My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CC Minutes - 04/19/10 Meeting
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Council Minutes
>
2010
>
CC Minutes - 04/19/10 Meeting
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/23/2012 12:47:12 PM
Creation date
7/29/2010 8:58:54 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Minutes
Meeting_Type
Meeting
CMO_Meeting_Date
4/19/2010
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
9
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
William Kennedy, Lincoln Street, Eugene, said he was a member of the Downtown Neighborhood <br />Association and lived, shopped and played in or near . downtown Eugene with his family. He urged the <br />council to do whatever was necessary to assure that the LCC project and other proposed projects downtown <br />became a reality, including increasing the spending cap on the urban renewal district. He said little progress <br />had been made in addressing downtown problems without urban renewal. He said opponents of urban <br />renewal wanted the money spent on schools, public safety and public works, but schools were already being <br />built, improvements were being made to the Park Blocks and measures were under way to improve public <br />safety. He said Eugene's least sustainable aspect was the job market for young professionals and families <br />and its struggling downtown. He had seen many peers move away for those reasons, but he chose to stay. <br />He urged support for the four projects as there might not be many more changes to revitalize downtown. <br />Dan Herbert, Potter Street, Eugene, supported the ordinance amending the downtown urban renewal plan to <br />provide funding for four projects and then sunsetting the district. He said opponents' plans to refer the issue <br />to the ballot and end the district in 2010 was a bad idea. He said opponents' chief complaint was the <br />diversion of funds from the City's General Fund, the schools and the County, but that was a weak argument <br />because the City's General Fund could fare even worse if urban renewal funds could not be used to support <br />the projects. He noted that the 4J School District had confirmed that it would not suffer financially from <br />urban renewal as the State made up any shortfall in funds. He said the four projects would serve the entire <br />County, not just Eugene. He said if a referral to the ballot succeeded in rejecting urban renewal, alternative <br />means for funding the projects would cost an estimated $3 million more and an election would cost the City <br />$25,400 and the County $75,000. He said a referral would also cause delays in the LCC project, risking <br />increased costs or scuttling the entire project. He was concerned that an election would also result in a <br />worsening of opponents' harsh rhetoric, with the effect of shutting down serious discussion of important <br />issues. <br />Charles Biggs, Antelope Way, Eugene, did not support the plan amendment as currently written. He liked <br />the LCC project, but it was not contingent on construction of housing. He said LCC already had a facility in <br />downtown the same size as the proposed project and the amendment should be modified to require housing <br />as part of the project. He did not see why the City should provide a "bailout" of $2.5 million in tax money <br />to persuade the VA to locate a clinic downtown when the current owner of the facility PeaceHealth was <br />a very wealthy organization. He said that information provided to the Planning Commission indicated there <br />would be a $650,000 loss to schools and questioned the source of the new figures cited by the City Manager. <br />Alexis Garrett, West 18 Avenue, Eugene, Ward 1, had served as chair of the Eugene Redevelopment <br />Advisory Committee (ERAC) since 2004 and the committee had been given the task and privilege of <br />reviewing every viable project proposed to support downtown. She said the ERAC understood the unique <br />costs and construction and staging challenges of building in the downtown area and the importance of <br />creating funding to insure realistic projects moved from concept to completion. She said ERAC had <br />sponsored and heard community input on every level and had previously supported and recommended other <br />projects it felt would provide the foundation for desired development, living wage jobs, subsidized and <br />market rate housing and inviting venues for the arts. She said it would not have been possible to predict the <br />current economic challenges and perhaps in another time and economic cycle the plan amendment would <br />have been a different proposal. She said after a thorough evaluation of the proposed downtown plan <br />amendment, the ERAC unanimously supported it as a positive step forward and supported urban renewal as <br />a viable, valuable and proven funding option. <br />Dennis Carr, Bent Tree Lane, Eugene, spoke on behalf of LCC about its vision for a new downtown center <br />campus. He said it represented a tremendous opportunity for LCC, the City and the community. LCC was <br />fully committed to the project and the new campus would embody its mission of accessible education and <br />training and supported its core value of sustainability. He said the proposed site was consistent with the <br />MINUTES Eugene City Council April 19, 2010 Page 2 <br />Public Hearing <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.