7.0058$7.0058$7.0058$7.0058$7.0058$7.0058$7.0058$7.0058$7.0058$7.0058
Lane County
$1.2793$1.2793$1.2793$1.2793$1.2793$1.2793$1.2793$1.2793$1.2793$1.2793
Incremental Value in the Downtown UR Dist.123,590,000135,090,000138,420,000147,420,000151,600,000155,860,000160,210,000164,640,000169,160,000173,770,000
Notes:Property tax collections for all years is:94%
Existing property values increase at 2% per year
Broadway Place tax exemption expires in FY11
Boundary expansion occurs in FY12
Beam development is complete and pays taxes starting in FY13
* The listed amounts for FY19 will be revenue provided to the various entities. (The Downtown District is not expected to collect tax increment in FY19.)
** 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. See Chapter 9 “Impact on Overlapping Taxing District Revenues” section for more information.
25