Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 11/10/03 WS MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room-Eugene City Hall November 10, 2003 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Gary Pap~, Scott Meisner, David Kelly, Betty Taylor, Bonny Bettman, Nancy Nathanson, George Poling. COUNCILORS ABSENT: Jennifer Solomon Mayor James D. Torrey called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. A. Items from Council, Mayor, and City Manager Mr. Meisner reported that Centro LatinoAmericano had submitted an application for a continuation grant from the Oregon Criminal Justice Commission to continue youth intervention work. He asked permission to have staff prepare a letter of support from the council for the grant application. In response to a request from Mr. Pap6, he explained the nature of the grant project and noted that an additional goal was to identify gaps in service for Latino youth in Lane County and integrate the project into the larger web of services. Mr. Pap~ asked if there were measurable performance standards and outcomes. Mr. Meisner replied that there were strict performance expectations attached to the grant. Mayor Torrey determined that there were no objections to a letter of support. Continuing, Mr. Meisner said that Centro LatinoAmericano had suffered a fire of unknown origin on Halloween and that insurance was not likely to cover all of the costs of damages and loss of services that occurred. He thanked the Whiteaker Public Safety Station, which made space available while the building was closed for mitigation of smoke damage and odors. He said he had asked the City Manager to facilitate, to the greatest extent possible, necessary permits and inspections for the repair and reconstruction of the building. He challenged his colleagues and the community to make financial donations to Centro Latino- Americano to assist with rebuilding its facility. He thanked the council in advance, and thanked Centro LatinoAmericano for its contributions to the community. Mr. Pap6 congratulated Mr. Poling on the new Oakmont Park in his neighborhood. He asked if there would be a media event for the park opening. City Manager Dennis Taylor said he would determine if an event was scheduled. Mr. Pap6 said it was the council's intent that new parks and updated facilities should be celebrated. Mr. Pap6 said the annual League of Oregon Cities Conference was being held in Eugene November 13 MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 10, 2003 Page 1 Work Session through 16, 2003, and would showcase the new library. He said a reception for delegates was scheduled for November 13 from 6:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. and invited councilors to attend and assist in hosting the event. Mr. Poling commented that he had passed by Oakmont Park recently and even though it was raining, there were several families enjoying the facility. He wished the United States Marine Corps a happy 228th birthday and thanked all of the individuals and organizations involved in the Veterans Day Parade held November 9, 2003. He also thanked the veterans who had served in the armed forces over the years. Ms. Taylor remarked that the Wayne Morse Free Speech Plaza was nearing completion. She said the statue of Senator Morse was completed, but still in Mexico, and the fund to complete the plaza was still several thousand dollars short. She said that people could purchase pavers to help raise funds. Ms. Bettman echoed Mr. Poling's comments on the parade. She asked when the Missing in Action (MIA) flag was going to be raised on Skinner Butte and if there was going to be a service associated with the flag- raising. Mr. Taylor said he would provide councilors with that information. City Manager Dennis Taylor reported that, other than the fire at Centro LatinoAmericano, the Halloween weekend was relatively safe and event-free. He attributed that to the collaboration between the Eugene Police Department, the University of Oregon Department of Public Safety, and the University's Student Life organization, which provided a host of safe activities. He complimented those organizations and neighbor- hood residents for starting a new holiday tradition. Mayor Torrey announced that the Ken Kesey memorial in the Broadway Plaza would be unveiled on November 14, 2003, at 12:35 p.m. He said a Veterans Day event was planned on November 11, 2003, at the Veterans Hall at 11 a.m. B. WORK SESSION: Downtown Tools - Multiple-Unit Property Tax Exemption Richie Weinman, Urban Services Manager, presented an overview of the proposed expansion of the Multi- Unit Property Tax Exemption (MUPTE) boundary. He said the primary reason for expanding the boundary was to encourage new housing and compact urban growth as called for in numerous plans, policies, and adopted goals. He said that even with the MUPTE incentive, significant new housing development within the boundary area was unlikely to occur, but without the incentive it was almost a certainty that such development would not occur. He said staff recommended a boundary that included areas within walking distance of downtown that were already zoned for multiple-family housing and represented areas in which housing development was most likely to occur. Mr. Weinman said that staff had been unable to develop housing quality standards as requested by the council in July, 2003. He said that quality standards were highly subjective and housing developments were now required to meet Land Use Code standards, which were included in the agenda packet. He said that the type of housing suitable for one neighborhood might not be acceptable in another. Aesthetic standards were subjective and could vary dramatically by location and staff was unable to develop quality standards that were logical and reasonable. He stated that the council currently reviewed each application and could approve or disapprove; therefore, staff recommended, given the other protections in place in the code and the fact that additional regulations could retard the potential for new housing, that the existing council oversight MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 10, 2003 Page 2 Work Session was adequate. Mayor Torrey called for council questions and comments. Mr. Kelly expressed his disappointment at the lack of quality standards. He noted that a majority of the council had supported such standards and the motion directing staff to propose standards was passed unanimously. He said he could not support any expansion of MUPTE until standards were developed. He remarked that MUPTE provided an incentive by forgiving property taxes on the building for ten years and it was reasonable to expect those developments to reach a higher standard. He felt it was possible to develop realistic standards and suggested asking local architects for assistance. He quoted from a report by the City of Eugene-University of Oregon Joint Task Force on the West University Neighborhood, which stated as a goal: "Encourage row houses, condominiums, or more upscale apartment complexes that would appeal to longer-term residents and promote owner occupancy." He said that council oversight provided less direction to developers than clearly articulated standards. Mr. Pap~ asked for an explanation of the proposed boundary expansion. Mr. Weinman replied that the proposed boundary was based on the area with the most potential for new housing, which was not in the heart of downtown, but rather within walkable distance of downtown and zoned medium density or higher. Mr. Pap~ asked if the proposed boundary was consistent with the Courthouse District Plan and the work of the North End Scoping Group. Mr. Weinman said housing in the courthouse district was encouraged, and in response the council had adopted a vertical housing zone. He said both the vertical housing zone and MUPTE would be available to potential housing developers. Mr. Pap~ asked if expansion of the MUPTE boundary would encourage more housing than was desired in the courthouse district, which was intended for mixed-use. Mr. Weinman said the type of project would determine whether a developer chose the vertical housing or MUPTE. Mr. Meisner noted a recent newspaper article had highlighted proposed mixed-use development, to include condominiums, on the block bordered by 4th Avenue, 5th Avenue, Lincoln Street, and Charnelton Street. He asked if the owner intended to seek MUPTE. Mr. Weinman said he did not know. Responding to Mr. Papa's concerns about the work of the scoping group, Mr. Meisner said the proposed boundary was consistent with the group's recommendations and was substantially reduced from the original proposal. He indicated he was prepared to support the MUPTE boundary proposal, but agreed with Mr. Kelly's request for quality standards. He said he did not want to prescribe design standards, but did want MUPTE applicants to be warned that developments would be reviewed for quality of design and construc- tion and compatibility with the neighborhood. Ms. Taylor remarked that everyone should pay taxes and if taxes were foregone on any property, there should be a clear and certain benefit. She said there might be sufficient benefit in revitalizing the downtown core to justify MUPTE, but the foregone taxes would not be available for services for others. She noted the project on 4th Avenue referred to by Mr. Meisner was not being developed with MUPTE and said the outlying areas would eventually develop, so they were not being penalized if tax breaks were not given. She said she did not support an expansion of the MUPTE boundary. MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 10, 2003 Page 3 Work Session Ms. Bettman said she had received a call from a homeowner in the boundary expansion area who said the proposal amounted to giving a property tax holiday to new apartment development in the neighborhood and who could not see why she should pay property taxes when someone who built a "rat trap" for students to rent got ten years tax-free on their development. Ms. Bettman said she was not convinced that subsidizing what would be more student housing was the way to achieve the goal of increasing long-term housing in the neighborhood. She said she could not imagine ownership condominiums being developed in an area where they would be surrounded by a transient student population and all of the accompanying downsides, such as noise and partying. She added that a develop- ment in 1996 had changed a lot from medium-density to high-density at the request of the developer and against the wishes of the neighborhood, and the City forfeited approximately $250,000 in tax revenue. She did not see that the development had a positive impact on the neighborhood. Mr. Poling said that he was in favor of the proposed boundary in Attachment A. He said that a new housing incentive would encourage compact urban growth and infilling. He reminded the council that the property itself continued to be taxed; only the improvements were affected by the ten-year tax exemption. He commended the task force's recommendations and agreed with Mr. Kelly's request for quality standards, although cautioned the standards should not be too specific. Ms. Nathanson commented that the West University neighborhood was only one part of the expansion. She said that new student housing could actually be replacing housing considered to be "rat traps," but there was currently little incentive to replace severely deteriorated, unattractive, or unsafe housing. She said her objective was to encourage redevelopment so that unsightly developments were replaced with something that was better quality in the long term. She suggested that there should be housing available for faculty and staff closer to their place of employment and that would encourage longer term residency and increase the mix of types of residents in the West University neighborhood. Ms. Nathanson said she concurred with staff recommendations and found them reasonable. She asked if the term "quality" referred to the quality of the building, the building design, building materials, site design, structure, or site amenities. She suggested that those issues could be addressed in a preface to instructions for the MUPTE worksheet that advised applicants that those features would be reviewed and might influence the council's decision on whether the exemption was granted, rather than made requirements. Mayor Torrey acknowledged the challenges inherent in trying to avoid interfering with neighborhoods while encouraging infill. He said he supported the staff recommendation and was willing to consider quality standards, but hoped the MUPTE boundary expansion would move forward to encourage housing development in the core of the city. Ms. Bettman agreed with the mayor's comments regarding support for housing in the core of the city. She said that the tax break was available in the core and she supported it north of the 3rd4th Connector, north of Franklin Boulevard, and east of High Street. She said she could support it in other areas with some caveats. She gave as an example a developer who removed an old house with four rental units and then applied for the MUPTE. She explained that the City was already receiving tax revenue from the existing building, so not only would the new development's taxes be forgiven for ten years, but the existing revenue would be foregone. She asked if a threshold could be created to identify the assessment of the property with the improvement and establish an increment. Mr. Weinman said that MUPTE was established in State law and MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 10, 2003 Page 4 Work Session partial exemptions were not permitted; the land would continue to be taxed but the entire improvement would be exempted. Mr. Kelly stated he did not see inconsistency in a position that encouraged infill and provided a subsidy, but not for every kind of infill. He asked what community goal would be met by subsidizing a %racker box" that met the building code and nothing more. He quoted the City's Growth Management Policy 9: mitigate the impacts of new and/or higher density housing infill and redevelopment on neighborhoods through design standards. He said many communities had design standards in their land use codes and had managed to surmount the challenges of developing standards that were reasonable throughout the community. He said that ~reasonable person" standards that briefly articulated quality expectations would be fair to the community, developers, and taxpayers. He said examples of standards included housing types, treatment of parking, visual interest articulation, and landscaping. Mr. Meisner agreed with Mr. Kelly's comments on quality design standards, but cautioned that the standards should not be so specific that, for example, the spacing of shrubs was prescribed. He said the expectation was more than presentation of an acceptable landscaping plan; it also encompassed compatibil- ity with neighboring properties and design and construction quality. He asked staff to provide proposed standards to the council. He commended Ms. Bettman's idea of an incremental rather than full exemption for improvements and suggested that issue could be pursued with the State Legislature. Mr. Pap~ related that in discussions with developers in Eugene and other communities it was clear that the type of redevelopment the council wanted to encourage was unlikely to happen without an incentive. He supported the MUPTE incentive and agreed with the need for some type of quality standards in conjunction with the incentive. Ms. Nathanson said it was important to remember that MUPTE application approvals were on a case-by- case basis and she did not want to see standards that were so specific that redevelopment could not have fewer units than that which was being replaced, even though the new replacement was of much higher quality and welcomed by the neighborhood. She cautioned against requiring redevelopment to be compatible with or like development on adjacent properties, or retain the character of the area. She said that could defeat the goal of encouraging improvement of a deteriorated area. She urged caution in phrasing objectives. Ms. Bettman asked if staff could provide additional information on the fiscal ramification of adopting the expanded MUPTE boundary, such as projecting the number of projects per year and analyzing loss of the tax value of what was currently on the site. She remarked that the West University neighborhood was the highest density in the community and any redevelopment would require demolishing an existing structure. Mr. Weinman replied that there had been eleven MUPTE applications approved since 1978. Of those projects, five had exhausted the exemption period and were back on the tax rolls. He said it would be extremely difficult to speculate where a project would occur, what it would replace, and what would be built as a replacement. Citing the MUPTE program history, Ms. Bettman commented that the High Street Terrace project had resulted in the forfeiture of $250,000 and asked why the council was being asked to take action to forego tax revenue without knowing the impact. Mr. Weinman replied that the council was only being asked to expand the MUPTE boundary and could determine the fiscal impact on a case-by-case basis during the review of MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 10, 2003 Page 5 Work Session each MUPTE application when specific information about existing and replacement structures was available. Ms. Taylor suggested the time period to speak not be shortened for successive rounds of discussion. She contended that the West University neighborhood, in addition to being the most dense, also had some of the most beautiful houses in the City and hoped that some type of interest-free loans could be used to refurbish them, rather than tearing them down. She asked what benefit the community had received from High Street Terrace or Broadway Place. Mr. Taylor replied that any downtown revitalization effort encouraged more residential options, either in new construction or adaptive reuse, because more residents in downtown reinforced growth management, pedestrian-friendly, and livability goals. He said the MUPTE boundary expansion both identified an area where more housing was encouraged and provided a tool to help developers make the decision to add a housing component to a project or create new residential opportuni- ties. Ms. Taylor expressed concern over foregoing taxes on properties outside of the City's center. She asked which MUPTE properties had been returned to the tax rolls. Mr. Weinman referred to the history of the MUPTE program and said that any project over ten years old was now subject to taxes. Mr. Kelly agreed with Ms. Taylor's comments about the need to rehabilitate some of the beautiful old homes in the West University neighborhood and said the challenge was that there were many absentee owners with little interest in rehabilitating their properties. He asked staff to research, separate from the MUPTE issue, whether other jurisdictions had developed successful programs to encourage rehabilitation, particularly by absentee owners. He pointed out that the West University neighborhood was already primarily housing and the task force was trying to encourage more variety and quality in housing and a broader mix of residents, not necessarily more housing units. He suggested that the MUPTE boundary could be moved west to Lawrence Street to include the six block area between 13th Avenue and 7th Avenue. Mr. Kelly moved, seconded by Ms. Bettman, to direct staff to provide qualifying standards at least ten days prior to a public hearing on MUPTE. Mr. Meisner said he supported the motion for the purpose of developing options for quality or qualifying standards that the council could consider. Mr. Weinman said that timing of the hearing would require the standards be completed by November 14, 2003. Mr. Kelly responded that implicit in his motion was the need to delay the hearing and action dates for MUPTE. Mr. Weinman said the council's schedule would result in a hearing after the first of the year. Ms. Nathanson said she had heard two approaches discussed: developing qualifying standards for applications and requiring developers to submit plans and descriptions of a project for consideration by the council. She asked if Mr. Kelly intended to include the submission of plans and descriptions as an option. Mr. Kelly replied that his motion only addressed the development of standards, but he was not opposed to having staff provide information on other options as well. Mr. Pap~ said he did not want the council to be involved in design review for projects that came before it and therefore qualifying standards that a project must meet were necessary. MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 10, 2003 Page 6 Work Session Ms. Bettman said she would support the motion as the best way to ensure that replacement housing was of a better quality than the housing it replaced. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Meisner asked staff to provide an update on the status of the vertical housing code, which was rejected by Lane County. He said it appeared that Lane County did not have jurisdiction to disapprove the code. Mr. Weinman said the code had been submitted to the State and staff understood it had been approved. C. WORK SESSION: Millrace Alternatives and Financing Direction Planning and Development Director Tom Coyle said the issue before the council was a continuation of a policy discussion relating to implementation of the Courthouse District Plan. He said the plan cited the need for direction relative to improvement for a Millrace feature in the downtown area. He introduced Robin Hostick, a landscape architect with Public Works, who had developed two design options that would satisfy the goal of the courthouse district plan. He said the City had critical improvement projects related to the courthouse district that were pending resolution of the Millrace design issues. Mr. Hostick distributed maps and drawings for the two options for Millrace improvements. He said the first option was for full daylighting of the Millrace from the intersection of Broadway and Mill Street and continuing through the courthouse district to the river. He said the general nature of the improvement was that of a public amenity that was surrounded by development over time. He stated he had researched the opening of waterways in several other communities. He said the Riverwalk in San Antonio, Texas was a good example of a successful project. He said factors that contributed to its success were: · It was developed over time · It was organic, with many different aspects · People were down next to the water rather than looking down into a water feature · It crossed through city blocks rather than being on the edge of a street · It included diverse activities generated by private enterprise Mr. Hostick illustrated on a map the proposed daylighted Millrace route through the blocks in the courthouse district and noted that another key to success was to provide access by lowering the area adjacent to the Millrace one building level. He said a building adjacent to the Millrace would have street level access and Millrace level access and lowering the level would also capitalize on pedestrian access from downtown by avoiding the need to cross streets. Mr. Hostick said that the second option, Millrace Waters, created public spaces in the redeveloped neighborhood that evoked the idea of the Millrace without fully daylighting it. He illustrated on a map the four locations where water features would lead to the river through the courthouse district. He provided examples of water features that evoked a gateway and human use of water. Mr. Meisner remarked that he had some concerns about the full daylighting option, but did not like the second option to create four water features. He said his concerns about the daylighting option were focused on the level of funding required and the loss of land, but was willing to support that option if a point was MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 10, 2003 Page 7 Work Session identified at which the project would be abandoned if requests for funding at the federal, state, and local levels were denied. He said he did not want to reserve in perpetuity the swath of land through the court- house district that would be required for daylighting the Millrace. He added that the daylighting proposal could raise questions about the proposed starting point at Broadway and Mill Street and the fact that a portion of the Millrace would not be daylighted. He asked staff for an analysis of the point raised by the Planning Commission regarding the environmental problems presented by daylighting and for a cost estimate. Ms. Bettman agreed with Mr. Meisner's request for additional information. She also raised the issue of pollution in the Millrace impacting the river and salmon, which might bring other resources to the project. She said the cost of $6 million for the second option to create water features seemed unjustifiable and was less likely to be supported by the community than daylighting an historical Millrace, which, if supported by the community, could be funded through a bond measure. Ms. Bettman commented that the daylighting option could possibly fulfill multiple objectives by providing a pedestrian connection to the district, potentially leveraging economic development funds along with other resources and a bond measure, and accommodating the General Services Administration's (GSA) desire for pedestrian infrastructure. Kurt Corey, Public Works Director, replied that he was hesitant to state that a walking path along a daylighted Millrace would fulfill GSA objectives. He said the below-street level envisioned for a daylighted Millrace would entail getting up and down to access the water and could be considered additional pedestrian access through the courthouse site, but not the primary pedestrian access to the redeveloped area. Ms. Bettman remarked that it appeared daylighting was the only option for a vision the community was likely to support through a bond measure and was an amenity to development in the redevelopment area. She said if brought to fruition, the project could provide a long-term benefit to the community. Mr. Kelly expressed appreciation for the comments from other councilors supporting the larger vision of daylighting the Millrace and endorsed the idea that there should be a point at which the project should be abandoned if funding could not be obtained. He agreed that while the pedestrian access along a daylighted Millrace might not meet GSA requirements, it was a great pedestrian connection through redevelopment, particularly the route beneath the railroad tracks. He remarked that the San Antonio Riverwalk was also below street level and worked very effectively to connect people to businesses with a series of stairways, ramps, and visual connections. Mr. Kelly said daylighting the Millrace was a big vision, a big attractor that could spur redevelopment, and potentially a symbol for downtown. He said one of the businesses the council should be in, occasionally, was dreaming big and the daylighted Millrace was a big dream. He complimented Mr. Hostick for his work on the Millrace options. He urged the council to give direction to the staff to pursue the full daylighting option and agreed with Ms. Bettman's suggestion that other funding sources could be available to support the project. He added that community fundraising from the private sector was also a possibility. Ms. Nathanson echoed Mr. Kelly's remarks about fundraising and financing options for the project. She expressed reluctance to approach the voters at the present time to request money for a Millrace project when there were urgent needs related to public safety and transportation. She said the daylighted Millrace could benefit both residents and visitors and stated she was glad to see such a vision for the community. She MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 10, 2003 Page 8 Work Session asked the council to give further thought to how the private sector could be involved in a financing package because the properties adjacent to the Millrace could benefit tremendously by the feature. Ms. Nathanson asked Mr. Hostick to further explain his comments about the development of the San Antonio Riverwalk over time and in an organic way. Mr. Hostick replied that the Riverwalk was originally developed as a creek redevelopment project. He related that in the 1930s a stormwater conveyance was redeveloped as an open space system for the community and in the 1970s impetus came from adjacent businesses to find the funds to improve the area. He said a community board was established to raise funds and, over the next 30 years, the project continued to evolve, with new development and redevelopment of existing building ongoing. Ms. Nathanson questioned whether there was potential for incremental development of the project and what the implications would be. She said that the environmental issues raised before the Planning Commission +3 created the potential for a demonstration project for environmental solutions that would show how general runoff from streets in an urban setting could be treated. She stated an interest in pursuing that possibility. Ms. Taylor concurred with previous comments from other councilors and agreed that the Millrace was a beautiful dream. She said accomplishments started with dreams and thought the project could lead to economic development opportunities and possibly eliminate the need for housing tax breaks in the downtown area because it would be a desirable location in which to live. She said there were many people in the community who were enthusiastic about the project and would be willing to work on it, and she supported the full daylighting option. Mr. Coyle provided some background on the Riverwalk as a result of his conversations with San Antonio city staff. He said the Riverwalk was initiated as a result of flooding in the area and funding was more easily obtained in a crisis situation. He said the Millrace did not present a threat to property if the improvements were not made and therefore the expectations for public funds should be tempered. He added that San Antonio staff said it was important to lead with private funds to secure other funding, and bringing private funds in behind public funds had not been fruitful. Mr. Coyle said it was important to remember that as the Courthouse District Plan was implemented, street connections would be made and designs would need to be based on whether or not the Millrace was daylighted. He said those plans would need to be made in a matter of months rather than years, which is why the council's discussion of Millrace options was scheduled. Mr. Pap~ agreed with Ms. Nathanson's comments about not going to Eugene voters in the next couple of years for a Millrace daylighting project. He asked if the project could be done incrementally as funds became available, even though that could increase the cost and cause complications with regard to streets. He remarked that streets could be designed in anticipation of a feature to be added in the future. Mr. Corey agreed that there was the issue of streets in the courthouse district, but the Millrace project's other impacts were on bridge and railroad track crossings and the implications of constructing the feature adjacent to development that may have already occurred. Mr. Corey said the $20 million full daylighting option took into account that it was essentially an open piece of ground that lent itself to doing that type of work, but as construction and redevelopment filled in the area, it constrained the ability of contractors to work. He said it would not be impossible to phase the improve- MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 10, 2003 Page 9 Work Session ment, but there was a proportionate increase on the cost. He urged early discussions about funding if the full daylighting option was chosen and encouraged exploration of private sector funding. He said that private sector funding would also have to come from beyond the courthouse district as the fair market value of the remnant properties was far less than the project's cost. He said he was uncertain if an environmental demonstration project was possible and if it was, it was not likely to result in more than a 50 percent match. Mr. Pap~ complimented Mr. Hostick on his presentation. He agreed that the project needed to be %tream- side" for it to work. He noted that the scope and scale of the San Antonio Riverwalk was significantly larger than the Millrace and felt the Millrace should not be much below street level. He agreed with Mr. Kelly's remarks about ~thinking big" and supported trying to make it a reality by finding the necessary funding. Mr. Poling concurred with Ms. Nathanson's comments about approaching the voters for funding when there were higher priority projects such as a police station and city hall. He asked if full daylighting would reduce buildable lands and if so, was any type of mitigation planned to replace the buildable land that was lost. Mr. Coyle said it was estimated that approximately two acres would be lost for the entire Millrace and the loss on the adjacent piece of property was approximately three-quarters of an acre. He said that was a decision point that had not been discussed but would need to be resolved before the project could proceed. Mayor Torrey commended the council for a great vision, but said there were timing problems to be considered. He said if the council wished to pursue a daylighted Millrace, it needed to understand the implications, which included slowing the sale of the residual courthouse area property. He asked staff to explore the possibility of developing a Request for Proposals (RFP) that would ask a private sector developer to submit a proposal that took into consideration the concept of daylighting the Millrace. He said the development and building of the federal courthouse would improve the value of the City's property from $15 to $17 per square foot to as much as $25 per square foot. Mayor Torrey asked if the condemnation cost associated with going from Mill Street to 8th Avenue, specifically for the property on the south side of 8th Avenue between Broadway and 8th Avenue. He noted that all of that property was privately owned and would have to be condemned in order to daylight the Millrace. He asked if the $20 million cost estimate included the cost of condemnation. Mr. Hostick said he thought the cost estimate did consider the cost of some acquisition, but not the cost of condemnation. Mr. Meisner said he was not prepared for a vote and wanted to see evidence of community support. He stated that the Library Foundation had undertaken fundraising long before the council approved using urban renewal funds for the library and wanted to see similar efforts on the Millrace project. He stated the environmental problems with daylighting were related to temperature rather than pollutants and that made incremental development problematic. He said it also made full daylighting problematic as the sun would warm the water to the extent it could not be returned to the river. He expressed interest in the concept of partnering with business and issuance of an RFP to solicit business or development that would actively assist with development of the Millrace project. Ms. Bettman remarked that the Millrace vision had multi-faceted variables and considerations and she agreed with comments by previous speakers. She said her biggest concern was competition on the ballot for a police station and city hall. She referred to Mr. Meisner's observation at a previous meeting that the voters had twice rejected a ballot measure for the police station and yet they had passed a very large Park MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 10, 2003 Page 10 Work Session and Open Space measure. She said that asking the voters if the Millrace was a vision they could support and was the type of economic development and amenity they wanted to see downtown was appropriate, although timing was an issue. She said if all of the ways tax dollars were being diverted without asking the voters, such as urban renewal and MUPTE, were added up it made sense to give voters the opportunity to express an opinion. She asked if the Council President intended to make a motion directing staff to return with timelines for ballot measures and funding opportunities. Mr. Taylor reminded the council that the multi-year financial plan would be discussed on November 17, 2003, and information would be provided on the revenue picture and unmet community needs beyond those already discussed. He said possible ballot measures and timing issues would be discussed on November 19, 2003. Mayor Torrey asked if there were specific timelines that the Public Works Department had to meet and if so, could those be provided to the council. Mr. Corey responded that the project was time-sensitive in terms of moving forward with design and construction that spent dollars one time. He said staff expected to move forward with the internal transportation network and courthouse beginning late in calendar year 2004 or early in 2005. He commented that to the extent there was no direction on the Millrace, the street crossing where the Millrace would occur would be subject to constructing once, then reconstructing for a bridge or other crossing. He said to minimize expenditures and provide efficiency in the design, shortly after the first of the year would be a good point to receive direction. Mr. Papd stated his preference for the full daylighting option or no Millrace project at all. Mayor Torrey asked if any councilors supported the option for several water features in place of full daylighting. Ms. Nathanson said she supported the addition of amenities to the neighborhood if the Millrace was not daylighted. Mr. Pap~ moved, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, to direct the city manager to provide the council with options for design and full reveal of the Millrace, financing, and incremental development before June 30, 2004. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 7:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Lynn Taylor) MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 10, 2003 Page 11 Work Session