CC Minutes - 09/14/09 Work Session

Home Browse Search

commercial building improvements and enhancements, an arts and entertainment district, park improvements and a civic center. Additional elements for downtown revitalization included adequate/free parking, greater police presence and ease regulations/incentives for businesses to move downtown and shops that sell what people need. In conclusion, Dr. Manross stated that 70 percent of respondents supported revitalization for economic development and over half supported the investment of public funds, particularly in a partnership with private investment. Mr. Brown noted that a similar survey last year ranked a subsidy for downtown economic development lowest. Dr. Manross said if the term “subsidy” was not explained, people had a negative reaction, but when they understood its use within the context of a plan for the downtown area they were more favorably inclined. Mr. Brown said he was pleased that attitudes toward the City’s budget had changed; with more respondents disagreeing there was waste in the budget. He felt that could be a result of the road projects being completed with bond funds. Mr. Clark asked what would be considered a base level of positive response in a survey for a levy in order to proceed with a levy measure. Dr. Manross said his company used a “go/no-go” model that resulted in accurate predictions of success of the ballot. He said a funding feasibility study would take all of the definite supporters, and half of the probable supporters, to calculate the likelihood of a measure passing. Mr. Clark felt that 53 percent of respondents supportive of subsidizing economic development was not a high enough percentage to predict success of a funding measure. Dr. Manross agreed and said the City would need to explain to the electorate a specific expenditure plan based on community priorities in order to gain enough support on the ballot. Mr. Clark said the City had gained credibility with voters by presenting a list of specific road projects to be funded with bond proceeds and would need to take a similar approach with downtown revitalization, although it would be challenging to identify specific projects that had wide support. He felt there would be greater public support for revitalization efforts related to removing regulatory barriers and improving public safety through a greater police presence. Dr. Manross agreed that public safety was very important to voters and he sensed there was also support for easing regulatory restrictions. He encouraged the council to present a package of revitalization strategies and not stop with the two or three top priority elements. Mr. Pryor said the survey was a valuable tool for informing decisions. The question of whether there was support for the strategies related to interest versus commitment. He said it was important to determine what the community was committed to doing and the City had done much to restore the public’s trust in a well- functioning government, as demonstrated in the survey. He was intrigued by the level of support for downtown revitalization and economic development and the council needed to spend time identifying the specific components of downtown development for which there would be a commitment. Dr. Manross noted that the survey was of high/moderate propensity voters, not a broad cross-section of the community. He said appropriate uses of the survey results were to help make informed decisions and to inform the public that a scientific survey was used to determine community interests. Ms. Solomon arrived at 6:55 p.m. MINUTES—Eugene City Council September 14, 2009 Page 4 Work Session