Laserfiche WebLink
to a package of projects that would be appealing to the public. He proposed the council anticipate that any <br />proposal it developed would be referred to a public vote, which would mean that the proposal must attract <br />some yes votes to be successful. Ms. Muir indicated it was staff’s intent to return with such a proposal. <br /> <br />Mayor Piercy recalled the success of the City’s last Parks and Open Space bond measure, which included <br />elements that were attractive to a wide variety of people. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor concurred with the remarks of Mr. Brown about the need to focus on the eyesores that existed <br />downtown. She believed that the issue of the VA hospital was between the GSA and Peace Health, and the <br />City’s role was in removing barriers rather than contributing money. <br /> <br />Mr. Brown noted his general opposition to urban renewal because it did not benefit the General Fund. He <br />criticized the downtown urban renewal plan as overly vague and nonspecific about the projects to be funded. <br />He suggested it be eliminated and that the City start over again. <br /> <br />Ms. Solomon said it would be useful to know what other measures might be on future ballots to help guide <br />the council in its decision-making. She also suggested the potential of reducing or eliminating the systems <br />development charge assessed to the VA hospital as a means of assisting the GSA, rather than providing <br />urban renewal funds. Ms. Muir indicated she did not yet have sufficient information to offer input about the <br />systems development charge as a potential tool. <br /> <br />Ms. Ortiz encouraged staff to do what it could to facilitate continued conversation with the GSA. She said <br />that a VA hospital would be an economic development tool and would provide needed access to health care <br />for local veterans, who currently had to travel out of town. <br /> <br />Mayor Piercy suggested the tools the City used to encourage the projects under consideration could take a <br />variety of forms based on the financing the City had available. <br /> <br />Mr. Pryor speculated that the council was probably in general agreement about the City’s use of funds to <br />support the development of infrastructure, but disagreement would arise when the council discussed what <br />constituted infrastructure. He might consider certain aspects of public safety to be infrastructure, while <br />others would not. He asked if removing barriers was an infrastructure discussion, or if supporting the <br />construction of an actual building was an infrastructure discussion. Mr. Pryor suggested that those issues <br />needed to be worked out, and that it was difficult to talk about the funding mechanism when the council <br />lacked clarity about what the money would be used for. He suggested the council needed to focus on the <br />strategies for downtown and associated project list and determine where the City was appropriately <br />involved. <br /> <br />Responding to a question from Mr. Zelenka about the status of the Farmers’ Market, Ms. Nobel Flannery <br />referred him to Attachment I and acknowledged that the cost of buying the butterfly parking lot from Lane <br />County was not included. She suggested the potential of non-cash alternatives, such as a land exchange. <br />Mr. Zelenka said that the Farmers Market had indicated that an impediment to its growth was a lack of <br />space. Ms. Nobel Flannery concurred. Mayor Piercy observed that the Farmers’ Market vendors had not <br />been of one mind on the topic, and the City had been working with them to attempt to get to a vision for the <br />future that could be supported by most. She suggested that the City attempt to put a timeline on that <br />process. Mr. Zelenka concurred. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—City Council January 11, 2010 Page 6 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />