Laserfiche WebLink
Ms. Bettman asked if the proposal was consistent with the University of Oregon Senate <br />resolution related to development north of the railroad tracks and what she believed was <br />University President David Frohnmeyer's commitment to uphold the resolution. Mr. Weinman <br />indicated he would follow up. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman said the issue for her was a budgetary one, specifically the diversion of money from <br />the General Fund. Diverted funds could be used for roads and other amenities as opposed to <br />essential public services. She needed more information before she could support the proposal. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly agreed that the issue was budgetary one, but suggested that budgeting was a matter of <br />prioritization. He thought that targeting funding at certain areas was not inappropriate. He <br />supported the tool and plan extension, but was concerned about the recommendation to deal <br />with projects later. He suggested that a knowledgeable public discussion required graphic <br />descriptions of the possible projects. He asked where in the time line staff would include City <br />Council brainstorming for possible projects to be offered to the public. Mr. Weinman said that <br />could occur in July-August. Mr. Kelly asked that staff do some brainstorming before that time. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly suggested there might be value in including both sides of Franklin Boulevard and <br />Broadway in the district to facilitate streetscaping. Mr. Sullivan thought it made sense, but <br />pointed out the expansion potential was capped at 20 percent of the total land base of the <br />original district. <br /> <br />Responding to a question from Mr. Pap~, Mr. Sullivan indicated that the district could be closed <br />and another district formed, but the increment would be lost and the new district base frozen at <br />the rate in place when the district was formed. <br /> <br />Responding to a question from Mr. Pap~ regarding the design of the intersection at Mill Street <br />and Broadway, Mr. Sullivan said that planning for the intersection was still underway. He said <br />that it was envisioned to be an urban intersection to the degree possible. He noted the <br />complications created by the fact the roadway was a State highway. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap~ wanted to expand the district and wanted to know why staff did not recommend that. <br />Mr. Weinman said that staff had discussed the option, as well as the option of a new ring district, <br />which could address some of the land in question. Staff was trying to keep the suggested <br />changes as simple as possible. He said that staff would incorporate district expansion into the <br />proposals carried forward to the citizens if that was the council's desire. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap~ asked what kind of infrastructure could be provided to the courthouse area using urban <br />renewal funds. Mr. Weinman cited sidewalk improvements and undergrounded utilities as an <br />example. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner supported directing the manager to proceed with the amendments process. <br />Speaking to the project list, he expressed concern that the list not be so specific that it hemmed <br />the council in. In terms of evaluating the district's success; Mr. Meisner said that the council had <br />not looked backward when it amended the Downtown Urban Renewal Plan or used that as an <br />opportunity to evaluate the plan. It amended it by adopting a new project and eliminating the <br />former projects. He thought the council was looking now at a new plan with a new focus. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner found the idea of expansion was intriguing. He did not think the federal funding <br />sought by the City for the courthouse improvements would be sufficient to realize all the <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 23, 2003 Page 6 <br /> <br /> <br />