My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Council Agendas 2010
>
CC Agenda - 02/08/10 Meeting
>
Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/9/2010 12:30:09 PM
Creation date
2/5/2010 10:45:26 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
City_Council_Document_Type
Agenda Item Summary
CMO_Meeting_Date
2/8/2010
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
24
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
2010, and a work session with the council was scheduled for January 13. She said a website had been <br />created to provide information on downtown activities and opportunities to participate <br />(www.vibranteeugene.org) and another work session would be scheduled in February. <br /> <br />Ms. Piercy said the strategies and projects fit together in a vision for downtown. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark said that improved public safety, free parking and making it more profitable to redevelop <br />properties without large public subsidies were essential to revitalizing downtown and he was pleased that <br />these items were reflected in the strategies and projects. He reminded staff that his original poll of the <br />council addressed free parking downtown, not more convenient and affordable parking, and that was still his <br />goal. He said staff had indicated the cost of providing free parking downtown was $600,000, while the cost <br />in the parking project description included rebranding estimated at $500,000, with an additional $200,000 <br />for occasional free parking. He felt it would be better to invest those funds in meter-free parking downtown <br />instead of more convenient parking. Mr. Ruiz said staff continued to explore options for free parking <br />downtown. He pointed out that the cost of rebranding was a one-time expenditure and the $600,000 cost to <br />provide free parking was an ongoing expense. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor questioned how a downtown VA clinic would contribute to the health of citizens throughout the <br />community. She noted that additional parks had not been mentioned in the list of projects and agreed with <br />Mr. Clark that free parking was a good investment for downtown and spending money on rebranding would <br />irritate people. She felt that all of the strategies were leading to urban renewal. <br /> <br />Ms. Ortiz left the meeting at 6:45 p.m. <br /> <br />Mr. Pryor recognized the council and community’s interest in seeing actions occur and felt that the <br />strategies, projects and staff efforts were leading in that direction at an appropriate pace. He looked forward <br />to discussions about how urban renewal could be used effectively to support downtown revitalization <br />efforts. <br /> <br />Mr. Brown asked if Lane County had expressed an interest in selling the Butterfly Lot. Mr. Sullivan said <br />staff had developed a preliminary estimate of the cost to acquire and redevelop that property. He said <br />providing expansion space for the Farmers’ Market and expanding the Park Blocks had been a long-held <br />vision, but there would need be to extensive discussions with the market and County in order for that to <br />occur. <br /> <br />Mr. Zelenka was not in favor of providing free parking because of the budget impacts and preferred a more <br />strategic approach. He asked if the Butterfly Lot was the only option for a Farmers’ Market expansion. <br />Ms. Laurence said the market wanted space that would continue its connection with the Saturday Market <br />and Park Blocks. <br /> <br />Mr. Zelenka wanted to see more options for the Farmers’ Market, as well as a pocket park as part of a <br />project. He appreciated efforts to improve public safety, but that was insufficient as a stand-alone strategy <br />without more people and activities downtown. He wanted information on other financing options besides <br />urban renewal and asked for a memorandum on the status of the urban renewal district. <br /> <br />Ms. Piercy doubted that Lane County would be interested in selling the Butterfly Lot, but there could be <br />other opportunities for acquisition or trade. She encouraged developing a vision that included many <br />strategies even though some might not be achievable initially. <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 14, 2009 Page 5 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.