Laserfiche WebLink
Testimony was recorded. She said that the council had heard previously from several members of <br />the public on the topic repeatedly, and would increase time for public and council. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson advocated for using Metro TV to show the public information about the visioning <br />process. She thought that would reach people who did not attend public meetings. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly did not think councilors were envisioning a public forum similar to the 7:30 p.m. public <br />forum. He endorsed Ms. Nathanson's suggestion for public involvement and said it was all about <br />convenience to him. He said another approach was to have a session at Valley River Center or <br />Barger Crossing, close to where residents live. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly said that reality was often perception, and because downtown was so fragile he thought <br />it important to not over-broaden perceptions. He agreed with Mr. Fart that there was a perception <br />that downtown was not largely working, but said it would be unfair not to acknowledge some <br />things were working well. However, things could be much better. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly said that the other side of fiscal impact was fiscal benefit to the property owners <br />downtown, which could result in additional property tax revenues to the City. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner agreed with Mr. Kelly's remarks regarding the perception of downtown. He said that <br />downtown was an office center and that function was highly successful. Government and <br />restaurants were downtown. He also concurred with the mayor's comments regarding other <br />processes, particularly the train station. <br /> <br />Responding to Ms. Taylor's remarks, Mr. Meisner said he had yet to find an approach or decision <br />that made sense to everyone. <br /> <br />Responding to Ms. Nathanson's remarks about the use of Metro TV, Mr. Meisner did not want to <br />rely on one method of communication alone and pointed out that not all citizens had access to <br />cable television. He wanted to use all the tools possible to communicate with the public. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman said that a public forum or hearing would not slow the process. She still wanted to <br />have such a hearing to hear new ideas and the community's reaction to the plan. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman did not want to move forward with elements of the plan without knowing the fiscal <br />impact of the action or the source of funding for the project. She suggested a parking tax on lots <br />outside downtown would offset the costs of opening West Broadway, for example. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman said that the housing restoration element should preserve existing housing around <br />downtown rather than let it convert to other uses. She believed the council should take time to <br />decide if there are a few high priority issues it should look at. She requested information about <br />the implications of Ballot Measure 7 on the City's ability to implement the vision in the plan. Mr. <br />Farmer said that where there were regulations impacting property, those would have to be looked <br />at. He anticipated that more would be known from the courts by the end of the month. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor agreed with the mayor regarding public input. He wanted an aggressive process that <br />allowed the public to comment on the plan while allowing the council to maintain the time line. He <br />wanted to be able to tell the public enough about the design of a reopened Broadway to be able to <br />give the public a sense of the cost and impact. He wanted the timeline formalized and the public <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 22, 2001 Page 4 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />