Laserfiche WebLink
Ms. Bettman commented that the idea of looking at financing outside the context of the entire <br />proposal was difficult. She said that the discussion of financing may imply to the public that there <br />was agreement among the council members for the proposal, which she did not believe was the <br />case. She stated that the GO bond proposal in September may be rushed in terms of making a <br />case to the public and to mount a successful campaign. She said that she would consider the <br />business registration tax, but that the income tax surcharge, as a limited financing mechanism, <br />may be more easily defined for the public. Ms. Bettman said that there was a presumption that <br />September was required for the GO bond measure, and asked why November was not <br />considered. <br /> <br />In response to Ms. Bettman, Mr. Carlson said that PeaceHealth had indicated it must have a firm <br />commitment by September, which required the ballot measure to be on the September ballot. <br />This timeline necessitated that the council take action by July 9; the ballot measure would then be <br />submitted to the County by July 19, which was also the last date to remove it from the ballot. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey said that whatever mechanism the City chooses to use, it must go to the voters for <br />approval. When he reviewed the options, he had asked himself what the relationship of each was <br />with the proposal. He asked why businesses would be asked to pay for hospital services that <br />would benefit the entire community. He was not sure that putting a measure on the ballot was a <br />wise choice. The practical reality of an election would be a tough sell. He said he would rather <br />negotiate with PeaceHealth to a positive solution. He concurred with Mr. Papa's assertion that it <br />was beneficial to keep PeaceHealth in the downtown area. Mayor Torrey spoke about the various <br />constituencies who would vote both for and against this proposal. He said that he would not be <br />betting on a "yes" vote. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor said that if a motion comes to put a measure on the ballot, he would vote against it. He <br />said he would rather have a discussion about having a major employer move from the downtown <br />core to the fringe. He said that this was the kind of issue which should have been one to two <br />years in the making, to allow time for the public to understand. He said that he would really like to <br />keep PeaceHealth downtown. He said that the issue of livability was important and that he did not <br />want to see Eugene look like Seattle. <br /> <br />Mr. Fart said that he has lived in Eugene for 30 years and acknowledged that there will continue <br />to be issues of growth. He said he was interested in keeping the hospital in the downtown core, <br />but he was also interested in maintaining the 350 residences contained in the six-block downtown <br />core included in this proposal. He said that the six blocks west of the current hospital should not <br />be part of the negotiations. <br /> <br /> Mr. Fart, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to direct the City Manager to cease <br /> discussions/negotiations with PeaceHealth regarding the six blocks west of <br /> the hospital site. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor said that he appreciated the motion, but was undecided on how to vote. He <br />characterized the current proposal as asinine. He said that this proposal would require tearing <br />down craftsman houses for surface parking, a prospect that was not favored by the council. He <br />said a different kind of development, with a higher floor area ratio (FAR) would be desirable. He <br />would support a proposal that would include a phased-in approach and be supportive of adjacent <br />property owners. He said that adoption of this motion would preclude that continuing discussion. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 27, 2001 Page 5 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />