CC Minutes - 07/09/03 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Taylor suggested that if Eugene was to partner in the project with EWEB and LTD, it needed to act soon or the opportunity would be lost. Mr. Meisner said merely because the opportunity existed did not mean it was the best use for the funds. Spending the money as proposed could mean the City would not have money available to underground utilities in the immediate neighborhood of the courthouse. Mr. Sullivan conceded that there was no overall context for undergrounding utilities in the area or any budget for undergrounding, although undergrounding utilities was discussed as a priority during the Downtown Visioning process. Mr. Meisner said that for the past two years, the City's focus in the renewal district had been on the courthouse site, and using district assets now could mean there were insufficient dollars to undergrounding utilities in the courthouse neighborhood, which was a high priority and had been discussed by the Planning Commission as well as by the court. Mr. Sullivan noted that the financial position of the district had been provided to the council in a memorandum. He projected revenues of $550,000 in fiscal year 2004 and noted the receipt of the courthouse site sale price from the General Services Administration (GSA). Ms. Bettman said she shared some of Mr. Meisner's concerns. She thought the project was a good one but believed it was out of context in many ways. There was no overall plan for undergrounding utilities and the City lacked the resources needed to underground utilities in other nearby areas, diminishing the benefit of undergrounding where proposed. She asked what other uses existed for the money in question. Ms. Bettman asked what other funds were available that could be reprogrammed to the project. She asked if State Transportation Program (STP) funds were eligible for such a project. Mr. Larson was not aware of other funds, and did not know if STP funds could be used for such a purpose. Mr. Taylor pointed out that the expenditure leveraged money from both EWEB and LTD and could be useful as a precedent in discussions about possible undergrounding projects with the GSA and County. Ms. Bettman believed that the City needed to identify other potential funding sources before moving forward. In regard to a suggestion from Ms. Bettman that urban renewal funds be leveraged in conjunction with the Facilities Reserve for the construction of a new city hall/police station in the district, DeeAnn Hardt of the Central Services Department indicated that public buildings could not be constructed using urban renewal dollars. Ms. Nathanson reported that she was attempting to secure other funds from a variety of sources, including the State of Oregon's main street improvement programs, but did not yet have any commitments. She noted that LTD had indicated it would be discussing the potential of sharing the cost with private property owner, one of which had proactively contacted LTD about the possibility. That would reduce the public cost. Speaking to the issue of priorities, Ms. Nathanson said there was not an overall plan and sequence for undergrounding utilities; undergrounding utilities occurred when streets were torn up for other reasons. It was too expensive to tear up a street merely to underground utilities, and the incremental approach helped "chip away" at the objective to be achieved. She said that it was more desirable to have utilities underground for safety and reliability reasons. In addition, undergrounding utilities helped the City achieve the goals of its Entrance Beautification Plan. MINUTES - Eugene City Council July 9, 2003 Page 2 Work Session