Laserfiche WebLink
Ms. Taylor said that public participation in the design should occur after the voters vote to open the street. <br />She agreed with the remarks of Mr. Pap6. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor supported having a vote on the question of the street reopening, but did not want to be too detailed <br />about the design since that information was not required in the ballot question or description. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey said he hoped the council could go to the voters in September. He agreed that the City should <br />not do too much design work until the public has indicated its support for opening the street. Mayor Torrey <br />did not support including a new vehicle for revenue generation with the question of opening the street as he <br />thought the issues were separate. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor determined from staff that a vote to reopen the street was required by the City Charter. <br /> <br />Mr. Johnson said that the council could simply ask the public if it wanted to reopen the street, so the planning <br />for the design was probably not needed. He said that preliminary designs could be developed at a lower cost. <br />He briefly discussed the time frame for placing an item on the September or November ballot. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman determined from Mr. Johnson that the council was not bound by the vote to open the street if no <br />funding was available for the purpose, that it had the option of returning to the voters in a subsequent election <br />with a funding mechanism, and that it could avoid spending the $100,000 if all it did was place the measure <br />on the ballot. Ms. Bettman favored that approach. <br /> <br />Mr. Farmer said he would recommend that Broadway be reopened and the voters be asked to take a position <br />on the issue. He said that staff could reduce the proposed budget, but reminded the council that it continued <br />to ask for more work sessions, more detail, and more public participation on downtown issues. Mr. Farmer <br />said that without adequate public participation, the public would question what was going on. He said that it <br />was the staff's intent to address those questions by providing the public with information prior to a November <br />vote in venues such as the Eugene Celebration. <br /> <br /> Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved that the implementation work plan for <br /> Redesign Broadway be accepted as outlined in the meeting packet, with two changes: <br /> 1) a public vote in September 2001 rather than November 2001, and 2) that the design <br /> work prior to the vote not exceed $30,000. In the short-term, the City Manager staff <br /> would return with options for funding mechanisms, including an analysis of using <br /> systems development charges and a parking tax to fund the project. <br /> <br />Mr. Farmer said that he would recommend a lesser reduction because of the way the project was funded and <br />because additional work was being requested of staff. <br /> <br /> Roll call vote; the motion passed, 6:1, Ms. Taylor voting no. <br /> <br />Complete an Update of the Downtown Plan <br /> <br /> Ms. Taylor, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, moved that the Key Next Steps and work <br /> plans for Complete an Update to the Downtown Plan; Transportation Revisions and <br /> CATS Update; Redevelopment Concept EWEB/Chiquita/Broadway; Protect Adjacent <br /> Neighborhoods; Create an Edge to the Downtown; Vision Implementation Tools be <br /> adopted. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly asked if the implementation plan implied any code changes proposed to implement the plan would <br /> <br /> <br />