CC Minutes - 06/27/01 Work Session

Home Browse Search

replacement housing would not be comparable to that which currently exists within the downtown core. He said that the proposal to take the housing stock out of the market does not make sense. Mr. Fart said that he was not interested in having Sacred Heart expand in its current location and that it was not necessary to talk further about funding elements. Regarding the finance element, Ms. Nathanson commented that it would be up to the proponents of the project to make a case for public funding. She said that she did not feel that the public shared the sense of urgency or commitment at this time and that the measure for funding should be referred to the public. When contemplating other revenue sources, Ms. Nathanson expressed concern that the City would consider using its political capital on a project which does not have public support. Ms. Nathanson asked if the development of park land, as noted on the top of page 2 of the handout, had been discussed or was determined to be necessary in that neighborhood. She asked how the park fit into the overall parks and open space plan and whether the park be open to public use or be internal to a hospital campus. Mr. Johnson said that the discussion had focused on a public participation that would require the park be a public park. The City was not in the business of providing parks for private enterprises. He said that the park was included because of the anticipated high number of employees and users of the new hospital, which would necessitate reevaluating the need for a public park in the area. Ms. Nathanson noted that the City owns a park within one block of that area and suggested the City either needed to use the existing park or sell it. Mr. Johnson said that it might be a good spot to move some of the houses displaced by expansion. Mr. Meisner said that he felt it was difficult to isolate the financing issue effectively. He agreed that any proposal this large should go to a public vote, but recollected that the City Council did not submit a proposal for the exemption from taxation for Hyundai to a public vote. He said that the Crescent Drive location was not good, but neither was the six-block expansion at the Hilyard site. He did not support the development at Chad, but also did not support "sprawl" within the core. He said that the designs that had been presented did not provide for dense development. Mr. Meisner hoped there might be zoning that would protect lands in the future and get the community involved. He expressed concern about a six- block, low-rise development west of the current facilities. Mr. Meisner said that GO bonds have a general familiarity to the public, which was both an advantage and a disadvantage. He said that he had some interest in the business registration fee and requested additional information. A two-year income tax surcharge would not be painless, but would make a great deal of sense. He added that he did not want to refer a measure for public vote until there was a commitment that it was for a very positive public purpose. Mr. Meisner said that he would not oppose placement on the ballot, but he was not enthusiastic at this time. Mr. Pap~ said that all things considered keeping the hospital somewhere near the core was desirable. However, he said, it may not be prudent to expand at the current location. He added that discussions about helping a private institution were difficult for him. Mr. Pap~ said that PeaceHealth was ready to move forward and would proceed without the City if it was not responsive to the timeline. With regard to financing, Mr. Pap~ said the best option was to refer a GO bond in September. He noted that an excise tax was soundly defeated last year and that a business registration tax would meet the same fate. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 27, 2001 Page 4 Work Session