Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrdinance No. 20459COUNCIL ORDINANCE NUMBER 20459 COUNCIL BILL NUMBER 5029 AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING AN AMENDED URBAN RENEWAL PLAN FOR THE DOWNTOWN URBAN RENEWAL DISTRICT. ADOPTED: May 24, 2010 SIGNED: May 25, 2010 PASSED: 6/2 REJECTED: OPPOSED: Brown, Taylor ABSENT: EFFECTIVE: June 25, 2010 ORDINANCE NO. 20459 AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING AN AMENDED URBAN RENEWAL PLAN FOR THE DOWNTOWN URBAN RENEWAL DISTRICT. The City Council of the City of Eugene finds that: A. The Urban Renewal Plan for the Central Eugene Project (the "Plan ") was initially adopted on July 3, 1968, by Resolution No. 257 of the Urban Renewal Agency of the City of Eugene (the "Agency "), and on December 19, 1968, by Resolution No. 1609 of the Eugene City Council. The Plan has subsequently been amended, most recently on September 13, 2004, by Ordinance No. 20328 of the Eugene City Council. B. The City Council's 2009 Vision and Goals include a goal to foster a vibrant downtown (the "Downtown Goal ") C. The City Council and the Urban Renewal Agency Board of Directors (the "Agency Board ") have determined that Lane Community Colle eg 's ( "LCC ") new downtown cam us is consistent with that Downtown Goal and that the Plan should be amended to authorize this project and to allow it to be financed with tax increment funds. LCC wants to build a new, state -of -the -art education facility on the vacant half -block located at 10 Avenue and Charnelton Street, across from the downtown Eugene Public Library. The new green (LEED Platinum) education facility will include job training programs, the Energy Management program, business development and senior programs, and other LCC educational programming. LCC is also considering the inclusion of student housing in the project. Up to $ 8 million of urban renewal funds would be used to help LCC build the new Downtown Campus project. D. The City Council and the Agency Board have determined that it is consistent with the Downtown Goal to narrow the scope of two existing projects in the Plan in the following manner: (1) Broadway Place Garages and Public Safety Improvements. The existing Plan authorizes the financing of public parking and public transportation facilities. The Plan will be amended to limit this project category to the Broadway Place Garages, which were initially funded in part through urban renewal funds and provide an essential public parking facility to serve the business, customer, and resident parking needs in the District. Paying off the debt for those garages ($4.9 million plus interest) will ensure the continued availability of the garages, and will also free up funds that can be used for public safety enhancements in the District. Public safety improvements are a key strategy to creating a vibrant and economically healthy place. Increasing public safety services and coordinating with other agencies will make downtown a more welcoming place for everyone. (2) Infrastructure Improvements for the Farmers' Market. The existing Plan authorizes the financing of public parks, public plazas, restrooms and open spaces. The Plan will be amended to limit this project category to infrastructure improvements to the Ordinance -- Page 1 of 4 Park Blocks along 8 1h Avenue to make the location more attractive and functional for the Farmers' Market. This project will support a cornerstone of downtown activity and one of the most significant public event venues in the city. Up to $500,000 of urban renewal funds would be used for this project. E. In accordance with the provisions of ORS 457, the Agency Director prepared an amended Plan (the "proposed Plan "). The proposed Plan, prepared in March 2010, included: (1) Increasing the maximum indebtedness by $16.15 million, to a total of $49.15 million, to cover the three specific projects itemized in Findings C and D above plus funding for a Veterans' Affairs clinic; (2) Expanding the District boundary to include the potential Veterans' Affairs clinic site; (3) Annual review of tax increment projects by a community member panel; and (4) Ceasing the division of taxes for the District after debt issued to pay for the projects is repaid or defeased. F. On March 8, 2010, the Agency Board considered a draft of the proposed Plan and accompanying Report on Urban Renewal Plan for the Downtown Urban Renewal District (the "Report ") and then forwarded it to the City Council for public hearing and possible adoption. G. On March 12, 2010, a draft of the proposed Plan and the Report were forwarded to the governing body of each taxing district affected by the Plan with an offer to consult and confer with each district. No recommendations for changes were received from the school districts. The Lane County Board of Commissioners submitted recommendations that the City Council change the proposed Plan by requiring concurrence from Lane County for any future plan amendments, expand the District boundary to include a Lane County facility, and hold Lane County harmless from the financial impact of the District. The City Council considered these recommendations and determined not to make changes to the proposed Plan as a result of the comments. H. On March 19, 2010, notice of the proposed Plan amendment was sent to individuals or households as required by ORS 457.120. The notice included, but was not limited to, the date, time and place of the public hearing, in addition to the website where the proposed Plan and the Report could be viewed. I. On March 29, 2010, the Planning Commission met to review the proposed Plan and Report, and recommended that the City Council approve the proposed Plan based on the City's land use policies. J. On April 8, 2010, the Eugene Redevelopment Advisory Committee met to review the proposed Plan and Report. K. After the notice was mailed pursuant to ORS 457.120, the City Council conducted a public hearing on April 19, 2010, on the proposed Plan. L. Legislation passed in 2009 places new limits on how much a municipality can increase maximum indebtedness. That same legislation, however, also provides that those Ordinance -- Page 2 of 4 limitations "do not apply to the extent the municipality approving a plan obtains the written concurrence of taxing districts imposing at least 75 percent of the amount of taxes imposed under permanent rate limits in the urban renewal area. " Together, School District 4J and the City impose at least 75% of the amount of taxes imposed under permanent rate limits in the urban renewal area. On May 19, 2010, the School Board for District 4J adopted a motion, for purposes of that statute, concurring with the increase in maximum indebtedness. The City concurs with that increase in maximum indebtedness by enacting this ordinance. Therefore, the new legislative limitations are not applicable to the proposed maximum indebtedness increase. M. In response to information received after the Agency Board forwarded the proposed Plan and Report to the City, the list of projects, maximum indebtedness, and area of the District were reduced and the proposed Plan was revised to reflect those reductions (the "revised, proposed Plan "). The revised, proposed Plan removed the Veterans' Affairs clinic spending and boundary expansion, and includes the following: (1) Increasing the maximum indebtedness by $13.6 million, to a total of $46.6 million, to cover the three specific projects itemized in Findings C and D above; (2) Annual review of tax increment projects by a community member panel; and (3) Ceasing the division of taxes for the District after debt issued to pay for the projects is repaid or defeased. N. Based on the recommendations of the Agency Board and the Planning Commission, and the written and oral testimony before the Planning Commission and the City Council, the City Council specifically finds and determines that: (1) The area defined in the revised, proposed Plan is blighted for the reasons explained in Exhibit C to this Ordinance; (2) The rehabilitation and redevelopment described in the revised, proposed Plan is necessary to protect the public health, safety or welfare of the City; (3) The revised, proposed Plan conforms to the Metropolitan Area General Plan, State Land Use Planning Goals, the Downtown Plan, the adopted Growth Management Policies, the Vision for Greater Downtown Eugene, and other adopted City plans and policies, including the Downtown Goal, and provides an outline for accomplishing the urban renewal projects proposed in the revised, proposed Plan; (4) No one will be displaced as a result of any of the three projects included in the revised, proposed Plan; (5) No real property will be acquired as a result of the three projects included in the revised, proposed Plan; (6) Adoption and carrying out of the revised, proposed Plan is economically sound and feasible as described in the Report included in Exhibit B to this Ordinance; and (7) The City shall assume and complete any activities prescribed by the revised, proposed Plan. THE CITY OF EUGENE DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1 . Based upon the above findings, the Report on the Urban Renewal Plan accompanying the Plan attached as Exhibit B, and the blight findings attached as Exhibit C to Ordinance -- Page 3 of 4 this ordinance, all of which are hereby adopted, the revisions to the Urban Renewal Plan for the Downtown Urban Renewal District, as reflected in Exhibit A attached hereto, are approved and adopted as the urban renewal plan for the area set forth therein. Section 2 . The City Recorder is requested to: (a) Publish a notice of the adoption of the amended Plan, in the Register- Guard, a newspaper published within the City of Eugene and having the greatest circulation within the City, no later than four days following the date that this ordinance is adopted. In accordance with ORS 457.135, the notice shall contain a statement that the amended Plan shall be conclusively presumed valid for all purposes 90 days after its adoption by this Ordinance and that no direct or collateral attack on the action adopting the amended Plan may be commenced thereafter; (b) Forward a copy of this ordinance and the amended Plan to the Urban Renewal Agency of the City of Eugene, which Agency will cause the amended Plan to be recorded in the official records of Lane County, Oregon; and (c) Forward a copy of this ordinance and the amended Plan to the Lane County Assessor and request that the Assessor perform the duties directed by ORS 457.430 through ORS 457.450. Passed by the City Council this 24 day of May, 2010 fi� a" _12�iml Acting City Recorder Approved by the Mayor this 25th day of May, 2010 May r Ordinance -- Page 4 of 4 Ordinance Exhibit A Urban Renewal Plan for the Downtown Urban Renewal District r, r e r ■ Adopted July 1968 - Modified - December 1968 December 1989 June 1998 September 1% 2004 June 2010 Urban Renewal Agency of the City of E Oregon W URBAN RENEWAL PLAN FOR THE DOWNTOWN URBAN RENEWAL DISTRICT Table of Contents Section — Introduction ................................................................................................. .............................. - 2- Section 200 — Definitions ................................................................................................... ............................... 2- Section 300 — Legal Descriptions ........................................................................................ .............................. - 3- Section 400 — Goals and Objectives .................................................................................... .............................. - 3- A . GOALS ............................................................................................................................ ............................... - 3- B . OBJECTIVES ................................................................................................................... ............................... - 3- Section — Land Use Plan .............................................................................................. ............................... 4- Section 600 — Urban Renewal Projects ............................................................................... .............................. - 4- A. PUBLIC PARKS, PUBLIC PLAZAS, REST ROOMS, AND OPEN SPACES: Park Blocks Improvements for the Farmers Market ............................................................................................................ ............................... - 4- B. PUBLIC PARKING AND PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES: Broadway Place Garages & Public Safety Improvements ............................................................................................................... ............................... - 4- C. LANE COMMUNITY COLLEGE NEW DOWNTOWN CAMPUS ......................................... ............................... - 5- D. ADM I N ISTRATIVE ACTIVITI ES ........................................................................................ ............................... - 5- E. EXISTING ACTIVITIES ..................................................................................................... ............................... - 6- Section 700 — Methods for Financing the Projects .............................................................. ............................... 6- Section 800 — Annual Financial Statement Required ........................................................... .............................. - 7- Section 900 — Citizen Participation ..................................................................................... .............................. - 7- 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- Section — Formal Matters .......................................................................................... .............................. - 9- PLAN EXHIBIT A: Plan Area Map .................................................................................... ............................... -10- PLAN EXHIBIT B: Plan Area Description ........................................................................... ............................... -11 - I. ADOPTION Resolution Number Date Purpose Number 19- Dec -68 o Modified the Plan to allow for additional projects as required by HUD Resolution 3- Jul -68 Adoption of the Urban Renewal Plan for the Central Eugene Project (the No. 257 8- Nov -89 Plan). II. AMENDMENTS ...Amendment Number Date Purpose Resolution 19- Dec -68 o Modified the Plan to allow for additional projects as required by HUD No. 1609 to receive additional federal funds. Ordinance 8- Nov -89 o Aligned the Plan with Metro Plan policies: strengthen the area's No. 19648 position as a regional service center, maintain the Eugene central business district as a vital center, incorporate principles of compact urban growth, encourage retail and commercial development in the downtown area, and promote the development of parking structures in the downtown core. o Expiration set for FY10. Ordinance 1- Jun -98 o Responded to Measure 50 to a) include a maximum amount of No. 20120 indebtedness and b) select Option 1 for the city -wide special levy as the method for collecting ad valorem property taxes for payment of debts related to urban renewal projects. o Limited expenditure of new funds to completing existing projects and construction of a new main library. o Removed the business assistance loan program. o Approved a plan to reduce district administration costs over the following three years. Ordinance 13- Sep -04 o Expanded the projects for which tax increment funds could be used No. 20328 o Created a public advisory committee o Added the requirement for specific Agency approval of projects greater than $250,000 (other than loans), and adding a limit of $100,000 on the mandate for a public hearing in the event of a plan change (applies to minor amendments that can be approved by the URA without ORS 457.095 approval — Section 1200, C of the 2004 Plan). o Added the Downtown Revitalization Loan Program (DRLP). o Expiration set for 2024. Downtown Urban Renewal Plan —June , 2010 URBAN RENEWAL PLAN FOR THE DOWNTOWN URBAN RENEWAL DISTRICT Section 100 — Introduction The Downtown Urban Renewal Plan (formerly known as the Central Eugene Project Plan), was revised in 2010 to limit the scope of two previously approved projects, to remove the ability to initiate all other previously approved projects, and to authorize one new project. The two previously approved projects are: (1) public parks, public plazas, rest rooms, and open spaces, which will be limited to funding infrastructure improvements to the Park Blocks to provide better opportunities for the Farmers' Market; and (2) public parking and transportation facilities, which will be limited to additional assistance for the Broadway Place Garages. The new project is assistance to Lane Community College (LCC) for development of the 10 and Charnelton Site. Except for these three projects, the Agency will not initiate additional projects to be funded with tax increment dollars after the date of this 2010 Amendment. Upon the repayment or defeasance of debt related to the urban renewal projects specifically identified in the Plan, as amended by the 2010 Amendment, the Downtown Urban Renewal District will be terminated, any unused tax increment funds will be returned to Lane County 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. 10 and Charnelton Site means the Agency owned property bounded by Charnelton Street on the west, 10 Avenue on the south, and Olive Street on the east. The downtown public library is directly across 10 Avenue from this site. 2010 Amendment means the update to the Plan that was completed in 2010. AgencV means the Urban Renewal Agency of the City of Eugene. Broadway Place Garages means the structured parking at Broadway and Charnelton streets, construction of which was partially paid for with urban renewal funds. Downtown Plan means the Downtown Plan as adopted by the Eugene City Council in 2004 as a refinement of the Eugene Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan. Plan means this Urban Renewal Plan for the Downtown District. Plan Area means the property included in the Downtown Urban Renewal District as more fully described in Section 300. Downtown Urban Renewal Plan —June , 2010 2 Projects means only the urban renewal projects that are listed in Section 600 of the Plan, as amended by the 2010 Amendment. Tax Increment Financing means a method of financing urban renewal projects as authorized by ORS Chapter 457. Section 300 —Legal Descriptions The Downtown Urban Renewal District includes an area of approximately 70 acres. The Plan Area includes all of the land within the boundaries designated on the map attached as Plan Exhibit A and described as containing all lots or parcels of property, situated in the City of Eugene, County of Lane, State of Oregon, bounded generally as described in Plan Exhibit B. Section 400 —Goals and Objectives A. GOALS The goals of the Plan are to: 1. Improve the function, condition, and appearance of the Plan Area through: a. Improved site for the Farmers' Market; b. Funding of critical parking assets; c. Improved safety for visitors to locations and business within the Plan Area; and d. Redevelopment of the excavated vacant lot at the 10 and Charnelton Site. 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 Plan are to ensure that: 1. The Farmers' Market can continue to bring hundreds of employees and residents 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; and 3. LCC is able to redevelop the 10 and Charnelton Site with a campus that will bring thousands of people into the Plan Area. Downtown Urban Renewal Plan —June , 2010 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 —Urban Renewal Projects To achieve the objectives of this Plan, the Agency may undertake the following urban renewal projects, and no others, with tax increment funds: A. PUBLIC PARKS, PUBLIC PLAZAS, REST ROOMS, AND OPEN SPACES: Park Blocks Improvements for the Farmers Former Section 600 A.5 of the Plan authorized the Agency to participate in funding the design, acquisition, construction or rehabilitation of public spaces, or parks or public facilities within the urban renewal area, including but not limited to walkways and plazas and accessibility improvements. Beginning with the effective date of the 2010 Amendment, the Agency will not use tax increment funds to initiate any public parks, public plazas, rest rooms or open spaces except the Park Blocks improvements for the Farmers' Market that are described in the next paragraph. The Agency may spend up to $500,000 of tax increment funds, plus associated interest, premium and other costs, on infrastructure improvements to the Park Blocks in order to make that location more attractive and functional for the Farmers' Market. B. PUBLIC PARKING AND PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES: Broadway Place Garages &Public Safety Improvements Former Section 600 A.6 of the Plan authorized the Agency to participate in funding the acquisition and construction and enhancement of public parking and public transportation facilities within the renewal area. Prior to the 2010 Amendment, the Agency provided approximately $2.5 million of assistance for the construction of the Broadway Place Garages. After the effective date of the 2010 Amendment, the Agency will not use tax increment funds to initiate any public parking or transportation facilities funding except the funding for the Broadway Place Garages described in the next paragraph. After the 2010 Amendment, the Agency may spend up to $4.9 million of tax increment funds to pay the principal of City obligations issued to finance those garages, or of Agency obligations that are issued to refinance the City obligations, plus associated interest, premium and other costs, but only if 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 proposed funding for the Broadway Place Garages serve and benefit the Plan Area because: (1) The Broadway Place Garages provide an essential public parking facility that directly serves Downtown Urban Renewal Plan —June , 2010 4 the business, customer, and resident parking needs in the Plan Area, thereby supporting continued redevelopment in the Plan Area; (2) The Plan Area is a parking exempt zone, and the Broadway Place Garages relieve property owners in the Plan Area from the requirement to provide imbedded parking in new and redeveloped properties; and (3) The additional funding will allow the Broadway Place Garages to continue to provide these services to the Plan Area. C. LANE COMMUNITY COLLEGE NEW DOWNTOWN CAMPUS The Agency may spend up to $8 million of tax increment funds, plus associated interest, premium and other costs, to assist LCC in the development of a new downtown building for its 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. The Agency already has approved the sale of this site to LCC. 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 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 to 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. 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 LCC New Downtown Campus will serve and benefit the Plan Area because: (1) Existing education programs and new programs to be included in the new building will draw thousands of students and visitors to the Plan Area each year; (2) New housing residents will generate more activity in the Plan Area; and (3) This landmark building, coupled with the activity it generates, will become a major anchor that will support adjacent retail and services in the Plan Area, enhance the perception of safety by introducing high volumes of new pedestrian traffic in the Plan Area, and attract new investments in the Plan Area. D. ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIVITIES Many of the Agency's administrative activities are provided through a contract between the City of Eugene and the Agency dated June 15, 2004. 1. The Agency may retain the services of independent professional people or organizations to provide administrative or technical services such as: a. Project management; b. Preparation of market, feasibility, or other economic studies; c. Preparation of design, architectural, engineering, landscaping architectural, planning, development, or other developmental studies; Downtown Urban Renewal Plan —June , 2010 5 d. Preparation of property acquisition appraisals; e. Provision of special rehabilitation, restoration, or renovation feasibility and cost analysis studies; f. Provision of legal, debt issuance, accounting or audit services; and g. Assistance with preparation of the annual financial report required under Section 800 of this Plan. 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. E. EXISTING ACTIVITIES The Agency may complete urban renewal projects authorized prior to the 2010 Amendment (for example, the Beam Development project at Willamette and Broadway and downtown lighting). The Agency also may continue to operate the Downtown Revitalization Loan Program. All dollars loaned must come from the program revenue in the loan fund and not from tax increment funds. Section 700 — Methods for Financing the Projects The Agency may borrow money and accept advances, loans, grants, and other legal forms of financial assistance from the Federal government, State, City, County, or other public body, or from any source, public or private, for the purposes of undertaking and carrying out the Projects authorized by this Plan. Ad valorem taxes, if any, levied by a taxing body upon the taxable real and personal property situated in the Plan Area, shall be divided in accord with and pursuant to Section 1c, Article IX of the Oregon Constitution and ORS 457.420 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. Downtown Urban Renewal Plan —June , 2010 6 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 with the participation of general residents of the City. The Agency shall convene not less than once each year a committee of such persons to prepare a report 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. Section 1000 —Non - Discrimination In the preparation, adoption, and implementation of this Plan no public official or private party shall take any action to cause any person, group, or organization to be discriminated against in a manner that violates Section 4.613 of the Eugene Code, 1971. Section 1100 — Recording of this Plan A copy of this Plan shall be recorded with the recording officer of Lane County. Section 1200 — Procedures for Changes or Amendments 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 limit any new project activities to the Projects, and once those Projects are completed and the debt is repaid or defeased, to require that the Agency will notify the assessor to cease dividing taxes for the District. 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. Downtown Urban Renewal Plan —June , 2010 7 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; and 2. Amendments to respond to a decision by a court or state agency, if someone challenges the 2010 Amendment and this Plan is remanded. Section 1300 — Duration and Validity of Approved Plan A. DURATION OF THE PLAN Taxes may be divided under this Plan only until the maximum indebtedness for the Plan Area has been issued and paid or defeased, or the Agency has determined that it will not issue the full amount of that maximum indebtedness, and all indebtedness that will be issued has been issued and paid or defeased. When that indebtedness has been paid or defeased the Agency will notify the assessor pursuant to ORS 457.450(2) to cease dividing taxes for the Plan Area, and shall return any unused tax increment funds to Lane County for redistribution to overlapping taxing districts. However, this Plan may remain in effect as long as legally required to exist and until the Agency transfers any remaining assets and liabilities of the Plan Area to the City of Eugene. As of the date of the 2010 Amendment, it is estimated that: the last fiscal year for which taxes will be divided is FY2016/2017; and the District will terminate after the financial audit for FY2017/2018 is complete and the Agency has approved a budget to transfer all remaining tax increment funds to Lane County for redistribution to the overlapping taxing districts. 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 $13.6 million, to a total of $46.6 million. The maximum indebtedness limit established by this Section 1400 does not apply to or limit: 1. The obligation of the Agency to pay interest on indebtedness issued or incurred under this Plan; 2. Any indebtedness issued to refund indebtedness issued or incurred under this Plan, to the extent that the refunding indebtedness does not exceed the principal amount of the refunded indebtedness, plus the amount of the refunding indebtedness that is used to pay costs of the refunding; Downtown Urban Renewal Plan —June , 2010 8 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. Legislation passed in 2009 places new limits on how much a municipality can increase maximum indebtedness. That same legislation, however, also provides that those limitations "do not apply to the extent the municipality approving a plan obtains the written concurrence of taxing districts imposing at least 75 percent of the amount of taxes imposed under permanent rate limits in the urban renewal area." Together School District 4J and the City impose at least 75% of the amount of taxes imposed under permanent rate limits in the Plan Area. On May 19, 2010, the School Board for District 4J adopted a motion, for purposes of that statute, concurring with the increase in maximum indebtedness. The City concurred with that increase in maximum indebtedness when it approved this Plan. Therefore, the new legislative limitations are not applicable to the proposed maximum indebtedness increase. Section 1500 — Formal Matters In compliance with ORS 457.085: no relocation provisions are included in this Plan because the Projects in this Plan do not require relocating persons; and, no real property will be acquired to carry out this Plan. Downtown Urban Renewal Plan —June , 2010 9 PLAN EXHIBIT A: Plan Area Map Downtown Urban Renewal District ill`: X111: nil �l� � I : - - I i PL rmz,;7 i ic :A,W rr h--p w %r w4.:— ip ilm I j uG� t � 0 wror A -d Jtq 7 ,-N'" 1 . Downtown Urban Renewal Plan — June , 2010 10 =Downtown Urban Re4iewal Distrim Ca Qf Taxiots ftnnm .mod OmMopment DepaMmenr C�m muffir eat onrhwn "INVY j9. 20 t0 PLAN EXHIBIT B: Plan Area Description 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 between 10 Avenue and Broadway; (1) thence, westerly along the south right -of -way line of said alley to the west line of Lincoln Street; (2) thence, northerly along the west right -of -way line of Lincoln Street to the point of intersection of the north right -of -way line of the alley between Broadway and 8 t Avenue if extended; (3) thence, easterly along the north right -of -way line of said alley to the west right-of- way line Charnelton Street; (4) thence, northerly along the west right -of -way line of Charnelton Street to the northwest corner of the intersection of 7 Avenue and Charnelton Street; (5) thence, easterly along the north right -of -way line of 7 Avenue to the northwest corner of the intersection of 7 Avenue and Olive Street; (6) thence, northerly along the west right -of -way line of Olive Street to the northwest corner of the intersection of 6 Avenue and Olive Street; (7) thence, easterly along the north right -of -way line of 6 Avenue to the northeast corner of the intersection of 6 Avenue and Oak Street; (8) thence, southerly along the east right -of -way line of Oak Street to the northeast corner of Oak Street and South Park Avenue; (9) thence, easterly along the north right -of -way line of South Park Avenue extended to the east right -of -way line of Pearl Street; (10) thence, southerly along the east line of Pearl Street to the southeast corner of the intersection of Pearl Street and West 11 Avenue; and (11)thence westerly along the south right -of -way line of West 11 Avenue to the point of beginning. Downtown Urban Renewal Plan —June , 2010 11 Ordinance Exhibit B 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. ill 1s ' �� ■ 111 ■ ■ City of Eugene ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Eugene City Council and Urban Renewal Agency Board Mayor Kitty Piercy Mike Clark, President Betty Taylor, Vice President George Brown Andrea Ortiz George Poling Chris Pryor Jennifer Solomon Alan Zelenka City of Eugene Staff Jon Ruiz, City Manager Scott Luell, Planning and Development Department Executive Director (AIC) Glenn Klein, City Attorney Denny Braud Sue Cutsogeorge Rebekah Dohrman Nan Laurence Amanda Nobel Flannery Mike Sullivan Richie Weinman Sarah Zaleski TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter1: Introduction .......................................................................... ............................... 1 Chapter 2: Description of Physical, Social, Economic, and Environmental Conditions in thePlan Area ........................................................................ ............................... 2 Chapter 3: Expected Impact, Including Fiscal Impact, of the Plan in Light of Added Services or Increased Population ............................................ ............................... 4 Chapter 4: Reasons for Selection of the Plan Area .................................... ............................... 6 Chapter 5: Relationship Between Existing Conditions and Each Project Activity Undertakenin 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 ............... 11 Chapter 8: Financial Analysis of the Plan with Sufficient Information to Determine Feasibility........................................................................... ............................... 13 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 ............ ............................... 14 Chapter 10: Relocation Report ................................................................ ............................... 17 Chapter11: Appendix ............................................................................ ............................... 18 Report Exhibit A: Plan Area Map Report Exhibit B: Zoning District Map Report Exhibit C: Census Boundaries Map Report Exhibit D: Projected Revenues and Expenditures for the Plan Area Report Exhibit E: Impact of Urban Renewal on an Individual Tax Bill Report Exhibit F: Division of Tax 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 10 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 Division of Tax 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: ■ Specifies three project activities to be undertaken and removes language that allowed for flexibility in project selection; ■ Sets an increase in the maximum indebtedness to allow for those specific projects; and Sets the expectation that the Downtown Urban Renewal District will be terminated after repayment or defeasance 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 and 2010 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 contains approximately 70 acres (the "Plan Area "). The legal description for the Plan Area is in Section 300 of the Plan and is further described on graphic exhibits included in the Plan and in the appendix to this Report. Report on the 2010 Amendment 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 70 acres. (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 acres. The Plan Area represents about 0.25 percent of the City's total land area. This area combined with the Riverfront Urban Renewal District of approximately 178 acres, equals 248 acres in renewal districts, which is less than one percent of the City's total land area and well below the 15 percent maximum allowed by Oregon State law. 2. Existing Land Use and Zoning Table 1 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 Generalized Land Use &Acres Land Use Acres Alleys, Walkways, Bikepaths 2.7 Communication 0.7 Educational 1.3 General Services 12.2 Government 0.2 Industrial 0.2 Pa rks 0.7 Recreation 7.5 Religious, Charitable 0.1 Residential, Multi- family 5.9 Retail Trade 15.1 Roads 25.5 Transportation Related 1.7 Vacant 0.9 Wholesale Trade 0.1 Total 74.6 (total does not equal Urban Renewal Dfstrfct Acreage due to rounding and vertical land use designations. i.e. Parking below residential.) Data: 511912010 Table 2 Zoning & Acres Zonina Desianation Zonina Acres Community Commercial C2 0.7 Major Commercial C3 38.8 Public Land PL 2.8 Historic S -H 0.1 Non -zoned Public Right of Way 27.5 Total 70.0 Data: 511912010 Report on the 2010 Amendment 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 194 housing units within the Plan Area. Census 2000 data reports that housing in the area is predominantly rental, with over 98% of housing renter occupied. 2. Socio- Economic As of Census 2000, 110 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 p Block Group 2 p Data: Census 2000,DP -1, SF3, Table P53; Report on the 2010 Amendment 3 3. Employment In April 2008, there were 297 employers with 4,265 employees in the Downtown Urban Renewal District. The largest employers in the district were Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services (20.7%); Government (14.2%); and Accommodation and Food Services (13.8 %). (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 I Riverfront Urban = Total as a Tota I Renewal District Renewal District = of City AV Frozen Base $31,386,991 $50,609,448 $81,996,439 0.7% 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 by the City. Chapter 3: Expected Impact, Including Fiscal Impact, of the Plan in Light of Added Services or Increased Population The 2010 Amendment allows for three specific projects (described in more detail in Chapter 5) that will improve the function, condition, and appearance of the development area through: • Improved site for the Farmers' Market; • Maintenance of critical parking assets and improved safety for visitors to locations and business within the Plan Area; and • Redevelopment of an excavated, vacant lot into a new Lane Community College downtown campus. Report on the 2010 Amendment 4 These three 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 (FY2017/2018), property values in the Plan Area are estimated to increase by about $38 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. However, the LCC new downtown campus 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 campus 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 campus, and the University of Oregon with increased registration. The other pro- jects in the Plan are not expected to have any significant impact on the Eugene 4j School District. All three 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. 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 Agency will use tax increment revenues to carry out the Plan. The use of tax increment revenues will affect the property tax revenues and bonded debt tax rates of other taxing jurisdictions that share assessed value with the Plan Area. The property tax impacts are described in Chapter 9. Report on the 2010 Amendment 5 Chapter 4: Reasons for Selection of the Plan Area The Plan Area was adopted in 1968 with approximately 70 acres. This area was selected after a comprehensive community process under the guidance of the Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Two of the four goals of the Plan are to 1) improve the function, condition, and appearance of the Plan Area and 2) reduce 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; (e) The existence of inadequate streets and other rights of way, open spaces and utilities; (f) The existence of property or lots or other areas that are subject to inundation by water; (g) A prevalence of depreciated values, impaired investments and social and economic maladjustments to such an extent that the capacity to pay taxes is reduced and tax receipts are inadequate for the cost of public services rendered; (h) A growing or total lack of proper utilization of areas, resulting in a stagnant and unpro- ductive condition of land potentially useful and valuable for contributing to the public health, safety and welfare; or Report on the 2010 Amendment 6 (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 urban renewal Projects 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 Projects are: 1) Infrastructure improvements to the Park Blocks to provide better opportunities for the Farmers' Market; 2) Additional assistance in funding the Broadway Place Garages; and 3) Assistance to Lane Community College (LCC) for development on the 10 and Charnelton Site. 1) 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 on 8 Avenue. 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 to level and paved surfaces. Infrastructure improvements to the Park Blocks and expansion of 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 Park Blocks in order to make that location more attractive and functional for the Farmers' M a rket. 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 campus 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 making payments on the debt for the garages. It would also make it possible for the parking fund to provide financial support for increased safety services. Report on the 2010 Amendment 7 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 $2.5 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) LCC New Downtown Campus: The Agency owns the 10 and Charnelton Site 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 March 10, 2010, the Agency Board authorized the Agency Director to enter into an agreement with LCC to sell the property at no cost (or $1.00). 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 variety of other classes, the multi -use facility will include space for tenants and other community uses, possibly a public safety station. Student housing could also be incorporated as part of the redevelopment plan. 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 Agency. The payments on the debt of about $2.5 million per year came from the Agency. Beginning in 1993, the Agency 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 Agency. The Agency also contributed additional cash to the project, with a total of about $25 million of the $36 million project coming from Agency, 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. Report on the 2010 Amendment 8 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 Amendment includes the Projects 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 $14.5 million (or approximately 45 %) of funding out of an estimated total of $32 million of public and private investment from FY2010/2011 through FY2017/2018. Table 5 lists the project activities included in the Plan. Below is a short description of each of the 2010 Amendment Projects. Park Blocks Improvements for the Farmers' Market: The Agency will spend up to $500.,000 on infrastructure 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. 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. LCC New Downtown Campus: The Agency will consider the terms for an agreement between the Agency and LCC. The specific 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. 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. Many of the activities are provided through a contract between the City of Eugene and the Agency dated June 15, 2004. The Agency may also acquire, rent, or lease office space and office furniture, equipment, and facilities necessary for it to conduct its affairs in the management and implementation of this plan. Report on the 2010 Amendment 9 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, annual review of project activities, and financial report preparation. Specifically, the administration projection includes staffing at 1.4 FTE for years FY2010/2011 through FY2012/2013 followed by 0.14 FTE for years FY2013/2014 through FY2017/2018. Additional items in the projection include legal and consulting fees necessary to protect the City /Agency and complete the Projects, debt issuance cost needed for the Projects, and property management. Table 5 List of Project Activities and Estimated Costs Project Activity Total Estimated Cost LCC New Downtown Campus $ 8 Broadway Place Garages & Public Safety Improvements $ 4 Park Block Improvements for the Farmers' Market $ 500 Project Delivery Administration (through district termination) $ 1 1 190 1 000 Projects Funded from Urban Renewal Agency $ 14,500,000 Projects Funded from Private Sources and Other Federal, State and Local Government $ 17, 500, 000 TOTAL Funding for All Projects $ 32,000,000 Projects will begin in FY2010/2011. Decisions on priorities of funding for Projects 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 FY2017/2018. The Agency shall convene not less than once each year a committee of such persons to prepare a report 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 and the associated administrative costs authorized by the Plan. Report on the 2010 Amendment 10 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 $17.2 million between FY2010/2011 and FY2017/2018, including interest, premium and other costs. The Projects will be funded with a combination of urban renewal tax increment financing under ORS 457 and other sources. The Agency may apply for funding from other federal, state, and local grants in order to complete the projects. In addition, the public facilities included within the Plan may also be funded in part with other public funds, such as systems development charges and general obligation bonds, among other sources. Oregon Revised Statutes require that each urban renewal district that receives property taxes include a "maximum indebtedness" limit in their urban renewal plan. "Maximum indebtedness" is a required spending cap for all property tax expenditures over a period of time. "Maximum indebtedness" is not a legal debt limit. It is more like a spending limit. Adopting a maximum indebtedness figure does not authorize or obligate the Agency to spend money or enter into debt. Within the maximum indebtedness limitation, the Agency Board has the ability to fund projects over time, either with cash or by issuing debt. Certain expenditures are included in the maximum indebtedness calculation and certain 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 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 Report on the 2010 Amendment 11 uncommitted is estimated at $900,000, after taking into account district administration through FY2010/2011. In order to complete the three projects, it is estimated that an increase of $13.6 million is needed in the maximum indebtedness limit. The increase is calculated as follows: LCC Project Farmers Market Garage Debt (principal only) Legal /Debt Issuance /Administration Total Funds Needed for Projects Less: Amount Remaining Under Current Spending Cap Net Amount of Maximum Indebtedness Increase Not Included in Maximum Indebtedness Cap: Interest on LCC Project Debt (estimated) Interest on Parking Garage Debt $8,000,000 500,000 4,810,000 1,190,000 $14,500,000 - 900,000 $13,600,000 1,150,000 1,500,000 The increase in maximum indebtedness of $13.6 million would result in a revised maximum indebtedness figure of $46.6 million, which represents cumulative spending in the Plan Area 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 assumptions and to provide for district administration. It is within the limits established under ORS 457.470. Table 6 in Exhibit D includes information about future revenues and expenditures in the Plan Area. The timing and amounts for individual project activities will be determined by the Agency Board each year during the annual budget process. Completion dates for individual activities may be affected by changes in the plans of other private or public partners, local economic and market conditions, changes in the availability of tax increment funds, and changes in priorities for carrying out project activities. The Agency will convene a committee at least once each year to prepare a report on tax increment expenditures from the previous fiscal year in comparison to the Plan. Current projections show that the tax increment revenues should be sufficient to pay for the projects and associated debt by FY2017/2018. The district is not expected to need to collect tax revenue in the final year, FY2017/2018. The district would terminate once the debt issued to fund the Projects is repaid or defeased. Report on the 2010 Amendment 12 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 D includes the anticipated tax increment revenues over the projected remaining life of the Plan. The analysis shows that the anticipated tax increment revenues are based on reasonable projections of new development and appreciation in existing property values. The projection of tax increment revenues is based on the following assumptions: • Property assessed values will increase by 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 building on the southwest corner of Willamette and Broadway. The projections assume that this project is completed and generates additional taxable value within the Plan Area. • 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 Urban Renewal District are projected to go down over time, due to the Oregon statute that says that certain urban renewal plans may only collect tax increment on permanent tax rates or bonds and levies approved by voters prior to October 6, 2001. In particular, bonded debt tax rates applicable to the Downtown Urban Renewal District will be reduced as bonds approved by voters prior to October 6, 2001 are retired. The projections result in urban renewal tax revenues between FY2010/2011 and FY2017/2018 of approximately $14.5 million. Together with other revenues and existing fund balances, these revenues will support the $13.6 million of increased maximum indebtedness plus the interest on the debt to fund the Projects proposed under the 2010 Amendment. In addition to the redevelopment projects, the revenues will be sufficient to pay for administrative activities, including an allocation of central service overhead costs. Those costs are projected to increase over time due to inflation at a rate of between 2% and 5% 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. Report on the 2010 Amendment 13 Chapter 9: Fiscal Impact Statement that Estimates the Impact of the Tax Increment Financing, Both Until and After the Indebtedness is Repaid, Upon All Entities Levying Taxes Upon Property in the Plan Area Taxing bodies that overlap with the Plan Area are affected by the use of tax increment funds to implement the Plan. When a district is first created, the assessed value within the Plan Area is established as the "frozen base." This is a way of keeping the overlapping taxing districts "whole" as of the date the urban renewal district is created. 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 Agency receives taxes on the incremental value. This has an impact on the amount of revenue that the overlapping jurisdictions receive, versus what they would have received if there were no urban renewal districts in effect. Impact on Tax Bills: In addition to the impact on the overlapping taxing jurisdictions, urban renewal also makes individual tax bills look different. Urban renewal districts do not impose new taxes; rather, they redistribute taxes from overlapping taxing districts to the urban renewal districts. There are two basic steps to understand how an individual's tax bill is affected by tax increment financing in Oregon. The first step determines the amount of property taxes that the urban renewal agency should receive, and the second step determines how the taxes are accounted for on property tax statements. The first step in determining how tax increment financing affects an individual's tax bill consists of applying the tax rates of the taxing districts (such as the city, county and school districts) to the incremental value of the urban renewal district. That product is the amount of taxes that the urban renewal agency should receive. The second step determines how to divide or split the tax rates of the taxing districts so that when those "divided rates" are applied to all tax bills in the City, the urban renewal agency receives its share, and the taxing districts receive the remainder. As of December 2009 there were seven urban renewal districts in Lane County, and the calculation is done for each of these districts. The Lane County Assessor determines how the tax rates for the schools, city, and county should get divided between the taxing districts and the urban renewal districts. As an example, the City's permanent tax rate is $7.0058 per $1.,000 of assessed value. The Lane County Assessor divides that tax rate into three pieces: $6.9056 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 Report on the 2010 Amendment 14 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 E 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. 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 F. Only the permanent tax rates of the overlapping jurisdictions are considered in this analysis because there are no local option levies that impact the Downtown Urban Renewal District, and 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 division of tax calculation. In FY2017/2018 after tax increment financing is terminated, the City of Eugene is estimated to receive $1,090,000 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 $200,000 of additional tax revenue per year after division of tax is terminated in FY2017/2018. The combined school districts are estimated to forego $650.,000 of revenue in the first fiscal year, and to benefit by $870,000 of additional annual tax revenue after the division of tax is terminated in FY2017/2018. The net financial effect on School District 4j from the existence of the Downtown Urban Renewal District is positive after taking the impact on the local option levy into account. This is described in more detail below. The impact on schools from the division of tax calculation for urban renewal districts is largely an impact on the state's budget because schools are mainly funded on a per -pupil funding formula rather than by the level of property tax dollars generated within their boundaries. The net impact of the Downtown Urban Renewal District on local schools is a loss of about $31,000 Report on the 2010 Amendment 15 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 Urban Renewal District diverted $650,000 of local property taxes that would have gone to education. The State made up the difference. If the Downtown Urban Renewal 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 Urban Renewal District, the State provided a net $629,000 for spending in Eugene. Without this increment financing, those funds would be used to fund school districts throughout the state. The Lane County Assessor conducted an analysis of the impact of the Downtown Urban Renewal District on School District 4j's local option levy, and that analysis was reviewed and confirmed by 4j School District finance staff. The analysis concluded that 4j is better off financially if the Downtown Urban Renewal District continues to collect tax increment funds than it would be if tax increment financing were terminated. The reason is that taxes that are currently counted under the "general government" category for Measure 5 tax rate limitations (i.e., the "school property tax dollars" that now go to urban renewal) would move into the "schools" category. When that happens, the schools category of taxes must be reduced for a number of individual properties within the City because schools are already collecting as much as they can under Measure 5 limits for those properties. State law says that local option levy proceeds are the first to be reduced in the event of compression. For FY10, the Lane County Assessor estimates that the positive benefit to School District 4j from the existence of the Downtown Urban Renewal District is about $137,000. These additional local option levy proceeds are extra funds available for educational programs at School District 4j and are outside of the state school funding formula. The overall net benefit to School District 4j from the Downtown Urban Renewal District, after subtracting out a $20,000 net loss from the division of tax calculation is $117,000. Reduced Rate Plan: The Downtown Urban Renewal District is a "reduced rate plan" under the statutes, which means that the property taxes that may be used to fund urban renewal activities is limited to the permanent tax rates and any bonds or local option levies that were approved by voters prior to October 2001. The projected tax rate used to generate urban renewal revenues for the district will be reduced over time as bonds approved by voters before October 2001 are paid off. Report on the 2010 Amendment 16 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 to be initiated by the Agency is identified in the Plan. If urban renewal assistance results in relocation requirements, a relocation plan will be developed for that purpose. Relocation activities and assistance would be provided in accordance with ORS 281.045 through 281.105. C. Requirement An enumeration, by cost range, of the existing housing units in the plan area to be destroyed or altered and new units to be added. Response No specific existing housing units are proposed to be removed by actions of the Plan. 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. Report on the 2010 Amendment 17 Chapter 11: Appendix Report Exhibit A: Plan Area Map Report Exhibit B: Zoning District Map Report Exhibit C: Census Boundaries Map Report Exhibit D: Projected Revenues and Expenditures for the Plan Area Report Exhibit E: Impact of Urban Renewal on an Individual Tax Bill Report Exhibit F: Division of Tax Impact of the Plan on Overlapping Taxing Jurisdictions Report on the 2010 Amendment 18 Report Exhibit A — Plan Area Map .Downtown Urban Renewal District ct ------------------------ h Ava . . .................. j F-- IF i � . ..................... " Ln C S j X1`71 �� _' I.y ■ r l-I th An T _77 a -Downtoym - Urban Rein -owa I DisiFitt C.k,fAp- F'rrt fW m r or miW F� j o tnr , lA— &" 01 ihe ri 1 ilk F c4y Of PfdkOA" *Ad 0"A I* A C&ffmumf� N "RW"17 ? &-valm F:t&us* TO NIA Report on the 2010 Amendment 19 Report Exhibit B — Zoning District Map ,,Dov mown Urban Rc i - iLwcaI °.:� ,t r�m- A C i L LL-L, k ILIA fit Ilk `rol 4L V Y E Fo,d wA s Ave- J tth Y L[ _ e _ C. P Q Mod 12! Ft A- - � Ownwdyn U r ha 9 Rec; Chi -AtAM- die ;jjng C�3 ® 1-2 R -1 a R-A C of & Cam'm in 9 2 Report on the 2010 Amendment 20 Report Exhibit C — Census Boundaries Map IC�S W Cez)SL]s Bcju d rA--,,, Shnne r% BL- r!v L AINO cm 6n J Ii 3900 DG: 21 Urban Renewat Districts antral Eu iL)owrrW-&ni Urh.an "Rerewal I)i-5trt�r R -ftill Urban Pemmal'Dncitn-;�! I N*h L zo Census 2000 Boundaries ClCon-Sus 2001) 810a. Gfol-jp M Census 2001) r3loa.s L 5M E Ave N 2 nd L Ave 3rij E Ave -I& � M il!", 1* I am � 14th F, A L-I�fugenr jl� P"r6e UF%jfbLrgw-wr=r Av Stil W Ave Tmt. 3900 8G-. I Report on the 2010 Amendment 21 O O O 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0 M 0 0o O 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 o O O O O O O O O O O N C/) O m O O Ltd N M tD Or ti IT ti O O co M O 14 T O O O ti ti O O Lid - O LO 00 N N ti ti OD Liz Lid r` V � N Lid M LO � IT Liz M M O V- O Liz Liz M IT 00 Liz cD r Liz V- M M 00 00 � r r LO O r N N N N Q) CO O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O 00 O m r r O � 00 07 (D (.O O) L6 ti O lq;i M r 00 O O O r lq;i O ti ti t Liz Liz <.O 00 00 07 Q) _0 4 LL N N r r N O p Q) O O 0 0 0 O O O O O O O 0 0 0 O O O O O 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 Q N ti O O r- 00 O O 00 00 O 00 O O O 00 }. Q) ti V- O V- ti M O N cfl ti O r 00 m 00 r` O V- r` O') O O O O 07 ti O (.0 N � LL N NIT V- V- 1� N LL- M i U O O 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O J O O 0 0 0 O O O O O O O 0 0 C) Q) O O 0 0 0 O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 p O O O r 00 O Liz O ti N O N O r` r` 0) m LO � 07 <.O O O ti O O O M M O 42 O p r LL 00 O 00 ti r O O M N LM N r r r r N a... Q) Q) Q) O O 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 O O O O O O �) O O O O O O O 0 0 0 O O O O O 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O a) _ Lo o o T.-- v- Liz 0 o r` ti o ti o w m LO o O IT N O O O O LO O O r CO r I` 07 ti ti O 07 07 00 ti (B Q) N r M r r r CO Q x s o L O O 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N cD 00 Liz O O LO O O � 6- -73 � N m IT- M Liz 07 O M Liz O 00 co O ti ti M N ti O O N N O O Liz co Q) z LL N r M Q Q) Q Cj T- U QL � p U � O O O O O O 0 0 C) O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 O O O O -I- - - 0 Q -I- - Q) O O 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O Q) () co O O M Liz 00 O O N N O N O GD (D 00 a Q) Z3 m ti O O M O O O O O ti M m r` O r Nr O LO LO m O_ Q) U LL N V- N M co N N N N 07 r O N � M z Ca .. Q) -Q O x O Q) W O O 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O o O O O O O N O O M ti O Lid O O Liz O Liz O LO LO O CO m N M Liz O cD T .-- m O O 0 0 - O O N M M O ti O N N N O O N r co C/) 76 tB O O O 0 0 0 O O O 0 0 O O O O O O O O Uj O O O O 0 0 O O O 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 Q) O O O cD r` O O O O O O O O O O ti ti ti Q) N LO O co M O O Liz V - m a) O M M It Q 3 CF N Liz O co M O Liz r` CO m 0) r O M O Q) Q LL O 00 m m O O cB Z U �/ O cB Y� U) Q) J Q) O O O O O O M M O O M 00 00 4- O O O O O O O Liz Lid O M co O O It It = O O CO CO O O It O O M O O Liz O O co Q O O V O O O O O N N O O 00 00 0 0 00 CO cD IT IT IT 't - 0 O M ti 00 O ti M O V- O O 0- CO O O CO Liz GD N � C.0 C) O M Liz O Liz Liz cD z m O •mom% LL CO 00 CD N M - N cD N IT IT O p Q cn Q) U cB L X Q) ,&-, N a LU z ° o O O p ... U L Q Q) cn O U N O O N O cn En O CO 4-0 cn 4- O :3 O O i= U O N Q) U Q) E m U cn }, a) M - 0 Q c6 cl X cn Z _ J O N X C a N L L1J + +� 4- � Q) X 1 03 �/ x cn O c ® .— L U s= � U a) C: c L U c 06 C� }, 7 in E cn Q) Q o x � � C L 4- O c� cn s= 4-1 C/) 4 -. O L Q) s? M V �' O N W m s= N ca O m N x 0 2 C L U O 2 L ) x m N L u Z v m p CL X a) in cn a) �� -� - � •E Ln o cn c o L — cn - � � d Q Q LM N � Q)i a. — — CO V Q }' J Q L d E O U L a O -j E 4— O - O O 4— CO CL o � uj � N O 9 '- �� X-0 O X � (> t6 N� C cu N N � O -&— � N a- D 0 m m H m Q O J m Q-j LL 0 z 0 00 0 H 0 � OG Report Exhibit E: Impact of Urban Renewal on an Individual Tax Bill Table 7 $0.06: $18.41 ($0.25) $0.54 Comparison of Tax Bill Before and After Urban Renewal Reallocation $51.35 For Median Eugene Home in FY10 - 2009 Tax Year $0.49: $135.68 ($0.49) Taxes Before $0.411 $90.43 Taxes Billed $0.00 Urban Renewal Taxes Directed to: ($0.57) After Urban Renewal $0.13 Reallocation Taxing Districts Downtown UR Rivrerfront UR Reallocation School Taxes ($3.77) $11.74 Eugene School District $752.39 $739.20 $9.79 $3.39 $739.20 Eugene School District LOL $237.67 $236.61 $0.00 $1.06 $236.61 Lane Community College $98.09 $96.72 $1.03 $0.35 $96.72 Lane E S D $35.37 11 $34.87 $0.36 $0.13 $34.87 $1,123.52 $1,107.40 $11.19 $4.93 $1,107.40 General Government Taxes City of Eugene City of Eugene Library Levy Lane County Eugene Downtown UR Eugene Riverfront UR Bonded Debt Taxes Eugene Bond I Eugene Bond II Eugene 4J Bond I Eugene 4J Bond II LCC Bond $1,110.05 $36.73 $202.70 $0.00 $0.00 $1,349.48 $18.67 $52.08 $136.17 $92.03 $128.67 $37.12 $464.74 Total Taxes $2 $11.79 $0.00 $2.14 $0.00 $0.00 $1,094.17 $36.60 $199.82 $0.00 $0.00 $1 $18.41 $51.35 $135.68 $90.43 $128.10 $37.00 $460.97 $2 $13.93 $4.09 $0.13: $0.74: $0.00: $0.00 $4.96 . $1,094.17 $36.60 $199.82 $27.03 $11.75 $1 Difference ($13.18) ($1.06) ($1.38) ($16.11) ($15.88) ($0.13) ($2.88) $27.03 11.75 $19.90 $0.19 $0.06: $18.41 ($0.25) $0.54 $0.19! $51.35 ($0.73) $0.00 $0.49: $135.68 ($0.49) $1.19 $0.411 $90.43 ($1.60) $0.00 $0.57 $128.10 ($0.57) $0.00 $0.13 $37.00 $1.92 $1.85 $460.97 ($3.77) $11.74 $2 $0.01 $27.03 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 diff of $0.01 ar due to tru ncation and rounding. * See Chapter 9 "Impact on Overlapping Taxing District Revenues" section for more information on net impact to schools. 24 O V L c c m CL m L O a O a O V E x O r . •m LIL s x W L O OC co H O s x f6 i � O O Q +-j O � Q a o O U O � O ca � C O L L � L +�-+ �O L O O L E ® L OJ O U UO O C +, ' C 'C Q O E C: O O a- > N O u : 0 U s aA U � O aj 0 L N s > U O C: V) C: O a) O 0 U p fa U a) E O Ln Ol O U to V) 4-J U V O O U-) O s U a--+ O V) ® • 0 U � U Q Q E _6 'aj . C: 0 ®(Z O U L _0 to ai ai C ' �n O to U L C: C6 . E _0 N O O O O O U � N CO CO O 0 0 0 0 0 O O 00 O') M LO d7 O ���� � O O O ti C�4 N O N O 'r6l LL It O O d O 4 0 0 I` r C N i N Q ti {f} O N {f} 6 6 {f} {f} M ++ V M Ld > L .� /�� V V p Cfl W O N X ' O o F a .. . . .......... . . .......... . . .......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O O O O O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......... . . .......... . .......... LO A N 00 M . .. . O 0 0 0 0 0 00 O) Cr) LO d7 O a 0 0 0 0 0 T --- N O I` O ti -r-- C) O M (D N O N Al) >- N� ( � qt O O ti r O O LL � {f} {f} O {f} 6} 69- {f} {f} LO a- {f} Cfl O O O O O LO A N 00 CO O - 0 O O O O O 00 O') M LO O) O a 0 0 0 0 0 -r N O I` O 0 U r 0 0 0 0 0 I� (D N O N O N 'O O O) M t O) X 0 0 I- N LL I* {f} {f} O {f} bc} (}} {f} {f} I� � r 09, ti V- O O O O O LO A N 00 M O - a O O O O O 00 CY) M LO O) O O O O O O � N O I� O 4-A LO _ O Ce) I`- (D N O N O . N 0) d �� 14 O O ti r p L.L (D {f} {f} O {f} 01. 01. 6% 6% O LO � V U) c- 0 0 0 0 0 0 LO N 00 CO O O� 0 0 0 0 0 00 O) C'M Lo (:y) O 0 0 0 0 0 It V N O I` O p N o O M I` (.4 N O N O ' d CD 0 4® O I` 000 ® LPL � b'} 6c} bg {f} 6 i- 6 1 % 6 M O V L 4-+ U p - 0 O O O O O Lo � N 00 M O p a) M O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 00 O M LO O N O I` O O -;- �® O (D N O N a? ( 0 O O � � {f} {f} 0') � {f} {f} {f} ( X �p z F- Ca O O O O O LO N 00 CO O _0 0 0 0 0 0 00 CY) M LO O) O N O O O O O V N O I` O }' N U 0 0 0 0 0 I` (fl N O N O p N N 00 M r I` p LL � 6c)- 6c)- ffi- 6 {f} b 6 � O � 00 , ca 0 0 0 0 0 LO A N 00 M O Q) U 0 0 0 0 0 00 O M LO O O O O O O O N O I` O O OM I` Cfl N O N CT -;-� ,N O 000 � C 4 O O ti cB 6113- 6pi- 61!Y Ld c Q) L O O O O O � T--- N 00 M O ,� K 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O 00 O M LO O � N O I` O O � I` Cfl N O N O O O O O M ti M LO 0 0 I` 0') U- Q) U {9}}(}}{f}{f} U a {f}{f} c 6 .� M L Co Q) U v N N U m O 0) 4-1 .6.j co co ZZ O CO O N � N N N � N O U O ,U ,U U U O 4 ,U ,O N U N 0 oo�wo ° �,���� .NoUwoU oUwoU > Q) !Z 0 co J J U J 0 co J J U J � C W m m E— UL V E E � v O o a z O s x f6 i � O O Q +-j O � Q a o O U O � O ca � C O L L � L +�-+ �O L O O L E ® L OJ O U UO O C +, ' C 'C Q O E C: O O a- > N O u : 0 U s aA U � O aj 0 L N s > U O C: V) C: O a) O 0 U p fa U a) E O Ln Ol O U to V) 4-J U V O O U-) O s U a--+ O V) ® • 0 U � U Q Q E _6 'aj . C: 0 ®(Z O U L _0 to ai ai C ' �n O to U L C: C6 . E _0 N ORDINANCE EXHIBIT C: Property Analysis Report (5- 21 -10) Urban Renewal Amendment Documentation of Blighted Areas The tax lots in the Downtown Urban Renewal Plan District were evaluated in the fall of 2009. A description and photos of each of the properties in the District are provided below. Map identification numbers have been assigned to individual tax lots as shown on the Downtown Urban Renewal Plan District Map (Attachment 1 to Exhibit B). Properties have been assessed for characteristics of "blight" as the term is defined per ORS 457.010(1). ORS 457.010(1) defines "Blighted areas" as those "that, by reason of deterioration, faulty planning, inadequate or improper facilities, deleterious land use or the existence of unsafe structures, or any combination of these factors, are detrimental to the safety, health or welfare of the community. A blighted area is characterized by the existence of one or more of the following conditions: (a) The existence of buildings and structures, used or intended to be used for living, commercial, industrial or other purposes, or any combination of those uses, that are unfit or unsafe to occupy for those purposes because of any one or a combination of the following conditions: (A) Defective design and quality of physical construction; (B) Faulty interior arrangement and exterior spacing; (C) Overcrowding and a high density of population; (D) Inadequate provision for ventilation, light, sanitation, open spaces and recreation facilities; or (E) Obsolescence, deterioration, dilapidation, mixed character or shifting of uses; (b) An economic dislocation, deterioration or disuse of property resulting from faulty planning; (c) The division or subdivision and sale of property or lots of irregular form and shape and inadequate size or dimensions for property usefulness and development; (d) The laying out of property or lots in disregard of contours, drainage and other physical characteristics of the terrain and surrounding conditions; (e) The existence of inadequate streets and other rights of way, open spaces and utilities; (f) The existence of property or lots or other areas that are subject to inundation by water; (g) A prevalence of depreciated values, impaired investments and social and economic maladjustments to such an extent that the capacity to pay taxes is reduced and tax receipts are inadequate for the cost of public services rendered; (h) A growing or total lack of proper utilization of areas, resulting in a stagnant and unproductive condition of land potentially useful and valuable for contributing to the public health, safety and welfare; or (i) A loss of population and reduction of proper utilization of the area, resulting in its further deterioration and added costs to the taxpayer for the creation of new public facilities and services elsewhere. A total of 152 properties are within the existing District boundaries. The Blight Findings Matrix (Attachment 2 to Exhibit B) includes a row for each property, identified by Map ID number and tax lot number. The Matrix includes columns relating to each of the nine criteria at ORS 457.010(1) with five sub - criteria under (a). If a property was determined to meet a particular criterion from the definition/criteria at ORS 457.010(1), it is indicated on the Matrix and the basis for that determination is set out in this Property Analysis Report. The Matrix identifies each criterion met by a particular property. In some cases, the Matrix indicates that a particular property does not meet any of the blight Findings - 1 criteria. However, in many cases, a property meets more than one criterion. For a determination that a property is "blighted," only one criterion need be met. The final column on the Blight Findings Matrix includes a "Y" or "N" to indicate whether the property has attributes that make it "blighted" under the definition/criteria at ORS 457.010(1). The determination of blight for a particular property is not an indication that that property is slated for improvement or for demolition, but an indication of the character of the area and substantiation of the need for reinvestment and improvement in the district. While not every individual property is blighted (some properties have improved due to urban renewal projects), taken as a whole, the City concludes that the urban renewal area is a blighted area. This conclusion is supported by substantial evidence, as discussed below. General Findings ORS 457.010(1) (a) The language in the statute that defines blight under ORS 457.010(1)(a) specifies that properties must be unfit or unsafe to occupy for their intended purposes due to one or more of the conditions listed in ORS 457.010(1)(a) (A — E). The statute does not elaborate on what "unfit" or "unsafe to occupy" means, nor does it state that the building must be literally unusable or uninhabitable. The City concludes that a building that meets the criteria under (A) — (E) evidences conditions that indicate that the structure is "unfit" for its intended purpose or "unsafe to occupy," even if the building is in fact occupied and otherwise habitable. These conditions are described below. Information for buildings on individual tax lots was gathered primarily from visual surveys of the buildings' exteriors and, in some cases, sources familiar with the entire edifice. ORS 457.010(1) (a) (A) Properties identified on the Blight Findings Matrix as meeting (a)(A) were determined to have structures that are unfit for their intended purpose or unsafe to occupy because of defective design and quality of physical construction. This was the case with the following publicly -owned properties in the District: 27, 45, 51, 84, 125, 143, 149, 151 and 152. These buildings were considered blighted per this criterion due to seismic concerns. Information on these buildings has been made available from City of Eugene Public Works, indicating that every public building built prior to 1998 is out of compliance with current seismic code requirements. While every private building built prior to 1998 is also likely out of compliance, it is possible that some of those structures would meet today's code. Without a detailed inspection for each structure, in most cases it is not feasible to assess current seismic code compliance. ORS 457.010(1)(a)(B) None of the properties in the District were determined to have structures that are unfit for their intended purpose or unsafe to occupy because of faulty interior arrangement and exterior spacing. ORS 457.010(1)(a)(C) None of the properties in the District were determined to have structures that are unfit for their intended purpose or unsafe to occupy due to overcrowding and a high density of population. ORS 457.010(1)(a)(D) None of the properties in the District were determined to have structures that are unfit for their intended purpose or unsafe to occupy due to inadequate provision for ventilation, light, sanitation, open spaces and recreation facilities. Findings - 2 ORS 457.010(1)(a)(E) Properties identified on the Blight Findings Matrix as meeting (a)(E) were determined to have structures that are unfit for their intended purpose or unsafe to occupy because of obsolescence, deterioration, dilapidation, mixed character or shifting of uses. The properties listed below were identified under (a)(E) due to obsolescence resulting from a dependency on steam (indicated in the property - specific findings, below). Steam dependency is a factor because the Eugene Water and Electric Board (EWEB) has begun plans to decommission their steam plant, requiring buildings on the steam system to convert to another heating source at their own expense. Buildings relying on steam therefore demonstrate a condition of obsolescence. This was the case with the following properties in the District: 5, 11, 20, 23, 24, 26, 27, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 61, 62, 65, 66, 75, 78, 79, 80, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 100, 102, 124, 125, 131, 132, 143, 145, 146, 149, 150, 151, and 152. With respect to building conditions, each building has been given a rating in the property - specific findings below, based upon the following scale: New, near new, or well- maintained older buildings Buildings needing rehabilitation (for visible damage or wear, structural cracks, seismic upgrading, water infiltration, etc.) and improved maintenance (for peeling exteriors, graffiti, broken windows, torn awnings, etc.); " -" Dilapidated buildings which appear to be beyond an ability to be economically rehabilitated A number of properties were identified under (a)(E) because they show deterioration or dilapidation. Properties that have buildings with a " ±" or " -" rating exhibit conditions leading them to be unusable or uninhabitable, and were therefore found to be unfit for their intended purpose or unsafe to occupy because of obsolescence, deterioration, dilapidation, mixed character or shifting of uses. The following properties exhibited the characteristics listed above: 1, 2, 6, 11, 14, 20, 23, 26, 27, 45, 48,50,51,60 ,61,63,64,65,66,69,70,71,78,80 ,83,88,89,90,91,92,93,95,97,99, 100, 101, 121, 123, 125, 132, 143, 148 and 152. The specific conditions are indicated in the property - specific findings, below. ORS 457.010(1)(b) None of the properties in the District are characterized by the existence of an economic dislocation, deterioration or disuse of property resulting from faulty planning. ORS 457.010(1)(c) Properties identified on the Blight Findings Matrix as meeting (c) were determined to be characterized by land divisions and sales that have resulted in lots of irregular form and shape and inadequate size or dimensions for property usefulness and development. This was the case with the following properties in the District: 70, 71 and 142. ORS 457.010(1)(d) None of the properties in the District are characterized by the existence of property or lot layouts in disregard of contours, drainage or other physical characteristics of the terrain and surrounding conditions. Findings - 3 ORS 45 7. 010 (1) (e) None of the properties in the District are characterized by the existence of inadequate streets and other rights of way, open spaces and utilities. ORS 457.010(1)(j None of the properties in the District are characterized by the existence of property or lots or other areas that are subject to inundation by water. ORS 457.010(1) (g) Properties identified on the Blight Findings Matrix as meeting (g) were determined to be characterized by 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. These properties were determined to evidence depreciated values due to an analysis of the property's improvement to land value ratio. Properties with a ratio of less than 4:1 were considered depreciated. This ratio was utilized based on a comparison of analyses completed by other communities in the state, including Springfield, Tillamook and Portland. Properties that are not intended to be developed, such as public open space or public plazas, are indicated as p /p, although any structures associated with those tax lots may be evaluated separately. Properties that are composed of multiple ownerships (such as condominium units) were not considered for this analysis; for these cases, an indication of n/a is shown on the Blight Findings Matrix. For a very limited number of properties, adequate information was not available from the tax assessor's office for this analysis; for these cases, i/i is indicated on the Blight Findings Matrix. The following Map ID # met this criterion: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 20, 23, 24, 25, 27, 45, 48, 49, 50, 52, 53, 54, 55, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 71, 73, 75, 80, 81, 82, 83, 87, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 100, 108, 109, 112, 115, 116, 117, 118, 123, 124, 125, 127, 128, 129, 132, 133, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 146, 147, 148, 149, and 151. Information was not available for Map # 28, 29 and 70. ORS 457.010(1) (h) Properties identified on the Blight Findings Matrix as meeting (h) were determined to be characterized by a growing or total lack of proper utilization of areas, resulting in a stagnant and unproductive condition of land potentially useful and valuable for contributing to the public health, safety and welfare. This determination was based on a review of the building's vacancy (such as empty storefronts) or site's vacancy (such as undeveloped lots or surface parking lots). A property that has a 50% or higher vacancy was determined to meet criterion (h), indicating that potential utilization of the property is less than half its current utilization. The following Map ID # met this criterion: 4, 5, 11, 12, 14, 15, 52, 53, 54, 55, 66, 67, 68, 73, 75, 81, 82, 84, 92, 93, 99, 101, 108, 109, 115, 116, 117, 118, 127, 128, 131, 135, 136, 138, 139, 140, 142 and 144. A comparison of the allowable development to the existing development is a further indication of the lack of proper utilization of the area and indication of blight per ORS 457.010(1)(h). Nearly all of the properties in the District are zoned G3 Major Commercial, with a maximum allowed height of 150 feet. Properties containing buildings having only asingle -story (26 properties), as identified in the descriptions below, present further evidence of underutilization of the property in the commercial core of downtown. Findings - 4 ORS 457.010(1)(1) None of the properties in the District are characterized by 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. PROPERTIES IN THE DOWNTOWN URBAN RENEWAL PLAN DISTRICT The following are property - specific findings substantiating the General Findings, above. Map ID# 1 and 2 —Tax lots 11300 and 11200 of Map 17033114 (Firestone Tire): The building has cracks in the exterior walls, especially on the north side. The building is single -story use. Improvement to land ratio: 1.23 and .01; Building rating: ± r e � _ 9 i I �� - P Map ID# 3 and 4 —Tax lots 12000 and 11700 of Map 17033114 (Pacific Cascade Federal Credit Union and DocuTrack Imaging): Single -story building. The building takes up approximately 1/3 of tax lot 117000; the remainder is surface parking and drive -thru access. Improvement to land ratio: 1.67 and .59; Building rating: + 4 Map ID# 5 —Tax lot 12100 of Map 17033114 (Wachovia Securities, Beecher Carlson and Mediation Services): EWEB notes that steam conversion is needed for the property. Two - thirds of lot is surface parking. Improvement to land ratio: 1.23 and .01; Building rating: + Findings - 5 a ' Map ID# 6-Tax lot 12800 of Map 17033114 (Lane Community College Downtown Center): Building shows some wear and lack of maintenance (peeling exterior, graffiti) LCC has announced plans to build a new downtown center and to vacate this building. Upper floors have very few windows. Improvement to land ratio: 8.3; Building rating: ± s � 4 Map ID# 7-Tax lot 12900 of Map 17033114 (small commercial businesses including The Tattoo Parlor, Emerald City Skates, The Pita Pit, and Willamette Street Market). Single -story building. One of the storefronts is currently vacant. Improvement to land ratio: 1.18; Building rating: + J 4 k\L rw i Map ID# 8 through 10 Tax lots 2000, 2100, 2200 of Map 1703 3113 (LTD Eugene Bus Station) : Also associated with Map ID # 18, 19, 21, and 22. Bus station and related structures are in good condition. Old police substation in Map ID #10 is currently vacant. Improvement to land ratio: 1.93, 2.88 and 5.05; Building rating: + Map ID# 11 Tax lot 5900 of Map 17033113 (McAyeal's and The Shoe Doctor): Structure evidences cracks in exterior walls, broken windows in the rear, loose debris, and graffiti. EWEB notes that steam Findings - 6 conversion is needed. Building is single -story and occupies approximately 50% of the tax lot, with the remainder used for surface parking. Improvement to land ratio: .88; Building rating: ± Map ID# 12 and 13 Tax lots 6000 and 6100 of Map 1703 3113 (Kiva and associated parking lot) : One tax lot is surface parking; the other contains the Kiva grocery store. The structure is single -story and appears in good condition. Improvement to land ratio: .04 and 1.08; Building rating: + Map ID# 14 and 15 Tax lot 6200 and 6300 of Map 1703 3113 (Formerly the Health Spa) : Tax lot 6200 contains a vacant commercial structure, covering less than 50% of the tax lot, with the remainder used for surface parking; tax lot 6300 is vacant and used as a surface parking lot. The predominantly single -story structure evidences structural cracks; makeshift doors; graffiti; inconsistent surface painting; stains on the structure due to defective downspouts; and signs of homeless use. Improvement to land ratio: .18 and .04; Building rating: ± - � a L E Map ID# 16 Tax lot 6400 of Map 17033113 (Andreason's Cremation and Burial Services): The building appears to be in good condition and is fully- occupied with mixed -use residential and commercial. Improvement to land ratio: 4.07; Building rating: + Findings - 7 a d P =tl I 141t p ir r_ - - Map ID# 17 Tax Lot 6500 of Map 1703 3113 (Eugene Public Library) : Library is in good condition and well maintained. Improvement to land ratio: 27.57; Building rating: + Map ID# 18, 19, 21, and 22 Tax Lots 2300, 2400, 2500, and 1901 of Map 1703 3113 (LTD Eugene Bus Station): associated with Map ID #8, 9, and 10. Bus station and related structures are in good condition. Improved public plaza; Building rating: + i F Map ID# 20 Tax lot 1700, Map 1703 3113 (Downtown Athletic Club - Newberry Childcare and offices): Old J.J. Newberry Co. building. Rust stains from tie -rods along the side of the building, eroding brick work, and peeling paint. EWEB notes that steam conversion is needed. Improvement to land ratio: . 3.2; Building rating: ± `a S M i r 9 I� Ito Map ID# 23 —Tax lot 1900 of Map 17033113 (McDonald Theatre building and associated shops): Some visible cracks in walls (esp. on west side). EWEB notes that steam conversion is needed. Improvement to land ratio: 1.15; Building rating: f Findings - 8 m 1 1 J IL e Map ID# 24 —Tax lot 12700, Map 17033114 (Funk and Levis): notes that steam conversion is needed. Improvement to land ratio: 2.83; Building rating: + Map ID# 25 —Tax lot 12600 of Map 17033114 (Harlequin Beads): Building appears in good condition. Single -story use. Improvement to land ratio: 2.78; Building rating: + 11 AIL" rs' a l Map ID# 26 Tax lot 12500 of Map 17033114 (Shaffer Building): Building appears in good condition overall but window frames deteriorating and paint peeling. EWEB notes that steam conversion is needed. Third floor appears vacant. Improvement to land ratio: 9.14; Building rating: ± OM r so Map ID# 27 Tax lot 12300 of Map 1703 3114 (Overpark structure) : Also associated with Map ID# 45. Per City of Eugene Public Works, work required includes sealing exterior faces of walls, installing replacement deck coating, upgrading the elevator. Structure not compliant with current seismic code requirements. EWEB notes that steam conversion is needed. Some vacancies evident. Improvement to land ratio: 2.73; Building rating: ± Findings - 9 Map ID# 28 and 29 —Tax lots 11500 and 11600 of Map 17033114 (Qwest Building): Upper floors have very limited access to daylight, otherwise building is in good condition. Improvement to land ratio: No information available; Building rating: + ■' ° � m p ' ■ 1 � r 1 Map ID# 30 —Tax lot 11400 of Map 17033114 (Pearl St. garage): Structure is in good condition and commercial spaces are fully- occupied. Improvement to land ratio: 6.92; Building rating: + F ' 16 I , V Y.. x t i e -�- S } • � .r 4 _. tea-. _ � z�° -_ Map ID# 31 through 43 Tax lots 7401 thru 7413 of Map 1703 3114 (Private garage /Brushfire Pottery): Structure appears in good condition; two commercial spaces are vacant. Improvement to land ratio: information on individual spaces not available; Building rating: + 1 1 1 f °R Ir " Ali IBM WYA TIF Map ID# 44 —Tax lot 6900 of Map 17033114 (Key Bank building): Building in good condition. Improvement to land ratio: 15.92; Building rating: + Findings - 10 il- � 4 e Map ID# 45 Tax lot 5 800 of Map 1703 3114 (Overpark garage) : Associated with Map ID# 27. Per City of Eugene Public Works work required to repair and upgrade the structure includes sealing exterior faces of walls, installing replacement deck coating, upgrading the elevator. Structure is not compliant with current seismic code requirements. EWEB notes that steam conversion is needed. Former Tiffany's Drugs store space is vacant. Improvement to land ratio: 2.35; Building rating: ± 1 =t n r� R Map ID# 46 and 47 Tax lot 5600 and 5700 of Map 17033114 (DAC): Building appears in good condition. EWEB notes that steam conversion is needed. Improvement to land ratio: 8.92 and 7.12; Building rating: + a 1- L m e Map ID# 48 Tax lot 5500 of Map 17033114 (Shoe- a- Holic): Building evidences water damage on exterior, missing bricks, cracks in marble fagade, graffiti, exposed external wiring. Recent upgrades completed to front fagade only. EWEB notes that steam conversion is needed. Improvement to land ratio: 2.06; Building rating: ± Findings - 11 I 1 oil G ,O �� ■I P i IL Map ID# 49 —Tax lot 1600 of Map 17033113 (Harry Ritchie's Jewelers): Building appears in good condition. EWEB notes that steam conversion is needed. Improvement to land ratio: 3.85; Building rating: + Map ID# 50 Tax lot 1800 of Map 17033113 (Actor's Cabaret of Eugene /Poppi's Anatolia): Single - story building with cracking and missing downtown spouts and water damage, paint peeling. EWEB notes that steam conversion is needed. Improvement to land ratio: .97; Building rating: ± 1 ff.l I V I -7 - 4* I Map ID# 51 —Tax lot 2600 of Map 17033113 (Atrium Building): Per City of Eugene Public Works improvements /maintenance needed on building include repair to skylights and elevator upgrade needed. Structure is not compliant with current seismic code requirements. EWEB notes that steam conversion is needed. Improvement to land ratio: 4.52; Building rating: ± V 7 • Findings - 12 s e� c' i LA a �16 Z V t O • e 1 �s E _ 1 Map ID# 52 through 55 Tax lots 5100, 5200, 5300, and 6600 of Map 1703 3113 (10 and Charnelton Site): Surface parking lot and vacant subsurface lot. Improvement to land ratio: .04, .04, 07 and .00 s I .'" . Wr lol- - m r Map ID# 56 through 59 Tax lots 16200, 16400, 16600, and 16900 of Map 1703 3113 (Broadway Place - South): Also associated with Map ID# 103 -107. Buildings are good condition. Corner space along Lincoln is vacant. Improvement to land ratio: Information on individual spaces not available; Building rating: + Map ID# 60 Tax lot 6700 of Map 17033113 (Shawmed /Lord Leebrick). Single -story building in need of rehabilitation (painting, sealing, canopy repair). Poor access to daylight (no windows on west or south side) . One empty storefront. Improvement to land ratio: . 70; Building rating: ± �-- A0 FA L A K _MW -P7 Map ID# 61 Tax lot 4900 of Map 17033113 (Diva, etc.): Single -story building. Roofline repairs needed, awnings deteriorated or missing. One vacancy on western end. EWEB notes that steam conversion is needed. Improvement to land ratio: 2.19; Building rating: ± Findings - 13 Map ID# 62 —Tax lot 5000 of Map 17033113 (Bradford's store): Single -story building in good condition. West portion of store is vacant (approximately one -third of structure). EWEB notes that steam conversion is needed. Improvement to land ratio: 1.18; Building rating: + Map ID# 63 —Tax lot 2700 of Map 17033113 (Imagine Hair Salon): Building in need of maintenance (paint peeling, siding pulling off in places). Improvement to land ratio: 3.6; Building rating: ± r� I Map ID# 64 —Tax lot 2800 of Map 17033113 (Luckey's): Single -story building. Awnings (glass and fabric) need cleaning, sealing and repair; window frames peeling and deteriorating. Improvement to land ratio: 2.09; Building rating: f �. r w 'o '- • - J$ lip Map ID# 65 Tax lot 2900 of Map 1703 3113 (Washburne Building) : Building has surface cracking and chipping. Awnings need repairs. One vacancy in building front. EWEB notes that steam conversion is needed. Improvement to land ratio: 3.63; Building rating: ± Findings - 14 Map ID# 66 —Tax lot 1300 of Map 17033113 (Center Court Building): Building in considerable disrepair, internally and externally. Needs major renovations to make it fit for occupancy. Building is currently completely vacant. EWEB notes that steam conversion is needed. Improvement to land ratio: 1.17; Building rating: ± Map ID# 67 and 68 —Tax lot 1400 of Map 17033113 (subsurface lot- old Woolworth's Building): Vacant development site. Improvement to land ratio: 0.0 Map ID# 69 through 71 —Tax lots 5400, 5300, 4800 of Map 17033114 (Persian Rugs & Imports /Farouz Salon): Irregular paint job in back, graffiti present. Map ID # 70 and 71 are inadequately sized parcels; 70 has no right -of -way access. Improvement to land ratio: 1.98 ( #69), 1.25 ( #71) (Inadequate information is available for #70); Building rating: f F � _ I++ 1 l T i �T Map ID# 72 —Tax lot 4801 of Map 17033114 (Kesey Square): Improved public plaza. Findings - 15 r w f 0-0 (OPO Map ID# 73 —Tax lot 4900 of Map 17033114 (Formerly 20 East): Vacant single -story building, exterior in good shape. Improvement to land ratio: 3.17; Building rating: + fm A a 4 z 1 0, %. EL Map ID# 74 Tax lot 5200 of Map 1703 3114 (The Broadway Building- Cafe Maroc, Adams Place, Pacific University) : Building in good condition. Rear commercial space vacant. Improvement to land ratio: 4.75; Building rating: + Map ID# 75 Tax lot 6200 of Map 17033114 (Summit Bank, other offices): Building in good condition. Vacancy along Broadway. Approximately 50% of lot is dedicated to parking. EWEB notes that steam conversion is needed. Improvement to land ratio: 1.6; Building rating: + 1 L7 Map ID# 76 —Tax lot 6800 of Map 17033114 (Ulum Group): Building in good condition. Improvement to land ratio: 5.67; Building rating: + Findings - 16 Map ID# 77 —Tax lot 6700 of Map 17033114 (La Follette Gallery): Building in good condition. Improvement to land ratio: 5.19; Building rating: + S T . e a. E � – Map ID# 78 —Tax lot 6500 of Map 17033114 (Wells Fargo /Oak St. Speakeasy): Concrete shell of building has considerable staining, stucco peeling from upper levels. EWEB notes that steam conversion is needed. Improvement to land ratio: 4.83. Building rating: ± Map ID# 79 Tax lot 6600 of Map 1703 3114 (Passionflower /Pewter Rabbit /Eugene Professional Building): Appears in good condition. Recently remodeled. EWEB notes that steam conversion is needed. Improvement to land ratio: 9.42; Building rating: + :e ee F , . b — L 6. y a ORE [ Map ID# 80 Tax lot 7500 of Map 17033114 (Quackenbush Building and Ambrosia): Front of building in good condition; concrete in rear of structure recently sealed; brick work needs cleaning, repair and repointing. EWEB notes that steam conversion is needed for Ambrosia portion. Improvement to land ratio: 3.62; Building rating: ± Findings - 17 n . N e pir tl r Y • a u-c +i^ i Map ID# 81 and 82 Tax lot 7700 and 7600 of Map 1703 3113 (surface parking) : Surface parking lot. Improvement to land ratio: . 04 and .04 " yyI aW. d yy hA _ L - s Map ID# 83 Tax lot 2800 of Map 17033114 (Cafe Zenon and other shops): Single -story building. Some cracks in the west wall, and stucco peeling. Improvement to land ratio: 2.53; Building rating: Map ID# 84 Tax lot 2700 of Map 17033114 (Formerly City of Eugene Public Works): Vacant building, for sale by City. In good condition, but not compliant with current seismic code requirements per City of Eugene Public Works. EWEB notes that steam conversion is needed. Improvement to land ratio: 10.53; Building rating: + IL c P � Map ID# 85 Tax lot 2900 of Map 1703 3114 (Parkview Place) : Building in good condition. Building occupies approximately 75% of lot, parking area accounts for remainder. EWEB notes that steam conversion is needed. Improvement to land ratio: 7.75; Building rating: + Findings - 18 Map ID# 86 —Tax lot 3300 of Map 17033114 (Wells Fargo Building) Building occupies approximately 75% of lot, parking area accounts for remainder. EWEB notes that steam conversion is needed. Improvement to land ratio: 11.94; Building rating: + I R" � 'I - - N= Map ID# 87 Tax lot 3 900 of Map 1703 3114 (Oveissi /Rowell Brokaw Architects) : Building in good condition. EWEB notes that steam conversion is needed. Improvement to land ratio: 3.4; Building rating: + Map ID# 88 —Tax lot 4000 of Map 17033114 (Fenario Gallery): Back side of building has cracking /eroding bricks. EWEB notes that steam conversion is needed. Improvement to land ratio: 5.24; Building rating: f P7. I Findings - 19 AV, ron Map ID# 89 —Tax lot 4400 of Map 17033114 (LCOG building): Some ground floor vacancies. Brickwork in rear needs cleaning, repair and repointing. EWEB notes that steam conversion is needed. Improvement to land ratio: 10.2; Building rating: f FP LM Map ID# 90 and 91 Tax lot 900 and 1000 of Map 17033113 (Scan Design): Exterior siding pulling from frame on the front of the building. Improvement to land ratio: 4.66 and 3.47; Building rating: ± Map ID# 92 Tax lot 1100 of Map 1703 3113 (Taco Time Building) : Cracking, staining from downspouts, torn awning. Vacancy on corner of Broadway and Willamette. Graffiti on back of building. Improvement to land ratio: 1.33; Building rating: ± Map ID# 93 —Tax lot 3400 of Map 17033113 (vacant former gallery): Appears vacant. Single -story building with oxidizing roof, peeling exterior wall paint and substantial graffiti. Improvement to land ratio: 1.75; Building rating: ± Findings - 20 Map ID# 94 —Tax lot 3300 of Map 17033113 (Lazar's Bazaar): Recent cosmetic upgrades. Single -story building appears in good condition. Improvement to land ratio: 3.66; Building rating: + o� Map ID# 95 Tax lot 3200 of Map 17033113 (John Henry's): Single -story building with peeling paint, graffiti on back. Improvement to land ratio: 1.93; Building rating: ± Map ID# 96 Tax lot 3100 of Map 17033113 (formerly Lazar's Bazaar): Single -story building in good condition. Improvement to land ratio: 2.71; Building rating: + Map ID# 97 —Tax lot 3000 of Map 17033113 (Horsehead Bar): Single -story building. Roof repair and maintenance needed; brick work needs repair. Vacancy along Olive St. Improvement to land ratio: 0.59; Building rating: ± Findings - 21 _:,_.� JOE- ■ ■ r S r' i - �^ iL r = r Map ID# 98 —Tax lot 4600 of Map 17033113 (Duvall Building -Law Offices): Recently remodeled and in good condition. Improvement to land ratio: 3.45; Building rating: + Map ID# 99 —Tax lot 4700 of Map 17033113 (860 Olive St.): Vacant ground floor. Wood siding needs repair, paint peeling in places. Improvement to land ratio: 8.43; Building rating: f r L P to LN Map ID# 100 Tax lot 4800 of Map 17033113 (Jame son's/Glamour Girls & Guys): Paint peeling, marquee cracked, window boarded, water staining. EWEB notes that steam conversion is needed. Improvement to land ratio: 2.10; Building rating: ± r � e Map ID# 101 Tax lot 4500 of Map 17033113 (former Symantec building): Vacant. Deteriorated awning /broken windows, entries boarded up. Improvement to land ratio: 4.97; Building rating: ± Findings - 22 Map ID# 102 —Tax lot 6800 of Map 17033113 (Enterprise Call- Center /ISTE): Building in good condition, recently remodeled. EWEB notes that steam conversion is needed. Improvement to land ratio: 5.45; Building rating: + 4 Map ID# 103 through 107 Tax lots 16100, 16300, 16500, 16700, 16800 of Map 17033113 (Broadway Place- North): Also associated with Map ID# 56 -59. Buildings in good condition. One commercial space is vacant. Improvement to land ratio: Information not available; Building rating: + - W_ 5 Map ID# 108 Tax lot 6900 of Map 1703 3113 (vacant- surface parking) : Large surface parking lot (private) occupying a full quarter - block. Improvement to land ratio: .06 awwom Map ID# 109 —Tax lot 4200 of Map 17033113 (vacant- surface parking): Surface parking lot associated with Rogue Brewery and Starlight Lounge. Improvement to land ratio: .15 Findings - 23 t F AW -IMMENNERNME-1 Map ID# 110 —Tax lot 4100 of Map 17033113 (SCS Building- Law Offices): Building appears in good condition. Improvement to land ratio: 7.20; Building rating: + Map ID# 111 —Tax lot 4000 of Map 17033113 (KLCC): Building is in good condition. Improvement to land ratio: 4.54; Building rating: + a _01_ 1w Map ID# 112 —Tax lot 3900 of Map 17033113 (Shoe Repair business /Full House Poker /Former Police Auditor): Single -story building in good shape. Vacancy on corner of Olive and 8 Improvement to land ratio: 2.57; Building rating: + Map ID# 113 —Tax lot 4300 of Map 17033113 (Starlight Lounge): Single -story building in good condition. Improvement to land ratio: 4.10; Building rating: + Findings - 24 Map ID# 114 —Tax lot 4400 of Map 17033113 (Eugene City Brewery): Single -story building in good condition. Improvement to land ratio: 4.30; Building rating: + e' Map ID# 115 through 118 Tax lot 3800, 3700, 3600, and 3 500 of Map 1703 3113 (surface parking lot) : Large parking lot occupying a full quarter- block. Improvement to land ratio: .08 for each tax lot r_ . �s r MEN* OOPL Jj*n R� a Lum L R i i Map ID# 119 Tax lot 700 of Map 17033113 (US Bank Center): Building in good condition. Improvement to land ratio: Building rating: + r- Map ID# 120 —Tax lot 4600 of Map 17033114 (Cascade Title Co.): Building in good condition. Improvement to land ratio: 12.46; Building rating: + Findings - 25 .:3 YI s .f F � i Map ID# 121 —Tax lot 4700 of Map 17033114 (Park Blocks- South): Structures evidence cracking and paint peeling from canopy covering. Improved public plaza. Building rating: f Map ID# 122 —Tax lot 9400 of Map 17033111 (Tiffany Building): In good condition. Improvement to land ratio: 8.64; Building rating: + Map ID# 123 —Tax lot 9300 of Map 17033111 (US Tae Kwon Do College): Some deterioration of building (broken windows, cracks in structure on back side). Improvement to land ratio: 2.05 (Building rating: ±) o w t i 4 A Map ID# 124 Tax lot 9200 of Map 1703 3111 (Smeed Hotel Building) : Appears in good condition. Fully- occupied. EWEB notes that steam conversion is needed. Improvement to land ratio: 3.10; Building rating: + Findings - 26 Map ID# 125 Tax lot 16801 of Map 17033112 (Parcade): Also associated with Map ID# 143. Per City of Eugene Public Works, walls and parapet need sealing, deck coatings need replacement, cracks need to be sealed and seal along slab joints above ramps need to be resealed; not compliant with current seismic code requirements. EWEB notes that steam conversion is needed. Improvement to land ratio: 1.89; Building rating: ± Map ID# 126 —Tax lot 16100 of Map 17033112 (MJ Plaza/Mac Store): Building in good condition. Improvement to land ratio: 4.81; Building rating: + Map ID# 127 and 128 —Tax lot 15900 and 16000 of Map 17033112 (vacant- surface parking): Large surface parking lot (private) associated with MJ Plaza and occupying 1 /8 of a block. Improvement to land ratio: .06 and .06 Findings - 27 d9WNhJ. W " - Map ID# 127 and 128 —Tax lot 15900 and 16000 of Map 17033112 (vacant- surface parking): Large surface parking lot (private) associated with MJ Plaza and occupying 1 /8 of a block. Improvement to land ratio: .06 and .06 Findings - 27 d9WNhJ. W " Map ID# 129 —Tax lot 15800 of Map 17033112 (M. Jacobs Furniture): Also associated with Map IDs #141, 142 and 144. Building in good condition. Improvement to land ratio: 1.61; Building rating: + Map ID# 130 —Tax lot 15500 of Map 17033112 (Lane County Visitors Center): Building in good condition. Appears partially vacant. Improvement to land ratio: 5.25; Building rating: + Map ID# 131 —Tax lot 15300 of Map 17033112 (Eugene Symphony /Logic Tools): Building is in good condition. Upper floors appear vacant. EWEB notes that steam conversion is needed. Improvement to land ratio: 4.53; Building rating: + Map ID# 132 Tax lot 15400 of Map 17033112 (Brennar's): Awning needs repair, paint peeling, exposed wood at top. EWEB notes that steam conversion is needed. Improvement to land ratio: 2.10; Building rating: ± Findings - 28 Map ID# 133 —Tax lot 14900 of Map 17033112 (Studio BBrennar's Green Living): Building appears in good condition. Improvement to land ratio: 2.73; Building rating: + Map ID# 134 —Tax lot 14800 of 17033112 (Cozmic Pizza/The Strand): Single -story building appears in good condition. Fully- occupied. Improvement to land ratio: 4.23; Building rating: + Ow- C Map ID# 135 and 136 —Tax lots 14700 and 14600 of Map 17033112 (surface parking): Large surface parking lot (private) occupying 1 /8 of a block. Improvement to land ratio: .02 and .02 Map ID# 137 —Tax lot 15100 of Map 17033112 (Goodyear Tire): Single -story building in good condition. Improvement to land ratio: .71; Building rating: + Findings - 29 Map ID# 138 —Tax lot 15200 of Map 17033112 (vacant- access drive and surface parking): Parking appears associated with Goodyear Tire store. Improvement to land ratio: .09 Map ID# 139 and 140 —Tax lots 15201 and 15202 of Map 17033112 (mostly vacant- surface parking /Dutch Bros.): Large surface parking lot occupying nearly a full quarter - block. Map ID# 139 has drive -thru coffee shop located on a portion of it. Improvement to land ratio: .14 and .09; Building rating: Map ID# 141 and 142 —Tax lots 15600 and 15602 of Map 17033112 (M. Jacobs Furniture): Also associated with Map ID# 129 and 144. Building in good condition and fully- occupied. Tax lot 15602 is substandard and located at the rear of the building. Improvement to land ratio: 1.46 and .06; Building rating: + ul' Y W 't Map ID# 143 —Tax lot 16800 of Map 17033112 (Parcade): Also associated with Map ID# 125. Per Findings - 30 City of Eugene Public Works, walls and parapet need sealing, deck coatings need replacement, cracks need to be sealed and seal along slab joints above ramps need to be resealed; not compliant with current seismic code requirements. EWEB notes that steam conversion is needed. Improvement to land ratio; 0.0; Building rating: ± Map ID# 144 —Tax lot 15601 of Map 17033112 (surface parking): Also associated with Map ID# 129, 141, and 142. Surface parking lot associated with M. Jacobs occupies 1 /8 of a block. Improvement to land ratio: .06 r. Map ID# 145 —Tax lot 9001 of Map 17033111 (Baden & Co.): Building in good condition. EWEB notes that steam conversion is needed. Improvement to land ratio: 6.48; Building rating: + s Map ID# 146 —Tax lot 9000 of Map 17033111 (Barber Shop /Attorney offices): Single -story building in good condition. EWEB notes that steam conversion is needed. Improvement to land ratio: 3.50; Building rating: + Findings - 31 Map ID# 147 Tax lot 8800 of Map 17033111 (Rock n Rodeo): Single -story building. Surface parking occupies approximately 33% of lot. Improvement to land ratio: 1.18; Building rating: + r _ • 1 1� Map ID# 148 —Tax lot 9500 of Map 17033111 (Butterfly Parking structure): Slightly above -grade parking structure. Visible concrete deterioration, chipping and staining. Improvement to land ratio: .08; Building rating: ± rT fI T .1- i e • Map ID# 149 and 151 Tax lots 7600 and 7700 of Map 1703 3111 (Eugene Conference Center) : EWEB notes that steam conversion is needed. Not compliant with current seismic code requirements per City of Eugene Public Works. Improvement to land ratio: 2.38 and 2.12; Building rating: + Nor. WMMM S Map ID# 150 —Tax lot 7601 of Map 17033111 (Eugene Hilton): Building appears in good condition. EWEB notes that steam conversion is needed. Not compliant with current seismic code requirements per Findings - 32 City of Eugene Public Works. Improvement to land ratio: 14.37; Building rating: + W 'j-. Map ID# 152 Tax lot 6400 of Map 1703 3112 (Hult Center and associated parking garage) : Hult Center in good condition, elevator upgrade required for parking garage, not compliant with current seismic code requirements per City of Eugene Public Works. EWEB notes that steam conversion is needed. Improvement to land ratio: 14.54; Building rating: ± Findings - 33 Downtown Urban Renewal Plan District Map Attachment 1 to Ordinance Exhibit C , • k v a q . . : -'a'" . � T • Ili' 9 � ': '���, � - � �" N �- _" y �c , , 9 r; _ -�' n - I r - en 6th Ave 6th Ave I or i 4 _ - .��' 150 s a� •` ` Aid. — -� �7� F ► v 152 LL ; _ #'x Ju s d to : K 1 I . nom. ... u az•+ .' . a i r ` s r 1 t x s � f 136 � �. _ � _ 143 , I 138 ` 1 .� : 39 • T . X. jP 137 141 144 147 4 P 142 s cn I, 135 1 0 + E _ p k r � 146 145 _ I IN 1110 07 11 -- h 134 133 131 127 132 130 126 ❑ 123 128 8t Ave L .. 110 111 112 a ' a 108 - � 119 120 � 115 ,_ •,� - : ,, ' � � �„--- 117 118 �+ - 116 � r� , 114 � All - , , 98 � _ ML 104 103 102 t 99 —d O O 94 84 r ®. 101 97 = - ❑ 96 ` - 95 93 1 J _ 107 105 : u,�4IIV 92 '� . . - 1 87 - -t � Broadwa� 59 58 � -- -- At Eau a - 57,�_ 61 65 66 72 73 56 78 , 1 64 67 71 74 75 79 106 63 68 69 70 77 U i 52 — - 76 81 s 53 48 32 34 c,a 55 20 47 41 37 3942 43 . L _ : 3 35 40 50 - ❑ = 33 36 VEW 1 0th Ave 19 - - 1 ,; 17 ❑ 26 ;� 29 �r 5 s- ® 18 24` 28 22 ❑ U — ;, 16 — ,, I 11 - r t. 12 10 6 ❑ 15 , _ 3 -_ ,40 13 7 A 5 -- 1 ❑ ❑ , , 11th Ave a AD ow ' �, � -. - " " • ' to �,, �.4w � i' d : t i a F � le ft IF eet 0 125 250 Aerial Photography: 2008 —" J. El Downtown Urban Renewal District cit of Eu . Planning and Development Department Taxlots in study area Community Development Division r May 21, 2010 Caution: This map is based on imprecise source data, subject to change and for general reference only. 14211910 uoijeuivaaajaa sajou uo x r� rn o 0 o cs� Ln m C) 10 'r.., ri o0 x x x m rn 0 0 0 „'asagnnasla, 0 m sa:)inaas pue saililioel oilgnd mau jo uoijeaao a, U U aqj aol aaAedxel aqj of sisoo pappe pue uoijeaoualap U Ln U aaglan j sli ui .Ouillnsai 'eaae aqj jo uoijezipjn: U U aadoad jo uoilonpaa pue uoilelndod jo ssol d (i) LL a- CL ao r-I r-1 O 'aiellam pue Alales'glleaq oilgnd aqj of .Ouiingialuo� aol algenlen pue Injasn Alleilualod puel jo uoijipuoo N anilonpoidun pue lueu .Oels a ui Ouillnsai 'seaae L jo uoilezipin aadoad o joel Iejol ao .9umoa.9 d (g) V m ...... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ...... ...... 'paaapuaa sa:)inaas oilgnd ~ m m o o 0 jo lsoo aqj aol alenbapeui aae sldiaoaa xel pue paonpaa m si saxel Aed of Alpedeo aqj legl lualxa ue gons o� = X � sluawlsnfpelew oiwouooa pue (epos pue SJU@WIsanui: W r� r` aiiedwi 'san en aleioaada o aoua enaad p I p p� I d ( )_ w lD V ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... .... z a 'aalenn Aq uoilepunui ol loaf gns aae; z jegj seaae aagjo ao sjol ao Ajaadoad o aouajsixa aql (j) i6 ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... Q 'sailililn pue saoeds uado 'Aem jo s1q .9ia O v aaglo pue slaaals alenbapeui jo aoualsixa aqj (a) 4-J --, No ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ........ CD 'suoijipuoo .9uipunoaans pue uieaaal ql jo soilspajoeiep IeoisAgd aaglo pue a.Oeuieap 'sanoJu00, jo pie .Oaasip ui slol ao Aliadoid jo ino .OuiAel aql (p) U ................. cn m O 'juawdolanap pue ssauln jasn Aliadoid aol suoisuawlp azis alenbapeui pue adegs pue uaaoj aeln .9aaai 10 sjol Q ao ao Aliadoid jo ales pue uoisinipgns ao uoisinip agl P) X 'Ouiuueld Allnel woa j .Ouillnsai Aliadoid jo asnsip ao uoileaoiaalap 'uoileoolsip oiwouooa ud (q) V) tU0 'sasn jo gui��iys ao aapeaey:) paxiw 'uoilepidelip 'uoileaoiaalap 'a:)ua:)salosg0 (3) }, ao'saij!1pej uoijeanaa pue sa:)eds uado 'uoijejiues 'jg2il 'uoijelijuan JOJ uoisinoad alenbapeul (Q): _ 'uoije ndod o � l!sua gi a ue 2ui MOJ:)Jan I p u u p p 0 (D) m '2upeds aoiaalxa pue juawagueaae aoiaalui Allne3 (8): 'uoilmilsum le:)isAqd jo Ajilenb pue u21sap ani��a�aa (y) O :su011ipu0o a Suimollol aqj jo uoileuigwoo a ao auo Aue jo asneoaq E— sasodind asogj aol Adn000 of alesun ao Igun aae jegl: .i 'sasn asogj jo uoileuigwoo Aue ao'sasodand aaglo ao: Ieiaisnpui 'le paauauaoo Tuinil aol pasn aq ol papualui ao pasn 'saanl:)nals pue s .Ouiplinq jo aoualsixa aql (e) a ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... .... CL a 4J O v cc Jolxel a 0 3 0 aagwnu uoimmiguapi deal o x r� rn o 0 o cs� Ln m C) 10 'r.., ri o0 x x x m rn 0 0 0 0 0 m 0 0 a, U U ' U Ln U 0 t 1. L U U fu LL a- CL N U Cn J x r� rn o 0 o cs� Ln m C) 10 'r.., ri o0 x x x m rn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N O 00 0) O rl r r-I rl r-I r-1 O m m m m m m m o o 0 0 0 0 r` � � r• � r� r` N M d' lD 00 Ln o O p� l0 d.1 s n •- o m s � i � L v 2 i M N C Q m O 4 OJ `- tu0 O � • in N v, c� O CL O = N aj C1 O O N N U OA -C O a Ln +-J v� O X X a O &.-i N E O m U_ m M O — m > L - m O a , O_ 4- -P M m E � L N - 0 O m c O qA c N O . O U O m fA r) J L O m N _M Q m Q � � Q