Laserfiche WebLink
the City was asking for authorization for the reopening, not a blank check, and that it did not have a final street <br />design because it intended to seek public involvement and review in the design. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor wanted to know the source of the funding for the street reopening. She thought the voters needed <br />to know where the money was coming from. Mr. Carlson said that staff anticipated the private sector would <br />pay a portion of the cost, had applied to Lane County for a grant to help offset the costs, and would take <br />advantage of downtown funds in place for that purpose. Mr. Braud indicated there was approximately <br />$600,000 in downtown loan program revitalization funds. Ms. Taylor wanted the voters to know the street <br />reopening was not free. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor thought private property owners should drastically lower their rents to encourage activities <br />downtown. She had suggested all the mall rules be eliminated, and the streets opened to bicyclists in the <br />meantime. Mr. Braud responded that to achieve the Great Street concept all elements needed to be introduced, <br />including cars, pedestrians, and bicyclists. <br /> <br /> Ms. Taylor, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to approve Resolution 4673 of the City of <br /> Eugene, Lane County, Oregon, calling a special election to submit a measure to the <br /> voters on opening Broadway to vehicular traffic between Charnelton and Oak streets. <br /> <br />Mr. Fart clarified that the council was asking the voters to remove the restriction to opening the street, not the <br />street reopening. Mr. Fart agreed that design standards were needed before the street was reopened. He <br />wanted those design standards to be sufficiently flexible to allow for a variety of building types. He was <br />satisfied that, following a successful election, staff would develop a satisfactory process for proceeding. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman supported the motion. She clarified that it was her intent that, following the election, the council <br />would begin a process of examining funding mechanisms and a design process. Parallel to those processes, <br />the City could be conducting a public involvement process. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly noted that the resolution was not focused on the removal of the charter prohibition, and <br />recommended that staff consider that in drafting the ballot title. He also wanted the ballot title to reflect the <br />fact the council would not develop a street design and assemble the funding until the voters acted. <br /> <br /> Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to amend Section 1 of the resolution by <br /> changing the last sentence to read "...traffic[.], subject to available funding." The <br /> motion to amend passed unanimously, 6:0. <br /> <br />Responding to a question from Mr. Meisner, Mr. Braud said the City's ballot measures regarding the opening <br />of Olive and Willamette streets identified the funding sources; he was unsure they identified the funding <br />amount. <br /> <br /> The main motion passed unanimously, 6:0. <br /> <br />Responding to a concern expressed by Ms. Nathanson that work on the design standards was <br />part of another work program, Mr. Kelly explained his concern that they would not be available <br />until after the street was opened. He suggested that in the case of a successful election, the <br />current property owners would be coming up with new development proposals, and he wanted <br />them to be subject to the standards. <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 20, 2001 Page 7 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />